On War with Iran (I wanna pull on your coattail about something)...

[Montauk6]

Consider this:

The fear of the Neocon Squad gearing up for a rumble with the Iranians is poppycock. UNLESS, of course, the ayatollahs are dumb enough to embark on disarmament. If that happens, absolutely we'll invade; the propagandists will naturally say that they're hiding even more dangerous weapons, we gave them a chance, yada etc.

I still think that the UN inspectors' assessments were a green light to go after Iraq. The WH knew that there were no WMD; THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE COUNTING ON. This is why I think of them as chickenhawks (nothing to do with their military service); they only get tough with helpless nations (it all began with Grenada).

So, as long as Iran or Kim Jung Krazy in NK continues to hold WMD, ain't no parties goin' on.

I dunno, what say ye?

[punpirate]

1. Given Iraq...

... it's understandable to equate "war" with "invasion."

If the neo-cons are crazy enough to believe that they can succeed in yet another invasion and occupation, I think you'll see a mass exodus of the brass from the Pentagon. Look for that to see how plans are progressing.

Do not, however, underestimate their intentions for a bombing campaign to reduce that Iranian threat first, under the guise of destroying potential nuclear weapons development sites. The neo-cons began a campaign to do just that in Iraq, fourteen years ago, with that intention--they knew there were no WMDs of any significance almost ten years ago from intelligence from the first UN arms inspectors.

Invasion, no, not in the foreseeable future. Bombing is quite another matter.

[leveymg]

2. There are many differences Iran v Iraq, but one constant - BushCo didn't

listen to the professional military and intelligence advise that was offered about the dangers of invading Iraq.

Why should they listen now about Iran?

The fact is, they would like to purge the ranks of the DIA and CIA of the all but the true believers. Resignations of the remaining neutral intelligence professionals would just be a sweetener.

Finally, mass casualties on both sides is no real deterrent to the neo-con zealots in the White House and in Rummy's office. They believe, like the Italians and Germans during the 1930s, that an outpouring of blood is a great mobilizer of public support for war. They may not be wrong about that.