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.

[esad]

[ QUOTE ]
The real lesson of viet nam was that you cannot occupy a country that does not want to be occupied. This is also the lesson of Iraq, Korea, Afghanistan, among many other examples through history. You can destroy it (perhaps) by exterminating every man, woman and child but you cannot occupy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally wrong. Where did you learn history? When will people stop comparing everything to Vietnam where is no real comparison? I'm also pretty sure the South Koreans would disagree with you.

As far as the OP goes, these reports look like the military is planning and being prepared for any contigency. That's what they do. Better to be prepared then caught with your pants down. Besides, this news also serves the purpose of telling Iran that we might be coming. It's a bit of a political scare tatic to see if they'll back off. If not then I'm sure the US willl push it a little harder.

If Iran continues with it's current path though and does develop or comes close to developing a nuclear threat then at the least I think you'll see some airstrikes to wipe out some of their nuclear ability. It fairly hard to predict what would happen after that though. It depends on how people react.

[ACPlayer]

Well, it was BluffThis that offered the VietNam lesson. Except he did not get it right.

Better to look for a history lesson from VietNam (you can offer your own) for occupying hostile countries than to look for a physics lesson from the Manhattan project for this endeavor, IMO.

[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.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
But we shouldn't be going there with some half-ass intention to "show them we're serious"

[/ QUOTE ]

How many civilians you propose to be killed this time?

[whiskeytown]

I was telling everyone in May we were going to hit Iran -

and that the battle plan would be aerial bombing of the north (where the Persians, Tehran, and the army likes to hang out) while military troops with assistance from Shitte Arabs will seize the southern oil fields in Khuzistan -

I was talking about this stuff in May - all the oil is in the South. I doubt Dubya will try another occupation of the entire country - now that he's learned there are sometimes two types of Muslim - [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

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.

CIA has been in the region for a while now setting up the bribes and infrastructure among the Arabs in Southern Iran (who have no love for their fellow Persian countrymen and will switch sides easily for a few good American bribes)



Interestingly enough - I do think Iran could be a threat someday but the moral bankrupcy of this administration would make any further pre-emptive military action a terrible idea till we get a more competant administration in power.

rb

[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.

[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.