|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Feb 21st, 2006 08:37 AM | |
| Geggy | I dont think they can afford to attack Iran. If they do, the US will probably face a serious economic crisis, which is exactly what Iranian president wants and is pushing for. I don't think W. Bush wants to attack but the crazies, (rumsfeld, wolf, perle, cheney, etc.) surrouding him are pushing for it. We'll see what happens. |
| Feb 21st, 2006 07:43 AM | |
| Kulturkampf | No, we aren't going to go to war with them. Not anytime soon (soon being the next 5 years). |
| Feb 20th, 2006 09:14 PM | |
| Preechr |
I'd like to expand on that for a minute, if you don't mind, just to riff a bit off topic. You know how I'm always asking for you to predict the "next big thing" that the D's will latch on to in their seemingly neverending and obviously so far ineffective war on Bush? I wonder if this thing with the ports might be with us for a while. Now, I'll say right now that what I'm about to explain is likely too complicated to soundbyte that deeply into the American conciousness... a phenomenon we've discussed prior to now as being the possible reason Iran-Contra and some other large scandals never really got the attention they deserved... but I think if played well, this could be a very important campaign issue for the left in 08. Already Chuck Schumer is dragging all the Dem notables into this thing, and I see a TON of good logic there. They have the opportunity to paint themselves as more competent on Defense than the Administration... political gold for them as it's not so easy for a D to do. Beyond that, however, this could develop into a huge political tool if done correctly. Do the boys that have cried wolf for 5 straight years now have a chance at convincing the world of yet another scandal that may not actually exist? I dunno. I think they should try... Lemme walk you through it: As I said up there, a fresh attack within the year will almost certainly guarantee a Republican win in 08. Here's how Rove will do that: We get attacked, and immediately the Republican war drums go nuts. The Democrats will HAVE TO object to whatever the R's lead with as a proposed response to the attack, which will be a pretty strong proposal. The R's will run around insisting that their plan is the only way that will adequately address the situation, as they are wont to do, and the D's will waste a bunch of time conferring with Europe trying to drum up supprt for whatever plan they have hacked together. The R's will be playing for a prolonged deadlock here, where the D's will be stuck advancing their solution brand to no end, as the R's hold the government. The R's will once again run their 08 campaign on the theme "Democrats are soft on the War" and will showcase what they will call the Dem deadlock as a primary example. THAT will resonate. As bad as it is for the blue party now, if we are attacked again before the election cycle kicks back in we are looking at a slaughter for the Democratic Party. The only tempering force for the R's will be their own lack of will to empower third parties by decimating the donkeys... but I don't see them holding back. Here's my alternate plan for the Dems with regard to the port issue. I cannot understand at this early point what would prompt Team Bush© to even consider allowing a UAE company to own those ports. They are again saying "Trust Us" in that way that seems to them somehow sufficient. I believe the D's could paint this so as to have a HUGE slice of America crafting shiny tin-foil hats. They need to be saying that the Bushies, known to be so uncomfortably tight with certain ME despots, opened this huge hole in our security in order to GET them that new attack for political purposes. No matter their current dominance, it's no secret that the discontent among more conservative Republicans is very real. There is a laundry list of good backing evidence in the far right's bitch list. On this list you'll find such notable examples as our "Porous Borders" with Canada and Mexico... mostly Mexico. Talk Show Dude Sean Hannity, considering a run for office himself, is up to his neck on this one, banking that by championing this issue he can win some points toward being perceived as less of an apologist for the party and more of a conservative man of principle. He's not the only one bitching about this aspect of administration policy though. The D's could pick up this torch and gain a ton of instant, bonafide cred if they were to say what needed to be said in just the right way. Allowing some major ports to fall into the hands of a country formerly the home of one of the 9/11 terrorists. Complete disreguard for the giant hole in our defenses that is our border with that brown-people country to our immediate South. Add a few more examples otherwise unexplainable of Administration "inattention," and you are boiling up quite a believeable consiracy theory there, Jack. You say: "They want us to get attacked again. They are buying an election with American lives." The D's could even get someone as abjectly un-electable as Hillary in office with that scheme. I f I hadn't already committed my vote to whatever the LP can dredge up at the last minute, I'd fall for it... possibly... I could fill in a lot more details here, but, for a tangent, I'm done with it for now. |
| Feb 20th, 2006 08:26 PM | |
| Abcdxxxx | Don't think so. |
| Feb 20th, 2006 07:20 PM | |
| Fathom Zero | I believe so, in fact, my friend owes me fifty bucks from a bet I had with him over the next country we would attack. I am a prophet and I believe it to be true. |
| Feb 20th, 2006 06:05 PM | |
| mburbank | Boy I hope you're right |
| Feb 20th, 2006 05:42 PM | |
| Preechr |
I believe the (for lack of a better term) Neo-Con agenda is more hyper-ambitious than insane. I think their original "whatever it takes" attitude toward the Democratization of the Middle East allowed for direct action against Iran and N. Korea, but that their experiences in Iraq have taught them better. So, no... I doubt we're sending troops into Iran anytime soon, and bombing is also likely off the table, decades after bombing was proven ineffective. I agree with your "Forever War" idea, but I think we're looking at something more like one of our Wars on _____ than an actual shooting war. Either way, we don't have time. I'd fully expect to see at least two years of a ramp up to invasion with plenty of posturing and bluster, and that's a bit difficult to plan with an election interrupting it. Now, when a Republican wins in 08, he'll likely enter office with a hard stance against whatever remains of the not yet Democratic Kingdoms of Arabia. It's hard to say what the Middle East will look like two years from now, though. Will a large scale terrorist attack in the mean time matter? I doubt it, whether the attack is successful or not. The time factor is still in play, and Rove will see way too many campaign benefits in stalling to follow any other path. A new attack within a year will guarantee a Republican win in 08 and no substantive response until after the elections. With no new attack, we will most likely be limited to applying other, non-war pressures on Iran. That being said, I think that even with an attack, given the time constraints of the election cycle, direct military action against Iran won't be feasible. So, long story left long but then nut-shelled at the end: No, Bush does not intend to go to war with Iran, and furthermore, I don't see it happening even if we had the best excuses to do so. We're in for one of those "tense stand-offs" interrupted only briefly by Israel blowing up what Iran thought were it's secret nuclear research facilities using agents on the ground inserted from American controlled Iraq... probably flying in in our helicopters... rather than the expected air strike as was used against Saddam. |
| Feb 20th, 2006 04:33 PM | |
| ItalianStereotype | who are they going to turn to? |
| Feb 20th, 2006 04:25 PM | |
| mburbank |
Weigh in-- Does Bush intend to go to war with Iran? I don't know. I hope not. I don't think any sane administration would, but this administration isn't sane. I also think a lot of their policy is grounded in the idea of a forever war. If we do strike Irans nuclear sites, there would seem to be little point unless that strike was nuclear, since several key sites are deep underground. I think a nuclear first strike would unite much of the world against us and isolate us as a nation from any remaining allies. What do you all think? |
