Is the Bush administrartion trying to set up a case to go to war with Iran?

[nowensone]

There is diplomacy and then there is being principled, a country (and a person in general IMO) should have some balanced mix of both. So in a vacuum, it should not matter if Russia sided with Iran, if we had a legitimate reason to war with Iran then we should also risk war with Russia, but that is of course completely moot and irrelevant to Bush, and would only apply to a different president in a different time.

[Choirboy622]

If he attacks Iran it will be with no public support and it will completely destroy any hopes that Republicans have of winning the presidency in 2008 or gaining any seats back in congress.

[Spartan]

Any evidence that the government is complicit? The notion that Iranian-made weapons were smuggled in (which is itself still unproven) in no way implicates the government, as the Bush administration is implying.

I'm not saying Iran is a beacon of honor and liberty, or that Ahmedinejad is a good leader. However, nothing I have seen warrants the aggression our government is showing Iran. As I mentioned above, our own "allies" in Saudi Arabia have done more to undermine our interests in Iraq than Iran has. It is no secret that many people in the administration want war with Iran, and have for a long time. They are now manufacturing a pretext for such a war, and gambling that the American people won't remember that they played EXACTLY the same games before the Iraq war.

Spartan (and anyone else who doubts the administration would attack Iran), you should be aware that the US Navy currently has two carrier battle groups posted off the Iranian coast, with a third on its way. We didn't position three carrier groups in the gulf on the eve of the Iraq invasion, so why do so now?

[cityboi]

Any war with Iran should be out of the question. We cant even contain the situation in Iraq and going war with Iran would expand the mess and inflame the situation. Lets not make the same mistake twice. There is already a perception in the middle east that the United States is fighting against Islam. The Iraq war has been labeled "the worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. history" and I agree. we've made a mess in Iraq and now we dont know how to get out of it. Of course Ralph Nadar can be blamed for all this because if had not run in the 2000 election, Al Gore would be our president and we wouldnt have never invaded Iraq. Some say its a good thing because we got rid of Saddam. The problem with that is that removing dictators from power leads to an unstable government and very long term U.S. involvement that cost American lives. There are alot of dictators just as bad as Saddam that could be removed from power. We could have gotten rid of Fidel Castro if we had wanted to but we didnt. Its not our place to try to police the world and tell the world what to do just because we happen to be the most powerful nation in the world. We just have too much damn arrogance and one day it may come back to haunt us.

[JDC]

I watch/read the news, but I'm not convinced that war with Iran is going to happen just because some boats are moved over there. Iraq is located right next to Iran, and Afghanistan is more accessible. Bush has gotten himself and our country into a sticky situation with Iraq, and I dont think expanding a war -when you cant even get congress to agree with sending additional troops to support the current war- is politically possible.

[Spartan]

The invasion wasn't justified, but I think we are justified in staying there for now. We messed up the kitchen, so now we need to clean it up or else the rats will move in. Its that simple. I don't think we will need to be there much longer anyway.

[seicer]

Iran starts war games

[nowensone]

The invasion wasn't justified, but I think we are justified in staying there for now. We messed up the kitchen, so now we need to clean it up or else the rats will move in. Its that simple. I don't think we will need to be there much longer anyway.

[Gusterfell]

How's this for treasonous? Apparently the Bush administration's strategy for containing Iranian influence, along with that of Hezbollah, is to fund al Qaida-linked terrorist groups without the oversight or knowledge of Congress.

I suppose this means the War on Terror is over. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

In other news, any attack on Iran would likely lead to an unprecedented wave of resignations by the military's top brass. Expect Cheney to start calling the Pentagon leadership "unpatriotic" any day now.

[nowensone]

Treasonous maybe but no way to make it stick. Covert operations did not give funds directly to Al Queda or linked groups that can be proven and so that will of course be Bush's defense against any charges, namely that the chaotic situation in Iraq has led to some "loss" of money and/or corruption in it's dispersal.

The great aspects of this story (from the thinkprogress.com link) are the subscriber comments following it, such as "if Bush survives this he can survive anything" (where have we heard that before?) and "The civil war in Iraq will end when the Sunnis and the Shi'ites realize that they are being played against each other by the U.S. and Israel."

Since you could argue that political boundaries in the Middle East were devised in such a way following World War II to create chaos, it seems to fit into the grand scheme to foment more chaos as the story suggests. The parallel to the Iran/Contra affair is devious, (involving some of the same people in the administration today), and to me gives credence to some of the wilder conspiracy theories such as Bush allowing 911 to happen with full knowledge. I only said "gives credence" - I'm not quite ready to believe Bush is actually the antichrist, but we'll see.

[michaelskis]

I have nothing against Iran. I have some Iranian friends... their president on the other hand is a modern day Hitler, and he will have to be taken out at some point. I don't think that Bush will be the guy who will do it.

What does Hillary think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

[monsoon]

their president on the other hand is a modern day Hitler, and he will have to be taken out at some point. I don't think that Bush will be the guy who will do it.

[Captain Worley]

I have nothing against Iran. I have some Iranian friends... their president on the other hand is a modern day Hitler, and he will have to be taken out at some point. I don't think that Bush will be the guy who will do it.

[monsoon]

You're right. I don't think Bush will do it. I have a feeling that the Israelis will strike against Iran if their president keeps up with his rhetoric. The interesting question is will the US have intel on the attack before it happens, since the Israels will have to fly over US controlled air space.

[cityboi]

How's this for treasonous? Apparently the Bush administration's strategy for containing Iranian influence, along with that of Hezbollah, is to fund al Qaida-linked terrorist groups without the oversight or knowledge of Congress.

I suppose this means the War on Terror is over. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

In other news, any attack on Iran would likely lead to an unprecedented wave of resignations by the military's top brass. Expect Cheney to start calling the Pentagon leadership "unpatriotic" any day now.

[Gusterfell]

You're right. I don't think Bush will do it. I have a feeling that the Israelis will strike against Iran if their president keeps up with his rhetoric. The interesting question is will the US have intel on the attack before it happens, since the Israels will have to fly over US controlled air space.

[nowensone]

I wonder how many of our soldiers recognize or think of themselves as "bait"? That may be a terrible thing to say, but it seems the mentality of our leadership. At times there is an equation in which there is a net positive result from the sacrifices of others, but I'm just not seeing it in a war with Iran (Iraq having long since passed that point).