Do You Think We Attack Iran This Year?
 

I've not put much credence in the rumours that we are gearing up for strikes on Iran.

But maybe I should take it more seriously.

Here is a New Yorker piece that, I think, exemplifies the rumours and illustrates what little is known and what more is merely speculation.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh/?currentPage=1

You guys who have been paying more attention to this than me - what do you think? Is Iran's program sufficiently vulnerable to airstrikes to make this a credible rumour?

us no, Israel..maybe /probably

Rika

1 to 3 odds on Israel turning their nuclear ambitions into a smoking hole.

None of the above.

Yes. Bush needs another war to add to his legacy of being a tough-guy cowboy wanna-be.

If someone is going to bomb Iran, just ******* do it. Don't babble a bunch of non-sense about it that does nothing but drive the price of oil up more. What do they think, that they deserve fair warning? That they will get scared and back down? Not a chance.

Bush the cok-sucker in chief will not bomb Iran, (at least he'd better not), he just wanted to talk about it and watch the petroleum market go nuts. And now he wonders why oil is so expensive(??) Give me a break...

sadly...i think that we will be dragged into iran...before bush leaves. either by isreal bombing them or otherwise.

Well, it's something that has to be done and we know a Pres. Obama won't do it. Iran ain't gonna give up their nukes without some military persuasion. We all know that. Israel can't handle the job on their own. At the very least, they'd have to fly through Iraqi airspace, which we control, and would need our tanker support. So how would we not be a part of this? Do you honestly think diplomacy is gonna fix this problem? What's gonna happen when Iran decides to cause trouble in the Straits of Hormuz or orders Hezbollah to start trouble in Lebanon again just to test out the new POTUS? Sure, Bush would get blamed no matter what happens, but my guess is letting this thing go on for a few more years guarantees a much bigger conflagration than doing something about it now.

This one you can take to the bank.

My information is no, it's just Bush posturing and the Powers That Be making a little extra as the markets respond to the saber rattling.

Look at it this way: What is Bush going to attack with? If there was anything he could bomb he would have done it years ago and he doesn't have them men to do anything more than that.

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile
Yes. Bush needs another war to add to his legacy of being a tough-guy cowboy wanna-be.

This one you can take to the bank.

Are you guys really this stupid or has your partisanship just drained your brains? How about a reasonable, considered response once in a while?

You mean like "Mission Accomplished"? Would that suffice?

Partisanship has nothing to do with my opinion of GWB. Nothing. I just think he's a war-mongering fool, regardless of his party label.

This subject ran its course a few weeks ago!

YES............

NATO, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, US, etc, etc, all wrote off on it when Bush was in the middle east earlier this month. It must be done before he leaves office. If Obama gets in, its not going to happen! Israel ran the mock 900 mile run to Greece a few weeks ago, telling Iran and the world this ain't for giggles. It was to show Iran aircraft can and will make the round trip from Israel. US will stand aside, but will provide intelligence, jamming and probably rescue support as needed. Best bunker busters already supplied to Israel and aircraft (long range) in inventory. Israel will set Irans program back by 10 to 15 years. A fast, sudden and effective hit and Mr. I'm-a-dinner-jacket or however you pronounce his name will be taken from office. US wants a regime change. The Saudi's and most mideast countries hate the Iranians and Israel is fed up with the threats. This is'nt Kruschev hitting his shoe at the UN saying, "we will bury you"! Iran is ruled by some pretty sick nuts that are hindering the hopes of so many for a democratic society. I would expect no or limited collateral damage, it will be surgical and over in hours. Iran will become isolated. Fingers will be pointed, but armageddon will be delayed and the world rest easier.......for awhile I suppose.

Bob

Another sovereign nation invaded without cause.

Methinks:Ghengis Khan, Julius Caesar, Napolian, Hitler, W.

No.

Methinks you're a flaming idiot.

I certianly hope not. We do not need another conflict in the region to further stress our military and economy.

That last part is pure bullshiit!

Would it have been easier to take out Germany in 1939 or 1944?

Do we bury our heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away on its own, or do we make a mess now to prevent a much bigger mess later?

Something needs to be done, but I'm not certain using the military is our best option at the moment.

Iran is tricky. They have Russia in their corner and they have a populace that is largely pro-American. I don't know if there is a way to take out the government without alienating the populace. Maybe our best option is to foment revolution...

Expanding on the revolution idea...

Governments require pressure to collapse, that said, we should increase pressure on Iran, not back down. The more poorly they handle the situation, the more unhappy the general populace will become.

We should be sending weapons and insurgents into the country (payback's a b!tch).

It would have been easier to take out Germany and Japan in 1939 than it would be for the US to confront Iran in 2008 without making things very much worse very quickly. If there was ever a time and place for containment, it is in Iran now.