We're going to war. The way is set. And it's so simple how it occurred.

[Ian_rd]

It would be so fascinating to watch if it weren't so terrifying. Washington is so poisoned now that Congressional votes are based only on the immediate political implications, and not on the real world consequences. They know what their vote means, but it's like watching a child do things he knows he shouldn't do, and yet can't help himself.

Why did you throw that rock?

Um... I don't know.

Our government has just declared the Iranian Army a terrorist organization.

Well, we're in a war on terror, right? How can we not attack them if they're terrorists? You don't want to look weak on terror do you, Mr. Congressman?

Soon, perhaps in a few months, Israel will attack Iran as a supposed response to some kind of threat from that country. Then the money-drenched ties AIPAC has forged with Republicans and Democrats will bear the bitter fruit of an obedient Congress voting to "defend" Israel and launch another war.

And who will we send to fight this war? Iran is roughly three times the size and population of Iraq. How can our government possibly avoid a draft? Are they going to send the soldiers who have already served three tours in Iraq to fight it? Are they going to send in the injured and mentally-destroyed?

I haven't been this afraid for my country since September 11, 2001. But on that day my fear was not of terrorists, but of our own government. I, and millions of others who shared this fear, turned out to be right.

If we invade Iran, then anti-American terror across the globe will explode, whole nations will radicalize in response to our own recklessness, and terrorism might actually become something significant to fear. This is the moment right now when we saw it coming - the war that will propel terrorism through the stratosphere and firmly establish a threat to our nation for generations to come.

Our military will be broken, our national debt like a black hole, our infrastructure in rubble, our economy wrecked, our nation one giant third world country with a tiny elite behind concrete and barbed wire while homemade bombs explode outside. Mark your calendar, this is a red letter day in the history of when our nation turned to shit.

[leftchick]

1. even if it is not an "invasion" but simply air strikes

I believe it will start WWIII.

[iamahaingttta]

10. It's already WWIII

It's been WWIII for some time now.

History will call it "America's War."
The new dark ages will begin in earnest once the smoke clears from the bombing of Tehran.
George Walker Bush will go down in history as the man who made it all happen.
He and his family friend Osama bin Laden will forever be linked together by the chain they forged on 9/11.

So sad. It did not have to be this way...

[Lars39]

24. I think it was Armitage that stated the Cold War was WWIII,

and that the Iraq Invasion and subsequent involvements would be WWIV.

[mwb970]

2. The Bush administration is determined to destroy America.

And the Democrats are afraid to stop them.

So long America, it was nice to know you.

[OzarkDem]

3. They've really already announced it

and I can't help but believe Dems are going to go along with it.

What do they (Dems) know that allows them to justify heading down such a drastic, tragic path? Surely they're not willing to start WWIII for perceived political reasons?

Its very frightening.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. what are the chances that any democratic leader

would stand up to this white house on any issue?

honestly. Pelosi and Reid are nothing but apologists for and secret supporters of the GOP. I'll bet they are still keeping their powder dry for a reall issue.

Let's see. Alito. Roberts. Iraq. FISA. Impeachment.
Nope, no important issues facing America there. And anyway, what's another war among friends?

[coco77]

23. They setting it up so that...

in Sept the Dems will be concentrating on Iraq and Betrayus,while in the meantime they will or may set up some type of friction in Iran to make it look like its getting worse in Iraq and Iran is the cause...

[screembloodymurder]

5. You've hit the nail on the head.

Congressional votes are based only on the immediate political implications, and not on the real world consequences. Our government is dysfunctional.

[Dirty Hippie]

6. Am I correct to assume

that the terrorist designation will allow the administration to circumvent Congressional approval for war with Iran?

Can they now proceed under the former approval granted prior to the invasion of Iraq?

[ms liberty]

7. K&R - my thoughts exactly...n/t

[spindoctor]

8. Let's assume you're right...

That would raise a few questions.

1. No matter how crazy, is Bush crazy enough to start a war he _knows_ he can't finish?
2. Will congress approve another war?
3. Is it tactically possible?
4. What is the impact on our economy?

Ad 1.
Possibly. Maybe, for his own ego he wants to win a quick war before his term up and he can walk out of Washington with "See I told you so".
The original PNAC agenda has always been to control the Middle East. With Iraq and Iran in the pocket, I wouldn't want to be Saudi Arabia.
Some military success (or noticable activity) might boost the Republican vote and is not as risky as staging another major terrorist attack that can't be blamed on Democrats anyway.

Ad 2.
They don't have to. We are already under the umbrella of war on terror. But let's assume they will ask Congress for approval. Clinton can never vote in favor for an assault again while she is presenting herself as an anti-war candidate. That means that the whole DLC plus all their wannabees will back off, unless they will seize the opportunity to make Clinton look good as the Barbara Boxer of the preliminaries. Either way there will be enough renegades to pass any vote in the administration's favor.

Ad 3.
Not a problem. Iran is in the vice. Just leave Iraq and Afghanistan for what they are. No immediate threat there anyway. Blitzkrieg in Iran from both East and West with support in the South from the Navy and within a week Bush can crown himself Ayatollah.

Ad 4.
We will control all major oil reserves in the world. That seems to me like a positive impact plus an excellent long-term growth plan.



OK, you scared me.

[OzarkDem]

11. Problem with #3 & #4

That's the same rationale they used with Iraq - it will be quick and easy.

3. Iran will be an even greater quagmire than Iraq - two expensive quagmires are unsustainable in our already debt ridden budget and weakened economy.

4. We've been in control in Iraq for quite a few years now and we're paying higher energy prices and have massive debt from the prolonged cost of funding the war on our own. What makes you think things will be any different in Iran? Someone will control the oil in Iran, alright. It will be the same ones who are profiting from Iraqi oil right now - other ME countries/Bush buddies.

Iran=same war, different name, higher cost

[spindoctor]

20. Same war, same name, pennies on the dollar

"That's the same rationale they used with Iraq"

Yes, you feel they learned their lesson? They fired every general that dared to oppose their ludicrous ideas.

"Iran will be an even greater quagmire than Iraq"

Iraq may be a quaqmire but the wells are secured and have been from day one.

"It will be the same ones who are profiting from Iraqi oil right now."

Yep, and your point is?

Iran is indeed a part of the same war but not under a different name. Control of the Middle East is the game. And Saudi Arabia will fall too. So what if they booby-trapped their wells with dirty bombs? We will drill new ones. And if they do manage to distroy their supplies then so what? It will just drive up the price of Iraqi.
What we should be worried about, apart from another 100,000 dead or so - let's leave that to people with a conscience, is the question if China, Russia and even Europe will allow us to steal the cookie jar. PNAC may think we are the last remaining super power, but I still wouldn't want to piss off every other nuke wielding country in the world.

The cost of an Iran war is relatively low compared to what Iraq is costing us. Troops, supplies and material are already there. Private contractors are the number one cost in Iraq. You don't need them until you want to pretend having a stable situation or to get some boots on the ground before the actual attack. Besides, it is probably true that many of the Shi'ite militians in Iraq are funded by Iran. By taking out the well you cut off their supply line.

[spanone]

19. bu$h* could easily start a war because he KNOWS he'll be out of office well before it's end.

[Irreverend IX]

22. Or not.

Starting another war and plunging America and the world into chaos may provide Bush with what he sees as a good justification to suspend elections "until our national security can be assured."

[TreasonousBastard]

27. Well...

In answer to #1-- we know the answer already. Iraq is down the tubes and we can't walk away with "Peace with Honor" and not look the fool, so we bomb the piss out of Iran as our last macho display.

For 2-- you're right they don't have to, and an airstrike with rarely, if ever, needs approval.

For 3-- an airstrike is easy. An invasion is not. Even with a draft, getting a large enough army up to speed for an invasion that size will be a problem. And. look at a map and demographics of Iran-- larger than Iraq, all mountains, and a huge, largely homnogenous, population that actually kind of likes its elected government.

For 4-- we just might find the rest of the world blacklisting us. We might "control" Persian Gulf oil, but that's not all of it. And it would still take an invasion to control Iranian oil.

(Would the price of caviar fall?)

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. We are already at war

They are just planning on expanding their war.

[Windy]

14. All the new Draft Talk fits in to the recent developments

don't kid yourself. We are making the moves to bomb iran and don't look for the current crop of dems to stop them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. Oh I agree

[Vinca]

12. I think you're exactly right and the Dems who voted with the

Republicans the night before vacation are the enablers. Shrub's laughing at the stupid Democrats because even he managed to outwit them. What a tragedy this is going to be. Harry and Nancy should call Congress back into session ASAP and put the brakes on. The bombs could already be dropping by September.

[OzarkDem]

13. and how the h*ll do we pay for it?

Iraq is already breaking our economy. Where will we find money to wage war against Iran?

[durtee librul]

16. by selling lead paint to China? n/t

[Vinca]

17. Beijing Visa - Shrub's favorite credit card. nt

[roamer65]

37. Just like the failed Ottoman Empire...

you print currency like its wallpaper and endure the 600% inflation rate.

[leftchick]

18. 97-0 for Lieberman's Iran warning in July

why in the world do you believe the democrats would stop this?

http://www.firedoglake.com/category/lieberman/

Levin-Lieberman Love Fest - One Step Closer to War on Iran
By Siun on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:24 pm

Right after Sen. Lieberman voted against U.S. troops on the Webb amendment, he launched his new Iran Amendment – cosponsored by pals Kyl, Graham, Collins and Sessions with strong support by McCain – and Senator Levin could not fall over himself fast enough to display his love of his big pal from CT. Watch here – but prepare yourself – it will test your gag reflex mightily. (Thanks as always to Crooks and Liars for being on top of the news!)

This gist of the amendment: It is the sense of the senate that Iran is participating in acts of war against the United States. (

They were making minor changes to the language right up to the last minute but the released draft states:

that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias and insurgents. The amendment also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-coalition activity in Iraq.

Joe says:

“For many months, our military commanders and diplomats have warned us that the Iranian government has been training, equipping, arming, and funding proxies in Iraq who are murdering our troops,” said Senator Lieberman. “This amendment is a common sense, common ground statement of the Senate to Tehran: we know what you are doing, and you must stop.”

Levin and Salazar asked to be added as co-sponsors before the language was finalized, McCain used the bullshit Michael Gordon Hezbollah story to justify his vote, Graham waxed poetic comparing Iranian leadership to Hitler and Sen Durbin spoke of his support – as long as the amendment specified that it was not an authorization of military action. (Wow, what a relief! We all know that little details like congressional authorization matter so much to this White House).

Levin introduced the actual vote on the Lieberman Amendment by stressing that the Senate stands as one and that Iran had better listen.

[coco77]

25. We need to start filling there mailboxes now!

[Individualist]

34. I agree with you about September

I believe the cabal is using this vacation to put to finalize whatever they're planning to do, whether that be an attack on Iran or something more. The closer we get to September, the more apprehensive I am.

[Blackhatjack]

21. The real danger is we attack Iran, and Pakistan collapses and they have nuclear bombs TODAY...

Imagine for a moment.... we have 162,000 sitting ducks in Iraq. We are stretched thin in Afghanistan. We attack Iran. Pakistan's leadership is decapitated and radicals come to the aid of Iran with threats to use their nuclear arsenal.

Then if you really want to scare yourself...

Imagine you are a dictator in N. Korea and you see the opportunity to cross the border knowing the US cannot respond in defense.

China decides to not only support Iran(who will give them oil in the future) but decides to end the Taiwan situation by invasion.

And pressure is brought to bear on Saudi Arabia's Royal Family, which has provided us with most of our oil in the past. Just a few well placed hits on Saudi oil fields and the price of oil skyrockets on the open market --on top of reductions in Iranian oil shipments.

We are sitting on the edge, and Bush hasn't a clue.... but Cheney sees an opportunity to install 'all war all the time' and make even more money ....

[roamer65]

38. I agree...

if I were Beijing and Kim Jong Crazy, I would use the Iran attack to my advantage.

[leftchick]

26. Congress Supports "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act" um, Democrats too!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662_2.html?hpid=topnews


<snip>

The administration's move comes amid growing support in Congress for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and in the House by Tom Lantos (D-Calif.). The bill already has the support of 323 House members.

The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."

Such sanctions can work only alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added.

"Sanctions can serve as a prod, but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."

[spanone]

28. there ya go, it's congress that wants to invade iran....

bullshit....but that's how this mal-administration warps logic

[The Stranger]

29. But do you know what is most alarming? Go look out your window.

Do you see anyone taking to the streets?

[Usrename]

35. That would be disconcerting to see.

Considering that it worked so well to stop the invasion of Iraq. :sarcasm:

[Hydra]

30. K&R

Most of us knew this was coming. Syria was supposed to be next on the list, but then Iran started getting noisy, and so that idea was shelved for a time.

The biggest weakness of ours is that we are "reality based thinkers." When I posted the other day that these people make their own reality, someone was nice enough to dig this for me.

Like Ian_rd, though, I keep wondering how long the rest of the world will put up with this behavior. Alone, none of them are big enough to bring us down, but how about ALL of them?

[Beelzebud]

31. We will invade Iran before Bush's term ends, and the Democrats will do little to stop it.

Theres my prediction.

[leftchick]

32. try ZERO to stop it

except Dennis of course. AIPAC's dollars work like a charm again.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[txaslftist]

36. Maybe this is necessary.

If we attack Iran during the ongoing stock market crash and reinstate the draft while spy satellites beam down on us from above, maybe that will be enough to reignite the fires of liberty in the American soul. Maybe it will be enough to bring this two-party AIPAC funded Military Industrial Complex Corporatocracy into enough disrepute for a real return to American values. What a horrible thing to contemplate.

[Hydra]

40. Horrible, but...

if that's what it takes to derail this train, so be it.

That's what scares me more than the impeding horrors- that the horrors will be accepted and the present system will be kept on for another 1000 years.

[intaglio]

39. Check out the thread below as well

U.S. to Designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as Terrorists
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2954028

Rove resigned to hide this little detail, I suspect

[yodermon]

41. Aren't our troop sitting Ducks in Iraq? I don't understand

Does this mean shrub will evacuate our troops before our attack on Iran so that they will not be slaughtered?
what am i missing.