You know what's worse than when we lose?

[Taverner]

It's when we lose after win!

Case in point: Kyl-Lieberman Bill. WTF??? Obama didn't vote, and Clinton voted yea.

Yay!!! We're going to war with Iran!

Fuck me raw with a chew toy, this sucks!

[Kelly Rupert]

1. We're not going to war with Iran.

It's a symbolic measure.

[Emit]

2. Ah, but, how can you be so sure? n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

11. Eventually? Perhaps. Soon? Nope.

Same reason I was sure the last five "OMG WAR" scares.

[Taverner]

3. Read the wording of the bill

We can now declare war without a congressional vote if certain actions are taken by Iran.

I'm sure Bush will Tonkin Gulf those bastards...

[Beelzebud]

4. I'm having Deja Vu. Just replace an "N" with a "Q" and this is 2002/2003 all over again.

[Kelly Rupert]

6. The rather great difference would be

that in 2002/2003, Bush was actually talking about invading Iraq.

[JackRiddler]

7. True. He only threatens to bomb Iran, not occupy it.

Hooray!

[Kelly Rupert]

9. Not even in the same way, and you ought remember that.

In 2002, he consistently said that Saddam needed to be removed by military force, CNN was blaring "March to War" every half hour, he was petitioning the UN for action, etc., etc. Here, the best you can point to is "all options are on the table."

It's still far too early to tell if we're headed for military action or not.

[JackRiddler]

14. Who says it's going to happen the same way twice?

It never does. There cannot be a desire to occupy Iran. Whatever happens will come with minimal warning. They will strike first, explain later.

[Kelly Rupert]

17. If it won't go the same way,

why worry about your deja vu?

(Attacking Iran while they're still negotiating with the IAEA? Come on.)

[JackRiddler]

29. Oh no!

We suddenly HAD TO DO IT because THEY WERE A-GONNA GET THEM NUKES.

Sorry IAEA, there was no choice.

Like, did they tell Libya when they were going to bomb it?

By the way, what would be your threshold for bombing Iran? Under what circumstances would you find it justified? Curious.

[Kelly Rupert]

31. Given that they're still years away,

that wouldn't be the excuse we'd use.

My threshold for bombing Iran? Hmm. Probably if they had in some way attacked US holdings in Iraq with conventional weapons of some sort--I mean, as an overt state action, not with al-Quds-sponsored-militias--and they were unresponsive to diplomatic overtures. Realistically, war with Iran would be rather disastrous, and the only situation in which I would condone it would be if they were committing outright acts of war. This, of course, is beyond unlikely.

[bullimiami]

5. bush isnt smart enough to read the details.

the iraq bill gave him free rein as this one will be said to.

[Robbien]

8. You are so clueless

No one is buying your propaganda.

The GOP/DLC/BlueDogs are salivating and want more death and destruction.

But there you are carrying the weasel flag crying that moderate centrist warmongering is the American Way.

[Kelly Rupert]

12. Funny, this is what, the fifth or sixth time

I've been called clueless for saying that the latest "OMG WAR" event was not actually a prelude to war? All the previous saber-rattlings, the redeployment of carriers, the missing nukes, the stand-downs, the hostages, the diplomat expulsions, the captured sailors, the policy speeches, all the bullshit "leaked information" regarding dates for attack...for all of these, I said, "No, that is not a prelude to war, it is X and will blow over." I was unaware that "clueless" now means "generally correct."

When America goes to war with Iran, it will not be ambiguous beforehand. The last thing we want is a complete sneak attack.

[Robbien]

13. Only fifth or sixth?

You support the moderate centrist DLC/BlueDog/GOP warmongering elitist stance.

Why don't you go get your jollies and go to sleep and dream about all those nice juicy bombs you moderate centrist/GOPers are getting ready to drop on the families in the Middle East.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. Apparently,

and I have no idea where this comes from, claiming that there will not be an imminent Iranian-American war means I want there to be an imminent Iranian-American war.

Right now, it is not raining outside. I can see that it is not cloudy, nor are there rainclouds anywhere in sight. I can say that it will not be raining soon. Apparently this means I support the cumulonimbus rainmongering elitist stance.

[Robbien]

18. Exactly the response I expect from a DLC/BlueDog moderate centrist

Try and use nitpicking propaganda to blow smoke over what is truly happening.

Oh how so reasonable you are trying to present yourself as being. Not buying your non-reasonable bunk. All the while you are grinning and getting so excited about how much you are going to enjoy the next Shock and Awe.

Well, one third of Iraqis are dead/homeless and running because of support of people like you. How many more dead/displace people are you hoping to obtain with this new campaign of yours.

[Kelly Rupert]

21. Calm down, sparky.

I'm against there being any war in Iran. I was against Iraq, too--and it was pretty obvious to everyone, including me, that we were going into Iraq ever since Afghanistan ended.

You see, I look at all the information I read, and I decide there probably isn't going to be one any time soon, just as I did with every single one of the OMG IRAN WAR NOW scares of the last four years.

[Robbien]

24. No one is excited here. But I expected the standard "calm down"

from you. Oh so reasoned you are and oh so excitable and unreasonable I am says you. SOP DLC/GOP/BlueDog debate comment.

You also don't fool me a bit. Iran in flames is a wet dream of DLC/BlueDog/GOPers and their idiotic supporters. Bet you cannot wait.

[Kelly Rupert]

25. If you run around,

frothing at the mouth, claiming people are secretly operatives who are pushing for war because they aren't shrieking over the latest OMG-attack, you can indeed expect to see people telling you to calm down. Nobody here is pro-war. I'm not and you're not.

Believing that something is not imminent is not the same as desiring it. I cannot even comprehend what would make you believe that.

[Robbien]

27. Ha. Since you go running around

posting wildly and madly from thread to thread, post after post saying "trust us, we really don't mean we are going to start our rampage to kill us some Muslims. See here we put some weasel words in this bill of ours to try and fool you and get you to vote in support of it. Trust us."

I laugh. Because I can just picture in my mind DLC/GOP/BlueDogs as your excitement is wildly crazily building now that you are so close to your warmongering wet dream.

[Kelly Rupert]

32. Unable or unwilling to find an actual conservative to argue with,

Robbien settles for playing pretend with an anti-war liberal.

[TornadoTN]

20. The problem is that this "symbolic" move by the Senate is anything but symbolic in nature

I'm like you for the most part, I don't get worked up about the "OMG WAR" rumors that circulate from time to time. But this time certainly has me concerned coupled with the saber rattling that is going on.

[TornadoTN]

19. Whats particularly concerning about this is that it mirrors the march to Iraq

Honestly, I normally don't get phased by the rumors that fly about Iran and war.

However, this time I'm concerned. We're hearing saber-rattling from the administration. We see the evidence that the framework has been in place for some time. The Senate passes a resolution, however, symbolic, that recognizes Iran as a threat to stability in Iraq (which is probably true - but so are we), effectively establishing a pretext for expanding operations to combat Iranian interests inside Iraq.

This isn't a wise move. We all know what the "Sense of the Senate" got us last time there was a desire to go to war.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. It doesn't matter.

Some shit you don't joke around with.

[Richard Steele]

34. Sure it is. We have your word for that, right?

nm

[napi21]

10. I believe Shrub is only sabre ratteling. There's no way I believe

any of his military people will not tell him we just don't have the troops! We don't even have enough troops to handle Iraq and Afghanistan!!!!

I'm convinced most people tell him what he wants to hear, but not in this case.

[Robbien]

22. They don't plan on sending in troops. Just bombing the hell out of it

Destroying all the infrastructure. No roads, no electricity, no water, no nothing. When they are devastated, global oil cos go in and grab the oil.

[Strelnikov_]

28. What oil?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1910376&mesg_id=1912170

[napi21]

33. And they actually believe the Iranian Guard is just going to

lay back a WATCH???? Don't tell me Shrub is sooo dumb that he doesn't see the difference between Iraq who had little to no army left, no planes, etc, and Iran who had an elite Guard Unit, and Air Force, etc????

[Robbien]

35. Nuts isn't is, but that is what Cheney plans

See this article

Cheney Sounds Out Jordan, Egypt on U.S. Bombing of Iran Print E-mail
Written by Marjorie Cohn
Thursday, 27 September 2007
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2505/81/

My cousin Larry Russell, a travel writer, spent three weeks (May 11 through May 31 of 2007) in Jordan as a guest of the Jordanian Tourist Board. He was invited to dinner at the home of Karim Kawar, Jordan's ex- ambassador to the United States (2002-06), in Amman. Dick Cheney and his daughter were Kawar's guests two nights before Larry arrived. Kawar confided to Larry that "Cheney's mission was to sound out the reaction to a forthcoming bombing of Iran's nuclear sites (no ground invasion planned) by the U.S. from Jordan's King Abdullah and President Mubarak of Egypt. They both rejected the idea."

When Larry pointed out that Jordan and Egypt receive regular economic and military equipment assistance from the United States so any resistance to this plan on their parts would probably be of a token nature at best, Kawar just smiled.

As you can see, no ground troops. This time I believe the Shock and Awe Cheney is planning is going to be hundreds of times worse than what they did for Iraq. The plan for Iran is complete devastation.

[napi21]

36. Yea, well wasn't Cheney also part of the "they'll greet us with

flowers" crowd in Iraq too?? Cheney and Rummy both said if we remove Sadaam, the Iraqi's will be so grateful, democracy will break through a floruish!

Seem I remember Halliburton didn't do very well under Cheney's leadership either. Both Cheney & Shrub live in another dream world, and manage to f-up everything they touch...except making BIG $$$$ for their friends!

[Bitwit1234]

16. Someone just posted that the wording leading to war were removed.

[Bluerthanblue]

23. well.....

.....

hell.....



What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
Like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore--
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?

Langston Hughes



kinda feeling like the exploding thing is my best worst choice
i gotta take a break

before i break.

peace-
blu

[madokie]

26. yea when we win and there is no prize as happened in nov. of last year

what the fuck did we get for all our efforts to regain the majority