War on Iran soon?

[mundame]

<TABLE id=tableToday09 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY id=tbodyToday09><TR id=trIN20080520093512OPENX><TD class=storyTitle>"Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term" - Jerusalem Post</TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD><TD class=st-Art>The Jerusalem Post reports that US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, before the end of his term, Israeli Army Radio quoted a senior official in Jerusalem as saying Tuesday. The official claimed that a senior member of the president's entourage, which concluded a trip to Israel last week, said during a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action was called for. However, the official continued, "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic, for the time being. The report stated that according to assessments in Israel, recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah de facto established control of the country, was advancing an American attack. (Briefing.com note: Stories such as this have been appearing in the press every few months whenever senior American officials visit the Middle East, and this seems like just more of the same, so it likely won't be market-moving.)
**********************************

I saw this on Briefing.com today. Certainly Bush might think a war on Iran, properly timed, could swing the election to McCain.

It's no wonder that both Gates and Rice are worried, if that's true ---- the military is wildly overstretched for a third war, and there is so much international dislike and distrust of us now it must be a problem generally for the State Department.

All the same, it sure wouldn't surprise me if Bush did this. And lost again, as usual.

Any thoughts?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[manu1959]

don't worry the democrat controled congress will stop him.....

[hjmick]

I'd like to say that I just don't see it happening, but, all things considered, I have to say that it is not beyond the realm of possibilities. It would be a miserably bad idea and I certainly think it would do nothing to help McCain.

[dread]

<TABLE id=tableToday09 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY id=tbodyToday09><TR id=trIN20080520093512OPENX><TD class=storyTitle>"Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term" - Jerusalem Post</TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD><TD class=st-Art>The Jerusalem Post reports that US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, before the end of his term, Israeli Army Radio quoted a senior official in Jerusalem as saying Tuesday. The official claimed that a senior member of the president's entourage, which concluded a trip to Israel last week, said during a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action was called for. However, the official continued, "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic, for the time being. The report stated that according to assessments in Israel, recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah de facto established control of the country, was advancing an American attack. (Briefing.com note: Stories such as this have been appearing in the press every few months whenever senior American officials visit the Middle East, and this seems like just more of the same, so it likely won't be market-moving.)
**********************************

I saw this on Briefing.com today. Certainly Bush might think a war on Iran, properly timed, could swing the election to McCain.

It's no wonder that both Gates and Rice are worried, if that's true ---- the military is wildly overstretched for a third war, and there is so much international dislike and distrust of us now it must be a problem generally for the State Department.

All the same, it sure wouldn't surprise me if Bush did this. And lost again, as usual.

Any thoughts?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



Even Saudi Arabia understands that if Iran doesnt stop that war is inevitable.


http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=109890&d=14&m=5&y=2008


It has nothing to do with the election. If Iran keeps up with what they are doing most are fucked. Arabs understand this, I dont know why you dont.

[hjmick]

I would agree that Iran is a problem and will need to be dealt with, perhaps militarily, but I would suggest that our interests would be better served if we were to first wrap things up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As far as I'm concerned, we've been at war with Iran since November 4, 1979.

[mundame]

I would agree that Iran is a problem and will need to be dealt with, perhaps militarily, but I would suggest that our interests would be better served if we were to first wrap things up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As far as I'm concerned, we've been at war with Iran since November 4, 1979.


Yes, since 1979, except we never fought Iran back.

Under this administration and presumably for some years to come, it doesn't seem our military can fight its way out of a damp paper bag. A lot of this is that they don't actually fight ----------- they "help" the enemy. This doesn't work out well, and it's a pretense that would be
even harder to maintain in Iran, I would think.

Note that if we WON a war in Iran, we would have one long battlefield from the border of Syria to the border of Pakistan. That might be easier to supply. There could be some advantages to that, but I can't imagine Bush even coming close to winning any war; he's just not capable.

[manu1959]

Yes, since 1979, except we never fought Iran back.

Under this administration and presumably for some years to come, it doesn't seem our military can fight its way out of a damp paper bag. A lot of this is that they don't actually fight ----------- they "help" the enemy. This doesn't work out well, and it's a pretense that would be
even harder to maintain in Iran, I would think.

Note that if we WON a war in Iran, we would have one long battlefield from the border of Syria to the border of Pakistan. That might be easier to supply. There could be some advantages to that, but I can't imagine Bush even coming close to winning any war; he's just not capable.

american can not win a war because it's people and media does not have the stomache to fight and win a war .....

[hjmick]

american can not win a war because it's people and media does not have the stomache to fight and win a war .....

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Sometime after WWII, probably starting with Korea and certainly culminating with Vietnam, Americans were introduced to the true horror of war. Sure, there were newsreels in the local movie houses, but they rarely if ever showed the death and suffering of the American soldier, functioning more as propaganda and serving as a rallying cry for the citizenry. Vietnam was the first war to take place in the "modern" age of communications. It was possible to report a story almost instantaneously, bringing the truth and tragedy right into the living rooms of the Jones' and Smiths nationwide. It was suddenly and violently thrust into the psyche of the American public and they didn't like it. And who can blame them? The visuals and growing awareness of the consequences for veterans gutted the once strong will of Americans.

As time went by, technology advanced not only communications but military hardware as well. I am of the opinion that the advancements in military technology has led some to believe that there is no excuse for casualties to the soldiers the U.S. military fields. This, of course, is a misplaced ideal. The best laid battle plan never survives contact with the enemy.

I don't like war. I don't think any rational human being does. The truth of the world, however, is that there will always be war. Centuries of human history proves this out. Plato had it right, "Only the dead have seen the end of war." People need to remember that war is, well, war.

[mundame]

american can not win a war because it's people and media does not have the stomache to fight and win a war .....


I think we have plenty of enthusiasm to fight wars for our own defense or revenge. Look how eager people were to go into Iraq after 9/11, and Iraq wasn't even involved: we just wanted to kill those dune coons.

But quickly it became a botch job and soon it was all about "helping" the nice little Iraqis, and no one has the stomach to deal with the confusions of "helping" people by bombing and shooting everyone and breaking in the doors of those pitiful houses always on the news.

We could fight if we had to defend the country; but these political wars for some Big Fool's Legacy, no one likes that.

It seems likely to me that's what Iran would quickly deteriorate into, another of Bush's failures.

[manu1959]

I think we have plenty of enthusiasm to fight wars for our own defense or revenge. Look how eager people were to go into Iraq after 9/11, and Iraq wasn't even involved: we just wanted to kill those dune coons.

But quickly it became a botch job and soon it was all about "helping" the nice little Iraqis, and no one has the stomach to deal with the confusions of "helping" people by bombing and shooting everyone and breaking in the doors of those pitiful houses always on the news.

We could fight if we had to defend the country; but these political wars for some Big Fool's Legacy, no one likes that.

It seems likely to me that's what Iran would quickly deteriorate into, another of Bush's failures.

america's attention span faltered during gulf war I......

and the war in afganistan lost momentum in the media and the ey of the public long before america went into iraq.....

the west simply does not have the balls......

a few soilders were killed on a successfull mission in somali and we packed up and left......

the heart is no longer there.....

[FSUK]

I cant see Bush launching war on Iran, he has already fucked up 2 countries. War with iran would really double the recruitment for radicals to fight the US.

Iran has done nothing wrong, USA keeps blaming iran for the problems in iraq, they need a scapegoat off course.

[gabosaurus]

Not gonna happen.

First of all, the American military is overstretched as it is. There is little to nothing left. Our allies (what's left of them) will never agree to support it.

Have you not read the plan? If Bush attacks Iran, all Middle East nations will immediately cut off oil production and exportation. All oil related businesses will be shut down. U.S. citizens working in those countries (i.e. Saudi Arabia) will effectively be taken prisoner.
Saudi Arabia and Syria have previously threatened Israel with "nuclear holocaust" if Iran is attacked. The weapons will likely come from Libya or Pakistan.

At home, there will be massive protests and demonstrations in every major American city. Several radical groups have vowed to march on the White House (most likely with their constitutionally protected weaponry) and take it by force. There are even hints of open revolt among the American military.

Of course, Dubya will never see this. Because he is an idiot.

[Gaffer]

Not gonna happen.

First of all, the American military is overstretched as it is. There is little to nothing left. Our allies (what's left of them) will never agree to support it.

Have you not read the plan? If Bush attacks Iran, all Middle East nations will immediately cut off oil production and exportation. All oil related businesses will be shut down. U.S. citizens working in those countries (i.e. Saudi Arabia) will effectively be taken prisoner.
Saudi Arabia and Syria have previously threatened Israel with "nuclear holocaust" if Iran is attacked. The weapons will likely come from Libya or Pakistan.

At home, there will be massive protests and demonstrations in every major American city. Several radical groups have vowed to march on the White House (most likely with their constitutionally protected weaponry) and take it by force. There are even hints of open revolt among the American military.

Of course, Dubya will never see this. Because he is an idiot.

:link:

[ranger]

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Sometime after WWII, probably starting with Korea and certainly culminating with Vietnam, Americans were introduced to the true horror of war. Sure, there were newsreels in the local movie houses, but they rarely if ever showed the death and suffering of the American soldier, functioning more as propaganda and serving as a rallying cry for the citizenry. Vietnam was the first war to take place in the "modern" age of communications. It was possible to report a story almost instantaneously, bringing the truth and tragedy right into the living rooms of the Jones' and Smiths nationwide. It was suddenly and violently thrust into the psyche of the American public and they didn't like it. And who can blame them? The visuals and growing awareness of the consequences for veterans gutted the once strong will of Americans.

As time went by, technology advanced not only communications but military hardware as well. I am of the opinion that the advancements in military technology has led some to believe that there is no excuse for casualties to the soldiers the U.S. military fields. This, of course, is a misplaced ideal. The best laid battle plan never survives contact with the enemy.

I don't like war. I don't think any rational human being does. The truth of the world, however, is that there will always be war. Centuries of human history proves this out. Plato had it right, "Only the dead have seen the end of war." People need to remember that war is, well, war.


Exactly, we do not fight wars the way we used to because the media screams at us for not being nice. Imagine if we did a Dresden firebombing in this day and age. CNN would be in Dresden within hours showing pictures of the devastation and talking about how the children were slaughter and oh, the humanity.

War is hell and should be an option not used lightly. When it is used, the military should be told, "Go win one boys." and the politicians should get the hell out of the way. Not be telling them to "Make sure you only kill who's necessary to kill" and "Don't blow them up too bad."

[mundame]

a few soilders were killed on a successfull mission in somali and we packed up and left......

the heart is no longer there.....


But that wasn't a war --------- it wasn't for our defense and it wasn't for revenge (deterrence).

It was just trying to get UN food distribution from being all screwed up by the violent warlords in that failed state! It was a humanitarian mission, not war at all.

It was right to bring the troops home: what was wrong was farming them out to "help" the UN to start with!!!!!!!!!!!

We should never do that: but IMO Obama will be shipping our troops to Africa constantly ---- to Darfur to help the incoming migrants against the Janjaweed, to Sudan to help the blacks getting enslaved by Arabs, to Nigeria to stop the raids on Western oil facilities, to Zimbabwe, to help the 16 people left in that country after Mugabe gets through starving everyone to death, to South Africa to help control all the riots of South Africans who love to chop up Zimbabwean refugees with machetes.

It's just going to be one long help-Africa-with-soldiers administration when Obama gets in.


Nobody will bother Iran or the rest of the Mideast, all nuking up as fast as they can go. We've lost nuclear non-proliferation, so we can't fight Iran now.

[namvet]

Iranians Would Welcome Airstrikes, Sources Say...........


Emissaries from inside Iran have been meeting with Iranian exiles in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere in recent weeks to deliver this provocative message, which they claim comes from pro-U.S. dissidents at the upper-most levels of the regime.



source (source)

[mundame]

Iranians Would Welcome Airstrikes, Sources Say...........




Emissaries from inside Iran have been meeting with Iranian exiles in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere in recent weeks to deliver this provocative message, which they claim comes from pro-U.S. dissidents at the upper-most levels of the regime.


Sure, see? This is how it WORKS. They put out this kind of press release, presumably right from ol' Rumsfeld's Office of Strategic Disinformation, and they fool us by presenting war on Iran as

HELPING

the Iranians.

See, we're HELPING them. Like we're HELPING the Iraqis, and the Afghans, and even the Pakis on the border. Oh, how grateful they must be for all that helpful bombing.

Guys, how about if we don't swallow this trickery this third time?

[manu1959]

Sure, see? This is how it WORKS. They put out this kind of press release, presumably right from ol' Rumsfeld's Office of Strategic Disinformation, and they fool us by presenting war on Iran as

HELPING

the Iranians.

See, we're HELPING them. Like we're HELPING the Iraqis, and the Afghans, and even the Pakis on the border. Oh, how grateful they must be for all that helpful bombing.

Guys, how about if we don't swallow this trickery this third time?

yes lets do it like we did when we helped the rawandans, the somalis, the serbs and bosnians......or like the french are helping in the congo ....or darfur...east timor....

anyway ...... iran doesn't need any help......

there is no need for us foreign aid or foreign us military bases ..... no need ....

[mundame]

Not gonna happen.

First of all, the American military is overstretched as it is. There is little to nothing left. Our allies (what's left of them) will never agree to support it.

True ------ but that didn't stop us either war before, did it?

It won't stop us making war on Iran, either.


Have you not read the plan? If Bush attacks Iran, all Middle East nations will immediately cut off oil production and exportation. All oil related businesses will be shut down. U.S. citizens working in those countries (i.e. Saudi Arabia) will effectively be taken prisoner.

Naaaaah, they never did that before when we attacked Iraq --- twice; or Afghanistan, and those were Sunni countries. They sure won't stop their money inflow for Iran, a Shiite country. Besides, could be dangerous: while we're over there, if they make us mad, we might just attack them. No, they'll all be good little doobies while we bomb bomb bomb, bomb-bomb Iran.


Saudi Arabia and Syria have previously threatened Israel with "nuclear holocaust" if Iran is attacked. The weapons will likely come from Libya or Pakistan.

They're great talkers, but they never do anything. Sixty years it's been, all talk and no action at all. If they did, they'd be obliterated, and the world would benefit.


At home, there will be massive protests and demonstrations in every major American city. Several radical groups have vowed to march on the White House (most likely with their constitutionally protected weaponry) and take it by force. There are even hints of open revolt among the American military.

Leftists don't have weapons. Weaponry is held by the Right, something to think about Come The Revolution. There would be some marching, there always is. And?


Of course, Dubya will never see this. Because he is an idiot.

Sure he's an idiot, but because he's prez and doesn't care what we think or what's good for the country or his party or the world or ANYthing, he simply does whatever he wants. And the people, the Congress, and the military simply let him: we obey the process. And he can do absolutely anything he wants, no matter what anyone says, and that's why we're in the terrible fix we're in. Nobody can say no to him, stop, don't.

Bush is raping the country.

[ranger]

War on Iran won't come anytime soon because too many dumbasses think we should wait for definitive proof before attacking Iran. Unfortunately, this form of proof usually comes in the form of a mushroom cloud and a shitload of radiation. That's usually the point where it's a little too late to do anything about it.