We stand on the evening of the US invasion of Iran. Powerless.

[skip fox]

I wish I could read the signs differently, but everything tells me that we'll launch airstrikes within 2 weeks. I feel as drained of power as I did on the brink of the Iraqi invasion, powerless while the neo-cons and hawks further discredit my country while killing hundreds or thousands of the new "enemy." And while we further alienate the Middle East.

Damn.

[Hubert Flottz]

1. I feel really bad about it too.

The GOP is truly evil.

[Skink]

2. The elections aren't till Nov.

[David in Canada]

53. Elections vs. BushCo

Skink,

BushCo won't yield because of the elections. They know that they a) have Diebold and/or voter registration shenanigans to keep Congressional control or b) know they will lose the elections regardless of Iran and c) they are guaranteed enough Senate seats (more than 1 in 3) to avoid impeachment. There are enough "Freeper" senators (Idaho, Utah, etc.) to just barely acquit Bush.

As long as their highway to hell is completed they can can less about public opinion and elections. After all, they have a "messianic" vision to fulfill! :puke:

Whether they feel comfortable in a Diebold faux "victory" or a Democratic landslide, that leads to the same result --an imminent Iran invasion-- for different reasons. For the Diebold faux "victory" whatever they do, they can't lose or a Democratic landslide just makes them think "let's get the show on the road".

Also, two things.

1) Beware of any 2008 "peace candidate" i.e. Chuck Hagel. They will promise peace then escalate the war a la Nixon.

2) If Iran is invaded and internal unrest occurs in the United States such as gas shortages, rioting, mass terrorist attacks, Bush will suspend the Constitution. No more elections. :mad:

These are very scary times. We will be extremely lucky to come to the end of the BushCo regime alive and one piece. :scared:

[Initech]

3. If we invade Iran, I'm declaring citizenship in another country.

I've decided that I can no longer pay taxes to a government I dont support. Invading Iran will be the final straw for me.

[Swamp Rat]

46. yep

I will not pay taxes in a country that commits wholesale genocide.

The entire world will take up arms against the USA and utterly destroy it, despite their nuclear arsenal.

[0007]

60. But ya will stay and fight the mother fucker 'eh Swamp Rat?

I ain't gonna run.

[Swamp Rat]

72. Me neither... I'm not leaving New Orleans

They'll have to finish the job the next time if they really want to get rid of us for good.

I'll go down fighting for my city.

[KerryOn]

71. Iran can destroy us on their own...

... they don't need the entire world.

All they have to do is send their missiles to the gulf and take out the oil ports in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Then we are history.

[David in Canada]

54. Way ahead of you!

Hi, EOO!

I became a Canadian citizen in February. :evilgrin:

[ohio_liberal]

4. Surely there will be a buildup of ships and warplanes in the area

I would think that would be the sign of an impending attack on Iran. I think it will take longer than 2 weeks.

[jasop]

7. The build up already happened... We have troops

and equipment at bases on three of their borders.

[ohio_liberal]

32. I don't believe the necessary naval vessels are in a position to strike

Of course the size of buildup would depend on whether they're planning a quick hit and run with the threat of further bombing or a longer campaign. An extended campaign would certainly mean that naval vessels would have to be moved into the region. There's no way in hell that Turkey is going to allow us to use land based aircraft on their soil this time either. And the implications of air strikes from Iraq are not good, and it would be incredibly stupid (I know, I know) to do it. It would only reinforce the idea that the US conquered Iraq to build bases so as to control the entire region.

edited for clarity

[spag68]

8. No buildup needed

because they are already there.

[Nay]

38. ALL the military ships are gone from Norfolk, VA, FYI

[katamaran]

48. Navy neighbor just got suddenly deployed

My neighbor is a Navy helicopter pilot and was suddenly deployed the other day with about 36 hours notice. He said they're to train in water rescues and ammo dumps immediately...not their normal fare. He's been over there twice already, but said he's never been more scared. He said his whole squadron KNOWS we're getting ready for Iran...but no one has told them where they're going yet.

:scared:

[David in Canada]

57. Strait of Hormuz?

Hi, katamaran! :hugs:

It sounds like your neighbour is being trained for some Straight of Hormuz duty. The water rescues (sunk ships) and ammo dumps (Iranian booby traps) seem to show that.

[A Brand New World]

73. My cousin-in-law's husband who is Navy Reserve is being

called up. I think the Iran invasion is coming.

[David in Canada]

56. Buildup

The United States has a lot of equipment in Iraq, Afghanistan and Qatar.

Plus, there is Turkish bases and Diego Garcia right near Seychelles. Those last two have tight security with very little leaks.

A few days ago online, I read an "eyewitness account" that Malmstrom Air Force Base in New Mexico were loading nuclear weapons for use in Iran. :scared: I cannot vouch for the accuracy, so this is for your discernment. YMMV.

Plus, a lot of the American naval fleet is out of port...

[Staph]

5. If you're right,

I'll be taking an unscheduled vacation from work, to go to Washington. I've never participated in a protest before, but I will be standing in front of the White House, telling the world that Mr. Bush doesn't speak for me.

And I may be able to talk my 82 year old Mom to come with me, if her hip isn't bothering her too much.

[spag68]

14. I think it is too late to stand in front of the whitehouse.

Maybe the best thing to do is start pestering your state and federal reps. with phone calls and e-mails.

[Staph]

37. My senators are Byrd and Rockefeller.

They are already on the side of the angels. My congresswoman, Shelley Moore Capito, is a Republican, who was the single largest recipient of Delay PAC money and who has been implicated in the Abramoff scandal. There is nothing I could say to her to change her mind.

That's why I think I will have to do this myself -- I just don't know what one person can do to change the course of history. At least, to change this particular fragment of the course of history.

[4freethinking]

44. You have a very good

senator in Mr Byrd. He saw through all this shit.

[David in Canada]

58. They don't care!

I'd like to say "rock on" but BushCo is full of sadistic psychopaths. Your protests and anger will only give them resolve and more energy. BushCo uses hate, distrust and suffering as nourishment for their psyche. :cry:

[katty]

6. 1st some cooked up terror event stateside( maybe a city

evacuation), then Iran fingerpointing...then the bombs fly.

[serryjw]

39. The cook up BBQ is going to be bio chem

not nuclear accordingto the articles I have read. The MORE they tell us it's not happening the MORE I think it will :cry:

[katty]

41. yup

[David in Canada]

59. Good theory

I think it is very possible they will use this route. They will do it will everyone is confused and shell-shocked.

[DELUSIONAL]

9. branches of the US military are preparing for "something"

just like they were busy beavers just before the Iraq invasion.

IF this does happen -- bush is a BIG league war criminal with few peers.

I suspect that ex-military or even current military know the symptoms and probably can't say much.

I feel sick knowing what bushie is doing in our name -- he is a sick insane idiot. And anyone who voted for him is also a sick insane idiot.

[myrna minx]

10. I feel sick to my stomach.

:cry:

[Cleetus]

11. Two weeks?

I knew the chimp was gonna do Iraq. I don't get the same feeling with Iran. I know the bastard wants to go in there, but I don't see how he can pull it off. Doesn't Congress still have to OK this? Do you thing with all the shit the GOP has immersed themselves in, and with elections coming up, that they would let the chimp do Iran? They go into Iran, they commit political suicide. As much as these war-mongering bastards want to dominate the world, I don't see themselves kissing their political careers goodbye in order to get the job done.

Of course, if I'm rong about this,, and Congressional approval is not required, then we're fucked.

[HereSince1628]

15. Maybe 2 1/2 weeks the new moon is on the 29th.

It's pretty much SOP for American forces to attack on as dark a night as possible.

[Junkdrawer]

27. April 28 is the day that the the IAEA is supposed to report back to the UN

Security Council re the 30 warning given to Iran...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-29-iran-nuclear_x.htm

[Initech]

19. Man made laws arent applicable with a president who thinks he's Jesus

:scared:

[GliderGuider]

26. Try 16 days.

Why do you think that number was given out by the Pentagon today, and the way it was worded? I really think they've given us the timetable.

My nightmare scenario is that Ahmedinajad will try to stop the course of events by using the old cold-war MAD strategy - via purchased Ukrainian warheads already planted in American cities - but Bush is too crazy to take him seriously (or doesn't care if he's serious or not). Ahmedinajad is bluffing a little too casually for comfort these days. What if he's not a crazy as he looks, but rather cunning and desperate?

In any event, my money is on 16 days.

[cali]

30. No he doesn't need to go to Congress.

between the War Powers Act and the Iraq War Resolution, he's got enough cover to launch an air attack. I don't agree with the OP that this will take place in a couple of weeks, but I certainly can see it happening within a few months.

[David in Canada]

63. Never Assume Sanity in the Delusional!

I think he wants to go into Iran and I think that in his delusional minds, THINKS he can pull it off. Remember, when it comes to delusional leaders, they'll invade or not invade according to what their delusional minds come up with. The REALITY of the situation has nothing to do with their decision making decisions. Look at Hitler! One should never base their analysis of what Bushie decides based on reality. In fact, take the most insane decision and Bushie's own decision will likely be very close to it. Never give Bushie any credit when it concerns reality or compassion.

As to Congressional approval, it is **technically** approved for the War on Terrorism resolution. You see, they made the error of giving Bushie credit for sanity and reasoning. They left a lot of loose strings and loop holes and ill-defined boundaries. That's what happens when one hastily writes legislation without any input or oversight. Bush can basically do what he pleases as long as he can twisted into the technicalities of the "War on Terror" legislation. Whether that is via haste, stupidity or deliberate, your guess is good as mine.

[Junkdrawer]

12. Here's the scary part: The "Iranians" will massively retailiate...

whether that actually do or not. And then it's WW III. That's been the plan all along.

[HereSince1628]

16. They will if they have anything left to do it with.

Don't expect the Rummy to leave that door open. If the US does an air assault it will be aimed at much much more than technology centers.

In the end retaliation probably will come through terrorist attacks.

[tatertop]

25. I bet you a donut you are wrong on that assessment

we will know soon enough

[GliderGuider]

34. What has everyone been saying about asymmetrical nuclear war?

The usual scenario is that the weak side acquires nuclear warheads (say buys them from the Ukrainians?), but has no delivery systems. They do know the need to use them is coming, though, and who the target will be. So they container them in and plant them is the enemy's cities before the balloon goes up. From there events can go several directions. The most likely scenario is that the existence of the hidden weapons is revealed by disclosing one of them. After all, in the words of Dr. Strangelove, "Of course, ze whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Vhy didn't you tell ze world, EH?"

So what happens then? Does Mr. Bush take Mr. A seriously? Does he even care?

[David in Canada]

65. No, he won't

Bush & Ahmedinedzad are peas in a pod. Both have "messianic" delusions. That changes the name of the game.

Ahmedinedzad has delusions of destroying the United States and then the Western world and setting a world wide caliphate under the Imam Mahdi.

Bush has delusions of causing WWIII in order to "make Jesus come back".

Therefore, Shrub doesn't care. If anything, it'll encourage him and goad him into going through! :scared:

[Pharaoh]

17. yes, they will take out

All the oil terminals in the Gulf, an easy reach from their high ground above the straits of Hormuz



Bush says We have 6 months in our reserves,........


It would take years to fix the damage.....once the fighting stops,

which would'nt be anytime soon.....

Can you say, Global economic collapse? That makes the great depression look like a picnic holiday....

[katty]

42. my dad worked in Hormuz area-said it's totally vulnerable

[longship]

23. Massive retaliation?

What massive retaliation? Do you mean with the nukes that they don't have? Do you mean with those ultra reliable Scud missiles which can't hit the broad side of a barn when they don't blow up in transit?

Yes, Iran can make a mess in the Middle East. But they likely will not do anything that would escalate into WW III. Instead, it is the US which is going to feel the brunt of this folly. No country is going to align with us this time. We'll be alone, isolated, and in political turmoil domestically.

There will likely be no nuke retaliation for our folly. No country will risk our formidable capabilities to respond. Instead, they will isolate us, cutting trade, shutting us down economically and politically. There will be worldwide sanctions against us. We'll be totally alone. Any country powerful enough to have nukes knows that's the most effective way of hurting the US under such a scenerio.

It ain't gonna be pretty, no matter what. But I don't see this escalating into all out nuke conflict, unless we start some massive unilateral nuke response to the inevitable political and economic pressures.

[David in Canada]

66. Agreed.

Your analysis is spon on, im my opinion.

[Marr]

28. I think you give our leaders too much credit.

Their "plan", if you can call such fantasy a plan, was for the populations of every country we invaded to spontaneously revolt against their own governments and embrace the US occupation force.

These men are wild-eyed idealists. They're completely divorced from reality, and they're stupid to boot.

[David in Canada]

64. They will!

They will sink American ships in the Gulf with Sunburn missiles and close the Straight of Hormuz. Say hello to $9/gallon gas. :wow:

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[pointblank]

13. Not to sound confrontational

but what makes you think we are on the brink of an Iran invasion?

Am I missing something? the Iraq war buildup was highly publicized and we all KNEW it was going to happen...they pretty much told us so.

But for now they are telling us that they are on the diplomatic road, yada yada and I really don't see it as happening anytime real soon...if at all.

Am I missing something? Please educate me if I am, but as of right now I think saying that we are on the "evening" of an invasion just isn't true...Maybe that day will come, and I hope it won't, but for now I don't see it happening.

[spag68]

18. You are missing something.

The something is that he knows if he waits much longer, that public opinion will keep him form his "destiny". As for the how, the plan is probably to fly the stealth bombers over there, nice and clean, no casualty's for us and nobody gets irans oil.

[pointblank]

24. Yea

but how do you KNOW this?

IT sounds a lot like the hype we had going on last year about suitcase nukes going off here..I think there was even some dates set. But it never happened.

I'm sorry, I don't always discount conspiracy/tin foil hat theories but I am just not convinced on this one yet. And someone telling me about Bush's destiny just doesn't cut it.

I want some hard, reliable evidence and then maybe I'll start worrying...until then all i hear is a lot of crying wolf going on.

[Pharaoh]

20. their doing this one mainly from the air

[enid602]

21. Iran

During the weeks prior to the Iraq war, Bush continued to act like invasion was the last option, just as he is now doing with re: Iran. Meanwhile, Condi and Bolton have done everything to whip up an anti-Iran frenzy. Scott Ridder predicted warfare with Iran last year and before; Hersh has more recent findings that support an invasion. People are concerned.

[pointblank]

29. So tell me

Where are all of the anti-war protests then just like during the lead up to Iraq?

I didn't participate then, but you can bet your ass that I'll be there this time around.

the way I see it though, protests start happening on a large scale when the organizers (usually people who have some sort of inside info) know something.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. Read this quote by Wes Clark from back on January 1st.

General Wesley Clark on Big Story Weekend Edition
January 1, 2006

Jamie Colby: Let me ask you, General Clark, about public sentiment. Uh, the Iraq war, the American public has at times supported it and felt that it was the right thing to do, that we needed to stay until we left democracy in place. What about gaining public support for the potential for an invasion in Iran? How difficult a challenge is that, politically, for the president?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, a couple of points. First, there's going to be a lot of skepticism about the exact nature of the Iranian program because the record of our intelligence agencies on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program wasn't very good. Secondly, of course, when the president calls for strikes, he's going to strengthen his hand at home once these strikes are underway because his critics are going to be faced with the dilemma of going against a threat to the United States and our allies abroad if they challenge the president. So he's going to pick up support. At least that's the way I believe the White House will read this. So I would guess there would be a program of consultation with allies. There would probably be the appearance of some last minute diplomatic measures and then there would be, um, the buildup here at home, politically, and then the strikes. And…<crosstalk> I think the administration would calculate that this would be the end of it.



That was a chilling comment and a number of us who pay attention to Clark started really worrying about this back then. Clark is opposed to Bush's plans, and he's said so repeatedly, and called for direct negotiations with Iran instead. Part of the problem is that Israel feels threatened by Iran, and they can always act on their own even if the U.S. doesn't, and the U.S. can get pulled into it that way. Very few Democratic leaders are willing to call for direct talks with Iran while Iran's President is openly denying the Holocaust and wanting Israel wiped off the map. Clark is an exception:


General Wesley Clark on Fox News Live
January 2, 2006

You know, the United States still hasn't talked to Iran and, on the other hand, I mean, we don't like the Iranian president, but on the other hand, before we bomb him, we could at least try to have a dialog. We've gone through the Europeans, why can't we talk to him before we bomb him?


General Wesley Clark on Fox News
January 16, 2006

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's possible to construct a military option that could be, could approach adding five to eight years to the development cycle of the Iranian nuclear weapon. In other words, you could set them back.


Brigitte Quinn. Mmm Hmm.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don't think that you can totally eliminate the possibility, and remember after such a strike, it's very possible that A.Q. Kahn and Pakistan or some other country would come rushing to the aid of Iran."



General Wesley Clark on Your World with Neil Cavuto
January 25, 2006

Neil Cavuto: When you say it's over-stretched, too over-stretched to do something about Iran right now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Depends on what you're going to do about Iran. Now, you can certainly run bombing strikes and Special Forces activities and you can go after those nuclear sites. You could-

Neil Cavuto: You have to know where those nuclear sites are.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that's less of a problem. I think the, the greater problem is figuring out what's the end state. Let's say you, you run eight to fourteen days of bombing against Iran. You take out thirty sites, maybe fifteen of them were the nuclear sites. You've taken out some command and control, his missiles, his air bases, some of the stuff that would threaten us along the literal of the Persian Gulf. Okay, and then what? What happens? Does he then say, 'Oh, I give up. I surrender. I'll be your friend."? No, he's not going to say that.

Neil Cavuto: But who cares, if he's less of a threat?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because what he's going to do is he's going to be a magnet-

Neil Cavuto: I see.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: - pulling in all kinds of anti-American resistance. How do we know A.-

Neil Cavuto: So, it'll actually galvanize Arab-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: How do we know A.Q. Kahn's not going to replenish that nuclear stock right away.


Neil Cavuto: Yeah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, it's a danger. We've got to think through the thing, not just from the initial strikes, not 'Can we hit the target? Can we penetrate Iranian airspace?' Of course we can do that. It's 'What's the end state- strategically, geopolitically? How do we handle the conflict in this part of the world?'



General Wesley Clark on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
March 5, 200

George Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach from what other Democrats, like Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Clinton, are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that your approach is better?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off.

George Stephanopoulos: But don't they know that the message is 'if you don't give up your nuclear program then you're not going to be able to join this modern world'? Isn't that what the United States is saying; isn't that what the European community is saying?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head.

Links for all of these are at:
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/23

[peacetalksforall]

22. Pace and Rummy referred to propasals and papers - we should demand

that Congress be told and we be told.

Where are the Dem leaders - talking about pulling out of Iraq? Why - to send them to Iran - as talked about on DU months and months ago?

We need to start another round with Congress. Why should PNAC destroy the earth unchallenged?

[1956]

33. The PNAC document

NEEDS to be in every American's face, and should be the media's leading story! World Domination is not what WE want , it's only what about a half dozen nutcases crave! ...I have been good and worried but it was completely sickening to listen to Rymmy's speech and the way in which he defended "having the plans on the desk". There was something very different in his eyes, I thought , too! Somebody please, help us!

[newportdadde]

31. Your overreacting. We are not near an invasion.

I'd love to play poker with you I would just raise a bunch and you would fold, this is all grandstanding.

[greyl]

36. I seriously doubt it. :) nt

[Ksec]

40. Iraq 2

You hear the same reasons. Same justifications. Same boogey man. Same rhetoric . Listening to Tweety and Mcafferty getting erections by talking about military strikes. Both drooling and blind with the thrill of war.

We are heading towards a nuke coming our way. The gov and its puppet media are gonna get us all killed. You cant keep destroying everyone else and not have this shit turned on us. Get ready people. Our war loving government is gonna get us nuked by somebody that feels we need to get ours.

[David in Canada]

67. Ksec,

You are right. :cry:

:grouphug:

[4freethinking]

43. I think this might be different

the majority of the public is not drunk with lies this time and is more sober to the realities of an attack.

[WinkyDink]

45. He's being pushed by his wi...I mean, Condi to bomb.

She's all over, ramping up the taunts and ultimata.

[skip fox]

47. The news of "finding" Iranian arms in Iraq came out today. It was

the last of many pieces which indicate that we are readying the population for an attack (which I think will be an ari assault).

Boy, I hope I'm wrong.

[EFerrari]

49. What's with all this "hoping"?

If worried, ring up your email list and get some mail off to TrueMajority, MoveOn and CommonCause.

Start a thread and kick people's @sses into gear.

You know, even if the Cabal isn't about to nuke another nation, THE RHETORIC ALONE IS DANGEROUS. It doesn't lead to diplomacy and peace, it leads to bloodshed and serious hurt FOR OUR FAMILIES.

So, are we going to "hope" around or are we going to get busy?

:grouphug:

[David in Canada]

68. Not "Hope". Worry.

sfexpat2000,

It's not "hope" it is worry and resignation, especially here in Canada...

BushCo doesn't care about anything except their domination --political and economical--. They don't care what we think. :cry:

[EFerrari]

50. And, can we rate up the thread so more DUers can see it?

:kick:

[David in Canada]

51. War in Near :-(

I just know a war with Iran is inevitable. :cry:

BushCo does not care about ANYBODY except themselves!!! :argh:

[Clarkie1]

52. We won't be launching the air strikes in two weeks.

What "signs" lead you to conclude that? What we need now is leadership, not hysteria. More in the Democratic Party should be supporting Clark's call for the administration to open direct dialogue with Iran now. The public saber-rattling coming from Rice and others is not helpful.

[Chomp]

61. Agreed

Two weeks is not in any way the timeframe. There is still a deal to be made and as Clarkie1 says above, all it needs is leadership.

Believe it or not, Blair is a source of hope on this front. There is zero chance that Blair wants any military action agaisnt Iran, irrespective of what he says publically. Terrifyingly, one can well image Bush licking his lips in private about more war. But not Blair, or any prospective British PM.

Blair is not messianic and nuts like Bush is. Blair made the call on Iraq based on old-fashioned, big-picture, power-play, global, long-term, strategic geo-politics. It was nothing to do (of course) with WMDs or anything else.

No, the judgement Blair made was that America alone was more dangerous than America with a caolition-shaped fig leaf. And besides, I suspect he figured, there was always a chance that the "they-will-shower-us-with-flowers" scenario would play out in Iqaq. Better to stick with the big ally, who is going to invade anyway.

But Blair wasn't emotionally, psychologically or ideolgically committed to it like Bush. On that basis, Blair would see the insanity of an Iran action and would do everyting he could to avert it (unlike Iraq, where he saw the writing on the wall).

Without even UK support, that leaves the US desperately exposed. I think a lot of people REALLY don't want this to happen and will ensure it doesn't.

[David in Canada]

69. Good analysis!

Great analysis, Chomp! :hi:

I agree with your analysis on Blair and his modus operandi.

However, I still feel resigned Bush will do as he pleases, world be damned. :hangover:

[Horse with no Name]

55. My sis-in-law is Quartermaster on the Bonhomme Richard

http://www.lhd6.navy.mil/

>>>>snip
Harriers Return to USS Bonhomme Richard
Story Number: NNS060326-02
Release Date: 3/26/2006 12:15:00 AM

By Chief Journalist (SW/AW) Walter T. Ham IV, USS Bonhomme Richard Public Affairs

ABOARD USS BONHOMME RICHARD (NNS) -- AV-8B Harriers returned to USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) for the first time in nearly nine months March 23 during local operations off the coast of Southern California.

Bonhomme Richard is currently training and preparing for operations in support of the global war on terrorism.
:scared:

Kind of says it all, doesn't it?
However, I haven't heard from her if she is being deployed yet, but I do know she is going home for Easter.

[sweetheart]

62. The pentagon will be sending your checks...

in unmarked envelopes so that your friends do not know you're
working for them. Don't worry, it won't be much, 100 bucks per
post, but considering all the diplomatic threats this sort of
re-spinning achieves, its worth a thousand warheads. This is
why it is the new pentagon policy to reward sheep-dog bloggers.

I hear from my pentagon-phone, to release and explain for the
iranian's we're terrorizing, the new warhead manufacturing assembly
lines bush's putting in to place. and that you should talk all that
up... really use flourid language to paint a picture of an
iranian apocalypse, where a glass surface joins pakistan and iraq.

You can PM your addresses to agent Mike and the checks will be
paid out straight away!

[David in Canada]

70. Don't be so hasty!

You are being a bit hasty condemning the poster.

The poster does not want war and like me, is probably scared senseless from it.

However much we hate war, we must rcognise it when we see it coming over the horizon. We must not confuse what we WANT to happen with what we THINK will happen. We cannot let our emotions and personal hopes and dreams cloud our judgement and reasoning. To do so would be to place our heads in the proverbial sand.

Lastly, our opinions here and just about everyone else's will not be considered by BushCo.

[sweetheart]

74. Sheepdogs

The people on DU are responsible for where they put their minds,
for what they choose to make important, "kick".

I don't condemn the poster, but am suggesting that many persons on
DU should get a pentagon cheque they're doing such a good job.

DU is being read around the world as, amongst others, a small tower
of intelligence and compassion from an otherwise insane american
machine... and when DU starts raving insane war-too, it scares the
bejessus out of the rest of the world, to the point, as with
this nuclear sabre rattling, that ambassadors and statesmen have
had to deny the seriousness of this chatted-up threat.