Haven't heard no talk of "cakewalks" or "flowers" concerning Iran have you?

[NNN0LHI]

Whats that tell you? You know what it tells me? We ain't going to be messing with Iran in the near future if ever.

Don

[400Years]

1. I just don't know the U.S. has the capabilities at this point

I mean what would bombing them even accomplish strategically speaking.

[NNN0LHI]

4. I wouldn't want to be within a 1000 miles of the first oil tanker that...

...attempts to pass through the Strait of Hormuz after someone were to drop bombs on Iran.

Don

[paparush]

12. Strategically...It would accomplish WWIII = NeoCon Utopia

[coalition_unwilling]

2. Chomsky says the first rule of U.S. foreign\military policy after

Korean War is never to attack anyone who actually can fight back. (Chomsky may be right: we merely bit off a bit more than we could chew in Vietnam and Iraq :)

[MsMagnificent]

3. It was a "pissant" little country, remember?

You're absolutely right.

Picking on those who can't defend themselves is the mark of a bully.
Of course, anyone who's listened to 5 minutes of Republican rhetoric knows all that already :(

[coalition_unwilling]

5. As soon as we started bombing Afghanistan, I began re-reading

many of the book-length histories of the Vietnam War (or, as the Vietnamese call it, "The American War" :) It's amazing to note the parallels, not just the broader strategic paralells like the "domino theory" and its newest incarnation as the "reverse-domino theory", but even linguistic parallels. To wit, in 1962, American military referred to the VietCong as "terrorists" (I shit you not!) And I swear to God I saw Richard Myers on televsion about a month before Pace replaced him, talking about the "light at the end of the tunnel" (in Iraq). I couldn't friggin believe my ears!

[leftchick]

6. I have heard Armageddon if we attack Iran

and WWIII.

[rustydog]

7. Of course not.. All the flowers, candy and cake were used in Iraq

:sarcasm:

[K-W]

8. It only tells you they arent trying to sell us on a happy welcome.

It certainly doesnt tell you that we wont be messing with Iran (we are already messing with Iran), it doesnt tell you that they dont plan to bomb Iran, it doesnt even tell you that they dont eventually plan to invade parts of Iran or all of Iran.

All it really tells you is that they havent chosen that line of rhetoric. It could simply be that with the facts on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan they dont think they can sell the flowers and cakewalk line again.

[warrens]

9. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan

Iran has big snarly teeth, a good army and advanced weapons. We'd need at least a half-million troops to do more than a few bombing runs.

[Javaman]

10. Replace flowers with rocks and cakes with shit and there you have it. nt

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

11. They will do some bombing to get the freeper juices flowing in time for

elections.

No ground troops, nosiree!

And of course there will be no notice paid to any similarity to military actions undertaken by Clinton resulting in no loss of U.S. forces.

[annabanana]

13. They don't need to "sell" Iran....

It comes under the handy dandy little permission they got to "fight terra". You know.. that lie filled, torture sanctioning, spying sanctioning little one bill fits all permission that they trot out whenever they want.

They can just go in, world be damned....

[salin]

14. No claims that it will "pay for itself" either

if they could, they would... but they have no credibility at home or abroad, they do not have the manpower without a draft, and they don't have the $. They have overbinged.