Skip to main content

View Diary: Scott Ritter: Bush plans to attack Iran in June (273 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nil (none)
    Lebanon would (very generally speaking) welcome Americans to free them of Syrian domination.  And it wouldn't require the kind of invasion or occupation that we pulled in Iraq.

    In this case, Lebanon is already occupied by a foreign power.

    However, the Syrians do provide stability and Lebanon could easily fall back into chaos without a domineering hand.

    We just want to put boots on the ground in the Bakaa Valley (where Hizbollah (Iran/Syria) trains its black-ops guys).

    But I doubt we have any answers to Lebanon's intrinsic problems.

    The Oval Office: Because there are no corners, there is nowhere to make the President sit when he has shamed the nation.

    by BooMan23 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:21:37 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  OK Mr. Booman (none)
      Let's see if I follow:  They will bomb Iran, invade Lebanon pushing Syria out, probably bomb Syria too as a preemptive whatever, and control the the land of Hezbollah training?  Iran and syria will do ... what?
      •  I don't know if (none)
        we'll bomb Iran or not.

        I think everyone is focused on Iran, when they real game is in Lebanon.

        Iran and Syria can't do anything except commit terrorism, unless we invade.

        They won't come to each other's aid, and they won't send any divisions into Iraq.  Period.

        The most likely nation to put troops into Iraq is Turkey.

        Our preponderence of power means that asymmetrical responses are the only ones possible.

        And I believe we are more likely to use nukes that any other country.  We would rather nuke someone than pay $6 for a gallon of gas.  That's for sure.

        The Oval Office: Because there are no corners, there is nowhere to make the President sit when he has shamed the nation.

        by BooMan23 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:54:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lebanon (none)
          Thus the excuse to recall our ambassador?  We "bomb" Syrian troops in Lebanon?  Oh, nevermind.  Whatever Bush has in mind, it will have a terrible outcome is my guess.  
          •  asdf (4.00)
            No, not exactly.

            Think of it like this.

            Syria is causing trouble for us in Iraq.  The insurgency is using Syria like the Viet Minh used Laos and Cambodia.

            So, one obvious pressure point is for us to cause trouble for them in Lebanon.  Tit for Tat.

            The best way to do this is to unite/incite public opinion against the Syrian occupation.
            Again tit for tat.

            Therefore we arrange for the assassination of their most popular politician and blame it in on the Syrians.

            Or, if the Syrians actually did do this hit (an enormously stupid and self-destructive act) it was undoubtedly as a response to someone we recently killed.

            Lebanon has little strategic value to us, it doesn't even have a lot of resources.  But there are real terrorist camps there, and they do shoot rockets into Israel on a semi-regular basis.

            Mainly, it is something that France and Israel can agree on, and that makes it a win-win for us.

            The Oval Office: Because there are no corners, there is nowhere to make the President sit when he has shamed the nation.

            by BooMan23 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:19:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  A moment to pimp (none)
              My diary dealt with what I'm thinking may the ChimpCo plan coming to the fore linkon the issue of Syria and Lebanon.  What I fear is that Israeli involvement would inflame the ME more than it already is.

              Harriri is dead.  Regardless of the party responsible, this provides a near green light as you could want to invade Syria who in Roveian speak, "has been flaunting the UN resolutions" on its involvment in Lebanon.  Only a few months ago, the Lebanese wanted the Syrians.  Viola...now they want them out.

              Iran is in the sights.

              Why else send in Negroponte to his new post and formerly the person who organized the death squads in S. America?  Death squads can just as easily be used to work Iran over.

              •  Could (none)
                Iran be infiltrated as much as south america was in order for the death squads to work?  By infiltrated, I mean train opposing forces to do our dirty deeds.  Certainly there will no American troops -- they will use cutouts who can pass in that country, right?

                So they will weaken Iran from within, while bombing Lebanon and make nice with the French and Israel in exchange for them giving up the settlements, and ... and ... end point?  Not the rhetorical endpoint of peace, by the real world end point of gaining oil and power.

                P.S. thank you both for giving this help.  I am really trying to understand their end game here.  We know, or at least I thought so, that they want a change of leadership in Iran.  Do we not have anyone outside of this administration to talk to syria and Lebanon about what is happening? Or are they wise to this whole game plan.

                What saddens me to no end of course, is that the dems will be cowed into going along.  No way out.  Disagree and we, once again, are weak on defense.

                •  Iran is too complicated (4.00)
                  Imagine if this country was pretty much the same, but after Congress passed a bill and the President signed it, it went to an unelected board of Southern Baptists who could deem it un-Christian and disallow it.

                  Further, imagine that this council of reverends could deem certain candidates too un-Christian to run for office.

                  Lastly, (this won't be that hard to imagine) imagine that the armed forces and FBI were filled with Southern Baptists.

                  Our country would still work fairly well, but it would not go well for women's rights, and a lot of young people would feel pretty stifled.  

                  And after the reverends were exposed a la Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Rush Limbaugh... as total hypocrites rather than American patriots, the people would begin to get restless.

                  Nevertheless, we would not welcome anyone bombing our country, we would protect it against invasion, and we would not want to give up our nuclear weapons either before or after a revolution or war to remove the reverends.

                  If we want to prevent Iran from having a nuclear bomb it will require subjugating the country rather than merely changing the leadership at the top.  But, the real prerequisite for a country to have nuclear weapons, should be that they have civilian control of the military, and they have a democracy.  Iran can accomplish this without too much trouble because they already have good elections, and the people believe in the principles.

                  What we are trying to do is foment revolution in Iran, without appearing to do so.  But it is very tricky work.  It's also possible that we are thinking of using our little nuclear tipped bunker busters to destory their capability to make a bomb.  But that would be unlikely to succesfully destroy their program, and would backfire by eliminating any internal dissent in Iran.

                  That's my opinion, anyway.

                  No death squads.

                  The person who doesn't scatter the morning dew will not comb gray hairs- Hunter S. Thompson- (RIP)

                  by BooMan23 on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 04:14:45 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Why won't they come to each others' aid? (none)
          I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong.  If one of those two countries is attacked, the other knows that they are next.  So, they might as well come to the others' aid at that time, or wait and get picked off individually.  

          Just because these countries are located in the Middle East doesn't mean the people living in them are stupid.  

          In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

          by Asak on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 08:01:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What would be the point? (none)
            if they attack us outside their borders we will effect regime change, and we will take their resources to finance it.  Our shortage of troops make the use nuclear war much more likely, and our shortage of cash makes the occupation of oil fields much more likely.

            No one in their right mind would jump into a fight with the USA with conventional forces when they didn't have to.

            The person who doesn't scatter the morning dew will not comb gray hairs- Hunter S. Thompson- (RIP)

            by BooMan23 on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 08:29:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you start expending nukes... (none)
              Expect to die or live in worse poverty that any other third worlder.  Because that is exactly what you will become.


              The USA may be single most powerful nation on the planet but it does not match the rest of the planet.  If it comes to the rest of the world vs. the USA, the USA has had it.  And the US has pushed the world tolerance over the edge.  It is my perception that the worlds view of America is similar to that that DKos users have for the Republicans.  The US is currently a vampire feeding from the rest of the world - and has been for a long time.  That is why all this has come to pass.


              So far, most of the damage that the US has been doing has been outside of its borders.  Now that is no longer so - and USians don't like it much.  Well, imagine how the rest of the world feels, they have had fifty years of it.

              Truckle the Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae

              by Truckle on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 04:41:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  My point (none)
                is that Iran is not going to start a war of armies with America.  And they sure are not going to do so to defend Syria.  And Syria will not do so to defend Iran.

                First, the rulers who made that decision would be deposed, their countries left in rubble, and if they actually started winning, America would nuke them rather than retreat.

                This is the oil/energy center of the world.  It is not like Vietnam, because this area has real strategic value.

                The Iranians understand this.  They will not start a war with us.

                Terrorism and nuclear blackmail are the only strategies available to Iran and Syria.  And they are not much more promising.

                I say all of this with great sadness.  But it is my take on the state of affairs.

                The person who doesn't scatter the morning dew will not comb gray hairs- Hunter S. Thompson- (RIP)

                by BooMan23 on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 05:38:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Over confifdent.... (none)
                  My point is that Iran is not going to start a war of armies with America.  And they sure are not going to do so to defend Syria.  And Syria will not do so to defend Iran.


                  You hope so.  I don't think you realise how alienated the USA has become.  It may be they decide to stand together rather than fall together.


                  First, the rulers who made that decision would be deposed, their countries left in rubble, and if they actually started winning, America would nuke them rather than retreat.


                  At which point you would encounter nothing but the world's hate.  Using a nuke once is understandable, using one twice is a mistake.  For the US to be the only country to have ever used nukes and to do it three times, well, just what does that say about you and yourn.  You think the rest of the world won't notice?


                  This is the oil/energy center of the world.  It is not like Vietnam, because this area has real strategic value.


                  And South east Asia isn't?  Hmmm....


                  The Iranians understand this.  They will not start a war with us.


                  Nobody is suggesting they would.  You will start one with them.


                  Terrorism and nuclear blackmail are the only strategies available to Iran and Syria.  And they are not much more promising.


                  They seem to be the only ones open to the USA too.  Or at least what they are using.  I don't see promise there either.


                  I say all of this with great sadness.  But it is my take on the state of affairs.


                  I have similar sentiments.  By now everyone thinks I am anti-American.  I'm not but by God the US needs to see the suffering it has caused millions for decades. And stop it.

                  Truckle the Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae

                  by Truckle on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 06:26:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  How about (none)
                    you talk about the suffering that fascists and communists like Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot caused.

                    Be balanced and I'll discuss this with you.

                    The person who doesn't scatter the morning dew will not comb gray hairs- Hunter S. Thompson- (RIP)

                    by BooMan23 on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:09:55 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Who says... (none)
                      ...I'm not balanced?  Ironic perhaps.  But not unbalanced.  GWB faces more opprobrium than Pol Pot ever did because more people have heard of him.

                      Truckle the Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae

                      by Truckle on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:16:50 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site