I repeat: Are we about to attack Iran?

[BobcatJH]

Given the president's speech tonight, I think an answer to that question is in order.

[calimary]

1. Sounded like it to me.

The road to that destination was being paved, starting tonight.

[babylonsister]

2. No. I think Dems and Republicans are angry, and the asshole in charge

may get a big clue; no one is for this. He showed his cards tonight, and they're ugly.

[PretzelWarrior]

3. with what? spitballs?

we're not exactly a well-oiled machine at the moment.

sure they could bomb some targets....but the huge negatives around that at this point in history don't even come close to any perceived positives for this Bush bunch and the stong GOP power base that is looking to maybe win some more elections in the next decade.

[Hosnon]

7. That you, Zell? nt.

[Lone_Wolf]

16. With nukes...

The Bush administration are itching to use them. Part of the PNAC doctrine... they want to show the world their not afraid to use them.

[pnwmom]

25. With the Navy. We're moving in to attack supply ships from Iran.

[Joe Bacon]

4. EIther we will or Israel will

the same kooks pulling Bush's strings are the same ones pulling Olmert's

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Wes Clark is still fighting against it.

Tonight on O'Reilly's show, after talking about how the United States never attacked the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Clark laid out the alternative to war with Iran this way:

"What's wrong with this scenario? You talk with Iran, you hold them at bay. One way or another, somehow, western influence seeps into Iran and the people of Iran decide that there's a better way of living, than being under the Ayatollahs. Isn't that a better approach than saying we're going to have to go to war with Iran definately?"

You can watch the full video here:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10442

[TomInTib]

15. Clark is all wet

Like me, he is old school...

We are not going to hold anyone "at bay".

"western influence seeps into Iran"?

Come on, man, just fucking fade away.

You were one of the stupid fucks who have been killing us forever.

[dhill926]

18. explain please...n/t

[TomInTib]

19. If poor ol' Wes is ready to wait until "western influence seeps into Iran"

then he will be long dead and gone.

Or maybe he has been at DisneyLand for the last twenty-something years.

Clark just doesn't cut it for me. He will never be elected to any National office. Because he will never get any serious funding.

Apply your energies in some other direction.

You can do some good, but it won't be for Clark.

[Clarkie1]

20. Actually, there is already some degree of Western influence there.

Which makes your entire premise invalid. Did Clark step on your toes or something?

[TomInTib]

21. Nope. Clark is not going to be able to raise any serious money.

He will attract some primary funds and then he will revert to what he does best, acting as a consultant.

WAY better money. And almost as much voice.

Wes Clark never wanted to be elected to Anything, he just wants to be There.

Watch closely, now.

[Clarkie1]

22. I thought we were discussing Iran.

I have no idea whether Clark will run for President or not just time around. Right now I'm just glad his voice is out there.

You seem to have some sort of personal grudge...whatever, your problems really don't concern me, or Clark.

[TomInTib]

24. Mea culpa...

I was talking about Clark and Iran..

Him talking about us waiting for them to become Westernized.

And I am saying that he shouldn't/couldn't hold his breath.

I truly respect Wes Clark, but he has been relegated to the dustbin of History.

And, Clarkie 1, that is a fact.

A painful fact, but a fact, none the less.

I would love to be proven wrong.

But that ain't gonna happen.

I've got nothing against Wes Clark...
I would have voted for him at one time.

But his wick is burnt... gone.

Sorry, but that is the way that I see it.

[Sparkly]

27. What are you talking about?

"waiting for them to become Westernized?" I think you're taking a few words, stated in passing, wayyyy out of context. Do you have a link so we can see what you're talking about?

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Hard to take your post seriously when you say

"I truly respect Wes Clark" here in this one, while above you said about Clark:
"You were one of the stupid fucks who have been killing us forever".

I suspect that your first expressed sentiments lie closer to your heart, and that they color the rest of your "commentary".

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. So about Clark and Iran

On one hand you accuse him of being one of the stupid fucks who have been killing us forever, and on the other you ridicule him for this comment:

"What's wrong with this scenario? You talk with Iran, you hold them at bay. One way or another, somehow, western influence seeps into Iran and the people of Iran decide that there's a better way of living, than being under the Ayatollahs. Isn't that a better approach than saying we're going to have to go to war with Iran definately?"

You boil his comment down to this:

"Him talking about us waiting for them to become Westernized.
And I am saying that he shouldn't/couldn't hold his breath."

The most obvious thing to point out to you first, is that Clark is suggesting that we wait rather than go to war with Iran. Somehow I thought that it was actually going to war that has been killing us forever, not holding back from war. Unless you are suggesting here that millions of Americans somehow died because we waited rather than went to war with the Soviet Union. If that is your argument I would be interested in seeing you lay it out.

Ike, the last former General who ran for President, was advised by some to attack China and or the Soviet Union while the United States still had clear nuclear superiority over both of those nations. Instead Ike continued the policy of containment established by Truman. Your right, waiting for western influences to adaquately seep into the Soviet Bloc would have been fatal to anyone holding their breath waiting for that to happen. It took a little longer than that, but while we waited we avoided a direct war that would have killed tens of millions at the very least.

In many ways Iran is already a somewhat westernized nation. Have you looked at the demographics of Iran? It is overwhelmingly young, and very internet savy, while the conservatives core of Iran's current regime is decidedly older. Iran was moving in a reformist direction until continued bluster out of Washington DC under the current Bush Administration froze the thaw that was then underway. The reformist forces became demoralized because George Bush played the role of Great Satan so very well.

But if you are so impatient with waiting for seeping western influences to moderate the current Iranian government, what do you call for instead, a return of the draft? Are you recruiting all of your loved ones to join the military? Plenty big fight ahead, right?

[Clarkie1]

35. I'm going to put you on ignore because you are rambling incoherently. Get help, soon. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Well, we don't have control over Israeli politics

in the same way they seem to have controlled ours. We can throw a monkey wrench into the American military machine, but Israel will have to do whatever they're going to do. They'd just better not count on us coming along on our leash like we always have.

Maybe I'm blowing smoke here. There are a lot of Dems who seem unable to resist the slightest whims of Likud.

[Joe Bacon]

11. Hagee and his fellow Biblethunpers DO pull Olmert's strings.

Olmert won't even go to the bathroom without asking for the permission of his American biblethumping pals!

[Lord Byron]

5. Israel might do what they did to Iraq in the 80s. We won't though

That would be political suicide.

[Clarkie1]

14. Perhaps, but I worry about what little reason Bush has left disintegrating

as he continues to watch his fantasy dissolve into an escalating even bloodier chaotic mess.

[newyawker99]

33. Hi Lord Byron!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[gumby]

9. Who is "WE"??

I'm not going to attack Iran, nor do I have any desire to do so. However, George Bush is insane. Furthermore, I take NO responsibility for his actions.

Let's NOT forget, Bush has NEVER been ELECTED.!!.

[GreenZoneLT]

10. No.

It's possible Israel might, but unlikely. We're just saber-rattling; that's why he mentioned the extra carrier and Iran.

[orleans]

23. i think we're going after iran one way or another. someone here

posted (at least i think it was on du) that we have about ten warships hanging out by iran.

i know we put one in place about a month ago, and another one is getting there now.

if israel goes after iran we'll be there to not let iran fight back--and that'll do it. we're in.

either way.

[TomInTib]

12. Yep, we are..

The Newport News draft-up was a clear harbinger.

If we are playing those close-in games, we are ready to flex.

Always keep in mind that there are no knee-jerk reactions at the Fleet level.

The die is cast.

It is a matter of when, not if.

[Clarkie1]

13. My fear is as Bush escalates, Iran will escalate.

And as Iraq turns into an even more bloody mess, more of the blame will be put on Iran, and be used as justification for military action against Iran.

I fear that Bush does not know how to de-escalate.

[ellisonz]

17. No.

Not going to happen.

[mainer]

26. We just have. We attacked their consulate.

And arrested their diplomats. Isn't that an act of war?

[onenote]

30. No

But rest assured that some DUers will continue to announce that its imminent based on ship movements,etc, even though identical events were not a harbinger of anything.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. They were a harbinger of war with Iraq once upon a time...

...while George Bush was claiming no decision had been made to attack Iraq. I consider any time before 2008 to be imminent when it comes to the start of a new war. War is the course we are on with Iran, how long it takes until we get there is less important to me than whether we get there or not.

The New York Times has an interesting story today. It's called:
“To Counter Iran’s Role in Iraq, Bush Moves Beyond Diplomacy” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/world/middleeast/11diplo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Boo Boo]

32. During the midterms, Clark was telling audiences that there was a 70

percent chance that Bush would attack Iran. Remember who the guy is. He's not some paranoid conspiracy theorist. If he thinks Bush is going to attack Iran, it's because people inside the government, at the Pentagon for instance, are telling him that's what is going to happen.

Cheney tells Bush that he has to do it because, even if a Republican is elected in 2008, they won't have the will to do it. Only Bush has the "freedom of action" to do what needs to be done. That, of course, appeals to Bush's vanity, his sense of purpose, and allows him to double down instead of admitting defeat.

Political suicide? Bush's political career is already over; that's why he has the "freedom of action" to do what needs to be done. People who think Bush won't do this because it would be political suicide are whistling past the graveyard. There is no doubt in my mind that he will do it, unless he is stopped. The Iraq Study Group was the first attempt to stop him.

Swing and a miss. Strike one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. I think your analysis is spot on

I am sad to say.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. I doubt it.

Of course, I didn't think Bush would be stupid enough to attack Iraq either.

[The Magistrate]

37. That Is The Problem, Sir

The "that's too damn stupid to actually do" standard was once a very useful analytical tool: you could rely on what was just too stupid for competent leaders to do not being done.

With this bunch, it has turned into a sort of predictive standard: if something really is too stupid to do, there is a fair chance this bunch will embark on it next....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. They couldn't just settle for stupid, oh, no.

They don't settle for just plain stupid- like attaching an F4 Phantom engine to the roof of their muscle car, or building a dirigible out of helium balloons and a lawn chair.

No, no, they've got to do things stupid and dangerous to other people.

[Imagevision]

38. Yes, Bush will pull anothe (Prez. Johnson) Gulf Of Tonkin Incident

It was also said tonite on CPAN, Bush will attack Iran under the premise that Iran is interfering with Iraq progress --> then hit them hard trying to supposedly slow down there Nuclear ambitions.

unless Pelosi-Kennedy can get an up or down vote on Bush going ahead on his escalation plans --> there are 8 Republicans against Bush's surge plans!

[Imagevision]

39. If Bush attacks Iran, you can count on the draft neing re-instated!!!

That's for sure!

[TheWatcher]

41. Yes.

[Guaranteed]

42. No, we won't attack Iran. Bush will break before that happens. nt

[Lone_Wolf]

43. Yes. Probably because Iran's proposed oil market will use the Euro

Look at what happened to Saddam for wanting to trade his oil using the Euro.

The delusional Chimp is now starting to see WMDs program in Iran.