War on Iran soon?

[mundame]

<TABLE id=tableToday09 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY id=tbodyToday09><TR id=trIN20080520093512OPENX><TD class=storyTitle>"Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term" - Jerusalem Post</TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD><TD class=st-Art>The Jerusalem Post reports that US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, before the end of his term, Israeli Army Radio quoted a senior official in Jerusalem as saying Tuesday. The official claimed that a senior member of the president's entourage, which concluded a trip to Israel last week, said during a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action was called for. However, the official continued, "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic, for the time being. The report stated that according to assessments in Israel, recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah de facto established control of the country, was advancing an American attack. (Briefing.com note: Stories such as this have been appearing in the press every few months whenever senior American officials visit the Middle East, and this seems like just more of the same, so it likely won't be market-moving.)
**********************************

I saw this on Briefing.com today. Certainly Bush might think a war on Iran, properly timed, could swing the election to McCain.

It's no wonder that both Gates and Rice are worried, if that's true ---- the military is wildly overstretched for a third war, and there is so much international dislike and distrust of us now it must be a problem generally for the State Department.

All the same, it sure wouldn't surprise me if Bush did this. And lost again, as usual.

Any thoughts?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[manu1959]

don't worry the democrat controled congress will stop him.....

[hjmick]

I'd like to say that I just don't see it happening, but, all things considered, I have to say that it is not beyond the realm of possibilities. It would be a miserably bad idea and I certainly think it would do nothing to help McCain.

[dread]

<TABLE id=tableToday09 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY id=tbodyToday09><TR id=trIN20080520093512OPENX><TD class=storyTitle>"Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term" - Jerusalem Post</TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD><TD class=st-Art>The Jerusalem Post reports that US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, before the end of his term, Israeli Army Radio quoted a senior official in Jerusalem as saying Tuesday. The official claimed that a senior member of the president's entourage, which concluded a trip to Israel last week, said during a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action was called for. However, the official continued, "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic, for the time being. The report stated that according to assessments in Israel, recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah de facto established control of the country, was advancing an American attack. (Briefing.com note: Stories such as this have been appearing in the press every few months whenever senior American officials visit the Middle East, and this seems like just more of the same, so it likely won't be market-moving.)
**********************************

I saw this on Briefing.com today. Certainly Bush might think a war on Iran, properly timed, could swing the election to McCain.

It's no wonder that both Gates and Rice are worried, if that's true ---- the military is wildly overstretched for a third war, and there is so much international dislike and distrust of us now it must be a problem generally for the State Department.

All the same, it sure wouldn't surprise me if Bush did this. And lost again, as usual.

Any thoughts?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Even Saudi Arabia understands that if Iran doesnt stop that war is inevitable.


http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&sect...=14&m=5&y=2008


It has nothing to do with the election. If Iran keeps up with what they are doing most are fucked. Arabs understand this, I dont know why you dont.

[hjmick]

I would agree that Iran is a problem and will need to be dealt with, perhaps militarily, but I would suggest that our interests would be better served if we were to first wrap things up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As far as I'm concerned, we've been at war with Iran since November 4, 1979.

[mundame]

I would agree that Iran is a problem and will need to be dealt with, perhaps militarily, but I would suggest that our interests would be better served if we were to first wrap things up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As far as I'm concerned, we've been at war with Iran since November 4, 1979.

Yes, since 1979, except we never fought Iran back.

Under this administration and presumably for some years to come, it doesn't seem our military can fight its way out of a damp paper bag. A lot of this is that they don't actually fight ----------- they "help" the enemy. This doesn't work out well, and it's a pretense that would be
even harder to maintain in Iran, I would think.

Note that if we WON a war in Iran, we would have one long battlefield from the border of Syria to the border of Pakistan. That might be easier to supply. There could be some advantages to that, but I can't imagine Bush even coming close to winning any war; he's just not capable.

[manu1959]

Yes, since 1979, except we never fought Iran back.

Under this administration and presumably for some years to come, it doesn't seem our military can fight its way out of a damp paper bag. A lot of this is that they don't actually fight ----------- they "help" the enemy. This doesn't work out well, and it's a pretense that would be
even harder to maintain in Iran, I would think.

Note that if we WON a war in Iran, we would have one long battlefield from the border of Syria to the border of Pakistan. That might be easier to supply. There could be some advantages to that, but I can't imagine Bush even coming close to winning any war; he's just not capable.

american can not win a war because it's people and media does not have the stomache to fight and win a war .....

[hjmick]

american can not win a war because it's people and media does not have the stomache to fight and win a war .....

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Sometime after WWII, probably starting with Korea and certainly culminating with Vietnam, Americans were introduced to the true horror of war. Sure, there were newsreels in the local movie houses, but they rarely if ever showed the death and suffering of the American soldier, functioning more as propaganda and serving as a rallying cry for the citizenry. Vietnam was the first war to take place in the "modern" age of communications. It was possible to report a story almost instantaneously, bringing the truth and tragedy right into the living rooms of the Jones' and Smiths nationwide. It was suddenly and violently thrust into the psyche of the American public and they didn't like it. And who can blame them? The visuals and growing awareness of the consequences for veterans gutted the once strong will of Americans.

As time went by, technology advanced not only communications but military hardware as well. I am of the opinion that the advancements in military technology has led some to believe that there is no excuse for casualties to the soldiers the U.S. military fields. This, of course, is a misplaced ideal. The best laid battle plan never survives contact with the enemy.

I don't like war. I don't think any rational human being does. The truth of the world, however, is that there will always be war. Centuries of human history proves this out. Plato had it right, "Only the dead have seen the end of war." People need to remember that war is, well, war.

[mundame]

american can not win a war because it's people and media does not have the stomache to fight and win a war .....

I think we have plenty of enthusiasm to fight wars for our own defense or revenge. Look how eager people were to go into Iraq after 9/11, and Iraq wasn't even involved: we just wanted to kill those dune coons.

But quickly it became a botch job and soon it was all about "helping" the nice little Iraqis, and no one has the stomach to deal with the confusions of "helping" people by bombing and shooting everyone and breaking in the doors of those pitiful houses always on the news.

We could fight if we had to defend the country; but these political wars for some Big Fool's Legacy, no one likes that.

It seems likely to me that's what Iran would quickly deteriorate into, another of Bush's failures.