WH: Not ruling out attack on Iran

[Starman]

No, I can't. Do you honestly, sincerely believe we're headed to war with Iraq?

Yes, I think we're there already.

And I just heard him say that same thing on sixty minutes. Iran, Syria, the whole area is in play. Are you ready for a non-NFL draft?

I don't think you heard him say, the area is in play (although I may be mistaken). I think he said if Iran and Syria send people into Iraq, we will deal with those people. He didn't say we're changing the oil in the tanks for a little trip.

And a non-NFL draft won't really affect me too much.

I'm sure, me neither, but what about those who it may.

They're not rich, so who gives a ****? [/bushadministration]

 

[User 1019]

There's a productive comment. Thanks for stopping by, Starman.

 

[Starman]

There's a productive comment. Thanks for stopping by, Starman.

No debate with the content, I see. Just keeping it real. ;)

 

[Football_Bat]

All the signs of a build-up to attack Iran are there. There are now two carrier groups in the Arabian Sea off the coast of Iran; an additional squadron of F-16s have been sent to Turkey; and extra Patriot missile batteries have been deployed to protect U.S. bases in Iraq and Kuwait. They aren't there to shoot down Al-Sadr's crop duster, folks.

I put the over-under at May 1.

 

[User 1019]

No way. I just can't see where anyone (yes, even Bush) could possibly tackle Iran given our current operational tempo.

 

[DyePack]

Not only do I see it happening, but I also see it being successful and helping the overall situation.

 

[Football_Bat]

No way. I just can't see where anyone (yes, even Bush) could possibly tackle Iran given our current operational tempo.

Since we clearly cannot invade with troops, it would have to be strictly air and naval. That we can do, but to what end?

Not only do I see it happening, but I see it being successful and helping the overall situation.

All I'm going to say is, good luck with all that.

 

[User 1019]

No way. I just can't see where anyone (yes, even Bush) could possibly tackle Iran given our current operational tempo.

Since we clearly cannot invade with troops, it would have to be strictly air and naval. That we can do, but to what end?

I know Bush thinks he has big, steel balls, but he doesn't think they're that big.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

W long-ago conclusively proved his sustained reasoning skills are both limited -- and fatally-flawed.

It's beyond debate that there are enormously-weighty Middle-Eastern concerns to be dealt with.
But there's absolutely no reason to believe that W is the guy who can be counted on to come up with the right answers. His track record speaks for itself.

 

[alleyallen]

No way. I just can't see where anyone (yes, even Bush) could possibly tackle Iran given our current operational tempo.

Since we clearly cannot invade with troops, it would have to be strictly air and naval. That we can do, but to what end?

I know Bush thinks he has big, steel balls, but he doesn't think they're that big.

TBF, I'm not with the doomsday camp which thinks it's an absolute given that we're going to invade Iran. However, given the circumstances and the frankly arrogant way the administration has gone about things, I'm not exactly standing pat on a bet that we WON'T, under any circumstances, get involved in Iran. I never thought we'd slog back into Iraq, and look where we are.

People are simply expressing well-earned pessimism, and while we certainly don't have the troops to support yet another front, I can see this administration trying to "salvage" itself by doing whatever it can to get a sense of peace in the region, even if it meant slapping Iran around a little, too.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

And the Lord of The Admiralty has bingo, folks.
These people are never MORE dangerous than when they're in trouble -- and Fredo's approval is inching closer to getting with the margin of error of Nixon's 25 percent on the day he blew town. Did you see the guy on 60 Minutes? he's the Educator-In-Chief.
Impeachment -- which I admit is a political impossibility, OK? -- is the only way to stop him, and I'm not sure he'd leave in that case.

 

[Killick]

Stake thru the heart, immolation, holy water... hey, whatever it takes.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Mr. Killick, I'm here from the United States Secret Service, may we have a word?

 

[Killick]

Funny -- but a little too close to reality, I'm afraid. I'm sure my bank records and phone calls are being checked as I type this.

 

[da el g]

Funny -- but a little too close to reality, I'm afraid. I'm sure my bank records and phone calls are being checked as I type this.

no such luck, you're going directly to Gitmo

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Do any of you think that it should be ruled out? Why on earth would we tip our hand to these psycopaths and tell them expicitly that they can ignore the rest of the world at will with no consequences. It's bad enough that they can figure it out be themselves.

 

[wickedwritah]

Not only do I see it happening, but I also see it being successful and helping the overall situation.

Well, define "success."

We can't invade; our manpower is spread too thin. We're not going to get a proxy force to fight for us like we did in Afghanistan -- I doubt the Israelis will go beyond an airstrike or three. Maybe we could make nice with the Sunnis in Iraq and send them in, but I have better chances of winning Powerball Wednesday. The only way the regime is toppled is through an invasion; bombing a couple reactors, the mullahs stay in power and they could build up even more resentment toward the U.S. government.

And I doubt toppling the hard-line regime would help that much; Iranians still will finance the Shiite militias on their own.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Not only do I see it happening, but I also see it being successful and helping the overall situation.

Well, define "success."

We can't invade; our manpower is spread too thin. We're not going to get a proxy force to fight for us like we did in Afghanistan -- I doubt the Israelis will go beyond an airstrike or three. Maybe we could make nice with the Sunnis in Iraq and send them in, but I have better chances of winning Powerball Wednesday. The only way the regime is toppled is through an invasion; bombing a couple reactors, the mullahs stay in power and they could build up even more resentment toward the U.S. government.

Depends how effective the strikes are. I could live with a little more resentment if it meant that they weren't nulcear.

 

[wickedwritah]

So they go nuclear with help from North Korea a couple years later. Will it matter that much in the long run?

And if we get the Iranians more pissed off, it makes the situation in Iraq worse.

 

[Armchair_QB]

So how exactly do we appease the Iranians? And why should we?