Comments on: Attack Iran

By: Paul Walter

Paul Walter — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:33:47 +0000

I respect Addamos reasoning. The info about this Rahm Emanuel answers a lot of questions, also.

So, they can wound Iran, but if they can't take it out, their problems will multiply because there might be a fair bit of money around to get 11/9 type operations up and running in retaliation. Wake up Americans, quickly.

Or is this really about enginering anothe roil spike?

In that case watch out for a recession.

As ever, the real problem is this evil nutter, Cheney.

It wasn't Rumsfeldt that should of gone, but this other mongrel. Perhaps he is dead meat already over Iraq and and its corrupt post invasion occupation as well as Abrahamoff, but he would be just the sort to drag civilisation down with him.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:50:01 +0000

An attack on Iran… Hard to imagine anyone being so stupid. Then again if anyone could reach the required level of foolishness it has to be Bush and Co.

By: Addamo

Addamo — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:44:07 +0000

That is not the problem Ranger Rick. The Democratic campaign was completely controlled by pro war lunatic, Rahm Emanuel , who refused to support or give money to any Democratic Candidate that was running on an anti-war campaign.

Consequently, nearly 60 Iraq war vets who were running anti-war campaigns under the Democratic banner lost, albeit by small margins, because they were outspent by their Republican opponents.

Stars like Obama and Clinton are not anti-war.

By: ranger rick

ranger rick — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:37:11 +0000

Here's the real problem: The need to have the Democratic Party run a candidate that has a chance of winning by more than the margin of error.

Till then we are doomed by the Democratic Party Leadership to suffer narrow margin victorys and not have a mandate for change..

Edwards, Clinton, Kerry, Gore? This is what we have to look forward to?

By: Addamo

Addamo — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:57:48 +0000

Attacking Iran was always part of the plan, and I'm sad to say it is almost a foregone conclusion. In fact, while Iraq was the geopolitical and energy prize, Iran was alwasy going to be the one the neocons most wanted to hit, at least from a pro Zionist position.

Even with his military in tatters, Bush and Cheney probably feel they have nothing to lose and that they may be able either be able to salvage their legacy or make up for the Iraq failure (or both) if the Iran attack lives up to their wet dream of victory.

By: leftvegdrunk

leftvegdrunk — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:45:17 +0000

Good question, wbb. I'm worried that the current stance toward Syria and Iran is aimed at provoking conflict, so that Shrub and they boys don't have to make the first move. Sadly, I get the feeling that war against Iran is on the horizon, although what shape it will take I don't know. I hope that gut feeling is wrong.

By: wbb

wbb — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:26:01 +0000

Trouble with these type of reports is that until something actually happens, you feel stupid to think that it could. Although in the case of Iraq I "knew" that the US would invade from very early in 2002.

Iran is a toss-up. Has Bush still got the power? It's a real question, I think.