Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 10 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#26674 - 01/15/07 04:00 PM At war with Iran? !!!
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
When do you think we will be at war with Iran?
(Since I worded the question as I did you can say never.)

Since the conspirasist (me) has so little credibility read Ted Coppel’s analysis before you answer!
You can listen rather than read using the link – and I think it is more effective in this case.

My answer? I don’t know, but GW is as scary today as he has been in the past few years.


Bush Speech Hints at Possibility of War with Iran
Related NPR Stories
• Nov. 16, 2006
Koppel Documentary Examines View from Iran


All Things Considered, January 12, 2007 • It was easy enough to miss — buried, as it was, almost two-thirds of the way through the president's speech the other evening — but I think the United States is actively preparing for the possibility of war with Iran.
I've had several conversations in recent days with very senior U.S. military officers, retired and active duty; and what one of them said to me on Tuesday didn't fully resonate until I heard the president's speech on Wednesday. This one officer, who is in a position to know what the Pentagon's expectations are for that region, came right out and said that he wouldn't be surprised if the United States and Iran were at war before the end of 2007.
"At our instigation or theirs?" I asked.
"No, they would have to do something to provoke it," he said.
Now, it has long been an open secret here in Washington that there are still a few, very highly placed civilians in our government who remain determined to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons and who are fully prepared to use military means to do so.
With that as context, listen again to what the president said Wednesday evening:
He said that success in Iraq requires taking steps against Iran and Syria:
"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. Add we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
Now, that is hardly a declaration of war; but then President Bush went on to list some of the other steps he has ordered: the deployment, to the region, of an additional aircraft carrier and the strike group that goes with it, and also the deployment of Patriot air-defense systems — none of it particularly useful for fighting insurgents in al-Anbar province or Shiite militias in Sadr City. But if you were expecting a showdown with Iran, now that's another matter.

Top
#26675 - 01/15/07 11:36 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: mworking]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63

Top
#26676 - 01/16/07 10:55 AM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: felix m]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5978
Loc: 212 land
As the above links suggest, destroying Iran's potential nuclear weapons capability is best left to Israel.
_________________________

Top
#26677 - 01/17/07 03:43 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: mworking]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
I doubt we'll go to war with Iran. It looks to me that this is exactly what Bush wants, rumors that we are going to attack Iran. Bush isn't trying to fool us. He's not trying to fool anyone. He's rattling his saber, trying to intimidate the Iranian people.

The Iranian people have the most to lose here. They know that Bush has said they were #2 in the Axis of Evil. They know we attacked #3, and that they are next on the list. They know that the last thing before the US attacked Iraq was the loss of support from China and Russia. They know that Ahmadinejad's stance on nukes has lost the support of China and Russia, which almost gives Bush a green light.
They see the devastation in Iraq, and know that they could end up the same way, losing everything.

Ahmadinejad lost a lot of support in the December elections. But not enough to back off the nukes. So Bush asks for a buildup of troops. He moves carriers into the gulf. He wants the rumors of war, so he doesn't confirm it but doesn't deny it.

I think that if Ahmadinejad doesn't back down, there will probably be air strikes on the border, under the guise of "preventing the flow of arms to insurgents", but everyone will assume it's to soften the border for an oncoming ground assault. I hope that Ahmadinejad backs down at that point, or the people call for his resignation. If not, then we might have no choice having the bluff called. But I don't think it will go that far, I think Ahmadinejad will capitulate.
_________________________


Top
#26678 - 01/17/07 05:13 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: quanto_the_mad]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
"I think Ahmadinejad will capitulate"

I disagree. He's had it in for the US ever since the Carter administration when Ahmadinejad was part of the hostage crisis in 1979. He won't back down, he has no reaso to do it.

Top
#26679 - 01/17/07 05:48 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: alicex4]
chazman Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/07/02
Posts: 944
Quote:

"I think Ahmadinejad will capitulate"

I disagree. He's had it in for the US ever since the Carter administration when Ahmadinejad was part of the hostage crisis in 1979. He won't back down, he has no reaso to do it.



and is on a world tour visiting wealthy anti-American nations to bolster his country in the face of sanctions/war from us. A $2 Billion investment fund with Chávez? To quote the guy who called Bush the Devil:
Quote:

“Welcome, fighter for just causes,” Mr. Chávez said in a speech here before the National Assembly, describing Mr. Ahmadinejad as a “revolutionary” and a “brother.”



Ahmadinejad is much smarter than W... I fear we are heading for ugly times as a nation and W is flat out to blame. What really scares me is that W knows history will write him off as possibly the worst president ever so he has nothing to lose... he's not going to go out as a lame duck... he will load both both six shooters and go out in a blaze of "glory" in these last two years...

Top
#26680 - 01/17/07 07:45 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: alicex4]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
"I think Ahmadinejad will capitulate"

I disagree. He's had it in for the US ever since the Carter administration when Ahmadinejad was part of the hostage crisis in 1979. He won't back down, he has no reaso to do it.


I don't follow that reasoning. They did back down in 1980 just as Carter left office. Maybe it will take Bush leaving office for them to back down again.

Top
#26681 - 01/17/07 08:00 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: quanto_the_mad]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5978
Loc: 212 land
From the Jan. 16 NY Times

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Tuesday criticized Russia's sale and delivery of anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran, saying the move sent the wrong signal.

``We don't think that it's an appropriate signal to be sending to the government of Tehran at this time, particularly when they are under U.N. sanctions for trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and when they continue to be in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions,'' State Department spokesman Tom Casey said of the sale.

Russia also said it would consider further requests by Tehran for defensive weapons.

Russian arms sales and nuclear cooperation with Iran have strained relations with Washington, which suspects Tehran of using a nuclear power program as a guise for building an atomic bomb. Iran says it is for peaceful power purposes.

Last month, the United Nations passed a resolution imposing restrictions on Iran's trade in sensitive nuclear materials and technology, aimed at curbing Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Casey said Washington had discussed with Moscow the sale of military items to Tehran on a number of occasions and the Bush administration would continue to make its views known.

``We also believe as well that we certainly don't want to see any kind of lethal aid or assistance given to any country that's a state sponsor of terror. And as we've said, Iran is the leading state sponsor in the world (of terrorism),'' he said.

Casey acknowledged there was not a ``blanket ban'' in the U.N. Security Council resolutions related to conventional weapons transfers to Iran.

Moscow says the sanctions do not apply to the missile systems, which are designed to shoot down aircraft, missiles and other weapons at medium and low altitudes.

Washington last year imposed sanctions on leading Russian arms firms over arms sales to Iran and Syria.

=================================================
From the Jan. 17 NY Times

By REUTERS
Published: January 17, 2007
Filed at 9:52 a.m. ET

MADRID (Reuters) - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes neither Israel nor the United States would dare attack the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program, a Spanish newspaper quoted him on Wednesday as saying.

The Iranian president was responding to a question about an article in Britain's Sunday Times on January 7 that said Israel had secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

``They well know the power of the Iranian people. I don't think they would ever dare to attack us, neither them nor their masters. They won't do such a stupid thing,'' Ahmadinejad told El Mundo during a visit to Nicaragua, referring to Israel.

Conservative Iranian leaders, such as Ahmadinejad, see Israel as a stooge of the United States in the Middle East.

Iran does not recognize Israel and Ahmadinejad has previously called for it to be ``wiped off the map.''

``That regime wants to hurt the Iranian people. They have many dreams but they are not all powerful,'' said the Iranian leader.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, echoed the president's comments in Tehran when asked about the possibility of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

``We have considered all the options and don't take these things that they say too seriously. They have enough brains not to carry out such mindless acts,'' Larijani was quoted as saying by Iran's official IRNA news agency on Wednesday.

Israel has refused to rule out pre-emptive military action against Iran on the lines of its 1981 air strike against an atomic reactor in Iraq, although many analysts believe Iran's nuclear facilities are too much for Israel to destroy alone.

Asked about whether he wants to see Israel destroyed, Ahmadinejad avoided a direct answer, but seemed to refer to an earlier statement in which had said that Israel would be wiped out ``just as the Soviet Union was wiped out.''

``Where is the Soviet Union?'' he told El Mundo, ``It has disappeared.''

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously last month to impose sanctions on Iran to try to stop its uranium enrichment program, which Tehran insists is peaceful.

The United States, which suspects Iran hopes to develop nuclear weapons, says it wants a diplomatic solution to the deadlock but military force remains an option.

Israel has said it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
=================================================

It seems that Mr. Ahmadinejad rattles a saber too.
_________________________

Top
#26682 - 01/19/07 04:23 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: oenophore]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63

Top
#26683 - 01/22/07 01:36 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: chazman]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Quote:

I disagree. He's had it in for the US ever since the Carter administration when Ahmadinejad was part of the hostage crisis in 1979. He won't back down, he has no reaso to do it.




Don't know if is true and it is to my surprise but our media is reporting that Ahmadinejad is loosing support!

Quote:

I fear we are heading for ugly times as a nation and W is flat out to blame.



True.

Quote:

What really scares me is that W knows history will write him off as possibly the worst president ever




Here I have to disagree. W is still hoping to "win" the Iraq war - whatever that means.
Perhaps he would like to use Bagdad as a base from which to attack Iran.

Quote:

he has nothing to lose... he's not going to go out as a lame duck... he will load both both six shooters and go out in a blaze of "glory" in these last two years...



Whatever the reason, he is certainly doing his dammedest to escalate the current war. Perhaps in truth Iraq isn’t even stable enough to get the supplies we really need in via land, hence his desire to “build up our forces”

Top
#26684 - 01/22/07 03:21 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: mworking]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
There's a very good - and scary - chance that the troop build-up is not to secure Iraq, or parts thereof, but rather to prepare for an attack on Iran. Whether it's just more saber rattling or for real, it means the Congress and US people have been lied to by the White House. Again.

Top
#26685 - 01/22/07 04:18 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: Mike Rawdon]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63

Top
#26686 - 01/24/07 11:54 AM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: felix m]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63

Top
#26687 - 01/24/07 04:37 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: felix m]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5978
Loc: 212 land
Quote:

The State of the Union http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12394


Seems rather an article about reaction to something Wesley Clark said.
_________________________

Top
#26688 - 01/25/07 02:43 AM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: oenophore]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2957
Loc: LI, NY
if anyone thinks we're not at least preparing for an attack on iran or at least backing up israel they are fooling themselves.
we've got patroit missles in the region again:
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3723

and F16s stationed at Incirlik in turkey for the first time in a long time.

oh, and lets not forget the stennis.
as in the USS John Stennis.
the SECOND carrier group being sent to the region.

rattle a saber anyone?
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#26689 - 01/25/07 03:46 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: empicard]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
That's the point. If the government has you fooled, then they've got the Iranian people fooled. Hopefully enough to oust Ahmadinejad from power.

An additional carrier in the gulf doesn't mean much. It's great having it there to support a war in Iraq. But remember that Iran has a navy including submarines and ASW capabilities. Maybe it's no match for the US, but I'd be surprised if we left carriers in the gulf when attacking Iran. When the carriers pull out of the Gulf, when Bush sends two more CGS to the Indian, then I'll be convinced were about to attack Iran.
_________________________


Top
#26690 - 01/26/07 02:41 AM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: quanto_the_mad]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2957
Loc: LI, NY
man, you like abbreviations.
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#26691 - 01/26/07 12:02 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: empicard]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63

Top
#26692 - 01/26/07 03:17 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: empicard]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
Quote:

man, you like abbreviations.




Those are abbreviations... but more specifically they are acronyms!
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#26693 - 01/26/07 08:08 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: Dillbag]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Even more specifically, they are TLA's.

Top
#26694 - 01/26/07 10:03 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: empicard]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
It's not me, the military just uses a lot of acronyms. Sometimes you forget what the acronyms actually stand for. NORAD... is that NORth American Defense? NOrth american RADar? It's actually North American Aerospace Defense... but I'm not sure which "A" is capitalized.
_________________________


Top
#26695 - 01/26/07 11:30 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: quanto_the_mad]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
My college hiking buddy went to work for the Navy Dept at ChesDivNavFacEnCom. Pronounced just like it's spelled, best said real fast.

(Chesepeake Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command)

Here in the Hudson Valley, IBM is by far the largest corporate employer. No one, and I mean, no one, does acronyms (typically three letters) like they do. "We'll roll out the GBS to support the TIP once the SMB reviews the BCA and the CCP is on board". And the managers (everyone's a manager at Big Blue, it seems) eat it up. They have to, it's the culture.

/Thread drift.

Top
#26696 - 01/27/07 02:24 AM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: Mike Rawdon]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2957
Loc: LI, NY
TPS reports anyone?

they picked NORAD because NAAD would have made too many people giggle.
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#26697 - 01/29/07 02:32 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: empicard]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
hehe... NAAD!
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#26698 - 02/12/07 01:27 PM The wheels are in motion... [Re: mworking]
chazman Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/07/02
Posts: 944
Quote:

February 12, 2007
U.S. Says Arms Link Iranians to Iraqi Shiites
By JAMES GLANZ
BAGHDAD, Feb. 11 — After weeks of internal debate, senior United States military officials on Sunday literally put on the table their first public evidence of the contentious assertion that Iran supplies Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with some of the most lethal weapons in the war. They said those weapons had been used to kill more than 170 Americans in the past three years.

Never before displayed in public, the weapons included squat canisters designed to explode and spit out molten balls of copper that cut through armor. The canisters, called explosively formed penetrators or E.F.P.s, are perhaps the most feared weapon faced by American and Iraqi troops here.

In a news briefing held under strict security, the officials spread out on two small tables an E.F.P. and an array of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades with visible serial numbers that the officials said link the weapons directly to Iranian arms factories. The officials also asserted, without providing direct evidence, that Iranian leaders had authorized smuggling those weapons into Iraq for use against the Americans. The officials said such an assertion was an inference based on general intelligence assessments.

That inference, and the anonymity of the officials who made it, seemed likely to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq, and perhaps even trying to lay the groundwork for war with Iran.



Top
#26699 - 02/12/07 02:32 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: chazman]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63
and from todays NY Times lead story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/world/...artner=homepage

interesting that this government source article is coauthored by Michael Gordon, who's fabricated story along with Judith Miller in the Times helped bring us the Iraq War. Yes, Arthur's paper has an agenda, (he too knows his constituancy) & if you see him at the crag politely let him know.

Top
#26700 - 02/12/07 05:28 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63
and why would Tehran be supplying roadside bombs to it's adversary, the Suni insurgency? A reasonable question to ask of dear Michael Gordon. (see last post)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2261526.ece

I think Arthur's paper should now be described as "All the propaganda thats fit to print"

Top
#26701 - 02/12/07 07:49 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764

Heard this on Jene Sheas’ folk show last night. The names, locale and the specific fighting are different, but other than it could have been written today. It is far better in song.

Lyndon Johnson Told the Nation
Words and Music by Tom Paxton
--------------------------------------------

I got a letter from L. B. J.
It said this is your lucky day.
It's time to put your khaki trousers on.
Though it may seem very queer
We've got no jobs to give you here
So we are sending you to Viet Nam
[Cho:]
Lyndon Johnson told the nation,
"Have no fear of escalation.
I am trying everyone to please.
Though it isn't really war,
We're sending fifty thousand more,
To help save Viet nam from Viet Namese."
I jumped off the old troop ship,
And sank in mud up to my hips.
I cussed until the captain called me down.
Never mind how hard it's raining,
Think of all the ground we're gaining,
Just don't take one step outside of town.
[Cho:]
Every night the local gentry,
Sneak out past the sleeping sentry.
They go to join the old VC.
In their nightly little dramas,
They put on their black pajamas,
And come lobbing mortar shells at me.
[Cho:]
We go round in helicopters,
Like a bunch of big grasshoppers,
Searching for the Viet Cong in vain.
They left a note that they had gone.
They had to get down to Saigon,
Their government positions to maintain.
[Cho:]
Well here I sit in this rice paddy,
Wondering about Big Daddy,
And I know that Lyndon loves me so.
Yet how sadly I remember,
Way back yonder in November,
When he said I'd never have to go.
[Cho:]

Top
#26702 - 02/12/07 07:52 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
mikeymike Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/30/01
Posts: 54
Quote:

and why would Tehran be supplying roadside bombs to it's adversary, the Suni insurgency? A reasonable question to ask of dear Michael Gordon. (see last post)





~ The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

Top
#26703 - 02/12/07 10:33 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
why would Tehran be supplying roadside bombs to it's adversary, the Suni insurgency? A reasonable question to ask of dear Michael Gordon.

There's no such assertion in the article. In fact, the article says the claim is that Iran is aiding the Shiites, not the Sunis: "military officials on Sunday literally put on the table their first public evidence of the contentious assertion that Iran supplies Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with some of the most lethal weapons in the war."

There are plenty of Shiites who want the U.S. out, and plenty who would be willing to attack U.S. troops. And there are plenty of Sunis who want the US out too. And there are some on both sides who want the US to stay. That's why the situation is so difficult.

Anyway, even if bombs are coming in from Iran, there's still no direct evidence that the Iranian government is sponsoring the activity. "The officials also asserted, without providing direct evidence, that Iranian leaders had authorized smuggling those weapons into Iraq for use against the Americans. The officials said such an assertion was an inference based on general intelligence assessments....That inference, and the anonymity of the officials who made it, seemed likely to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq, and perhaps even trying to lay the groundwork for war with Iran."

And even if the Iranian government is involved, what recourse do we have? To those who say we may be planning to invade Iran, I have a two word response: with what?

If Iran's government is getting active in Iraq, it's because they think there's nothing we can really do to them that wouldn't be hugely counterproductive. And they're right. I can't tell whether W's saber-rattling is a ruse to intimidate the Iranians (which won't work) or for domestic consumption to distract Americans from what's going on in Iraq. I have a hard time believing that people in his administration can actually think invading Iran would be a good thing.

But on the other hand, it wouldn't be the first reality-denying debacle they've gotten us into.

Top
#26704 - 02/12/07 11:23 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Quote:

Anyway, even if bombs are coming in from Iran, there's still no direct evidence that the Iranian government is sponsoring the activity. "The officials also asserted, without providing direct evidence, that Iranian leaders had authorized smuggling those weapons into Iraq for use against the Americans. The officials said such an assertion was an inference based on general intelligence assessments....That inference, and the anonymity of the officials who made it, seemed likely to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq, and perhaps even trying to lay the groundwork for war with Iran."




...yellowcake...

Top
#26705 - 02/13/07 02:32 AM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
...yellowcake...

Except that when W cried "yellowcake," we had the ability to go in on the ground and throw out the source of the asserted danger. What's W backing up this threat with? We couldn't occupy Iran with our forces at full strength, much less with troops that will be bogged down in Iraq for at least a while longer. Bombing would only strengthen the present regime and turn even more people into terrorists.

So even if Iran's government were arming extremists in Iraq, what's this administration threatening to do about it? Anything? Are there any real options? If not, why all the huffing and puffing? It's all very strange.

Top
#26706 - 02/13/07 11:05 AM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Quote:

Bombing would only strengthen the present regime and turn even more people into terrorists.





Well...bombing it is then. Gotta fight 'em over there so we don't fight 'em over here, right? Bring 'em on!.


Top
#26707 - 02/13/07 12:40 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Mike Rawdon]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63
And even if the Iranian government is involved, what recourse do we have? To those who say we may be planning to invade Iran, I have a two word response: with what?


cruise missles

I have a hard time believing that people in his administration can actually think invading Iran would be a good thing.

???

Top
#26708 - 02/13/07 01:44 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
cruise missles

Bombing does not constitute an invasion.

And again, what would bombing accomplish? It would rally people to the present regime, and it wouldn't stop the nation from supporting Shiite extremists in Iraq (if that's what they're doing, which is still unsupported by the evidence we know about). Is there any scenario where bombing would leave the US in a better position afterwards?

I thought Tom Friedman had a good answer to those fearing that Iran might "win" in Iraq. "And Iran, you win — yes, if we leave, you win the right to try to manage Iraq’s Shiites. Have a nice day."

Top
#26709 - 02/13/07 01:54 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
chazman Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/07/02
Posts: 944
Quote:

I have a hard time believing that people in his administration can actually think invading Iran would be a good thing. ???



I have a hard time believing that people still have any confidence that this administration is capable of making a sensible, honest, rational decision. The Chaney / Bush war machine will press on...

Top
#26710 - 02/13/07 03:24 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: chazman]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63

"Bombing does not constitute an invasion."
I would consider it more of an attack
"thought Tom Friedman had a good answer to those fearing that Iran might "win" in Iraq. "And Iran, you win — yes, if we leave, you win the right to try to manage Iraq’s Shiites. Have a nice day."
Can Tom Friedman finally have it right?
I seem to recall that Toms columns pre Iraq invasion were very much pro the dirty deed. Tom Friedman is also the guy who helped place the sole blame for the failure at camp david 2000 on Arafat. Friedman & his good buddy Dennis Ross, lead US negotiator at Camp David are cofounders of a conservative synagogue near Bethesda, MD. I suppose Arafat (and areal peace) never had a chance. The result - second intifada. Fast forward September 11, 2001. Bin Laden is precise in why his Kamikazee pilots struck (although his words had to be found in the foriegn press as mainstream US would not touch it) foremost of his grievances was the unconditional support by the US of the brutal occupation of the palestinian people. You would never see Friedman or the Times discuss this. You see they both have an agenda.

Will the US attack Iran - quite possibly over the nuclear issue. Iran might best declare "nuclear ambiguity"

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703?printable=true¤tPage=al

Top
#26711 - 02/13/07 03:42 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Quote:

Bin Laden is precise in why his Kamikazee pilots struck (although his words had to be found in the foriegn press as mainstream US would not touch it) foremost of his grievances was the unconditional support by the US of the brutal occupation of the palestinian people.




You mean it's not "because they hate our freedom"??

That's what W would have us believe. He wouldn't tell us a fib now would he??

Top
#26712 - 02/13/07 04:02 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
I just can't get over how similar this sounds to 5 or 6 years ago, substituting Iran for Iraq and Ahm ... for Saddam. So many things sound the same: implied evidence, pure speculation about what the parties involved - Bush, Ahm .., the Iranian people, are thinking and will do. And yet you *know* the administration has a fully-developed plan for the invasion already ... all of our discussion is rhetorical.

The decision has already been made. Just like Iraq. They're just leaking tidbits to the press so that by the time they want to pull the trigger, it'll have been on our tongues for long enough.

My bet is that as soon as we pull out of Iraq, well hell why bother flying the troops home ...?

Top
#26713 - 02/13/07 04:46 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Julie]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Quote:

I just can't get over how similar this sounds to 5 or 6 years ago, substituting Iran for Iraq and Ahm ... for Saddam....The decision has already been made. Just like Iraq. They're just leaking tidbits to the press so that by the time they want to pull the trigger, it'll have been on our tongues for long enough....




Well yeah, now it's a proven plan!

Remember I've always said the Bush administration got most of what it wanted out of the war. It wasn't a failure for them until they lost their governing majority. GW may be having some second thoughts lately, but he's still pretty far from making an admission of the truth, and he certainly isn't above using the same tactics again.


Edited by mworking (02/13/07 05:04 PM)

Top
#26714 - 02/13/07 05:53 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
Quote:


cruise missles





Oh, you mean like Operation Infinite Reach? Republicans jumped all over Clinton for that. You think Bush would be dumb enough to do the same thing as Clinton and leave himself open to the Democratic backlash?
_________________________


Top
#26715 - 02/13/07 06:28 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Friedman supported the Iraq invasion. But he had the courage to admit that he had gotten it very, very wrong. And I think he has been very evenhanded regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Israelis offered an imperfect proposal at Camp David. Instead of offering a counterproposal, Arafat walked away. The negotiators said they were close to an agreement. But Arafat apparently thought he had more to gain by continued conflict than by compromise. Anyway, Friedman has been justifiably critical of both Arafat and Israeli hard-liners.

And yet you *know* the administration has a fully-developed plan for the invasion already

Invade? With what? We have approximately zero ground troops available.

The decision has already been made. Just like Iraq.

But again: what would the point of an attack be? What would be the goal? Much as many of us disagreed with the use of force in Iraq, there were at least some asserted objectives that were reasonably (OK, maybe unreasonably) related to military action: WMDs, ousting an oppressive dictator, providing an opening to remaking the Middle East.

What possible objective would be served by bombing Iran? We don't have the ground personnel to invade, and we can't take out the government by air attacks (or much of their supposed nuclear facilities which are underground). And unsuccessful military action would only weaken Bush and his associates' political power.

Attacking Iraq made some sense from certain points of view, even if those views turned out to be factually wrong and hopelessly optimistic. But I can't come up with even a ridiculous scenario where attacking Iran would make a modicum of sense. So it seems to me that the administration is just playing to its ever-shrinking base, maybe because they can't think of anything else to do.

Top
#26716 - 02/13/07 07:01 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
Daniel, I'm in full agreement of you, especially on the "with what?" question. With what, exactly.

Those same goals for attacking Iraq apply to Iran ... in fact, it is (and was, in 2002) clear that Iran (and N. Korea) is a larger threat to us than Iraq.

What I'm saying is that sense and end-goals and reality have no place in the Neocon War Machine, just like a plan for post-war outcome in Iraq had no place in their war plans.

They have plans to invade, period end. Just like 5 years ago, we're only now catching onto what's likely already well-planned and even in motion. They see enemy and must attack ... it's really more primitive than you're giving them credit for.

Top
#26717 - 02/13/07 08:04 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: quanto_the_mad]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Quote:

cruise missles




Oh, you mean like Operation Infinite Reach? Republicans jumped all over Clinton for that. You think Bush would be dumb enough to do the same thing as Clinton and leave himself open to the Democratic backlash?




Absolutely not. GW would much rather send troops.
No backlash there!

Quote:

it's really more primitive than you're giving them credit for.




What was gained?
1) Support in both public and legislative terms.
2) Support by the business community.
3) General economic prosperity for the country created by military spending.
4) Great economic prosperity for financial supporters and related monetary feedback to the Republican Party.
5) The supposed power and practical authority to rule by proclamation!
(Tell me that didn't go to GWs
head!)
6) "Revenge" for treats to his father.

Added: I am sure GW thought he was going to get more with an easy victory too, control of oil, instant glory...


Edited by mworking (02/13/07 08:18 PM)

Top
#26718 - 02/13/07 08:16 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Julie]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Those same goals for attacking Iraq apply to Iran ... in fact, it is (and was, in 2002) clear that Iran (and N. Korea) is a larger threat to us than Iraq.

But there's a big difference, even from the neocon viewpoint, between Iraq and Iran. Iraq was at least theoretically doable. Its military was not strong. It was ruled by a tyrant opposed by a substantial majority of the populace who wanted him ousted. Its population and land area was not so great that a modest occupying force could, with some cooperation from the public, could provide security (which turned out to be a very optimistic assumption with no backup plan). If you were looking for a place to start transforming the Middle East, Iraq would have been it.

But Iran clearly isn't it. It's far larger, far more populous, and an attack would likely arouse nationalist sentiments that would drive the public towards the present regime. So even from the neocon view, how does an attack make sense? What would be accomplished that would be in the US's interest?

There's a reason we haven't invaded North Korea: because it's simply not doable. An attack on North Korea would result in a huge and unstoppable assault on Seoul. That's an outcome we (and the South Koreans) are not willing to accept, hence we have no real military leverage. I think Iran is more similar to North Korea than Iraq: it's equally not doable, hence I don't think there are any real plans for an invasion, or even an attack. All the White House has is bluster, but I don't think it's fooling anyone.

They have plans to invade, period end.
And what could those plans possibly look like, given that we have no troops to invade with?

Top
#26719 - 02/13/07 08:26 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63

Top
#26720 - 02/13/07 08:42 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
Those same goals for attacking Iraq apply to Iran ... in fact, it is (and was, in 2002) clear that Iran (and N. Korea) is a larger threat to us than Iraq.

But there's a big difference, even from the neocon viewpoint, between Iraq and Iran. Iraq was at least theoretically doable.

Yes - Iraq was the low-hanging fruit. Go after that first, scare Iran by making a mess next door.

If you were looking for a place to start transforming the Middle East, Iraq would have been it.

.... the start, yes. But only the start.

So even from the neocon view, how does an attack make sense? What would be accomplished that would be in the US's interest?

That's the thing: the neocon Bush war machine isn't in it for the US's interests (how idealistic of you! ). They are in it for their own interests. There's plenty in it for them - in addition to those already cited, starting an invasion this year, would guaruntee them the 08 elections, since we can't change guard mid-war. It doesn't have to make sense for our country or our people, you silly Democrat. It just has to serve their purposes.

What could the plans look like, you keep asking? I have unlimited faith in the war machine's ability to propel itself. While I don't want to toss out straw men here, I believe the word draft has made it into the mass media in the last year.

Top
#26721 - 02/13/07 09:03 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Julie]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Go after that first, scare Iran by making a mess next door.

Well, we all see how well that worked out. Our intervention in Iraq, which took out their totalitarian enemy neighbor, was the best thing the Iranian government could have wished for. Scared? They should be thanking us!

They are in it for their own interests. There's plenty in it for them - in addition to those already cited, starting an invasion this year, would guaruntee them the 08 elections, since we can't change guard mid-war.

Seems to me we just did. Iraq was the major issue last November. Starting a war with Iran without a clear mission would seem to me to be an obvious way to lose in 2008.

And we can't invade if we have nothing to invade with. I'd think that would be self-evident, even to the most neo neocon. Our troops are a little busy at the moment. An attempt by the administration to institute a draft without public support for the war effort would be the best thing for the Democratic party. And even if they could institute a draft without congressional approval, it would take months to put into action, months to train draftees, months before they could be sent abroad. I'm admittedly no expert, but I don't see any real possibility of sending any troops anywhere by the end of the year.

So even from "their" interests, I don't see how they can be serious about a war with no clear mission, little public support, and no resources to commit to it. In my book, that all adds up to "no plan," at least for the next year or two.

Top
#26722 - 02/14/07 12:29 AM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Reality check - the leading proponent of the draft is a New York democratic Congressman. That probably means at some point Hillary would go on record as supporting the draft*. Which would guarantee that the Dems would lose in "08.

* You heard it here first folks.

Top
#26723 - 02/14/07 01:05 AM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Reality check - the leading proponent of the draft is a New York democratic Congressman. That probably means at some point Hillary would go on record as supporting the draft*. Which would guarantee that the Dems would lose in "08.

Well, if Hillary had joined Congressman Rangel when he voted against the Iraq use of force resolution, she'd be in a much stronger position today!

Anyhoo, Mike, I assume your post is facetious since Rangel is proposing a draft as a political ploy (as he opposes the Iraq war), not that his proposal even as a political ploy stands a Sunni's chance in Sadr City of getting majority support even among Dems.

Top
#26724 - 02/14/07 04:25 AM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Quote:

Go after that first, scare Iran by making a mess next door.

Well, we all see how well that worked out. Our intervention in Iraq, which took out their totalitarian enemy neighbor, was the best thing the Iranian government could have wished for. Scared? They should be thanking us!




Yes I agree.

They are in it for their own interests. There's plenty in it for them - in addition to those already cited, starting an invasion this year, would guaruntee them the 08 elections, since we can't change guard mid-war.

Seems to me we just did. Iraq was the major issue last November. Starting a war with Iran without a clear mission would seem to me to be an obvious way to lose in 2008.




Just becuase the mission changes once in a while does not make it unclear to many people. Ccmon, half of America still thinks we went to war to fight that Akaida guy Sadam who was responsible for the destruction of the world trade center while he was trying making chemical nuclear weapons. A lot ofthem still think that's what were doing!

Quote:

And we can't invade if we have nothing to invade with. I'd think that would be self-evident,




I figure we have over 100,000 troops right next door to Iran who don't need to be where they are now! So, don't ya think it'd be kind of a good thng to kill all those Iranian Alkaida terrorists before our soldiers come home?

Top
#26725 - 02/14/07 04:48 AM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: mworking]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I figure we have over 100,000 troops right next door to Iran who don't need to be where they are now!

Maybe, but this administration says we should keep them in Iraq until we "win," which certainly won't happen by year's end. Even this administration can't defy the laws of physics and have the same people in two places at once. And if they reneged and pulled everyone out of Iraq, if our 100,000 troops there weren't enough to secure that place then they wouldn't be nearly enough to secure Iran which is 3.7 times Iraq's land area and over twice its population--who would likely be even more hostile to American occupation than Iraq's has been.

Again, I don't see how even the most neo neocon can see invasion as a remotely plausible option. It would be a disaster that would cost them whatever influence they have left. So while I've been as tough as anyone on this administration's capacity for self-delusion, I find it hard to take rumors of invasion very seriously.

Top
#26726 - 02/14/07 12:32 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63
"Instead of offering a counterproposal, Arafat walked away. The negotiators said they were close to an agreement. But Arafat apparently thought he had more to gain by continued conflict than by compromise. Anyway, Friedman has been justifiably critical of both Arafat and Israeli hard-liners."

This is the myth put forward by Friedman, Safire, NY Times et al. In actuality, the talks simply colapsed. Baraks "generous offer" was never put forward in any concrete proposal - instead bits and pieces. At best it looked something like this: A Palestinian State With a flag and anthem which takes in aprox 90% (of the22% of historical palestine. It would be broken up into 3 non contiguous blocks bisected by Isreali controled security roads. Isreal would control all borders, airspace, water - even the electromagnetic spectrum. As far as Jeruselem & Haram al-sharif/ Temple Mount no Arab leader could have accepted the Israeli position especially in light of UN 242.
To be fair Barak was under terrific pressure back home. Clinton was contending with both the campaigns of his wife & Gore. But look at Clinton' s negotiaters in Dennis Ross, who immediately afterwards took his family to Isreal for their annual Summmer vacation & Martin Indyk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Indyk
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1568

How would you like to be a figure skater in that competition?
The sad thing here is papers like the NY Times are completely biased as is much of the US media. At least over at Hareetz there are columnists such as Gideon Levy and Amira Hass who champion the Pals rights. You would never see this in the Times - too afraid of offending a third of its readership

Top
#26727 - 02/14/07 03:08 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
First, I mostly read the Times for my information, and my understanding was essentially what you wrote. So I don't think the coverage was as biased as you claim. Second, it's a mistake to confuse a paper's reporting with its editorials and opinion pieces. The Wall Street Journal has some great reporting, though its editorial board is loony. Third, Safire and Friedman are nowhere near comparable, in my opinion. As I wrote before, Friedman has been very critical of Israeli hard liners.

Yes, the Israeli offer was for an inadequate, cut-up Palestine. But it at least was more than had been proposed before, and there's no claim it was a "take it or leave it" offer. Where was the counteroffer? Friedman's critique of Arafat was that he was unwilling to lead his people to accept compromise. If Arafat wouldn't or couldn't to accept any compromise, then what was the point of attending negotiations?

And the Times being "afraid of offending a third of its readership"? I'm not sure what you're implying here. If the idea is that its readership may be disproportionately Jewish, I don't think hard line Jewish right wingers (or right wingers generally) constitute a third of its readership. To the extent that the readership may be disproportionately Jewish, a substantial number of those, if not a majority, are liberal or secular and are highly critical of Israeli actions (such as myself).

As far as resolving the conflict goes, we all know what the only possible solution generally looks like: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank approximately along the lines of the '67 border, Israel gives up most of its settlements, Palestinians give up the right of return and get compensation instead. Clinton was saying this for years. When/if both sides realize reach their senses and stop letting extremists drive the process, they'll come to this kind of agreement.

I think this Robert Wright piece from Slate Magazine does a pretty good job explaining how both sides failed at Camp David and afterwards.

If you want to discuss this issue further, I suggest moving it to a new thread.

Top
#26728 - 02/14/07 07:15 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
Our intervention in Iraq, which took out their totalitarian enemy neighbor, was the best thing the Iranian government could have wished for. Scared? They should be thanking us!

Sure. Until we come over and make the same mess in Iran.

They are in it for their own interests. There's plenty in it for them - in addition to those already cited, starting an invasion this year, would guaruntee them the 08 elections, since we can't change guard mid-war.

Seems to me we just did. Iraq was the major issue last November. Starting a war with Iran without a clear mission would seem to me to be an obvious way to lose in 2008.

I'm talking about 2004. That's what's truly amazed me: the problems and failures in Iraq were just as bad and evident in 2004, but a major force in the election was that we can't change leadership (and by leadership, I don't mean Congressional majority and non-binding resolution; I mean the White House, Sec of State and Defense, and their "consolidated powers") mid-war. Bush made the argument and kept his job by touting that he had The Plan for Iraq ... never mind what it was(n't), the majority of people bought into that.

And even if they could institute a draft without congressional approval, it would take months to put into action, months to train draftees, months before they could be sent abroad. I'm admittedly no expert, but I don't see any real possibility of sending any troops anywhere by the end of the year.

I have similar worries, of course, but remember that they're already come up with all kinds of ways to stretch the existing force, by extended tours of duty, etc. Just think: by their logic, we have half of our forces sitting home on their asses (that is sarcasm on my part) waiting to invade Iran.

I'm in such agreement with you, Daniel, but you have to remember that the point of view and values that the Bush war machine approaches things with, are so very different from ours.

Top
#26729 - 02/14/07 09:21 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Julie]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
but you have to remember that the point of view and values that the Bush war machine approaches things with, are so very different from ours.

I understand that their views and values--and even perception of reality--are different. But even they can't do the impossible. And we could take ALL the troops out of Iraq--which they obviously won't do, since it would constitute "losing"--and it still wouldn't be enough to occupy Iran. A draft would not conceivably get congressional approval, and even if it did, it still wouldn't be enough to put sufficient troops in Iran by the end of the year.

So I'm not saying that it won't happen because their world view and values agree with mine; I'm saying it won't happen because it physically and operationally can't be done, much less politically.

As for the 2004 election, is there any doubt that W would lose big-time if he could run again? I know the public is woefully uninformed about many things, but people are a lot more skeptical this time around. Let's remember that if 80,000 people had voted the other way in Ohio, he'd have been out. The scaremongering worked, but barely. I may be wrong, but I doubt it would work again.

Top
#26730 - 02/15/07 02:27 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
So I'm not saying that it won't happen because their world view and values agree with mine; I'm saying it won't happen because it physically and operationally can't be done, much less politically.

I don’t think this is what you were relating to Daniel, but I'd like to make a point. If we needed to go to war – anywhere, anytime, there would be plenty of volunteers including me, and we would do it in a heart beat. But, we would have to need to do it.

As for the 2004 election, is there any doubt that W would lose big-time if he could run again? I know the public is woefully uninformed about many things, but people are a lot more skeptical this time around. Let's remember that if 80,000 people had voted the other way in Ohio, he'd have been out. The scaremongering worked, but barely. I may be wrong, but I doubt it would work again.

Ya know I didn’t think it would work. I didn’t think Republican politicians would think it would work. But, they are trying to use the fight against terror again right now in their speeches against the resolution against troop escalation and the war in general.


Edited by mworking (02/15/07 02:38 PM)

Top
#26731 - 02/15/07 05:48 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: mworking]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
If we needed to go to war – anywhere, anytime, there would be plenty of volunteers including me, and we would do it in a heart beat. But, we would have to need to do it.

Exactly. I don't think there would be plenty of volunteers to go to Iran before year's end, even in two years, because there's no evidence of any imminent threat.

And it's not just a matter of volunteering. Volunteers have to be trained, equipped, deployed. That takes time.

And even if there are volunteers, would it be enough to occupy Iran? There's general agreement now that General Shinseki was right: it would have taken several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq. Iran has over twice the population and over three times the land area, so it seems to me that we'd be looking at over half a million troops for the job. I think it's really doubtful that volunteers will appear in those numbers--especially before this administration is over.

Ya know I didn’t think it would work. I didn’t think Republican politicians would think it would work. But, they are trying to use the fight against terror again right now in their speeches against the resolution against troop escalation and the war in general.

If Kerry had run a half-competent campaign and gone after W's credibility, it wouldn't have worked. But anyway ...

Yeah, they're trying it again. And they're losing in many districts. Dozens of Republicans are bolting because they know they won't get reelected if they blindly stick with the President.

Moreover, Iran isn't Iraq. We're already in Iraq, and the question is how best to deal with the mess that's there. That's a very different question than whether to create another mess in Iran. If some Republicans are skittish about continuing with one mess we've made, how will the feel about creating another?

Even if W can't say the "Fool me once " thing properly, there are plenty of moderate Americans who can. There are already Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate with Republicans who are joining them opposing W's management of the Iraq war. I just don't see how this administration will be able to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops--that we don't even have--to Iran under these conditions.

Top
#26732 - 02/15/07 07:13 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
I don't necessarily associate attack and at war with occupation. I worry that "we" can and might attack Iran, particularly where nuclear weapons are concerned. I worry that we won't too! But in either case I am not predicting that we will occupy Iran.

Top
#26733 - 02/15/07 07:28 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
Daniel, you are sorely underestimating the Bush PR machine, when it comes to stirring up clouds of confusion into the belief that we Must Go After The Bad Guys.

Even as we lambast Hillary for saying it, I think every one of us was more convinced about WMD and the threat of Saddam, five years ago than we are now.

Top
#26734 - 02/15/07 08:53 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Julie]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Just as many who authorized the war, I had strong doubts last tine round. But we had to hedge our bets thinking welll shut up if we're wrong. We wondered if GW knew something we didn't.

Turns out he should have and probably did know something many others could not know for sure. It was that the evidence used to promote (and it was promote) the war was so one sided that it amounted to being false. I am sure there were plenty of people involved who thought that looking at things from one point would be OK. Many of us learned a lesson the hard way.

Yes, fool us once, lets not let it happen again please.

Top
#26735 - 02/15/07 09:36 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Julie]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Even as we lambast Hillary for saying it, I think every one of us was more convinced about WMD and the threat of Saddam, five years ago than we are now.

I agree, we were more convinced. Even I was more convinced regarding chemical and biological weapons, which I thought were not sufficient reasons for going to war at the time since conventional weapons were just as if not more destructive and easier to build and deploy. I thought the only real threat was nuclear weapons (not because Saddam might use one against us but because he might tell the Saudis "give me your oilfields or I will nuke them"), and I thought the evidence on that was thin; moreover, Saddam wasn't going to do anything while UN inspectors were there, so there still was no need to authorize force at that time.

(Hillary essentially made very good arguments about why force was not needed at the time of her vote and then voted yes anyway. That's why I'm upset with her position. She explicitly said she thought unilateral action would be a bad idea, but trusted the administration try to get a strong UN resolution to bring more allies with us. But that requirement was not in the use of force resolution; the resolution gave W a blank check, and as a lawyer she must have or should have known that if you don't get the language in the contract, you don't have the deal. Yes, it would have difficult to vote no given the popular sentiment at the time. But that's what leaders are supposed to do in times of national crisis. I think she knew better, but she opted for easy political cover for her next election. Her Senate floor remarks are here, so folks can determine for yourself if her statements at the time justified her vote.)

I agree we should be wary of the Bush PR machine. But after the debacle of the past four years do we really think that the public will be fooled as easily as we were with Iraq? Many people are far more skeptical now. I think cries of Must Go After The Bad Guys are going to have to be backed up with evidence before there's majority public or congressional support this time around. Plus no matter what the PR machine does, we simply don't have anywhere near the number of troops to go into Iran. You can't invade with people that don't exist.

Bombing would be doable in a way that invasion and occupation are not. But it wouldn't accomplish anything except make things worse. What would the targets be? The nuclear facilities are underground and hard to hit. An attack would alienate the Iranian public which is far less antagonistic to us than their government is. There's no one suggesting they're about to build a nuclear bomb.

So I just don't see the public supporting any use of force against Iran in the next two years unless Iraq does something like bomb Tel Aviv. And if they're dumb or extremist enough to do something like that, there will be lots of countries willing to do something about it, and the Bush PR machine won't be needed to fool us into anything.

Top
#26736 - 02/15/07 10:08 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63
"Iraq does something like bomb Tel Aviv"

What are they going to hit TA with - E.F.P.'s?

Perhaps the Times is paying more attention
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/world/middleeast/15timing.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slon this time

Top
#26737 - 02/18/07 02:46 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63
or are they simply a mouthpiece for the Bush war machine?

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3042%20

Top
#27667 - 03/16/07 03:30 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5978
Loc: 212 land
_________________________

Top
#27813 - 03/23/07 03:35 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: mworking]
chazman Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/07/02
Posts: 944

Top
#27969 - 03/30/07 11:59 AM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: chazman]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63

Top
#27971 - 03/30/07 12:38 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: felix m]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5978
Loc: 212 land
War#2? I see this as UK vs. Iran only. Perhaps the former can ambush and seize a warship of the latter and effect a swap to end the squabble.
_________________________

Top
#27972 - 03/30/07 02:01 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
This thread was started to discuss the probability and timing of a (US) war with Iran.
How much of an excuse do we need?

My question, what is Iran’s government thinking? Some possibilities:

They simply wanted to raise the price of oil.

They intended to terminate all ongoing negotiation in order to avoid having to agree to stop their development of nuclear weapons.

They wanted to call our “bluff” of threatening war.

They wanted to provoke a war.

Even though the captives are not Americans, I think it will make us (US and Britain) look week and Iran look strong if we don’t do get them back. Personally I don’t care much, but others on both sides will.




Edited by mworking (03/30/07 04:58 PM)
Edit Reason: sp

Top
#27976 - 03/30/07 05:43 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: mworking]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2957
Loc: LI, NY
a long time ago capturing the enemys soldiers was considered an act of war, and invasions would have begun by now. western civilization has gone soft...
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#27977 - 03/30/07 07:11 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: empicard]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Where is all the outrage for Geneva Convention considerations now? I hear nothing. These Brits were soldiers in uniform of a sovereign state. Iran was out of bounds in Iraqui waters. These 15 soldiers have not met with either consular agents or red cross personnel, they are videotaped, all of which is against the GC. The LA Times said, "They weren't harmed physically, just mentally." Would that constitute mental torture, also against the GC. It is an act of war. Were I Blair, I would speak out of polital channels and tell the Iranians they have 30 days (starting with the original capture date) to return these Brits, or I would destroy the only refinery Iran has and really give them something to stew about. The West better wake up, we have been at "war" with Iran for 30 years now.

Top
#27978 - 03/30/07 07:18 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: alicex4]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63
than it's a good thing your not Blair

Top
#27979 - 03/30/07 07:21 PM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: felix m]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Yeah, it's also a good thing not to follow the illustrious example set by Jimmy Carter in 1979. Only 437 more days to go for these hostages if the Carter model is used.

Top
#27984 - 03/31/07 11:46 AM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: alicex4]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63
hmmmm

you imply that the US has been at war with Iran for 30 years.
i say we have been screwing them since 1953 when the cia overthrew a popular, democraticaly elected, iranian in Mohammed Mossadegh. his crime was upon election to nationalize his country's oil industry. the brits were furious and their anglo-iranian oil company which had been litteraly screwing the workers who lived in absolute poverty as well as the iranian gov't which got a pitance of the vast wealth emerging from this scam. the brits turned to america & the newly formed cia to stage a coup in iran which overthrew mossadegh and instal the ruthless shah. thank kermit roosevelt and operation ajax. no wonder these people hate us.

read this facinating story in stephen kinzer's brilliant "all the shahs men"

Top
#34807 - 12/11/07 11:15 AM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: felix m]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5978
Loc: 212 land
_________________________

Top
#34874 - 12/15/07 02:37 AM Re: At war with Iran? !!! [Re: oenophore]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
let Iran have nukes good for them. in fact i want a warhead that can mount on my truck.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#34934 - 12/21/07 02:46 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
PeteG Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/30/00
Posts: 300
Loc: Saranac Lake, NY
...I think every one of us was more convinced about WMD and the threat of Saddam, five years ago than we are now.


Wrong! I, and many others I know, as well as some posters on this board, argued before our invasion that there is no evidence of WMD in Iraq. Quite contrary, the UNSCOM was consistently finding "evidence" that our claims were exaggerated, if not completely wrong. Remember our (heated) discussions, AliceX4, etc?

Top
#35308 - 01/21/08 04:49 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: PeteG]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5978
Loc: 212 land
For an alternative essay on the subject, here's one by Naughty Noam.

Top
#35765 - 03/02/08 07:42 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
acdnyc Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 209
Loc: NYC/Kerhonkson
Please, this is not for the faint at heart. This may help some, but others...

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

Watch at your own risk!

Next movie is 3/8/08
_________________________
jugs or mugs

Top
#35772 - 03/03/08 11:14 AM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: acdnyc]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2957
Loc: LI, NY
 Originally Posted By: acdnyc
Please, this is not for the faint at heart. This may help some, but others...

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

Watch at your own risk!

Next movie is 3/8/08


crap crap crap
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#36113 - 03/26/08 10:56 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: empicard]
acdnyc Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 209
Loc: NYC/Kerhonkson
Yeah, crap it is. it only has facts to back it up. like i said, it will help some, but others...
_________________________
jugs or mugs

Top
#38618 - 07/23/08 11:19 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: acdnyc]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5978
Loc: 212 land

Top
#38670 - 07/25/08 01:02 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: oenophore]
irisharehere Offline
Site Supporter

Registered: 12/06/01
Posts: 1658
Loc: Danbury CT
The bombing starts at the end of August.......the Olympics are over, and its the dark of the moon........

if I disappear in the next few days, its because the Department of Homeland Security turfed me out!!!!!!
_________________________
I didn't spend nine years in Evil Graduate School to be called "Mr Irish", thank you!

Top
#38672 - 07/25/08 01:12 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: irisharehere]
RAF Offline
site supporter

Registered: 04/12/02
Posts: 793
Loc: Colorado (!)
<<if I disappear in the next few days, its because the Department of Homeland Security turfed me out>>

That would be so mean, another shameful case of profiling: Links to the Irish Republican Army in his native country, studied germ warfare in grad school, known to consort with Syrians...

They need to concentrate on the less obvious threats, such as D-elvis, who has tattoos proclaiming "Death to infidels" and a bomb-making treatise hidden beneath an Adirondack Rock guidebook cover.

Top
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored