BREAKING: ABC STARTS DRUMBEAT FOR WAR WITH IRAN

[Halliburton]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347&page=1

smells kinda fishy to me. why would Iran want to help the sunni insurgency?

[lovuian]

1. this has been going on now for over 48 hours the drumbeat

is getting louder and louder...

[LeaveIraqNow]

2. Maybe the reports were right about leaving Iraq in 2007

They will be leaving Iraq right into Iran instead of actually coming home in early 2007.

[FreedomAngel82]

38. Something must be going on behind the scenes

[NNN0LHI]

3. Guess who was selling weapons to both sides during the Iran/Iraq war?

Yea it was us. Wouldn't surprise me to find out the Iranians were selling weapons to all sides in Iraq. Bidness is bidness.

Don

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

4. I read that earlier and that was my first thought as well.

These motherfuckers aren't going to be happy until the whole world is a battlefield.

[Karenina]

14. And the FIRST battle this year

is stopping the Iranian Börse. EVERY OTHER SHINY OBJECT IS BULLSHIT.
The Amis will BOMB ANYPLACE in Iran that they have identifies as a threat to PETRO*DOLLARS*. Iranian "nukular ambitions" are simply a ruse.

BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH.

[malaise]

51. It is that simple n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

40. At least the middle eastern part of the world anyways

[TAPat]

5. 3 years ago I said

Iran will be next - I'm just a little surprised it took this long...

[enfield collector]

6. when does the iranian oil exchange start to sell

in Euros again?

[catmandu57]

60. March 20

is the day scheduled for the bourse.

[babylonsister]

7. Didn't Scott Ritter predict some time in March? nt

[FreedomAngel82]

41. That's what I've read too

March 25th or 28th. Isn't that also the day Israel votes?

[Igel]

8. That is a rhetorical question, right? n/t

[WilliamPitt]

9. "why would Iran want to help the sunni insurgency?"

To make the Sunnis stronger, to increase the violence, and to give their Shi'ite allies in Iraq a ready-made excuse to wipe the Sunnis out, thus cementing a Shia-dominated Iraq allied umbilically with Shia-dominated Iran.

Just a thought.

[stop the bleeding]

39. interesting theory n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

42. That's a possibility

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Also to bog the U.S. down in Iraq

The last thing the government in Iran wants is for the U.S. under Bush to have large numbers of troops freed up with no "threat" to consider other than Iran.

And Iran can work directly with the "radical Shiite cleric" Moqtada Sadr if they want to. He is pro Iranian and his militia fought two mini wars against our "coalition" forces already. Sadr has also cooperated with some Sunni anti U.S. insurgent elements in the past.

Hell if I were in Iran's government, bleeding the U.S. dry in Iraq would make a whole lot of sense to me. After the U.S. finally pulls out of Iraq, with no more appetite for war, Iran can always shift all of their military support directly to Iran sympathetic Shiite militias, if they aren't doing so exclusively already. The field will be clear for them if the Sunni Arab Gulf States don't then get involved.

[Clark2008]

10. Wes Clark was on Faux yesterday and he was speaking

on the need RIGHT NOW to extend diplomatic talks with the Iranian goverment. The Faux "news" bunny, laughingly, tried to school the former four-star general and renowned diplomat on the fact that "we can't talk to those crazy nuts" and then she LITERALLY folded her arms over her chest in a "so there" motion (and she really did use the word, "crazy," to describe their government).

The drumbeat's been going for quite some time. It's pitiful.

[FreedomAngel82]

44. If I was Clark I would be pulling my hair out being there every day

:crazy:

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. What leading Dems besides Clark are calling for direct talks with Iran?

If we can't get the Democrats in Congress to at least agree on that we truly are fucked.

[Stephanie]

11. With WHAT MONEY and WHAT ARMY?

is it going to be a MAGIC war?

[FreedomAngel82]

46. Well remember what happened pre-Iraq invasion

We and Britian were using air force to bomb them and provoke them to attack but Hussein didn't.

[Minstrel Boy]

52. America's naval and air power, not to mention its

strategic arsenal, is untaxed by Iraq.

And this crowd is itching to go nuclear.

[Norquist Nemesis]

54. $75mil in 'emergency funding' to "spread democracy in Iran"

'nuff said?

[951-Riverside]

12. I'm all for going to Iran I'm all for the draft!!!

The American people had a chance to end this non-sense in 2004 and they accepted it by large numbers, I'm sick of lecturing people, I'm sick of seeing those Al Qa-eda videos everytime Bush gets in a hole, I'm sick of cringing everytime I watch the news, I'm sick of looking at Bush, Cheney and the rest getting away with lying, killing, assaulting fellow human beings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ITS NOT RIGHT!

[coalition_unwilling]

13. Iran's Army is 850,000. If we even so much as go near their border

with any kind of military strike, expect to see 5-6 mechanized divisions (rougly 500,000 troops) roll up our 130,000 soldiers in Iraq, not to mention the fact that Muqtada al Sadr has already indicated that the Mahdi Army will declare war on Americans if we attack Iran.

Furthermore, exactly what are we going to attack Iran with? Our supply lines\logistics are stretched, reinforcements are lacking. So the only options left are high-explosive aerial bombardment or nuclear weapons. We have no credible conventional ground forces threat left, as we have shot our wad in Iraq. (Think of Iraq as the Crime Family's Stalingrad.)

[Stephanie]

15. good post

it's insane. what do you expect bushco really has in mind? they can't be planning on a war under these circumstances.

[951-Riverside]

17. If our troops are decimated and we're left wide open here...

Who is going to be the first to go to war with us?

[coalition_unwilling]

24. Canada, please liberate us! We apologize for all the moose jokes, eh?

[peacebird]

18. imho - * is planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike

The first target will be a suprise attack on Iran's military bases/barracks. Probably at night.

Then there will be pre-emptive nukes strikes on the nuclear facilities.

After that - well Georgie will have gotten to play with the big toys in his arsenal, they haven't really planned any further than that.....

:eyes:

[coalition_unwilling]

26. "Suprise attack"? Are you joking?

More like a heavily-telegraphed demonstration project. If your scenario plays out, expect 130,000 American POWs within a few days of the first such strike.

[peacebird]

28. agreed - what i meant was bushco thinks it's a "suprise attack"

"oooh we're so STEALTHY" :sarcasm:

not me.

[MadMaddie]

59. They never do do they?

[peacebird]

19. imho - * is planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike

The first target will be a suprise attack on Iran's military bases/barracks. Probably at night.

Then there will be pre-emptive nukes strikes on the nuclear facilities.

After that - well Georgie will have gotten to play with the big toys in his arsenal, they haven't really planned any further than that.....

:eyes:

[peacebird]

20. imho - * is planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike

The first target will be a suprise attack on Iran's military bases/barracks. Probably at night.

Then there will be pre-emptive nukes strikes on the nuclear facilities.

After that - well Georgie will have gotten to play with the big toys in his arsenal, they haven't really planned any further than that.....

:eyes:

[peacebird]

21. imho - * is planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike

The first target will be a suprise attack on Iran's military bases/barracks. Probably at night.

Then there will be pre-emptive nukes strikes on the nuclear facilities.

After that - well Georgie will have gotten to play with the big toys in his arsenal, they haven't really planned any further than that.....

:eyes:

[peacebird]

23. eeek! how did that post so many times?!?!?

:blush: :hide:

[coalition_unwilling]

22. Oh, I think they're planning on it, the same way they planned

on being "greeted as liberators." But reality has a way of splashing cold water on even the fondest of delusions, no matter how often or how shrilly those delusions are trumpeted.

Seriously, attacking Iran will be like when U.S. crossed the 38th parallel in Korea in 1950 and got within a few miles of the Chinese border. Suddently, the Chosin saw 350,000 Chinese troops come storming across and killed Truman's presidency and MacArthur's military career.

[rucky]

32. That's why they're ignoring the Bush/Bolton threats. n/t

[cynatnite]

34. I can almost see Iran doing it...

they'd run our troops out of Iraq, take over the country and then we've got a much bigger problem on our hands that we're in no way prepared to deal with.

And how many countries would be willing to stick their nose in that mess in order to help out the US?

Bush put it all in motion to begin with by illegally invading Iraq.

[coalition_unwilling]

36. Yes, Iran's self-restraint is truly mind-boggling, as Iran is

now sitting fimrly in the proverbial cat bird's seat.

I think (although I'm no expert on the field) that they are holding back because their regional neighbors, i.e., Russia and, to a lesser extent, China, now hold the balance of power on the issue and are closer neighbors to Iran than the U.S. will ever be.

Of course I do not want them to attack U.S. soldiers in Iraq, but the cold-blooded strategist in me recognizes that they may well perceive it in their self-interest soon to do so.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

45. It will be

carpet bombing or mini nukes .

[Mr.Green93]

16. Let them start their war

The U.S. will get its ass kicked out of the Middle East and the thugs will never win another election.

[Imajika]

25. Sorry Mr.Green...

..but the US could annhilate Iran's army, navy, and airforce with very little trouble.

Iran does not have a first world military, we do.

No one could actually kick the US out of the Middle East if we didn't want to go. Only public pressure at home will drive the US out of Iraq or anywhere else.

We most certainly couldn't "democratize" Iran, but militarily, we could defeat Iran easily.

The "thug" can't run for another election. Republicans like McCain or Guiliani certainly could win another election for the Republicans. Never say never.

[coalition_unwilling]

27. "the US could annhilate Iran's army . . ."--you're kidding,right?

You're assuming that Iran's military would fight the war our Pentagon wants them to fight (huge set-piece battles with large bodies of soldiers moving across open ground). But what if Iran forces our Pentagon to fight the war Iran wants to fight, with small bodies of irregulars acting as an advance force to mobilize Shiites in South, followed by the advance of 5-6 mechanized divisions once a basing area in Iraq is secured?

[Imajika]

30. Just stop it with your mechanized division fantasy..

Iran's mechanized divisions would be annhilated long before they even got close enough to do any serious damage to US forces.

We would establish absolute air supremacy in no time flat. There is no jungle to hide in. Any Iranian formations would be moving in open terrain where US air forces and naval air assets would simply incinerate them.

Iran most certainly would try to mobilize the Shia in Iran against us. I'd guess they began that process long ago.

The point is, no regular, irregular or civilian force can push the US out of anywhere in the Middle East. US forces would just redeploy to strategic areas outside of large population centers in Iraq or whatever area in Iran they wished to seize, eject whatever civilians posed a threat, and wait for your 5-6 mechanized divisions to begin moving so they could be torched by air assets and then finished off by ground based units.

We do not have the forces in theater, nor the national will to take population centers and bend them to our will, but we do have a military capable of crushing any attempt to throw the the US out of the Middle East. Period.

[Stephanie]

31. this dialogue between you two is very educational

please carry on - i'm learning a lot

[BushOut06]

49. Well, they're both right in a way

We would be able to pulverize their conventional forces, since we still have a formidable naval and air presence. Stealth bombers and cruise missiles would help see to that.

Iran knows they wouldn't be able to defeat us in a conventional war, very few countries could do that. What Iran could do is cause lots of damage to us in the process, and really fuck things up in the Middle East. Lob a few missiles at Israel, our troops in Iraq, and maybe some our bases in Turkey. They might be able to take out a few of our naval ships in the Gulf. But the real damage would come from the uprising that would result. There is no way in hell we would be able to deal with an insurgency on a much larger scale than what we're facing in Iraq.

This doesn't even consider what could happen if Iran does have WMDs or a secret nuke - in which case, they could very well use those against our forces.

[coalition_unwilling]

47. "Fantasy"??? You need to re-read your history of the Vietnam War

my friend, especially the time before 1945, when the Viet Minh had to organize against imperial France and Japan. Methinks I do remember several mechnanized divisions entering Saigon (now "Ho Chi Minh City") in 1975, as American helicopters scurried off the roof of the U.S. embassy. But maybe I'm mis-remembering. If I am mis-remembering, what exactly happened to our vaunted "air supremacy" in Vietnam, beyond murdering some 2 million Vietnamese, most in the South?

You are assuming that Iran will fight the war we want them to fight, a very dangerous assumption and one that, furthermore, ignores domestic political angle. To wit, we have lost 2,300 U.S. soldiers in the Iraqi disaster. We will lose 130,000 U.S. soliders as POW's should we attack Iran.

By the way, exactly how would the U.S. define "victory"? Remember that just as we won't get to fight the war we want to fight, the Iranian definition of "victory" is probably vastly different (and far more sensible than) the Crime Family's.

[LibertyorDeath]

57. Thank You

:toast:
"You are assuming that Iran will fight the war we want them to fight,"

It's always amazing to me the number of people that insist
on being hit over the head with what should be obvious to them
if they weren't so locked in to their preconceived notions.

This is a definite whatever way the necons proceed toward
Iran "Things will not go as planned"

[stevietheman]

29. I saw the report too. My questions...

1) Who fed that report to ABC News?
2) How does Iran have the advanced technology to make tank-busting bombs that the United States cannot stop?

[upi402]

33. 1) * told them while drunk

Keeping 'merica safe!
Gotta catapult the propaganda!

[Mike Niendorff]

35. "starts"?

That drumbeat began -- in earnest -- more than two years ago.


MDN

[FreedomAngel82]

37. Does sound fishy

Aren't they with the Shiites?

[4 t 4]

43. Help us all

they're going to do it AGAIN here we go another war with another country god help us all!!!!!

[catmandu57]

50. It seems rather clumsy

the last time was bad, this is atrocious. I don't doubt they would get froggy and jump, probablly with tactical nukes, and I don't believe they have any more idea what to do next than they did when we rolled into Iraq.

[Hubert Flottz]

53. Just like they did before the 02 election.

War is good for GOP politics Karl Sez!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Erect bogeyman. Wave flag. Invade or bomb at will.

Don't forget the grim-faced politicians and cami-clad generals and "smart" bombs..lotsa "smart" bombs. And, talk about "vital national interests", "axis of evil", "liberty", "freedom", "founding fathers", "ultimate sacrifice", "support the troops", end with "God Bless America".

Do NOT mention casualties, civilians, or that thingy about Congress declaring war.

[LibertyorDeath]

58. I know.... It's Sickening.