I've been counting the cards and PNAC still has an ace up their sleeve

That ace is an air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

I've been ranting for a couple of weeks that any air strikes performed against the Iranian nuclear facilities will result in Iran invading Iraq. Iran has a standing army of 520,000 and can conscript 817,000 during the first year of a war.

In fact, if Ahmadinejad is as smart as I think he is (or at least as I think his military advisers are), he's already got elements of his top units embedded in the Shi'a regions of Iraq. It would be relatively easy to accomplish and the Shi'a Iraqis sure as hell wouldn't rat them out.

Now think about all of this for a minute. Some computer guy from Illinois has this figured out. Do you think for a second that the Pentagon is unaware of this likelihood?

Here's the ace. Rumsfield, Cheney, Rove, and Bush are COUNTING ON IT!! Hear me out. An Air strike results in several events occurring with no possibility of backing out.

1) U.S. bombs nuclear facilities in Iran.

2) Iran retaliates by invading Iraq.

3) Shi'a region in the Southern part of Iraq erupts in violence in support of Iran.

4) Hundreds to thousands of U.S. troops are killed in the first few days of this major conflict.

5) In light of these violent events, the tremendous losses, and "National Security", George W. Bush addresses a joint session of Congress where he requests...

(are you REALLY ready for this?)

A DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE NATION OF IRAN!

That's it. That's the entire game from a single authorization for air strikes. That's the whole shooting match. One simple act consolidates more power in one man than any other point in history.

Congress HAS TO give him his declaration of war because failing to do so leaves ~160,000 U.S. troops out in the open with their asses hanging out. No Congressman or Senator in their right mind is going to vote against it, the Iranians just killed hundreds or thousands of U.S. soldiers, Marines, and Airmen. The fact that Bush started it by striking the first blow won't even factor into it.

And that won't be the end of it.

Next step, a draft. We'd need a lot more soldiers to fight a DECLARED war in the Middle East.

Anti-war protests? FORGET THAT SHIT! Sedition WILL BE CHARGED. And he'll get away with it, too. Round up protesters and throw them in prison with no trials as enemy combatants giving aid and comfort to the enemy and there won't be shit anybody can do about because he will have all the power of a president fighting a DECLARED WAR. It's happened in the past, and the right will not be forgiving to Liberals who point out the abuses that lead us to this pass.

PNAC holds the last Ace in the deck AND IT'S A TRUMP.

Did I mention that Spades are trumps?

At the very least, our troops deserved consideration of his resolution.

you are treating Iran as if they have no allies and that they would be going up against the US on their own. I think they're smarter than that. I think that their recent deals with Russia give them incredible leverage. I think their religious beliefs give them myriad allies in the Middle East. An attack against Iran *could* lead to Iran calling in its chits against American aggression. It could very well lead to the US instigating a war against multiple countries in the ME, not their preferred plan of attacking a 4th-rate army with an overwhelming force. And once there are many ME countries opposing the USA, our allies will need to think long and hard about joining an anti-Arab coalition that would cause death and destruction within their borders.

The PNAC may be holding a trump card, but if the game is Russian Roulette, the cards don't matter.

In fact, I think they are saying, "Bring it on!"

Why do your think the Trumps are spades and the Trump Ace is the last card they will play?

they do something as insane as declare (unprovoked) war on a member state?

I think they will let Israel bomb the Nuke facilities like they did in Iraq in the 80's

They get plausible deniability, and Iran is the new attacker on the US, they get there we are under attack, even though we didnt do anything, and we can have our war then.

So we'd be toast in that situation.

It is called alliances with Russia, China and India. I think, with them in the picture, we just got outnumbered. Also, do not forget the length of the supply line to the Middle East from the US, vs. the countries just across the Iranian boarder.

Alas, Angra Mainyu (the Lie) is currently winning. With luck Zoroaster was right and Spenta Mainyu (Goodness) will win in the end...except there won't be much left.
-I have been reading up on ancient Persia.

With the million from the north or something like that.

10/26/04 "ICH" -- Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.

But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US has seen fit to “show the flag” or flex its naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power?

The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: “Saber Rattling Unnerves China”, and: “Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese.” But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat –– in the particular case of China, because of Peking’s newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.

“Nonsense!” you are probably thinking. That’s impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?”

Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve “an asymmetric advantage” over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.


more....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

..

:cry: :cry: :cry:

This is beginning to feel like there's no way out.

Peace.

I suppose that in an infinite universe all things are possible, but this doesn't fly. The chimperor is too weak especially now to pull a naked move of that sort. He'd not likely get a declaration of war against Iran and the rest of the middle east which is what that'd be)if not the rest of the world) and initiating a draft would occasion draft riots. The murcan people may be a little dense and slow at times, but they're not completely stupid.Something like that would be the absolute death knell for the administration and anyone even remotely connected to it.

The feelings of patriotism and nationalism would be huge in Middle America. He;d get his war and he'd go back up to at least 80% approval ratings, IMO.

I think you're hyperventilating tonight.

However, you could be right. Check back with me when you are. :sarcasm:

If there is a large loss of life, whether it be due to military strike against our troops or a civilian strike against one of our cities--or some combination--the way the media will play this--with 24/7 holocaust brought right into everyone's living room (think 9/11 a hundred fold)--THEY will play it however they CHOOSE to play it and one thing it will not contain is anything resembling rational consideration.

Today, the primary way terrorism is spread throughout advanced civilizations is via MEDIA. 9/11 is the prime example. Yes, it was a horrific event but compared, say, to the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima, it was a rather small affair. Take it to the next level however with 24/7 coverage pumped into hundreds of millions of TVs and computer monitors around the world and EVERYONE will be in shock. (They were using N. O. as some kind of test, I think.)

Your scenario makes sense but it will be a complete blood bath. IMO

We are looking down the barrel of a global war--and it isn't just going to be somewhere 'over there'. That is why what is before us is so urgent.

Have you seen this I think it makes it even more likely that some
major headline grabbing event will happen SOON!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5653104&mesg_id=5653104

Cornered animals can be very dangerous.

What I'd like to know is why General Eberhart resigned last January. Could be it had been planned for a long time but I find it remarkably curious.

Not a good sign.
Buckle up rough ride ahead.

They have a substantial military and we already have enough to deal with in Iraq. Sure we could bomb them but there is no provocation and there's just no way for him to get away with that.

and keep in mind, the international community is all in uproar already about the Iranian nuclear facilities.

And just think how that would freak out the North Koreans. They would probably attack Seoul just out of panic.

Very bad idea..

BAD ELEPHANT...


Doug D.

All it will take is Israel. Hell, it'd work even better if Israel did the actual bombing.

And they've been making noise like they were going to strike Iran for months now.

All we need now is another Arab-Israeli War..

What a nightmare... that would lead to a general world war which we are in no position to fight.

Not going to happen.

Doug D.

We'll see...

He won't have time to do this and if he does everyone will recognize that he's "wagging the dog" and it will only make his impeachment go faster.

It's ok to worry but don't be paranoid about stuff that isn't gonna happen. Concentrate on impeachment not totally hypothetical situations.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

That is what has to be understood. Is he a player? Of course he is within his limited circle. But beyond that Bush is a front man. Even if he goes, the structures of power that put him in office and have kept him there do NOT go. What we are up against is vast wealth and insidious corruption, the Bush family being only its public face. Behind them is something even more sinister, IMO.

You are wrong. When Bush goes, they all go. He's their key to power. It's crumbling over in the GOP Congress too. Abramoff's been flipped so numerous Congressmen over there are likely going to jail. This is game over for the Republican "revolution". Bush and his administration will be impeached and removed and then convicted of a lot of crimes within the next year.

Defeatism doesn't help us win back our government. Courage and faith in our convictions does.

Doug D.
Orlando FL

Seeing the big picture is not defeatism. Certainly getting Bush and his gang out of Office is a necessary step but it is not the end of the road.

You seem to be expressing a "why bother" mentality which is to my mind defeatism.

Doug D.
Orlando FL

Not at all saying "why bother."

I'm saying that the ouster of Bush would not be the end of the road.

Here is the real question: Who was responsible for 9/11? Who was responsible for the biggest attack (to date) on American soil and citizens? We've been lied to about this for five years. Less evidence that ObL and aQ was involved has been presented than evidence SH had WMD in Iraq--which we now know to be an utter fabrication. Am I saying that Bush and the neocons 'did' 9/11. No--not necessarily although clearly they may have known in advance that 'something' was going to happen. Who ever is responsible, 9/11 has been used as the primary reason for the 'necessity' of a 'Patriot Act' and a 'War on Terrorism' (both titles being so misleading as to be absurd)-- which, by the way, BOTH houses of Congress have implemented.

What I AM saying is, someone obviously WAS behind 9/11 and we don't know who and now we're told that Bush had to have carte blanche to wire tap American citizens without warrant. This is highly unusual, way outside the range of ordinary politics. Something big is up and we'd better be paying attention to the big picture as well as what we must do, or attempt to do, in the immediate range. Yes, we must call for impeachment--regardless of the consequences. But we are on the edge of something much bigger.

Unfortunately I have to leave.

Osama did 9/11.

Bush just took shameless advantage and we need to impeach and remove him and any one in Congress who has been corrupted via Abramoff, Delay and company.

I don't have the time or inclination to perpetually argue aboutit either because I've just spent too much of my time arguing with tinfoil hat wearers over in Tampa FL about this very same issue.

Doug D.

The fact is, their plan IS TO SPREAD THEIR WAR TO IRAN & SYRIA. That's a fact, a PNAC fact.

They have PROVEN their willingness to do whatever necessary to execute their ideologically-based plan, no matter what the consequences to this nation or her people.

I completely agree with you that this administration MUST BE REMOVED. The most compelling reason why they must be removed is to prevent them from doing damage far FAR worse than that which they have already done.

Sure I know what they intend but they have run into the limits of both American power and Presidential power just like Nixon and Johnson in the 1960's and 1970's and there's just no more to give in behalf of their causes. They've played their last cards. Game over.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

,...resources allow them to juggle several conflicts, simultaneously.

Don't get me wrong, I seriously HOPE they accept logistics! I do! However, their actions have indicated otherwise and I do not doubt for one moment that they will go forward in their state of delusion.

I hope you are right,...that they have reached the end of their abuse of power. I am verily concerned you may be wrong. I guess we'll just have to witness what they do and take it from there. Hopefully, they will be held to the rule of law before they can do any further damage. That is my wish.

They won't be able generate the political will here in the UNITED STATES to allow them to get away with it.

They have to have that or it will accelerate the impeachments and indictments. They realized that even before the Iraq invasion and that's why they made up so much bullshit to sell the war.

At this point though they couldn't sell America a used car. Their credibility is totally gone so that's the end of the game.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

I appreciate your confidence in your position. I am unable to conjure up that confidence, though.

I look forward to the end of this catastrophe for a presidency.

Wearing a tin foil hat doesn't shut off my eyes to see what is going on.

I'll take my tinfoil hat to your horse blinders any day.

Do you honestly believe the Republican controlled House and Senate are going to vote to impeach and convict bush?

If you do, you might try taking off those blinders for a while and check out what's going on around you.

Do you honestly believe the bush crime family is just going to sit around and hope the Democrats don't take back the House or the Senate or both in 11/06?

Take off the blinders!

I'm not wearing any blinders..hat wearer :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

I didn't join DU because I like Bush..good grief

Go read my blogs over at brainshrub.com if you think I'm such a "blinder wearer"

www.brainshrub.com/president-wiretap
www.brainshrub.com/american-inquisition
www.brainshrub.com/bush-plane-crash
www.brainshrub.com/vietnam-redux-partone
www.brainshrub.com/vietnam-redux-parttwo

I just have some common sense and know what is worth wasting my time on and what is not. This debate is not worth it because it will never happen (invading or bombing Iran or Syria)

Hypothetical what ifs about what ifs is just a waste of everybody's time.

I'm sorry you don't live in the real world but I do and I know what they are capable of and what they are not capable of.

Democratically Yours,

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

impeaching bush?

I think that might just be a spot of dust on your blinders, Doug.

What you see as The Senate Republicans voting to convict bush is an oat, maybe, stuck on the inside of the blinders.

I read your "bush plane crash blog" and your inability to "see" is pretty obvious. Considering the retro jets were malfunctioning on the plane in question ( a mechanical failure you failed to foresee)your entire premise for the blog, while maybe a little creative, was rendered obsolete by the facts of the plane crash. In your blog, you didn't even foresee the possibility the crash was a result of mechanical failure. So the blog itself was a misguided hypothetical what if.

People who wear hats are willing to discuss the evidence, the possibilities, the probabilities.
People who wear blinders just think they are right about everything all the time, end of discussion. This is understandable, because they are blinded, but it gets old fast.

Edited to add...By the way, I never made any comments about your politics, just about your political analysis capabilities. Take off the blinders and you will be a better analyst.

I'm a hell of an "analyst" precisely because I don't waste my time on conspiratorial crap. And I don't have "blinders" on at all. I just have the good sense to know crap when I hear it.

By the way I'm a licensed pilot and a degreed aerospace engineer so you don't have a clue about airplanes.

And you don't know what you are talking about on the plane crash. First off I SAID THE JURY WASN'T IN YET. Secondly you are wrong, it wasn't a mechanical malfunction, the thrust reversers are activated by wheel rotation. When the wheels slid, they didn't roll so the reversers didn't activate.

The point of that piece is that the pilots didn't allow themselves any margin for error and hence the accident.

Bush has done the same over and over again.

Even if it HAD been a mechanical malfunction, the pilots STILL didn't allow themselves any margin for error and that is a consideration they are REQUIRED to account for BY LAW before landing. They have to be able to stop the plane SOLELY using the wheel brakes and no thrust reversers. It helps to be a pilot and an engineer and KNOW THESE FACTS.

People who wear tinfoil hats spend ALL THEIR TIME discussing urban legends not evidence. Just because you read about it on the internet doesn't make it so.

People who wear tinfoil hats spend TOO MUCH TIME discussing very improbable possibilities. It's possible that the earth could be hit by a meteorite tonight and kill us all but should we waste a lot of time on that? NO.

I'm interested in what I know I can prove in a court of law. The hypothetical crap is just a waste of time and energy and makes you look like a tin foil hat wearing nut to ordinary average voters. When you do this sort of stuff you are playing right into Republican hands. My goal is to get DEMOCRATS ELECTED TO OFFICE, not to spend a lot of time discussing nonsense.

And you apparently DID NOT READ either the wiretap article OR the torture article that I wrote or you would understand my point of view.

Finally, odd as it may seem, the Republicans are tired of covering for Bush and they have an election to win next November so YES, it is fairly likely that they will push him overboard themselves to avoid having to go into the next election with his unpopularity tied around their necks.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

conspiracy theory over any other conspiracy theories.

That the evidence for the Governments conspiracy is self contradictory, incomplete, and unsubstantiated by the known facts apparently doesn't appear on your radar. It's as if you have blinders on. Nuff said, and on to my other point.

Can you name me one time in our nations history that the party in power impeached their own president?

If the Repubs impeached bush do you believe that would solve the Republican's political problems, or exacerbate them? I think it would exacerbate them, particularly with the other corruption scandals and investigations raging on. bush's {b}proven{/b}crimes would then also be around their necks.

The only argument I can find that would make any political sense for the Repubs to impeach bush before the mid terms would be that then we would get Cheney or (if he were impeached too) Hastert as our president. However, I can't see a lot of individual Republican's being willing to take the hit so that Hastert can be president. It's a very improbable scenario.

Your blind faith that the Repubs would impeach bush is just that, blind faith. All you offer to back up this blind faith is your strong gut feeling. You can't prove that in a court of law, even if pilots or aerospace engineers were allowed to practice law.

I didn't say that it was a certainty.

We need to push them.

We have an administration that has lied its way to war, that has committed election fraud to retain its hold on power, that is using bribery blackmail and other forms of coercion to manipulate and control mass media in order to deceive the population; an administration that has violated its treaty obligation under the geneva conventions, a constitutional violation, by engaging in torture and mistreatment of prisoners captured in its dubious 'war on terror'; an administration that has pronounced that due to this same undeclared war on terror it can ignore any and all laws, and has proceeded to do so by violating the rights of citizens through illegal detentions, by spying on dissident groups totally unconnected to any terrorist organizations, and through the use of computerized mass monitoring of private domestic communications of its citizens in direct violation of the law. It is time to stop dismissing us as tinfoil hats - lihop/mihop are not far fetched theories, that the administration had a hand in this attack is simply not unimaginable, not irrational. The administration needed 9/11 as the catalyst for everything they have done since then. Proposing that they enabled this event is entirely reasonable.

And anyone who reads what I write would know that.

I am specifically dismissing that they will attack Iran. THAT IS A TINFOIL HAT ISSUE.

You are trying to confuse the issue so stop it.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

of 9/11. Imagine that. Imagine any thinking, feeling, rational human being taking "shameless advantage" of a catastrophe of such unprecedented proportions. What kind of man takes "shameless advantage" of such death, destruction, trauma and grief? What kind of man takes the righteous rage of a nation and twists it and shapes it into a tool for his own political and personal gain? What kind of man lays the blame for the murder of thousands of people at the feet of one man and yet offers little to no evidence to validate his accusation? Worse, what kind of man swears revenge against the accused, only later to act as if his apprehension is of no consequence what so ever? What kind of man lies his own countrymen, indeed a whole world, into accepting a first strike war against a sovereign nation--killing and maiming uncounted tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process--all the while both implying yet denying they had anything to do with one of the greatest tragedies the US has ever faced?

I'll tell you what kind of man: A monster.

One of many.

It's a "free" country. You can believe whatever you want. I simply point out that your beliefs determine what actions you take in the world. For example, if you underestimate your enemy, or, worse, do not even know who your enemy is, your chances of success are limited. You could end up mistaking defeat for victory. That, to me, is precisely what happened to genuine Republicans, Conservatives and Christians. Good people, however misguided so far as my priorities are concerned, who really do want the best for themselves, their families, their communities, and their country--all allowed themselves to be lied to and manipulated by shysters and criminals of the highest order. They thought--some of them still think--they won in 2000 and again in 2004. They were wrong and now we have an insidious nest of human vipers inhabiting not only the hallowed halls of our legitimate government but also the deep and murky National Security state apparatus.

In may of 2004, Al Gore said the Bush administration was a threat to our national security. More recently, Ambasador Joseph Wislon and U.S. Army Col. Larry Wilkerson (aide to Colon Powell) echoed these genuine concerns.

No tin foil needed, my friend.

the blame for that one? All the whiny liberal traitors who wouldn't let Bush spy on terrorists. Then things will really start to turn nasty.

I think your scenario is as good as any other. The one I've thought would be a small nuke going off in some port city, like Oakland, where I live. Blame it on who ever they want and DECLAIR war. From that moment forward, there will for all practical purposes BE no Constitution. As you say, you can forget about any anti war protest. And, indeed, there will be a draft.

I've been telling people for years that these fucks want two things: 1) to create the conditions necessary for the suspension of the Constitution. If they can make that permanent, so much the better so far as they are concerned. 2) The other thing they want, I think, is a third world war that very well could go nuclear and involve lost cities in this country--just like New Orleans.

None of this 'has' to happen, it is being manipulated by the big players behind the scenes. The ones who put bush in office and have kept him there despite our electing Kerry. Can we stop it in time? I've become very skeptical. Even getting Bush out of office, if that is even possible, might now stop this chain of events that has already been set in motion.

But there are other factors that also have to be thrown into the pot: 1) The economy. Are our dollars really worth the paper they're printed on? 2) The environment. Something big is brewing both above and below the surface of this planet.

I just don't understand WHY they are doing this? I just cannot wrap my head around it. You can only have so many big houses, and why hurt normal people. Who the hell cares what religion or color anyone is? Why does it have to come to this crap. Just like the stupid smoking and vegan crap. Why the hate? Take care of your own, live by your standards as long as you are not hurting anyone else. What is so fucking wrong with existing peacably? (I am not trying to piss anyone off with the two examples I listed here - I'm just trying to point out what I felt were hate threads)

Sadly, the answers I've found are little comfort to the flesh.

If it is possible for human beings to truly change, to truly evolve to a new state of being where the kinds of ills that create so much unnecessary suffering are left behind, it must begin with us. We've been told this by our greatest philosophers and religious leaders for millennia. We've not known how to hear them, much less how to practice what they teach. Here is one Zen tale I'm particularly fond of.

To me, there's nothing else to it. Civilization is a center of power. It must expand, as that is the natural progression of power. Any center of power must make everything in its own image.

Early America had no use for native culture, and it plowed right through as it moved West. A new center of power was created, and it had to expand, whether people were in the way or not. Same with Russia, China, Germany, Rome, England, Greece, Persia, whoever. Nothing can stop it, other than two centers of power going to war, or the center of power growing too big and collapsing. But that just allows another center of power to fill the vacuum.

:(

Although, your point is well taken. It's very easy to burn a house down. We are really at their mercy.
I fear for what that lost C4 could do. Or any attack in the states could do.

But regardless of any of those, it still doesn't negate the troubles that Bush is facing. He can start all of the wars he wants, and he's still facing charges.

And then there's reality. We're in the minority.

But still, Congress is not going to give him another resolution to go to war. He is not a king.

And I may be totally wrong. But I pray, for those on the business end of Bush's stick, that I'm right.

but what if Iran actually makes the first move? What if the Shi'ite dominated, democratically elected, UN recognised, Iraqi government orders US troops to withdraw, and "invites" Iranian forces to take their place?

What does the US do then? In fact, what does the UN do then?

In my opinion the UN would be forced to side with the Iranians and call for the US to leave Iraq. If the US doesn't, then it will have cemented its status as an illegal occupying power, and thus turn the entire US government and military leadership into war criminals. Now picture every nation on earth having the perfect excuse to form a coalition AGAINST the US - a legal, even MORALLY just cause.

How do Americans like being the new Nazi's?

If the UN doesn't side with the Iraqi and Iranian governments, then it will have proven itself to be completely based on a lie and it will most certainly perish. Either way, the end result is a humiliating defeat for the US, or WWIII.

Even if a US airstrike occurs, the above could be the result. Will congress grant Bush his declaration of war if both China and Russia and a host of ME nations form a coalition to liberate Iraq? Or will they insist that US troops be pulled out to avoid WWIII?

Between that and the "I" word being thrown around, they're panicking and I suspect they are seriously considering what we might want to phrase, "the Nukyalur Option".

immediate ceasefire talks with the alternative being massive retaliation against Iran. Fuck honor, and fuck all the other posturing bullshit for forthright morons that people like PNAC use to con the more stupid members of the population to go and die for them. Dulce et decorum est pro chupa mi gallo. In the scenario you posit, the issue actually at hand would be to stop the attrition of American troops in Iraq. Hence drive the Iranians to the negotiating table. Of course this would involve abandonment of the PNAC oil goy agenda, but then their shill George is going to have a revolution on his hands if he doesn't do that soon anyway (and sniffers, that's not a threat, it's an assessment of current domestic reality - you're grounded, your public is GONE). Keep them there by informing them that if they leave, B2's will have the last letter of their targeting changed from 'q' to 'n', and Tehran will be a smoking hole. Make them multilateral peace talks, with EU, Russian and Chinese observers, and close out the whole show. We all have interests in the region, we were leaving anyway, no, you don't get to build nukes, let's all go home now, shall we ?

Three further observations entirely my opinion, well-considered though I hope it is:
1. Ahmedinezad is an asshole and thinks he's a playa. But he's a newbie, and ultimately not an experienced international power player. Even after an Iran nuke-plant strike, he would be very circumspect about how hard to hit back. Invasions are old-style nation-state shit, who knows what more low-intensity response he might come up with. He understands even now that his forces would be flattened after any initial successes, and the real power brokers in Iran seem to be more sophisticated than the Taliban suicide-charge crew. (They know the value of a nation state and prioritize keeping theirs in one piece.)

2. At the point where Indoobitable was standing before a Joint Session listening to his earpiece for the words to request the declaration of war, everyone and their grandmother would get in on the act, mostly with posturing, threats, counterthreats and demands for negotiation, and most practically the threat of a total cessation of international trade. Both Russia and the Chinese to name a few, not to mention the power brokers in the EU (whoever that is this week). This is no longer the age of gunboat diplomacy, even if Doobie and little Condi like to play with Mighty Mo in the bathtub while Bismarck's portrait gazes down on them in resigned disapproval. This would be the next best thing to global thermonukuler war, and the international system does have the benefit that it can hamstring activities to a surprising extent in such situations. And I don't think Iraq being invaded provides a counterexample to that claim, since it was a completely different entity from Iran (a nation of 26 million Under Control, vs. a very autonomous state of 68 million with four times the land area) - the portents would be unacceptable to all the wannabe superpowers in the world, and hell, what else is there out there, a real superpower ? Don't see one, at least not judging by government behavior. "You sank my battleship/killed my armored regiment" (specifically, military action against a US military entity) is no longer a valid excuse for sending Pershing across the border.

3. Speaking of nukes, a regional conflict involving US and Iranian forces on Iraqi soil (or thereabouts) raises the spectre of nuke use. Cheney and the chickenhawks will surely be trying to yell through the bunker door encouraging it, but more seriously, the Pentagon war planners might consider tactical nukes (since there are factions in DoD that want to drop the conventional/nuclear barrier - see the recently deceased robust nuclear earth penetrator) to counter a locally overwhelming Iranian threat or to hit hardened C4I assets. And beyond that, surely some Koran-thrower in Al Qaeda or the like would conclude that this was the final affront and that it was time to detonate the dirty bomb in Tel Aviv (or Amman or Damascus or Riyadh or or or for that matter). That would then beg the question, would the US & co (or the Israelis) consider nuke use in response ? It's a little hard to nuke terrorists, cause they're non-state actors and nukes are kinda better for using against nation states, but hell, you could always hit the host nation, or a target of opportunity, like Tehran in your scenario. I'm sure the intelligence would be meticulously collected and analyzed in order to decide who to irradiate. Silliness aside, the potential for escalation seems nonzero, one would hope that my previous two observations would prove correct and deescalate things before they got out of hand. Thank God Perle isn't in an official position, he'd be encouraging us to play "who glows in the dark" - "hey, without radiation, life itself would be impossible".

1)You must remember, Iran has a functional Air Force. The real issue I see right now is, Bush needs the distraction now, not three months from now (which is probably when this is planned to happen). He hasn't moved all of the chess pieces in place, but needs to strike very soon. He's got to be nervous with the "I" word being thrown about. Most of the ground attack will come in the South by Iran friendly Iraqis lead by Iranian forces already in place in the populace. The invasion is going to happen further in the North.

2) Bush will appear before a joint session of the United States Congress. He won't even go near the U.N., nor will he need to.

3)I think they've thought about nukes, considered Pakistan joining with Iran, considered the possibility that Iran already has nukes, and really don't give a shit.

Troops out NOW!

I hope Iran doesn't take the bait.

Their offensive ability hasn't increased that much!

Now you have an American Air Force and little in the way of ground forces.

A draft even the most ardent Bushbots wouldn't support. They love to cheer on wars when it's not them or their relatives that have to go fight it. When they have to go over there and be shot at, they'll change their tune quickly.

We have not been engaged in a declared war in over sixty years.

I still think the candy-ass bots would bust ass trying to get to Canada to avoid the draft. I know, Canada has gone on record as saying they won't take draft-dodgers, but who thinks the Bushbots would know this? :evilgrin:

So, the draft is back to provide cannon fodder?

He'll have to go to nukes, probably in some manner that will fulfill prophecy and keep the fundies happy.

Any major conflict with Iran would risk taking the US economy down considering that most major oil suppliers have leaders or populations (e.g. Venezuala, Saudi Arabia) that are anti-Bush.

The instability would send the price of oil soaring - great for the neocon's share options but terrible for average Americans - *'s approval rating would plummet.

on edit: if *'s approval dropped below 30% even the MSM couldn't hide it for long.

Question- I've never been to a protest in my life, but I spend a good deal of time on DU, and I write and call my politicians all the time about issues. Are they going to round me up too? Do you thing they will give warning first, and tell people not to protest the war? Or do you think they will just round up everyone without warning?

but ** must have tremendous support and respect from the military to pull this off. Does he have enough friends among the generals to convince them - when all of us know our military (and the budget for same) continue to be stretched beyond their limits?

He may; I don't know. I do know this: the majority of people I talk to are tired of war. They will not be led blindly into another one. The anger of Americans will come to the surface, especially if there is a draft. And there isn't any force ** can summon that will be able to tame that anger.

It's in the PNAC plans I believe along with Syria so I wonder if they're going to do it.

I can accept that as your *opinion*.

into an argument about it. I'm really not that interested. Perhaps if someone like myself states that they disagree, you'll rethink some of your assumptions. That's all.

They have way too much "swagger" for a group that basically has it's ass in the wind right now. I've worried about what they had planned that gave them such confidence. I assumed it was to diebold thier way through '06 & '08....

Oy...This really does kinda "gell" for me as far as theories go.

It would be too easy for Iran to overrun Us toops in Iraq-- within a week, or less. We would need at least a 1/4 million additional troops with in the first 2 days -- to stem the flow across the border. we dont have 1/4 million additional troops that can hit the ground in 48 hrs.

Frankly there are too many varibles-- its no sure bet.

Plus no Air strike can take out Deep underground Iranian nuke sites, if they exist and are at least 100 feet down-- cant touch them.

Nuthing short of a orbital kinetic penetrator can touch a buried site.100 ft down.

I think the Iranians hold the better cards in this scenario.

How would the US react if BUSH lost the 160k troops in Iraq? There would be 5 million people in the stareets of DC-- it would ba a lynching for the Bush regime-- out right civil war , here in the US, maybe.

There is a certain value to Bush maintaining the pretense of a denmocracy.

Iran has Sunburn missiles. A sunburn will take out an aircraft carrier. If Iran attacks, the number of casualties will be VERY HIGH. I think 20K in the first day is conservative (no pun). This country will roll over just like it did post 911. I guess we can forget the next round of elections...

Actually, any election result would have worked out fine for neocons. In this case, election of religious conservative ticket increases chances of strife within Iraq and increases chances of Iranian influence. Both will be framed as reasons for us to stay in Iraq.

Iran has always been the big prize.