Is Bush starting a war in Iran for the 2006 elections?

[classics]

How many of you think we will be at war with Iran by the time elections roll around?

[Junkdrawer]

1. A Congressional House filled with new Democratic faces...

BushCo's worst nightmare. I think they would do anything to forestall that.

[Ammonium]

13. I doubt it

I don't think we've got the manpower, short of having a draft, to do it. Iran poses a special problem due to the landscape. The western boarder, where if an invasion were to occure most of the troops would come from, would be like trying to have a war in the Rocky mountains. Iran's whole western boarder with Iraq is one big mountain range. It's exactly why Iraq made little progress in the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's. Also, Iran is about 2x the size of Iraq with 68 million people versus the 26 million of Iraq. Iraq was an "easy" war, Iran would be a completely new can of worms. And if they think the foreign fighters are a problem now, just imagine if we were to invade/occupy another middle eastern country. It won't happen, not with GWB in the whitehouse. Maybe if Jeb can get in then we'll see in Iran war but I don't see it happening before the 2006 electiong.

It's kind of like the boy who cried wolf. That boy(georgie) cried wolf over Iraq and people believe him. Then it turned out to be a lie. Now that boy is trying to cry wolf again except this time no one is listening.

[Raydawg1234]

2. with what Army?

Iran has a much better army than Iraq had. It has anti-ship missles which could hurt the U.S. fleet in the Gulf. This will not be a cakewalk, but a large-scale regional conflict with thousands upon thousands dead.

[annabanana]

8. Well...

If that whole "unitary presidency" thing is firing on all cylinders, he could put the entire Federal work force in uniform...

[Raydawg1234]

19. Good, The NSA, Justice Dept, FBI, send em all.

[AndyTiedye]

31. And Everyone Else. He Could Impose the Draft By Imperial Fiat.

I wouldn't put it past him.

Of course, if it comes to that, there won't BE any more elections.

[Selatius]

3. War with Iran could hurt more than help Republicans

If there is a war, it will be as a result of a miscommunication, a failure to understand the other side. I believe that if war is to come, it may not be of our own choosing. Israel could possibly be the one that fires the first shot, and the US would be sucked into the war.

[SmokingJacket]

4. It seems like a terrible, terrible idea.

But then, I thought that about the last invasion.

:shrug:

I'm completely conflicted. There's so much tough talking rhetoric, and you KNOW they want to. But can they? Will it really benefit them, or anyone? I dunno.

[Tab]

5. I don't think so

I don't think he'd have anywhere near as much a receptive audience this time around. People are finally questioning Iraq; I doubt they'd stand for another front.

That's not to say he might not try, but I think he'd fail in the court of public opinion.

On the other hand, he might try a well-publicized diplomatic approach, to repudiate the view that he's a war-mongerer. I wouldn't put it past him to do that. But I think it'd be political suicide to march into Iran. Then again, he's done other things that should be political suicide and have gotten away with it by the bullshit to the masses, so who knows?

[gordianot]

6. This would turn into a real War, No

Very doubtful.

[spartan61]

7. With so many Americans now saying the war in Iraq was a

mistake, why would the chimp think a war with Iran help the repugs?

[nevergiveup]

9. As much as he would like to

I don't believe he could pull it off. 90% of those responsible for Iraq, although still in denial, realize deep inside that it was a terrible blunder. The remaining 10%, including Chimpy and Grouchy, will only be able to fight such a war in their dreams.

[Hardrada]

10. He will do whatever God tells him to do.

Bush is man of God. Can't beat that setup, can ya??

[LiberalPartisan]

11. The Hanidiots and the Freepers are jonesing for it

Stop by either the Free-republic site the Hannity web boards and you'll read just how eager the armchair quarterbacks are for military action against Iran and Syria too. There are a lot of people that would love us to attack Iran.

[Telly Savalas]

22. But those are people that would vote Republican anyway.

War in Iran would be the final straw for much of the "mushy middle". In the unlikely event Bush does start a war with Iran, it would be in spite of public opinion, not because of it.

[DemInDistress]

12. No..this Iranian war is about the Oil Bourse...On March 26 2006

Iran will dump the US.Dollar and that will open the floodgates of "depression",recession and all the ugly things that come with a failed economy. Sort of like 1929,massive unemployment,food lines,bankruptcies,and more
so,its not the nukes but the financial nukes Iran will fire...correct me if I'm wrong I can take it..

[PDJane]

16. No, you aren't.

If you think the war is a problem, it won't be anything compared to the impact an oil bourse functioning in Euros will have.........especially when you're 8 trillion dollars or so in the hole and paying for an occupation that costs 100,000 per minute.

[DemInDistress]

18. so what are you saying? The war in Iran will be ok? because

of the oil bourse. We cant win in Iraq, what makes the bush crime family believe they could win a war in Iran. also, war in Iran will certainly bring about Martial Law in the USA. Chimpy and his minions will suspend the 06' elections and all elections until the world is safe..its about stopping the Iranian Oil Bourse and not the nukes..1929 all over again..

sorry

[PDJane]

35. I'm not saying it's ok......

I'm not saying the war will be won, I'm just saying that the US will go to war in Iraq....or get Israel to do it.....because of the Bourse. What with the state of the deficit and the domestic economy, and all the rest of it, this administration is in deep shit.

[Raydawg1234]

20. I wonder what effect sanctions could have on the oil bourse???

[DemInDistress]

23. hey if bush and blair sanction Iran well,,Iran has 2 new friends

China and Russia,,and also Venezuela and Brazil...so who loses?

[AndyTiedye]

32. The Trillions They Are Spending on the Wars Does More Damage

than the Oil Bourse could ever do.

[blitzen]

14. won't be a full-fledged ground war....They would kick our ass...

i'd bet that there will be some bombing of nuclear facilities, though

[Raydawg1234]

21. Whats to stop the Iranian army from crossing into Iraq though?

Just because we only bomb them, doesn't mean they will not retailiate.

[blitzen]

28. i agree with you...

i'm not advocating bombing--in fact i think the whole anti-Iran thing is a crock. It's just that I think Bush will bomb

[winston61]

15. I want to hope not, but

I don't think the neocons have learned anything from Iraq. I think Rumsfeld really believes in his new 'lean, mean fighting machines'.But consider Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq. Iran has a large well organized defense force. The cornerstone of American imperialism has always been never attack anyone who is not weak or helpless. Another possibility is of course Israel attacking. This would require enormous logistical support from the US, so it's like we are doing the the heavy lifting anyway. If Iraq is any indication then there is probably precious little intelligence about where Iran nuke sites are. This will require massive strikes all over the country. So what is the neocon's answer? Why, nukes of course. Either from a Trident sub or some of Israel's missiles.There's no reason not to expect such thinking from the neos.

But even more important than building democracy are the 2006 mid terms and then 2008. The neos love to accuse the left of wanting to cut and run. Who will be surprised by a declaration of victory and a large withdrawal sometime in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of this year? Cut and run by any other name. If they manage to retain power they will feel unlimited and then the shit really hit the fan. The poisonous tree of empire is watered with blood. The blood of the powerless and poor who are conned into joining the military. Rove has already announced the Repubs will run on the terror ticket again. Keep 'em scared and they won't question your actions or motives. Maybe we really do have the government we deserve.

[atreides1]

24. One thing that you forgot

Iran is run by the Ayatollahs, and also has a majority Shia population just like Iraq, and the Shia in Iraq also have Ayatollahs as their leaders.

Imagine, not only will US forces have to worry about the Iranian military, but how much trust can be placed in the new Iraqi military which is made up mainly of the Shia population. Yes we all know that the Iraqi military isn't very capable, but how capable do you really have to be to attack someone from behind.

As for the Kurds, I think that they will just stand back and protect their own territory.

[FreedomAngel82]

17. Maybe shortly after

Iraq was timed for the 2002 elections. I think if they do it'll be right after 2006 elections (so they can still use terrorism as an excuse) or right before 2008.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

25. No...

... he's starting a war in Iran to distract from Abramoff, Plame, NSA spying on citizens and proof of lying about the cause of the Iraq war.

The combination of: no Abramoff/Plame/NSA scandal + "justifying" war + more war + some manufactured "terrorist" attack on U.S. soil any day now = guaranteed control/fear.

:tinfoilhat: (I hope I'm wrong)

[Neil Lisst]

26. No, more like the run up to the 2002 elections.

Bush will use the specter of Iran's nuke cue lar ambitions to make the prewar play he did in the run up to the 2002 elections.

[AtomicKitten]

27. I wouldn't put another attack beyond this administration.

After all, 9/11 raised his turd presidency out of the crapper.

[Sparkly]

29. I've thought for several years that Israel will start it....

Cheney said something several years ago about how Israel would have no choice but to attack Iran if it was thought they had nukes, and by the way, it's thought they have nukes... So...?

Then I think the US, and perhaps other nations, would feel they HAD to step in. I'm not talking about the leaders -- I'm talking about their peoples, because right now the leaders would have their asses handed to them by the people if they just went along with anything BushCo said. They need popular support now -- both those that opposed the Iraq invasion and those that went along with it -- because it's so obvious what a disaster it's been.

If Israel strikes, the timing could even be that a Democratic president would inherit the problem.

Sometimes I think BushCo are just completely incompetent, lost-in-the-past, blinded by GI-Joe fantasy IDIOTS; other times I think they are actually TRYing to start a world war.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. Better Not!

Just when I think that Bush can't won't do something dumber than he has already done, he STILL manages to outdo himself, HOWEVER, as many people have pointed out, I simply don't think Bush is willing or able to do something as suicidal as launching an all-out military campaign on Iran bent on regime change. With most of our forces bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan I see no realistic prospects for them to be able to even initiate anything on that scale without a draft and that a draft, if initiated, will almost certainly KILL the GOP at the polls and they know it! Secondly, what has Iran done to threaten US directly? There is probably a better chance that Iran is closer to developing Nuclear weapons than Iraq EVER was, however a nutjob possessing nuclear weapons doesn't automatically make them a direct threat to the US, especially when they haven't directly threatened us (have they?). I know that they have said that they want to see Israel wiped from the face of the planet, however does anybody truly believe that Iran's leaders are so whacked out that they don't realize that if they actually did nuke Israel, they will be immediately and totally obliterated in response by us and probably several other countries? Does anybody in THIS country sleep soundly knowing that Bush has "the button" at his disposal? Frankly, I believe that if our leaders are SERIOUS about ridding the world of WMD, then we need to LEAD BY EXAMPLE and start getting rid of OUR WMD, OUR nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Then, and only then, will we truly have the moral authority to encourage and pressure other nations to give up their WMDs and related programs. Also, we need to stop making other countries feel threatened by forgoing any future UNPROVOKED invasions of sovereign countries (especially in the ME), as well as refraining from making any further "Axis of Evil"-like statements. Countries will do what they feel they must in order to protect themselves and unfortunately, because of Bush's rhetoric and actions, we seem to live in a world that has become far more dangerous than it was only a few years ago. Unfortunately, given that Bushco seems hellbent on developing NEW nuclear weapons and appears to be eyeballing regime changes in other countries, I don't expect much improvement in foreign affairs. I only hope and pray that other countries don't punish the rest of us (who didn't vote for the guy) for Bushco's misguided and dangerous foreign policies.

[AndyTiedye]

34. If They Start Up The Draft, They Won't Be Worrying About Polls Anymore

That would be crossing the Rubicon for sure.
They would call off elections and rule by decree going forward.
The whole formulation of the "Unitary Executive" is the pseudo-legal framework for all of this,
and now they very probably have a Supreme Court that will give its stamp of approval.

[degreesofgray]

33. I never misunderestimate

this administration's knack for doing the wrong thing, so by no means do I hold out hope that peace, and sane minds, will prevail.