Iran. Has it EVER happened that a country has come off a disastrous

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

war, a defeat, and, at its absolute low in political support, started ANOTHER unprovoked war?

At least one that pretended to be a representative democracy?

As events have unfolded in Iraq, my thinking was, of course, "Well, at least that puts an end to any further neocon ambitions on Iran, etc.".

But the signs, as far as the "propaganda drumbeat", are only too clear. More belligerence in public statements and nuclear scaremongering every week.

It makes me wonder if shrubco is some kind of machine, that was wound up in 1999, let go, and will continue to run and unwind in its preset program to its inevitable conclusion, no matter what the actual ouctomes of its actions are, what is happening around it.

Shrubco had a very plausible setup to get the U.S. into Iraq. It had not yet expended all its capital and presumption of honesty. Most importantly, it had 9/11, and a fearful public, with a component of racism in the response to 9/11 that allowed for easy transference of fear and hate from 9/11 to Iraq with cheap lies and distortions. It had a volunteer military. Despite the lies and vocal opposition, it had quite a lot of real support in the country for this disastrous invasion.

For Iran, most of those conditions no longer exist. They continue to play the 9/11 card but to severely diminished returns. The U.S. military, particularly the Army and Marines, has been severely overtaxed by Iraq, with multiple successive deployments and abuse of the National Guard. It would not surprise me if there was a SEVERE breakdown in discipline in this military if asked to embark on another unprovoked invasion and occupation. After all the lies on Iraq, even many of the original KoolAid drinkers should recognize little credibility in the current Iran propaganda "drumbeat".

Without a draft and/or use of nuclear weapons, I don't see, logistically, how this would even be possible. And that's even FACTORING IN some new Reichstag/9/11 scenario.

[Old and In the Way]

1. I wonder the same thing.

There can be no justification for attacking Iran, yet that seems to be the plan. If we use nukes, it will be because a nuke was used on us 1st. Problem is, who gets to frame the evidence? The same people who let 9/11 occur and lied about the causus belli in Iraq? I wonder if an attack on Iran is a further deflection of this administration's growing legal prblems? Ultimately, I think it has less to do with their PNAC vision and more to do with keeping themselves in power and immune from being held responsible for their war crimes.

One way or another, Iran will be the neo-con's Waterloo. It will be the final straw for the majority of US citizens and the world. No way will any thinking person believe that Iran is behind any "event" that happens in the US. Cheney's plans have been leaked and we won't be caught off guard like we were on 9/11....

[HockeyMom]

2. Remember we are still fighting in Afghanistan

Our soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan too. These reports are going under the radar.

Can the "all powerful" USA fight on 3 fronts at the same time? All ALONE? All I keep thinking of is Napoleon and Hitler. They seemed to think they were "gods" too.

[FloridaPat]

3. Actually there may be a reason to invade - the Islam bouse. If

oil gets sold in Euros, the US economy will crash. 20 years of mismanaged treasury has pretty much destroyed our country. The choice is keep half the people on * side by a continual war or face the entire population in the streets. If we keep at war, and half the population goes to the streets, * can bring in martial law, suspend what is left of the Constitution, and become dictator. A well placed nuclear bomb would do a lot to shut up the Americans.