If the rethuglicans plan on attacking Iran as their "October Surprise",

[driver8]

couldn't that blow up in their faces? The current war is not that popular...what makes these idiot warmongers think that another war will save their asses??

[Booster]

1. I think if they attack Iran, Americans are going to have a hissy fit

at least I know I am.

[driver8]

2. Oh, I know a lot of people that will have hissy fits!!

These people are unbelievable. Their solution to everything is to kill.

[stepnw1f]

3. It's a BIG Gamble

they will lose.

[jimshoes]

4. They're convinced that whatever

reality they create will be wildly successful. They still pat each other on the back at how well Iraq has gone. And if you question their omnipotence, then you are a traitor. They are history's actors you know. :mad: I am reminded of that Goering quote about taking a nation to war. They are of the same mindset.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. It may not matter what the people think.

The hypothertical attack could provide cover for a Diebolded electoral result. All the talking heads would be prattling about how the voters rallied to the Puggies in the face of the new war challenges, when in fact the vote was just "machined to fit" their purposes.

[goforit]

15. Yep, The common man is outa the picture. And I am afraid we will be

punished hard for this mess.

[spartan61]

6. I'm glad you asked this question.

I have been wondering this for awhile, but felt that maybe I was missing something. The majority of Americans are against the war in Iraq. How would another war help the repukes? This a$$ministration is trying to get people's minds off the war and trying to get them to focus on terrorism. It just doesn't make sense to me. Also, how on earth could they even begin to fight another war unless there is a draft. Aren't two wars enough for the bush pukes?

[Nay]

14. As the poster above says, it prob wouldn't really help -- but it would

be the reason given why everyone voted Pub in November. What they don't tell you is that Diebold did the voting, and the talking heads needed a plausible reason to placate the public as to why the pubs "won" yet again.

[Monkeyman]

7. Did anyone think if we did hit Iran the world might hit us

[goforit]

16. Very much so. And my friends, I'm scared shitless for all of us.

[Prophet 451]

8. Couldn't they use the war to suspend elections? n/t

[jimshoes]

9. Also I have this awful feeling

that we will be dealt another "Remember the Maine" moment in the next few weeks. I do hope I'm wrong.

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. One would think so. Thing is, these warmongers don't think, they

just act, no matter the consequences. And with their election stealing practices, I doubt they care what the majority thinks of their warmongering. :crazy:

[OregonBlue]

11. If we already have troops in Iran, isn't it likely they'll "attack" us

first. Won't there be an attack from within Iran that can be blamed on Iranians and the president will use that to start his war? That's been my assumption since I first heard about this. The Repukes will go along with it for a number of reasons. It certainly will help them get elected, it will make them all richer still and plain and simple, they really do want to take over the middle east and all it's oil.

[filer]

12. Would we dare change horses?

A Democratically controlled congress might undermine the neo-cons global war on terra.

[nealmhughes]

13. Dennis Kuncinich seems to think the war drums are going a bit too loudly.

I am unsure if it is sabre-rattling or real attempt. I am researching this tonight and tomorrow. The le Monde Diplomatique is in French, but pretty readable. Google will translate it in really bad English. Here are my unedited notes so far:

http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/dossiers/iran/

Le Monde Diplomatique, L'Iran relance la production d'uranium enrichi

Time line from


http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2005/02/RAMONET/11885

L'Iran, la cible
Ignacio ramolet
Feb. 2005


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/Selfa0128.htm reprint of article from socialist worker by Lance Selfa "What the US has in store for Iran" cites Walid Charara of le Monde Diplomatique in 2005 saying that the IAEA cannot get the Neocons to stop preaching death to Iran

iting in Le Monde Diplomatique, Walid Charara explained: “Behind the ideological window-dressing of the new ‘democratic messianism,’ there are two main reasons for the Bush administration’s uncompromising determination. First, there is Iran’s geo-strategic status. It is an independent and middle-ranking regional power that has engaged in military cooperation with Russian and China...his makes it the last bastion still to be holding out against a permanent U.S. takeover of the Middle East. Iran is the last surveying ally in the region of those states and organizations still opposed to Israel.”

In the coming months, we will be subjected to a barrage of scare stories about the Iranian bomb, Iranian backing for terrorism, Iranian support for the resistance in Iraq--even Bush’s delusions about a post-Islamic Republic of Iran. That’s why it will be important to remember the real reasons why the U.S. worries about Iran.

Lance Selfa writes for the Socialist Worker. This article first appeared on the SW website: www.socialistworker.org. Thanks to Alan Maass.

Other Articles by Lance Selfa



AFP "Inspectors have not uncovered any concrete proof that Iran's nuclear program is of a military nature" IAEA 31-08-06