What war with Iran will look like.

Sensationalism is dangerous. But not nearly as dangerous as the military-industrial complex. When the two are combined like they have been since 9-11 it can be a powerful weapon for the wicked.

By all accounts that I can get, we dont have the troops to pull it off. Somebody better start talking about a draft pretty soon.

Let's not talk draft. Let's talk Diplomacy, Reason, anything but more war. I don't believe our troops can stand too much more "Stop Gap". And who's left? The ones that don't want to be there, or they would have already inlisted. As it is recruiting agents are lying and cheating just to make the quotas they currently have.

I think the plan would probably involve heavy strikes against IRGC troop concentrations, strikes against some nuke development sites. It might not work for long.

Reasoning with people whose sworn intentions are to destroy others might not be realistic.

Great, I just heard that a cleric in Iran is linking the Pope's intentions to President Bush's intentions to restart the Crusades.

The draft is what we will be facing if any escalation is necessary. One of the reasons I was against the war in Iraq in the first place was because experts predicted we would be alone and overextended. That translates to DRAFT. The Reich-wingers might not have been so bold to go into Iraq if they knew 1) there were no WMDs 2) Saddam Hussein had no links to 9/11 or Al Qaida 3) the result would mean a draft. Perhaps they were going to just leave starting the draft to the Democrats

"Reasoning with people whose sworn intentions are to destroy others might not be realistic."

----

Absolutely right. And that's how George W. Bush is viewed in the Muslim world. The best we can probably hope for is to contain both Iran and Bush until new US leadership can reinstitute the practice of effective diplomacy.

Spike, we will not be able to contain Iran. China will. It's scarey to depend on the sanity of the Chinese to intervene after we have kicked the hornet's nest over and started dropping bombs. I hope it does not happen this way before October 15th, but Bush and the republicans solidify their base when the country is actively engaging the enemy.

Of course, planners are usually planning. Hopefully, these military plans won't play out.

Some people say that the religious leaders in Iran are opposed by most of the population, yet similar thoughts were at work with Iraq.

Sally if they changed the Military rules and allowed me a 40 year old to sign up and such I would be willing to go, it is worth that much to all of us. My family my children aetc. are worth it. You are worth it.

The article stated that even though the Iranians might be 5 years away from having an atomic bomb, the probable time until they have enriched enough U235 could be as short as a year or so away.

That's a little bit scarey. Maybe Bush will feel the need to act before they have enough U235, or else, we learn to accept a nuke yeilding Iran, and then possibly a nuke yeilding Egypt, and others who will feel threatend.

Sally, I don't think the recruiters are having too much difficulty at the moment. The Army Reserves are having some issues and the National Guard are having issues because usually, the guard and reserves draw from the active services. Right now, the actives are active.

I think the size of the services are still mandated by congress. Congress is responsible for authorizing the expansion of the size of the armed forces.

Only Bush and Tel Aviv perceives Iran as a threat.

Not one other nation on earth agrees.

The best path to peace = IMPEACH BUSH!

Stating that only Bush and Israel perceive Iran as a threat is absolutely not true. There are many other concerned nations. The French and Germans (who you might recall have not had the warmest relationship with the U.S. recently) have unequivocally stated that Iran must not possess the ability to develop nuclear weapons. Why do people let their anti-Bush sentiments cloud reason? One may not like Bush, but with or without him, Iran will remain a threat that must be taken seriously! Democratic Sen. Bob Graham was very clear prior to the invasion of Iraq; Iran, not Iraq, is who we should be targeting! And here we are! Just as he predicted! Iran must be stopped! How we do it, is a whole other subject!

The United States is spread thin, on too many fronts, we are barley holding the fragile governments established in Afghanistan and Iraq together. We need to stay the course there, and in Iraq, not spread our resources so thin that we could possibly be jeopardizing our soldiers on these fronts. Where do we draw the line on pre-emptive behavior? We are in a global dilemma, here, why not wait for the UN to do thier part? I don't think we should rush in until the current diplomatic events have run thier course.

Ok so what happens when North Korea brings Iran up to speed by sharing notes on their own nuke programs and military tactics in exchange for food/money.. something the U.S. has for so long used to tame the DPRK.. we'll lose our handle on two situations at the same time. Venezuela has been screaming for attention (and a new market to send their oil) for a long time as well. Oh good - too late - they're all getting chummy now. Is it true China is also helping to arm these folks? The same China who has been hoarding hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars to stabalize their own economic explosion? I smell a shadow alliance, and the sad thing is most of our allies are turning a blind eye.. oh thats right.. we pissed them off too.

This is bigger than we think.

To the world, G.W. Bush and his cohorts are the most dangerous political group, and is "Americas (not so secret) weapon of mass destruction" that is out of control

Oh, Marty, so George is going to resurrect the Crusades, huh? Maybe this time we'll win 'em....

Emmet, I'm with you!

Well, perhaps it would have helped if Bush had not named Iran in his axis of evil, and then invaded a country on their border. Also his blunder of calling it a crusade, on a tape played all over the muslim world about fifty times for every man woman and child might have had the effect of making Iran a little nervous, don't you think? Under those circumstances, we would probably want nuclear weapons as well, had we none. Nevertheless, and in spite of Bushes failed diplomacy, here we are, now where do we go from here? Does it seem to anyone else we are continually saying, well, here we are now, so we have to deal with this, under this president (and I use that term loosely)? Vote for anyone but a republican this year, and get a handle on this cowboy.

Randall is right! We might as well convert to Islam. How can we expect Diplomacy to work with a group of radicals who perceive us to be the great satan?

Whenever there is any discussion on the Middle East, someone has to chime in with "impeach Bush" or get rid of the "Cowboy"! Do people actually think that the hatred radical islamist have towards America starts and ends with Republicans and the Bush administration? Before our so called "Crusade" even began, the Khobar Towers were bombed, our embassies were bombed, and the World Trade Centers were destroyed. Can we get over this idea that Bush is the reason for their hatred of America and Western culture? They hate what we stand for: equality among genders and races, opportunity, democracy, capitalism, etc.! This is way beyond Bush, Rove, and the Republican party. This is about how they will convert us and our kids to their radical form of Islam. Accept it or you'll get a taste of their sword!

"They hate what we stand for:...."

Well put, Tony.

~~ The French and Germans ... have unequivocally stated that Iran must not possess the ability to develop nuclear weapons. ~~


They like everyone else want to insure compliance with IAEA strictures. But neither has asserted that the IAEA's assessment is incorrect and that Iran is on the verge of a nuclear threat capability or is in imminent danger of making such threats. Such paranoia is restricted to Bush, his delusional supporters here in the USA, and Israel.

France and Germany want tact and diplomacy to work out resolutions for all conflicts. If Bush and his delusional supporters would subscribe to such wisdom we would not have the mess the warmongers created in Iraq.

For those who remain under the unsubstantiated delusion that France is, somehow, on terrorist Bush's side in this conflict, lookee here =


France Wants Further Ties With Iran

| 2006-09-18






France Calls for Boosting of Ties with Iran

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Despite the United States' frequent calls on the EU to increase pressures on Iran and limit ties with the Islamic Republic, Paris has called for the enhancement of all-out relations with Tehran and this has been the underlying cause for the recent visit to France by President's senior advisor, Iranian government spokesman said.





"French officials submitted a message to us which both showed their profound enthusiasm for developing all-out ties with Iran and asked for the dispatch of a special envoy to Paris to discuss the two sides' wide potentials for further cooperation in all various areas," Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters during his weekly press briefing here on Monday.

"Thus, President Ahmadinejad dispatched his senior advisor Hashemi Samareh to France," he continued, saying that during his talks with various French officials, including President Jacque Chirac, Samareh has exchanged views about enhancement of cooperation through optimum utilization of the two states' potentials.

Elham further described Samareh's negotiations with the French officials as positive and useful, asserting that the talks have paved a proper and convenient ground for the development of ties.

Elsewhere, he referred to Iran's nuclear issue and mentioned, "What we have presented as our response to the EU's package of proposals included this very main point that the two sides can resolve the issue through reasonable negotiations and in compliance with the international rules and laws."

The Spokesman viewed Iran-West talks as positive, saying that Tehran perceives a desirable prospect for the present trend of negotiations as there resides no restriction in the way of talks.

Describing time-bound suspension as a misunderstanding, he stressed once more that nuclear talks must be free from prerequisite.

Elham rejected reports that Iran could agree to the short-term suspension of its enrichment activities for the resumption of nuclear talks with the west, reiterating that such a notion was a result of a "misunderstanding."

He said, "Iran has made no decision whatsoever to suspend enrichment," but meantime stressed that all issues pertinent to Iran's nuclear case "can be raised in the negotiations."

Asked about the possibility of a meeting between the Iranian and American Presidents during the upcoming UN General Assembly meeting at the United Nations headquarters in New York, the Government Spokesman reminded, "The issue at work is not negotiation or talks, rather there could be a debate between President Ahmadinejad and his American counterpart George W Bush, and when it comes to debating, where else could be a better place than the United Nations?"

In response to the recent insulting statements by Pope Benedict XVI against the religion of Islam, he reminded the rich and historical culture of Islam, and stressed that the remarks by the leader of the world's Catholic church result from ignorance and lack of comprehension and proper understanding of the Islamic culture.

Meantime, the official viewed Pope's remarks as worrisome, and reminded that international movement of Zionism, supported by the US, intends to undermine solidarity of religions through sowing seeds of discord among them.

"Meantime, the official viewed Pope's remarks as worrisome, and reminded that international movement of Zionism, supported by the US, intends to undermine solidarity of religions through sowing seeds of discord among them."
------------------------
Yeah, that's logical. The Pope says something that Muslims take offense to, and they start blaming Jews for instigating it. You want to NEGOTIATE with these idiots?

As for France, they've stuck their heads in the sand so many times in the last hundred years that it is a wonder ANYONE pays attention to what they think or do. Germany and even Russia are very nervous about Iran getting the bomb, and Italy should be too given the threats comming from Muslim extremists against the Pope and Rome.

At the end of the day though, the real question is not if WE think that Iran is close to getting a bomb, but what ISRAEL thinks. Israel warned the west that Iraq did not have WMD's and they were right. They have also warned the west that Iran is getting close, and I'm inclined to believe them. If they are convinced that Iran is nearing a first strike capability, you can bet that they will launch a pre-emptive strike. That has some VERY nasty implications regarding who else could get dragged into it and what the consequence to the world oil supply might be.

Diplomacy must go forward as the French have suggested, but diplomacy is certain to fail if is not backed by the potential to use force and the clear intent to use it if necessary.

I believe France had good deals on oil with Saddam Hussein, perhaps they wish to recapture some of the glory filled days.

The 5 sided wind tunnel was a term used by a co-worker, former navy man when describing what happened on 9-11-01. As in "Well, I'll be damned, someone finally put a hole in the 5 sided wind tunnel." Actually, I confronted him on it, and he said that if you had ever been to the Pentagon, you'd get the reference. The corridors are long.

luckky, what have you been smoking, boy?

I heard the interview this morning with Louay Safi, Director of the Islamic Society of North America. The interviewer was asking about the response to the Pope's quotation from a 14th century leader in the form of rioting, firebombing of churches and the murder in South Africa by shooting in the back of a nun kneeling to pray. Safi characterized all this as the Islamic world "expressing dismay" at the Pope's words.

Expressing dismay. Gee, the next time I decide to murder or rape someone, do you think maybe I could characterize it as expressing my dismay? I guess that would make it all OK, huh?

Tony L. and anyone else that wants to listen. Yes we have suffered a lot of terrorism from these people. No, I am not defending those actions. What I am trying to say is that bush has failed to even consider the difference in cultures and customs, or religions, or the history of the region. He has disregarded sound military advice and retired the General that disagreed with him. Now he keeps saying he listens to his Generals for troop levels, but what are you going to say to him if you don't want to retire yet, and you know what happened to your predecessor? Our interference in the Mideast and our support of Israel, can be sighted for many of the earlier attacks, and then Osama started his jihad because we had infidel boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia, sacred ground to Muslims. We did not leave after Kuwait. None of this excuses their actions, but it is necessary to understand your enemy, something this administration has failed to even look at. The fact is, we have been messing in their sandbox for a long time, back to the Shah and beyond. Would we suffer as much quietly? I think not. Then 9/11 happened. You had dancing in the streets in Palestinian lands, but, most of the Muslim countries had given us their sympathies and the promise of help in eradicating middle eastern terrorism. We went into Afghanistan and there were pretty much no real protests. We were fighting terrorism, and had the help of Pakistan, a country that had before 911 actually supported the Taliban. Then we went into Iraq, and Bush called it a crusade, and most of the Muslims in the world said, hey, you take our sympathy and cooperation, and use it to invade a country that had nothing to do with 911, for your own reasons, and, oh yeah, we know from experience what crusade means, it means Christians come into our lands and kill our people because we are Muslims. So, here we are, stuck in the middle of a civil war, Al Qaeda using our presence to recruit a heretofore unheard of level of membership, and a deficit that is at unheard of levels, not all because of the war, he has done plenty to add billions to our debt otherwise, but cowboy diplomacy is what Bush practices, and it has cost us dearly, and will cost us more. Just the way he took a surplus, and turned it into record debt, he has taken us from being someone the whole world wanted to help, and turned us into a country no one trusts. He has stripped us of our moral compass, by torturing and stripping people of their rights. In my view, every time we give up a constitutional right, or stoop to torture, the terrorists have truly scored a victory. Osama has said that another strike in the US is not necessary, that by providing fear as a catalyst we would destroy ourselves. The Bush administration has and will feed on that fear to promote the only thing people see him as better at, keeping us safe. Is increasing the sphere of influence of terrorists organizations world wide and helping the numbers in them skyrocket more likely to keep us safe? We haven't even made an attempt to seal our borders, or to see that cargo containers are even seriously looked at when they come into the country. The former head of aviation security has said that these measures at the airport are unproductive, that the terrorists have been ahead of us all the way, and that tests of the systems at major airports has shown that it is still easy to get bombs and weapons past inspectors and on planes. Every time we change procedures they figure out a new way to circumvent us, such as the new gel ban because they had a plan to use liquid explosives. He has chosen to, and we have, gone it alone in the world of diplomacy, with the exception of England, whose citizens are against us, in large part, themselves. So we went ahead, on our own. How's that working for us, guys? I could go on, but I doubt if the people in this thread would appreciate it, so I'll stop. By the way, Cowboy diplomacy just denotes a shoot from the hip style. Can anyone say that isn't what he has practiced?

I'm sorry, Ron. Please tell me how Clinton or Kerry or Ted Kennedy and all their cronies would have done so much better.

~~ smoking ~~


The issue is the link which proves that France is not on the side of Bush in the fabricated conflict with Iran. As you can readily see, France does NOT side with Bush but wants to use tact and diplomacy to iron out any differences.

Bush's radicalism has been a proven failure from day one (except for the corporate welfare recipients that he has enriched). The European model for dialogue and tact is ideal and will prevent war. Of course, if you are profiting from conflict then I can understand your eagerness for more war. Unpatriotic people put $$$ before the good of their country. And that's to your shame.

Since you are asking Fletcher, they wouldn't have waged war with Iraq alone. Huge Bonus! We still would have had the support of the world and we would have more chips against Iran. Sure every Democrat was for the war, but that's when the President and the corporate media was lying to them.

However I prefer to think how much better John McCain would have done who would have won the primary had the Bush Camp not strategically spread lies about him that leaked into the papers alleging that he had illegitemately fathered some african-american children. He would have beaten Gore legitemately. He wouldn't have gone into Iraq with the same strategy as the Bush Administration. As a matter of fact, they practically had to squeeze it out of him (McCain knowing the political ramifications) but he referred to the $10 Billion Iraq budget (which we all know was grossly under-budgeted) as irresponsible considering the tax breaks the Bush Administration gave to the rich. He tried not to say it but his integrity forced him to come clean about what he really thought about it. McCain knows a thing or two about war and strategy you see. I saw the Bush lies from the beginning and his true intentions were thinly veiled, just read about "The Project for A New American Century" put forth by key members of the Bush Administration. It outlines the Neocon Agenda before 9/11 and you can see how it has and is being implemented since it saying that it would require a "New Pearl Harbor" for the agenda to be implemented swiftly. They got what they needed and they told us before it happenned. Saddam's true crime: the ability to use what Wolfowitz calls "the oil weapon."

The fact is Fletcher, anyone whose agenda was the best interests of the American People and didn't have an imperialist agenda would have done so much better.

Fletcher.
No one knows whether others would have done better, and I'm not saying they would have. I do know no one could have done worse, if they tried, and we need a different direction bad. My point is one I would make with any president, though, not just Bush. No good seems to ever come to our country when both houses and the president are all from one party.

Wow, guys, three on one. Cool! (;^)=

Luckky, you're right about France, but I would never have accused France of siding with the US on anything. I believe they're best at surrender. I disagree, however, with your characterization of the European model of dialogue and tact. Who here believes that for the past forty years we have neglected to use these tools. You can't say in one breath that this is a problem that has developed over time, and in the next breath that it is all Bush's fault. That does not compute.

Save a little for me....

Glen, you say they wouldn't have waged war with Iraq alone. First, "they" (nearly) all voted the same way back when the intelligence available to the world intelligence community indicated that was the appropriate course of action. Now whether someone else might have handled things better I won't argue with you. (Sometimes I think even I could have done a better job.) But I believe that in the beginning, "they" all would have done the same.

And Ron, unfortunately, we are in agreement. And I'm almost inclined to go you one better: No good seems to come to our country when career politicians and lobbyists are in control, regardless of party.

~~ dialogue and tact. Who here believes that for the past forty years we have neglected to use these tools. ~~


What dialogue and tact was used when Reagan gave armaments to General Rios Montt to decimate 100000 Ixil Indians in Guatemala in a racist campaign which paralleled Hitler's decimation of Hungarian Jews?

What dialogue and tact was used when Rumsfeld supplied Saddam with WMD to kill Kurds and Iranis?

What dialogue and tact was used when Bush made up the story of Saddam as being an imminent threat of danger to the world and known universe???


Yes, I've seen some measure of dialogue and tact when Jimmy Carter negotiated a peace deal with President Sadat and Israeli dictator Begin. Another example is the 1994 accords designed by President Clinton that averted war in the Korean peninsula. There have been others and, when done, led to an immense increase in the USA's estimation world wide.


But today??? There's a word for the criminal campaign that your hero Bush has undertaken in Iraq and threathens in Iran = TREASON!