Deja vu on DU: IRAN-WAR threads from one year ago.

oblivious

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-13-07 08:12 PM
Original message

Deja vu on DU: IRAN-WAR threads from one year ago.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tom Joad

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-13-07 08:14 PM
Response to Original message

1. Yep, we have had ample warning. Just like the aggression against Iraq.

We can't say we weren't warned. Thanks for the links.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

IndyOp

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-13-07 08:16 PM
Response to Original message

2. Better aware than not aware. Also - the louder we yell about the possibility,

the less they can do in complete secrecy, the most likely whistle-blowers will come out and loyalists will quit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

The Magistrate

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-13-07 08:21 PM
Response to Original message

3. And Worth Noting, Too, Sir, Is That None Of It Came To Pass

No matter how earnest or ludicrous the predictions essayed were, they were not borne out by events....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

oblivious

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-13-07 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. True enough. But why? Just sabre rattling? Wishful thinking? Incapability? Fear of consequences?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

The Magistrate

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-13-07 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #4

9. Some Things Come To Mind, Sir

First, there is no doubt that the Iranians are taking advantage of the opportunity we have handed them to exert great influence in Iraq through affinity with elements among the Shia Arabs there. Building up forces there that can to some degree be controlled through supply of arms and training and money is an investment in the future from an Iranian point of view. A normal reaction to this would be a bit of saber-rattling. The problem with that is that the Iranians have no particular reason to fear us just now, and can cause us trouble a good deal more cheaply and easily in Iraq than we can do to them in return.

Second, there are real psychological difficulties coming to bear on U.S. policy today, owing to the character flaws of the people at the top of our regime, and the unexpectedly and drasticly altered circumstances they now find themselves in. Bush has gone from failure to failure throughout his life, and his pattern is to move on to something new once a venture is in ruins after an initial stake is squandered. He and his bavkers, too, are now aware there is a real limit on the time in which they will be able to do anything. There is little room for doubt they have always wanted to "do something" about Iran, and until fairly recently, it was a decent enough bet that they could bring the people of the country along on the venture, as there remains a good deal of residual hostility dating from the humiliation of President Carter among the people of our country, just as there was a real sense that Hussein was 'unfinished business' from the '91 war. But it is clear the mood of the people has changed, and so has the mood of the Congress. Stampeding the thing through will not be easy, and does not look to me to be feasible at all. The question is, how much of this do the leaders of the present regime really recognize, and the danger is that they do not recognize it sufficiently to be dissuaded from the foollishness, but only sufficiently to feel they have only a short time in which to present the people and the Congress with a fait accompli that they feel others can only acquiesce in, and thus restoire their position. But this course would be for them a political calamity, and for the interests of the United States and its people a disaster, redeemed only by the breaking of the preent regine's politocal authority, and the crippling of their party for a generation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

oblivious

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-13-07 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #9

10. Sounds reasonable. How about Israel? A case of cooler heads prevailing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

The Magistrate

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-13-07 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #10

11. Israel, Sir

Has no sufficient means of directly attacking Iran without considerable U.S. co-operation. They are in a vexing position, in the long run. Given the general tenor of the mullahs' regime over the decades, no Isreali government could view its acquisition of nuclear weaponry with equinamity. While this is much more likely to occur in a decade than a year, it is a thing that is going to come about eventually.

So far, Israeli policy seems to be directed at trying to raise tensions over the matter in order to get action by other parties, chiefly Europe and the U.S., working through the Security Council, to take steps that will actually hamper the Iranian program, a policy the Iranian government seems quite happy to co-operate with. But all that can be secured is postponement of Iranian acquisition of nuclear arms; indeed, even a U.S. military strike, or a U.S. assisted Israeli strike, could not achieve more than that. It is hard to think the Israeli intelligence services and political and military leadership do not know this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dover

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-13-07 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. ...........YET. ............sir.

It is clearly a possibility. Plenty of evidence for that. The WHEN is as unpredictable as the IF.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

CrazyOrangeCat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-13-07 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. Absolutely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

The Magistrate

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-13-07 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. Certainly It Is A Possibility, Ma'am

It may even be an intention. But even that falls well short of making it a certainty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dover

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-13-07 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #7

8. Indeed. And we need to keep it that way by taking the evidence seriously.

Edited on Sat Jan-13-07 08:53 PM by Dover

As I'm sure Iran and Syria are doing as well..........sir.

And what harm do you see coming from this position?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

oblivious

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-14-07 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #5

12. Yes, there was the same sort of inaccuracy in predicting the date of the Iraq attack as I remember.

But the talk of attacking was just as open as it is for Iran now.

Events leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&general_topic_areas=predictions

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon May 06th 2024, 08:58 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.