Comments on: Bush Plans To Attack Iran Before He Leaves?

By: Dick R.

Dick R. — Tue, 20 May 2008 22:35:29 +0000

At this point, its premature to make hard assessment of what’s going on. Neither Israel’s Army Radio – which first carried the story, or the Jerusalem Post, which launched the story online are particuarly reliable sources of info. And while the story cites a split in the White House – Bush Cheny, vs Rice, Gates as the prinicipal impediment to an attack, it’s also important not to overestimate this division. A primary priority for US military planners in any Iran attack scenario is degrading Iran’s retaliatory capacity in Iraq, which requires decisively neutralizing Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi militia – which has been observing a truce negotiated last week.

Today’s news about the Iraqi Army dispatching an estimated 10,000 troops to reoccupy Sadr City neighborhood in Baghdad should be viewed in this light.

By: TerenceC

TerenceC — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:05:12 +0000

Dos – it’s payback for the US siding with Iraq in the last Iran- Iraq war, nothing else. I am constantly amazed that people think Iran is the trouble maker here – why won’t you face the facts as they are, not as you wish they would be. Don’t bring our soldiers into this – it isn’t their fault their government doesn’t respect them or what they stand for. It’s the fault of the citizenry in the US for allowing this series of crimes to persist – by not speaking up and hammering their representatives they allowed Congress to fail in it’s duty.

By: Dos

Dos — Tue, 20 May 2008 18:12:45 +0000

They certainly seem to be providing an “imminent threat” to U.S. soldiers getting killed with Iranian weapons and explosives in Iraq, but hey…they were just stupid to service their country in the military, right.

By: djthedj

djthedj — Tue, 20 May 2008 18:00:57 +0000

Jimmy, you are truly delusional. THEY DON’T HAVE ANY NUKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

By: TerenceC

TerenceC — Tue, 20 May 2008 16:53:51 +0000

Ask yourself who would benefit if that happened and not only do you have your culprit, you also have the publisher of that article’s country of origin.

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Tue, 20 May 2008 16:34:48 +0000

…unprovoked…

Just give them the nukes already, will ya! Its like what Obama said. terrorist-supporting regimes + WMDs represent only a “tiny” threat to us because they dont spend a lot of money and their proxy militants aren’t heads of state. It is impossible for any third-world country to provoke us until after the planes go in and the flames come out.

I can stand in your front lawn, filling molotovs with gasoline by the carton-full, screaming “I am gonna burn your kike house down any second now,” but its not provocation until someone lights a match.

By: Jim S

Jim S — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:47:46 +0000

Obviously we wonâ€™t know until something really starts happening, but if Bush actually thinks he can start attacking another country seemingly unprovoked, even with surgical military strikes, he better get ready for a stateside backlash so intense it could nearly ensure the utter electoral devastation of the Republicans in the fall.

While I don’t think there will be an attack the section of the quote I put in bold explains why it wouldn’t happen until after the elections.

By: Avinash_Tyagi

Avinash_Tyagi — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:46:21 +0000

two words: Martial law

Why do you think he’s been promoting military people loyal to him and forcing out those not loyal