Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE WAKE THE FUCK UP BEFORE WE ATTACK IRAN.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:29 PM
Original message
WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE WAKE THE FUCK UP BEFORE WE ATTACK IRAN.
Edited on Fri Mar-14-08 09:03 PM by Cyrano
I did an earlier post that died. And many Iranians may soon join that post.

Admiral Fallon was fired because he was vehemently against attacking Iran and doing everything he could to block it.

Darth Cheney just paid a visit to the middle east.(To firm up plans? Who knows?)

Scott Ridder has warned that this is on the BushCo agenda. He warned us about Iraq, but no one listened.

We've heard the Iran rumors for years, but we now have a presidential election eight months away. What better way to make Republicans look like "defenders of the free world against middle east nuclear weapons" than to bomb the shit out of "brown skinned Iranian 'terrorists'?"

And why would Bush & Co. worry that they'll get caught lying about it when they control the MSM, have the Dems in congress cowering in the corner sucking their thumbs, and have an American public that would buy gas at $4 plus a gallon and doing nothing but mumbling about it?

We've been so, so fucked for seven years now. And Iran is now in the crosshairs of these maniacs.

Yeah, I know. What the Hell can we do to stop it? I wish I had the answer. But I do recall the word impeachment. (Keep it "off the table," Nancy, while we watch more untold tens of thousands die. You too have blood on your hands.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
navarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Right Fucking On. K & R. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
128. McCain wants to invade Iran
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SIMPLYB1980 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. The war drums are pounding
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
42. Without "support",...those drums will be no more than practice bands in the streets.
The CONCERN is,...what is left from this WAR-AND-PROFIT REGIME.

I doubt the profiteering regime will push into Iran, at this point. IT HAS MAXIMIZED ALL PROFITS,...a windfall,...without any consequence. They will glee-fully bow out to the Democrat bustin' butt to FIX their mess.

In a way,...I am figuring,...

,...to TURN THE WHOLE DAMN MESS OVER TO THOSE WHO CREATED IT!

The only reason I am figuring to do so,...is because the Democrats have indicated an unwillingness to hold this administration RESPONSIBLE.

:shrug;

I imagine a "shock and awe" on the most dictatorial and criminal regime, here. But, that is a dream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #42
69. Cheney will let them sink a carrier with Sunburn missiles....
The resulting horror and outrage in this country will provide plenty of support.

"Of all the missiles in Iran's armament, the most dangerous is the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn. These missiles are, simply, the fastest anti-ship weapons on the planet. The Sunburn can reach Mach 3 at high altitude. Its maximum low-altitude speed is Mach 2.2, some three times faster than the American-made Harpoon. The Sunburn takes two short minutes to cover its full range. The missile's manufacturers state that one or two missiles could cripple a destroyer, and five missiles could sink a 20,000 ton ship. The Sunburn is also superior to the Exocet missile. Recall that it was two Exocets that ripped the USS Stark to shreds in 1987, killing 37 sailors. The Stark could not see them to stop them."

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #69
83. Who's to say
the missiles, Sunburn or otherwise, would come from Iran? Sacrificing a war ship and some sailors for big time profit: Who would have the motive to do that? The names of some lying scumbags and war profiteers come to mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
go west young man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #69
85. Have you been reading John Hogue?
In his 1996 Nostradomus analysis he says something of the sort. He says a "great fleet" is sunk around the year 2011, I believe, which sets the stage for Iran. A scary prediction as it seems to be coming onto our doorstep. I remember joking with my wife a few years ago saying you watch it will be Osama Bin Laden on a jet ski with a nuclear device. According to the book it goes full out Nuclear in 2018 when China gets involved. Then comes 10 more years of war followed by the 1000 year Golden Age! Sounds silly typing it but I've been pretty amazed how acurate Mr. Hogues analysis has been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zonmoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #69
136. problem is that the regimes that they want to invade tend not to be particularly cooperative in
their plans so I figure that if any of our ships are sunk it will be a false flag operation or an outright lie.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
88. Note: Our wounded outnumber our dead because we are
so good at battlefield medicine. Not so much for the Iraqis, who, if your numbers are correct have a hard time surviving those "battlefield" injuries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
5. You're right. It is in the works. Probably before the election. No one's looking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'm so tired of being told to WAKE THE FUCK UP on this board
I'm awake, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. but HAVE YOU CALLED CONGRESS???!!11
do it RIGHT FUCKING NOW DAMMIT!!!!111
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Who do you think PUT ME TO SLEEP?
My Congressman is JOHN FUCKING KERRY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. JEBUS FUCKING CHRIST!!
I almost worked for him and would have fallen ASLEEP AT WORK!!!1

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. FUCK!
You could have told him you were out all night hunting charlie


oh wait, that would work on McCain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. I would have but I crossed over into Cambodia
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
139. Har Har Har, call Congress, LOL I get it. Congress can't do schite let along stop the coming war.nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaWee Donating Member (53 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. When I was peeking into your window I thought you might be napping.
Sorry man, I was just double checking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
141. If you were, you wouldn't support Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. U.S. News & World Report: "6 Signs U.S. May Be Headed For War With Iran"

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/v3/css/news.css

6 Signs the U.S. May Be
Headed for War in Iran


March 11, 2008 06:52 PM ET

Is the United States moving toward military action with Iran?

The resignation of the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East is setting off alarms that the Bush administration is intent on using military force to stop Iran's moves toward gaining nuclear weapons. In announcing his sudden resignation today following a report on his views in Esquire, Adm. William Fallon didn't directly deny that he differs with President Bush over at least some aspects of the president's policy on Iran. For his part, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it is "ridiculous" to think that the departure of Fallon-whose Central Command has been working on contingency plans for strikes on Iran as well as overseeing Iraq-signals that the United States is planning to go to war with Iran.

Fallon's resignation, ending a 41-year Navy career, has reignited the buzz of speculation over what the Bush administration intends to do given that its troubled, sluggish diplomatic effort has failed to slow Iran's nuclear advances. Those activities include the advancing process of uranium enrichment, a key step to producing the material necessary to fuel a bomb, though the Iranians assert the work is to produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors, not weapons.

Here are six developments that may have Iran as a common thread. And, if it comes to war, they may be seen as clues as to what was planned. None of them is conclusive, and each has a credible non-Iran related explanation:

1. Fallon's resignation: With the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much of the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based warplanes and sea-launched missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and nuclear infrastructure. Centcom commands the U.S. naval forces in and near the Persian Gulf. In the aftermath of the problems with the Iraq war, there has been much discussion within the military that senior military officers should have resigned at the time when they disagreed with the White House.

2. Vice President Cheney's peace trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what is described as a Mideast trip to try to give a boost to stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other stops: One, Oman, is a key military ally and logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit chokepoint into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose support would be sought before any military action given its ability to increase oil supplies if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mideast trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy toward Iraq and not war, which began a year later.

3. Israeli airstrike on Syria: Israel's airstrike deep in Syria last October was reported to have targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear program. An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran (also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq), and knowing the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to reduce the risks for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.


4. Warships off Lebanon: Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system for defense against air attacks.

5. Israeli comments: Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said they were prepared to act alone -- if that becomes necessary -- to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?

MORE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
56. U.S. News & World Report?
:puke:

RW rag.

Sorry but they LOVE this stuff. (and war, bush and $$ X 100)

I don't believe anything they say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
68. The US News and World Report
is not doing anything especially untrustworthy. The war is not even an open secret and the article still does nothing to seal the inevitability or imminence. No one is going to call them up because this is precisely the type of speculation that the main headline elephant can ignore. Apparently then, so can Congress who shouldn't need the services of a newsrag to see the danger.

On DU we got some traction in the midst of primary squabbles(our distraction is better is better than the common public distraction?) for points one and two. Succinctly the article spells out a select few points
without pointing out how shallow any other explanation for these signs is. So it is a bit cautious. Who does a reporter call? The few who could be decisively in the know, like Perez or Cheney are impossible. The units following orders are. Only Fallon has a strong opinion at least where all these moves are leading to. I might doubt anyone bluntly gave him all the direct information but he would lend weight to the scenario everyone is generally ignoring as usual. By ignoring I mean the Congress for example is not raising a ruckus or doing any special about it. We have several rational theories about why that is to match the style of the rational conjectures above.

Larger signs have already happened. These smaller moves are merely more particular, closer to action and further indications of some imminence. At the most cynical least, and one may speculate if our Dems are too blindsided or cowardly to consider it, Israel should be warned to butt out of our elections. Any backlash against Israel will be allowed and gamed by the GOP only in that scumbag party's particular interests and as a sop to the Arab oil nations. They should consider themselves fortunate that the current Dem candidates are still "friends of Israel" though the need for their support in this election is much less than usual. Yet why do I doubt they have done anything except mumbled sweet talk while Israel plunges tragically into Cheney's schemes?

In silence comes the expectation that Bush will do nothing without Israel and nothing before the elections, a very scary, unsatisfying speculation. Even if McCain is elected that might want to blur the demarcation of responsibility while conjoining it so it can be on McCain's head. The wider the circle of tossing the ball between scumbags the harder to pin down any of them. If Obama, for example, then they merely have to trap him into foreign policy agreements and let all hell break loose. His recent uneducated statements on the Ecuador invasion by Colombia show that chunk of our party most dazed by MSM and Foggy Bottom thinking is still on top. That includes an illustrious and tragic circle of dupes, losers, and wisely ignorant policy traditionalists so I am not picking on Obama particularly.

We have two frustrating challenges that we have made vastly inferior incremental moves of our own to stopping Bush and Cheney. They have the easier task of moving our dying military like pathetic chess pieces with the supposedly earthshaking but extremely obvious evidence behind closed doors. Our task was to raise holy hell and get their rotten hands off the buttons. The greatest inducement to war is frustratingly not getting even close to that and at the same time frightening the jerks into doing precisely what they are going to do anyway.

People will not like to hear the cure for all of this. It means widely and loudly and swiftly throwing open the doors to remove this regime and get immediate signs of backing away from the threat of a new war. It means strong Dem leadership and a solidly informed and well aimed public outcry. But it is easier for the fake POTUS to order ships and planes about than to even imagine TRYING to make this happen. Bush does not need a provocative catalyst. He merely weighs the opportunities and advantages- nearly all wide open and unchecked except by the messes and failures he himself has created and stumbled over. We might need a catalyst. Most catalysts I can think of unfortunately also lead to war or distraction.

Immediate, swift impeachment. Immediate clear and vocal united party leadership informed outcry against
this "beyond brinkmanship" second criminal war hoodwinking. And someone please get Israel thinking about another way out of sure longterm doom? Even as an seeming tough option for national survival Bush will destroy Israel in the process. Damned are they who follow Cheney's lead in anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucognizant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #68
137. Yes!
5 1/2 years ago I watched the first ANTI-WAR RALLY organized BY ANSWER.com on the mall inS+DC. That was after marching in my own home state. I missed the cspan live broadcast but watched it in the wee small hours of the morning. This evening cspan has a really unappitizing & very non relevant schedule.
Cheney at the Heritage Foundation & Laura at the book something or other! :puke:
NO WINTER WARRIORS COVERAGE!
Huffpo: all "ho" all the time! SHe made $200,000 in sales of her song!
ANd the ongoing "BITTER BATTLE", between our allies and saviors. That would be HRC & OHB!

My only consolation is that the tornado blew out the windows at the CNN Center in Atlanta!
I with a handfull of others in the state convinced our COngressman Mike Michaud, to back Impeachment of CHeney. The other, Tom Allen, has followed up my phone calls with letters explaining why Impeachment wouldn't be a good idea at this time. I have now resorted to calling with a rational arguement for Impeachment, with the caveat that he won't get my vote ( he's running against Sen Collins for her Senate seat.)
Doin the best I have with what I have to work with!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. if shrub gets us in, neither obama nor clinton will get us out
it's one thing to pull out of iraq. the verdict's in on iraq, everyone is fed up with that war.

but if they manufacture a new war on iran, we'll be right back to the usual mess that no democratic president can extricate the country from a war without confirming every idiotic stereotype the republicans have put on us when it comes to our national "defense".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
9. Attack is easy. 'Winning' is a whole other matter
All data 2005.

- The Persian Gulf represents nearly 50% of the worlds petroleum export market.

- The vast majority of this resource passes through 8 to 10 major facilities (one facility in KSA alone processes 60% of its petroleum, you know, starts with a A).

- If Iran is attacked in such a way as to threaten the continuity of the regime, they will use their substantial missile inventory in taking out these facilities (I do not believe they will target Israel, as it would have no strategic purpose, and is out of range, whereas targeting the gulf energy infrastructure would strike a mortal blow against the attacking western economies, in particular the US, as I discuss below).

- The US imports ~ 12.4 Mbbl/dy (60% of total consumption) of petroleum which represents around 29% of the worlds petroleum export market.

- The next largest petroleum importers (Japan 5.2, China 3.1, Germany 2.4, South Korea 2.2, France 1.9) all have substantial dollar reserves and are significant exporters of finished goods. Basically, we will be outbid on much of what remains of the worlds petroleum export market post attack, as these countries use their export capacity in finished goods to purchase petroleum from Russia, Nigeria, Norway, and Venezuela.

- In the weeks following destruction of the Persian Gulf oil export market, the US will probably see 2/3rds of its imports sold to higher bidders or embargoed, leaving us with about 60% of the petroleum supply we had pre-attack.

- Approx. 42% of US petroleum is used for personal transport, 22% for commercial transport (trucks that carry food to the stores, etc.). I will leave it to the reader as to the impact a nearly overnight loss of 40% of the US petroleum supply will have to the economy (not to mention the impact due to the collapse of the petrodollar system).

- Russia, India and China will take a pass. Russia stands to make a fortune. And if all the gulf petroleum goes off line, they become the worlds sole energy superpower. China and India will dig in (as they consume much less petroleum), weather the storm, and emerge in a position to snap up all those production contracts that will no longer go to US multinationals for rebuilding the gulf.

- In conclusion, Iran is not toothless. We can physically destroy the country of Iran. There is a good chance they can destroy our economy and begin the process of petrocollapse, ultimately leading to the destruction of a greatly weakened US in a few decades.

So, who wins?



He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing - Muah'dib


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. The spice factories that represent 50% of the worlds export market
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
10. crosshairs of these maniacs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPZenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
11. Watch the B-2 Stealth Bombers
Watch where the $1.2 billion-dollar-a-piece B-2 Stealth Bombers go. They are usually based in Missouri, but as of last month, many had been moved to Guam in the Pacific Ocean. I imagine if they are moved to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, it is time to stock up the bomb shelters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Yep, you got it. We don't have the troops to invade Iran. It will be a
"tactical nuclear strike." Gosh, isn't that a pleasant phrase to feed to the the American masses. After all, tens of thousands of Iranian bodies would be nothing more than "collateral damage." But so what? They were probably terrorists or knew people who were terrorists. Whatever. They were brown people anyway.

Damn Bush and every stinking member of this cancerous administration. Damn them all to hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
31. but iran DOES have the troops to invade Iraq.
the "green zone" would become the "dead zone".

it will NOT be pretty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Ahhh, so Iran is going to invade Iraq while we're bombing the shit out of them.
Not to mention the fact that any troops they send across the Iraqi border would immediately also be bombed into nonexistence.

Maybe I'm missing something here. With all due respect, could you further explain your logic to me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. they have missiles. they have planes they have a million soldiers.
they have well-armed insurgents in iraq. they have the civilian populace in iraq that would back them up. they have china and russia in their corner. they would have the ENTIRE WORLD (except us and israel) on their side.

our bombs would have to stop falling at some point. we'd definitely see retaliation and retribution.

and so would bush and cheney.

i'm certainly not worried about it happening- because if it's going to, there's not a DAMN thing any or all of us could do to stop or avert it.

but if you want to pull your hair out, or lose sleep over the possibility- go for it. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. Their army and planes are meanigless. They would be destroyed in an hour. However,
I totally agree that the rest of the world will turn on us. We will be viewed as a menace. And rightly so.

Lose sleep over this? Anyone with children and/or grandchildren are probably not sleeping very well these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #45
103. Ya mean kind alike Iraq? That worked so well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #45
108. bullshit- you've seen too many movies.
iran's defenses are much more formidable than iraq's were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. Not too far off base
Iran has a standing army of 500,000 and 250,000 reserves. It's going to take more than a little "immediate" bombing to halt a ground offensive by Iran, and half of Iraq will welcome them with open arms. Our relatively puny ground force in Iraq could literally be overrun. Not pretty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #34
133. An opinion from someone who has lived and worked in the middle east
Beyond having the entire world in their corner, there are many millions of Shea in every corner of the Arab world. The Shea and their mullahs would become holy warriors over night. It is they who are the can of worms often talked about in the middle east. They would at the behest of their mullahs who are in bed with the Ayatollahs in Iran, begin a war the likes of which we have never seen; forfeiting their lives for their religion under siege from a bunch of stupid, reckless, shortsighted, insane, cowboy crusaders who have far to many dangerous toys to play with. Bombs and missiles will be flies to be avoided. After the bombs stop falling the war will begin in what Arabs call stealth. They will appear out of nowhere and destroy any American weak spot and that will be a shortage of troops. Saddam said that Iraq would be the mother of all battles. How far off was he? Arabs have been running far more powerful countries out of their lands for hundreds of years when they are not mutually profitable. They just take their time doing it and exact a debilitating cost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #17
57. We don't have the money to invade anybody, but.
the Bush Cabal doesn't give a shit about our troops or our money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #57
75. true!
and we didn't have the money to invade even for their, what was it, 6 week Iraq 'war' ol darth chenny told us would result in roses at our soldier's feet?

they would have the countries of the world aiming their weapons our way if we attacked iran... without question! China would threaten retaliation to stop the American Imperialism...... I have no doubt of it, and Russia would warn us they were very disturbed. So, bushler wants to go to war with China by invading Iraq? Send Bar!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. If they have indeed been repostioned to Guam that is ominous indeed.
Could very well be a move to quietly redeploy in advance of a surprise strike.

I'm sure the cover story was 'sending a message to China' or some such.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPZenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #22
70. One crashed in Guam, that is why we know
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 08:17 AM by JPZenger
The main reason why the public knows that the B-2s were sent to Guam is because one crashed.

These planes are extremely high maintenance and need special facilities, and therefore can only be stationed at a few bases in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
12. I've been awake all along.
I never spent a single moment in fear after 9/11, and I rejected the drums of revenge, the war on terror, and the lies about Iraq from the beginning. I've been a strong advocate for impeachment. I supported a peacemonger for president both in '04 and '08, at least while there was still one on the ballot to support.

I'm awake. It's well past time for all citizens to quit rationalizing the actions of Congress and the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
againes654 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
36. Yeah,
Right after the IRW, I said we would be at war with Iran before a new POTUS was elected. This is one I want to be wrong on but....... :hide: :nuke: :hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
13. They are madmen.
There's no longer any doubt about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
14. Some of us have been saying it for a long time now. Go back to summer when Scooter Libby
had his sentence commuted. That very day a few of us noticed that AQ Khan was freed up to travel at his will. The very AQ Khan who Kerry tracked in the BCCI report for his nuclear activities.

When that happened we figured they

A) Didn't want it noticed and timed it so Libby story would cover it up with a pre-occupied press...

and...

B) They would use Khan (longtime BFEE/BCCI operative) as their bogey man cause to have their war with Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaWee Donating Member (53 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
18. Great thread and you put it very eloquently.
Seriously, an average American will say that the war in Iraq is wrong and we need to pull out. Dealings with Iran right now should be at the top of everyone's fucking list. Does everyone know how big of a deal this is? The war in Iraq has devastated the United States. A war in Iran will fuck us over so bad I can't even imagine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbieo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Bush has ten more months to be the "Decider"
and I don't see anyone stopping him. Why do you think he wants to start mining uranium again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
21. Relax
Bullies only mess with the weak and defenseless. Iran is not weak and defenseless. The moment they did show a sign of weakness Bush would surely attack. They won't make that mistake.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. Sorry, but Iran does not have the capability to avert a an attack if
BushCo decides to use "tactical nuclear weapons." No country does.

Relax? If the madmen running our country carry out this crime against humanity, I doubt very much if the rest of the world will relax.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see the rest of the world turn against us. And they would be absolutely right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicalboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #27
60. China and Russia come to mind
And if we go to war they will call a draft so we will have the soldiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #60
80. I'm all for a draft. It is perhaps the major factor that ended the war in Vietnam.
Right now, the vast majority of the American public couldn't find Iran on a map. But they'll find it pretty damn quickly if we reinstate the draft.

And all the pro-war fanatics might just begin to object if it were their sons or daughters called off to war.

College campuses would become hotbeds of outrage and civil disobedience as happened in Vietnam when the draft still existed. (Odd, how students don't demonstrate until it affects them personally.)

Reinstate the draft and I can guarantee that the Bush Administration, and many of their enablers in the congress, the MSM, and corporate America will be sitting right next to Bush and Cheney in that court of justice that will eventually come to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny Potpie Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
134. Hate to say it
But Iran could not stop an attack of any kind from the US military. Sadly enough, the US military would decimate Iranian defenses pretty quickly. And Iran would not be able to stop the onslaught of massed and sustained sea launched or air launched cruise missile strikes. What little Iran has in naval forces wouldn't last for two days. And their little assymetric strategies simply wouldn't have the power to avert US naval and air power in any long run. Simply put, Iran is defenseless against US military power despite us being overstretched.

All this scares me the most. Bushco fascists know all of this. To them, it's like pieces on a chessboard, with no consideration that lives will be lost unnecesarily. Iran is toast if the US attacks. And innocent women and their kids will die because of another unnecessary war brought to you by the war pigs. These are scary times indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #134
135. Think the Iranians and everyone else haven't been paying attention to Iraq?
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 06:25 PM by NNN0LHI
They all know what works against our forces and what doesn't now thanks to the current Crackhead In Chief.

Iranians aren't going to be sitting around waiting in their positions to be blown to smithereens like the Iraqis did. They are going to be out and about setting IEDs to blow our soldiers up with.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaStrega Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:08 PM
Original message
kicked & rec'd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
24. today I believe elections were held in Iran
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prefer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
26. I agree
let's not attack again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
29. calling or writing congress
is futile. The Congress has been threatened, blackmailed, one way or another. THEY are the Ultimate Mafia and probably will resort to suspension of elections and then martial law and then. Whatever, I'm out of breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. I know what you mean. There are never any pitchforks and torches around when you need them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
djp2 Donating Member (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #29
94. I go with
Blackmailed.... Why else the wiretaps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
33. it would get the financial stuff off the front page in a big hurry.
but if we made any kind of air attack on Iran, they would send a MASSIVE amount of well-armed/trained troops into iraq. and missiles- they have lots of missiles- GOOD ones. our "green zone" would become a "dead zone".

and believe it or not, the people in this country WOULD revolt. evil and eviler (bush & cheney) would be LUCKY to get a quick beheading in a guillotine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
35. I just have a hard time thinking the Russian bear, that has been recently making
a lot of noise, would not retaliate in some fashion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. and most likely China as well
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
colorado thinker Donating Member (676 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
38. From what I've read on this board lately
An awful lot of DUers are too busy slamming each other over their choice of Democratic candidate to notice that we are about to BOMB IRAN!!!!!!!! :nuke:

Seriously, there's been a lot of time, energy, and bandwidth devoted to calling each other names and very little spent on the fact that the decision/election will most likely be moot, since the U.S. will be embroiled in the worst freaking mess we've ever seen. It's too late for impeachment, even if the spineless Congress wakes up tomorrow. If we bomb Iran, and it's starting to look inevitable, the gas supply will drop dramatically, prices will most likely triple, China and Russia will not be amused and the rest of the world will repudiate us.

Stop screaming about Hillary/Barack, Barack/Hillary, and start screaming at your Congresspersons. We are in deep Chaney shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #38
73. I'm just holding my breath until January...
I don't know if Junior and co. would actually attack Iran, but they could make things so tense between Iran and the US that war would be seen as "inevitable". That, IMO, would be enough to scare the hell out of us and give the election to McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
41. Cheney, #1
THE
number one hawk on Iran.

I have a similar bad feeling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
43. "Yeah, I know. What the Hell can we do to stop it?"....
....yes, what are we supposed to do?

....bushco will attack Iran when they feel like it using trumped-up hype and calling anyone opposing them a traitor....congress Dems will go alone with bushco and their shared war-profit-making buddies while clinton and Obama will muse quietly not wanting to jump that peace-candidate-shark....

....and we'll rattle on per usual on DU....did you think we lived in a democracy or something?....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. You are absolutely right. And as far as stopping it,
I don't have a fucking clue of how to do it.

Yeah, I know there are still Democrats in Washington. But there are still roaches in most public places that are nothing more than disgusting pests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
44. Bookmarking this one...
to go with all the other breathless "WE'RE ABOUT TO ATTACK IRAN" posts.

It's a great prediction. Never wrong, just not right yet.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
46. McCain said he fears al Qaeda or another extremist group might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraq
McCain: Al Qaeda May Intervene To Tip Election Towards Dems

| March 14, 2008 01:34 PM

"Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday he fears that al Qaeda or another extremist group might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraq to try to tilt the U.S. election against him," Reuters reports.

-snip
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/14/mccain-al-qaed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kool Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #46
55. I'm beginning to think that McCain is certifiable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
djp2 Donating Member (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #46
98. why Iraq
why not US or other coalition country
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
48. not much anyone can do so far as i can tell
they'll find some excuse to strike and that will be that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
49. Impeach now.
Edited on Fri Mar-14-08 10:52 PM by yellerpup
They have been planning this from the start. I have a feeling that they are getting resistance from the military because it is a STUPID, ILLEGAL idea, but now that Fallon is gone, they might be able to pull it off. Maybe why that's why baby step progress is finally getting started in Congress. Kick & Recommend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
50. Did anyone watch Bill Moyers last week?
He did a story on this fundie nutcase Hagee who wants to bomb the hell out of Iran and who pretty much thinks the rapture is right around the corner.

Well if that maniac has his way the entire planet will be history!

Hagee and his buddies are fucking insane!!! :yoiks:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/profile.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
margotb822 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
51. Cowboys Only: Fallon Falls Off Bush's War Horse
My college roommate wrote the following for my blog:

On March 11, 2008, Esquire Magazine published an article entitled, The Man between War and Peace in which Admiral Fallon, then CENTCOM Cdr, was referred to as the one man standing between the Bush Administration and war with Iran. Thomas Barnetts article profiles Fallon as the single force preventing Cheney-Bush from riding into Iran, donning their cowboy ensembles and shooting off their pistols. Barnett says, And so Fallon, the good cop, may soon be unemployed because he's doing what a generation of young officers in the U. S. military are now openly complaining that their leaders didn't do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq: He's standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war.

As a veteran service member, I was shocked when Fallon was appointed to position of CENTCOM. First, hes in the Navy what do Navy guys know about ground fighting? Hes a Villanova graduate and a NFO unusual credentials in comparison to the service academy marine/army Generals that generally fit the position profile.

Realistically Fallon was perfect for the job. His level headedness and reasonable outlook seemed refreshing in comparison to Cheney-Bushs war mongering hot-headedness. At least he served as a buffer between Bush and his go-to-it guy, Petraeus who is too keenly inline with Bushs agenda.

This morning I sent out an email entitled, Cowboys Only: Fallon Falls off Bushs War Horse. To issue a disclaimer: Im usually not one to push my personal political agenda on my friends and loved ones. But this issue seemed too important to let slip by unnoticed. My greatest concern is that in the aftermath of the Geraldine Ferraro and Eliot Spitzer debacles, Fallons very important move would become second page news. If the media would stop for an instant and adjust their focus, they might realize what a significant and controversial stance Fallon took in both his Esquire interview and later in his step down from CENTCOM Cdr.

How do we stop Bushs agenda? Congress has tried; political activists have tried. Now, Americas senior military officials are relinquishing positions, throwing their hands up in the air, refusing to play pawn for Cheneys oil. But does anyone seem to care? Spitzers escorts brother got more press yesterday than Fallon. So well continue sending our children overseas to a useless war, to return with PTSD and lifelong disillusionment, to sit rotting in rundown infested military hospitals. Bush will dig a little harder for a yes-man general, which shouldnt be a challenging task. And the war will press on. And on.

Check out the website for more!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
52. Attack Iran? with what?
It would take down the world economy and Bush very well may not live long enough to see the results. Plus Iran is not exactly toothless. They certainly have what it takes to sink a a carrier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #52
90. I've got to agree with you. Even if it is part of their agenda
they've pretty much sucked the Federal Treasury dry, and they would have to raise the debt ceiling far higher than $10.2 Trillion. America is already close to complete bankruptcy-attacking Iran would be starting a war that they could never afford to continue. But then again, they are freaking insane..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #90
144. US carriers have lost many aircraft, The US Military has only the F-18 left
F-14's were pulled because for corrision in the front landing gear supports, A-6 Intruders are retired, F-16's are gone, most F-15's have airframe problems.

All that is left are a few ground attack F-15's, F-18's and the few new raptors or what ever the new plane is. SO US carriers dont have enough planes to put on the carriers we have.

Nukes? No one in the Middle east would tolerate it, the blow back would be very bad for the US. ANd I dont think the US military command would buy into it.

Modern Iranian SAM Missiles, can they hit a stealth ?
http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2007/01/modern-iranian-sam...


Iranian missile systems
http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2007/01/iranian-missile-sy...

Iran would get the worst of it, but Iran can give us a very bloody nose, given a bit of luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vanje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #52
93. Nukes
Bush-Cheney has been dying to deploy a nuke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #93
145. Not allowed, I know what you are sayin.....its worrying, but I dont see it happening
at this point, maybe a couple of years ago, but no longer.

Nukes? No one in the Middle east would tolerate it, the blow back would be very bad for the US. ANd I dont think the US military command would buy into it.

Modern Iranian SAM Missiles, can they hit a stealth ?
http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2007/01/modern-iranian-sam...


Iranian missile systems
http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2007/01/iranian-missile-sy...

Iran would get the worst of it, but Iran can give us a very bloody nose, given a bit of luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w8liftinglady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
53. hey,bro-I'm awake-let's enlighten the ignorant...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
54. er... I'm awake. ... now what?
:shrug:

"Admiral Fallon was fired because he was vehemently? against attacking Iran

and doing everything he could to block it. (Like what?)

Darth Cheney just paid a visit to the middle east."


Gee, I wonder if.... Cheney went to relieve Fallon of his command?

I mean, it happened at the same time, didn't it? :shrug:

"Dems in congress cowering in the corner sucking their thumbs"

Seems to me they have been fighting back a lot lately.

----------

Truthfully, I don't feel an imminent attack on Iran in my bones.

I just don't. I think, if anything, it's a lot of saber rattling, myself.

We don't have enough troops anyway (although we do have ships and fighter jets.)

At any rate, you can rest assured that the idiot in the WH is hunting

rabbit eggs and cutting brush for the next 3 weeks in Crawford. :hug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:23 AM
Response to Original message
58. I've been awake for a long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicalboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:48 AM
Response to Original message
59. I hope they don't
But they probably will. But first Bush will attack us again like 9/11 and declare martial law and maybe even stop the elections just to stay in power. Bush will probably nuke some US city and blame Iran and off we go again. And when they take way the internets, and Fox is the only "news" source we have, we will know a lot less than we already know about what our government is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
djp2 Donating Member (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #59
95. Very Close to the TRUTH
I think you are way TOO close to the truth.. This is the way it will happen, make it this summer!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
djp2 Donating Member (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #95
96. We'll all be arrested
Everyone posting on DU will be arrested for spreading LIES and propaganda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:10 AM
Response to Original message
61. BREAKING: OF COURSE WE WILL ATTACK IRAN BEFORE THE GENERAL
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 05:11 AM by Political Heretic
It's the only option, short of MIHOP terrorist attack, that the GOP thinks can win them the election.

EDIT - I hate to say this, because I'm pretty poor myself, but we should almost be praying for a worsening domestic economy as one possible long-shot way to avoid this new war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:28 AM
Response to Original message
62. Only Impeachment Can Stop The War (or DO anything else)
Like stopping the torture. Rather than allowing McCain to have the "best answer" (LA Times).

Or stopping our moral -- and therefore economic -- freefall in the world.

Or stopping the thug US Attys (yes, they're still there) from stealing elections.

Or stopping the Euphemedia from mantra-ing "both sides are the same."

Or stopping our founders and generations of Americans who fought and died defending something from spinning in their graves.

Or stopping our children and grandchildren from being as deeply ashamed of us as subsequent Germans are/were of their Nazi generation.

====
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:33 AM
Response to Original message
63. I agree that there is much to do about this situation... Our banks
are in terrible shape, people are losing their homes, poor people are having the worst of it, and things will get worse... In the mean time the govt. sees fit to invade another country...Why????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ForeignSpectator Donating Member (970 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:34 AM
Response to Original message
64. What is it they want this time?
I fail to see what they would want to achieve with attacking Iran, while I have no doubt they want to attack.

Is it about driving oil prices even higher? Are there too many bombs left to drop, is the military industrial complex not making enough $$$ Iraq? Or the most frightening, they want to consolidate their power by manufacturing an "emergency", call off the elections etc.?! ( in that case, congrats to everyone who voted for kyl-lieberman for fucking yourself over! ) shrub will be on his way to texas and cheney will take over or what? And do they think they can lie America into another war, after Iraq? Thinking about it, don't want an answer to that...

Even if you could stay in power this way, you would have such a mess at your hands, what "fun" would it be to reign over it? Economy down, probably significant military losses ( Iran is not Iraq 2003 ), further degraded standing in the world AND owing money to china ( who are on pretty friendly terms with Iran, afaik )...
I mean, nobody in their right mind would want to provoke the consequences this might have... but therein lies my problem I guess...


PS : REALLY glad impeachment is off the table for over a year now, while confused-to-the-core Pelosi is babbling about some clinton administration offering Obama a vp seat. She is such a disappointment, it's inconceivable. What did she say when she took over? "For the children" or something like that...well, not so much, I guess. Pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. PNAC - Project for a New American Century
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aepfsJfWxV0&feature=rela...

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm

http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxz06SwfnlU

There's plenty of info on this group, which Bush's first term admin was largely comprised of ... although from what I understand it has morphed somewhat and is now going under a different title/name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftrightwingnut Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #64
78. I believe that Iran is the real goal of the Iraq invasion.
The entire Iraq war is a fraud, so why do it? Bush and Cheney saw an opportunity to get a foothold in the area and took it. My cynical side says that the reason we are having so much trouble keeping the peace in Iraq is that it gives us an excuse to stay. I have long believed that a sudden trend toward a rosier picture in Iraq (real or not) would presage an attack on Iran.

One of the biggest problems with Iran is that it has begun trading petroleum products for Euros -- not dollars. Up until recently, one could only buy petroleum with dollars. It is one of the reasons the dollar has been so strong, historically. I cannot help but think this would be a big problem for the US economy (which is, ironically, already in the toilet.)

The Iranian Bourse opened on 2/15, I think. So, I would not be surprised at an attack coming sooner, rather than later. Bush tried his best to get some traction with this on his Middle East tour, but failed miserably. He has no credibility. My guess, is a staged attack on US military interests or a civilian 'terrorist' bombing will be the excuse.

The only kink I see in the timing on this thing is the Democratic primary. I'm not sure what Obama's surprise showing does to the time table. I have a suspicion that it would be better for the powers that be if Clinton has the nomination sewn up before an Iranian attack. Otherwise, there is likely to be a huge groundswell of support for Obama and Clinton won't have a chance of stealing the nomination. On the other hand, it may not matter, which means sooner, rather than later.

Mad musings of an armchair poli amateur...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #78
84. I think you might have hit the key reason for invading Iran. They are
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 10:32 AM by Cyrano
trading petroleum products for Euros instead of dollars.

If the dollar goes all the way down the toilet, so does the U.S.

Not that Bush/Cheney & Co could care less. After all, don't you think their loot is safely stashed in gold somewhere in Paraguay?

Nonetheless, they are not the only two players in the game. And if the U.S. dollar becomes worthless, think how many Neocons would be offing themselves.

Viewed in this light, attacking Iran is their answer.

The problem is that Neocons are people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Do they really believe that the rest of the world, especially Russia and China, are just going to sit idly by and do nothing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftrightwingnut Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #84
86. Every wonder why Venezuela is an enemy of the U.S.?
Other than nationalizing petroleum (and stealing all of the infrastructure), Chavez has long threatened to accept euros for petroleum. It may already have happened.

BTW, Saddam Hussein had threatened to do exactly the same thing. And was taking steps to make it happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
65. I am very worried about this.
I do think that Bush will do this before he leaves office and he will almost certainly get away with it.

What I do not understand for the life of me is how an almost universally despised president who's Congress is controlled by the opposing party can still get away with whatever the hell he wants.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. The grim consequences of doing so will be far more evident. Unlike invading Iraq, Americans won't...
Simply be guessing at the impact it has in that country, in their own, and around the world, it will be felt immediately ... especially if nukes are involved/Russia, China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
71. K&R Never give up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPZenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
72. Cheney sent to Middle East for "peace" negotiations
On the Nation magazine show on Air America Thursday night, they discussed how Dick Cheney has gone to the Middle East for "peace" negotiations. He has never been involved in that matter before.

It is suspected that he is actually talking to leaders of other countries to build up support for action against Iran, and to threaten them if they get in the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beezlebum Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
74. oh hai gov spitzer ! is that why your bizness was all over mai teevee?
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 09:07 AM by beezlebum
and "u.s.-backed" colombia v. ecuador/venezuela kept popping in my dreams all night. the word "proxy" was stuck on my slumbering tongue.

ah, the smell of world domination in the morning... :hangover:

so, they are fucking with everyone, and we have some pretty sizable consequences to expect for it. why do i have this sense of impending doom? it's almost the same feeling i get before a panic attack, or a speech afront my peers, but much worse, more nightmarish...hmm...

i hear a lot of people saying "buckle up- things are about to get rough." that doesn't even give a clue as to what will happen. things are really going to get worse than we have ever seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #74
87. Dunno if this will work....but.....
I have been sending e-mails ( I have 3 e-mail sites) to the National Republican Party, telling them why I won't vote Republican anymore, then listing the specific reason ( whatever it was at the time.
Now, of course I a not Republican.
they don't know that.
If they get enuff letters that they believe are real......

maybe, just maybe...


whaddya think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
76. I wish the populus would wake up.........
They have mostly been snoozing or hiding under a bed to care to find out the truth about this evil government led by GW Bush and Darth Cheney.

You got my nomination!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
77. We will live to regret not impeaching these bastards
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 09:54 AM by RestoreGore
We better wake the hell up, because I have firmly believed for many months that these criminals are not going to leave next January without giving us all something to remember them by and a parting gift to their "Armageddon" base. That is why I am outraged that Congress has not moved to impeach them, and actually outraged at both Clinton and Obama for not calling for their impeachment. What will happen should they attack Iran within the next eight months? Is that then when Bush's Directive 51 will take effect? It would have to because if they do that all hell will break loose not only in the MIddle East, but here... I personally can't see this scenario playing out with normal people, but face it, these people are insane. This isn't "tin foil " logic anymore either, this is reality. So again, what if this happens before November? Say, right before the Democratic convention? What will Obama or Clinton do then? I have said it before and I will say it again, we will greatly regret NOT impeaching them when we had the chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #77
102. I agree with you.....we will live to regret not obeying the U.S. Constitution
and impeaching Bush and Cheney. I was glad to hear bush sing about returning to the brown, brown grass of home...did he mean it though? I wonder about that..tin foil hat in place...because I can see scenarios that don't have a U.S. election in them. imho
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bagrman Donating Member (889 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #77
113. My recollection is Iran has 1000 missiles already aimed at targets.
Now are those pointed into Israel or Iraq, You can bet some will go screaming across the Persian Gulf and the 5th fleet will disappear.
Now on the religious side doesn't Israel have to be destroyed before their " savior" come back to earth. Well this might be what they are after. Bush is a born again Christian and this is their belief, thats the scariest thing about all this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #113
142. Yes, the book of Revelations and Megiddo
With Ahmadenijad a very willing adversary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirtyDawg Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
79. My solution to everything...
...a bumper sticker. This one should read, 'I Told You War Wasn't The Answer'. Or saving that, we could write a letter to an inept Congressman. Sad, ain't it. We vent and we steam...then we go on about out business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
81. Iran is becoming a diversion for hard times, they need a war to maintain control.
I am sure they planned as much for this as the Iraq War a guaranteed disaster. Welcome to the beginning of a mad Max world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
82. Yeah, we ARE going to attack. Israel, AIPAC, and the Neocons want to
drop the bombs and the time they have to get the job done is growing shorter each and every day.

Are you seriously saying no one here hasn't made any calls, written any letters?

Putting it plain and simple: This is the one act this administration intends to pull off regardless of what ANYONE says or does.

Now with that in mind what do you suggest? The only thing I can see is taking to the streets. Because unless there is some real, and I do mean REAL, show of protest to this action than you'll just get more insanity from the crowd that keeps putting that pointy earred lying delusional bastard out on a podium to spout things like "Saddam was working with al Quaeda" and "see, my tax cuts work".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
89. What Army do you suppose we are going to use to fight this war?
Cause we don't have one that's big enough to fight the 2 wars we got going on now. What makes you think we could fight another one? We could bomb the hell out of them, but that would be about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #89
92. Those planning these wars are not Military.
Rational thought died in this country years ago, science is discredited, diplomacy is gone beyond need for economic advantage. We are fed flawed candidates for public office, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. General Smedly Butler was right War is racket.

They expect the internet generation to become cannon fodder. The plan has to be create an army who chooses not to starve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
91. two options to stop it
pre-emptively impeach the lot of them - not going to happen

the military defies orders - also unlikely under normal circumstances, but maybe, just maybe, that could happen, if they know they have support of the people, and of top-level elected officials.

Biden said he would fight for impeachment if bush attacks; that was a rather lame threat, since by then the genie would be out of the bottle. I would hope that the willingness to make that public statement reflects backchannel communications by him and other leaders. He comes and goes to/from Iraq/Afghanistan a lot; communicates with world leaders regularly, and just may have his own private discussions with senior military. If not him, then some others. Hell, even Pelosi may be doing the right thing in private. We can only hope.

Maybe Admiral Fallon's departure, following so many other military careers ended for not kowtowing to bush, will finally convince a critical mass of them that they need a pre-emptive strike. If enough were to come out and say "hell no" he could not fire them all. We could have the bush version of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre, which was his ultimate final straw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Balbus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
97. For 4 years on this board, people have beein screaming an attack on Iran is inevitable...
Forgive me if I don't hold my breath...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #97
100. No shit.
"Pentagon insiders say...blah blah blah"

"Un-named white house source...blah blah blah"

Gimme a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
99. Oil War II: South America is already in motion....
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 11:47 AM by Peace Patriot
1. They will not attack Iran

Bushites are cowards. They attack the weak. Iran is not weak, and its oil is critically important to China's economy. China, not Fallon, has been blocking an attack on Iran. (Fallon just looked at the realities--who we would be turning into deadly enemies. China holds a big chunk of U.S. debt paper and other things over Bushites' heads, and has nukes and zillions of soldiers.) I think the saber rattling against Iran is to protect the Exxon Mobil & co. oil contracts that the Bushites imposed on the Iraqis. To keep Iran out of Iraq. Even if you understand that the Bush Junta is treasonous--have no loyalty to the U.S.A.--and are the operatives of a sort of floating country--an international financial empire made up of global corporate predators, that has no borders--the colossal mess that nuking Iran would bring about would not benefit this "floating country." They could nuke its nukes, but they couldn't KEEP HOLD OF the country OR ITS OIL FIELDS. Anyway, the U.S. is on the point of financial collapse, due to their massive looting and mismanagement (to benefit the "floating country" and disable the great American progressive majority). We can nuke Iran. We cannot afford to occupy it. And we're talking about a HEALTHY country (unlike sanctioned, no-fly-zone bombed Iraq) with strong defenses.


2. They have a plan to regain control of the oil in the Andes region, and it has begun

There are four easier military targets--but not easy in other ways--in South America, with lots and lots of oil: Venezuela, Ecuador (both members of OPEC), Bolivia (lots of gas, some oil--and a white separatist movement to split off the gas/oil rich provinces, funded by the Bushites, in motion as we speak), and Argentina (big oil find there recently, and a strong ally of the other three). All have democratic, leftist (majorityist) governments, with goals of social justice, using the country's resources to benefit the poor and regional self-determination. The Bushites have tried every trick in their dirty playbook (and have spent lots and lots of our money) to break up this viper's nest of peace, prosperity and decent government, which sits on so much oil--to no avail.

But there have many signs and portents, recently, that a plan, which I think is being orchestrated by Donald Rumsfeld, is coming to fruition, to cause major trouble in South America, with the goal of regaining global corporate predator control of the Andes oil fields.

The recent border incident between Colombia (fascist government, $5 BILLION in Bush/U.S. military aid) and Ecuador may have been an attempt to spark the violence needed to destabilize the region. Cooler heads prevailed. Chavez in particular saw what was developing and pulled back. Ecuador's president was absolutely livid. Chavez had gotten six hostages released from the FARC this year--at Colombia's invitation, actually--and had started a peace process to end Colombia's 40+ year civil war, which the Bushites have been stoking with billions in military aid. Ecuador's President, Rafael Correa, and the presidents of France, Argentina and Venezuela, were negotiating the release of 12 more hostages, when Colombia--using U.S. ordnance, U.S. surveillance, and probably U.S. aircraft out of the U.S. base in Manta, Ecuador--BOMBED and sent troops into a location just over the border in Ecuador, where the chief FARC hostage negotiator was located, killing him and 22 others, in their sleep. A war between Ecuador and Colombia was very possible at that point--but was headed off. Ecuador borders Colombia to the south, Venezuela to the north, and Colombia has made previous incursions into both, spraying small peasant farmers with pesticides and killing innocent people (which Colombia's security forces and paramilitaries are notorious for). The potential for further incidents is great.

Another situation that could be made to spin out of control exists in Bolivia--and it is there that I expect major trouble, and possible U.S. military intervention this year, possibly in May and into the summer (affecting the November election? --quite possibly). The white separatists want to split four gas/oil-rich provinces off from the central government of Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia (a largely indigenous country), to deny benefit of those resources to the poor majority. They are being funded by USAID-NED and covert budgets. They may declare their "independence" this May, and, if Morales uses Bolivian troops to try to hold the country together, they may ask for U.S. military support for their "independence." In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Rumsfeld urges "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America.* The Bushites don't have any "friends and allies" in South America, except Colombia, and fascist thugs planning coups within leftist democracies, particularly Venezuela and Bolivia (probably also Ecuador and Argentina).

Rumsfeld could combine U.S. air support and surveillance with local armed rightwing militias (the white supremecists in Bolivia), and paramilitaries and mercenaries (Blackwater) from Colombia, to create a fascist enclave and launching pad, in Bolivia, which would combine with Colombia, to start serious destabilization of the region. A split-up of Bolivia would create chaos (and rage) within the OAS, and many opportunities for "divide and conquer" tactics. To Rumsfeld, chaos = opportunity. Along with economic warfare recently begun by Exxon Mobil against Venezuela, some leftist governments could fall, to be replaced with fascist governments that would turn the oil fields back over to the multinationals.

I could go on and on about all the "signs and portents" that this plan is real, and has begun. But I'm just going to mention only one more of them. Hugo Chavez has been painted as a "dictator" by the Bush Junta and its lapdog corporate news monopolies. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is plainly obvious to me, and to anyone who knows the facts (and who respects facts). I have studied Venezuela and South America intensely. I know what the majority of its people think of Chavez. I know what other leaders think of Chavez. I have studied Venezuela's election system (which puts our own to shame for its transparency). I have sought out all sorts of alternative information sources. Chavez is NOT a "dictator." Not even close to being one. ALL the rightwing "talking points" about it are false. And yet, the brainwashing about this is endemic in the U.S. And I have not seen anything like this disinformation campaign since the one about Iraq's WMDs. A 100% lie, that most Americans think is, a) true, or b) partially true.

WHY would they go to all this trouble, to promulgate a total lie about this South American president if they were not intending a hot war against him in the near future?

The lie is not intended to convince us--but rather (as with Iraq's WMDs) to fool us long enough to get this done. To confuse us. To put us to sleep. To make us not care very much if we hear of disturbances in South America, or of some controversial U.S. military action at the request of people who merely want their "independence," or to defend Colombia against that "dictator" Chavez (in some further incident created by the Bush/U.S. military).

And once again, this plan--although it, too, will ultimately fail, in my opinion--is EASIER than nuking Iran and trying to hold onto it. It is more complicated, in many ways--because most of South America has gone leftist and democratic. But the new notions of the Bolivarians for regional integration and political/economic cooperation are still fragile. They're successful but they're new--on a continent that has never really cooperated before. Countries like Brazil and Chile, both with leftist governments--and with Brazil's president a friend and ally of Chavez--are conflicted, due to "free trade" deals. They are benefiting from the Bolivarians' bold new ideas, but they might cave in a serious Bushite/Bolivarian confrontation. Venezuela and Ecuador are pretty well defended, but the "war" Rumsfeld has in mind may not be a head-on war, but rather a backdoor war, through Colombia and separatist Bolivia.

For instance, what would Chavez or Correa do, to help Evo Morales, and defend Bolivia's territorial integrity against a separatist war? What would Brazil do, with those separatist provinces right on its border? Would Argentina, a strong Morales ally, bordering Bolivia, get involved? What would Paraguay do--with a center-right government, but one seriously threatened this year, by the campaign for president of beloved "bishop of the poor," Fernando Lugo? Paraguay joined the Bank of the South, a Chavez-inspired project. The separatist provinces are in close proximity to Paraguay. Would they let U.S. troops or mercenaries use the U.S. air base in Paraguay to help the separatists? The potential for chaos--disturbance, anger, divided loyalties, civil disorder, and every kind of conflict, are very great. This is Rumsfeld's M.O.

-----------------



*"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chvez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Good description of the military situation:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5042

Uribe's criminal associations (Bushites' pal in Colombia)
http://www.alternet.org/audits/79210/?page=1
http://www.alternet.org/audits/79210/?page=2

Recommended sites:
www.venezuelanalysis.com (very informative)
www.BoRev.net (hilarious AND informative)

Recommended video:
"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" (Irish filmmakers' documentary about the U.S.-backed violent rightwing coup attempt against the Chavez government in 2002; really tells you what's what in that country.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
101. Hey, what's with all the shouting?!?
Oh, it's you 'we're-invading-Iran' people again.

You're kinda like the Emergency Broadcast System. You don't actually do anything but fuck up my day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
104. Problem is not just WAKING UP but what can we do about it?
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 12:53 PM by uppityperson
Seriously. Call congress right fucking now! and here we still are. General strike when it happens? But then it's happened. So, WHAT CAN we do? Yeah, I recall the work impeachment, and whole hell of a lot of other words. So? What CAN we do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
105. K&R, this may be one of the most dangerous periods of the Bush Admin....

this period of time before the end of the administration will be their last chance to start World War III.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
106. The only hope we have is getting Impeachment on the table
The Pen came up with a plan to get more attention on this they need support to do it look at this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...







Ich Bin Ein Colbertler
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
107. The problem is that this has come up so often, I am numb to it now
Thats a problem, these "we are going to attack Iran" posts come up about every 2 or 3 months, and it is starting to loose its effect.

Do I believe that he wants to do it? Absolutely. Will he do it? I just don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
109. I'd guess there are two or three reaons to bet that the fascists in WH will do this . . .
#1 . . . they defeated us re the hostages ----

#2 . . . the Pentagon wants to show us the war on THREE fronts and how threatened we are ---

#3 . . . Iran has oil --- and we can use the argument that it is a threat to Israel ---



If we couldn't stop Afghanistan nor Iraq . . . how in the hell are we going to stop Iran?

What is it now, 20 generals have been fired by this maniac who delivered his INSANE assessment the other day that "war is romantic!" . . . !!!

I can only imagine his keepers were off on Easter holidays --- !!!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
110. Also remember that CONGRESS/DEMS took the "WARNING" re attacking Iran out of
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 02:07 PM by defendandprotect
their legislation ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
111. I've been following with you Cyrano
Sitting here in silent horror about it. I can't say much because I can't allow myself to think about it because yes, I do feel helpless. I think it will be the beginning of the end of all things as we know them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
112. Scott Ritter
knows
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
114. Scott Ritter will be the keynote speaker
for this year's annual May 4 Commemoration at Kent State University in Ohio (I was a May 4 Task Force member while a student there and am on their permanent email list and am still in communication with many fellow alumni members, so that is how I know the details).

I no longer live in Ohio, so can't attend the commemorations anymore like I used to, but I suggest that anyone who lives near, or even within reasonable driving distance, attend the weekend events along with the commemoration. There will likely be a panel discussion the night before which will likely include Ritter. Maybe you can ask him about this and try to get it out there and get more awareness of it.

William Rivers Pitt was the main speaker in 2004 and did a great job, it's an excellent venue to get out information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
f the letter Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
115. AAAAAAAMEN. Nice to see a real post make the greatest list
After all this primary nonsense clogging up DU for months on end
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElboRuum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
116. I AM AWAKE.
I'm not, however, DRIVING THIS CAR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danieljay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
117. Fuck no! We are too damn busy trying to destroy our own party to worry about senseless death
of people half way around the globe.

Congratulations.. we have seen the enemy.. and it is us.

Oh, and its Obama's Pastors fault anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danieljay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
118. Perhaps Pastor Wright will attack Iran and Obama will be redeemed. Hillary, Rush, and Savage
would then have to find something else to distract us with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
119. kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire Walk With Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
120. Impeach now. Prosecute now. Nothing these people do is good for the nation.
Or for the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kitty1 Donating Member (772 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
121. The Defense Dept is worried about the growing influence Tehran
is having on Iraq. Especially the Shiite population there.
The Iranian pres was treated like royalty on his recent visit, and many are questioning the amount of control that Iran will command over Iraq in future. Ahmadenijad made visits to the top Shiite leaders while in Iran.

snip

Richard Russell, who lectures on national security at the National Defense University, also raised suspicions about Iranian motives.

Iran's agenda includes establishing "a clandestine infrastructure in Iraq," and Tehran is "planning to have more influence domestically inside Iraq as Americans downsize their presence," he said.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-03/04/content_6...

Bush and Co must be more than a little nervous over this Iran's growing influence over there. Will Iran eventually try to muscle on the U.S. investment opportunities they've established the last few years while helping Iraq with building their infrastructure.
Iraq is already becoming another Lebanon with the infighting over there.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IowaGirl Donating Member (539 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
122. Recently someone told me that Bush had so little time left that there was little point stressing out
over him and his administration. Heck, he has plenty of time to make us hated more throughout the world. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happygoluckytoyou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
123. WRITE CONGRESS AND HERE IS WHAT TO SAY---->
go to senate.gov and find YOUR senators....

....tell them that you want congress to TAKE BACK FROM THE PRESIDENT HIS ABILITY TO WAGE WAR WITHOUT CONGRESS VOTING...

--------- they can take it back from him... and the OLD EXCUSE is gone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
124. I hope you're wrong. People have been predicting an attack on Iran
for a long time and it hasn't happened yet. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our power to prevent these war-crazed maniacs from starting another war. But they haven't been stupid enough to actually do it yet, and I hope that continues. I think they would have a hard time making a convincing case. They've cried wolf too many times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benld74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
125. I've been wide awake since the SOB announced he was running for Pres!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
126. I was awake last year when they were about to attack Iran, too, and the year before that.
I don't think it's gonna happen. I think the neocons' star has fallen, and they no longer have the political oomph to make it happen. I've heard the theory that now they have nothing to lose, but am not convinced.

God help us if I'm wrong, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #126
130. I agree. The OP provides no evidence to back up the claims as well.
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 05:32 PM by Flabbergasted
Things like this are very challenging. Bush can't just drop the bombs. He has to have cause and he has zero credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #130
143. Hey, what about the theory that war is just so "romantic" . . . !!!!
That's one of his best --- !!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuckyLib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
127. BushCo has planned to leave the Democrats with a huge bag of shit in January of 2009.
It would not surprise me if it also includes Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
129. I think things are on the move! Congress needs to stop it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
131. One thing that leads me to thing Cheneybush will not attack Iran
The Republican leadership, including Cheney, is composed mainly
of armchair Rambos--essentially cowards. They attack only when
they are relatively sure that no one will shoot back. Cheneybush
could have attacked North Korea, or Iran. They attacked Iraq. Why?
Because they were relatively sure that Iraq had lost the capacity
to shoot back. Sure, they had an army still, and the hostile factions
within the country were just waiting to get at each other's throats
the second Saddam was gone (Cheneybush: ooooops!! My bad!). But I think
they basically saw the Iraq invasion as a sound business decision. We
install puppet companies to provide us with oil at a price we can live
with, and Halliburton and friends get hundreds of billions in no-bid
contracts to solve any and all of their balance sheet woes.

OK, things didn't turn out as they thought, but that just shows up their
incompetence, not their intentions or their mind-set.

Look at the Republicans' greatest hero and guiding light, Ronald Reagan.
He invaded the Caribbean island of Grenada, a rock somewhere with a
few hotels and a population smaller than Topeka, Kansas. Quite the formidable
foe for the mighty military of the United States, right? What a glorious and
hard-fought victory that was.

The fact that Cheneybush miscalculated on Iraq doesn't change their overall
philosophy: don't start a fight with someone you think will fight back.
You might find they are just as willing (or more) to fight as you are.

They know that both Iran and North Korea will fight back, and with a vengeance.
We have neither the personnel, the equipment, or the will to launch an invasion
of either place, and for sure we don't have enough body bags to handle all the
dead Americans that would result from such an operation. This leaves the option
of an air strike, of course, but that also leave open the possibility of
American embassies, companies, and tourists being attacked worldwide. Cheneybush
couldn't care less about the embassies or the tourists, but those multinationals
are their biggest contributors. I don't see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #131
138. Sounds like you think Cheney/Bush is rational. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #131
146. How I wish I could agree with you . . .
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 08:53 PM by defendandprotect
I think they know that Iran has no nuclear weapons ---
otherwise they wouldn't consider attacking.

Secondly, we can't discount Israel which, IMO, is more or less being run by our corrupt government to gain control of the ME.

IMO, we did the same thing there that we did in Afghanistan ---
raised the religious lunatics --- Taliban/AlQaeda -- and then Zbiegnew Brezinski tells us
we went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians entered .... "in order to bait the Russians into Afghanistan . . . in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type experience." !!!

Nixon armed right-wing fanatically religous Israelis who proceeded to kill RABIN in order to keep the country from its usual liberal leanings toward peace.

W Bush winked at Sharon and here we are with Israel engaged in full fledged war on Pakistan and firing on how many other countries in the ME? Any chance we are using Israel for our own ME gains?

The US wanted the American oil companies to take over and control Iraq's oil ---
If I recall this correctly, they didn't want to do that ---
But it is about CONTROLLING the oil -- keeping any other nation from having control over it.

I think Grenada was one of the first steps in returning to the perpetual war . . .
they had to begin somewhere on getting rid of what they call the "VN syndrome."
Then Panama, then Gulf War I . . . kept moving up the stakes --- and here we are again . . .
Perpetual War--!!!

I do have to agree with you however that our military is pretty much broken ---
but they always seem to find a way to have that not matter --- !!!

This might, however, be the last straw with the military if they tried to use them against Iran.

Again -- I sure hope you're right!!!
















Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #146
147. So do I, and someone I very much respect disagreed with me
His name is Wes Clark, and it was very chilling to have him lay out
for me why he thought they'd go through with it. This is the only
time I've disagreed with him on anything, and his intellect is a
Himalayan peak compared to my anthill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
132. I am convinced that Bush will attack Iran between the election
(which WILL be won by our Dem candidate) and the inauguration for the SOLE purpose of "poisoning the well".

Just watch. It will be another Reichstag/9-11-type supposed provocation. We are all in grave danger.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. I just finished replacing the last of the incandescent lights in my apartment with CFLs. I LOVE those new mini 15w/40w guys that fit in all the smaller spaces. Don't blame ME for this country's energy woes - I use about 25% of the electricity I did 20 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
140. I hear war drums pounding
Where are the bells of peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 04:01 AM
Response to Original message
148. Oh Lordy, Cyrano. Before His Insanity bombed Baghdad I marched & wrote letters & organized...
...townhall meetings and generally wore myself out.

Most of us here at DU were tearing our hair out as we watched those evil sons of bitches drive us all right off a cliff and were unable to make them stop.

Of COURSE that bastard Cheney wants to invade Iran -- but what the hell would you like us to do that we didn't do before?

I think we ARE AWARE, here on this board. Try to wake up your congressman and senators. Please.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Feb 17th 2020, 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC