The Surge: 9,000 now, 10,000 on alert in Kuwait? WTF? (Iran bombing in the works?)

[Junkdrawer]

So, earlier this week, boloboffin posted this:

George W. Bush is going to bomb Iran. This is the purpose of the "surge". No amount of troops is going to fix Iraq; they couldn't if they tried. If Bush wanted to fix Iraq, he'd give them jobs. People who are employed in decent jobs can figure out how to live with their neighbors. More American troops in the Persian Gulf are not going to quell violence in Iraq any more than the ones already there are.

George W. Bush is going to bomb Iran. And there may be almost nothing we can do to stop it.

Iran has a single trump card - their nuclear program. I share the doubts that Bush can destroy the whole thing. There will be no repeat of Israel's surgical removal of the nuclear ambitions of Saddam Hussein. But Bush can take out enough of Iran's nuclear facilities to knock them back a few more years in the development of a feasible weapon. That is all he needs to bomb - that is, until Iran makes its move.

And that's what the surge is for. Ostensibly, it's about Iraq. Nobody thinks that Iraq needs more American soldiers. And it doesn't today. But Bush is sending them anyway, because he knows what he's about to do, and Iraq is going to need more soldiers when the Shiite forces sympathetic to Iran erupt in violence.

...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3022620

Well, CBS ran a story last night:

CBS: Military Tells Bush It Has Only 9,000 Troops Available For ‘Surge’
A State Department official leaked word this week that President Bush is considering sending “no more than 15,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops” to Iraq. “Instead of a surge, it is a bump,” the official said.

This claim was bolstered last night by CBS’s David Martin, who reported that military commanders have told Bush they are prepared to execute a troop escalation of just 9,000 soldiers and Marines into Iraq, “with another 10,000 on alert in Kuwait and the U.S.”

...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3051602&mesg_id=3051602

So, if you are going to "surge" to clean up Baghdad, why hold the majority in reserve? Perhaps it's because you don't know where the "enemy" will surge after an attack on Iran?

[patrice]

1. IS it possible to have this man arrested for Malfeasance? Endangering

the United States?

[Delphinus]

2. What justification

does the boy king possibly have in attacking Iran?

[Junkdrawer]

3. "Iran's president says international sanctions won't stop uranium enrichment"...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-05-iran_x.htm

[bdamomma]

10. to bring on the "end times" he is whacked out and a religious

extremist. He needs to be handcuffed and arrested.

[Imagevision]

4. So Bush is sending more troops for Iran under the guise of fighting in Iraq?

and with all the Recent Naval build up in the area it only makes sense to have an additional 20, 30,000 US. troops on the ground for Bush to invent a reason for a strike against Iran.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Many think the Shiites in Iraq would explode if Iran was bombed...

The nature of this "surge" seems preparatory for such a contingency.

[patrice]

6. Great excuse for an anonymous nuclear incident and blame it on whoever is convenient.

[bdamomma]

11. remember when the congress gave him money for Afghanistan and

bush used the money for Iraq, we are dealing with a madman, the guy just does not have no insight and he doesn't think, he just acts. Impulsive, stubborn, defiant and dangerous a very bad combination for someone who has access to the "red button".

[Loge23]

7. Cause for concern rather than a conspiracy theory

In a sane world, the lead post could be viewed as just another conspiracy theory. But in "The Days of Chimply", this is entirely plausible.
I can see only two possible results of such an action in Iran:
1) This will set a conflagration engufing most of the world;
2) This will result in a massive public uprising against the criminals in DC.

I pray it doesn't happen.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Israel has been threatening to bomb if we don't...

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006017868

[Trajan]

9. I don't see it ....

Either success in Iraq with the addition of a few troops ....

or ....

An attack on Iran ..... the presence of a few tens of thousands of troops will NOT deter an angry Iran nor angry Iraqi Shiites who take up Iran's cause within Iraq ....

I know that an air attack can 'devastate' targets within a nation, but can it stop one million standing troops AND commit to attacking hard targets within the Irani theater ? .....

IF they were to bomb Iran, it will stir a hornets nest of righteous islamic anger which 20,000 soldiers and a shitload of bombs will NOT suppress ....

[Marrah_G]

12. I think ther eis something brewing

I recieved a letter from my family this week that my 41 year old brother, retired from the Navy (commander) for the last ten years has been re-activated and leaves Sunday to serve a YEAR in the middle east.

If they are recalling civillians for such an extended tour there is something going on. He had very little notice as well. He has a wife and 5 children scrambling to figure out how to get through the year without him, with considerably less money while worrying that he will not come home. He did his time, served his country, yet its not enough.

He is flying into Kuwait on Sunday. I am trying to get up enough courage to call him without falling apart.

I am unbelievably terrified that one of these loons is going to push a button and our miltary in the ME will be sitting ducks.

When will this mightmare end?

[Old and In the Way]

13. What do they have to lose, at this point?

They've lost their Republican cushion in Congress, they know they could be weeks/months away from the results of investigations that could warrant impeachment and criminal trials. If you were this administration- one that allowed a new Pearl Harbor to occur so you could attack and occupy a defenseless country - that makes you criminally responsible for the deaths of 100s of thousands. Given this jeopardy, why not start another war? Hope that the chaos that ensues will allow a justification for martial law....personally, I think they waited too long, but that's not to say they won't still attempt it...because, really, what have they got to lose?

[Junkdrawer]

24. I think Iran has been part of the plan from Day One...

The only question is when THEY feel the right timing is....

[blues90]

29. I don't see what they have to loose

They have built their camps , they have built their huge base in Iraq , there is the oil even if it becomes radioactive people will still buy the stuff .

They have already covered up 9/11 and used this as the spring board for all that has followed so far .

Bush and his criminal crew do not care about elections in 2008 or do they care about the troops or if millions or people in the middle east turn into ash or millions of americans here sitting ducks in america .

It may release WW III and they don;t care about this either , they have their stocked bunkers and may very well believe in the rapture , this I don;t know about but they may who the hell knows .

Many times while I try to imagine this today I go back to the cuban missile crisis and now think just maybe we have finally reached the day of the real deal since after all we have been pushing this for a very long time and they did bomb Japan twice . Why today should be any difference is what worries me .

[bdamomma]

14. is anyone like figuring this out, like our new Congress or

Senator Levin? Who can we call? Maybe I should call my Senator Jack Reed, he is on the Arms Committee.

[aquart]

15. So bloody what if Iran has the bomb?

They don't, but big fucking deal if they do.

Talk to me about their missile system for delivery of said bombs? Ah.

So all they can do is contaminate their own playground, and maybe Europe, India, China with a bad wind.

Still not our problem. Israel? She's got her own bomb. This simply balances the "Mutually assured destruction" in the area.

And if the Shiites got really mad at us, ten thousand soldiers ain't gonna impress them. Particularly when they know that's all we got.

The ten thousand are George's way of staving off the inevitable. All he has to do is look busy for two years, and then the next guy gets to the President who lost the war.

[LSK]

16. 9000 or 20000 more soldiers would not stop Iran

If Iran really wanted to take Iraq, it could pretty easily. And the world economy would stop in the process.

Not going to happen.

:shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

17. I'm not saying Iran would take Iraq...I'm say Shiite sympathetic to Iran...

would explode in violence if Iran were bombed.

[yurbud]

18. Even if Iran has a nuke, is it possible they'd use it just as a deterrent since Israel has 200 and

We have 10,000?

[Junkdrawer]

19. According to Scott Ritter, Israel has a "zero-tolerance policy" re Iranian uranium enrichment...

...

That’s why Israel has taken the position that not only will they not tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapons program, they will not tolerate nuclear technology that is usable in a nuclear weapons program, in this case, enrichment technology that Iran is permitted to have under Article 4 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel says no. If Iran can enrich to levels that are usable in a nuclear reactor, that same technology can be used to enrich to levels usable in a nuclear device. Therefore, the Israeli position is “not one spinning rotor,” meaning not one centrifuge allowed to operate inside Iran. That’s a zero-tolerance policy.

...

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/21/143259&mode=thread&tid=25

[yurbud]

21. then Israel will make a mess that our troops will pay for with their lives, and it could escalate to

a world war, assuming Bush respondeds as ham-handedly as he has done all along.

[Junkdrawer]

22. Yeah, that's the way I see it, too...n/t

[hunter]

20. Here, have another serving of kryptonite, Superman...

Haven't the monkeys in the White House figured out that the rest of the world has figured them out?


http://www.intriguing.com/mp

Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch.
Arthur: A SCRATCH? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No it isn't!
Arthur: Well what's that then? (pointing to the arm lying on the ground)
Black Knight: I've had worse.
Arthur: You LIAR!
Black Knight: Come on, you pansy!

[FogerRox]

23. Iran could give the US military a bloody nose before its over

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/5/162546/5327

[Old and In the Way]

25. That might give our military planners in our reality based community

some real concerns....but, to your point, we got a bunch of amateurs at the top who operate on their belief systems. Since their idea of diplomacy is using the full arsenal of the US military, I don't doubt that they will over-ride the judgment of saner people in the military when they decide it's time. Having the same clowns who presided over this Iraqi War disaster doesn't make me think they'll do much better against a real enemy who can fight back. If there weren't US sailors who would be in harm's way, I'd be rooting for the Iranian's to sink the whole damn fleet and then Bush-Cheney could explain their war crimes at the World Court while we get used to our position as a former world power.

[FogerRox]

27. yeah I know, suits not uniforms running the show

suits who are quite friggin daft.

[Junkdrawer]

26. .

[Junkdrawer]

28. .