So, how will Bush pull this next war off?

Or will he even get away with it this time around?

We are hearing the same song and dance, just with a different partner. This time it is Iran. Oh, and another bogus nuclear threat. I don't think he'll try the aluminum tubes thing again, though.

The shrill rhetoric is strikingly similar to his performance leading up to Iraq. But, with no troops, how is he going to pull this one off? Limited air strikes? We do have jets in position. Strikes from submarines? They too, are in position. Declaring "victory" in Iraq, pulling our troops and sending them to Iran? That would be an interesting move.

And how will the U.N. react this time? This time, I believe the U.N. will spit the hook out, which means we will go this one completely alone. I doubt the Brits will even follow.

Bush is a madman with big brass balls.

They don't care how. This administration is so full of itself, excuses are only an option. If they want to shock and awe Iran, they'll shock and awe Iran. The story won't matter, and will most likely be stupid.

But I wonder if he will get away with them this time.

It is true that he has the balls to just do it, but, the question then becomes how. Does he have the balls to institute a draft? Probably.

I was hoping I would never have to witness a world war unfolding right before my eyes.

To make up for it, they'll just send more of those contractors over. Contractors...they make it sound like they're putting up drywall, don't they?

However, if there ever is a draft, that means we're all screwed. Even more than we already are.

contractor is a much nicer term than mercenary

If an "event" is staged in the U.S., I believe the administration will rush toward draft.

until after 06 elections

it will take that long to create a "plausible" justification to invade Iran.

or base in Iraq, killing hundreds/thousands of Americans as per the WTC, there may be an increase in the number of American kids wanting to enlist, especially if the attack takes place just after HS graduation. Stop-loss would be in effect, of course, so active duty wouldn't be going anywhere.

I expect a shorter version of the run up to the Iraq invasion. I expect that it was all decided months ago.

Now they'll just use that knowledge for Iran. So yeah, I agree, this one will start a lot faster in Iran. They can poke the hornet's nest a lot more efficiently this time around.

and blame it on Iranians & attack Iran. See: www.ken-welch.com Reverse speech analysis is the truest lie detector available!
Also see: www.reversespeech.com The reverse speech experts are desperate to get this alarming info out to the nation !!
Check out the websites....

article is disputed by the founder of Reverse Speech method, David John Oates.

The Oates Disclaimer is on:http://www.rense.com/general70/nuat.htm

Oates disputes how the technology was used by Ken Welch et al, and says that the alleged clues found are invalid.

I have been deeply alarmed, because we know WH seeking next 9/11 for establishment of greater control via/martial law/police state, end of future elections, * DICTATOR in perpetuity, new currency, to eat you work for Commander in Chief etc.

that they will magically trace back to a lab in Iran. More bad drawings, with Condi Rice in front of the U.N. with bird diagrams.

As laughable as that scenario sounds, he is ballsy enough to try something that foolish.

As much as he lies, you would think he'd become good at it.

till you finish what's already on your plate. Apparently Babs forgot to throw that one down.


If he keeps this up, it's only a matter of time before he pisses off someone who DOES HAVE the ability to strike in the US. And surely he knows it. So is that what he wants?

someone with the capability to strike us, just someone (Iran) who has friends that can (Russia and China).

on such and such date we began to bomb the shit out of more innocent civilians. They will do it this way because our chicken shit reps in the House and the Senate have just sat back and watched these people commit treason and never said a word.

to be "dictator-in-thief." The "unitary powers of the president"supposedly given him by congerss. And whether he truly believes this, or not, he is running in the open field with the ball.

Which means that anything is, not only possible, but highly probable.

:scared:

tell him that an assault on Iran, even a limited one involving select targets, is likely to meet with significant disdain on Capitol Hill, the press, among party stalwarts, party donor stalwarts, 2006 party election coordinators, the United Nations Security Council, and our allies.

I'm no huge fan of John Warner, but he does have pretty good taste in women and not least, he knows his military stuff a lot better than Dubya.

What's needed is for Warner, and Lugar, etc. to privately reach the little fool and tell him to chill the hell out.

The American people are not very impressed with the Iraq engagement and I don't think they're going to support this president for another poll-jacking enterprise with Iran.

the band of veteran GOP Senate stalwarts who came to the White House to tell Nixon to pack his bags.

This would have to be done quietly in Bush's case, and the gesture would be to not attack Iran, not to leave office. (Although as long as they're there... )

Lugar (Foreign Relations Committee) and Warner (Armed Services) would be a good 1-2 punch. I don't think our generals believe attacking Iran is a swell idea.

a good idea. I'm not so sure about the joint chiefs of staff.

But hey, Bushco ignored all intelligence evidence the first time around, so why should this be any different?

God help us. Our politicians won't.

A gaggle of powermongers who mostly never served finding the audacity to ignore veteran generals' counsel on an ill-advised war.

The horror of this administration is at least partly due to its own arrogance, isn't it.

unemcumbered by fact or reason.

i.e. why should they contribute their money when he's willing to use ours?

1. MIHOP/LIHOP terror attack on US soil - blame it on Iran. Doesn't matter if they were involved or not. This could backfire on them since they've been touting how much 'safer' we are. However, it could also scuttle any censure by spinning it like "see, if we had more warrantless spying we could have prevented it..." In the long run - this won't have diddly impact on the "BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN" chorus

2. Israel takes out a Nuke plant in Iran. Iran retailiates against Israel. We have to go in to defend Israel -- this in my opinion is the most likely scenario.

It's the only thing the gullible public might buy into while Bushco looks "honorable" for going to the aid of an ally.

Problem is, it will mark the beginning of the end.....unlike Iraq, Iran is more than ready for war!

Iran launches massive naval wargame titled "Holy Prophet"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2006/iran-060329-irna03.htm

Iran says it has tested radar-dodging missile
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-31-iranmissile_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Iran’s kick-ass missiles
SS-N-22 Sunburn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22_Sunburn

Shahab-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3


With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order. (Note: Bully-Boy Bolton takes over as President of the U.N. Security Council in February.)

Since Iran is the home of China's largest energy-related investments, a conflict with Iran will not only bring China to the table, but its Russian ally as well.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

Background:
Dueling Armageddon’s - Waiting for the rapture in Iran
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=11229&mesg_id=11229

since no one in the Arab and Muslim world likes them.

But, we have had a tight leash on Israel recently, and I believe that more Americans would buy into scenario number one: another suspiciously faceless "attack" on our soil, blamed on Iranian "terrorists."

back in 2003.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=33119&d=6&m=10&y=2003

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

and when NYC is nuked in retaliation, all Busheviks will inwardly smile to themselves at the idea of those roasting Liberals and that New York can become a Bushevik enclave just the way their calculated neglect of NO has made Louisiana a Bushevik enclave forever more.

period.

We have drawings and notes from the Mullahs moms and "recorded" messages that due to National Security we cannot release at this time.

;-)

:sarcasm:

Karl Rove couldn't write a better script for setting up a Bush attack than the clowns who run Iran.

If you stand on the corner talking big, eventually the police are going to show up and beat you down, wrong or not.

However, they must realize that, this time, they will have the entire Arab and Muslim world on their side. Unlike Iraq.

Too bad Washington doesn't understand it could mean World War III.

Just say "ok" and then do what the hell you had planned.

not how will the UN react, but rather how will we react? I miss the activism of the 60's.......
:shrug: