The coming war with Iran.

[sarcasmo]

The insanity of this corrupt Government never ceases to amaze me. The election is coming up in November and the Abramov scandal has pretty much been swept under the rug by the Iran war drums. The hard line leader of Iran is feeding right into the War Pigs hands. This situation is better than any MR Danger or Rove could dream up. My feeling is that something will happen prior to November, probably over the summer. Using fear is the way MR Danger was elected into power and they will use fear again during the midterm elections. How we combat the use of fear, will be the key to the Democrats winning back the House and Senate.

[graywarrior]

1. Soon as the dem leaders stop staring into the headlights and

grow some balls, things might be different. Til then, who knows.

[mopaul]

2. terror attack two looms large

[tatertop]

3. I can hear those war drums drumming

[sarcasmo]

4. I don't think it will be a terror attack, this war is enough, IMHO.

[thinkingwoman]

6. I agree....besides

they cannot risk an attack blowing their credibility on "keeping us safe."

[tatertop]

9. A fake Iranian terror attack would get Americans seeing red

It would make the sale so much easier.
Americans just might DEMAND war on Iran.

[Raydawg1234]

20. Another terror attack will not be good for Bush.

His whole fight them over there so we don't have to over here talking point will be made moot.
Percieved strength in "fighting the war on terror" is all Bush has left.

[thinkingwoman]

5. and it will be...

the straw that broke America's back.

It will be the executive branch equivalent of Congress's Terri Schiavo misstep. Watch and pass the popcorn.

:popcorn:

[tatertop]

7. They turn fear into American Pride and the desire for revenge!

They are very good at it. They are using the EXACT same
script used for Iraq. Barely a deviation.

[sarcasmo]

8. Exactly and this time they don't need WMD's they have the Idiot hard

line President of Iran making threats.

[tatertop]

10. Anyway Bush wants to see nukes go boom

He wants it he wants it he wants it!

[PassingFair]

11. Let Freedom Reign!

:sarcasm:

[Warren Stupidity]

13. He actually doesn't make direct threats.

He issues idiotic inflammatory holocaust denial anti-israeli anti-jewish nonsense, but I don't think he is actually being allowed to issue direct threats. On the other hand, it seems that the Iranian Theocracy is very supportive of a US-Iran crisis. Both sides, in my opinion, view such a crisis as increasing their own hold on power, and neither side thinks that they have much risk of catastrophic failure. One of them is dead wrong.

[tatertop]

18. This war will open the unhealable wound.

I think both sides are dead wrong.

[Jara sang]

12. China will come down on Iran's side.

Europe will stay out but will have harsh words for the U.S.

[sarcasmo]

14. Russia will side with China on this one, IMHO.

[saltpoint]

15. Would appreciate DUers' thoughts on any such assault on

Iran.

Wouldn't that cement Islamic militant opposition against the West generally and Bush's U.S. particularly?

The political cost plus further alienation of our allies seems to argue against it.

Not that that's ever stopped the Bush administration before...

[sarcasmo]

17. It would cement the Muslim against the West War for years, IMHO of course.

[saltpoint]

19. Yes -- it seems like it. A long, bone-grudging bloodbath, too. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

27. Islamic opposition to USA could hardly be more 'cemented'

than it already is. Support comes from corrupt regimes that are generally despised by the people they rule over.

Besides Bushco sees this only in two ways: as a way to reframe the debate to their advantage for the '06 election, and as step four in their idiotic PNAC plan to rule the world. They couldn't give a rat's ass about world opinion.

[saltpoint]

28. Their disregard for world opinion is every bit as bad as you

say it is. Maybe worse. I didn't intend to downplay their empty-headedness or short-sightedness or even their cruelty.

I'm just saying that with their half-ass job in Iraq, they have fewer cards in their deck to venture on.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

29. I believe I am in the minority

but I don't think Bush will go into Iran. Not enough manpower to finish the job.

But I've been wrong before.

[saltpoint]

30. HI to ya, TallahasseeGrannie.

I hope you're right this time, no matter what.

My fingers are crossed. Bush has dumped bombs on WAY too many innocent people already.

[EuroObserver]

16. Red lines in the Iranian sand

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA13Ak02.html

With attitudes hardening, Iran could soon face tough sanctions from the Security Council in a telescoped replay of a part of the drama over Iraq between 2000 and 2003, which eventually led to its invasion and occupation.

There are three differences, though. Iraq's alleged nuclear activities were clandestine - although they did not result in a capability to make nuclear weapons of mass destruction, as Western governments falsely claimed. By contrast, Iran's current activities are transparent and taking place right in the presence of IAEA inspectors.

Second, Iraq in 2002-03 had no civilian nuclear program worth the name. Most of its clandestine military nuclear infrastructure was dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War under a tough UN Security Council mandate.

Iran has a civilian nuclear program, stretching from the mining of uranium to its enrichment to constructing a power reactor. Also, unlike Iraq, it can legitimately invoke its right to peaceful nuclear activities under the NPT, subject to IAEA inspections. This right is affirmed under Articles 1 and 4 of the treaty.

Third, Iraq in 2003 was a weak, militarily near-disabled country with an economy crippled by decade-long sanctions. Its totally undemocratic state had very little legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

Iran is a culturally vibrant, self-confident society with a strong economy, which now stands further boosted by high oil prices. It is a middle-level military power with a popularly elected government. It will not be easy to isolate Iran, unlike Iraq.

"In fact," said Hari Vasudevan, professor of international relations at Calcutta University, "Iran enjoys a unique strategic advantage because of the highly troubled situation in Iraq, which the US has failed to quell." He added: "Sixty percent of Iraq's population is Shi'ite, and Iran wields enormous influence in Iraq. It has so far desisted from fomenting further trouble in Iraq, but could do so if cornered and provoked by the US and its allies."

/more...

[sarcasmo]

21. Iran may have a middle-level military, but they are no match for Israel.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Iran and Israel do not share a border.

And neither of them have a navy capable of transporting them from one to the other. Iran could of course be attacked by Israeli airpower, however other than short term success in striking defined targets, long term, with air defense supplies from russia or china, the Israelis would suffer. Pilots are very expensive to replace. Iran has no strike capability in this area against Israel.

The military confrontation would be Iran against a combined US air/naval/ground force.

[Ksec]

22. Cmon people!! They have NUKES pointed at US !!

You Libs wont be frickin' happy until you see mushroom clouds hovering over America .

Bomb the diaperheads !

;)

[stepnw1f]

23. I Thought We Were Atacking Today?

Or was that yesterday? "Who knows...?" :shrug:

[sarcasmo]

25. The Attack will happen as the election draws near. MR Dangers quote will

Be "we have exhausted all diplomatic avenues".

[stepnw1f]

26. Yuh... (nt)

[tjwash]

31. Iran has a functioning army, and alliances with China and Russia...

...so if the US attacks, expect 2 things: first, a draft, and second, nukes to be eventually lobbed back and forth.

Or did those thousands of nukes from the old Soviet Union just evaporate into thin air?