Is Another War on the Way?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to say I'm neutral on this.

On one hand, I think Iran is a much bigger threat than Iraq was, although I believe they can still be deterred. They aren't under UN sanctions like Iraq was, they don't have weapon inspectors crawling up their butt, and they are much bigger on supporting terrorism than Saddam was. Throw on there that we're talking about a bombing campaign and blockade that is much easier than an invasion and an occupation and there are advantages.

On the other hand, we have the Bush Administration, whose spectacular incompetence in both intel gathering and execution has left me to doubt whether Iran actually has a serious nuclear weapons program and whether bombing them will do any good. A good opinion piece on this subject was written by Charles Krauthammer where he lays out the disadvantages and advantages. Plus, there is the whole "make love, not war" argument.

I don't know, I just don't know. But one thing I have learned from Iraq is, if we're not sure, we can't go.

One more thing about Krauthammer is that he is a pretty reliable indicator of what the neo-cons in the White House are thinking. He is speaking of a bombing campaign as though it was inevitable. The fact that he is willing to make arguments against a campaign that he favors proves this. Based on this, I would be willing to take 2-1 or 3-1 that the bombs will fall within Bush's term.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are going to fall, they will before the election. A rescue issue is needed.

At least that's how I would play a wager.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
If they are going to fall, they will before the election. A rescue issue is needed.

At least that's how I would play a wager.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. You remember what the main issue was before the 2002 elections? The GOP forced the bill to "authorize" the Iraq war immediately before that election. They waited until the off year to actually launch the invasion.

This is because the actual war is ugly. People die in war. Things get screwed up during war. We have seen during the Iraq war that war is hell, and the GOP knew that it was. What sells is the combination of fear and the thought that the GOP is doing something about it.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they are going to fall, they will before the election. A rescue issue is needed.

At least that's how I would play a wager.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. You remember what the main issue was before the 2002 elections? The GOP forced the bill to "authorize" the Iraq war immediately before that election. They waited until the off year to actually launch the invasion.

This is because the actual war is ugly. People die in war. Things get screwed up during war. We have seen during the Iraq war that war is hell, and the GOP knew that it was. What sells is the combination of fear and the thought that the GOP is doing something about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

except Karl Rove is promising an October Surprise, and the overall tenor and mood is such I am inclined to believe these men would escalate a conflict prior to midterms if they thought it would help them retain power.

There's a new book out speculating that the Iraqi Invasion was actually pushed forward to help with Midterms in 2002 - because the groundwork was laid before the elections, as you point out - I haven't read it yet but it would no doubt be an additional boost to elections - "How the War was Sold" - it looks good

reviews say it is a nice summary of the lies of the Administration from beginning to end - my copy is on it's way [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

rb

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
but all these guys really want is the oil fields, I think - a few Neocons may actually pine for the good old days when Iran was our own Colony in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't buy this. Look at what's happened in Iraq with Iraqi oil - how has Iraqi oil production changed since? Further, the logistics of physically occupying just Khuzestan, let alone occupying it and ensuring oil production reaches our borders, would be immense.

[SLP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but all these guys really want is the oil fields, I think - a few Neocons may actually pine for the good old days when Iran was our own Colony in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't buy this. Look at what's happened in Iraq with Iraqi oil - how has Iraqi oil production changed since? Further, the logistics of physically occupying just Khuzestan, let alone occupying it and ensuring oil production reaches our borders, would be immense.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't say that we'd be successful, just that we'd try.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but all these guys really want is the oil fields, I think - a few Neocons may actually pine for the good old days when Iran was our own Colony in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't buy this. Look at what's happened in Iraq with Iraqi oil - how has Iraqi oil production changed since? Further, the logistics of physically occupying just Khuzestan, let alone occupying it and ensuring oil production reaches our borders, would be immense.

[/ QUOTE ]

they are going do something with Iran, and they CANNOT occupy it like they do Iraq - no way - it would be obscenly costly both for civilians, US troops, and much more destructive - Iran has been known to raise BRIGADES of suicide troops - that's how they started turning the tide of the Iran/Iraq war before we started selling arms to our buddies in Iraq in the 80's

But if you have the population in the north and a massive inhospitable desert between you and the bombed out capital (which will probably look a lot like Lebanon when done), you would have a much easier time defending that part of the country there in the south. Just like Hitler retaking the Rhineland - just a little bump on our overall front line between Iran and Iraq -

Especially if you've been playing to the loyalities of the tribesmen in the area - this isn't a stretch - it's the same thing we did in Afghanistan and Iraq - we find a local insurgency or tribe with a desire to fight the head of the state and then we fund it and they become our allies vs. the main powers - just like the Afghan Rebellion and the Kurds in Iraq.

If we do what I think we're going to do, it'll be the third time we've done it in the Middle East under this president, so it is emminently doable.

rb

[John21]

I'm pretty sure our (U.S.) strategy is to keep the Middle East in a constant state of unrest. Play one side against the other and if any faction becomes too powerful - knock it down to keep an even par.

Whatever means justify those ends will more that likely be employeed. Our Mid-East policy hasn't changed for 30 or 40 years, despite the rhetoric.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure our (U.S.) strategy is to keep the Middle East in a constant state of unrest. Play one side against the other and if any faction becomes too powerful - knock it down to keep an even par.

Whatever means justify those ends will more that likely be employeed. Our Mid-East policy hasn't changed for 30 or 40 years, despite the rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Americans are totally ignorant of it -

they wonder why Iranians and Iraqi's hate America - well, let's see - for 30-40 yrs, we've sold weapons to one side so they could kill the other -

and we did it interchangably between the two sides for 30-40 years depending on whether they were our ally or not - and now we're going after them both and they want our blood as repayment.

sheeit - I'd hate us too.

rb

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they are going to fall, they will before the election. A rescue issue is needed.

At least that's how I would play a wager.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. You remember what the main issue was before the 2002 elections? The GOP forced the bill to "authorize" the Iraq war immediately before that election. They waited until the off year to actually launch the invasion.

This is because the actual war is ugly. People die in war. Things get screwed up during war. We have seen during the Iraq war that war is hell, and the GOP knew that it was. What sells is the combination of fear and the thought that the GOP is doing something about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points.