Do you think we'll invade Iran?

[Stinky The Clown]

I don't.

Not even the cabal is that stupid. Our military is well and truly broken. It is in the worst state of readiness I can ever recall. We're so desperate in Iraq we're looking at a positively medieval trench fortification around Baghdad. Our troops have been in Iraq more times than a college graduate has been to the annual first day of classes. And that includes our Guard and Reserves.

There is no international support for this. In fact, Iran has some bad ass allies, like Russia and China. Even Europe is against it. Talk about 'go it alone'. We'd be totally alone ..... except for Israel.

Does anyone think we'll try it? If you think so, PLEASE take the time to explain how you think we'll do it. The insanity of the PNAC crowd is not proof.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

1. We will have Israel lob bombs at them.

On edit: The explanation is that the game plan all along for the PNAC has been a limited winnable nuclear war with either Russia or China, or both, to establish our world dominance. An attack on Iran could possible start that in motion so we won't need additional troops as this will be a push button war.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. And then ...... ?

Iran's gunna ..... throw up their hands in surrender? ..... no one else will get involved?

[Freedom_from_Chains]

7. I already said it would be with Russia and China.

Who else is there to get involved? There are only three players on the board, us, China, and Russia, everyone else is just pawns in the game.

Opps sorry, you most likely posted before I completed my edit.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I don't think there's any way they'll be poking sticks into those eyes

[Freedom_from_Chains]

12. Well that is what they have been talking about since the early

90's. I dismissed them then thinking they were crackpots but now that they have assumed power I have no reason to think they don't mean what they say.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. That plan was predicated on a cakewalk in Iraq

They don't have that. They *never* planned to be emroiled in a civil war that would lead to archaic defenses as their only strategy. They flat had NO plan for a protracted engagement in Iraq.

Given their major executional fuckup in Iraq, they're pretty powerless to do the next steps.

It may be true that that they still *want* to do Iran. The reality is, they can't.

They also won't lob nukes of any size or type. Maybe they'd have tried that if they had a sucessful short war in Iraq. But with their history now? No way.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

15. Minor bump in the road, besides we haven't even reinstated the

draft yet. There is still a long way we can go.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. I'd hardly term this bump 'minor'

Now ..... will they do it in the next two years? I can't imagine it.

If they retain power beyond 08 ..... all bets are off and our asses are fried.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

21. LOL, yeah if they stay in after 08 it is time to get out of Dodge.

I am hopeful the coming midterm election will be the beginning of a turnaround, but we will have to see. I still would not put it beyond these people, if they see they are going to loose Congress, to declare martial law as a national state of emergency and take over the government.

Hopefully, I am being overly paranoid.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. "Hopefully, I am being overly paranoid."

Paranoid ....... I vacillate myself. :)

[minnesota_liberal]

33. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not ...

out to get you.

[newspeak]

38. yeah, the Daily Show was making jokes about

Cheney's bunker and complaints from the neighbors. Maybe that was a heads up why Cheney was even contemplating a bunker at that time, unless they have something crazy planned.:crazy:

[patrice]

2. I think the question is under what circumstances will we use

tactical nuclear weapons in the MidEast?

Our Armed Forces are stretched tooo thin, so what kind of situation would create a "reason" to use nukes?

[terrya]

3. I honestly don't see how we can.

Hell, where are the troops going to come from?

Unless those assholes bring back the draft. The will to invade is certainly there. Those fuckers in the White House and the Pentagon don't give a shit about the international reaction.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. I'll blame the white house ...... I'll be far kinder the Pentagon.

The Pentagon does what the civilian leadership tells to do. That said, part of their job is to 'war game' **everything**.

[razors edge]

17. before you exonerate the dod

remember who injected the pnac plan into our foreign policy.

remember who backed chalabi.

and covers a plethora of lies since mission accomplished.

office of special plans, an illegal intelligence agency created by neocons (israeli firsters) and allowed to override the cia.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. That wasn't 'the Pentagon'. That was the civillian leadership. The .....

..... PNACers themselves.

In my statement, 'the Pentagon' are the careerists, not the appointees.

[razors edge]

29. the pentagon

has so blurred the line between military and civilian, I refuse to differentiate. when the revolving door of senior officer adjunct of special procurement in support of expeditionary requisitions, can be better described as corrupt man in uniform on way to board of directors for raytheon. The politics of all actions taken by the "appointees" is dictated by their own self interests.

in 1983, I reported a severe case of fraud/waste/abuse, and was brought up on NJP for failing a urinalysis I never even took.

sorry for my jade but, tis what it tis.

semper fi

[Buzz Clik]

5. No. Any hostilities will be old school, cold war style -- by proxy.

[tularetom]

6. I'm pretty sure I won't

but I'd have to question your first premise. I think * is definitely that stupid. The people pulling his strings may not be stupid but they are pro Israel fanatics who can play to his naive messianic worldview and convince the moran to bomb anyone who threatens Israel. And they have figured out just which buttons to push - make him feel like a man and you can get the little fucker to do anything. Remember a lot of us didn't think he'd be stupid enough to get bogged down in Iraq.

[davidwparker]

9. if the Dems take one of the houses of Congress, no. Otherwise,

yes.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. How?

[davidwparker]

18. Because they can hold public hearings in front of c-span cameras if

nothing else and demand proof of intelligence. Things won't be able to be pushed through like they are today.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. You misunderstood .....

I agree that if we hold hearings, they'll never do it. It was your postulation that without hearngs, they would invade Iran. It was your second postulation I am questioning, not your first.

In short, you answered 'yes' to the question of whether they'd invade Iran. I asked 'how'.

[davidwparker]

23. Oh. To extend past the CIA activities going on now? Heavy air attacks.

Draft. Using low-grade nuclear bombs. Draft. Draft. Draft.

[flyarm]

14. FROM LEBANON NEWS SOURCE

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=75489

[Stinky The Clown]

16. A speculative narrative ... not hard news

It also concludes that they'll do it or they'll be out of power. I think the'll be out of power. To nuke Iran would make them - and by extension, Israel - such international pariah that they've NOwhere to run and the world will call for their collective heads on collective pikes.

[nealmhughes]

24. Only the nuttiest of the corporate enabler AEI/Heritage/PNAC crowd

that is, Ari Cohen, et al. could possibly have an agenda that calls for war with Iran. Iraq is a useful distraction for the free limited flow of OPEC oil at speculator prices, protected by US air/sea power. Iran has about 70 million people, is 4X larger than Iraq and a brutal mountainous terrain with very fertile valley intersperced.
The Persians are in one of their cyclic expansion periods, and not apt to take kindly to an Israeli/US airstrike, much less an invasion. "We", that is to say, the Arab monarchies, the Pakistanis and Iraq have the Iranians "surrounded" right now, though how much of Iraq is is a viable pro-US/Arab monarchy force is probable small... Afghanistan is pro-Sunni Wahhabi, Pakistan bankrolled by the US, and voila, what can they do except play hardball. They are doing exactly what Brazil is doing in enrichment -- only Brazil won't waste its money in sabre-rattling "do we or don't we have a Carioca Bomb?" nonsense. Iran is still pretty pissed about all the Billions that the US/France poured into the Shah's nuclear program and them empounded in 79 with no reactors to show for it, but lotsa natural uranium and about a 35 year supply of oil left at present sale/consumption rate...
I view all the Mideast/Persian adventure as a three headed thing: one head is that of Iraq being used as a permanent destabilizer and Saddam's program to put the Iraqi oil on the open market to thwart the OPEC Arab monarchies cartel which then justifies war with sermons and phony philosophy about freedom and Jesus wants us to save Israel; the next is the true believer neo-con agenda which sees Iraq as an easy mark and with Saddam's agenda of human rights violations, easy to justify; the last is the forthcoming US bases and continued turmoil which keeps the oil traders in turmoil in London, Frankfurt and New York, resulting in artifically high "threatened" oil prices, but with a modicum of stability via the Arabian peninsula and US protection of the shipping lanes.
In other words, Ari Cohen is useful for fake "intellectual justification" for any war, but Cheny, Rummy, and the rest of BushCo,Inc. used them to keep the oil squeezed to a minimum safe flow, and high price. Afghanistan was old-fashioned revanche, pure and simple.

[NMDemDist2]

30. very interesting analysis

thanks!

[Telly Savalas]

25. No.

If Cheney and his minions have such a hard-on to invade Iran, then what are they waiting for?

We've had threads at DU for the last year and a half claiming that an invasion is imminent, but the White House hasn't taken any action during this time to move us any closer to such action.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. We agree .....

.... its easy to say the sky is falling. It is more difficult to pick up blue paint chips from the ground.

[saltpoint]

28. Agree. It would be the death knell for this administration politically

-- and polls already show Bush has botched foreign policy.

All your points have resonance.

The private inner circle meetings of the Bush White House must be pretty low-spirited affairs these days. They've lost the momentum on every single thing, and now the Republican elders are slapping them around in public on torture.

The legacy thing is going to be thorny.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. With what?

Baywatch?

[lisainmilo]

32. Yes, I believe it is in the plans...Check out Wes Clarks 9/11 speech

http://securingamerica.com/printready/clarkcast_060911.htm

Yes, we saw that. We saw it in the refusal to deal with the terrorists before 9/11 and the president's dereliction of duty. We saw it afterwards in the hasty decision to invade Iraq no matter what. And I saw it when I went through the Pentagon in November of 2001 when a senior officer waved a memo in front of me that purported to explain the administration's plans to take down, first Iraq, then Syria, then Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and then go after Iran - all in five years.

[windbreeze]

36. I agree...it IS in the plans

and since we have all heard how they have black ops going on in that country right now, that he didn't tell us about.....who says he's going to tell us what they are doing at any point?? IF it were done on the sneak...say with Israel's help...or say, if we encouraged and paid Israel to do it(since they made it quite plain they want to)..we'd still be the ones responsible..I don't think they intend to have a need for ground troops..because it will be done from air....who knows what the black ops are doing?? they might be setting bombs right now...or making hidden targets visible for the big day....

DO WE really believe that * CARES what the rest of the world thinks??? IF he did, all those world wide marches against invading Iraq, should have caused him to reconsider...or at least hesitate...but it didn't..he has exactly the same mindset as the terrorists that use suicide bombs...
windbreeze

[CarlVK]

34. Nope. We dont have the troops, materiale, or support.

without that, the only war you can make is with those little plastic soldiers you buy by the bagfull in any toy store.

[AZBlue]

35. I know they'd like to.

But I agree, even they aren't that stupid. And, Congress, as well as the citizens of the US, will be a little harder to fool this time.

[newspeak]

37. well, if their plan is really

to neutralize us, then maybe. To me, this administration is selling our resources and us as fast as they can. With our ever burdgeoning deficit and a stretched military, I don't believe any sane person would attempt too many fronts. But, you know, Hitler's generals attempted to warn him against fighting too many fronts, and look what happened to germany? And, let me repeat, any sane person wouldn't attempt to expend their resources and military with another front. "Sane" is the key word.

[alfredo]

39. The neo cons force us into situations where we have little choice

but do what they want. If they want war with Iran they will force the issue, even if it means a small, sneak attack that will goad Iran into responding in kind. Maybe a client state like Israel will do the deed and we will have to "come to their aid."

There's always the "Operation Northwoods" option.

Look at what they have done domestically/ The huge deficits are designed to make us give up social programs and environmental regulations. They are forcing the issue.

[Jai4WKC08]

40. Invade? No. Bomb the hell out of? Quite likely

Remember... Former-naval-aviator-who-never-saw-combat-Rummy and his boys have always thought you could do it all with air-power. That's why he is so beloved by all those retired Air Force generals who work for defense contractors.

There's no reason to believe Rummy has learned his lesson from Iraq or Aghanistan. In fact, it looks very much like he, Bush and Cheney may have pressured Israel to give it a go against Hizbollah in Lebannon.

Unfortunately, I expect Iran will retaliate against our troops in Iraq, so it all could easily escalate into a ground invasion. Don't expect Rummy to plan for that possibility any better than he did the occupation of Iraq, but we may be looking at a draft, because there's no way the current force structure can handle it.

[Clarkie1]

41. It will be a massive air campaign if it happens.

"No one is talking about a ground invasion of Iran. Too many U.S. troops are tied down elsewhere to make it possible, and besides, it isn't necessary. If the U.S. goal is simply to stunt Iran's nuclear program, it can be done better and more safely by air.

An attack limited to Iran's nuclear facilities would nonetheless require a massive campaign. Experts say that Iran has between 18 and 30 nuclear-related facilities. The sites are dispersed around the country -- some in the open, some cloaked in the guise of conventional factories, some buried deep underground.

A U.S. strike would have a lasting impression on Iran's rulers. U.S. officials believe that a campaign of several days could set back Iran's nuclear program by two to three years. Hit hard enough, some believe, Iranians might develop second thoughts about their government's designs as a regional nuclear power.

Some U.S. foes of Iran's regime believe that the crisis of legitimacy that the ruling clerics would face in the wake of a U.S. attack could trigger their downfall, though others are convinced it would unite the population with the government in anti-American rage.

Given the chaos that a war might unleash, what options does the world have to avoid it? One approach would be for the U.S. to accept Iran as a nuclear power and learn to live with an Iranian bomb, focusing its efforts on deterrence rather than pre-emption.

The risk is that a nuclear-armed Iran would use its regional primacy to become the dominant foreign power in Iraq, threaten Israel and make it harder for Washington to exert its will in the region. And it could provoke Sunni countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to start nuclear programs of their own to contain rising Shiite power."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/17/coverstory.tm.iran.tm/index.html