My Prediction Over Iran

The Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964 with the subsequent escalation of American involvement in Vietnam is further support for your theory.

As an American, all this "death to America" rhetoric has convinced me that we either can wait until New York is nuked and then nuke Iran or we can nuke Iran now or any time up to the time Iran has enriched enough uranium to build a bomb.

The Bush administration's lies that got us into Iraq must not keep us from being logical about Iran, whose elected president has called for our destruction. These issues are independent. Perhaps Bush should be impeached for his deceit on Iraq and then his successor could make the decision. Oh wait, that would be Cheney. Well, I guess we're stuck until January 2009 - and even then the neocon infection could continue.

It sure would be nice if the Europeans thought Iran a priority. I think they will continue to let the US be the bad guy (a role we are too willing to play) and the French (along with the Chinese and North Koreans) will supply Iran with arms. Perhaps if the Europeans suffered as tramatic a terrorist incident as America has, or perhaps had experienced two generations of "death to (blank)" they would do something to help Western civilization rather than continually question America's right to preemptively defend itself.

Carrera said:

Here goes: I'm going to stick my neck out publically and state ........................

First of all, you're not sticking your neck out.

You're speculating based upon inaccurate, misleading information coupled with your own sectarian and bigotted vews.

Carrera said:

My guess is Bush and co are already fully aware the international community or American electorate would not support military action against Iran but, at the same time, we know the military hardliners in Israel and the U.S. simply won't tolerate a theocratic, Iranian regime.

The military hardliners in the USA cannot cope with Iraq.
US body bags are still coming home from Iraq.

Unfortunately it's a case of slow learners with the USA : it cannot impose it's will upon a nation that is a third of the size of Iran.

The only winner from the Iraq invasion by the USA has been - Iran.
Iran has gained massively from invasion of Iraq - thanks to America and Britain.

The USA and Britain have neither the capacity or the intent to try to take on Iran

Carrera said:

Iranian regime with nuclear missiles in the Middle East (aimed at U.S. war-ships as well as Israel).

At present Iran doesn't possess nuclear weapons - so to state that nuclear weapons are aimed at anyone by the Iranians is inaccurate.

Carrera said:

This conflict is likely to be carried out by provocation is my prediction. My view is the U.S. will seek to find some way to provoke the Iranians into firing the first shots, shooting down an American spy-plane or firing on allied ground troops by the Iran/Iraq border.

The Iranians have indirectly engaged the USA via Iraq.
You said so yourself.
The Iranians don't need to engage the USA - they can just sit by and watch the USA fumble it's way around Iraq.

Carrera said:

Last point: Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear missiles but the gap between Iran and the U.S. or Russia is still massive. If the option lies between waiting till Iran builds up a bigger arsenal or simply getting the nasty work done quickly and holding your breath, my belief is the U.S. will seek confrontation now. If it doesn't, Israel will.

Iran claims to have developed the technology to refine uranium.
Uranium 235 to be precise.

If the claim is true - nuclear energy grade uranium is about all Iran can refine at present.
Which supports the Iranian claim to create nuclear power for energy purposes.

The difference between refining nuclear energy grade uranium and refining nuclear weapons grade uranium is massive.
First of all, sophisticated centrefuge technology needs to be in place and it has to have industrial based capacity in order to create the required volume of weapons grade uranium to create even one nuclear bomb.
Iran is nowhere near this stage as yet.

But don't let any of this factual information permeate your Daily Mail sectarian/bigotted ramblings.

Let me state it's extremely rare for a Brit or even a European to come out as I have and say, yes, we should intervene in Iran (via military means if need be). You won't hear anyone over here promoting such a view.
The only concession I would make (and it's an important one) is I think the U.S. should offer Iran a decent prospect for peace that they might actually accept. That is, a guarantee that if they end the nuclear program they won't be attacked by the U.S. in future, plus some prospect of nuclear technology being aided within Russia. Give peace a chance first, I say, but if the clerics in Iran don't go along with it, I think it gets serious.
Let me repeat this, though. There is no chance we'll be seeing any attempt to win support of the American people for military action or the endosement of the U.N. as I don't believe conflict will arise in that way. My belief is there are people higher up the ladder than Bush who make these decisions.
Why is that the case? Well, I think the high ranking military are too nervous about what Israel might do - remember Israel's espionage regarding U.S. policy over Iran for the future? The U.S. simply doesn't want a major conflict in the region and will try and stop Israel taking any action by stepping in the crossfire.
My bet is Americans will hear a news report at some stage that Iran has shot at such and such an aircraft or troops on the border and that there has been retaliation. I can see it creeping upon us all that way but let's hope it doesn't happen.
Still, as I said, just look at Cuba and how that took off. Nobody thought the USSR and America would have come so close to third world war. Except Iran isn't the USSR and it's far more one sided.

Cyclesafe said:

The Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964 with the subsequent escalation of American involvement in Vietnam is further support for your theory.

As an American, all this "death to America" rhetoric has convinced me that we either can wait until New York is nuked and then nuke Iran or we can nuke Iran now or any time up to the time Iran has enriched enough uranium to build a bomb.

The Bush administration's lies that got us into Iraq must not keep us from being logical about Iran, whose elected president has called for our destruction. These issues are independent. Perhaps Bush should be impeached for his deceit on Iraq and then his successor could make the decision. Oh wait, that would be Cheney. Well, I guess we're stuck until January 2009 - and even then the neocon infection could continue.

It sure would be nice if the Europeans thought Iran a priority. I think they will continue to let the US be the bad guy (a role we are too willing to play) and the French (along with the Chinese and North Koreans) will supply Iran with arms. Perhaps if the Europeans suffered as tramatic a terrorist incident as America has, or perhaps had experienced two generations of "death to (blank)" they would do something to help Western civilization rather than continually question America's right to preemptively defend itself.

"The military hardliners in the USA cannot cope with Iraq.
US body bags are still coming home from Iraq."

I'm not so impressed by Bush or Rumsfeld as war leaders but, even so, consider that literally thousands of Russian troops died daily in the war with Nazi Germany. During Stalingrad, thousands of troops died daily, so the 2000 odd American soldiers killed in Iraq so far isn't anything like on that scale. Vietnam was also far worse as the Vietnamese were a notoriously tough opponent and, yes, Vietnam war American casulaties ran into the thousands. But Iraq isn't really a good comparison with Vietnam. Iraq is more unstable than anything and, hence, the problem.

limerickman said:

First of all, you're not sticking your neck out.

You're speculating based upon inaccurate, misleading information coupled with your own sectarian and bigotted vews.

The military hardliners in the USA cannot cope with Iraq.
US body bags are still coming home from Iraq.

Unfortunately it's a case of slow learners with the USA : it cannot impose it's will upon a nation that is a third of the size of Iran.

The only winner from the Iraq invasion by the USA has been - Iran.
Iran has gained massively from invasion of Iraq - thanks to America and Britain.

The USA and Britain have neither the capacity or the intent to try to take on Iran

At present Iran doesn't possess nuclear weapons - so to state that nuclear weapons are aimed at anyone by the Iranians is inaccurate.

The Iranians have indirectly engaged the USA via Iraq.
You said so yourself.
The Iranians don't need to engage the USA - they can just sit by and watch the USA fumble it's way around Iraq.

Iran claims to have developed the technology to refine uranium.
Uranium 235 to be precise.

If the claim is true - nuclear energy grade uranium is about all Iran can refine at present.
Which supports the Iranian claim to create nuclear power for energy purposes.

The difference between refining nuclear energy grade uranium and refining nuclear weapons grade uranium is massive.
First of all, sophisticated centrefuge technology needs to be in place and it has to have industrial based capacity in order to create the required volume of weapons grade uranium to create even one nuclear bomb.
Iran is nowhere near this stage as yet.

But don't let any of this factual information permeate your Daily Mail sectarian/bigotted ramblings.

The USA has neither the capacity or the intent to try to take on Iran.

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons grade uranium refining technology.
At best Iran has nuclear energy grade uranium refining capability.

Here is what is going to happen.

The USA has little or no international support regarding attacking Iran.
China/Russia have signed massive oil deals with Iran.
They will veto any USA attempt through the UN to sanction Iran.

So the USA can opt for a go it alone policy with sanctions - but this has little or no effect as Europe/Russia/China want to, and are, trading with Iran.

The isreali's - well they can't do anything without the USA say so.

The USA's hands are tied in Iraq - they don't want to get involved in Iran.

They have the US midterm elections coming up - then you have the 2008 race.

The USA is between a rock and a hard place : it has lost Iraq, there is civil war there.
It wants to get out of Iraq, but it can't.
If it get's out now - Iran will exercise even further control of Iraq.

If you look at the entire situation - leaving aside the immoral and unethical basis for being in Iraq - the USA totally and utterly miscalculated Iraq.
They handed victory in Iraq to Iran.

Carrera said:

"The military hardliners in the USA cannot cope with Iraq.
US body bags are still coming home from Iraq."

I'm not so impressed by Bush or Rumsfeld as war leaders but, even so, consider that literally thousands of Russian troops died daily in the war with Nazi Germany. During Stalingrad, thousands of troops died daily, so the 2000 odd American soldiers killed in Iraq so far isn't anything like on that scale. Vietnam was also far worse as the Vietnamese were a notoriously tough opponent and, yes, Vietnam war American casulaties ran into the thousands. But Iraq isn't really a good comparison with Vietnam. Iraq is more unstable than anything and, hence, the problem.

I take your point but........

The USSR had no compunction about expending millions of their own people fighting.

The USA is different. They're still terrified of Vietnam. Look at how they don't want the media to flim coffins coming home.
2,000 dead isn't huge in absolute terms.
But the fact is that the level of attacks and deaths on for US troops has increased in Iraq.
35 dead this week alone.

The USA lost Iraq : you now have various factions opposed to the USA for a variety of reasons, operating in Iraq.
The country is in a state of civil war.
I'm certain that, 3 years down the line, that this was not part of the plan.
They thought that they'd be welcomed as liberators.
The average Iraqi now says life was better under Saddam!

That's a bit of a contradiction. You stated:

"The USA and Britain have neither the capacity or the intent to try to take on Iran."

And then again:

"At present Iran doesn't possess nuclear weapons - so to state that nuclear weapons are aimed at anyone by the Iranians is inaccurate."

So far as I'm aware, Moscow has some 2,500 intercontinental ballistic missiles, matched by the U.S. alone, but not Europe or the U.K. France comes closest but even France is light years behind in military clout.
If the U.S. has a similar number of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines, satellite technology, fighter-craft technology and the like, how do you justify this thought the west is no match for Iran? 😕

limerickman said:

First of all, you're not sticking your neck out.

You're speculating based upon inaccurate, misleading information coupled with your own sectarian and bigotted vews.

The military hardliners in the USA cannot cope with Iraq.
US body bags are still coming home from Iraq.

Unfortunately it's a case of slow learners with the USA : it cannot impose it's will upon a nation that is a third of the size of Iran.

The only winner from the Iraq invasion by the USA has been - Iran.
Iran has gained massively from invasion of Iraq - thanks to America and Britain.

The USA and Britain have neither the capacity or the intent to try to take on Iran

At present Iran doesn't possess nuclear weapons - so to state that nuclear weapons are aimed at anyone by the Iranians is inaccurate.

The Iranians have indirectly engaged the USA via Iraq.
You said so yourself.
The Iranians don't need to engage the USA - they can just sit by and watch the USA fumble it's way around Iraq.

Iran claims to have developed the technology to refine uranium.
Uranium 235 to be precise.

If the claim is true - nuclear energy grade uranium is about all Iran can refine at present.
Which supports the Iranian claim to create nuclear power for energy purposes.

The difference between refining nuclear energy grade uranium and refining nuclear weapons grade uranium is massive.
First of all, sophisticated centrefuge technology needs to be in place and it has to have industrial based capacity in order to create the required volume of weapons grade uranium to create even one nuclear bomb.
Iran is nowhere near this stage as yet.

But don't let any of this factual information permeate your Daily Mail sectarian/bigotted ramblings.

Agreed. They lost the peace, it's that simple. Had they gone in, given the Iraqi people instant elections and gotten out fast, it may have turned out a bit better.
But this isn't exactly to do with combat losses in Iraq against an actual army. These troops are there as crowd-controllers and peace-keepers in a land where they're not wanted so casualties have mounted. It's a bit like Afghanistan where Russian soldiers were sent for basic training and got sniped at.
Simply put, Iraqis have been treated badly and that's why the country has become unstable.
I don't know how many milllions of Russians died in WW2 but it was horrendous - thousands by the day.

limerickman said:

I take your point but........

The USSR had no compunction about expending millions of their own people fighting.

The USA is different. They're still terrified of Vietnam. Look at how they don't want the media to flim coffins coming home.
2,000 dead isn't huge in absolute terms.
But the fact is that the level of attacks and deaths on for US troops has increased in Iraq.
35 dead this week alone.

The USA lost Iraq : you now have various factions opposed to the USA for a variety of reasons, operating in Iraq.
The country is in a state of civil war.
I'm certain that, 3 years down the line, that this was not part of the plan.
They thought that they'd be welcomed as liberators.
The average Iraqi now says life was better under Saddam!

But only a small fraction of US military power is currently projected in Iran. Also, the Iraq war has almost no impact on the day to day lives of most Americans. Look at the magnitude of the recent immigration issue demonstrations and compare this to the cummulative impact of all anti-Iraq war demonstratrions over the past three years.

If Americans are convinced that a nuclear attack from Iran is imminent, the analogy with WWII Soviet Union becomes relevant, in that thousands of American casualties per day would be acceptable to save hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The idea that America is terrified since Vietnam is dangerously outdated and to make predictions with that as a premise is gravely mistaken. Over the past thirty years the youth of America have been educated / conditioned almost to be facists and remember most states voted for Bush in the last election, after Bush's lies had been exposed. America has used its toys more than once since Vietnam and in my opinion it has usually been a mistake, but never has the "homeland" been directly threatened.

I think the incident Carrera alludes to is only weeks away - certainly before the midterm elections this November.

"The USA's hands are tied in Iraq - they don't want to get involved in Iran."

Sure, but that's my point. Neither did the U.S. particularly want a conflict with Krushchev but they got one. Cuba just happened - out of control of normal American or Russian people.
This is a precarious situation. The U.S. is bogged down in Iraq with Iran arming and supplying terrorist groups within Iraq, so it's suspected. Iran borders Iraq and already conflict has almost spilled over the border.
My bet is that there are hardliners in the U.S. military who will possibly seek to provoke Iran into making some sort of attack so they can justify a counter-strike.
There has to be an excuse to take to the American public for any military situation to gain support as there is no way a fresh war can be sold. My point is (and maybe Wurm's) that Bush himself wants this war and so do the hardliners. If the hardliners can prove Iran fired on U.S. forces and then retaliate, there is every chance things could heat up.
Naturally, I hope Iran will be given some kind of security deal instead but I'm just stating how dangerous things are becoming.
The Mail doesn't support military action in Iraq.

limerickman said:

The USA has neither the capacity or the intent to try to take on Iran.

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons grade uranium refining technology.
At best Iran has nuclear energy grade uranium refining capability.

Here is what is going to happen.

The USA has little or no international support regarding attacking Iran.
China/Russia have signed massive oil deals with Iran.
They will veto any USA attempt through the UN to sanction Iran.

So the USA can opt for a go it alone policy with sanctions - but this has little or no effect as Europe/Russia/China want to, and are, trading with Iran.

The isreali's - well they can't do anything without the USA say so.

The USA's hands are tied in Iraq - they don't want to get involved in Iran.

They have the US midterm elections coming up - then you have the 2008 race.

The USA is between a rock and a hard place : it has lost Iraq, there is civil war there.
It wants to get out of Iraq, but it can't.
If it get's out now - Iran will exercise even further control of Iraq.

If you look at the entire situation - leaving aside the immoral and unethical basis for being in Iraq - the USA totally and utterly miscalculated Iraq.
They handed victory in Iraq to Iran.

I have 2 female friends in the U.S., one in C.A. and one in Carolina. Both support military action against Iran as, to put it simply, they're convinced the mullahs would nuke New York if they could get away with it. So, 9/11 did make a huge impact.
The only point I disagree is I honestly don't think we'll see U.S. troops in Iran. It's more likely to be air strikes at key sites. The very worst scenario would be taking out Iranian infrastructure such as electric, power stations, weapons bases e.t.c. The idea would be to destabilise the Iranian regime and cause the Iranian people to rise up.
Again, I don't want to sound like I endorse war against Iran. I'm hoping Iran will be offered a deal to grant them long-term security and maybe a Russian-controlled nuclear program.
But to be honest, I simply don't trust the Iranian regime with nukes. Their placards read "Death To Israel! Death To America!" That's hardly the conduct of a stable, balanced society.

Cyclesafe said:

But only a small fraction of US military power is currently projected in Iran. Also, the Iraq war has almost no impact on the day to day lives of most Americans. Look at the magnitude of the recent immigration issue demonstrations and compare this to the cummulative impact of all anti-Iraq war demonstratrions over the past three years.

If Americans are convinced that a nuclear attack from Iran is imminent, the analogy with WWII Soviet Union becomes relevant, in that thousands of American casualties per day would be acceptable to save hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The idea that America is terrified since Vietnam is dangerously outdated and to make predictions with that as a premise is gravely mistaken. Over the past thirty years the youth of America have been educated / conditioned almost to be facists and remember most states voted for Bush in the last election, after Bush's lies had been exposed. America has used its toys more than once since Vietnam and in my opinion it has usually been a mistake, but never has the "homeland" been directly threatened.

I think the incident Carrera alludes to is only weeks away - certainly before the midterm elections this November.

Carrera said:

That's a bit of a contradiction. You stated:

"The USA and Britain have neither the capacity or the intent to try to take on Iran."

And then again:

"At present Iran doesn't possess nuclear weapons - so to state that nuclear weapons are aimed at anyone by the Iranians is inaccurate."

So far as I'm aware, Moscow has some 2,500 intercontinental ballistic missiles, matched by the U.S. alone, but not Europe or the U.K. France comes closest but even France is light years behind in military clout.
If the U.S. has a similar number of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines, satellite technology, fighter-craft technology and the like, how do you justify this thought the west is no match for Iran? 😕

The USA and Britain hasn't got the capacity to attack Iran - given that they're bogged down in Iran : that's what i meant.

And in respect of nuclear weapons you said that iran had nuclear weapons pointing at the US and Israel.
I stated that Iran doesn't possess nuclear weapons.

Cyclesafe said:

But only a small fraction of US military power is currently projected in Iran. Also, the Iraq war has almost no impact on the day to day lives of most Americans. Look at the magnitude of the recent immigration issue demonstrations and compare this to the cummulative impact of all anti-Iraq war demonstratrions over the past three years.

If Americans are convinced that a nuclear attack from Iran is imminent, the analogy with WWII Soviet Union becomes relevant, in that thousands of American casualties per day would be acceptable to save hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The idea that America is terrified since Vietnam is dangerously outdated and to make predictions with that as a premise is gravely mistaken. Over the past thirty years the youth of America have been educated / conditioned almost to be facists and remember most states voted for Bush in the last election, after Bush's lies had been exposed. America has used its toys more than once since Vietnam and in my opinion it has usually been a mistake, but never has the "homeland" been directly threatened.

I think the incident Carrera alludes to is only weeks away - certainly before the midterm elections this November.

As you're only a newbie - we haven't met since you joined in Dec 2005.

But let me re-iterate : IRAN DOES NOT POSSESS NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
So where is the "threat" to the USA?

Second of all, it's inaccurate to suggest that the USA doesn't have a "Vietnam" complex.
It does.
That's why Bush & Co didn't commit the correct troop levels to Iraq despite requests from the military.
They're afraid of the political fallout from the number of bodybags returning from Iraq being too large.

Sure look now how the USA is trying to reduce troop levels - we hear the Bush administration saying "the Iraqi's can police themselves" .
They can't.

I'm torn too, because I pride myself on being a civil libertarian as opposed to being a conservative. But consider the following:

- Precision bombing, as impressive as it is, will not destroy all of Iran's offensive capabilities.

- Iranians, regardless of political position, will rally around their own flag and any hopes of "sweets and flowers" will be dashed as virtually all of them further radicalize against the West.

- If the US military is sure of anything it is in the overwhelming technical superiority of their conventional forces. If the military is arrayed against anything seen, heard, or smelled it's "asta la vista baby". This was true in Gulf I and II.

- Iran's government was duly elected. There will be no "nation building" or "democrazation" or Marshall Plan. It will be total war against a defined, set enemy.

- Historically, weaker human societies in the way of stronger human societies were replaced or supplanted. We call this genocide today. The Iranian government says they want to destroy us. But the US has the means and soon the will to destroy them instead.

I hope the Iranians come to their senses and comply with international law. The only wasteland in the future will be their own country if they keep at it.

The Iraq war was a complete mistake as it was predicated upon lies. Mistakes continue as the war is prosecuted.

However, mistakes in troop commitment should be traced to the idiots Bush listens to, that the Iranian people would support the invasion with "sweets and flowers". As regards to efforts to minimize the body count, don't you think that there are a plethoria of soldier targets for the insurgents as it is? I still think that the trauma of Vietnam had nothing to do with the tactical mistakes of the present and has been trumped by the conventional military successes of Gulf I and II. Young (poor) people continue to enlist.

OK, I'll give you that Iran has no nuclear weapons now. But what does the probability of possession have to be before America is justified in acting to reduce that probability? When the probability of Iran having these weapons becomes 10% and Americans convince themselves that the probability of Iran using them if they had them was approaching 100% and the cost of not acting was the loss of New York, then at this 10% probability there would be just shy of 2 million expected-deaths (assumes NY has a population of 19.2M).

America will asks itself what level of risk it is willing to endure. With the head of the elected government of Iran calling for its destruction, I suggest that this probability will not be permitted to get very high.

Limerickman, I continue to respect and admire your often fresh perspective on issues. I appreciate your responding to my post.

I agree with Krugman's position:

[left][font=Arial]Published on Monday, April 10, 2006 by the New York Times
[/font][/left]
[left][font=Arial] Yes He Would [/font][/left]
[left][font=Arial]by Paul Krugman


[/font][/left]
[font=Arial] "But he wouldn't do that." That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many people just didn't want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace. [/font]

[font=Arial]Now people with contacts in the administration and the military warn that Mr. Bush may be planning another war. The most alarming of the warnings come from Seymour Hersh, the veteran investigative journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal. Writing in The New Yorker, Mr. Hersh suggests that administration officials believe that a bombing campaign could lead to desirable regime change in Iran - and that they refuse to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons. [/font]

[font=Arial]"But he wouldn't do that," say people who think they're being sensible. Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however, discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will start another ill-conceived and unnecessary war isn't sensible. It's wishful thinking. [/font]

[font=Arial]As it happens, rumors of a new war coincide with the emergence of evidence that appears to confirm our worst suspicions about the war we're already in. [/font]

[font=Arial]First, it's clearer than ever that Mr. Bush, who still claims that war with Iraq was a last resort, was actually spoiling for a fight. The New York Times has confirmed the authenticity of a British government memo reporting on a prewar discussion between Mr. Bush and Tony Blair. In that conversation, Mr. Bush told Mr. Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq even if U.N. inspectors came up empty-handed. [/font]

[font=Arial]Second, it's becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Bush knew that the case he was presenting for war - a case that depended crucially on visions of mushroom clouds - rested on suspect evidence. For example, in the 2003 State of the Union address Mr. Bush cited Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes as clear evidence that Saddam was trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Yet Murray Waas of the National Journal reports that Mr. Bush had been warned that many intelligence analysts disagreed with that assessment. [/font]

[font=Arial]Was the difference between Mr. Bush's public portrayal of the Iraqi threat and the actual intelligence he saw large enough to validate claims that he deliberately misled the nation into war? Karl Rove apparently thought so. According to Mr. Waas, Mr. Rove "cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged" if the contents of an October 2002 "President's Summary" containing dissents about the significance of the aluminum tubes became public. [/font]

[font=Arial]Now there are rumors of plans to attack Iran. Most strategic analysts think that a bombing campaign would be a disastrous mistake. But that doesn't mean it won't happen: Mr. Bush ignored similar warnings, including those of his own father, about the risks involved in invading Iraq. [/font]

[font=Arial]As Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently pointed out, the administration seems to be following exactly the same script on Iran that it used on Iraq: "The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops." [/font]

[font=Arial]Why might Mr. Bush want another war? For one thing, Mr. Bush, whose presidency is increasingly defined by the quagmire in Iraq, may believe that he can redeem himself with a new Mission Accomplished moment. [/font]

[font=Arial]And it's not just Mr. Bush's legacy that's at risk. Current polls suggest that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress this November, acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by subpoena power. This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals. Political analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Mr. Bush a way to head off this danger, that an appropriately timed military strike could change the domestic political dynamics.[/font]

[font=Arial]Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn't. Given the combination of recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching the Iraq war, why should we assume that he wouldn't do it again? [/font]

[center][font=Arial]© Copyright 2006 New York Times[/font]
[/center]

Cyclesafe -

If you think anything as horrific as a "turrrurrist nuculer bombing" will happen, I'd say you should be much more afraid of the BushCo's manufacturing just such an event, to be blamed on "Ale Kayduh, Hezbullah (Iran), and other such terrists" - just as BushCo is complicit in the 9/11 attacks in order to have an excuse to invade Iraq.

If you think that's mere conspiracy theory, you might do well to look into the actual evidence that shows BushCo to be guilty.

You can bet the rent money that these evil bloodsuckers have no qualms whatsoever in killing thousands - or even millions - of their own citizens to get control of the American political system, as they've had since the 2002 Congressional elections.

Face it: they committed election fraud in Florida '00 to get the Presidency, and 5 Supreme Court right-wingers finalized the coup d'etat. And then there was Ohio '04.

Put nothing past BushCo - not even acts as horrendous as what Stalin, [censored], Pol Pot, Pinochet, or Milosevic committed.

Whoa.

The idea that the Bushies will purposely kill American civilians to pin it on Iran is over the top. Nah, it is too easy for them to concoct a pretext for invasion outside the US - probably like the Japanese in Manchuko or the Americans in the Tonkin Gulf.

Also, the idea that Bush "stole the election" is silly. A conservative Supreme Court acted to force an outcome and the Democrats had a "sense of the common good" not quible over a few thousand votes. The neocons are alot of things, but they are not mass murderers. They will have to get people to commit these acts - even the US military command is balking at what they are now being required to do in Iraq and in plannning what to do with Iran.

1st of all the spy plane shot down preceding the Cuban Missile Crisis had little to do with the events that happened afterwards. The Americans were not outraged that the spy plane was shot down but with the content of the 'Pics" the spy planes brought home. The actual spy plane shooting is only discussed by historians and most Americans are not even familiar with it.

I tried to do a 5 minute research into the missiles that the Iranians have and basically have became up with little or no solid information. I am almost sure that the Iranians do not have nuclear missile capabilities and have to be light years away from developing them ..... At least concerning long range missiles.

The US will bring the UN in on the Iranian santion. And even though China does do business with the Iranians, the US and Chinese have a pretty strong bond financially... The American investment in China and the import market to America carries some weight.

At this point the Iranians have announced the enrichment program is successful. However, it is said that the production is minimal. In several years they will have the capacity to develope several warheads a year. I do not believe the nuclear push by the Iranians has totally to do with energy concerns only.

If the Iranians were to set off a nuclear warhead in NY or something to cause the US to launch missiles..... Iran would be a nothing but a country with a history. China and Russia would do nothing but try and figure out a way to make money on it. But I think a attack on the US by Iran is not going to happen. Israel is the one that will be involved.

*A footnote here on human behavior and perception ....... Several years ago a professor in England [ I think, I might be wrong on the place] took a poll of his class asking a question that pertained to the India-Pakistan conflict and the nuclear question .....
The most frequant response to the results of a Nuclear conflict between the 2 countries was " The enviroment would be damaged."