So, how will Bush pull this next war off?

[Joe Fields]

Or will he even get away with it this time around?

We are hearing the same song and dance, just with a different partner. This time it is Iran. Oh, and another bogus nuclear threat. I don't think he'll try the aluminum tubes thing again, though.

The shrill rhetoric is strikingly similar to his performance leading up to Iraq. But, with no troops, how is he going to pull this one off? Limited air strikes? We do have jets in position. Strikes from submarines? They too, are in position. Declaring "victory" in Iraq, pulling our troops and sending them to Iran? That would be an interesting move.

And how will the U.N. react this time? This time, I believe the U.N. will spit the hook out, which means we will go this one completely alone. I doubt the Brits will even follow.

Bush is a madman with big brass balls.

[fiveleafclover]

1. Oh hell, they'll just do it

They don't care how. This administration is so full of itself, excuses are only an option. If they want to shock and awe Iran, they'll shock and awe Iran. The story won't matter, and will most likely be stupid.

[Joe Fields]

4. I've seen five year olds that come up with more believable lies.

But I wonder if he will get away with them this time.

It is true that he has the balls to just do it, but, the question then becomes how. Does he have the balls to institute a draft? Probably.

I was hoping I would never have to witness a world war unfolding right before my eyes.

[fiveleafclover]

10. I still don't think there will be a draft

To make up for it, they'll just send more of those contractors over. Contractors...they make it sound like they're putting up drywall, don't they?

However, if there ever is a draft, that means we're all screwed. Even more than we already are.

[awoke_in_2003]

16. Correct

contractor is a much nicer term than mercenary

[Joe Fields]

18. How many "contractor" forces are out there?

If an "event" is staged in the U.S., I believe the administration will rush toward draft.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. no draft

until after 06 elections

[Joe Fields]

20. since we're not that far off, it is a safe assumption.

it will take that long to create a "plausible" justification to invade Iran.

[lebkuchen]

28. Or if Bush is succesful in provoking Iran into attacking a ship at sea

or base in Iraq, killing hundreds/thousands of Americans as per the WTC, there may be an increase in the number of American kids wanting to enlist, especially if the attack takes place just after HS graduation. Stop-loss would be in effect, of course, so active duty wouldn't be going anywhere.

[HereSince1628]

7. They feel that the Iraq War Resolution changed everything.

I expect a shorter version of the run up to the Iraq invasion. I expect that it was all decided months ago.

[fiveleafclover]

12. The Iraq run up taught them some lessons

Now they'll just use that knowledge for Iran. So yeah, I agree, this one will start a lot faster in Iran. They can poke the hornet's nest a lot more efficiently this time around.

[KAT119]

36. Reverse speech experts say WH will nuke Houston area seaport on Easter

and blame it on Iranians & attack Iran. See: www.ken-welch.com Reverse speech analysis is the truest lie detector available!
Also see: www.reversespeech.com The reverse speech experts are desperate to get this alarming info out to the nation !!
Check out the websites....

[Joe Fields]

39. You have confirmed my suspicions, and scare the hell out of me.

[Joe Fields]

40. I will PM you, KAT

[KAT119]

41. JOE, I WAS JUST PM'D by Marie26(THANK YOU,MARIE!!) that' HOUSTON ALERT'

article is disputed by the founder of Reverse Speech method, David John Oates.

The Oates Disclaimer is on:http://www.rense.com/general70/nuat.htm

Oates disputes how the technology was used by Ken Welch et al, and says that the alleged clues found are invalid.

I have been deeply alarmed, because we know WH seeking next 9/11 for establishment of greater control via/martial law/police state, end of future elections, * DICTATOR in perpetuity, new currency, to eat you work for Commander in Chief etc.

[Joe Fields]

43. Thanks for info, but I still don't feel any better.

[marmar]

2. Perhaps there will be an avian flu outbreak in the U.S.....

that they will magically trace back to a lab in Iran. More bad drawings, with Condi Rice in front of the U.N. with bird diagrams.

[Joe Fields]

6. Not out of Bush's realm of possibilities.

As laughable as that scenario sounds, he is ballsy enough to try something that foolish.

As much as he lies, you would think he'd become good at it.

[darkmaestro019]

3. My mom always said you can't have seconds of anything

till you finish what's already on your plate. Apparently Babs forgot to throw that one down.


If he keeps this up, it's only a matter of time before he pisses off someone who DOES HAVE the ability to strike in the US. And surely he knows it. So is that what he wants?

[awoke_in_2003]

17. He doesn't have to piss off

someone with the capability to strike us, just someone (Iran) who has friends that can (Russia and China).

[acmavm]

5. There will simply be an 'announcement' that as of such and such time

on such and such date we began to bomb the shit out of more innocent civilians. They will do it this way because our chicken shit reps in the House and the Senate have just sat back and watched these people commit treason and never said a word.

[Joe Fields]

9. Bush already believes he has the "supreme right"....

to be "dictator-in-thief." The "unitary powers of the president"supposedly given him by congerss. And whether he truly believes this, or not, he is running in the open field with the ball.

Which means that anything is, not only possible, but highly probable.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Preemptive strike -> MIHOP II -> World War III -> ?????????

:scared:

[saltpoint]

11. I wonder if Senator Warner (R-VA) will put in a call to Dubya and

tell him that an assault on Iran, even a limited one involving select targets, is likely to meet with significant disdain on Capitol Hill, the press, among party stalwarts, party donor stalwarts, 2006 party election coordinators, the United Nations Security Council, and our allies.

I'm no huge fan of John Warner, but he does have pretty good taste in women and not least, he knows his military stuff a lot better than Dubya.

What's needed is for Warner, and Lugar, etc. to privately reach the little fool and tell him to chill the hell out.

The American people are not very impressed with the Iraq engagement and I don't think they're going to support this president for another poll-jacking enterprise with Iran.

[Joe Fields]

21. I doubt if Warner has any clout w/Bush.

[saltpoint]

26. Dubya is very insulated, true. I was hoping for a scenario similar to

the band of veteran GOP Senate stalwarts who came to the White House to tell Nixon to pack his bags.

This would have to be done quietly in Bush's case, and the gesture would be to not attack Iran, not to leave office. (Although as long as they're there... )

Lugar (Foreign Relations Committee) and Warner (Armed Services) would be a good 1-2 punch. I don't think our generals believe attacking Iran is a swell idea.

[Joe Fields]

31. I feel certain they (the generals) don't believe it would be......

a good idea. I'm not so sure about the joint chiefs of staff.

But hey, Bushco ignored all intelligence evidence the first time around, so why should this be any different?

God help us. Our politicians won't.

[saltpoint]

32. You put your finger on it with BushCo ignoring the military's advice.

A gaggle of powermongers who mostly never served finding the audacity to ignore veteran generals' counsel on an ill-advised war.

The horror of this administration is at least partly due to its own arrogance, isn't it.

[Joe Fields]

42. It is revealing of a predisposed plan of action,......

unemcumbered by fact or reason.

[riona]

13. i wonder if he could get another country's support?

i.e. why should they contribute their money when he's willing to use ours?

[Joe Fields]

14. I don't believe even the Brits would touch this one.

[radfringe]

15. 2 scenarios

1. MIHOP/LIHOP terror attack on US soil - blame it on Iran. Doesn't matter if they were involved or not. This could backfire on them since they've been touting how much 'safer' we are. However, it could also scuttle any censure by spinning it like "see, if we had more warrantless spying we could have prevented it..." In the long run - this won't have diddly impact on the "BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN" chorus

2. Israel takes out a Nuke plant in Iran. Iran retailiates against Israel. We have to go in to defend Israel -- this in my opinion is the most likely scenario.

[LunaC]

22. i've been saying it would be scenario #2 for a long time

It's the only thing the gullible public might buy into while Bushco looks "honorable" for going to the aid of an ally.

Problem is, it will mark the beginning of the end.....unlike Iraq, Iran is more than ready for war!

Iran launches massive naval wargame titled "Holy Prophet"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2006/iran-060329-irna03.htm

Iran says it has tested radar-dodging missile
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-31-iranmissile_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Iran’s kick-ass missiles
SS-N-22 Sunburn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22_Sunburn

Shahab-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3


With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order. (Note: Bully-Boy Bolton takes over as President of the U.N. Security Council in February.)

Since Iran is the home of China's largest energy-related investments, a conflict with Iran will not only bring China to the table, but its Russian ally as well.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

Background:
Dueling Armageddon’s - Waiting for the rapture in Iran
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=11229&mesg_id=11229

[Joe Fields]

24. It could be Israel, which would be the worst of all scenarios....

since no one in the Arab and Muslim world likes them.

But, we have had a tight leash on Israel recently, and I believe that more Americans would buy into scenario number one: another suspiciously faceless "attack" on our soil, blamed on Iranian "terrorists."

[lebkuchen]

30. Israel has already bombed 10 miles outside Damascas

back in 2003.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=33119&d=6&m=10&y=2003

[tom_paine]

23. With battlefield nukes

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

and when NYC is nuked in retaliation, all Busheviks will inwardly smile to themselves at the idea of those roasting Liberals and that New York can become a Bushevik enclave just the way their calculated neglect of NO has made Louisiana a Bushevik enclave forever more.

[peekaloo]

25. Iran was responsible for 9/11.

period.

[saltpoint]

27. Share your sources on this, peekaloo.

[peekaloo]

29. "Trust me".

We have drawings and notes from the Mullahs moms and "recorded" messages that due to National Security we cannot release at this time.

;-)

:sarcasm:

[Neil Lisst]

33. Iran, like Osama, appears ready to help Bush in that respect

Karl Rove couldn't write a better script for setting up a Bush attack than the clowns who run Iran.

If you stand on the corner talking big, eventually the police are going to show up and beat you down, wrong or not.

[Joe Fields]

35. It is true that Iran is playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship.

However, they must realize that, this time, they will have the entire Arab and Muslim world on their side. Unlike Iraq.

Too bad Washington doesn't understand it could mean World War III.

[Neil Lisst]

38. Iran could learn from American teenagers.

Just say "ok" and then do what the hell you had planned.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

34. I think the question is

not how will the UN react, but rather how will we react? I miss the activism of the 60's.......
:shrug:

[Joe Fields]

37. That answer depends on as yet unseen "events."