Invade Iran?

[Mike_Rupp]

To Isolate Iran, U.S. Presses Inspectors on Nuclear Data


Leading US lawmaker warns of Iran 'collision course'

This got me thinking. Obama is up for reelection next year. He continues to slide in the polls despite anything he attempts to do to reverse course. I wonder if he is actually considering a run up to an invasion of Iran.

While he ran as an anti-war President, would he considering ditching his base and going for the middle? It is natural for people to rally around a President during the early stages of a war. We also have one of his strongest allies, Feinstein, saying that we are on a collision course with Iran.

 

[brianhoberg]

I honestly think the last thing we need is another war, especially with Iran. But the more and more we dig into them, the more evident is seems it will happen.

 

[knewsom]

Well, he SORTA ran as an anti-war president, but not really. If you'll recall, he proposed withdrawal from Iraq, and redoubling of focus in Afghanistan in order to make sufficient progress such that a timetable for withdrawal could be met. He was never even remotely against war. He really ran as an anti-OCCUPATION president, which he hasn't completely done. We still have guys in Iraq, though apparently only until December 31st. I think it's a lot easier to make promises before you're in office than it is to keep them once you're there - once in office, the amount of data you have to consider is vast and perhaps wildly different from what is publicly available. There's nothing wrong with changing one's stance in the face of contradictory data. The sticky zone is when you can't tell anyone what it is you now know that changed your mind.

I highly doubt we'll invade Iran. If anything, perhaps targeted airstrikes and some SF action on the ground.

In any case, I really hope we don't. We'd win, but fuck me, what would it cost??

 

[Drillbit]

This has been in the works a long time.

 

[p m]

Well, he SORTA ran as an anti-war president, but not really.

Didn't he get a Nobel Peace Prize?
What a joke it all is.

 

[Mike_Rupp]

Kris, Regardless of how he actually campaigned, he was perceived as the anti-war candidate.

We've been on a collision course with Iran since 1979. It would have made more sense to have attacked Iran instead of Iraq. They've been the primary contributor to terrorism and if Bush really wanted to put a dent into the terrorist's efforts, Iran would have been a much better choice.

At this point, I can't imagine the country has the stomach for another war.

 

[SGaynor]

At this point, I can't imagine the country has the stomach for another war.

Me either. We may go to war with Iran, but only if they drop a nuke on us. Even if (when?) they get the nuclear capability, but I don't see the will to attack them. Which is kind of scary...

 

[ptschram]

It would certainly change things if all the young occupiers were to be drafted.

 

[knewsom]

It would certainly change things if all the young occupiers were to be drafted.

Teenage PT Schram is now hanging his head in shame.

 

[Paul Grant]

It would certainly change things if all the young occupiers were to be drafted.

What a brilliant idea. Start a draft. Send all those kids with enormous student loan debts to their death. Then their parents will be responsible for their children's debt. The banks will love that. And, think of what it would do to our unemployment problem among the poorly educated. Whip them up into a patriotic frenzy (they always see to fall for it, look at GW I) and then send them off to die while the war profiteers (the usual cast of characters) make bank. They kids are only fodder anyway.

 

[Tugela]

Doesn't anyone remember the most important piece of wisdom imparted in the film "The Princess Bride"?

"Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is 'never get involved in a land war in Asia'..."

If Vizzini had been the Secretary of Defense instead of Rumsfeld we wouldn't be in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Then again, if Vizzini had been Secretary of Defense then Dick Cheney would have tricked him into drinking the wine with iocane powder.

 

[ArmyRover]

What a brilliant idea. Start a draft. Send all those kids with enormous student loan debts to their death. Then their parents will be responsible for their children's debt. The banks will love that. And, think of what it would do to our unemployment problem among the poorly educated. Whip them up into a patriotic frenzy (they always see to fall for it, look at GW I) and then send them off to die while the war profiteers (the usual cast of characters) make bank. They kids are only fodder anyway.

I really hope your aren't referring to service members as poor(we could be paid better but we are far from poor) or saying only poor families children join, and poorly educated Paul, also my young Soldiers are a lot more than fodder.

There is nothing wrong with being patriotic, and they way your using it makes it sound as if its a disease. Almost every Soldier I have ever served with is there because of a deep seeded love of their country.

 

[Paul Grant]

I really hope your aren't referring to service members as poor(we could be paid better but we are far from poor) and poorly educated Paul, also my young Soldiers are a lot more than fodder.

There is nothing wrong with being patriotic, and they way your using it makes it sound as if its a disease. Almost every Soldier I have ever served with is there because of a deep seeded love of their country.

No Bill, I wasn't referring to the service members of our volunteer army. What I was saying was that a draft, started as a result of yet another military involvement, would give our corporatocracy a great opportunity to send into combat the very people who have been most victimized thus shutting down their dissent.

As far as patriotism is concerned, one has to be very careful about how it's used. I don't question the deep seeded love for our country in anyone's heart. Nevertheless, I can point to any number of times "patriotism" was used to get us involved in some pretty questionable endeavors.

 

[apg]

Kris, Regardless of how he actually campaigned, he was perceived as the anti-war candidate.

We've been on a collision course with Iran since 1979. It would have made more sense to have attacked Iran instead of Iraq. They've been the primary contributor to terrorism and if Bush really wanted to put a dent into the terrorist's efforts, Iran would have been a much better choice.

At this point, I can't imagine the country has the stomach for another war.

Mike, I disagree with you on almost everything, but in this respect we are in perfect agreement. But Bush & Co had made up their minds to 'do' Iraq even before they were "elected." Yeah, Saddam was a bad man...but Iraq served one very important function: he/they kept Iran in check.

The clerics that run Iran have several, very real internal problems staring 'em in the face every day. The first is an increasingly secular middle class that can only be kept down by brute force. That won't last. The "Arab spring" may yet spread to Persia. The other is their oil infrastructure. While undoubtedly oil-rich, they are rapidly loosing the ability to keep the refineries on-line. Iran now has to import refined product. Coals to Newcastle, it seems. Gas used to be cheaper than water, but no more and the middle class doesn't like that none too much, either.

We need to be smarter this time around. Smart is implanting virii in control systems for uranium processing centrifuges. It worked once.... Keep greedy, oil field service companies out. Let their refineries crumble or burn, and so will their caliphate.

 

[knewsom]

Mike, I disagree with you on almost everything, but in this respect we are in perfect agreement. But Bush & Co had made up their minds to 'do' Iraq even before they were "elected." Yeah, Saddam was a bad man...but Iraq served one very important function: he/they kept Iran in check.

The clerics that run Iran have several, very real internal problems staring 'em in the face every day. The first is an increasingly secular middle class that can only be kept down by brute force. That won't last. The "Arab spring" may yet spread to Persia. The other is their oil infrastructure. While undoubtedly oil-rich, they are rapidly loosing the ability to keep the refineries on-line. Iran now has to import refined product. Coals to Newcastle, it seems. Gas used to be cheaper than water, but no more and the middle class doesn't like that none too much, either.

We need to be smarter this time around. Smart is implanting virii in control systems for uranium processing centrifuges. It worked once.... Keep greedy, oil field service companies out. Let their refineries crumble or burn, and so will their caliphate.

100% agreed on this.

 

[Mike_Rupp]

Mike, I disagree with you on almost everything, but in this respect we are in perfect agreement. But Bush & Co had made up their minds to 'do' Iraq even before they were "elected." Yeah, Saddam was a bad man...but Iraq served one very important function: he/they kept Iran in check.

The clerics that run Iran have several, very real internal problems staring 'em in the face every day. The first is an increasingly secular middle class that can only be kept down by brute force. That won't last. The "Arab spring" may yet spread to Persia. The other is their oil infrastructure. While undoubtedly oil-rich, they are rapidly loosing the ability to keep the refineries on-line. Iran now has to import refined product. Coals to Newcastle, it seems. Gas used to be cheaper than water, but no more and the middle class doesn't like that none too much, either.

We need to be smarter this time around. Smart is implanting virii in control systems for uranium processing centrifuges. It worked once.... Keep greedy, oil field service companies out. Let their refineries crumble or burn, and so will their caliphate.

Which is precisely why Bush's father didn't go after Saddam after he kicked his ass out of Kuwait. I know that most people here are too young to remember the Iran / Iraq war, but both countries hate each other with a vengeance. Even though Saddam was a thug, he had a rational mind. He was able to stay in power for decades by being rational about reading between the lines. A little poke once in a while would have been all it took to keep him in place.

Now we have the void in Iraq as a power base to counter Iran. The result: Syria and Hezbollah have become much stronger. The problem with neo-cons is that they have their utopian wet dreams just like liberal democrats. Rather than having a dream about income equality, Bush honestly believed that there was an actual possibility of setting up a democracy in the middle east, even though a few thousand years of history showed otherwise.

I much prefer the standard, Ronald Reagan, conservative theory of foreign policy: spend money where we believe it is in our national interest, use the CIA to further our interests, and bomb the living shit out of someone if they fuck with us.

 

[knewsom]

You can't "set up" democracy. It has to come about organically, by a widespread grassroots movement. Any attempt to force it by manipulation is doomed to fail, because people will know they're being manipulated by outside forces and align themselves against said outside influence.

It's pretty plain to see that funneling money to corrupt dictatorships, whether in our immediate national interests or not, is a mistake in the long run.

 

[Paul Grant]

I much prefer the standard, Ronald Reagan, conservative theory of foreign policy: spend money where we believe it is in our national interest, use the CIA to further our interests, and bomb the living shit out of someone if they fuck with us.

And run like the dickens when terrorists attack. Oh yeah, and then invade a small, defenseless Caribbean nation to WAG THE DOG.

 

[Mike_Rupp]

You can't "set up" democracy. It has to come about organically, by a widespread grassroots movement. Any attempt to force it by manipulation is doomed to fail, because people will know they're being manipulated by outside forces and align themselves against said outside influence.

It's pretty plain to see that funneling money to corrupt dictatorships, whether in our immediate national interests or not, is a mistake in the long run.

People don't object to democracy because they feel they are being manipulated. They object to democracy because they object to democracy. It's not in their culture. It's not normal to them. Look at the entire middle-east. The only democracy is Israel and I think we'd all agree that they have a different culture than the rest of the muslim dominated middle-east. Islam is a warrior religion and the people expect to be ruled by force.

Turkey is obviously different. While it's a muslim country, their society is much more european-like than the rest of the Muslim countries.

 

[knewsom]

People don't object to democracy because they feel they are being manipulated. They object to democracy because they object to democracy. It's not in their culture. It's not normal to them. Look at the entire middle-east. The only democracy is Israel and I think we'd all agree that they have a different culture than the rest of the muslim dominated middle-east. Islam is a warrior religion and the people expect to be ruled by force.

Turkey is obviously different. While it's a muslim country, their society is much more european-like than the rest of the Muslim countries.

Have you been reading the news over the last 8 months!? Like, at ALL???