The neocon future....war with Iran?
 

It seems some here subscribe to the neo conservative party line.

Lets suppose we get involved in a military confrontation with Iran.

1) How will we pay for the expenditures?

2) Can we have yet another front in our global war without instituting a draft?

3) Are we capable of winning a military confrontation with Iran given our current military readiness.

I am not looking for bluster from either side here, and it would be nice if the liberals would hold off.

Fire away. Do us Scandinavians a favor first though. Start with Pakistan, they are going totally crazy over the Mohammad pics. Hammering away at anything resembling Danish, Norwegian or Swedish in origin.

What in di hell´s de matter with dos Muslims anyhow ?

Re: The neocon future....war with Iran?
 

The neo-conservatives don't care how much American treasure they spend as long as they can keep the welfare/warfare state growing for The Project for The New American Century.

Quote:

2) Can we have yet another front in our global war without instituting a draft?

One would think not, but again, the neo-conservatives don 't care how much American blood is spilled, much less the blood of innocents in middle eastern countries as long as their favorite state is on top, that state is Israel.

Quote:

3) Are we capable of winning a military confrontation with Iran given our current military readiness.

No, there is no way of winning any conflict with Iran in the long run. There might be one tactical victory in the near term, but Iran has had enough US government interference in their country's affairs, remember the CIA installed the Shah in 1953. So, while aerial bombardment might slow up their drive for total independence, it will in the long run produce an enemy that will become a formidable foe over the next 20 years. Maybe that's the goal of these neo-con ghouls after all, with enough enemy's created worldwide, the Carlyle Group will never run out of business producing defense supplies.

Iran should have been brought back into the fold near the end of Reagan's first term. The next chance was after Khoumeni died. Those of course were spurned for various reasons, and now the Bush'ists are escalating the conflict intentionally.

Quote:

I am not looking for bluster from either side here, and it would be nice if the liberals would hold off.

What do you think should happen?

Pat

Your religion of peace friends were busy again today.

I don't have friends based on what religion they practice, but I bet you do.

What did Bush and the Anglicans do to the Iraqi's today that they've not done for nearly three years and 100,000 dead bodies.

How many more corpse's will it take for you, and the other neo-con sociofascists, to see what it is you're advocating?

Everything you post could have been taken from a radical Islamic playbook. You have LOTS of friends with that group, whether you like it or not.

Re: The neocon future....war with Iran?
 

HardDrive, where'd you go?

To a Cindy S. pep-rally!

Sing with me....

Old hippies never die,
They just annoy all day.

Old hippies never die,
Woodstock feels like yesterday...

;)

You're not from South Carolina, are you?

I sir, am southern by birth, as well as by grace of God. I'm just not a child of the sixties.


Now what are you????

Who you calling OLD?!?!?!

Geez man, turned 36 this year...already freaking about the receading hair line.

I guess I'm a hippie, but my Porsche with the NRA sticker on the back is just a cover up. :D

36??? ain't no way you're even close to old! More like a mid-prime-pre-middle-age-hippie moment. And I'm glad to see you have some humor to temper it all. :)

I am a native South Carolinian. At least five generations of South Carolinian on my grandmothers side, and six generations of North Carolinian on my Grandfathers side. The family, my 3rd cousin, owns the royal land grant in eastern North Carolina still.

My great grand-parents were in Charleston when it was being indiscriminately shelled by the Union Army with incendiary rounds to burn it to the ground.

http://images16.fotki.com/v285/photo...leston1-vi.jpg

http://images16.fotki.com/v286/photo...leston2-vi.jpg

The US government has used terror as a weapon for over 135 years, same as now.

All the hippies I know use those and Confederate battle flag decals as a disguise.

War with Iran?

There goes another 1/2 Trillion.
:rolleyes:

I think the war with Iraq is up to 3/4 of a trillion, officially. And of course, it's all borrowed money.

Here's an update on Iran and how it figures into the middle east balance -- now and if we attack:

http://www.heatherwokusch.com/

------------excerpt-----------


WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran
Featured on Global Research Feb. 19, 2006


"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous... Having said that, all options are on the table." George W. Bush, February 2005


Witnessing the Bush administration's drive for an attack on Iran is like being a passenger in a car with a raving drunk at the wheel. Reports of impending doom surfaced a year ago, but now it's official: under orders from Vice President Cheney's office, the Pentagon has developed "last resort" aerial-assault plans using long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles with both conventional and nuclear weapons.

How ironic that the Pentagon proposes using nuclear weapons on the pretext of protecting the world from nuclear weapons. Ironic also that Iran has complied with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, allowing inspectors to "go anywhere and see anything," yet those pushing for an attack, the USA and Israel, have not.

The nuclear threat from Iran is hardly urgent. As the Washington Post reported in August 2005, the latest consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies is that "Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years." The Institute for Science and International Security estimated that while Iran could have a bomb by 2009 at the earliest, the US intelligence community assumed technical difficulties would cause "significantly delay."

-----------------------------

i would not like to see another war front open up in iran. suppose iran is left alone and permitted to develop and test nuclear weapons..what is the likelihood of their using them realistically? for one thing, they would have to likewise develop the capacity to deliver them long range to the us..or would they use terror and try to 'smuggle' them into the us for target detonation? they must realize that were they to strike, this nation could retaliate in kind, turning iran into desert oblivion. so, again..why would they strike risking that? i'd rather give diplomacy a chance..perhaps what is needed is an entirely new approach. sooner or later, more and more countries and 'rogue nations' are going to gain nuclear capabilities, particularly over the course of this century. we'd be getting spread pretty darn thin opening 'fronts' all over the world. international relations and diplomacy have a pressing need to catch up with the lightning pace of the information age..otherwise, someday someone indeed is going to get 'jumpy' and fire one off..
ryan