[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
…He might just lob a few bombs at a few choice targets but invasion would be insane, even for Bush and Cheney.
[/QUOTE]
True, but if the Iranians want to be picky about it, that does qualify as an “act of war”. Technical jargon, to be sure, but still…
I have a feeling of ‘deja vue’-this is exactly like Richard Nixon extending the Vietnam War into Cambodia-it starts the same way. And we all know what a disaster lay ahead for Cambodia. Aren’t some of these generals going to protest? Or are they all yes-men? 
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
I have a feeling of ‘deja vue’-this is exactly like Richard Nixon extending the Vietnam War into Cambodia-it starts the same way. And we all know what a disaster lay ahead for Cambodia. Aren’t some of these generals going to protest? Or are they all yes-men? 
[/QUOTE]
Yes they are, but not in the sense that “yes man” is generally used. Generals spend a lifetime learning the art of carrying out orders. It’s a hard habit ot overcome.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
A large number of Americans have already demonstrated that they do not grasp the consequences that would ensue if the United States picks up and leaves…
[/QUOTE]
Oh, we grasp the consequences, all right. We just find them more acceptable than the consequences of staying.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
3000+ is more than a “few,” . . .
[/QUOTE]
No, it isn’t, Dio, not for a military operation on this scale.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
That said, your point above strikes me as simplistic. Of course we don’t need to fear either country “taking over America”. But do you think they could possibly be in a geographic and strategic position to wreak havoc on our economy by affecting oil supplies?
[/QUOTE]
Of course they could. But even that is better (for us) than war with Iran, or even prolonging our stay in Iraq.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Of course they could. But even that is better (for us) than war with Iran, or even prolonging our stay in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
Investors in other countries also have the ability to do great damage to our economy. All they have to do is stop buying our US bonds or investing in our businesses.
In both cases I suspect they won’t, at least not suddenly. It would be sort of like Sampson pulling down the temple. The economy of the whole world would be damaged badly by a US financial collapse.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Anybody with a grain of common sense knows that immediate withdrawal would be a disaster.
[/QUOTE]
Of course it would – for Iraq, not the U.S. In the short run. There will be a bloody civil war. But, in the long run, as everything shakes out, it will be the best thing for the Iraqi people. Like our withdrawal from Vietnam – which led to North Vietnamese victory, re-education camps and boat people, etc., etc.; but now Vietnam, while nominally Communist, has some prosperity and stability for the very first time in its long history.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
That said…it is time to pull out of Iraq to bases in the region and use the threat of air power to prevent genocide and other atrocities.
[/QUOTE]
But where in the region can we place bases, without provoking resentment?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
True, but if the Iranians want to be picky about it, that does qualify as an “act of war”. Technical jargon, to be sure, but still…
[/QUOTE]
But their response options are limited.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
But where in the region can we place bases, without provoking resentment?
[/QUOTE]
In the Gulf!
If Dubai can plant man-made islands in the Persian Gulf, so can we!
I say we build an island in the shape of a big fist being shaken at Iran. That should make the warhawks gleeful.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
In other news, Iran has arrested two suspected al-Qaeda agents, but might free them just to spite the U.S.
[/QUOTE]
Not only that, but the Admin has been spurning Iran’s offers to help us fight al-Qaeda since 2003.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
And at this point, it’s hard to blame people. One reason manufacturing intelligence is so dangerous to national security ini the first place is that once you’re caught doing it, it becomes incredibly difficult to get anyone to believe anything you have to say, if if this time it happens to be correct.
[/QUOTE]
Does it look like this?
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Another reason I hung on for so long is my contempt and frustration for those who called for the war to end even before it began.
[/QUOTE]
So, you feel contempt and frustration with those who didn’t want to attack a country that was no threat to them ? Do you feel contempt and frustration with people who refuse to engage in rape and muggings as well ?
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Why is bush so hell-bent on picking ANOTHER un winnable fight?
[/QUOTE]
Because that was part of the plan to begin with; if Iraq had thrown flowers at the feet of our soldiers like the neocon morons believed they would, they would have attacked Iran years ago. I believe the present plan is to get us into war with Iran, and hope that the Democrats are too afraid of looking weak to stop it.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Even Bush isn’t stupid enough to invade Iran- right now it simply isn’t possible, given the current overextension of the military. He might just lob a few bombs at a few choice targets but invasion would be insane, even for Bush and Cheney.
[/QUOTE]
Of course it’s possible - we have all those soldiers in Iraq; we could send some of them into Iraq. And when things start going to hell even faster, Bush could then call for more volunteers for the war machine or a draft. Of course it wouldn’t work and it’s be yet another predictable utter disaster - but that’s never stopped him before.
And I do think Bush and his cronies are insane and stupid enough to do it.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
But their response options are limited.
[/QUOTE]
When it comes to the US, everybody’s response options are limited. We got the big nukes, and they don’t.
But any act of war will provoke consequences. First and foremost, it will embolden Muslim extremists of every stripe and underline their key propaganda point: that the US is determined on a course to wipe out Islam.
It will utterly solidify the mullah regime in Iran, it will be their 9/11 moment. We seem determined to that end, that all dissent and disagreement in Iran from moderate secularists be nullified. We are operating staight from their playbook.
It will inflame terrorist passions, making such attacks all the more likely, and therefore more likely to succeed. Which, naturally, we will blame on Iran, making actual direct war that much more likely. And, of course, the slender prospects for Palestinian peace with Israel will vanish.
As for our desperate addiction to light, sweet crude…how does $15 a gallon gas grab you?
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
No, but he did read My Pet Goat.
Even Bush isn’t stupid enough to invade Iran- right now it simply isn’t possible, given the current overextension of the military. He might just lob a few bombs at a few choice targets but invasion would be insane, even for Bush and Cheney.
[/QUOTE]
You have far more confidence in this than I do…
Apparently the Iraqi government OK’d the purchase of Iranian weapons by a couple of the militias. SCIRI, and the Mehdi army; both big players in Baghdad politics. (CNN video here)
If the sovereign government of Iraq OK’d the sales, we, the US, have very little to bitch about.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
That said…it is time to pull out of Iraq to bases in the region and use the threat of air power to prevent genocide and other atrocities. It’s time to see if the Iraqis can sink or swim if our soldiers are no longer targets of rhetoric and bullets.
[/QUOTE]
If some of the resources now being wasted in Iraq are put into Afghanistan to assist with the legitimate, necessary, and internationally supported effort there, that might assuage your concern that we’ll be seen as weak.
Here’s a little jewel tucked away in the news article mentioned in the OP:
Here’s a picture of the same Abdul Aziz al-Hakim meeting with President Bush in December 2006.
So, apparently one of the key players in arranging for Iranian arms to be smuggled into Iraq to be used against our troops is trusted enough by the White House to meet personally with the President?!?!
This is totally insane!
Surely Bush knows he cannot attack Iran. So what then is driving his actions?
I think Bush is doing everything he can to get the democrats to oppose him as much as possible. Hence the “surge,” which everyone knows has been tried before and has not worked. Hence all the Iran talk, which he may be hoping will bring about a vote in congress forbidding him from attacking them (I have already heard talk of such a resolution on the talk show circuit.) Then, in 2009, when he is writing his book, he can say “I could have solved the whole thing, but those darn democrats opposed everything I tried to do and ruined it. It’s their fault, not mine.”
Of course I have no evidence of this, but I think it makes about as much sense as anything else. I think 90% of what Bush does now is directly driven by his legacy.
