War in Iran?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Which makes ‘they’ very bad at prediction, no? So…how many times are they going to cry wolf until we seem some teeth?
[/quote]
What do you mean ? So far Bush’s critics have been more right than not. Unless a fleet of WMD drones were discovered while I wasn’t paying attention ?

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Nothing except reality…and the fact that the military neither could nor would honor that order. I think if Bush tried he would be treading on the thin ice of being removed for mental incompetence and instability.
[/quote]
Nothing Bush does is going to get him removed; it’s quite clear he is above all consequences.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
So…why has Bush not ordered a futile all out attack on Iran from the forces in Iraq if he could do so the way you indicate?
[/quote]
Because a Republican might get elected.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Though I know you are unable to do this I’ll ask anyway…why do you think it wouldn’t bother BUSH? Do you think he would enjoy sending in US troops who wouldn’t have a chance and would most likely take very heavy casualties for little or no gain?
[/quote]
Certainly. I regard Bush as a genuinely evil and sadistic individual. And, since when has he shown the slightest concern for American troops ? They are just disposable weapons to him, like so many bullets.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Do you think he’d be immune from any repercussions?
[/quote]
Yes.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
If he launched such a stupid and irrational war into Iran using the goofy counter-logic you indicate I can guarantee you he’d be impeached before the week was out.
[/quote]
No. He’d demand more money, more equipment and everything else necessary to be sent over to “help our troops”, and Congress would yell, scream, stomp it’s feet, and then do so. Because that’s what they do; give him what he wants.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well no…he couldn’t. Not unless Iran launched an attack using WMD on the US first he couldn’t.
[/quote]
Of course he could; what’s to stop him ?

22

Is Bush also going to nuke China? Because I’m sure Bush doesn’t want China to control the Spratly oil fields, he’s a racist and hates non-whites, and he’s so stupid he is capable of doing any single thing that is stupid. Then after Shanghai and Beijing are turned into a smoking wasteland, all the American people would hail him as a hero, and he’d be driven through Hong Kong in one of those double-decker buses with a giant MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner. Hong Kong would of course be freed from Communist oppression, only to have Haliburton run the city-state as a colony of the American conglomerate, which would be used as a transshipment point for the Spratlys, as I mentioned earlier.

All Bush has to do is wait until after the Olympics.

DT, your line of reasoning that Bush wants war with everyone and he could do it because he’s dumb really means that he could attack EVERY country on the face of the earth. Tremble in your boots, China, Canada, and Cameroon.

23

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Is Bush also going to nuke China?
[/QUOTE]
No, they have nukes.

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
DT, your line of reasoning that Bush wants war with everyone and he could do it because he’s dumb really means that he could attack EVERY country on the face of the earth.
[/QUOTE]
Has he called every country on Earth part of the “Axis of Evil” ? No. Has he been rattling sabers at every country on Earth ? No.

Don’t exaggerate; we are speaking of a potential war on Iran, because it’s high up on our list of targets. If the neocons had been right about how Iraq was supposed to go, we’d have invaded years ago.

24

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Don’t exaggerate…
[/QUOTE]

Now that’s funny!

25

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Now that’s funny!
[/QUOTE]
I bet you would have mocked me like that a few years ago if I’d said America would be kidnapping and torturing people. But we have. This “Oh, he’d never go THAT far ! America would NEVER stand for it !” garbage is getting old.

I see no reason to assume that there’s any limit to how stupid or how evil Bush is going to act. And I see no reason to assume that either Congress or the public will seriously try to stop him, or even care too much.

26

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, they have nukes.
[/QUOTE]
But Bush is crazy enough not to care who gets killed in a war, as I understand your argument. If he truly is evil, why would Bush care if Los Angeles got nuked?

27

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I see no reason to assume that there’s any limit to how stupid or how evil Bush is going to act. And I see no reason to assume that either Congress or the public will seriously try to stop him, or even care too much.
[/QUOTE]
(Bolding mine) So you DO agree that there’s nothing stopping Bush from starting thermonuclear war with China on January 19?

28

All right, Everyone, knock off the direct addresses to other posters telling them what they believe (or would believe) and how they “really” think.

Just stick to laying out your own arguments. You can respond to the actual statements of other posters, but not to the things you want them to have posted so that you can claim a “win” in the argument.

[ /Moderating ]

29

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I bet you would have mocked me like that a few years ago if I’d said America would be kidnapping and torturing people.
[/QUOTE]

No, I would have informed you that it’s nothing new. More frequent and blatant, perhaps, but not new.

30

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
What do you mean ? So far Bush’s critics have been more right than not. Unless a fleet of WMD drones were discovered while I wasn’t paying attention ?
[/QUOTE]

No actually…they haven’t. I remember before Bush got elected there was a laundry list of things Bush would supposedly do (repeal Roe vs Wade, make Abortion illegal, force prayer in schools, etc etc). The predictive power of the screecher’s has been mediocre at best…as the hand wringing prediction that Bush would invade Iran, Syria, etc etc have shown.

You are like one of those folks who look at psychics and extol how great their powers are…by only looking at the successes.

Even if the anti-Bush crowds powers of prediction were spot on, they would STILL be wrong about Iran of course, regardless.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Nothing Bush does is going to get him removed; it’s quite clear he is above all consequences.
[/QUOTE]

In the Der Trihs universe perhaps. In the real world of course your statement is complete horse shit.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because a Republican might get elected.
[/QUOTE]

Uh…huh? The elections were in 2006…he’s had 2 years now if he were going to do something so stupid. Or do you mean in this years presidential election? You figure he’ll wait until McCain is elected and then launch his nefarious attack?? :dubious:

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Certainly. I regard Bush as a genuinely evil and sadistic individual. And, since when has he shown the slightest concern for American troops ? They are just disposable weapons to him, like so many bullets.
[/QUOTE]

Well sure…but this assessment is coming from you so is pretty much meaningless. Besides, you aren’t found of the troops yourself so you have bias coming in from so many directions it’s hard to keep track…

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Yes.
[/QUOTE]

And I’m sure you base that on a careful and unbiased assessments of the facts…not a knee jerk hatred and bias so deep you could float a battleship on it…

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No. He’d demand more money, more equipment and everything else necessary to be sent over to “help our troops”, and Congress would yell, scream, stomp it’s feet, and then do so. Because that’s what they do; give him what he wants.
[/QUOTE]

Again, you base this on something other than history. He didn’t do this with either the Afghani or Iraqi wars. Basically your assessment comes not from either a realistic assessment of how our military works OR it’s current capabilities, nor is it based on history, no a realistic look at the political side…instead it’s based on your bias and deep hatred of Bush and you simply knee jerk reacting by spewing out a load of horse shit. C’est la vie…it’s you after all.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Of course he could; what’s to stop him ?
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I can think of several things stopping him in the real world. But let me turn this question on it’s head…what’s stopped him in the Der Trihs universe then? You said nothing can after all. That he doesn’t care. That he wants death and destruction. That he is evil incarnate and kicks small puppies into pools of crocodiles. What is stopping him Der? Why didn’t he launch nuclear weapons in 2005 or 2006 when things were really tense between the US and Iran? Why didn’t he launch his stupid military invasion and then scream for troops and supplies while expending our troops like they were bullets? Why didn’t he do any of those things Der?

Because he can’t of course. In the real universe anyway.

-XT

31

Here’s the thing.

Let’s imagine that Bush–er, I mean Cheney–really does believe that war with Iran is neccesary to achieve his goals, which include enriching Haliburton, spreading Christianity, murdering brown people, and so forth.

If Bush really thought war with Iran was neccesary, why hasn’t he done it already? If he waits until the day before he leaves office to invade Iran, then the likelihood is that even if McCain is elected, the next day McCain will order the troops back across the border and claim it was a mistake. And if McCain is such a gung-ho Iran-hater, then McCain is perfectly capable of ordering such an invasion himself.

Cheney’s only hope of making sure the invasion of Iran works according to plan is to be in office while the invasion is taking place. He can’t control the war once he’s out of office.

And claiming that since Bush is an idiot he’s capable of any sort of horrible action misses the point. Sure, Bush is an idiot. Sure he’s capable of anything. And so?

And Bush isn’t going to order an invasion without the neccesary preparation, because any such order will be flatly disobeyed by the generals. As commander in chief he can start firing generals until he finds one that will obey orders, but he’s going to have to get pretty far down the list to find a general who would invade Iran with no preparation. Bomb Iran, sure. Invade Iran, no. An order to bomb Iran can be given on Tuesday and carried out on Wednesday, and Congress will find out about it when the turn on CNN Wednesday morning. Not an invasion, because all those fired generals have telephones.

32

[QUOTE=xtisme]
You are like one of those folks who. . . .

. . .

C’est la vie…it’s you after all.
[/QUOTE]
Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]

33

I think even W has come to accept that an actual invasion of Iran is both politically and materially impossible at this point. My only concern is that, in a last-ditch effort to add to his “legacy,” he’ll do something the POTUS can do on his own authority – e.g., an air strike – thereby starting something that the next admin will have to deal with. Which action, however limited, would necessarily and inevitably stir up something Too Hot to Handle. It would be like Saddam Hussein setting fire to Kuwait’s oil wells out of sheer spite before pulling out his forces.

If you don’t think even W is psychologically capable of doing something that reckless and irresponsible for such a trivial, selfish reason, bear in mind certain recent revelations by Scott McClellan.

And, we keep hearing things like this. And this.

34

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

If you don’t think even W is psychologically capable of doing something that reckless and irresponsible for such a trivial, selfish reason, bear in mind certain recent revelations by Scott McClellan.

[/QUOTE]

Meh , sounds like they are expecting a poison pill for Obama if he becomes the president designate , forcing him in effect to have a more hostile relationship with Iran, and presumably the rest of the middle east and maybe china.

Declan

35

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Knock it off.
[/QUOTE]

Apologies. I was out of line.

-XT

36

[QUOTE=Declan]
Meh , sounds like they are expecting a poison pill for Obama if he becomes the president designate , forcing him in effect to have a more hostile relationship with Iran, and presumably the rest of the middle east and maybe china.

Declan
[/QUOTE]

China? How would an airstrike on Iran affect our relations with China? They might not like it, but the U.S. is still their #1 trading partner.

37

Doesn’t China get a lot of oil from Iran?

-XT

38

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Doesn’t China get a lot of oil from Iran?

-XT
[/QUOTE]

Everybody gets a lot of oil from Iran. That is, China, like every other industrial or industrializing nation, buys a lot of oil from the global market, to which Iran significantly contributes; I don’t know if China has any more direct arrangement with Iran, as Cuba has with Venezuela. It might.

39

It’s fun returning to old debates.

IntTrade current sets the odds of an Israeli or US airstrike on Iran at… 27.2%. Up from 10-20% during Q1 2008.

An airstrike is not an invasion of course, but nobody except Der and a few others is arguing about actual US groundtroops in Iran. Please oh God let Der be wrong.

Ravenman argued last time that IntTrade is bunk, and I’m somewhat embarrassed to say that he has a point. Go to my link and look at Volume: 2567 shares. That’s not daily volume: as far as I can tell that’s volume since trading began about 8 months ago. That’s well under $100,000 in total. This market seems too thin to take especially seriously.

Following up Brainglutton’s post, I dread the possibility of a US airstrike on Iran. It would surely poison the waters and lead to substantial US troop fatalities in Iraq.

40

A flaw in the argument is different understandings, or lack thereof, of the nature of war. It is approached as though it were a rational decision, made by hard-headed realists after cool and detached calculation. We are offered, as argument, that a war with Iran is unlikely because it would be stupid. We are to accept that war with Iran is improbabe because people are so rational, especially when it comes to grave issues like war. World War I? The War of Jenkin’s Ear, the Spanish American War? Please.

It is not enough to refrain from war in situations like we have with Iran. It is necessary not only to deny any such intention, but to do it convincingly, so your potential enemy knows, for sure!..that you are not just saying “Nice doggie” while you feel around on the ground for a good sized rock.

Our sabre-rattling and tough-guy talk is the exact opposite of that. Intentional or not, these are the actions of someone who would welcome war if he can get the other guy to start it. You tell me that the Bushiviks will not start a war, I tell they are not trying hard enough to avoid it.