Iran's a done deal--Next talking point--Russia

[blondeatlast]

And here's the proof. If you've read "The Republican Noise Machine," you already know how the machine works.

The HF blather came, no doubt, from PNAC, and will be parroted on the usual suspects (FAUX, et al) within the week.

Watch for the same terminology coming from the lazy ass MSM, who get their talking points straight from HFs press room.

http://www.heritage.org/

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

[whistle]

1. So you think as I that Iran will be attacked if not in June then....

...certainly before the end of the this summer.

[Carla in Ca]

15. How sad David Hackworth isn't here

to help us make sense out of the senseless...I miss him already.

[whistle]

24. Yep!

[snowbear]

2. The ReTHUGS better start recruiting their kids, their spouses,

their mother-in-laws, their drunk uncles, every one in their ReTHUG families..

They're gonna need the manpower! :rofl:

[Mass_Liberal]

3. Be Realistic

A) We are so stretched out between Afghanistan and Iraq that we don't have an army TO invade with.

B) An invasion of Iran would take our whole army, even if it were unoccupied with other arenas

C) The republicans would be out of office in a second. Why? Well for one thing, ALL national reserves would have to be called up and do 2 year long tours, and for another, I think that a biased media can still only go so far. 1 illegal war, maybe, but with approval ratings on the current one so low, I doubt it would support another one.

D) we aren't going to invade anywhere that we suspect already has nukes.

[blondeatlast]

4. I AM realistic--they have their heads up their asses.

I suspect them to draft my 8 year old son sometime next year...

[Mass_Liberal]

5. well

don't. Honestly if you just step back and examine the post-vietnam political climate, you will see that any party that supports the draft instantly goes down the drain in all national elections. I guarantee you. Now, enough w/ the paranoia, lets focus on more important things, things that reside in reality.

[Eloriel]

10. and that would be --

yet another parallel with Nazi Germany.

Actually, Nazi Germany might have had a cutoff at a slightly older age, more like 13. I'm not sure.

I know you were joking, but... (sigh) I just don't see much to joke about these days; even the jokes are serious shit.

[Benbow]

8. Realistic is the USAF and fresh-as-a-daily Israeli armed forces

according to another commentator, on another thread. And the new conscripts, who are going to have to enlist this summer (allegedly).

[Mass_Liberal]

11. What does USAF stand for?

If it stands for U.S Airforce, then what about it? Nobody is being drafted for the airforce. And it takes more than just a couple thousand new volunteers to indicate what would have to be a truly massive war effort.

[kenny blankenship]

9. They could bomb Iran for a month,

or for 3 months, or 6 months...

or longer if they feel like it. The Navy isn't particularly stretched right now (not like ground forces), and the Air Force isn't stretched either.

Our goals would be "nukyulur sites", "WMD sites", strategic Communications facilities, Revolutionary government buildings, plus "terrah training camps" and "staging areas" for Saddamite holdouts on the borders.

Not saying I'm sold on the idea that they will do this, but they aren't without military options either, especially if their goal is to sow misery and failed state conditions that would later warrant our direct "assistance" with "reconstruction and other humanitarian relief efforts" and with "stabilizing" a new pro-Western government in Tehran.

[Mass_Liberal]

12. my friend

Bombing and invading are two very different things, as we all know. Bombing operations would involve maybe a few hundred people total. Invasions take tens of thousands, and an invasion of Iran, I suspect would take more in the hundreds of thousands.

[kenny blankenship]

13. Yes, I know that, "my friend"

which is precisely why i said "bombing". Understand? The Bushlerites don't have to invade Iran in order to be at war with it, in order to decapitate or destabilize its government, in order to bring the country to its knees quickly and for a short time, or over the course of a sustained bombardment lasting half a year, to wreck the country's oil and transportation and communication infrastructure so thoroughly that no government is even possible for years (and an eventual "humanitarian intervention" becomes feasible for the NeoCons down the road).

If you're on the Iranian Revolutionary Government, many of these outcomes are just as bad as full scale invasion because you stand to lose your power and quite possibly your life too.

[Mass_Liberal]

18. I know

but bombing doesn't entail a draft, or billions and billions of dollars, or an occupation. What do you think the neo-cons believe this bombing campaign would accomplish? Bombing doesn't depose a government, you know.

[TexasLawyer]

25. When the Iranis retaliate it will.

The US will have many tempting targets in Iraq. When men from Iran start pouring into Iraq to get even, we'll have "no choice" but to actually invade and occupy Iran.

[Lerkfish]

23. your'e predicating your remarks on the assumption of Neocons possessing

logical faculties.

They are dangerous as hell, but they are also amazingly naive. Like all fanatics, they have a very narrow focus and tend to discount or ignore any information or rational objections to their agendas.

[tex-wyo-dem]

6. Wasn't Bolton in charge for the last four years of working with Russia...

and other former Soviet repulics to secure loose nukes?

Looks like he did a bang up job.

Nothing has been done since Clinton left office. This needs to be brought up in Bolton's Senate debates.

[Doctor_J]

7. Since we're LOSING in Iraq, and LOST Afghanistan,

what makes anyone think we can defeat Iran, much less Russia?

[WMliberal]

14. at least war with Russia would help our BCS rankings

:P
our weak non-conference schedule (Afghanistan, Iraq) is hurting our ranking.

[XemaSab]

16. Sort of like "Red Dawn"

with a lot of hot high school kids stopping a full-throttle invasion?

Only in this case it's them being invaded by us?

Ivan and Svetlana are gonna kick our asses!

[Poiuyt]

17. The neocons only want to attack countries that we can beat

or at least, who they think we can beat.

[Mass_Liberal]

19. agreed

n/t

[bunny planet]

20. They will either attack Syria or Venezuela. I'm betting on Syria.

They've been setting that up for weeks with all the talk about insurgents pouring in to Iraq from Syria, the Syrian government hasn't controlled it, blah blah, woof woof. Fighting in Iraq has moved closer to the Syrian border, Syrians have cut off communications with us....... I think the Iran talk is just another three card monte game, distract us over here, meanwhile the action will be somewhere else.

[Mass_Liberal]

21. See posts 3 and 5

of course, it might be possible (although public opinion would turn waaaay against them) if they completely disengaged from both iraq and afghanistan. But do you think that they would?

[bunny planet]

22. I had already seen posts 3 and 5.

There is nothing I put past these people, including bombing Syria under some trumped up pretext. I agree that they will try and avoid the draft but if it is somehow engineered that our soldiers are attacked en masse while we are near the Syrian border and it can be blamed on the Syrian government, Rummie will go in there with all of his new toys and start blasting away. If you view everything they do there as a desperate bid to control remaining oil resources in the region, all of their insanity makes scary sense. This is why the saber rattling at Venezuela as well.

Just my 2 cents.