If Bush launches a major military attack on Iran, would you support a Dem candidate who supported

[Douglas Carpenter]

Poll question: If Bush launches a major military attack on Iran, would you support a Dem candidate who supported

the attack?

[daninthemoon]

1. Have any candidates or congressiona leaders spoken out yet?

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. they have been rather vague about it for the most part.

[jillan]

30. Biden has ----

At the CNN debate with Wolfie -
saying we have plenty of time for diplomacy.

Watch. Only 1 min 15 sec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LISgWet3eU

[MADem]

2. How loaded is that question? It's totally worthless absent some qualifiers

Why is BushCo attacking?

They want oil? They want to put Babyshah back in charge? The crazyass Midget Mayor has sent a bunch of pasaradan over here to blow up Montessori schools? They captured a bunch of our guys, dragged them over the border, and are executing them on TV, one at a time? The Saudis have promised four dollar gas if we don't do a major air war action against them??

I mean...really...what's the REASON???

There's a big diff between the Day That Will Live in Infamy and "Er...no WMDs over here...lemme look under the desk....heh heh..."

Just tossing the question out like that with no construct associated with it is crazy, and useless.

It's like me asking you "Do you like what's on the menu for lunch?" and insisting on a yes or no, when you have no idea what is on the menu, or even which restaurant I'm referring to....

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. I'm certain the Bush Administration or any administration would offer all kinds of reasons.

Obviously they will site Iran's nuclear program which they will maintain is a nuclear weapons program.

Obviously they will quote some of the wild comments from the current Iranian President

Obviously they will claim that Iran is a threat to Israel and America's allies in the region

Obviously they will talk about Iranian support for terrorism

Obviously they will talk about Iran's abysmal human rights record

Obviously they will say it is to assure peace and security

Obviously they will say they want to bring a bright new day of democracy to the Iranian people

It does not take a lot of imagination to predict what the given reasons will be

It is safe to guess that they will not say it is because they want to control the oil and want to dominate the region

[MADem]

5. No, not "obviously" at all. No one's gonna buy that shit.

That's just dumb.

Even Monkey taught us the "Fool me once...unnnnh... heh, heh .... ummmmm... won't git fooled aGIN!!" lesson.

Ya wanna start a war? Really? Arrange for something that looks like Iran to attack our allies, the Saudis, with the stated goal of taking over guardianship of the Holy Places.

That'll light the keg off faster than you can say "Awwww, FUCK!!!"

And it won't be land forces. If you've ever been to Iran, you'd know that ain't on. It would be a "bomb them into the stone age" exercise.

And it won't just be US jumping on that wagon train--we're not the only ones who like the House of Saud running the Big Gas Station over on that end of the world.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. I would guess that they would claim that Iran is on the brink of having the bomb

and then they would quote some of the Iranian Presidents more wild statements.

They would attempt to conjure up images of nuclear clouds or a second holocaust.

They would then make the case that it is now or never. Because if we wait any longer it would be too late.

Or they might simply open with a massive air assault and attempt to defend it later. I would ventue a wild guess that much of the msm and many leading Dems would fall in line.

This from Chris Hedges:

"Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, was the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. He spent seven years in the Middle East and reported frequently from Iran"

Iran: The Next Quagmire - link to full article: http://www.alternet.org/audits/61521/?page=2

"The Pentagon has reportedly drawn up plans for a series of airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran. The air attacks are designed to cripple the Iranians’ military capability in three days.

The Bushehr nuclear power plant, along with targets in Saghand and Yazd, the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, a heavy-water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak, the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit, and the uranium conversion facility and nuclear technology center in Isfahan, will all probably be struck by the United States and perhaps even Israeli warplanes. The Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran molybdenum, iodine and xenon radioisotope production facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, and the Kalaye Electric Co. in the Tehran suburbs will also most likely come under attack.

But then what? We don’t have the troops to invade. And we don’t have anyone minding the helm who knows the slightest thing about Persian culture or the Middle East. There is no one in power in Washington with the empathy to get it. We will lurch blindly into a catastrophe of our own creation.

It is not hard to imagine what will happen. Iranian Shabab-3 and Shabab-4 missiles, which cannot reach the United States, will be launched at Israel, as well as American military bases and the Green Zone in Baghdad. Expect massive American casualties, especially in Iraq, where Iranian agents and their Iraqi allies will be able to call in precise coordinates. The Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, will be shut down. Chinese-supplied C-801 and C-802 anti-shipping missiles, mines and coastal artillery will target U.S. shipping, along with Saudi oil production and oil export centers. Oil prices will skyrocket to well over $4 a gallon. The dollar will tumble against the euro. Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon, interpreting the war as an attack on all Shiites, will fire rockets into northern Israel. Israel, already struck by missiles from Tehran, will begin retaliatory raids on Lebanon and Iran. Pakistan, with a huge Shiite minority, will reach greater levels of instability. The unrest could result in the overthrow of the weakened American ally President Pervez Musharraf and usher into power Islamic radicals. Pakistan could become the first radical Islamic state to possess a nuclear weapon. The neat little war with Iran, which few Democrats oppose, has the potential to ignite a regional inferno.

We have rendered the nation deaf and dumb. We no longer have the capacity for empathy. We prefer to amuse ourselves with trivia and gossip that pass for news rather than understand. We are blinded by our military prowess. We believe that huge explosions and death are an effective form of communication. And the rest of the world is learning to speak our language."

link to full article: http://www.alternet.org/audits/61521/?page=2

-----------
Here is a short video with Eric Alterman discussing lobbying efforts to win Democratic Party support or at least acceptance of attack on Iran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nch43wy8Zb8

_________________

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

.

[MADem]

8. Well, that's a cousin to my scenario--all about airstrikes, like a big version of what Israel did to

Iraq many years ago.

Truth is, we know they aren't even close to having the bomb, because we've sold them crappy plans that aren't quite right. They'll be at it for YEARS. And no one's likely to help them, because they're CASH POOR.

Iran right now is rationing gasoline because they have no refining capacity. They import -- yes, import -- half the gas they use.

Inflation is rampant. Their infrastructure is so fucked up it isn't funny. The old Reza Pahlavi Air Base in Esfahan hasn't had a coat of paint since the Shah left--and that's one of their "premiere" :rofl: facilities.

The Russkies have plans for half their nuke plants and labs--heck, they built a lot of them.

I think my trumped up war scenario is easier to justify, and if you're gonna do it (and I'm not sold on that, either--yet, anyway) it's easier to use a routine that worked--a Gulf of Tonkin for the Arabian Gulf, if you will.

If we hit Iran, it won't be war, it'll just be a brushback pitch. And we'll only do it if the Saudis tell us to, because they're the ones who will tell everyone else in the hood to chill out.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. I agree that the plans would be an absolutely massive air campaign

but the agenda which has been verified by a wide variety of sources ranging from Sey Hirsch and Scott Ritter to former Sen. Sam Nunn would be regime change with the crazy idea that a massive air bombardment would cause Iran to implode.

So far the evidence has been that increased American saber rattling has had the opposite effect. Remember the much more cautious Khatami was President of Iran, when Bush came out with his "Axis of Evil" inclusion in the January 2002 State of the Union address. So far the evidence has been threats only unite the Iranian people and silence the opposition. That even seems to be to what happened in American after 9/11 albeit in a somewhat different way.

But even if Iran did implode and the regime splintered, what then? Even a limited goal of disarmament would be highly unlikely given Iran's massive network of underground tunneling and its use of weapon positioning in unapproachable terrain in a complex geography with a country of 70 million people. The political reaction and sense of victimization within Iran and the larger Shiite world would last for a thousand years.

Iran has a massive array of not-so-long range missiles quite capable of hitting the desalinization plants and the oil refineries in the Gulf states and of course the oil tankers on the Gulf. It would be quite surprising if they did not let loose a barrage of missiles into the Green Zone in Baghdad and other American and British facilities in Iraq.

Quite frankly I am in the Gulf at least six months of every year. It is absolutely true that the Saudis, the Gulf Arabs and Sunni Muslims and Sunni Arabs in general have no love for Iran much less the current government in power. Even most Palestinians and Egyptians loathe the Iranians. And it true that they all greatly fear them. However, I have never met a single one who would support a military attack on Iran given the likely consequences. I have never met a single one who doubts for a second that an attack on Iran would lead to anything but a regional catastrophe.

In the wake of an attack firing a barrage of missiles at Israel would be a very likely possibility. This would be something way beyond the scuds Saddam used. If this happens I suspect a whole series of chain reactions would follow.

Needless to say any obscure hope of stabilizing Iraq would be off the table perhaps forever. Lebanon would be a huge question mark and could likely implode. The Shiite reaction throughout the Arab world and even Pakistan could create quite a disaster.

_____________________________


"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. ,

[MADem]

34. I guess I have a different perspective, is all. I see the string pullers as not

BushCo--they're just thugs around the table. The string pullers here are the House of Saud. They rented an army, and they want value for their petrodollar.

What they have to lose should Shi'a hegemony take hold is nothing short of ENORMOUS. It's why Cheney was summoned over there, and got an asswhipping not too long ago because US troops were not FAVORING the Sunnis in Iraq; it's why the King decided, "Naaaah, I don't want to attend that state dinner they've been planning for me for over a YEAR!" That was a tremendous face-slap to the US, only the people over here are so obtuse that they didn't get it, or even, really, NOTICE it...but the rest of the world did.

If we go into Iran (and by that I mean fly over it and bomb it, not do the grunt work), it's not because 'BushCo' had designs on their oil--it's because the guys who run OPEC, who control that jawbone-worthy spigot, who are first amongst OPEC equals, the guys in the rich thobes with the soft hands, have the power, and the ability to make a sitting VP cancel meetings, change his schedule at a moment's notice, drop everything, turn on a dime, and hop on a plane and fly all night to go over to a desert nation to kiss ass. They tell the government of the Oil Junkies to jump--and BushCo says "How high?"

The House of Saud is pulling our string, and pulling our chain. Now sure, we could go tell them to fuck off, and we'd be paying what the Europeans pay for gas in very short order. That difference between the US "discount price at the pump" and the European price is the cost of renting a Superpower Army.

Add to this mess the Chinese and the Russkies, who get friendlier with Iran by the day, and who also have energy needs. We might have gone beyond the assertions postulated in that hubris-laden "The End of History" thesis, all the way to "Those Who Forget Their History ARE Condemned to Repeat It--Middle Eastern Edition."

A proxy throwdown could result, with the divisions purely along good old "Holy War" lines--Shi'as on one side, Sunnis on the other, supplied and guided by the Big Boys who play it like a dangerous chess game.

Chaldean Catholics, Druze, Yazidis, Zoaroastrians, oddlot Islamic and Islamic-lite sects that fall in the middle will make loads of money playing both sides against the middle.

If you look at recent arms sales, all of the "Sunni Bunch" who are friendly to the House of Saud have been buying, hand over fist. Money is no object, my friend!!! Jordan's big army is getting bigger. Same deal with the armies of the smaller states. They're actually TRAINING, too. If there are boots on the ground in Iran, they won't be American boots this time.

We'll be the crowd shipping in the advice and the weaponry. For as long as the guys in the thobes tell us to, and even longer if/when the shi'a crowd gets backing of their own, because that's when the powderkeg gets lit off, potentially. Turkey will get their chance to be a Big Cheese, if they want to stick their beak in.

From a BushCo perspective, this is good for the economy--you just can't end a war and not have all the people producing goods for that war lose their jobs, now!! Heaven forbid that these companies actually diversify and go with the market... For them, this is a 'perfect' solution--keep those folks employed, and let the Democrats take the blame if or when they refuse to play ball with the status quo in the ME, and DARE to resort to diplomacy. All those people working in the arms and military support sectors lose their jobs, The House of Saud jacks up their oil price if we stop playing ball, and many Americans are cold in the winter. I can see them rubbing their hands together in glee already...The D's get the blame, and they do some sweet profit-taking in the interim.

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. actually I do not totally disagree with your analysis...and I will say this

The Saudi government controlled news services and the official news services throughout most of the Sunni-Arab world have taken on a very anti-Iranian tone lately. They are even more vociferous about blaming the troubles in Iraq on Iranian interference than the American mainstream media. There is of course an obvious self-serving motive at work in this. By blaming Iran for the troubles in Iraq it removes attention from the well known fact that most foreign insurgent fighters are private volunteers coming from the Gulf states.

There is no doubt that many if not most Sunni-Arabs including if not especially the Saudis do indeed feel threatened by Iranian/Shiite/Persian moves to become a secondary power in the region.

What I have not heard is any desire for war. They recognize firstly that though Iran is certainly becoming a formidable force by Middle East or third world standards it is still a far cry from American power; or Israeli power or even Turkish or Pakistani military might for that matter. And more importantly they recognize that Iran's military power is nonetheless quite capable of inflicting severe damage on the oil producing and oil transporting mechanism in the eastern gulf states that could set them back decades. They also recognize the danger of inflaming passions in the Shiite minorities within their own countries especially the oil rich Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia where they were the traditional majority and are now roughly 50% of the population.

From my vantage point they perceive that there is a lot more to lose in a war with Iran than the alternative of just accepting that Iran will have a bit more influence than they previously held. However much they may fear Iran and Shiites and Persians they perceive that it is far better to live with them having increased influence than to enter into a conflict that has the potential if not the probability of engulfing the entire region in a war with completely unpredictable outcomes. After all, they live there. I often wonder how cavilier certain Americans would be about going to war if it meant their towns and cities would be in the line of fire and the on-the-ground-reality of the outcome would be far from certain. That is what they face.

[MADem]

42. When Saddam started up that Iraq-Iran dustup that was one of the longest wars of the last century

he was alternating between sabre rattling and placating up till the last minute. And when he placated, there was no one better with the "Who wants an awful war?" line!!

The Saudis don't want to get their hands too dirty--they don't 'do' war, they hire others to do it for them. They want their servants to fight them over there--two countries over, to be precise--so they don't have to fight them at home. If they're softened up with a little strategic bombing, courtesy of Monkeyboy's Air Force, that'll keep them nicely caged. Then they can send in their local pals, all with lists of grievances, or wanting to 'help,' or maybe do some peacekeeping, if, heaven forfend, something "happens" to their leadership. If they need boots on the ground, it won't be us, though. Time for Jordan to start earning all that cash their wealthy cousins send over the border.

The House of Saud is VERY worried about the little challenges the Shi'a are making about those Holy Places they own, suggesting to their faithful that the House of Saud is insufficiently worthy of the task, or that the duties should be shared, or what have you. They don't like the old "If WE had guardianship, it would be ON TO JERUSALEM next!" which suggests that they are a bunch of indolent, less-than-faithful types.

They don't like any discussions along these lines, because they are an insult to their standing in the region, have potential to reduce their power enormously, and those places are major moneymakers--they're a gift that keeps on giving. But the Iranians keep poking them with that stick--deliberately.

Those Saudis aren't stupid--they know what's best for themselves. And they've been walking a fine line for quite some time now. They recently banned al-Hayat, too. It's getting more repressive in the Desert Kingdom, not less...and that, in itself, is interesting.

As for Iran, the gas rationing due to insufficient infrastructure, the inflation, the shitty quality of life--all of this "We're Better Than the Saudis!!" shit whips up that nationalistic fervor which serves to distract from the fact that stuff costs too much, and gas is actually getting EXPENSIVE for the average Iranian.

Iranians DO have that nationalism thing going on, in spades. Some of them are as dumb when it comes to that as some of us are with the mindless "USA" chants. It doesn't matter if it's Shah, Khomeini or Khatami saying "We're the GREATEST!"--they DO love to hear that shit. And they need to hear it now, because life is pretty sucky in Iran these days. It ain't going well. Haul out the Bread and Circuses--ooops, we gave all the bread to the Mullahs and the widows/orphans from the last Great War...

But I still don't see any war with Iran as an American show, really, beyond doing some bombing. We're the public face of it, maybe, because we're the favorite demons of the Islam set, but there's way more going on here than is apparent.

In fact, the quiet, subtle Saudi piece of the puzzle is probably the most significant bit. And this shit started up in earnest right around the time that Bandar Bush decided he needed a change in scenery.

This is all about a Sunni pushback to a Shi'a challenge that's been going on for too long--and it's not just the Saudis who are irritated. Jordan ain't happy either, nor are any of the other petit monarchies and dictatorships in the region. It's got all the makings of A Holy War between two sects, if you will. I also don't think they want Iran to have ANY more clout in the region, and they think what they have is already too much--give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile. I think they're close to, if not at, the "Enough!" point. And that's where the US comes in, unless they can find another way...

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. so far I unaware of any lobbying from the Saudis or any other Arab state

for an attack on Iran. There are still commercial flights going back and forth every day -- several times a day -- from all the major Gulf state cities and various destinations in Iran. Both private tourist and commercial visitors from Saudi and the other Gulf states still visit Iran all the time and have complete freedom of movement. President Ahmadinejad visited both Riyadh and the UAE in early May in an effort to reduce tensions. This news was favorably reported in the Saudi press and throughout the Arab world.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=900&id=341432007

I am only aware so far anyway of only one country in the region and its backers in American favorable to a war with Iran. Granted President Ahmadinejad extreme rhetoric does not help matters.

Eric Alterman commented on these lobbying efforts in a recent interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nch43wy8Zb8

[MADem]

45. They're all buying arms hand over fist.

And Jordan has no money--they're like a poor relative, supported by SA. SA is paying their bills, and paying for their weaponry. They are actually TRAINING their massive army for a change.

In addition to the shitloads of stuff that has already made its way over there, BushCo wants to be sending along more, still: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=30628

This was originally a NATION article, fwiw.

Under the guise of promoting a "security dialogue" in the Persian Gulf, the Bush Administration has proposed $63 billion in arms transfers to the Middle East over the next ten years.

As is so often the case, team Bush seems to prefer to let the weapons do the talking, even when it claims to be engaging in diplomacy. The foundation of the deal is a pledge to sell $20 billion worth of high-tech arms to Saudi Arabia and the other oil-producing states in the Gulf. Items in the package reportedly include upgrades to Riyadh's U.S.-supplied fighter planes, satellite-guided bombs and combat ships. To ease any concerns about the Gulf buildup, the plan calls for increasing military aid to Israel and Egypt to $3 billion and $1.3 billion per year, respectively. That's $43 billion in U.S. taxpayer support over the next decade.

Why pour more weapons into the region now? The principal rationale appears to be to send a message to Iran that it must bend to U.S. pressure to end its nuclear program, stop the alleged flow of Iranian weapons to Iraqi insurgents and cease its support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Otherwise, the argument goes, not only will Tehran face the prospect of U.S. military action but it will also be surrounded by neighbors armed with top-of-the-line U.S. weaponry. The arms package will be seen as even more provocative by Iran in light of the latest move in the Bush Administration's campaign to turn up the pressure on the regime: the recent decision to label its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.

Threatening Iran with military strikes and arms sales to potential adversaries is more likely to spur Tehran to add to its own arsenal....Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have tried to paper over the real intent of the deal by arguing that it will promote "stability" by bolstering moderate regimes. This is a strange assertion, especially as regards Saudi Arabia. The most recent Human Rights Watch Saudi report points out that "the government undertook no major human rights reforms in 2006, and there were signs of backsliding in issues of human rights defenders, freedom of association, and freedom of expression." Sending more weapons will not reverse these trends, which does not bode well for long-term stability in the Saudi kingdom.

In Egypt, decades of U.S. aid have had no positive impact on human rights or democracy. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak runs a quasi-Stalinist regime that won 88 percent of the vote in the last national elections while jailing numerous democracy advocates. As the U.S. State Department has acknowledged, torture is still widely practiced in Egyptian prisons, while Cairo's overall human rights record is described as "poor." Rewarding the Egyptian government with an increase in U.S. military aid is tantamount to condoning these repressive practices -- practices that are producing a popular backlash that could eventually lead to the end of the regime. If that happens, whatever government comes to power next will inherit huge stockpiles of U.S.-supplied weaponry.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=26000

This one's an interesting take--of course, the Saudis stay at arms' length here, but consider the source--the author is a Lebanese - American analyst:

The 30-billion military aid to Israel, a 25 % increase over the last ten year period, will be easily approved by Congress. For Congress, Israel, a reliable ally, can do no harm with more weapons.

The thirteen billion dollar aid to Egypt is likely to be contested, but it will ultimately be approved because Egypt, one third of the Arab world’s population, has had a peace treaty with Israel since 1979.

The twenty billon dollar arms sale assigned to the Gulf countries will be opposed by human rights groups, by friends of Israel and by Americans who want Saudi Arabia to be more vigilant in the war on terror. But in the end, Washington’s fear mongering directed towards Iran will facilitate the legislative authorization of the sale of advanced weapons to Arab countries which have no knowledge of how to use them.

Marketing of products sometimes requires a culture of survival anxiety. This is often how medicinal drugs are sold. Legislation for sale of arms also has its slick marketing in America: make the product indispensable. Regrettably, in order for the U.S. to sell arms and maintain its dominance of the region, Iran has become the focus of demonization....It takes an accident-prone, provocative Iranian regime and a short-sighted American Administration to misread each other and to create a new cold-war atmosphere in the Middle East. Iran decides to escalate its rhetoric against Israel and threatens to mobilize a controversial nuclear defense program. Iran meddles too deeply in Lebanon and in Palestine. By taking these provocative steps, Iran becomes marketable in the American media as a dangerous and evil empire.

It is not only Iran that is provocative. The U.S. decides to invade Iraq for no good reason. Then the U.S. and Israel threaten to attack Iran for no convincing causes. America mobilizes Sunni-minded Arab regimes to consider Iran as a Shia-obsessed enemy.

Conveniently, America explains the Iraq civil war to the world as a product of growing power of the Shia community.

Do we have the elements of a new cold war? Iran is made to look like the Soviets. Iraq replaces Vietnam.....The cold-war paradigm follows a business model. Organizationally, the previous order of the cold war was based on how each of the two rival superpowers created a “client state” system. In return for foreign aid the client state compromised its sovereignty by complying with dictated foreign policy. The U.S. was allied with right-wing client states throughout the world, and the Soviets were allied with left-wing regimes. Both superpowers actively and covertly manipulated regime changes.

Other actors aren't wasting any time, either:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1187502426818&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Israel continues to express its displeasure with Moscow over arms sales to Syria, but has no interest in "pushing the envelope" with the Kremlin over the issue, Israeli diplomatic officials have made clear in recent days. ... Nevertheless, the issue of Russian-made weaponry in the hands of Hizbullah was a source of tension between Jerusalem and Moscow following the Second Lebanon War, with Israel urging Russia to stop supplying arms to Syria and Iran because some of those weapons ended up in Hizbullah's arsenal during the war.

The Chinese are in there, too. It's a frigging gravy train. Ka-ching, ka-ching--they'll ride it till it goes off the rails.

Didn't we do this shit a few decades back? Am I in that small cadre of folks, I wonder sometimes, without historical amnesia?

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. they have always wanted to buy more weapons...as it is a sign of prestige

for their governments. Now they have the money. They have considerably less opposition from the Israeli lobby. They have active encouragement by the U.S. Administration to make these purchases. Obviously the arms manufacturers and dealers are more than happy to make the sales. And no doubt it would be perceived as a genuine deterrent.

They also have large new medical centers going up all over which frequently overlap the work already being conducted by other medical centers in their immediate area. Brand new vast shopping complexes are going up all over the place even though the vast majority of shops in those complexes cannot possibly be selling enough just to pay their rent. At the moment they simply have a whole lot of money to flaunt.

The reality is, instability in the region, the situation in Iraq and fear of war with Iran are all helping to drive up oil prices and sustain those record prices and record revenues.

It is a peculiarity of the way things work that fear of war with Iran creates a massive windfall in the form of massive increases in oil revenue and as long as that fear is maintained without actual military strikes this massive increase in oil revenues will maintain.

However, there is a difference between fear of war which produces billions upon billions of dollars for the oil exporters, and an actual war which could very likely severely damage the oil infrastructure and put an end to this massive windfall for quite some time.

Again, I am unaware of any lobbying effort whatsoever by any of the Arab states for actual military strikes on Iran. There is a great deal of lobbying favoring actual military strikes on Iran. But as far as I can tell, it is certainly not coming from any Arab states. After all they would be in the direct line of fire and they would have much to lose both in terms of human casualties which could be enormous and massive damage to their oil exporting facilities and national infrastructure.

[MADem]

51. Jordan does NOT have the money. They NEVER have the money.

They struggle with a faltering economy, and are in perpetual deficit. They continue to exist, and maintain a halfway nice lifestyle, because they do EXACTLY what their cousins in the House of Saud tell them to do, and in return, the House of Saud mitigates their never-ending deficit. Remember when King Abdullah snubbed al-Maliki? He did it because his cousins in the Desert Kingdom TOLD him to. These aren't willy-nilly purchases by Jordan, or even by SA for Jordan, and this isn't just the "prestige" game. Like I said, Jordan has a massive standing army, and it's getting bigger. AND they're training in earnest for a change--we haven't seen that since the Arab - Israeli war era.

And Egypt doesn't have a ton of money to throw around, either. They aren't on that oil gravy train. They're getting their arms--a massive buy, too--from Uncle Sam in a Foreign Military Sales package--which is to say, deeply discounted.

Make of it what you will. I see it as all of a piece. Threats and promises are as good as actions in some regard, and the squeeze IS on.

We'll have to wait and see what the results are, I suppose.

[Douglas Carpenter]

57. Exactly, Jordan and Egypt can buy expensive American weapons ONLY because of American aid

And I don't think you or anyone else would suggest that this aid is supplied without strings attached.

But still even in the case of Jordan and Egypt, I am unaware of ANY evidence that either these countries or the Saudis or any of the Gulf states or ANY Arab states are lobbying for a military attack on Iran. There is certainly no evidence that the populations of these countries or ANY Arab countries want a military attack on Iran.

There is ONLY one country in the region that wants a military strike on Iran. And it is not an Arab or Muslim country. At least I have never seen any evidence to the contrary. And granted as I said before, President Ahmadinejad's big mouth does not help matters. Even most of the Shiites I know say that. President Ahmadinejad is the George W. Bush of the Middle East when it comes to playing on the emotions of the more naive and gullible elements of his domestic constituency with little or no regard for how lose lips can quite literally sink ships. And George W. Bush was pumping out the extreme language of threats, bullying and intimidation long before President Ahmadinejad was President and then President Khatami was publicly calling for peace and reconciliation.


.

[MADem]

60. But the US is NOT funding Jordan!!!!!! The House of SAUD is.

The SUNNI House of Saud. The House of Saud that is, and wants to remain, the Guardians of the Holy Places, the ones anointed by Allah and Blessed by Muhamad to so do.

And the Jordanians? They're the ones closest to the action, as it were. They're the ones at the beck and call of the House of Saud. And they're the ones with the "most ready" military of late.

The Egyptians get their money because that is the price of peace with Israel--but, if the events spin up in a particular fashion, they might need them for other reasons, and they want them as insuranc, as they could have a Sunni dog in this fight, too. They much prefer doing business with their ARAB brothers in SA, as opposed to those Iranian interlopers who follow an heretical and completely wrong-headed notion of Islam (so they say), don't speak their language and have different customs. They're concerned about Shi'a hegemony, too.

I don't see Bush as the main player here. He's a player, but he is just one player of several. And the "deciders" -- no matter how beautifully they hide their intentions with smiles, placations and soft words (and they are better at that than ANYONE) -- are wearing thobes.

If they don't want war, it ain't gonna happen. If they do want war, it will.

They control that spigot that the monkey jawbones them about, remember?

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. actually Jordan is the fourth-largest receipient of U.S. military aid in the world

link:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/militaryaid/report.aspx?aid=869

"after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks Jordan received $2.7 billion in military aid from the U.S. government, a 170 percent increase from the roughly $1 billion it received in the three years prior to the attacks; it is now the fourth-largest recipient of U.S. military aid, after Israel, Egypt and Pakistan. Jordan was also one of the countries that the United States reimbursed, with little congressional oversight, for its help in Iraq and Afghanistan. "

[MADem]

71. But SA is the country that plussed them up. Not us. NT

[Douglas Carpenter]

78. but do you have ANY evidence from ANY credible sources that the Saudis or ANY Arab country is urging

a military strike on Iran?

If you do, I would certainly look at it with an open mind.

I am certainly well aware that the most of the Sunni-Arab and Sunni-Muslim world have no love for Iran and do indeed fear them. But that is a far cry from supporting or wanting a military strike. Although if America was to carry out such a strike, I don't doubt that many such countries would bow to American pressure to cooperate.

I have yet to talk to one single Arab or Muslim person in the region who does not strongly oppose such a strike. I have yet to talk to one single Arab or Muslim person in the region who does not believe that the results would be anything less that a catastrophe for everyone.

However, if you do have any evidence to the contrary from credible sources, I would certainly be interested to see it.

[harun]

17. The reason is irrelevant

Why? Because it is going to be a manufactured reason and not the truth, just like WMD's in Iraq.

Persians haven't attacked anyone in like 500 years. Unless they are attacking us, it isn't a valid reason. And no Bush's army commanders in the field saying they saw a mark on a gun that proves its from Iran isn't going to cut it. If Iran really wanted to cause trouble in Iraq things would be WAY WAY worse.

[MADem]

35. "Persians" have most certainly attacked people more recently.

Good grief!!! How about "just last week!!" Here, read: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/19172.html

But "Persian" or even "Islamic Government of Iran" isn't the appropriate category in this instance. The Party of God, or "Hezbollah" is the group that does the attacking in the region. That's the bunch that stirs the pot with no small amount of success --and they're funded by the IGI, trained by the Pasaradan leadership, and their ranks are peppered with Persians, too. What they all have in common, though, is that they're all SHI'A.

It's the Shi'a - Sunni line that people need to worry about--not "Iran" and America. This ain't really ABOUT us--we're just meddling, is all, because where there's war, there's money.

[eridani]

43. Hezbollah is strictly nationalist.

Sure, they'll take aid from anybody who wants to give it to them, but the organization originated in response to Israel's 1982 invasion, and that's what it stays focused on. Hell, half of their suicide bombers are secular, and a few are even Christian, ferchrissakes! They show Sunday Mass on their cable network.

[MADem]

46. No it isn't. Nasrallah is thick as thieves with Iran. To suggest otherwise just isn't accurate.

Hezb'allah would not EXIST in any meaningful way were it not for the funding they get from Iran. And despite what you hear about it all being private contributions, that's just not true--the Islamic government of Iran kicks in plenty, though less than they used to (because they're broke themselves lately).

That TV station, the schools, the clinics, all that nice stuff that makes people like them (and no, they don't discriminate, and they're nice to their other-faith neighbors so they won't gripe about them and go with other factions, but the goal is to foster Shi'a hegemony--not pump up the Christians) is paid for to no small extent with the almighty RIAL. Oh, and the weapons, too--can't forget the weapons: http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=5651

That kind of social work is par for the course over there--the Muslim Brotherhood did it in a big way, so does Hamas, so does Fatah. It's culturally ingrained to get your social services in a faith-based kind of way. Anyone in the neighborhood can use it, too.

All you have to do is look at Nasrallah's protege-mentor relationship with old Ayatullah Khomeini to see exactly where the focus is--he studied under the guy in Najaf, when Big K was in exile in Iraq in the late seventies, and later, in Qom (Iran--holy city --more like a town--between Teheran and Esfahan) when he was a fresh-faced lad back in the early eighties.

And even their own people don't deny they get a payday from Iran. It's obvious--always has been.

“It’s no secret that Hezbollah receives financial help from Iran, but not from Syria,” said Nabulsi. “Syria’s too poor. People always point to the fact that we get money from Iran, but don’t mention the fact that the United States gives US $3 billion a year to Israel.”

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=26242

It's probably best to just erase all those lines on the map, and look for great clumps of Shi'a and Sunni. Because that's where the flashpoints are gonna be if they ever get this party started over there. This isn't a Lebanon thing, and it's an Iran thing only to the extent that Iran is the country-sized equivalent of Vatican City for the Shi'a, and Iran is Shi'aLand, the Mother Church, if you will.

I certainly hope they find a diplomatic resolution, but I'm not holding my breath, to be honest. There's just too much tension and drama over that way of late.

[eridani]

47. Nasrallah didn't get to be head of Hezbollah until Israel did him the favor--

--of assassinating his much more moderate predecessor. Back to the inital statement that this counts as Iran waging aggressive war is just pure bullshit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/opinion/03pape.html?ex=1154750400&en=274cdd5c1cf26497&ei=5087%0A

ISRAEL has finally conceded that air power alone will not defeat Hezbollah. Over the coming weeks, it will learn that ground power won’t work either. The problem is not that the Israelis have insufficient military might, but that they misunderstand the nature of the enemy.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Hezbollah is principally neither a political party nor an Islamist militia. It is a broad movement that evolved in reaction to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in June 1982. At first it consisted of a small number of Shiites supported by Iran. But as more and more Lebanese came to resent Israel’s occupation, Hezbollah — never tight-knit — expanded into an umbrella organization that tacitly coordinated the resistance operations of a loose collection of groups with a variety of religious and secular aims.

In terms of structure and hierarchy, it is less comparable to, say, a religious cult like the Taliban than to the multidimensional American civil-rights movement of the 1960’s. What made its rise so rapid, and will make it impossible to defeat militarily, was not its international support but the fact that it evolved from a reorientation of pre-existing Lebanese social groups.

<snip>

In writing my book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0327/p13s01-woiq.html

Israel believed the Shiites of south Lebanon would be happy to see the back of Palestinian guerrillas whose presence had made life intolerable. Indeed, the Lebanese Shiites initially showered the invading Israeli troops with rose petals and rice. But the Israelis miscalculated about the Shiites, and the rice and rose petals soon turned into bombs and bullets.

"Beware the Shiites!" wrote Israeli journalist and peace activist Uri Avnery recently, predicting that US problems in Iraq will begin once the fighting is over. He gave an example of two trips he paid to south Lebanon in 1982. During the first visit, four days after the Israeli invasion, he recounted being greeted with "great" joy by Shiite villagers. A few months later, Mr. Avnery returned to Lebanon and found Israeli troops "now wearing bulletproof vests and helmets, many on the verge of panic. "What had happened? The Shiites received the Israeli soldiers as liberators. When they realized that they had come to stay as occupiers, they started to kill them," he wrote.



http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1188890.ece

"None of my family had seen Lebanon and I have not been back for 25 years," said 53-year-old Mr Mansouraty. "I was amazed by what has been achieved, the new buildings, the restaurants, the roads the great lifestyle. One only really appreciates that if one knew how devastated the place was. And now this.

"The Israelis have destroyed the buildings, the roads and that lifestyle. They have put the country back 30 years. I cannot believe this all happened because of the capture of two soldiers. This must have been months in planning.

"The only good thing is this; back in 1981 it was Christians fighting Muslims with the Israelis instigating much of it. This time the Israelis have united the people. I stayed in a Christian neighbourhood and people there opened up their homes to the Muslims."

Emile Maroud, also a Christian, believes there is an Israeli agenda aimed at stopping Lebanon making progress. He said: "I had no time for the PLO and I have no time for Hizbollah. But this is about more than that. Israel does not want to see another modern, progressive state in the region."



http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/pubs/20000901ib.html

Islamic extremists were never much of a factor in Lebanon prior to the 1982 U.S.-backed Israeli invasion and the subsequent direct U.S. military intervention in support of a rightist Lebanese government installed under Israeli guns. During this period, the more moderate Islamic and secular groups were largely destroyed; Hezbollah filled the vacuum.

This fundamentalist movement, which was responsible for the kidnapping of several Americans and other Westerners in the 1980s, rose from obscurity a little more than eighteen years ago to become one of Lebanon’s most powerful political groupings. Hezbollah receives the core of its support from the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Shi’ites who fled north into the slums of greater Beirut due to years of Israeli attacks.

U.S. officials greatly exaggerated the role of Syria in controlling and supporting Hezbollah. Syria has historically backed the rival Amal militia. The Iranian role was also inflated. These overstatements were largely intended to discredit a genuinely indigenous movement; one which had widespread support for its resistance efforts against a foreign occupation condemned across Lebanon’s diverse communities. The group did not even exist until four years after Israel began its occupation and heavy bombardment of southern Lebanon. Thus, Hezbollah is very much a manifestation of U.S. and Israeli policy. The perception of achieving a military victory, while those advocating a more moderate ideology and a diplomatic solution have failed, has enhanced Hezbollah’s status.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15819.htm

[MADem]

50. It doesn't matter when, Hezbollah and Iran are STILL, and always have been, thick as thieves.

And to suggest otherwise indicates either naivete or a partisan view.

I'm not interested in getting into the "why" of all that. I really could care about the actions of Israel or Syria, either.

I'm knocking down a statement you made. You averred that Hezbollah was "strictly nationalist" and I totally disagree. I say they're "strictly pro-Shi'a hegemony" and they have a longstanding, well documented, close relationship with Iran, who are the Mac Daddys of the hegemonic push. I'm not even commenting on whether this situation is "good" or "bad"--I'm just saying that it IS.

Your "Information Clearing House" cite is conveniently ignoring the millions in cash and arms that Iran provides to the group, and has for DECADES, to say nothing of the in-house training programs they've given them and the military advisors. It's no secret. They don't even deny it anymore.

[eridani]

52. Nationalism outweighs pro-Shia

Middle class Christian women sell their jewelry and donate the proceeds to Hezbollah, ferchrissakes! I'm not trying to say that Iran is not peddling its influence, but the original argument was whether this constitutes an aggressive attack on another state as we have done in Iraq and Israel has done to Lebanon. I say that asserting such an equivalence is idiotic. Besides which, Iran is getting far less actual control of Hezbollah for its money than they think they are.

[MADem]

61. No, it doesn't. Not at all. Why do you think the trend is towards ISLAMIC governments??

Because ISLAM outweighs any lines on the map. Especially lines that were drawn by western overlords.

Where are you getting these assertions? They're just not factual. At ALL.

[eridani]

64. I'm getting them from people who study Lebanon

Hezbollah has strong backing from the Sunni, Druze and Christian communities there because it is perceived as an organization than stands up for Lebanon. That support would vanish instantly if they started prioritizing trans-national Shi'ite alliances.

Iraq isn't having much luck with an Islamic government--is it supposed to follow Sunni Wahabism or one of the many Shi'ite factions? Shi'ites can't get there shit together in Iraq--why would they be able to on a regional basis? The current fighting in Basra is between several rival Shi'ite militias, some of which get Iranian backing and others of which don't. Prominent among the latter is Sadr's Mehdi Army, which appeals to poor young alienated men, the sort who were unable to sit out the Saddam era comfortably in Iran, and who don't make huge piles of cash peddling souvenirs at Shi'ite pilgrimage sites in Najaf and Karbala. Sadr is much more inclined to prefer the Sunni resistance to DAWA or SCIRI militias.

[MADem]

70. Iraq's government isn't really Islamic. It's Islamic-lite. I don't see any

turbans at the head table. After all, we wrote their lousy constitution--they painted over a veneer of Islam on it for the gripers. And their 'government' consists of a guy who says he's in charge, and a bunch of tribal sheiks and warlords who ARE in charge of their own little chunks of the country.

Shi'ites have their shit together (more or less) in the Mother Country, Iran, and that's where all this agita is coming from. But it has nothig to do with us--it's a regional thing. We stick our beak in because SA wants us to, and we want them to keep those spigots open.

As for Lebanon, Hezbollah can do pretty much what they want so long as they refuse to disarm--they dragged them into a war with Israel, after all. I rather doubt any faction other than Hezbollah thought that was a swell idea.

[eridani]

74. Maliki is the most pro-Iranian head of Iraq that has ever existed so far

SCIRI, right? Israel had that war planned at least a year before that silly kidnapping pretext, and Hezbollah's stock has risen dramatically ever since, as they were the only ones able to mount any resistance at all. Their cheapass "rockets" were such a horrible threat to Israel that the mayor of at least one northern Israeli town couldn't even find the keys to the bomb shelter due to long disuse.

[KaptBunnyPants]

23. Do you really need to know what the pretext for invasion will be?

Fine, I'll tell you. It will be whatever Dick Cheney thinks you are stupid enough to believe. Quit giving these guys a chance, they've already been exposed as war mongers who use deception to start unnecessary wars. Iran has never attacked us and never will, so whatever excuse our leaders use to justify the unprovoked attack will be a fabrication. You should remember the mistakes of the last group of "thoughtful" Democrats who put partisan politics aside to protect the country from the menace in Iraq; I'm sure you don't want to go down in life as a tool like they did.

[MADem]

36. Well, I find your perspective on the situation a bit provincial. The Arab world is not going to sit

by and let us run the show--they've seen how badly we fucked it up in Iraq. They're not stupid--they get the "Fool me once, won't git fooled agin" philosophy.

See my comments elsewhere upthread to get a sense of how I see this conflict. BushCo isn't "all powerful" --he's just a fascist (in the corporate sense, mind you) guy looking to do a little business. War is a business--a racket, and some people get rich if they can light one off.

I really don't get the little "nanny lecture" you threw out there at the end--I am not "giving these guys a chance" and you'd see that if you read what I wrote for comprehension.

Don't assume ADVOCACY when there is none there, OK?

And I'm not stupid, either. I lived over there, I know the history of the place better than most here, and my view is different from yours, because it isn't America-centric.

You think Bush has more clout than he actually has over that way. You ascribe to him more authority than merited. See, he's the guy who has to jawbone, and rent out his military, to get you your "cheaper than Europe" three buck a gallon gas. If he were so powerful, the House of Saud would be kissing our asses and gas would be a buck fifty--instead, we kiss theirs and pay twice that.

Bush wants in on any action that goes down over there, because he wants some of that oil, and he wants to make money in the meantime--our military-industrial complex is yanking in billions, thanks to Iraq. And if we do a good job, we'll get 'our' oil. If we don't, well, China and the former Soviets will get 'our' oil.

Bush thinks that he's gotta find another gravy train toute suite...one where all we have to do is drop bombs. Time to let the Navy and USAF earn their pay, because the USMC and Army are tapped the fuck out....That's the plan, IMO. And my "liking" it -- or not -- has nothing to do with it.

[KaptBunnyPants]

55. I never called you stupid.

I said Dick Cheney believes you are stupid, and that's why they offer up rationals for war which are absurdly false on the face of it. If I accused you of anything, it's being too trusting, which is a problem that affects people of all levels of intelligence. Suffice it to say, I believe the only reasonable response to our recent history is extreme cynicism toward proposals for military action. I must have misread your post to be making an argument you were not, probably due to the "day that will live in infamy" comment that sounded (to me) like you were giving credence to the idea that Iran is a threat to us. I apologize for being over-zealous.

[MADem]

62. Well, Dick Cheney is provincial, then.

And I am certainly not "trusting." I just have a very clear view of what the west doesn't seem to grasp--that religion really IS a big deal over there. And the Sunnis do not like the Shi'a--and vice versa.

I don't think Iran is a threat to "us" at all. But they are a threat to the continued health and well being of the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia--all you have to do is look at the map, and point to the spots where Shi'a are gathered in some numbers--they've got 'em surrounded.

The Guardians in Iran want control of the Holy Places at Makkah and Medina. They want to go "on to Jerusalem" (or at least they say that). Now, if they have control of those Holy Places, they have defacto control of the Kingdom. The Saudis work diligently to prevent that, but it's getting more difficult every day, as Islam is ascendant, lately, and the Shi'a are unusually fervent even on a slow day.

To SA, Iran needs to be knocked back in their box. They need to cut this regional hegemony shit out. How it happens is anyone's guess. But the front line folks with the most to lose (fact is, we get most of our oil closer to home--we like the Saudis because they keep the prices in check for us) are the Royal Family. And if war comes, THEY--not us--will be the ones making the decision (even if they play dumb like Shultz--which they are good at, too).

[harun]

68. It isn't so much that the shia and sunni don't like each other it is

that they favor different forms of government. Shia is more revolutionary and they have more of an institutionalized religious structure (like an organized church) than the sunnis and aren't afraid to make that part of a government. Sunnis keep their religion more of a flat organization (to put it in Western terms).

[MADem]

69. No, they don't like each other. It's why they deceive each other re: their

method of prayer when in an 'enemy' mosque. This goes back centuries, and it's over the line of succession from Muhamad.

And it's serious. That's why all those mosques are burning in Iraq.

[harun]

73. Well I am a sunni muslim who has had shia muslims

pray along with me and other sunni, so I say you are wrong.

The big beef sunni's have with them is they will pray to Ali, a person. Where sunnis will only pray to God. This a huge point for sunni's and shia and sunni's will not ever be reconciling these differences but the difference is not something that in itself will cause them to try and kill each other.

[MADem]

75. Yeah, all that peace and love had nothing to do with

these sorts of events:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022200454.html

Bombing Shatters Mosque In Iraq
Attack on Shiite Shrine Sets Off Protests, Violence

By Ellen Knickmeyer and K.I. Ibrahim
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, February 23, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD, Feb. 22 -- Bombers blasted the gilded dome of one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines into naked steel and gaping blue sky Wednesday in a provocative assault that roused tens of thousands of Iraqi Shiites into angry protests and deadly clashes.

The highest spiritual leaders of Iraq's Shiite majority simultaneously rallied and restrained the outrage of their followers after the attack on the Askariya shrine in Samarra, about 65 miles north of Baghdad. Though no casualties were reported, the bombing was the most destructive attack on a major shrine since the U.S. invasion, and Iraqi leaders said it was meant to draw Shiites and Sunnis into war. "This is as 9/11 in the United States," said Adel Abdul Mahdi, a Shiite and one of Iraq's two vice presidents.


....Sunni political leaders said retaliatory attacks hit more than 20 Sunni mosques across Iraq with bombs, gunfire or arson. Authorities reported at least 18 people killed in the aftermath, including two Sunni clerics. In one incident, in Basra in southern Iraq, police said gunmen in police uniforms broke into a jail, seized 12 Sunni men and later killed them, according to the Reuters news agency.

...................

Gunmen strike 27 Baghdad mosques, kill imams

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Gunmen targeted 27 Baghdad mosques and killed three Sunni imams Wednesday in the wake of a bomb attack at one of the holiest Shiite sites.

The wave of attacks followed an early morning bombing at the Al-Askariya "Golden Mosque" in Samarra. The strikes, involving small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and mortar rounds, all happened between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m., police said....Three of the mosques attacked in Baghdad were burned down, and in addition to the imams, three guards also were killed. One imam was kidnapped.

Security was beefed up around all mosques in Baghdad, police said, and Iraqi security forces across the country were placed on high alert. Officers on vacation or leave have been told to report for duty, police said.

The Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni party in Iraq, condemned all the violence and said Shiites had taken over Sunni mosques in the southern town of Diwaniya and arrested worshippers.

Meanwhile, gunmen stormed the party's southern Baghdad office, evacuated its employees and torched the building.

The largely Sunni insurgency has periodically targeted Shiite Arabs. Over the past year, Sunnis have accused the Shiite-led government of targeting them in raids.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/22/iraq.main/index.html

............................

Baghdad truck bomb kills dozens
At least 78 people have been killed and another 218 injured in a truck bomb attack near a Shia mosque in the centre of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
The massive explosion in the busy Sinak commercial district destroyed part of the al-Khilani mosque and sent large clouds of black smoke into the air.

It was the latest in a series of recent attacks on Shia and Sunni mosques...The explosion in Baghdad rocked the centre of the city and sent a big cloud of black smoke into the sky.


The bomb, reportedly packed into a truck parked outside the al-Khilani mosque, went off at a particularly busy time of the day. There were traffic jams leading up to a nearby checkpoint.

Witnesses said the effect was devastating, with the mosque's prayer hall being destroyed and several vehicles being set on fire. ....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6767427.stm

................

OSAMA bin Laden was last night being linked to the terror bomb which claimed 107 lives in Iraq's holiest city of Najaf.

Four foreigners - two of them from Saudi Arabia - were arrested yesterday by police investigating Friday's car bomb at the holy shrine of Imam Ali.

Iraqi police claimed that the four who were arrested close to the site of Friday's blast confessed to being involved in the bombing. They are also looking for four other Muslim men from outside Iraq.

A US security source said the four men, who all had connections to Al Qaeda, had been taken to Baghdad for interrogation. It is believed the motive for the car bomb is to keep Iraq in a state of chaos.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20030831/ai_n12873995




And just a week or so ago:

10 die in mosque bombing in Iraq
The suicide attack in Anbar province shatters a relative calm there. Sectarian violence is blamed in Shiite pilgrims' deaths.
By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 28, 2007
BAGHDAD — A suicide bomber detonated a vest packed with explosives in a Sunni Arab mosque in Fallouja on Monday, killing 10 worshipers, including the imam, and shattering what had been a period of relative calm for a region that was once the most volatile hotbed of Iraq's insurgency.

The attack at the end of evening prayers was blamed on the militant group Al Qaeda in Iraq by American military officials and a Fallouja police official.

The blast, which killed Imam Abdul-Sattar Jumaili and nine other men and injured 11, underscored the persistent violence gripping Iraq despite the recent U.S. troop buildup and a fresh pledge by contentious Iraqi government officials to work together.

Sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims was blamed for gun attacks that killed at least three Shiite pilgrims along a 50-mile route from Baghdad to a shrine in Karbala. Clashes between rival Shiite militias in Karbala left three dead and scores injured as the city filled with an estimated 1 million faithful for today's culmination of the annual Shabaniyah ritual, witnesses reported.



You can deny it all you want, but the situation on the ground over there is that it's Holy War. And it's Shi'a-Sunni Holy War...
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq28aug28,1,158968.story?coll=la-news-a_section

[harun]

77. They favor different forms of government, the fight isn't

over religious items it is over the form of the government.

[MADem]

80. It doesn't matter if they're fighting over line of succession, forms of government

(which is a BIG deal--democracy, constitutional monarchy, parliamentary system vs. let's cut off your hand, stone your women, and hang people from cranes in the public square) or anything else.

Bottom line: It's HOLY WAR.

[riona]

6. That would be a nightmare scenario

:hide:

[nevergiveup]

9. No, just like I am not supporting

any candidate who supported attacking Iraq. It is a no-brainer for me.

[Adelante]

11. Me, too

No-brainer.

[Totally Committed]

12. Of the current pack of candidates (except for the "unelectable" Kucinich and Gravel)...

*repeat after me*

NONE

OF THE

CANDIDATES

GIVES A

RAT'S ASS

WHAT YOU,

OR I, OR

ANY AMERICAN

THINKS

OR WANTS.

PERIOD.

WE DO NOT COUNT.

WE DO NOT MATTER.

Get used to it now, and avoid a LOT of buyer's remorse after the elections. They don't give a shit. All they want is to be elected. And, they feel all they need is the nomination, because WHO ELSE ARE WE GONNA VOTE FOR? They count on that. Why SHOULD they listen to our will? We are but a bunch of sheep, who can be ignored and disrespected over and over and over because WHO ELSE ARE WE GONNA VOTE FOR?

GET USED TO IT.

SUCK IT UP.

IT'S THE REALITY OF IT.

TC

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. harsh, but true

[Totally Committed]

14. No use gnashing our teeth and losing sleep over it...

None of the "electables" give a shit what we want about anything. All they want is our vote. They know all they have to do to get it is show up at the debates, sound like they know what they're talking about and act tough on security, because once we cast that vote -- WHO ARE WE GONNA VOTE FOR? The Republican? The Third Party candidate? They know most of the good little Democratic Party Do-bees will show up on election day and vote for the (D) no matter who it is, so they just have to make sure it's them.

Harsh? Yes. True? Definitely. And everyone who reads this, whether they will admit it or not knows I'm right.

TC

[redqueen]

16. Yup... but they sure look good on teevee!

:eyes:

[Totally Committed]

21. And, sadly....

that's what it's all about, isn't it?

Aaaaarrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TC

[redqueen]

24. Seems like it.

*sigh*

[slackmaster]

18. Not enough information for a meaningful reply

I'd have to see exactly why the attack was launched, what was being attacked and how, what exactly the word "major" means in this context, why those who supported it did so, etc.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. see post # 4 and 7 for the reasons. you can take your pick

[slackmaster]

22. Those preconditions arguable already exist, and he hasn't attacked Iran

So the whole discussion seems moot from my perspective.

[Totally Committed]

20. I dare any and all to watch and/or read this, and then say they'd vote for anyone who would support

Bush and his war with Iran, or his occupation of Iraq........

SPECIAL COMMENT By Keith Olbermann:

Bush just playing us with 'troop withdrawal'
'Revelation' contradicts every other rationale offered in the last 500 days

Sept 4, 2007

And so he is back from his annual surprise gratuitous photo-op in Iraq, and what a sorry spectacle it was. But it was nothing compared to the spectacle of one unfiltered, unguarded, horrifying quotation in the new biography to which Mr. Bush has consented.

As he deceived the troops at Al-Asad Air Base yesterday with the tantalizing prospect that some of them might not have to risk being killed and might get to go home, Mr. Bush probably did not know that, with his own words, he had already proved that he had been lying, is lying and will be lying about Iraq.

He presumably did not know that there had already appeared those damning excerpts from Robert Draper's book “Dead Certain."

“I'm playing for October-November," Mr. Bush said to Draper. That, evidently, is the time during which, he thinks he can sell us the real plan, which is “to get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence."

Comfortable, that is, with saying about Iraq, again quoting the President, “stay... longer."

And there it is. We've caught you. Your goal is not to bring some troops home, maybe, if we let you have your way now. Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal. You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq for another year, and another, and another, and anon.

Everything you said about Iraq yesterday, and everything you will say, is a deception, for the purpose of this one cynical, unacceptable, brutal goal: perpetuating this war indefinitely.

War today, war tomorrow, war forever!

And you are playing at it! Playing!

A man with any self respect, having inadvertently revealed such an evil secret, would have already resigned and fled the country! You have no remaining credibility about Iraq.

And yet, yesterday at Al-Asad, Mr. Bush kept playing, and this time, using the second of his two faces.

The president told reporters, “They (General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker) tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces."

And so, Mr. Bush got his fraudulent headlines today. “Bush May Bring Some Troops Home."

While the reality is, we know from what he told Draper, that the president's true hope is that they will not come home; but that they will stay there, because he is keeping them there now, in hope that those from his political party fighting to succeed him will prolong this unendurable disaster into the next decade.

But, to a country dying of thirst, the president seemed to vaguely promise a drink from a full canteen -- a promise predicated on the assumption that he is not lying.

Yet you are lying, Mr. Bush. Again. But now, we know why.

You gave away more of yourself than you knew in the Draper book. And you gave away more still, on the arduous trip back out of Iraq hours in the air, without so much as a single vacation.

“If you look at my comments over the past eight months," you told reporters, “it's gone from a security situation in the sense that we're either going to get out and there will be chaos, or, more troops. Now, the situation has changed, where I'm able to speculate on the hypothetical."

Mr. Bush, the only "hypothetical" here is that you are not now holding our troops hostage. You have no intention of withdrawing them. But that doesn't mean you can't pretend you're thinking about it, does it?

That is your genius as you see it, anyway. You can deduce what we want. We, the people, remember us? And then use it against us.

You can hold that canteen up and promise it to the parched nation. And the untold number of Americans whose lives have not been directly blighted by Iraq or who do not realize that their safety has been reduced and not increased by Iraq, they will get the bullet points: "Bush is thinking about bringing some troops home. Bush even went to Iraq."

You can fool some of the people all of the time, can't you, Mr. Bush? You are playing us!

And as for the most immediate victims of the president's perfidy and shameless manipulation of those troops -- yesterday sweating literally as he spoke at Al-Asad Air Base -- tonight, again sweating figuratively in The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death, the president saved, for them, the most egregious "playing" in the entire trip.

“I want to tell you this about the decision, about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground, not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media."

One must compliment Mr. Bush's writer. That, perhaps, was the mostly perfectly-crafted phrase of his presidency. For depraved indifference to democracy, for the craven projection of political motives onto those trying to save lives and save a nation, for a dismissal of the value of the polls and the importance of the media, for a summary of all he does not hold dear about this nation or its people nothing could top that.

As if you listened to all the "calm assessments" of our military commanders rather than firing the ones who dared say the emporer has no clothes, and the president, no judgment.

As if your entire presidency was not a “nervous reaction," and you yourself, nothing but a Washington politician.

As if “"he media" does not largely divide into those parts your minions are playing, and those others who unthinkingly and uncritically serve as your echo chamber, at a time when the nation's future may depend on the airing of dissent.

And as if those polls were not so overwhelming, and not so clearly reflective of the nation's agony and the nation's insistence.

But this president has ceased to listen. This president has decided that night is day, and death is life, and enraging the world against us is safety. And this laziest of presidents, actually interrupted his precious time off to fly to Iraq to play at a photo opportunity with soldiers, some of whom will on his orders be killed before the year maybe the month is out.

Just over 500 days remain in this presidency. Consider the dead who have piled up on the battlefield in these last 500 days.

Consider the singular fraudulence of this president's trip to Iraq yesterday, and the singular fraudulence of the selling of the Petraeus Report in these last 500 days.

Consider how this president has torn away at the fabric of this nation in a manner of which terrorists can only dream in these last 500 days.

And consider again how this president has spoken to that biographer: that he is “playing for October-November." The goal in Iraq is “to get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence." Consider how this revelation contradicts every other rationale he has offered in these last 500 days.

In the context of all that now, consider these next 500 days.

Mr. Bush, our presence in Iraq must end. Even if it means your resignation. Even if it means your impeachment. Even if it means a different Republican to serve out your term. Even if it means a Democratic Congress and those true patriots among the Republicans standing up and denying you another penny for Iraq, other than for the safety and the safe conduct home of our troops.

This country cannot run the risk of what you can still do to this country in the next 500 days.

Not while you are playing.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20593445/


Watch the clip at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x51858

We cannot continue to support those who vote with and enable Bush's horrendous "forever-war" agenda. Anyone who votes for a war with Iran or ANOTHER DOLLAR to fund the occupation in Iraq is NOT voting in OUR interest, but their own. They are complicit in the deaths of our soldiers and civilians on the ground, and by voting for them, just because there is a (D) after their name, so will you be. KNOW THAT.

You cannot be "anti-war" and support those who elect to fund and enable the war-mongers. You cannot say, they'd be better than any Republican would be, if they vote with the Republicans.

It is time to stand up and say NO FUCKING WAY. Only then will they think about maybe stopping.

Refuse to vote for those who choose to collude!

TC

[robinlynne]

25. Why don't you ask us what we think about Dems supporting the Iraq war?

Then send the results to our leaders...

[rateyes]

26. I was looking for the choice...

Not only no, but HELL NO!

[xxqqqzme]

53. I was looking for

Absofuckinglutely not!

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. one kick

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. one more kick

[Prince Paul]

29. *NEWSFLASH* ALL OF THE DEMOCRATS SUPPORT WAR WITH IRAN ,EXCEPT FOR......

Dennis Kucinich, Gravel too but he's not being very serious.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. I am not sure that they have all explicitly said that...but judging by everything they have said

I suspect that if the bombs began to fall, only Mr. Kucinich and Sen. Gravel would out and out oppose it

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seasat]

37. Richardson is against war with Iran

I posted about this in the last thread on a potential war with Iran.

He wrote an editorial on it in February and gave a detailed policy speech on dealing with Iran in June.

This statement from his February editorial is pretty clear.

Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate. But it is a good way to start a new war — a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world. A war that, furthermore, would destroy what little remains of U.S. credibility in the community of nations.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. thank you for that information

Although I don't agree with Gov. Richardson on a number of matters and he is certainly to the right of me; I do think that as a foreign policy professional he at least has basic knowledge of the region and some common sense that it is sadly lacking from many professional politicians.

[DemBones DemBones]

58. You're so right. Everybody else would go along

to get along.

[superkia]

33. Does he need there support this time around?

If he can do it without there votes, I would think they would say they are against it but still fund it. Well not all of them, you know the ones. Its not about what you do, its what you tell the people and how good you look telling them.

[nealmhughes]

38. No, and it would be the equivalent of the Kansas-Nebraska Act for the old Whig Party:

self-destruction of the party as it is currently constituted and the formation of a new one that might well take the "traditional" DP positions.

It is time for the left wing of the party to assert control of the local parties and committees, precinct leadership spots and to make the DINOs irrevelant anachronymistic characters. A new war for fun and profit would destroy the contry's economy, its status quo and be all around the worst thing that could happen -- worse than the status quo if we can envision that.

We would have no allies left. Period, none. I doubt even Howard could hold on in Canberra. Even Poland would not allow this without severe criticism.

I would do something I never thought possible, and that is become a "former Democrat" or a "Reformed Democratic Party" member; and there are a lot of others who agree, I am sure, should the Party as a whole allow such a move without the US being attacked outright by Iran or them declaring war upon us.

[More Than A Feeling]

40. If they haven't learned by now, they never will.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. kik

[AtomicKitten]

54. Hell no.

I won't support Hill and Edwards in the primary because of their vote on the IWR; if any of the Democratic candidates supports invading Iran they are dead to me.

ENOUGH!!!

[derby378]

56. No way in Hell

If all of our Democratic candidates were to support bombing Iran, I'd say that it was time to find a new candidate. George W. Bush must be impeached.

[Vidar]

59. Hell no!

[democratsin08]

65. yes

iran can not have nukes. i hope any dem candidate would see that iran doesnt get nukes

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. But Pakistan, India, and Israel can have nukes?

Ooooh-kay.

Actually, I think nobody should have nukes, but as the only country ever to have USED nukes in wartime, we have no moral high ground here.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. Any Dem candidate who supported an attack on Iran AFTER the mess

that the U.S. created in Iraq, would have allied himself/herself with the worst elements of the Republicanite party, and I could NOT in good conscience vote for such a person.

Some things are more important than party loyalty, and withholding my support from war crimes would be one of them.

What's the use of a Democratic candidate who wants to continue the disastrous foreign policies of the Repulicanites?

[TheFarseer]

72. they just HAVE TO know better at this point

You only get one mulligan on this with me. If you haven't learned your lesson enough to go along with this horrible error, then you are an IDIOT who will never learn.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

76. Iraq was bad, this would be the last straw

What I fear is, we probably will be going to war with Iran, and I question whether the Dems would stand their ground.

[Arugula Latte]

79. I want to know who the fuck is voting "yes" on this poll...

and then get a lynch mob after them... :grr:

[MasonJar]

81. I will NEVER vote against the democratic nominee for pres...NEVER!!!!

[Jed Dilligan]

82. I would be (secretly) supporting the military coup against Bush nt