Is an attack on Iran inevitable?

[LuckyTheDog]

What do folks here think? Has it already been decided? If they do it, will they use nukes?

This article scared the heck out of me: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html

:scared: :nuke:

[wakeme2008]

1. the scarely part is this is from American Conservative mag

which is NOT a left wing mag but Pat Buchanns (sp) mag. :scared:

[hiley]

2. Bush will

attack Iran and I think with nuke.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hiley]

4. Of course it a horrible idea

but that does not matter to the neo-cons.

[brainshrub]

5. More reasons:

5) China gets a significant chunk of their oil supply from Iran. The Chinese are experiencing an oil shortage right now, and to say that they would be irked by an invasion of Iran would be the understatement of the decade.

6) The Iranian army is fully functioning and funded.

7) This is an asshat of an idea that only a Neocon would love.

[achtung_circus]

7. Why do you wish to attack Iran?

As much as I wish we attack Iran, we can't....we just don't have the means for it..

[moodforaday]

10. See this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4360650

[evermind]

9. You're talking about an invasion, but "attack" here probably means

air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Only your point 3) applies to that. The other points are good reasons to think that a full scale invasion is very unlikely to take place, along with the total lack of international support for such.

If the US were to undertake air strikes (especially nuclear ones) I think widespread international condemnation would result. I wouldn't rule it out, but I wouldn't call it inevitable either. All kinds of domestic political purposes are served by a bit of sabre-rattling here, regardless of whether it's followed up by actual strikes.

[moodforaday]

6. I'd say it is inevitable

See this excellent piece - I think I'll post it as a separate thread with quotes:

Iran: The Next War Is Closer Than You Think
by Joshua Kurlantzick

http://www.wetdogdesign.net/realitique/iran-kurlantzick.htm

{Michael Ledeen to the author:}
Revolution shouldn't be limited to one part of the Middle East," he went on, "and I'm for revolution." He then assured me, in case there was any doubt, that his opinion was shared by the man who matters most. "In private," Ledeen said, "Bush calls for a single solution to the whole Middle East. The president says, 'Iran is the very big problem.' He wags his finger and says, 'We're going to take care of that.'"

[electron_blue]

8. No

No, absolutely not. It isn't inevitable. Don't be suckered in.

[moodforaday]

11. How do you propose to stop it?

See this article
http://www.wetdogdesign.net/realitique/iran-kurlantzick.htm

or this thread - I put a few quotes on top:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4360650

Here's one, from Michael Ledeen, one of the major Neocon chickenhawks:

Revolution shouldn't be limited to one part of the Middle East," he went on, "and I'm for revolution." He then assured me, in case there was any doubt, that his opinion was shared by the man who matters most. "In private," Ledeen said, "Bush calls for a single solution to the whole Middle East. The president says, 'Iran is the very big problem.' He wags his finger and says, 'We're going to take care of that.'"

But do see the others. The Neocons have already cleared the political way. See the article on how the European efforts at negotiating are irrelevent. Rumsfeld has total control of the Pentagon. CIA has been sidelined - they're not interested in intelligence. A major media assault has been underway for several weeks now. Those reports on Iran executing gays appearing just now - it's not an accident. Everything is in place. The only thing Bush needs is another synthetic Pearl Harbor.

(edit for typos)