If Obama attacks Iran...

[arcadian]

Published on 14 Mar 2010

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/final-destination-iran-1.1013151

Hundreds of powerful US “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.

Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.

Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.

The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.

more...

[customerserviceguy]

1. If we don't

Israel will, and we'll still be blamed for it, anyway. Why not send in pros who can do the job right the first time?

[LakeSamish706]

3. Oh thats such a great idea, getting into a 3rd. war at this time... WTF n/t

[customerserviceguy]

12. Nobody said anything about a war

When Israel destroyed Saddam's nuclear stuff a couple of decades ago, it didn't automatically create a war. I'm just talking about the destruction of the other guy's toys, without having to kick his ass, too.

[LakeSamish706]

16. You think that Iran is just going to sit there while this goes down? I don't be thinking so.

[customerserviceguy]

22. If we take away their nukes

what other options do they have? Sponsoring terrorism?

[LakeSamish706]

24. And you think that China and Russia are just going to sit by while this goes down as well? I think

this would be a one way ticket to the next world war and probably total destruction of this earth and all her people.

[customerserviceguy]

38. I can see China and Russia

protesting their asses off at the UN, but are they really going to do something serious over the mere destruction of Iranian nukes, something that Israel is going to have to attempt, anyway?

[Tempest]

43. China would have no choice but to step in

Oil prices and availability would be in crisis and China runs on oil.

They will do what they have to in order to protect their interests.

This has been already anticipated by the experts.


You appear to have a limited knowledge of this subject. A limitation which makes it impossible to reason with you.

[customerserviceguy]

56. Part of the strategy would be replacing the Iranian oil

with oil from Sunni states. I'm sure the Saudis and the Iraqis would be able to fill the void.

I'm sorry you feel you can't reason with me. There are only a few possible outcomes:

Israel attacks the Iranian facilities, and does an imperfect job, possibly.

The US does the job fully, and minimizes the damage.

The Iranians really never get the hang of developing something the West was able to invent some sixty-five years ago, and they just keep shaking fists at Israel helplessly.

Peace will guide the planet, and love will steer the stars.

Which outcome do you see most possible?

[Tempest]

61. My God you are dense

You really believe Iranian oil can be replaced without a major disruption?

Aren't you aware OPEC is already pumping at near capacity thanks in large part to China and Indonesia's economic growth?

Where exactly would all this excess oil come from?

And you fail to realize Iran would mine the Straits of Hormuz and disrupt 2/3rds of the world's oil shipments.


Not only that, but you are ignorant of the Pentagon's war case scenarios which show an attack on Iran's facility will only put them back two or three years and would double their efforts to get a nuclear weapon. It would also kill the reform movement in Iran, allowing the mullahs to concentrate power.

[customerserviceguy]

66. As I've said

it is the least disruptive of a set of really bad possible outcomes.

If we do zero, eventually Israel will decide that its very existence is threatened, and will do something about it. If we fail to act, then we are left hoping that Israel did enough to finish the job.

No President would want to deal with the outcome if they didn't.

[Tempest]

69. Either would be distruptive

But you don't appear to concern yourself with any of the outcomes.

Go back to supporting whichever defense company you're a service guy to and stay away from geo-political discussions. You're not equipped for it.

[customerserviceguy]

72. Actually

I work for a utility company, not a defense contractor.

Look, you can dislike me and my positions all you want, but I'm not the guy who had an input in moving bunker busters to Diego Garcia. I'm just trying to get into the heads of the people who did, and talk about it here.

You may think that the Israelis and the Iranians are going to eventually sit around in a circle and hold hands, but I suspect there's going to be some fighting before that happens.

[Angleae]

134. China has virtually no capability to step in.

Their military is not a projective force. Unless they start using nukes, they'll be simply swatted away.

[Tempest]

32. Iran doesn't have nukes

They don't have the ability to create nuclear weapons material yet.


And yes, Iran has the power to unleash hell in the Middle East through their terrorist surrogates.

I guess you missed the political science class where Iran is a terrorist sponsor.

[customerserviceguy]

42. While they may not yet

it's only a matter of time. Israel isn't going to give them that time.

My comment about Iran supporting terror was meant to be sarcastic. They're already doing it, as much as they possibly can right now. They have no way to escalate it any further than they're already doing.

[Tempest]

46. You are living in a dream world

They're already doing it, as much as they possibly can right now.

That is so wrong on so many levels.

Iran is, and has been, laying low on the terrorism front for years. They could very easily step up the support without batting an eye.


Read up on what the military experts are saying about an attack on Iran as many of us have done and maybe you'll have something to offer.

[customerserviceguy]

51. Have you heard of Hezbollah and Hamas?

The Iranians couldn't get a toehold here, with the post 9/11 security.

Perhaps you have different experts you'd care to direct me to.

[Tempest]

53. You apparently are ignorant of recent history

Thanks to the 2006 Israel attack on Lebanon, Hezbollah took control militarily and politically in Lebanon.

I suppose you think that's not getting a toehold.

[customerserviceguy]

59. That's a toehold in Lebanon

not in the US. The Israel of 1967 wouldn't have stood for this, the present day Israel seems to be accommodating towards it. That might lead someone to believe that they'd do an imperfect job of wiping out Iranian bomb factories.

[Tempest]

64. That's a toehold next to Israel

You are obviously not well versed in the Middle East or in the probably outcomes of an attack on Iran, nor do you appear to want to learn anything about it.


This has been a big waste of time.

[Tempest]

28. Iraq was already at war with Iran

Iraq was at war with Iran in 1981 when Israel attacked the Osiraq facility.

Saddam didn't have the ability to wage a two front war.

[customerserviceguy]

47. As soon as we bug out of Iraq

The Shia and the Sunni will go back to fighting each other. Hopefully, we can get out of the way by the time the Iranian nuke facilities will be taken out, either efficiently by us, or partially by Israel.

[Tempest]

52. We won't be "bugging out of Iraq"

You don't even know the plans for Iraq, do you?

Just like you don't know the Pentagon's scenarios for an aftermath of an attack.

Say hi to Chabraja next time you pass him in the hall.

[customerserviceguy]

60. At some point, we will leave

and it will probably resemble Saigon, 1975 in many ways.

[Tempest]

65. Saigon in 1975?

Saigon in 1975 fell to the communists, you idiot.

[customerserviceguy]

67. Yes, and Iraq will fall to Sunni-Shiite violence

I would sincerely hope that's after we've gotten our troops out of the way, but I suspect that some will die as we pull out in the chaos. Look at how many bombings there are in Iraq, still, they just can't wait to go after each other.

[Tempest]

71. We won't be leaving Iraq. Period.

It's a dream you had, nothing more.

[Orsino]

106. I get it.

One of those non-wars, in which non-bombs are dropped on non-people and non-places.

Nonsense.

[customerserviceguy]

127. If you want the example of a non-war

look up Yugoslavia, where we sent in no ground troops, but with aerial bombardment, accomplished a few of our goals. Either Israel or the US can do that by taking out Iran's nuclear bomb-making capacity. Israel already did that with Iraq a couple of decades ago.

[Orsino]

133. Please don't try to sell me a bloodless war of aggression...

...particularly when I talked in real time to some of our nonexistent ground troops in former Yugoslavia.

[Echo In Light]

115. No "war," just the usual illegal aggression

[arcadian]

4. Good idea, then let's attack France.

Actually I could make the argument that every nation on Earth is a threat to US security. Why not attack everybody?

[damntexdem]

9. Good point! But don't limit it to the Earth: attack the moon!

What has the moon done for use lately?

[closeupready]

117. And Mars, just in case there really are Martians.

And Mars was the God of War, so they're asking for it.

[customerserviceguy]

15. The French are not, and have never been

a threat to world peace. The Iranians are eventually going to nuke Israel if they get the chance, and the Israelis will never let that happen. There will be only one chance to eliminate Iranian nuclear bomb technology, and if the Israelis screw it up, we'll be downwind of the fallout that will result.

[arcadian]

25. Ya ever heard of Napoleon Bonaparte?

:eyes:

[customerserviceguy]

30. Ok, strike "never"

and replace it with "not recently". My mistake.

[arcadian]

41. What about when France di support our current adventurism in Iraq?

Wasn't that a threat to every single US service member in the region? I say NUKE THEM!!! You're with me aren't ya?

[customerserviceguy]

63. You're talking nonsense

and that's even if I can figure out what you were trying to spell. France is not a part of anything seriously military, their only naval victory since WWII was against a Greenpeace ship.

Nobody really gives a crap about whether they're for you or against you.

[KharmaTrain]

34. Iran Will Eventually Nuke Israel?

And there's a legitimate source for this? Not rhetoric...we got tons of that prior to the Iraq fiasco. Problem with launching a nuke at Israel is they will surely do the same in return and thensome...so Ahmajeenjad or Khameni or whomever holds their "football" would have to consider that several of his cities will fry the moment the missile shows on an Israeli radar. Next, there's this simple thing called "blow back". Drop a bomb on Tel Aviv and the radiation and fall out could easily travel into Lebanon or Syria or Jordan and doing massive destruction there.

I'm not crazy about Iran having any nuclear capabilities, but building is one thing, possessing is another, using is a whole different animal altogether. Iran is looking at foreign troops on their east and west as well as its own precarious position in the Arab world (Sunnis & Shiites don't play nice together) and there's more card playing here than much more. When Saddam Hussein was taken down his people admitted that the WMD game was bluster...rhetoric to keep critics and enemies on the defensive. The "machismo" of the leaders of that culture is so deep that they will do down in flames to show "strength".

[KamaAina]

44. "its own precarious position in the Arab world "

Iran isn't even in the Arab world. Persians are a distinct ethnicity, not Arabs. They are in the Muslim world, which is where the Sunni/Shi'ite thing comes into play.

[customerserviceguy]

70. While I think that it would eventually happen

all that needs to occur is that Israel's leadership will believe it to be immanent at some point. While that leadership is headed by Netanyahu, I believe it to be more likely this will occur sooner rather than later.

[Thothmes]

131. I suspect the various nations that fought Napoleon would

disagree with you on a part of that statement.

[dchill]

5. "pros who can do the job right..."

So, no private contractors, then? Seriously, though, Obama will have my support for as long as he is President.

[arcadian]

11. No questions asked, right?

[dchill]

20. *sigh* I believe that if the US were to attack Iran...

that it would mean that reasons to do so would have been fully discussed by the aforementioned "pros". I'm not any kind of blind follower, but the government of Iran has been begging for some kind of attention.

[customerserviceguy]

23. That's right

If it happened, it would be the least bad of a number of really lousy options. That's been the guiding principle for HCR, why wouldn't it be applied to military strategy, too?

[arcadian]

27. Are you chanting USA while drinking a beer?

at this moment?

[dchill]

81. The Olympics were over two weeks ago.

[customerserviceguy]

82. And I was having a beer and chanting "Canada"!

Like I have said in other places on this thread, you may dislike me personally, and especially dislike my ideas, but if this story is real, then what I've been writing is what is on the minds of the people who made the decision to ship the bunker busters to Diego Garcia.

[damntexdem]

8. If it comes to that, I'd prefer to attack Israel.

But I won't support attacking anybody.

[customerserviceguy]

19. Oh, you really are dreaming!

While Jewish people are only a small fraction of this country, for some strange reason, the fundies who are a large fraction of this country would be just as pissed off at any US president who did this.

There are no circumstances whatsoever that the US will forsake Israel, whether that's the right or the wrong thing to do.

[proteus_lives]

103. You'd attack Israel?

That says a lot and none of it good. :puke:

[Behind the Aegis]

123. Don't be surprised.

He is the same poster who gave us this lovely post:

damntexdem (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-15-10 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. The State of Israel should be destroyed.
I had long been for a two-state solution; but it has become clear that the State of Israel will never settle for anything short of stealing all of Palestine.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=305543&mesg_id=305544

You have to at least give him some kudos for saying what so many more here are actually thinking but disguise in their posts.

[dana_b]

10. yes, because the Bush Doctrine

worked out so well the first time around.

[customerserviceguy]

21. You could make the case

that the Obama Doctrine is the Bush Doctrine, with a slightly different face on it.

[Tempest]

57. Explain in detail your reasoning

That the Obama Doctrine is the Bush Doctrine.

Because in a normal person's view, that's just not the case.

[customerserviceguy]

74. As I see it

#1: We're still in Iraq, so far. According to one of my friendly adversaries on this thread, we will always be there.

#2: We are stepping up the war in Afghanistan. We may be on the verge of doing so in Pakistan.

#3: We are voicing strong opposition to what's going on in Iran. And clearly, we're willing to ship bunker busters to Diego Garcia, if only to make a point.

No, it may not look exactly like the way Bush did things, but the outcomes may just be the same.

[cliffordu]

114. The error in thought and the pure willingness to ignore the facts as expressed

in points one and two in your post is why I feel as sorry for you as I do.

It's a pity, really. You are so very earnest.

[customerserviceguy]

125. Do you deny my points?

Are we not still in Iraq? I personally think we'll be bugging out, Saigon-style in a short time, but are we not still there now?

Are we not accelerating the war in Afghanistan?

And you feel sorry for me?

[cliffordu]

128. Your parsing of the topics mentioned are

Immature, transparent and, really not worth discussing except to point out your immature, transparent and not really worth discussing parsing of those topics.

[Iggo]

29. Israel fights a war and they're done in a week.

How long our "pros" been in Iraq?

[customerserviceguy]

36. You're thinking 1967 here

Israel hasn't been able to do that in a long time, if they still had that kind of mentality, they'd have wiped Gaza off the map a few years ago.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[customerserviceguy]

76. I agree that oil prices will rise

but I think that's going to happen even if things stay peaceful. Any serious recovery is going to bring $5-6 a gallon gasoline prices, if we ever get anywhere near the jobless rate we had in the middle of the last decade.

I feel Iran is already doing whatever it can to destabilize the world, knocking out its nukes is not going to change that. As for hell on earth for our troops, they've already got plenty of that. I advocate getting them out of the way while the destabilization we've unleashed works its way out.

[L0oniX]

86. ...cause $700+ billion a year isn't enough for the MIC. For fucks sake!

I'll bet that the DU chicken hawks and military cheer leaders love the idea.

[JackRiddler]

88. Spectacular logic.

[spanone]

2. 'for a possible attack on Iran' speculation posing as news.

[dchill]

6. True dat. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Stupid question because Obama isn't going to attack Iran

If you read down a few more paragraphs it says that this story isn't even "confirmed"

[Bluebear]

14. At least there are 6 TRUE BELIEVERS!

[Hippo_Tron]

54. Feel free to bookmark this thread and call me out when Obama attacks Iran

[Sebastian Doyle]

13. ANY Democrat who buys into another FUCKING NAZI PNAC WAR

Can go fuck themselves with a chain saw.

The United States has not been involved in ONE legitimate war since August 1945.

It is time for the American people to speak with one voice, and say NO to any more of this imperialistic bullshit.

[Drunken Irishman]

18. ANY DUer who buys into this bullshit that Obama will attack Iran...

Needs to get their heads checked.

:crazy:

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. I don't know WHAT to believe about Obama anymore

I never believed he would sign an insurance abling bill without a public option, for example. But apparently he's going to do so.

I also never thought I would hear him give a speech using the Bush Crime Family's "9/11 terra terra terra" bullshit talking points, as an excuse to escalate the war in Afghanistan, because I KNOW the man is too goddamn smart to actually BELIEVE the fucking lies told to us about that invasion. Yet he did that too.

So now you want me to believe he would NEVER attack Iran? Well I hope not, but I damn sure wouldn't put any money down in Vegas on that.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jennicut]

108. Afghanistan in one thing, he has some support on that and campaigned on escalation there. Iran?

No support from not just the base but most Dems. He wouldn't win another term. If he wants to go after Iran that way, so be it. But it would end any chance of his getting reelected again. We are not like Repubs in that respect.

[customerserviceguy]

26. You know what makes wars legitimate?

Winning them. Fully and decisively.

And we haven't had the will to do that since August 1945. I believe there were some really big bombs used that month, as I faintly recall...

[Tempest]

33. You have a warped moral compass

According to you Bush's Iraq war would be considered legitimate.

[customerserviceguy]

77. We haven't won it

and we won't.

The victors always get to write the history books, when there is no clear victor, there are at least two sets of histories.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arcadian]

45. Lockheed Martin

[Tempest]

48. General Dynamics

Or Northrup Grumman or Boeing.

You can bet it's one of the big four.

[customerserviceguy]

80. Wrong-o

But thanks for playing.

[customerserviceguy]

78. Nope

It's for a utility company, but thanks for the personal insults.

Maybe you think that this is all going to go away by itself, but I don't believe so. Either Israel does the job, possibly ineffectively, or the US does it, with a much greater chance of success.

I can tell you which way the people moving bunker busters to Diego Garcia have decided.

[Marr]

97. Are you suggesting we should've nuked Vietnam...?

I must be misinterpreting your comment.

[customerserviceguy]

101. If we had won Vietnam decisively

it would be in the history books as a 'just' war. If the North had lost the Civil War to the South, it would have been written up as a mistake to have gotten involved.

The person I was responding to was talking about wars being legitimate, and my response is that only after a war has been fully and decisively won, the history writers for the winners get to declare it legitimate.

That's pretty much happened with the westward expansion of European colonies across the North American continent, isn't it?

[bullwinkle428]

124. Translation : we haven't turned any countries into parking lots since 1945!

[customerserviceguy]

126. Well, we didn't turn either Germany or Japan into one

but we did flatten significant proportions of them. Enough to turn two of the most warlike countries in the history of the world into places that sixty years later find war unthinkable.

[Ignis]

73. I agree completely, though I think you were a bit understated. (nt)

[proteus_lives]

104. Korea was very legitimate.

[pinto]

17. Seems a tad over the top -

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.

[WheelWalker]

31. I try to live in the present n/t

[Prism]

37. You really need two polls here

First the poll today, where everyone will claim they're against it.

Then a poll after the fact should an attack happen. Then everyone will explain to us why it was the most awesome idea ever.

You know, like how everyone said "Public Option or bust!" last summer.

Then there's today . . .

The rightness or wrongness in these things is highly situational. President Obama's political image being the situation.

[apocalypsehow]

49. Other: never gonna happen. n/t.

[LakeSamish706]

50. I would say that this poll pretty much sums up how DU feels about attacking Iran.

Needless to say we need to get the hell out of the military struggles that we are in now, not move to new ones. I still and will always believe that the Administration that got us into these wars should be held accountable.

[Blue-Jay]

55. No vote / unrec.

How has Obama indicated any intention of attacking Iran? (I'm asking for a quote and a link, otherwise, you're just making shit up).

/I feel dirty just for kicking this stupid thread.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

118. Zounds! I had almost forgotten to unrec!

24-hour window still not over. Whew.

(Feels likewise dirty)

[quinnox]

58. I would hope he would lose all support

if he started a war with Iran. But I'm sure there would still be people who would cheer lead this war like they do everything else.

The dissenters would be labeled as traitors and so on you know the drill.

But I don't see it happening.

No way Obama could be that dumb, I refuse to even think it.

[Geek_Girl]

62. Any pre-emptive attack on Iran or any other country I will March against this administration

and through my money, time and vote to who ever the non war mongering candidate is, regardless of political party.

[taterguy]

68. You'll be marching within walking distance of your house I presume?

We fight oil wars because people like to consume oil.

Funny how so many forget this simple concept.

[Blue-Jay]

75. Bicycling distance, I'm guessing.

[taterguy]

85. Ever try to carry a sign on a bicycle?

That's just asking for trouble.

[Blue-Jay]

91. The plastic-sack signs are easy to carry on a bike.

The metal frames for them require a rack & few tie-downs. Still, it's easier to carry than the old cardboard signs with the wood stakes.

[Telly Savalas]

83. And if he nukes Mexico, I'll walk to Washington and sit outside the White House in protest.

[demosincebirth]

79. So, in 2012, we'll all vote for Palin.

[Robb]

84. Other:

...I'll change my sig line to read "arcadian is a geopolitical genius" for a full year. :eyes:

[arcadian]

92. don't shoot the messenger

[Hekate]

87. What do you take him for? He's not going to attack Iran & unleash Armageddon in the Middle East...

:wtf:

Hekate

[Lorien]

89. The Dems tranformation into repugs will be complete at that point

we're about 80% there as it is.

[Lurks Often]

90. Very Skeptical of the story

I'm skeptical of this story for the following reasons:
1. If we were to attack Iran's nuclear facilities (for the sake of argument, presume they do exist), we would use B-2 bombers and they would come directly from the US, probably Whiteman Air Force Base.
2. The BLU-110 is a 1000lb bomb capable of penetrating only 6 feet of reinforced concrete, probably not sufficient to get deep enough for Iran's underground facilities; The BLU-117 is a 2000lb capable of penetrating only 11 feet of reinforced concrete and so would have the much the same limitations. It is likely that Iran's facilities are protected by at least and likely more then 20ft of steel reinforced concrete. Steel reinforced concrete is relatively cheap and the Iranians are not going to jeopardize years of work and millions or billions of dollars by skimping on steel reinforced concrete.
3. The weight of bombs in the article are commonly used in Afghanistan and many of the bombers being used in Afghanistan are flying out of Diego Garcia.
4. Not even the US can destroy 10,000 targets in a few hours, a wide scale air attack of Iran would take days or weeks, because the first several days would be used to destroy Iran's military airfields and their surface to air missiles.

[harun]

132. It is clear BS.

[Mari333]

93. I cannot believe anyone would support this on DU

WTF???? keyboard warriors in mommys basement?????

[QC]

99. I believe it. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

116. It's absolutely terrifying.

I haven't been so concerned since some DUers supported Obama drilling to the center of the earth and releasing the mole men.

[Echo In Light]

121. There's a small group that diligently name-calls anyone who sources an article about it

... granted this was brought up frequently during Bush/Cheney (PNAC), often from Sy Hersh, and when it never transpired it quickly became further name-calling fodder for those dedicated to hating 'conspiracy theorists.'

Dunno if it's that same group who are likewise voting 'stand w/Obama if the US attacks' or not?

[LWolf]

95. Other:

He's already lost my support. The health care debacle. His war on public education, my profession. His bailouts. His escalation of the unnecessary war on terror.

If he decided to take us to war on yet another front, I'd be calling for his impeachment. Or, at the least, his defeat by an authentic Democrat in 2012.

[Kaleva]

96. BLU is an acronym for Bomb Live Unit. Doesn't mean it's a bunker buster.

[Regret My New Name]

98. I was hoping these 'stories' would go away once Bush was out of office...

How many times have we've heard "Iran to be attacked by mid-March/April/June/July/Etc..."?

[upi402]

100. It would depend on the circumstances, of course

While keeping in mind that Obama is nearly a Clinton-Republican and has appointed Republicans, and acted like a Republican. Therefore, I don't trust him one bit. Whatever Kucinich says I'd look at as the truth.

[el_bryanto]

102. Iran has a history of reckless behavior

They aren't actually innocent victims - or to be more precise - the leaders of Iran are not exactly innocent victims (the people are unfortunately). It is conceivable that the leaders of Iran could do something or be part of something that would require a response. Should this happen, and assuming it's not phonied up, I would probably support Obama. Bear in mind I still believe 9/11 to be a terrorist act by members of al-Qaeda, so my standards of proof might not jibe with yours.

In the absence of that, any military invasion of Iraq would be unsupportable.

Bryant

[quinnox]

105. Wow, so you would support a full scale war?

If there was some good intel that Iran was being hostile to the United States in plans? Or are you just talking about limited 'surgical' strikes?

[el_bryanto]

109. I am talking about something along the lines of 9/11

Not plans. They would have to take actual aggressive action towards the United States or towards their neighbors. I'm just saying that's not beyond the realms of reasonable possibility that they would do something like that.

Bryant

[closeupready]

122. Speaking of which, I doubt anyone here can forget this:

[Jennicut]

107. Obama would lose my support and I am pretty supportive of him right now.

It would be the most idiotic idea ever.

[NeedleCast]

110. Really? We're back to the "He's going to attack Iran" meme?

If I had a nickle for every DU post from 2003 on about how Bush was going to Attack Iran OMG! I'd have enough nickles to fill a sock so I could beat the crap out of people who make "attacking Iran" posts based on speculative or just plain faulty information.

[SidDithers]

111. It'll never happen...

search back into the archives for the "Bush is going to attack Iran" posts, and you'll see the same language as in this article.

Sid

Edit: and Unrec.

[NeedleCast]

112. I think they're going for law of averages or something

You know, if we make a few threads a week about how the U.S. is about to launch a pre-emtive strike on Iran, sooner or later, someone will get it right (and then they'll promptly ignore the hundreds of times they were wrong and gloat that they "told us so.")

[SidDithers]

113. Yup. I usually ask for a time frame to go with these predictions...

an open-ended prediction is never wrong, it just hasn't happened yet.

Sid

[tammywammy]

120. +1

Bush was attacking Iran and opening the FEMA camps for all liberals.

[Regret My New Name]

119. I agree... Although, I wonder what stance the repubs would take if Obama did do it...

I wish we could fake it just to see what they would say. :P
(I'm easily amused)

[Cali_Democrat]

129. Bush was supposed to attack Iran 5 years ago

suddenly Obama is going to attack Iran and alienate most of his supporters? :crazy:

[Maru Kitteh]

130. What if he shoots down the moon and it's made of green cheese?