John Bolton is out too.
Where do the neocons go when it rains?
No, not really; look how Bricker lead it along:
No mention of invastion by whom in there. Wisely, curses.
Although truth be told it’s best not to encourage bricker in those ways, it’s an interruption to the free flow of information. I think the most likely “invasion” scenario is not in fact an Israeli airforce strike a la Iraq’s nuclear reactor, rather US forces in pursuit of militants into Iranian territory, as per Syria.
I want in on this action. I say no invasion. Here are the terms I lay out:
-
“Invasion” constitutes a military action that meets one, any, or all of the following criteria:
(a) Military action against Iran is specifically authorized by Congress, and the President thereafter makes any sort of military attack on Iran (anything from a single soldier setting foot in Iran to a single bombing raid).
(b) The United Nations Security Council authorizes military force against Iran (absent a congressional use of force resolution) and the President thereafter makes any sort of military attack on Iran (anything from a single soldier setting foot in Iran to a single bombing raid).
© The President launches an invasion of Iran absent a resolution from the UN or Congress, and the term “invasion” shall constitute any sort of military action that exceeds the 60 day time limit established by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. -
This bet ends when one of the criteria above are met, in which case I pay. Otherwise, the other party will pay off on January 20, 2009.
-
The amount of the bet shall not exceed $500, nor be less than $100. Payment will only be in US dollars. I will lay no odds. I will accept bets from multiple people up to the limit amount (ie, one person may bet $300, another $200; the next comer is SOL).
-
Any takers can email me your name, address, phone number, and any other contact information that may be important (see my profile). I’ll return your email with my own contact information.
-
No weaseling.
Sevastopol, so he didn’t indulge in legalese for two seconds. It’s still pretty clear what was intended.
It wasn’t that clear to me.
Ravenman why should anyone take up your bet, when bricker is offerring more favourable terms?
Will anyone take up an invasion bet on my terms?
I think you’ll at least have to define “ally” first.
Who would win the bet if we just sent in one “Wobbly Goblin” and nuked them, and they shut the hell up and did what we “infer” we wanted them to? 
Or would we need the B2?
Yes Bush daughters! You heartless fuckers who are obviously at the centre of daddys mess! Sign up in the upcoming draft, starring the majority of your peers.
Unfortunately funding for Draft, starring the Bush daughters, was pulled today amidst rumous the script was unrealistic.
Iran is a definite possibility, since we can come in from two fronts, but my bet is on Syria. Everyone knows that’s where the WMD went, right? Right? So we have a built-in reason to go bomb the crap outa them, and no risk of nuclear “accident”.
My favorite line was:
“The idea is to get the Iranians to turn on their radar, to get an assessment of their air defences,” an intelligence source in Washington said. He said the flights were part of the Pentagon’s contingency planning for a possible attack on sites linked to Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons programme.
I’ve decided that I’d really hate to take somebody’s money as a result of an occurence that I know is inevitable. Hell, I feel guilty when I win $50 from poker. I think I’d rather the penalty for loss of this bet be posting a lengthy (500 words) retraction without sarcasm. An affirmation that an “I told you so”, was in order.
BTW, the definition of “invasion” for this bet would be “Any US troop activity on Iran’s soil that is not sanctioned by Iran, and/or any ordnance purposely used against Iranian forces within their borders or in their waters.” I guess this sounds more like “military action” than invasion per se, but there you have it. I’m sure we can bicker and argue about these things later, as they happen.
Who’s in?
What WMD???
Was that a Freudian slip? Hee hee. I am not a gambler, but I would not be surprised at all if the U.S. decided to “free” Iran. After all, they have nukes and WMD. Just like Iraq. Never mind that we never found any, the reason for invasion just changed, as it will again in Iran if nothing is found. It’s already proven that Bush doesn’t care about talks or what else Europe does. Likewise, I don’t think he gives a damn about whether the military can handle it or not.
“You go with the army you have” even if it is stretched too thin, overextended, undermanned and poorly equipped. Oh, for the days when kings had to personally ride at the head of their armies.
The WMD that were never found in Iraq. See? They were all magically moved to Syrai and every trace of them obliterated. Gee, any time we want to blast the hell out of something, we just have to claim they have the missing WMD. Got it?
Anybody notice the subtle Iran mention in tonight’s speech?
There will be a Bush quote from his SOTUA forthcoming.
Bush on Iran, with Syria tossed in for good measure:
I look forward to the day when the rest of the countries in the world pass the USA accountability Act , which holds the USA responsible for the effects of its meddling and mayhem in other countries.
Like this time?
Fat lot of good it did, too.
That’s no reason to give up. If other countries just don’t bother to protest the USA’s ‘international bully’ stance, people will go on taking things into their own hands, with disasterous results for the rest of the world. Freedom should be a right which is not only guaranteed to American citizens, but to the people of every country.
I don’t think there will be an Iran invasion. The goal is just to do enough sabre rattling to convince the Muslim world that the US really is out to get them. By some mechanism I don’t understand, this will promote peace and end terrorism.