Bush is threatening Iran because Iraq is falling apart rapidly...

[kentuck]

and he thinks Iran is to blame. They are encouraging the Shiites to rebellion. He may or may not be right but it was his decision to invade, not Iran's. It is his cross to bear. Congress should call for a immediate resolution to insist on Congressional authority to go to war in Iran because Bush does not have the authority that he thinks he has...

[bowens43]

1. I think the fact that the republican party is falling apart

also has a lot to do with it. He sees his little neo-con fantasies rapidly slipping away. He needs another wrap yourself in the flag moment.

[tatertop]

7. Falling apart? They are appointing a fascist to the supreme court!

Looks like the invasion of Iran is right on schedule.
They just cut taxes for the rich and slashed benefits for the
rest of us (again) and bush brazenly promises more of the same
in '07.

Are we following the same news?

[bowens43]

12. You missed the low poll numbers?

The scandals? etc? Hmmm.

[tatertop]

16. Who controls (absolutely) every branch of government?

And who controls the vote?

While we argue Hillary or Clark, the republicans are
working on perfecting stealing the vote. If you have not read Crispin Miller's book you should have a gander. I am expecting some tragic 'upsets' in '06. Saxby Chambliss calibre 'upsets.'

Without Congress or The Supreme Court to protect us, who will?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Anyone who supports the troops should stop Bush

if we start a war with Iran, our troops in Iraq are sitting ducks for the troops that will cross the border. And I don't think the current Iraqi government will do much about it-the Shia will be on the side of the Iranians, I think, and will be likely to join them in trying to drive us out.

[Walt Starr]

3. Problem is, the Iraqi Shi-ites are being quiet

They just won everything they wanted in the election, which is basically to be an autonomous region with absolute control over the oil in that region.

The only way the Iraqi Shi'ites will rebel is if Iran is attacked.

[tatertop]

4. Bush will invade Iran and he would have regardless. Here's why:

1. Iranian oil bourse trading in Euro dollars to open in March
2. Israel
3. Oil
4. neocon agenda
5. build permanent bases
6. permanent war
Those are some of the real reasons.

The nuclear angle is bullshit.
Iran is ten years away from producing nukes,
assuming that is even their intention.
(Nukes they have every right to build and possess.)

Things Bush does not give a rat's ass about include:
1. the shiite
2. the suni
3. the American People
4. ending the invasions or the cost of the invasions
5. the widespread results of his actions

[wiggs]

13. Iran invasion or even a buildup would also...

Having to divert troops and attention to Iran would give the administration an excuse to let Iraq descend into chaos even further. He could say that it was our intention to fix Iraq and that we were close to victory, but an Iran emergency made us split our attention.

[tatertop]

14. You bet. When you own the media, it's all about the spin.

We have plenty of troops in place to get this monstrosity
started. The draft will come as a matter of course.
The spin will-be-in, uncurious Americans will
accept the draft, and Bush will have his war.

Of course, Bush might just be forced into using nukes to even the odds
before the draft starts producing assembly-line cannon fodder.

[NNN0LHI]

5. There can be no Iran war without a draft

Hence I am suspicious of anyone promoting a draft or some other nonsensical type of mandatory national service.

Don

[peacetalksforall]

6. Money. It takes a lot of money to run a war the way they are running it..

they have needed a lot of momey to pay off the participation of the coalition partners, for one.

They are struggling with money or they would have provided our kids with the appropriate body, vehicle, cultural, and language protections.

It is in their plan to take over the region. They wish to make the entire region a military base and control the resources and maintain and increase their personal profits and profits to make the plan succeed.

Therefore, it will make political and budget sense to reduce forces in Iraq by moving them next door and NOT send them home. Most of all, they think that if they could increase their voting base from about 33% loyal into the 40's out of patriotic sympathy once, they can do it again.

[tatertop]

8. I fear you are dangerously close to the truth

I think that is EXACTLY what they plan to do.

[cliss]

9. I'm not convinced the can do it.

We currently have around 158,000 US troops in Iraq. Way too few to control that country, as we have seen.

Iraq has 22 million people. It was weak. We moved in and took it, but we have not been able to maintain the occupation.

You're right: this war has cost us massively. It was all done with borrowed funds. There is simply NO way we can borrow for another war. China right now is thinking about dumping the dollar because they see us as a HUGE credit risk. So the money is NOT there to do it.

Nor is the manpower.

Iran has a population of 68 million people. This is no easy nut to crack, like Iraq. And Bush knows it. He is in for a massive struggle, if he thinks he can just grab Iran. They are well-trained, loyal, and the terrain is different. Iran is mountainous. There is NO way we can march in with about 70,000 US troops.

I'd say Bush is in over his head.

And if he bombs anyway, I'm moving to Madagascar where I can watch the mess from a safe distance.

[tatertop]

18. Course we can

We have plenty of troops in Iraq to get this monstrosity
started. The draft will come as a matter of course.
The spin will-be-in, uncurious Americans will
accept the draft, and Bush will have his war.

Of course, Bush might just be forced into using nukes to even the odds
before the draft starts producing assembly-line cannon fodder.

As far as more borrowing, Bush's buddies will profit
handsomely from skyrocketing interest rates.
Their money is pulled out of this economy the second they make it.

[peacetalksforall]

19. I know we have dis-reality to consider, but why would they build a

case that parallels the case they made to imperialize against Iraq? Taking Iran is in their PNAC agenda. The propaganda is taking the same form (there is no dis-reality here).

The credit problem is a problem for ordinary citizens, they have probably connived and stolen to build their slush funds to match their agenda.

If their plants, services, labor are outside the U.S., their banks are outside the U.S., their corporation filings are outside the U.S. and protected against our laws to a great extent - it seems they have protected themselves against the dollar bust.

The only think I can think of is that they are pulling another trick. They pretend that they are going to drop bombs, but will change their tune so that they can say - look at how fair we are; we are listening to our friends and partners in this world - giving Dick and Halliburton more time to sell Iran even more parts and/or secrets.

Guess we need to know more about Iran's motives and the agreements someone in their country is making with the U.S. I guess we have to know whether they care if their people are killed.

[Eugene]

10. "Regime change" in Iran was always part of the neocon plan.

While Iran is meddling in Iraq, that is of secondary importance.
The BushCo vision for the Middle East calls for toppling "backward"
regimes and imposing "democracy." "Axis of Evil" countries
like Iraq and Iran are at the top of their hit list.

Salvaging the Iraq adventure is just another excuse to take out Iran.
PNAC and other BushCo neocon advisers have been plotting for years
to replace Iran's Islamic republic with a restored (and docile) monarchy.

[Junkdrawer]

11. Both sides of the conflict are motivated to be unreasonable...

The hardliners in Iran stay in power only so long as the average Iranian perceives a US threat.

The Republicans are positioned to lose the midterms in the US unless there's a major conflict.

This is how World Wars start. :scared:

[kerry-is-my-prez]

15. Bush should have taken care of this a long time ago instead of ignoring it

AND being side-tracked by Iraq. I only hope that he gets called on the carpet for this.

[AlCzervik]

17. He needs to show he's a "Leader" imo, "See i'm a war president, i'm tough"