Define “ally”. By the way, what was wrong with my version?
Gotta admit, buddy. If we define ‘invasion’ as ‘military operations against military or civilian targets inside the borders of Iran by US forces’ I’ll take you up on that. And I don’t think it’ll take long to be proven right.
If Europe doesn’t get their act together and stop Iran from going nuclear (and they won’t), we’re going to outsource the problem to Israel.
What about Bush voters who are themselves 18-25?
Unless you’ve been eating worms and chum, I think perhaps you mean 'bated breath. It’s short for abated - to put an end to, or to reduce in degree or intensity.
OK, here’s the bet:
If US military forces attack government-controlled or civilian targets within the internationally recognized borders of Iran, without the permission of the internationally-recognized government of Iran, between 27 January 2005 and 20 January 2009, the INVASION BET wins. If this does not happen, the NO INVASION BET wins on 20 January 2005 and is payable then.
The burden of proof is on the INVASION BET side: that is, there must be credible evidence of the action, reports in major US media. No claim that black-ops special forces blew up a bridge in Tehran and disappeared into the night before anyone could prove they were there.
I will take the NO INVASION BET for $200, even money. If you want me to cover any part of that with you, speak up.
It’s only a problem if I start losing. 
I’ll take the INVASION BET for $100. Can’t really be sure I’ll have $200 to spare in four years in my unsafe profession.
We’ll have to get up a running “Iran invasion” thread following the development, the political situation and so forth, like the Death Pool threads.
Presumably as an attempt to overthrow the Iranian government through force of arms (as opposed to taking out a few nucular weapons sites).
Europe is asking the U.S. to join the talks because no progress can be made with us. Bush and company are staying out of the discussion. My guess is so that they will fail and give the neo-cons the excuse they want. Did you see Seymour Hersh on The Daily Show last night? Scary stuff.
Universe, I know I haven’t been a very good pantheist…
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’ll wager no Iran invasion in the next four years.
[QUOTE]
If you subscribe to Bush’s view of the world, why wouldn’t there be? With the exception of spreading oneself too thin militarily and the “enemy” not being a patsy, what major difference is there between Iraq and Iran? Why is an invasion of Iraq justified but Iran would not be? Or is it simply that it would be too much to handle at this time?
Hey Rick–since we’re talking of bets for the second Bush term, how come you never took me up on my bet against your statement that Cheney would no longer be VP by the end of the term? (I’ll try to dig up the GD thread where you said that.)
As long as bets are off in the case of Cheney’s death–I don’t want to lose to some crazed assassin or ham-handed heart surgeon–I’m willing to offer a bottle of Niagara icewine versus two cases of Diet Dr Pepper. Yeah, I know what the difference in prize costs are there.
No ally then? Otherwise Manhattan, Johnathon Chance and I, at least, would fleece you bare.
(PriceGuy, that’s why.)
Til then no bet, * with Bricker*
I’m trusting Seymour Hersh’s judgment, and betting on hostile US action against Iran by this summer:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/
In my interviews over the past two months, I was given a much harsher view. The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act. “We’re not dealing with a set of National Security Council option papers here,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “They’ve already passed that wicket. It’s not if we’re going to do anything against Iran. They’re doing it.”
Of course no ally. That would kind of defeat the purpose of the thread, wouldn’t it?
On a completely unrelated note, why the fuck do people keep BiCapitalizing my username?
But suddenly Doug Feith is leaving his post as Undersecretary of Defense
Whether it’s for personal and family reasons, or because the Franklin/AIPAC investigation is getting too warm, this could screw up the timing for Iran. According to Mr. Hersh, “Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran.”
I wish to take this moment to applaud Mr. Feith’s decision to spend more time with his family, and heartily encourage other members of the Bush administration to follow his example at the earliest.
That would be cool, but I’m pretty sure some of them simply spontaneously generated in some damp corner somewhere. I suppose though that if we really needed to we could call some congregated bacteria Rumsfeld’s family…
I’ve offered this bet a dozen times in GD and there have been no takers. But I’m talking ground forces with the intent to overthrow the government, which is what the OP is implying. And if the OP is not implying that, then what does the 18-25 year old sons and daughters reference mean?
Bricker: You would lose the bet if the US makes a surgical strke against a nulcear (or other) installation. No need for Black Ops here-- if we do it, it’ll be announced by the President immediately aftewards. I think there is a good chance that something like that would happen. Not a better than 50/50 chance, but a finite chance for sure.
Bricker, a few things, first off my typo infered that you were the bait eater, albeit not by my intention read closely. Not too closely though, as there are many un-called typos on my part in this thread alone.
In retrospect, my terming of “invasion” has definite drawbacks in regards to the general thrust of my OP, the intended thrust is supposed to be one of a rogue pres imparting his will on the rest of the world.
I was at the least, unclear about my interpretation of the term “invasion”. I’d rather defer to the wisdom of my peers “military operations against military or civilian targets inside the borders of Iran by US forces.”
This more closely resembles my thoughts. If this makes the situation too likely for Bush supporters, feel free to bow out.
I think that a more concise definition of my opinion is “I think that the U.S. will undergo hostile military actions against Iran before W’s term is up.” “Invasion” suggests our troops marching through Tehran, which is not something I wish to imagine.
Anyone that voted for pea-brain, should blame themselves if their children are called up to duty. Hence the title of this OP. Bets on whether we attack Iran or not, are moot if this is to become our national policy.
The wager will drive this thread for it’s short life, but the real reason for this thread is the fact that Bush voters are willing to support their “leader” in words and money only. If freedom in the Middle east means that much to you, send your kid to the ME to fight for it. Hippocrite.
PWD