January 17, 2005

• Here's the article: The Coming Wars. "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone," the former high-level intelligence official told me. "Next, were going to have the Iranian campaign. Weve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrahweve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism." This should be fun.
• This news gave me a total deja vu feeling. When the US were bombing Afghanistan, rumours started about the Iraq invasion, and I remember thinking how irrational and stupid that was and how it would never happen, and here we are again...
• Has anyone seen The Power of Nightmares? I've heard it's quite good.
• Yeah, well, you'll have a draft, then. Cos you aint got the troops. Mind you, you aint got the time to train 'em.
• I'll need to seymour. But the article doesn't, on the face of it, seem implausible, and Hersh certainly has the runs on the board. Looking at the "older" link above, "Spin the wheel" seems to have some kind of resonance.
• Oh, Christ, it makes me tired just thinking about this.
• So, let me get this straight: you're going to bomb Iran because they might be developing weapons which, if you waited until they had them, would prevent you from bombing them? Isn't this pre-empting yourself? There's an old joke about how, having been late to the first two World Wars, the US wants to be early for the next one. It's getting less funny. But anyway, isn't this a total misunderstanding of how terrorism actually works? It's the actions of individuals and not states. You can replace any number of states, but it will be the individuals you upset who will try to kill you. Invading another country in the Middle East, killing more people, destroying more homes, seems a very good way of making more people want to kill you, not less. And those people do not need the regime to be in place to go about their business, or to swell in number. Even if the reasons are as pure and as good as democracy itself, it makes no difference. If someone bombed my city, I would reach for a rifle: my family and friends do not get to die for someone else's good intentions.
• The Power of Nightmares torrent search.
• DangerIsMyMiddleName, you are absolutely correct & totally logical in everything you have said. I, and millions of others, many of them Americans, agree with you. Now try explaining that to Bush & Rumsfeld, Rice, et al. They aren't actually operating in the same land of reason or reality that we seem to inhabit. Better still, try explaining it to their supporters. I have tried, & got some interesting variations on a hang-up or log-off.
• I think Hersh is being used to send a message to the Iranians. I also think it's a bluff, and I bet they think so too. It seems ham-handed, but look at it from the administration's perspective: Do we really want the Iranians to have the bomb? It doesn't automatically confer maturity as a regional power; look at Pakistan.
• If it weren't Hersh, I might believe that, atch. If it were, say, Robert Novak. But Hersh is no friend to the administration. Strange to think Iran would be next, I always figured it'd be Syria. But then, the Syrians are batshit crazy, and maybe that scares them.
• "I also think it's a bluff.." That would require wit & subtlety, qualities this administration conspicuously lacks.
• Ah, but he didn't say knowingly being used... I don't think I believe it, in any case. The US was already quite heavily involved in Iraq, and had some kind of fig-leaf of legality. This would be utterly different.
• i think this is the real deal. hersh basically singlehandedly broke the abu ghraib torture scandal. there are indeed plenty of folks within the administration (or who have left) who see what's going on and feel strongly that they need to expose how dangerous these policies are. this story doesn't surprise me at all. i just kind of thought syria would be next. sigh.
• While I have the utmost respect for Seymour Hersh, planning for exegencies is not *entirely* out of the realm of purview for the Pentagon. How many scenarios did they run for a nuclear attack on the Soviets between 1949 and 1989? Thousands. And so far, not one launch. Reconnaissance does not equal impending attack. That said, I do hope they are not seriously considering invading Iran; echoing Nostrildamus' point about numbers of available soldiers (although I once again disagree with his assertion that we'll have a draft), barrring the rightness or wrongness of it, it'd be extraordinarily taxing to maintain the current levels of soldiery in Afghanistan, Iraq AND attack Iran under with current forces. That said, I think Iran would be best approached diplomatically. We have done them a colossal favor by literally eliminating the Iraqi army, against which they have historically fought so hard. The Mullahs don't like us, but they can be pragmatic politicians when they wish, and they are well aware of the youthfulness of Iran's population. The "westernization" of Iran is, imo, inevitable, and I think the administration knows this. As for me personally, I have supported the Iraq war on stratgeic grounds, but I don't think I would be able to similarly support an Iran war. There are just simply too many other options to consider. And despite what many would like to believe, the Bush Administration is not populated in entire with religious fundamentalists and crazy people. They are politicians, and what's more they are politicians of *note* and that means they are used to thinking about contingencies and options. And even beyond that, after the WMD marketing campaign debacle? Unless they were able to go to Tehran and actually find a bombwith "Target: USA!!" painted in the side, going back to that well with the American public and, by proxy, Congress, would be a non-starter. but they have a majority in Congress! you'd say. Yes they do. That does not mean that they rule the school, though. Several Republicans have voiced their disapproval of the Iraq War the last few years, and the Democrats, yet reeling, can surely be counted on to act with one voice on this subject. At the same time, while once elected, Congressmen may act like aristocracy, at election time they prostrate themselves fully and with spread cheeks to the voter, whom I think it's safe to say, though it gave Bush the benefit of the doubt regarding Iraq and remembers well the Gulf War, etc? Is far less likely to be swayed by the same rhetoric, or the dim memories of hostages and helicopters crashing in the desert.
• What legality? There was legality in the Iraq invasion? Since when? "..the Bush Administration is not populated in entire with religious fundamentalists and crazy people." - Name those who aren't, & their influence. Those who aren't, what are their credentials, their experience? With the Iraq occupation looking glum & US casualty figures rising, no matter what the talking heads say, a major strategic goal now must be is to attack Iran which is supporting at least part of the insurgency; kill the strength of the opposition, cut off supply. And attack anyone else supporting it, for that matter. At this stage, Bush & Co really have no option, other than a tail-between-legs withdrawal which I don't think they'll do. Without attacking Iran, losing the war is inevitable. Some would say they already have. Let me put it this way, things as they are, does anyone think that the US administration will sit around doing more or less nothing for the next four years? It won't be Syria, Jordan is weak & no clear goals there, certainly won't be Saudi Arabia, even though we know that is the hornet's nest of fundo maniacs. It will be Iran, because then you will have a strip of territory, Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan as a belt to enforce US/Western might on the region. Even if that is where it ends, that much will be a major strategic gain in the region, even though it will require billions of dollars, thousands of lives & be hellish to maintain for the first few years. Iran will make Iraq look like a sorority party, & it will either make or break Bush, probably the latter.
• Name those who aren't, & their influence. Those who aren't, what are their credentials, their experience? Rice, for one. While I have heard she has asserted herself a Christian, most of America does the same, I have never heard of her discussing policy from a religious standpoint (as we saw on several occasions from AShcroft), and she is said to have a huge influence on the president. You can look up the resumes of the rest of the cabinet if you like, it's all available to the casual, if unbusy, Googler. Of course, it far easier (and more fun!) to assert that they are all religious fundamentalists and crazy people then proving the negative, isn't it? But you knew that, of course. You've never felt the urge to subject your own opinions (opinions, since their are no facts to speak of here, in either the story or the accompaning thread, save for that Hersh reports) to the same intellectual rigor you demand from those that disagree with you, such as in the two paragraphs of Jeanne Dixon-esque prognostication that ended your last post. While I acknowledge that it's every bit as valid an opinion as mine, I can't help but wonder when you are going to provide the credentials and experience of those who have given you this advance information.
• And, please, before you pen your exclamation point infused retort, keep in mind that "it's all so self evident!" isn't a proof of anything. Neither is namecalling or declaring that anyone that doesn't see things your way is a fascist/klansman/mental deficient/total sap/paid for shill/etc.
• Some fun facts about going into Iran vs. Iraq. Four times the land area. They have an effective, *real* air force and know how to use it (ground attack, combat air patrols, *anti-ship attacks* (hello, carrier battle groups!). They have a *lot* of cruise missles; exocets (some of the best in the world) Sunburns (designed specifically to take out carrier battle groups), well trained and *very* motivated troops, etc, etc. In addition to that, the terrain is very mountainous near the Iran/Iraq border, so it would be like fighting in Kosovo, which NATO very badly did *not* want to do in the Balkans (bad tank country), which also, of course, provides lots of good cover for ambushes. All in all, a first class major, inarguable screw-up if we go in there. And if we pursue the nuclear option, well it's time we all really should consider a full-scale no holds barred revolt in this country instead of sitting around on message boards talking. Oh, and of course, we don't have enough troops or hardware to pull this kind of thing off.
• mk1gti: Thank you I feel much better. Those are sound arguments. Doesn't necessarilt mean that Bush et al sign up to them ...
• Wipe the chin, Fes. Let's see, Condaleeza Rice.. you can't come up with any more names? Ok, she's not an outed fundie, but is she crazy? Well, I dunno, but she's Bush's yes-woman (he calls her 'the fixer') & arguably incompetent. When the revelations came out about the hi explosives that Rummie left unguarded in Iraq being looted, she said on CNN or some-such "I don't know, I was only told about it last month" - this is 6 or more months after the fact. I was left wondering what her job actually was. Now, aside from your ad hominems, my questions still really stand, which influential members of the cabinet that have Bush's ear are not avowed religoids or not whacked-out? I put it to you that of those who are not 'crazy' (ie, out of touch with reality, see: Rumsfeld) or incompetent, the rest are not given much attention by the central core of the administration. This is why one of the only experienced members of the admin was booted out: Powell. He dared go against the party line, lot of good it did him, yet he is one of the most experienced in his position to make policy on these sorts of matters. As for advance information, I don't know what you're talking about. I look at the map, I follow the news, I read the politics as much as I can stand, I try to understand the issues at work in the middle-east. Really, if I were running this war, I would want to kill the body so the head will die. The insurgency in Iraq is not lessening. The bloodletting continues, the assassinations continue. The President asserts things which cannot be massaged into confluence with reality. Iran, without much doubt, is supporting the insurgents (it's in a vice & its people bay for blood vengeance) & has a long hatred of the US. This is a fundamentalist regime. The US has already made many gestures in its direction, & pundits are not holding back in predicting it as a next target. Look at the map. I say again, do you really believe that the US administration will not do anything in the next four years, just hold tight? Really? Afghanistan & Iraq are separated by one country, Iran, which also happens to have great oil reserves & thus power in Opec. You think Bushco will let them be? I don't know whether Bush will go into Iran but I think it a high likelihood. I predict nothing. I said the likelihood of Iraq being a cakewalk, in the months before it happened, were nil. I predicted there would be no WMD, on my blog, when it existed. There were none, & it has not been a cakewalk. What I see now is Bush stuck between a rock & a hard place. He needs, right now, to cut down on US casualties. How does he do that? What would Bush do?
• I was also checking on some other information over the weekend and it goes something like this: China recently signed a 200 billion dollar oil deal with Iran. India has signed a 40 billion dollar oil deal with Iran. A lot of the european countries are signing multi-billion dollar oil deals with Iran. How do you think all these countries are going to react if we go sticking our nose into their multi-billion dollar deals and interupt their oil supply? By the way, the Iraq pipeline is nicknamed 'the flute' these days because it has so many holes in it from insurgent attacks. . . We've gone from a nation of freedom and democracy to a nation of arrogant, incompetent bunglers. . . So tell me again, based on this, why does such a nation deserve to have democracy? It seems that in the world's best interests perhaps it should have those freedoms removed for the good of all, re-made so that religious zealots and theiving swindlers should never be allowed to have control over anyone or anything ever again. Democracy in this country needs a rest...
• Or perhaps democracy in this country needs to come back, never to be interfered with again. We certainly cannot be called a 'free' country now. There is nothing representative of the nation and it's people that is occuring around the world now. Where, oh where, is the left-wing militia when you need them. . .
• Wipe the chin, Fes. Sorry about that. I'm not naturally frothy *wipes* Let's see, Condaleeza Rice.. you can't come up with any more names? Well, Secretary of State is sort of a big one! I imagine I could - I don't think the cabinet is overwhelmingly religious, just in the past has had a couple of really loud ones, along with Bush's own assertions of evangelical Christian thought. Ok, she's not an outed fundie, but is she crazy? Well, I dunno, but she's Bush's yes-woman (he calls her 'the fixer') & arguably incompetent.... "I don't know, I was only told about it last month" - this is 6 or more months after the fact. I was left wondering what her job actually was. Incompetence is different from crazy, and I'd agree with you (hell, Nostril, I agree with you on a lot of this) that this administration (Rumsfeld in particular, whom I think was miscast badly as SecDef). However, we've seen that this administration tends to circle the wagons when faced with situations like the unguarded weapons, which should have been taken care of by Rumsfeld. Rice's statement there seems like that sort of circling to me. I'm not sure that Powell was fired, per se, and we've seen a high turnover cabinet rate (which it typical for second terms) well beyond him, even extending to the one person (again, Ashcroft) who could really be cited as a religious fundamentalist. It's very difficult to gauge who does and does not have influence on the president, and from what philosophical precepts they advise him. It could be that you are right, but neither you or I have any way to declare it, or the opposite, as incontrovertible fact. I make my claim based on the idea that, to obtain a cabinet position, one cannot be crazy. Demonizing one's opponents is a time honored tradition, but it doesn't often bear out as truth. And as for Powell being one of the few members of the admin with experience, I'd disagree. Rumsfeld himself was been in politics since working for Nixon, Cheney since beyond that. Experience does not automatically connote competence, though. The insurgency in Iraq is not lessening. The bloodletting continues, the assassinations continue. True. But I would venture that the insurgency has shown that it is becoming more desperate as the elections loom, as shown by their (relative) reluctance to target US forces in favor of targetting Iraqi police, who are far less capable of defending themselves. That would indicate to be a lessening, rather than strengthening, of their resources. do you really believe that the US administration will not do anything in the next four years, just hold tight? Really?...He needs, right now, to cut down on US casualties. How does he do that? What would Bush do? Against Iran? I don't know. I don't believe this is entirely about oil, and while I concede that the Iranian have no cause to love the US, I think the Bush administration would be pleased as punch to exit Iraq. I personally think he's banking on the Iraq election to give the US a plausible mandate to leave. Bush has stated in recent weeks that he wants domestic issues to define his second term, and I think he would like nothing more than to be able to leave the middle east. And I apologize for the shots, Nostrildamus. So tell me again, based on this, why does such a nation deserve to have democracy? To quote Clint Eastwood: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." I, for one, am not so willing to self-flagellate my and my fellow citizens' rights and franchise away on the actions of a single administration, however unpopular. America, however, will survive the current administration, and the events of the past few years, while we all like to think that we live in the most interesting and important times ever, are when compared against even relatively recent world history not hugely exciting or world-shaking.
• NOTE TO PEOPLE OF THE WORLD: I, squidranch, have nothing but contempt and disgust for the idiots currently occupying national office (president, presidential cabinet, most of congress and most of the supreme court). I tried, and tried mightily to get the fuckwads out of office last November. So, if you do decide to pre-emptively attack the US, I would appreciate it if you could please spare my apartment building. Actually, if you want to bomb my pain in the ass next door neighbor Sunny Smith, that wouldn't be so bad, but try to avoid #15 which is where I and my cat Bert live. Sincerly, Squidranch
• Where, oh where, is the left-wing militia when you need them... The Phillipines and Nepal, just now.
• One of the things that frustrated me with the media and with John Kerry was that talk of the justification of invasion of Iraq was all about what sort of weaponry they had. No one was talking about whether it was a good idea for the US to be invading countries that were not attacking the US or any othe country at the time. My biggest problem with Iraq is that I don't think that the US should invade any country "pre-emptively." Now it seems to be settled that "pre-emptive" invasions are okay. It is honestly horrifying to me.
• Let's get back to reality, shall we? The linked article outlined the existence of *plans* of strikes against Iraq. Plans. That's what military planners do...they make plans all day. I bet if you looked in the Pentagon file folders you'd find similar plans for strikes against Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Germany, France, and Canada. Hersh says the plans are for quick air strikes or short commando raids. Nobody said anything about a full-scale invasion. These air strikes would be similar to those made in Iraq back in the Clinton days, and (again...from the article) would be made to dismantle or disable suspected weapons programs or delivery systems. That's what should be discussed here...but if you want to talk about how the entire executive branch has been taken over by fundamentalist zealots bent on ushering in the prophecized end times, and how they need to be overthrown by bloody revolution, well, then please continue.
• U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke an uprising by Iranians against the hard-line religious leaders who run the government Yeah, because nationalities always turn on themselves when an outsider attacks their family. Sure! That's the ticket! No better way to encourage the growing and inevitable reform movement of Iran's modernizing society than bombing them. What? All those people in Iraq who joined the insurgency after we invaded? Those were fake secularists. If we hadn't invaded they'd have been joining Al Queda any day now anyways. We just get to deal with them directly now rather than having to wait for Saddam to soften them up.
• Iran has also said that if they think the U.S. is engaging in any 'pre-emptive' action they will not sit quietly and let it happen. They have stated that if they engage in their own pre-emption that it will involve launching missles against the airfields and bases in host nations (U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel), engage in air strikes against military forces in Iraq, ground warfare against these military forces, launching cruise missles against carrier battle groups, invading Afghanistan with it's own military, etc, etc. ad infinitum. I think you get the picture. Unlike Iraq, which was largely toothless after the first persian gulf war, Iraq actually has the capabilities to pull all this off. I don't really see our 'allies' pulling our chestnuts out of the fire if any of this kicks off. And again, if such a thing were to occur, this countrie's bozos would feel they had an excuse to exercise that 'nuclear option'. Iraq was turned into a pariah after it's invasion of Kuwait, imagine what the world's reaction would be if this country launched nuclear weapons against a country it had launched a pre-emptive war against while completly bungling the one it's involved in now. Oil embargo, anyone? Do we all have our bicycles stocked away and ready for use? I've got mine. Have you got yours?
• I don't get it...don't we use nuclear reactors to make electricity and stuff? Does america actually believe that Iranians don't need electricity that much? WTF.
• "I would venture that the insurgency has shown that it is becoming more desperate as the elections loom, as shown by their (relative) reluctance to target US forces in favor of targetting Iraqi police, who are far less capable of defending themselves. That would indicate to be a lessening, rather than strengthening, of their resources." This is a logical assessment, which I had not really considered. You are correct, the assassinations of native officers is indeed a sign that the opposition has shrunk to much lower levels than outright military engagement. This, in the long run, is a good thing for us. "I don't believe this is entirely about oil.." No, I absolutely agree, oil is hardly the main focus of any of this, it is more like a nice benefit on the side of the main gains. The main focus seems to be occupation of strategic territory in the Mid-East to balance losses in the late 70s, on top of a desire to suppress the fundamentalist Muslim sects. Whatever other outside benefits or future goals that are planned may be beyond anyone to anticipate, & whatever actual political goals or theories really motivate any of this, is beyond me. "I apologize for the shots, Nostrildamus." - And I apologise for being an asshole. I admit I have been one, the last couple of years have been heavy for us bleeding-heart artists (no irony), & I have only just begun to get myself together. I value your input & do pay attention to your posts, even if I sometimes seem to dismiss them. Intelligent minds yield assets, & now I believe it is up to people that care about these things to get rid of partisan stance & work together to a unity, to bind us all together in one focussed goal, because everyone here is gonna have to deal with the results of what is going on right now, no matter what. Arguing has gotten us nowhere. America will survive the current storms, and so will the UK & Australia, & all those other nations that bound themselves to the current course. But whatever comes out of it, it may not be as influential or strong a union as it once was. I've long denied this, but time has come to realise we're in a new century. Change comes despite any of us. "..but if you want to talk about how the entire executive branch has been taken over by fundamentalist zealots bent on ushering in the prophecized end times, and how they need to be overthrown by bloody revolution, well, then please continue." I well understand the healthy skepticism that creates this sentiment. Under normal circumstance, I'd agree, or be the one saying it. But if you look at the foreign policy of the US under Bush & his supporters, those that are actually planning the actions, that go back more than 3 decades, a different sense emerges. An impression of people that want to change the world according to some grand, untested design. And really, its hard to understand what goal that design follows, since it appears totally out of synch with modern socio/political understanding. It seems like a reaching back to some old order that has nothing to do with modern life, but is that just how it appears? The Pentagon & the top brass are bound by oath to what their leaders command. At the end of the day, their oaths outweigh their feelings, their knowledge, their projections, especially in an administration like this which seems to promote people based on their willingness to present potential gains based on their bosses' beliefs, not upon proven results. Of course, appearances are deceptive. We just speculate.. but we have a right to, it's our future that's being gambled, right?
• And despite what many would like to believe, the Bush Administration is not populated in entire with religious fundamentalists and crazy people. They are politicians, and what's more they are politicians of *note* and that means they are used to thinking about contingencies and options. I can agree with your first statement (they're not all fundies and crazies), but have to disagree with your second. Most of our current problems in Iraq have been caused by the war planners' complete disregard for contingencies and options.
• That's why they should invade Iran, JoeChip. They fucked up the last war, now they have a chance to do one PROPERLY. But that's something you goddam peace loving trippy hippy commie poo-schlonkers just don't understand and why don't just just move back to BELGIUM or whereverthefuck you people come from goddamit this beer is makiin' me belch.
• *crosses fingers*

• "I would venture that the insurgency has shown that it is becoming more desperate as the elections loom, as shown by their (relative) reluctance to target US forces in favor of targetting Iraqi police, who are far less capable of defending themselves. That would indicate to be a lessening, rather than strengthening, of their resources." This is a logical assessment, which I had not really considered. You are correct, the assassinations of native officers is indeed a sign that the opposition has shrunk to much lower levels than outright military engagement.

  I disagree. US wounded and killed in action really doesn't look that good to me. Not enough to say that the insurgency has switched from US targets to Iraqi targets - I'd say they're hitting both. Any relative changes in casualties, I would suggest, is due to the greater availability of Iraqi targets. To put it another way, if we had the opposite situation, where US casualities were proportionally increasing, we would not say that was a good thing.
• Nostrildamus, regarding the statement below The Pentagon & the top brass are bound by oath to what their leaders command. At the end of the day, their oaths outweigh their feelings, their knowledge, their projections, especially in an administration like this which seems to promote people based on their willingness to present potential gains based on their bosses' beliefs, not upon proven results. It's not entirely correct. Basically, if a soldier, general, etc. feels that the order violates the Uniform Code of Military Conduct they have the option of disobeying that or those orders which would conflict with it. Case in point: The invasion of Panama to get Manuel Noriega. The original commanding general for that mission declined to carry it through as it would have meant violating the territory of a soveriegn nation (it was illegal) and he was replaced by someone who had no qualms about this. I think that many in the military on many levels are choking back a lot of bile these days and at some point it will spill over. What the results of that will be is anyone's guess, but I would not want to be one of many government officials on the receiving end of a well-armed military looking for revenge.
• "We had to save Washington D.C. by destroying it." -- words of an unnamed military official in the future?
• I'm with DangerIs on this one. mk1gti wrote: "[It] will involve [Iran] launching missles against the airfields and bases in host nations (U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel)..." mk1gti, do you think Iran would risk war with Israel and Turkey like that while fighting the U.S. too? On the one hand it makes good military sense, on the other the "hosts" are likely to get as pissed off as the Taliban did when the U.S. demanded they hand over Osama -- and with better reason. Who would Iran's allies in this World War be? I can't see North Korea doing much, and Syria seems to be looking for a face-saving way to surrender like Libya did. And while I too daydream about a military coup in the U.S., I'm not so sure it'd be a good idea. We might get a demagogic hothead like Qathafy or Nasser, or a right-wing junta as happened in Brazil, Greece, Turkey, and Argentina. I.e. the enemy of my enemy won't necessarily have my best interests at heart.
• mk1gti, do you think Iran would risk war with Israel and Turkey like that while fighting the U.S. too? On the one hand it makes good milita They're already at war with Isreal, and considering how unpopular the US is in the other countries listed, it's just a matter of how accurate Iran's missiles are. If they could surgically strike the US bases, without hurting the civilian population, then I think there's a good chance Iran would get away with it. That's a big bet on their missile tech though. Better hope those North Korean blueprints didn't have any printing errors.
• God, I love the quid...
• I don't really think anything, I'm just saying that's what I've read. I guess we all know how these 'religious fanatics' operate re self-destructive suicidal tendencies and such. And regarding a military coup in this country, at this point who really knows *what* will happen here. I'm sure everyone's in agreement that as much as we all know from what we've read about just about everything, there are still many, many imponderables. I'm waiting for space aliens to land and save us from all this.
• Since I'm needlessly speculating; here's another little bit o' speculation: leftie liberal types finally throw in the towel, say no more protest marches, let's all get together and take back our country the hard way, with good ole' fightin an' spittin; Bush calls out his right-wing militia nutjobs to help out in 'savin' 'Murica, lefties don't have a left-wing militia, so they get slapped down, sold into slavery, whatever... Not a pretty picture. In retrospect though, I really don't see Iran sitting by while we invade and make them our bitch like we've tried to make Iraq. Nope, don't see it happening. Whatever the Iranians do, it will not be pretty. Expect to see the U.S. military go from 1st world most powerful military to 3rd to 5th most powerful military almost literally overnight.
• Oh, by the way, does anyone feel like Yosarian in 'Catch 22'? I know I do . . .

• mk1gti, do you think Iran would risk war with Israel and Turkey like that while fighting the U.S. too?

  It's a MAD type strategy, and threatening to demolish Tel Aviv is the closest Iran can come to blowing up Housten. And besides, Israel already has a history of unlawful, unprovoked attacks on Iran. If pre-emptive self-defense is good enough for Israel, it should be good enough for Iran. As far as the likes of Turkey goes: tell me, if the US invades Iran unilaterally for no reason that makes sense to anyone outside the Bush presidency and its fellow-travellers, and Iran bombs Turkey to hit US troops, who do you think the average Turk is going to blame as the root of the problem?
• I think the only reason why Iran would engage in such a strategy as I've read about (remember, I didn't come up with this nor do I advocate it) is if they felt they really had nothing to lose at that point. As far as who the turks would blame, I guess probably Alexander the Great, after all he started the whole thing of western nations invading eastern ones, didn't he? I watched a documentary recently where the narrator was talking to an Iranian sheepherder who lived in one of the passes Alexander came through. Thousands of years later he said if Alexander were before him he would tear him limb from limb. Although if I were a turk (and this is just me, mind you), I would blame both parties; the americans for setting up their bases in my country, and the Iranians for bombing said bases and surrounding innocents. Of course, then again, I'm not a turk, I just play one on TV. As far as Iran thinking it's going to win anything with this kind of strategy, I just see it as a suicide ploy: they're trying to kill me so take down as many of the bsstards as I can before I go down. If you're going to die anyway, what the hell?
• er, what do the Turks have against Alexander? They weren't even in Asia Minor when he was around were they? ... I'm not trying to be snotty, I just don't know much about the history of the region.
• I think it was the Iranian shepherd who had the anti-Alexander complex. But the Turks probably would identify with their predecessors against the (other)invader: English people seem to identify with Boudicca against the Romans, though their ancestors were presumably somewhere in continental Europe at the time
• The War Nerd's Super War Preview