The title of this article is a bit pre-emptive... The signs you describe are there, but to state "Bush agrees..."

 What gain would he have to attack Iran now?

by Peter Casier (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:10:01 PM

  (0+)

What better way to take everybody's mind off the economic meltdown of "free market" capitalism than with a war?

By the time the dust settles, everybody left will have forgotten that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, et. al. totally screwed up the United States.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:39:15 AM

  (0+)

..of the election and the Fema Police State instead!

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:58:46 AM

  (0+)

His grand father ignited WWII and got tremendously rich. His ancestors ignited WWI and amassed tremendous fortunes. This time around, however, the dividends are not guaranteed in advance. He is bound to lose because the world and the world's perception of America's intentions have changed. There is going to be a price to pay. Maps will be redrawn, but not to US's advantge. So, let us pray that the war will happen so as the US may finally have a lesson in proper conduct.

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 4:02:03 PM

  (0+)

L.A.?  San Francisco?  Boston?  D.C.?  Miami?  Houston?  NYC? 

Pick one. 

One of them will be nuked to smithereens if Bush is stupid enough to attack Iran.

by daveys (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 272 comments [20 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 6:13:17 PM

  (0+)

America is off limits for an attack by Iranian's rudimentary delivery systems. But a big US city might be nuked 9/11 style with Iran as the designated culprit. Remember that Cheney stole a nuclear warhead on August 29th 2007. And keep in mind that Rice's promise of a mushroom cloud still holds as long as she is around. 

So, yes. A big city will be nuked by the US's criminal government and the boogeyman this time is going to be Ahmadinejad.

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:12:25 PM

  (0+)

 here in America in the White House resides a lunatic. Bush is a mental disorder with delusions of presecution  and self importance.  one wrong move be this imbecile and boom the start of world war III. if this happens the wish is they blow Wshington D.C. off the map. Bush deserves everything he gets. blow him up to, along with all the other trash in the republican party. the only thing i dont like is many innocent people will die at the hands of this LUNATIC.

by vincent passiatore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 185 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:22:20 PM

  (0+)

If it were agreed that the first strike on Iran or any other country would instantly produce devastation on Israel and Washington, there would be no war on Iran, and perhaps no more wars.

Then, why not do just that?

by amazin (34 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 400 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:19:56 AM

  (0+)

In case you missed it, the title is a double entendre. I have no love lost for Bush and Cheney (see my articles), but I believe you to be an alarmist. Supporting that contention, your title is misleading.

Just about the last thing the U.S. needs, and Israel for that matter, is a war with Iran. Not even Bush is that stupid, and Cheney has lost influence, thank goodness. Please read Tom Engelhardt's article provided here:

click here I agree with him, although for a time I, too, thought we would attack Iran. I no longer feel that way. Let us not fool ourselves. If Israel attacks Iran, that would be because Bush gave the green light, and the whole world knows that. Bush would incur opposition from his own staff, the Pentagon, and the unmitigated wrath of the American people. His name would only be mentioned in hell.

If you really believe what you write, as opposed to writing for the mere purpose of sensationalism, you must have a hard time sleeping.

by Sandy Shanks (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:03:07 PM

  (0+)

There is only one reason that 1,000 bunker buster bombs are being "sold" to Israel, that is for use in Iran, Syria and Lebanon.  It is not a case of what we want to believe, but what is in reality happening. 

Stirling

by Lord Stirling (26 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 151 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:11:21 PM

  (0+)

My Lord, I printed this article for further study, something I have done with most of your articles. Upon further review, and I am going against my grain here - as a fellow writer I abhor personal insults - but you leave me no choice. You are nuts. You jump to conclusions that would embarrass world class broad jumpers. You assume facts not in evidence. You are very familiar with weapns systems and which country owns them, then you assume they will use them. As an example, the U.S. hasn't used a nuclear weapon since WWII. The Soviet Union never did. Yet you feel, dispite the peril, Israel will use the newly acquired GBU-39.  Incidentally, it appears that the moderate, Livni, will become the next PM of Israel, not the fanatic, Netanyahu. Again, you assumed, and you were wrong. Did you read the article I provided? Everyone here should.

My Lord, something you should know about the Iranian people. Although Iran is a theocracy, her people, particularly the forty somethings and younger are quite secular. They are not foam-at-the-mouth Islamic extremists. They like American culture, its music, its technology, are very much like younger Americans, and they like Americans, although not too crazy about the American government.  Iranians make that distinction, and many wish to be in America.

Israel? Let us assume that all your assessments regarding weapons systems in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the West Bank are correct. I have no reason to believe they are incorrect. One can easily assume that if you know all that stuff, so does Israel. Why, in the name of Heaven, would Israel launch an attack on Iran knowing that the response would be a missile and rocket attack from every quadrant, and oil-poor Israel would cut itself off from oil because of its own attack? Does that make any sense? 

The effect on America is for a later time. Suffice to know this. An attack on Iran by either the U.S. or Israel would be an unmitigated disaster. If Israel attacks Iran, it is because she did so with Bush's green light. Iran would view an attack by Israel as an attack by America.

And America has ground troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan well within range of the Iranian military.

Bush is dumb as a rock, but he ain't that dumb.

by Sandy Shanks (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments) on Saturday, Sep 20, 2008 at 8:49:02 PM

  (0+)

Hi Sandy, I have read the article you suggested by Tom Engelhardt and I am not convinced. He could easily be wrong. He could have made the same case about Iraq a few years ago, and yet, we went to war with Iraq. Most of his arguments that I could see are based on the idea that Bush and Cheney will not be able to justify that war with Iran. But this does not take into account that Bush and Cheney don't care about public opinion or the opinion of Congress. They never felt the need to truly justify themselves and they have never been stopped by anything or anyone before, not even Congress. The second main argument in my opinion is that the price of oil will go ballistic, and so Bush may be dumb, but not that dumb. The thing is, Bush is far from being dumb, quite the contrary. He is following and achieving his own hidden agenda brilliantly. And I feel he has proven time and time again that he does not care if the price of oil goes ballistic, if the whole U.S. economy goes bust and if America goes bankrupt. At any rate, he certainly helped a great deal in eradicating the middle-class. It is perhaps part of his agenda, whatever it is. Since, is it not obvious that most of his policies were leading where we are now? No one can deny that he has been acting very weird in the last decade, not following any kind of logic or reason we take for granted. So much so, many have questioned his sanity and the one of Cheney. Tom is based in a world of logic and reality, on assumptions and arguments based on what makes economical sense, and some internal logic that no one is stupid enough to want a Third World War. But what if Bush and Cheney want this war for some reason? What if they don't care about how much the oil costs in America? What if they don't mind or even have been planning this financial crash/depression? What if this is all an elaborate hidden agenda in the true Bush family fashion at the root of both previous world wars? Well then, none of the logical reasons of Tom would stand to re-assure me. I have read his article, now please read what the ancestors of George W. Bush and his actual family have done. It is a safer bet that the brother, son, grandson or great grandson is doing exactly the same, and the signs are there that he is: click here http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0208-05.htm click here Tom mentioned why we have all become alarmists, and I found his arguments quite convincing. We have good reasons to be alarmists. Somehow even the financial crash does not appear to me to be a stop to anything. I would like to think that no one can go to war when the country is going bankrupt, but you see, I think it is all part of the agenda, it was planned, and so nothing has changed, we are still heading towards a Third World War. We cannot ignore all the signs, and dear me, there are many and they are everywhere. Now, call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but so far many have turn out to be the truth or are certainly in the process of becoming the truth. We should at least consider all possibilities. As Tom said, everything is always still on the table, and going to war with Iran is something our leaders have confirmed many times recently as being a real possibility. We cannot deny that the American government will not hesitate to produce false flag events to achieve whatever goal none of us can see coming. And yet, as Tom pointed out, it does not make any sense, even from the oil's point of view, and it never did, since his arguments were as true months and years ago as they are today. It is perhaps a Third World War Bush and Cheney want, just like what Bush ancestors wanted and got. A well oiled war machine which will insure many profitable contracts to the war industry, of which they are all interlinked with. So at this point we can expect anything, if the lessons of history count for something. I prefer to see a few alarmists around here than having sleepy masses who will wonder what happened once it has happened. We're all on edge for a very good reason, nothing makes sense, something is going on, it won't just fade away unless we do something about it, like now. Or else we might live to regret it. And we will, we already do, as so much damage has already been done, and there's no end in sight. Better be alarmists and admit we were wrong once the multiple storms are over, than sleep though it all and wake up in hell. Regards, Roland Michel Tremblay http://www.themarginal.com/destructivism.htm

by Roland Michel Tremblay (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 40 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:26:00 PM

  (0+)

Thanks Roland, I almost responded but I am glad that you did, you said it better than I would have.

Tim Earl of Stirling

by Lord Stirling (26 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 151 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:59:39 PM

  (0+)