USA To Use Georgia As Beachhead For Invasion In Iran

For having contingency plans?

You have simply got to be kidding.

It would be an egregious breach of responsibility and trust by the President to not have plans in place at all times to take military action against possible enemies.

 

What is Wazzamattafou? I am learning the vocabularies.

 

It's hip hop slang for what is the matter with you? Or it's popular alternative, what is your major malfunction buddy? It's roots can be traced back to the 1970's jive.

 

No, if he actually attacks or invades Iran without any evidence.

 

"Topic: USA To Use Georgia As Beachhead For Invasion In Iran"

Well, you know what they say, everything goes through Atlanta...



(don't worry, I know it ain't THAT Georgia)

 

Poncho, thanks.

 

There were no WMDs in Iraq. Bush is lucky that he isn't impeached over that. To invade Iran when there is no proof that it is trying to even build a nuclear weapon would be simply the final straw. Bush would have to be impeached if this country had any sense left at all.

Keep saying it long enough, and people will actually believe it. With 75% of the documents seized from Iraq sitting in Kuwaiti warehouses awaiting translation, and suspected sites still awaiting inspection, and mounting reports that the WMDs were buried in Iraq and some moved to Syria, one cannot say "Bush lied, people died..."

In any case, his authority as CinC precludes impeachment for exercising that authority, especially since it was backed up by a Congressional Resolution. We've been over and over this, and the reality is -- no impeachment.

There will be no ground invasion of Iran. Air and naval power will suffice, supplemented by unconventional warfare units. The goal is not to takeover Iran, it is to stop its production of nuclear weapons before it attains the staus of North Korea, and that would make it impossible to stop. And this time, NATO will be involved.

 

Yep, for a moment I too had a vision of the US military's finest lined up on a beach near Savannah. (I guess that might chime in with Shrub's MO to date; Caligula getting the legions to gather shells, anyone?)

 

Okay, fine. No ground invasion. After we bomb all these targets, what happens next? What is the Iranian response? Do you have any idea how many Iranians are in the USA right now and what their reaction is going to be? Does anyone here actually believe muslims will not gather together in the USA and take up the cause of Iran and fellow innocent muslims killed during bombing? What makes anyone think if weapons are buried deep underground air strikes will wipe them out? These people aren't stupid and are we really naive enough to believe they haven't planned for the day they are hit with air strikes? I'll tell you what will happen in this country after we bomb Iran. Suicide bombers at McDonalds, at Wal-Mart, at any place crowds are gathered, for one thing. Then what? What is the post-bomb plan? Are we going to go in a nation rebuild? Is NATO? Is there anyone here who really thinks the muslim world is going to rally around the NATO or US flag and take up the cause of bombing Iran because they have nuclear weapons? Helloooo.

 

To attack or not to attack that is the question. Whether it is nobler in the minds of men to secure our own borders and shores or to control the whole of Eurasia and all it's sparkling resources contained therein both earthly and spiritual by Trotsky's perpetual revolution and America's smart munitions and nuclear right.

Well, hey it's hands down. Bomb first ask questions later. Our childrn's children can afford another world war so why not? And besides they'll end up with a spanking new world order that they can all look back and thank us for while their twisted brows and furrowed features toil night and day to meet their family dependency ratios.

If they survive from the contamination of the earth water and atmosphere that is. Yes my friends it's a brave new world indeed.

 

Don't worry, chaps. The Israelis will do it for you.

 

They're to busy planting spys and operatives in our homeland/government and lobbying our congress/military industrial complex to do it for them. Looks like we're going to comply with their wishes too.

Why risk your own blood when you can so easily deceive other fools into spilling theirs? That's a no brainer.

 

I didn't say it will be easy, but there is no alternative, short of Iran backing down. It is easier for us to disrupt their production cycle, much of which is above ground, than it is for them to protect it. We just need to set it back, while they are running out of time.

LE, there is a likelihood of the response you outline. But I also think that there are a number of moderate Arab states (not the best term I can find) that are scared to death of a nuclear Iran. They will help, although that assistance might be covert. We have no need to rebuild Iran, because we won't be out to destroy it. I know a few Iranian immigrants who work with my wife, and they woulr greatly prefer that the current regime in Iran be replaced with a Western-oriented one. There are a lot of young, educated Iranians who are more interested in building their economy, rather than nukes. No doubt there are radicals, but they might be challenged internally if we'd support them. Right now, they're too busy keeping their heads down, instead of fighting.

We wasted two years in fruitless diplomacy, as the Iranians anticipated, and now we have an even bigger problem to deal with than we would have if we'd confronted them earlier. And in the long run, they need their oil income (80% of earnings) more than we need their oil. Our economy has shown a great resilience (witness 9/11, hurricane disruptions, Iraq, the War on Terror, and oil shocks), and higher oil prices will drive us to conserve more, explore more, and find alternatives that are economically viable. Any major oil spikes (I can see $150/bbl oil) will be temporary. Remember how "they" predicted huge heating bills this winter, as a result of Katrina? And now, natural gas is 1/3 of what it was last fall? Oil is down to $60?

The fly in the ointment is China -- they have huge economic and energy deals with Iran. Russia would prefer a peaceful solution, but with their own Muslim insurgency in Chechnya, they will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, either. Still a lot of wild cards, but not everything is on the table, yet.

 

They're to busy planting spys and operatives in our homeland/government and lobbying our congress/military industrial complex to do it for them. Looks like we're going to comply with their wishes too.

Why risk your own blood when you can so easily deceive other fools into spilling theirs? That's a no brainer. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I don't know, they've done it before. And Mr Madmullah Ahmalooni or whatever his name is in charge of Iran hasn't exactly done his best to make friends with them ("There wasn't a Holocaust...but there will be.")

Watch this space.

 

I'll be sure to keep my tv tuned to the Rupert neocon channel for all the urgent propaganda er updates Matt.

Mr. Rumsfled has recently promised to pump up the jams. Goodie!

US lags in propaganda war: Rumsfeld

[ February 22, 2006, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: poncho ]

 

EL, you make some excellent points in your post.

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 12:30 a.m. ET by one of the Moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

Who, other than the U.K.?

No, it was Andrew Johnson, not Old Hickory, but close enough!!

Well, it is a bit of a stretch to believe that a brutal dictator who has used WMD's in the past on his own people as well as his adversaries would choose a spider hole if he had them......

Regards,
BiR

 

None of that had best take place at the moment since there is no evidence to prove that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon and no evidence to prove that even if Iran built a nuclear weapon that it would use such in a first strike against us or our allies.

 

Closed at 0730