New roll-out (propaganda campaign) for war with Iran?

We will see soon.

The timing makes sense. We all know now that you don't do a product rollout in August.

Bush has to act soon, if he wants that war. I wish I could predict the effect it will have on the elections in the USA.

I took this off of a blog:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=72580&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1190

The only saving grace Bush has left is to start a war to get his polls higher than they are now. He has a base of neocons - about 35% of the US population - who will support Bush no matter what. All he needs to do is add 5 to 10 percent more of the American public to reach his goal of 45 percent support, and final legacy of the Bush administration.

It doesn't matter that our military is stretched to the eyeballs.

One final comment; there ain't gonna be no "coalition." The US will be going it alone by our air force.

Let's say the U.S. does nothing. I would think there is a good possibility that Israel would attempt something, before there is an Iranian bomb. That could devolve into an international situation reminiscent of the 1914 Archduke dilemma.

We could keep our noses out of the entire situation, and watch a situation get out of control, so to speak. If the U.S. does something, it's to keep the world from having a real problem.

A lot of responsibility may be ours, regardless if we want it. Or, we put our heads in the proverbial sand, and let civilization devolve.

But, if there is a campaign, perhaps there'd be a nice black and orange button (Halloween is around the corner) with a catchy slogan: 52 Hostages - Remember!

Foofie wrote:
Sure, why not start off with the boilerplate false dilemma. As if the only two choices were nothing or unilateral and unprovoked military attack.


So, to avoid the possibility that Israel might act in such a manner as to put its existence in further peril, the US ought to go ahead and do the deed. Grand idea. The Arab/Muslim world (not to mention the rest of the world) will understand that this was a US act and therefore hold nothing against Israel, giving it a friendly wave as the thousands of newly radicalized muslims set off to attack the US.


I am having trouble believing that even this administration and this military will carry through with an attack on Iran. I doubt that any western nation, with the possible exception of Howard in Australia, will give even a nod of support. Anti-american sentiment worldwide will increase even further. Terrorist recruitment will be facilitated by some unknown but significant factor. The US military, already stretched thin, will not be off the hook even if the attack is air and missle and coastal bombardment because Iran will not merely sit back and say 'ouch'. And the consequences for the Republican party and the new conservative movement, with which this administration is solidly identified, will be profound.

The neoconservative crowd has not stopped pushing for an attack on Iran since the mid 90s. Even though they have lost credibility with pretty much everyone other than the Fox-attending Bush base and the worst of the never-question-Israel radicals, it is unknown now to what degree their deep failures regarding Iraq have diminished their actual power in the administration and the pentagon. We don't see much of Perle or Wolfowitz any longer but many others are still highly visible and continuing the warmongering patter.

Iran is busy ramping up the aggressiveness of its language, too.

Sigh.

c.i. wrote-



Come off it c.i. "stretched to the eyeballs" my backside.

So, there's no threat to the political status quo with a nuclear armed Iran? Do the Sunni Moslem nations look forward to a nuclear armed Shiite Iran?

This entire scenario will play itself out, based on the decisions of those who are paid to address the situation. Since that doesn't include me, I have the luxury of spending my time by reading a good book, and again "thank" by dead grandparents for coming to the U.S. in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

What's interesting about many a modern man is, so often I believe, he/she puts all the world's problems on his/her own shoulders, by developing a vehement opinion on distant concerns. Isn't this a recent phenomenon (only in the last century)? We really only have one life; are we wasting part of it by worrying about other people's concerns?

half jokingly, i wrote "die in a nuclear blast" on my to do list on my calendar for sept 11th, for some reason i am starting to think its not a joke anymore...

Foofie wrote-



That's right. Anybody who wishes to be one of those who are paid to address the situation should get his arse in gear and climb the greasy pole. Setting up on your own account is eccentric.

Don't panic OGI. You'll be okay. No need to stock the cupboards up.

Our troops are now serving longer tours of duty in war zones with shorter break periods - some already having served 3-4 tours in Iraq. They are also offering $20,000 bonus for new recruits to be shipped to a war zone early. If that's not "stretched to the eyeballs," I'm not sure when you think that'll happen.

But less then half of our armed forces are in Iraq.
We have almost 2 million people in the military,and less then 250,000 are serving in or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Only a third of the regular army's brigades now qualify as combat-ready.

Officers educated at West Point are leaving at a rate not seen in 30 years, with the consequence that the US army has a shortfall of 3,000 commissioned officers

And the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the destruction, or wearing out, of 40 per cent of the US army's equipment, totalling at a recent count $212bn.

"Two million in the military" is a meaningless number, unless you wish to use the navy and air force, and all those serving in the US and all over the world in administrative and support positions.

Should whether or not we have the ability to declare preemptive war make doing so right or wrong? I understand the point of not doing something we don't have the ability to complete, but if we could we should? I don't get that.

There are other ways to deal with Iran having nuclear weapons. Why is "EEK! ATTACK" the first thing that comes to some peoples minds? What if Fussia had said that about the U.S.?

Yes, Iran is using provocative language. We aren't children on the playground dealing with a bully or antagonist where a good punch to the face will stop him and the only negative is both being sent to the Principals office.

This is so Lord of the Flies. Where are the adults?

It seems MM is suggesting we pull the more than 150,000 US Service personnel out of Germany, South Korea, Japan, UK, Italy and other countries.

Or perhaps he thinks the Navy doesn't need the 150,000 personnel assigned to ships and submarines. After all only 42% of them are presently away from their home ports.

What do we need a coastguard for any way when Iraq needs troops?

Your statement is rather silly MM since it suggests that every person presently in the military is ready to be deployed to Iraq. Yeah, let's empty out the Pentagon and ship them all over there. I'm sure that would be the best use of their time and abilities.

Actually....