Top 20 Indications that Bush Invades Iran -- Soon!

[freeandbrave]

Top 20 Indications that Bush Invades Iran -- Soon!
By Tom Ball
02/08/05

Excerpt:

Number 1) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that U.S. Attacks on Iran are 'simply not on the agenda at this point'.

And by that, she of course meant that Iran IS on the agenda and it always has been -- right along with Iraq.

(...)

2) Flashback to spring of 2003. John R. Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was asked about speculation that Syria and Iran could be America's next targets after the war in Iraq. He responded:

"We are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest."

He called the pursuit of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs a terrorist threat and said it "will remain our priority to achieve a peaceful elimination of these programs so that supporters of terrorism cannot use them against innocent people."

No, he wasn't referring to the US... and no, he wasn't referring to MOAB "collateral damage".

And so a methodic course of foreshadowing an unending future of preemptive strikes was set in motion. Unambiguously implied, Iran and Syria are next on the administration's hit list.

Read #3-#20 Here...

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001131.php

[ladjf]

1. I believe that it will be air strikes only. And/or perhaps we might

"outsource" some of the dirty work to Israel. We don't even have enough troops to keep Iraq under control. How could we send ground troops to Iran, a large and resourceful country? But, then again, just being a bad idea has never stopped Bush and his cronies before.

[freeandbrave]

6. No Way...

...There is no way that the Bush II cabal will make the same mistake as the Bush I cabal. They will not stop at airstrikes. The idea is to reshape the Middle Easet and that won't happen with simple airstrikes.

Again, the complicating factor is that Iran is a Democracy...though so was Iraq. It's just that Saddam was assured 99% of the vote.

[ladjf]

7. But where will they get the troops? Take them out of Iraq?

[freeandbrave]

10. We are a nation of 300 million people...

The Bush administration is a force of unrelenting evil. Do you really think that they will fail to find a way to pull this off.

If they have to, you can bet your bottom dollar on "... some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor"...perhaps "911 Part II".

There is one thing that I have learned from this administration...don't put anything past them. They will do whatever it takes to assert their agenda.

Whether anyone agrees with that or believes it is inconsequential. They will continue doing exactly what they feel is necessary to obtain their objective.

[ladjf]

11. I presume that you are saying that they would draft an army

if necessary. You are right they will stop at nothing. However, I just don't think the logistics are there. Even if they drafted another 200,000 young Americans, the economy can't bear the cost. We are moving toward economic collapse as it is. I think such a drastic move as adding an additional 200 billion per year war cost can't happen. Our debts are now be largely funded by China and Japan. China has already announced that it doesn't intend to continue to fund us.

You are correct in your assertions that the administration is totally
ruthless. And may I add, crazy as hell.

[freeandbrave]

13. I agree with you, But...

...where there is a will, there is a way.

Remember, we sent millions to war in WWII with a much smaller population. I'm not saying it would be anywhere near that grand a scale. I'm just saying that with the proper application of propaganda and fear-mongering...perhaps coupled with another devastating terrorist attack, there will be no limit to the number of countries that the administration would 'address'.

The consideration of resources and logistics is a valid one. Rest assured that the army of rightwing think tanks and the rest of their intellectual infrastructure have been hard at work finding a way to make this happen. now is their opportunity...their best opportunity in the history of this nation and the world.

Think about it. Republicans rule every facet of America's leadership. There are minimal checks and balances.

In addition, the US is by far the most powerful military presence on the planet. For many of the neoconservatives, this means it is now or never (or at least a long time).

The one thing that I don't have an answer for is how we would pay for further military actions. How far would they go?

I don't know the answer. I just cringe when I follow the trend.

[freeandbrave]

14. Here's a possibility...

They will 'find' the troops they need...or maybe they will simply develop and use 'tactical nuclear weapons' (er...I mean 'bunker busters') to obliterate the opposition. This means that fewer troops would be required to square things away. Take your choice.

[rman]

9. you wouldn't know Iran is a democracy if you listen to the MSM,

much like you wouldn't have known Iraq had no WMD if the MSM were your source of information.
It's trivial for them to make it look as though Iran has no democracy.

last i heard from the MSM, Iran is run by a bunch of religious fundamentalists, not a word on the elected government there.

[bryant69]

2. Not entirely convincing

I don't doubt that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld would like to invade Iran and Syria--it's part of their long term plans for the region as the article noted. That said, there are just as many reasons why they won't do it any time soon, and possibly not at all. It's one thing to theoretically call for the transformation of the middle east as the PNAC did. It's another to actually see the plan in execution. Has the plan been a success for the Bush Adminstration? Not as such. Iraq has proven a lot more difficult to stabalize (doubtless they origionally assumed they'd be out of Iraq by now and ready to go to Iran). They have no international support for an invasion of Iran. And so on and so forth.

I'm not saying they definately won't invade Iran--if they can start pulling our troops out of Iraq than it's a real possibility. And of course if you believe LIHOP/MIHOP than we are just another "terrorist" attack away from invading Iran.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[yinkaafrica]

3. Bush conquered Iraq, Iran is next on his list

Like the author says, we have no real interest in stabilizing Iraq and no intention of ever leaving.

[bryant69]

5. Oh I gues you are right

Assertion is the same as an argument.

[Village Idiot]

8. all you need to be convinced is to look at a map.

see that blank spot nestled conveniently between IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? I call it IRAN. Shrub calls it a "target of opportunity." Get the picture?

[RubyDuby in GA]

4. I thought it was going to be Syria

After all, Rummy this weekend was saying that Syria was seriously impeding the democratic process in Iraq.

My money is on Syria for our next crusade, I mean mission to spread democracy throughout the region.

[freeandbrave]

15. Flip a coin

I guess Iran is getting the attention because their 'nukular' ambiitions makes them an easier PR target. just a guess.

[ultraist]

12. Please attend an ANTI War Rally on March 19

We cannot sit back and allow this to happen. It's time to take it to the streets in MASS!

Email your legislators and let them know you are opposed to another war.

The Neocons are winning at this point and it's obvious they have set the stage to attack Iran.

War leaves every child behind.

[theboss]

16. I just don't see how we could do it with the troop strength we have

I could definitely see bombing Iran at some point in the next four years. I don't see how we could invade.