God does not love the people in Iran. First they suffered under the dictatorship of the Shah, then they were terrorized by Khomeini and his fanatics. And now the survivors of all these horrors risk to be butchered by Bush’s bombs. What have they done to deserve so much misery?
Yes He does.
If you can’t find Osama Bin Laden, invading Iraq will take the peoples’ minds off it…if Iraq is a fiasco, invading Iran just might take the peoples’ minds off it…if that doesn’t work, perhaps North Korea is next??
I loved Bush’s reply to the question of a reporter about not knowing where Bin Laden is (reported on CNN.com last week). Bush said that we do know where he is - “he’s hiding.”
Susan
Well, saying that is one thing, that might be a distraction, but doing it is something else altogether. What on earth could the real reason be if this is more than just a temporary distraction?
I should have thought that all the troops America can afford to deploy in the middle east will be taken up in Iraq for the forseeble future. How could the US hope to placate the Shi’ite majority in Iraq if it is attacking a Shi’ite regime in Iran? What would be gained by alienating Iraqi Shi’ites when the Sunnis are already alienated—a very substantial number benefitted from Suddam’s leadership and have nothing to gain from his removal as should be clear in their attitude to the election.
Does anybody think this is anything other than bluff? If so, what is it really about?
I crawled.
I walked.
Iran.
Before the US elections, I thought it was just a bluff. Bush playing the macho game in order to impress the voters. But now, I don’t understand what this is about. Anybody can read in the news that the US army could not afford a new war as they have not even enough soldiers to finish the Iraq adventure. This kind of information being available to anyone, why should the US government think that the Iran government would be afraid? Is it really only a bluff? Probably they want to control the entire region, Iraq - Iran - Afghanistan. They may not be able to make a real invasion, but they can always drop a few bombs. And this menace might be enough to force the Iranis to follow Bush’s rule.
I agree that in some sense this would have to be about control whether or not it is bluff. I’m just not clear what control means. In Afghanistan it surely doesn’t mean controlling the political life of the country. War lords do that and always will for the foreseeable future. I suppose there it means making it hard for Al Queda to operate openly. In Iraq I think it meant proving to the region that America can deliver in war, cowing the Saudis into stamping down on Wahibist elements and blocking the flow of money to jihadist groups and establishing a military base in Iraq from which to influence and threaten the region. The first objective failed and the second has only been a partial success. The third is years, and probably a civil war, away.
You might think that the Iraqi campaign succeeded in preventing Al Queda launching more attcks in America. Well I’m not convinced that money for Al Queda has dried up. Why would jihadists spend money and effort travelling to America to kill Americans when Americans are coming to them?
Against that backdrop, I simply have no idea what the Iran stuff could really be about. Perhaps the idea is to just let Iraq destroy itself while establishing a more liberal Islamic state in Iran with American bases. Lots of Iranians would welcome the outcome but at the cost of American interference? I doubt it.
I’m completely mystified by the thinking behind attacking Iran. But then I’ve been mystified by much of the “logic” behind the Bush administration’s decisions in many areas. Unless they intend to institute a draft, there certainly isn’t the manpower to enlarge this war (there isn’t enough manpower to fight the one we’re in). Perhaps the idea is to have the elections in Iraq, bail out leaving them to themselves, and move on to hopefully a “victory” in Iran. I just don’t know.
Susan
Nope. Salt Lake City. 
And there was me,tinkin’ dat de Brits were Bastards
Slan,
D.
And Iran, Iran so far away . . . .
Who did that song?
A Flock of Seagulls.
Dunno,
I was thinking about somebody else..
Not sure who though..(Aghh)
Tricky one ..
Slan,
D.
Yeah, it was them. http://www.80smusiclyrics.com/artists/flockofseagulls.htm
And look at those handsome hairdos. Man, what I wouldn’t give to have the 80’s again…
I’m not particularly interested in joining in the extend debate with this one (I’m with Walden - God does love the people of Iran) but I’ve seen the above thought stated several times in this thread already and it is simply a myth and a diversion to the question. With one of the largest standing armies in the world, we have plenty of people to fight 2, 3 or even 4 wars. Why, there are thousands of soldiers practically in my back yard that are eager to try out their new vehicles. The question is, what are we willing to sacrifice?
And, there would be a lot of things sacrificed to bring another war on-line. What? Money, Families, Happiness, Retention, Lives - and that’s just to America and the military families.
So, no. We have plenty of people to fight in Iraq and Iran. Out of 1.4 million troops, we have deployed 150,000 in the Iraq region. If we wanted to, we could send more. But there are sacrifices that must be weighed. I’m not interested in weighing in on whether those sacrifices would be worth it or not.
Best,
Erik
Not one of the most original lines out there..
I was thinking of ,
" Run,run run away from .."
or something like that?
Slan,
D.
I don’t know, Erik. I’ve heard of several National Guardsmen who have been sent back to Iraq after already doing one tour. My assumption has been that we’re using mostly National Guardsmen (single moms, married guys with children, even retirees) and that the pickings are a little thin. I could easily be wrong, but with National Guardsmen leaving home on the news nearly every night, it’s hard to think otherwise. I can’t imagine expanding this war into Iran without some intense reaction from the U.S. population in general.
Susan
You’re absolutely right. I have a number of friends in the guards as well as a number of active duty friends that have been put on “stop loss”. Inability to field soldiers is not the only reason to make use of the stop loss. For example… in the days after 9/11 most if not all MP class soldiers were put on stop loss. Is this because we lacked soldiers? No. The 100,000 in Afganistan and the 150,000 in Iraq were still at home. So why a stop loss on MP’s? Why not use the 250,000 extra people that are just sitting around waiting to fight in a war? There are lot’s of reasons. Training, Families, Stability… Why call up the guards? Because extended tours of duty for active duty troops causes a lot of problems for families and in retention, among several other reasons. We also see many guards replace the more highly trained active duty soldiers when those soldiers are deployed.
Also, the intense reaction from the American Populace is one of the sacrifices that I was thinking of. So saying that it can be done is much different than saying that it should be done.
Erik
The $64,000 question.
Slan,
D.