A persuasive case is being made once again. No one seems to be adequately thinking about what comes next again. The stage has been set to make this happen before president Bush leaves office, and perhaps before the general election, when it might most influence that outcome.

Hillary Clinton has long been on board. It is obvious she believes other options are unlikely to work.

The new neocons have long supported it. He doesn't mention the cost of occupying Iran afterward, or an alternative to occupation.

And now they have what they believe to be the perfect reason and the perfect model for how it might be sold to the public and carried out with the bombing of the Syrian nuclear site.

It seems a cold war is no longer sufficient, nor truly analagous. Russia was a direct military threat to the US yet we used diplomacy because neither of us could afford a hot war. So we can now afford a hot war in Iran.

I'll get right to the point without any reasons to my answer. No.

Hillary is wrong on Iran just as she was wrong on Iraq. She continually changes her mind when it helps her politically though, so she may yet alter her opinion over the next few days or weeks.

Well, Iraq has been such a brilliant success, why not? I mean, the Bush team have proven so wise and successfull in every other area, why not follow them off the cliff?

Does anyone else notice that all this is starting to cause a sort of background depression? So much has been lost in the last seven years, so much has been stamped into the mud, and so much mind-twisting things have gone on that are simply unjust and wrong, that I find myself increasingly aware of a background hopelessness and anger that adds to any tendancy toward depression. I'm not sure things can even be fixed; is the best we can hope for a mere slow-down of a decline and fall? (I've just finished reading Gibbon - no comfort there... )

My senior yearbook predicted that I'd wind up living i my own world. Maybe I should?

Nat

Hi Nat, I'm a lot older than you, I imagine, but I felt the same way in 1992. I was not long out of college, and had lived through eight years of Reagan and then four more of Bush I. I know I was not the only one who felt a sense of hopelessness and anger, of wondering if was going to be possible to get the people in office out of there. A lot of people were adrift then, underemployed, just wondering where we were heading. (Cf. Richard Linklater's film Slacker for a glimpse at that moment.) At the end of the Bush I term, the country entered a recession, and it was particularly hard on recent graduates, young families, and so on. Employment went from about 5.4 percent to about 7.4 percent (it had gotten as high as 10 percent in the middle of Reagan's terms).

Things were not as bad overall, at least from a governmental standpoint, as they are now, certainly, though Bush had been involved in Iran-Contra and had a raft of his own scandals (the Savings & Loan debacle, which involved John McCain; the much larger deficit that Bush I left than he'd publicly claimed; etc.), but in some ways things globally were as unstable, as the Soviet Union had collapsed and there was a lot of uncertainty about how its satellites and former republics, many of which were and are armed to the teeth with nukes, especially Russia, would go. Clinton and Gore, both of whom were young, not especially polished, and not especially liberal, did appear to be a fresh change from the Reagan-Bush legacy of wars, deficits, economic stagnation for all but the very rich, etc. It was a tenuous election in 1992, but Clinton and Gore did win, took office, and began the process of turning things around. So don't lose hope.

"Hi Nat, I'm a lot older than you, I imagine..." I wish! I graduated from college in 1971...

Yes, there is reason to hope, and I do - but I tend to think that we're a lot deeper into a lot more holes than we were when Clinton came in (I was elated when he did): the erosion of our international respect, the wearing away of our justice system, the dramatic increase in the difference between the obscenely rich and the rest of us, the decay of the infrastructure, the attrition of the dollar... It can be done, but it's a helluva job for someone, who will have to combat so many vested interests and entrenched powers...

Would someone who really tackled the oil industry, etc. even survive?

When I graduated from high school (in 1967!) there was so much hope and confidence. –(In our year book by the way, the prediction was that I'd be living in my own world by about now. Might be a good idea! It’s just not there anymore.

At the risk of starting a tangent, I don't see three of the most fundamental problems being addressed; granted, they are long-term, but they are at the root of recovery:

1) Over-population
2) Real education
3) Responsible media

A good deal of our problems relate to the first (pollution, over-use of resources, starvation... ) (which really amuses me when right-wingers get started about how gay people don't contribute to propagating the race, etc.)

Real education would, eventually, one hopes, produce an electorate which would have more sense than to vote for idiots and short-term fixes. But it’s a long-term solution which lacks glamour and funding.

And are responsible media even a possibility any more, with corporate goals trumping controversial debate/news and more and more media in the hands of fewer and fewer?

But that's just me...

You did make me feel young for a few moments, though!

Nat

Bomb Iran, absolutly not! Nuke Iran? Hell yes. Wipe them off the planet before they nuke the U.S. And we all know they would now if they could.
And while we're at it, lets nuke North Korea and Venezuela. That should get the attention of China and others not to mess with us. We've dropped the big bomb twice before and we'll drop it again.
But we have to make sure we elect a republican for the White House instead of a bleeding heart democrat who will try to hug and kiss everyone to a mutual understanding and respect for each other.

If Shrub did do something, it would be the second biggest US foreign policy blunder OF ALL TIME, and I should think would guarantee a Democrat will take office in Jan. 2009! Just this morning on the national news I heard because the US military is so strained and drained by his Iraq quagmire, the Army accepted something like 45, 000 members which were basically branded " unfit for duty" otherwise. Isn't this special?

Are you for real? Do you understand what nuclear weapons would do?

Not really the kind we would want I'm afraid. What planet do you live on BTW?

I actually agree. We should nuke those places. And I have a few other suggestions. In fact, I have a Top 10 list.

The Top 10 Places the USA Should Nuke:

10. France. Because, deep down, they still hate us and always will.
9. Crawford, Texas. But it has to be done tomorrow for maximum effect.
8. Darfur. All these news stories are too depressing. Let's just put them out of their misery once and for all.
7. Myanmar. Ditto.
6. Canada. Because they're better than us, and we can't be second to anyone else!
5. Mexico. Revenge for Montezuma's Revenge!
4. Wherever Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan are. Hopefully we get them stepping out of the same limo showing their lack of undies. That way we can use just one bomb and save money.
3. The Vatican. That'll stop those priests from molesting little boys!
2. The Ed Sullivan Theater. Because of Letterman every two-bit hack thinks they can come up with Top 10 lists.

And the number one place the USA should nuke............

1. Pluto. To shut up some of its stranger residents, like Baxion.

Excellent work JIP.

Joe - GREAT list! Too bad about Pluto, but it's not really a planet anyway, which means there are no consumers there, and presumably no oil - so to heck with it!

Nat

Yes actually, I am for real. My comment wasn't. For some reason all my political comments this week were from a devils advocate standpoint. I guess I've been in a rebelious mood lately. But in all the threads in which I commented on these ridiculous points of view, I've been personally attacked. 'What planet are you from', 'are you for real', 'Pluto, to shut up some of its stranger residents like Baxion'.
My point being, it's always the person being attacked, not his/her view points. And it's just not me, (in this case), but many posters on a variety of subjects. And yes, I'm just as guilty of this as are others.
Now if we can't respect the opinions of others, here on this board for example, where most of us have the same common interest and beliefs, then how can we expect our leaders to do any different. And we have all seen this day after day on the evening news.
I would have thought after all my posts in the past, many would have seen my entries and understood my views. On this point, I was wrong. In the future, I'll include, 'the devils advocate view', at the beginning of my posts. This way the opinion will be attacked and not myself.

[/quote]
This way the opinion will be attacked and not myself.
[/quote]

I wouldn't count on that Baxion.

Baxion, as one of the people really taken aback by your ironic post, I have to apologize for thoughts along the general who-IS-this guy? line. Perhaps I should have known better, but there are so many morons out there voicing bomb-em-do-dust attitudes, that it's hard to know when it's humor and not genuine idiocy.

That you were personally attacked is another issue. But when an opinion that dreadful is stated, it may be understandable that some react personally; I admit my thoughts were along those lines.

Anyway, apologies.

Nat

Actually Baxion I don't know you personally so I was making fun of your rediculous ("rebellous") post...not you. Nuking countries across the globe makes no sense for many reasons to most people on this planet. If you are "in the mood" to play devil's advocate, then you'll have to take the disagreements and criticisim as well. I can't cater to your moods any other way.

Used properly, some of these -- -- can usually give the reader an idea of what your point of view is. Otherwise, unless you're really consistent and you've posted a lot, you're going to get misinterpreted. You seem to think I, and others, are attacking you personally. Speaking for myself, I know just about nothing about you, so all I responded to was what was in the post.

It appears that Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert has come to the conclusion that his country must attack Iran before the USA general election for president.

The primary reason appears to be that he has little hope that the next administration will be as supportive of Israel's policies in the Middle East as the current one.

Israel and other nations have frequently forced the USA's hand by creating facts on the ground to compel support of their policies.

This may be a miscalculation on the order of the invasion of Lebanon in Israel's case.

The ability of Israel to destroy Iran may be real. But their ability to deter ongoing retaliation through guerilla war throughout the middle east is questionable. It could certainly draw the USA into an enhanced "War on Terror" that will cause the current situation to pale by comparison.

What is most disturbing is that high officials in Israel have concluded that the USA will no longer be a sufficiently reliable ally in Israel's defense. This despite Barack Obama's clear statement of a willingness to defend the state of Israel's right to remain a "Jewish state", though the USA itself is nominally multi-religious.

I just read a disturbing headline storry on CNN. If we loved Iraq, it sure sounds like we may like Iran. According to Seymour Hersh, Bush and Cheney are secretely preparing some kind of possible military strike against Iran before the idiot is out of office. The opinion of Shrub is to either have Iran attacked or their position on the nuclear issue stopped..before Bush is out of office. And its gets worse, according to Hersh the Congress has approved and/or authroized some $400 million for this "project." To no ones surprise, neither the Pentagon or the military would comment on Hershs' story. Dear Lord, it sure appears, here we go again. Its kind of hard to fathom, that the idiot in the White House has not learned a THING from his 5 years quagmire in Iraq. Or Cheney either it seems....

Just heard Hersh interviewed on the radio about this an hour or so ago.

I was a little surprised that Nancy Pelosi was one of the eight who apparently were "informed" about this and signed off on it. I don't think she believes he'll have time or the political backing to actually invade Iran. But Bush has hoodwinked and bullied Congress before: see Iraq.

Hersh seems to believe they are hoping to provoke Iran into some rash behavior that can be used as an excuse to invade Iran, and also that Israel is well aware that going on its own against Iran is not practical.

I personally think he may be wrong on both accounts. I don't think Bush & Co. will provoke Iran sufficiently to get them to act rashly given that they think they can wait this administration out and reacting rashly against these provocations would be suicidal. It is more in there interest to endure the attempts and wait to see how policies might change in a year.

But many in Israel claim to see Iran as an "existential threat". One does not always act rationally under that assuption.

I would not assume anything at this point. Least of all that any country in the middle east, including Israel, will act rationally.

It is an election year as was the case with the Iraq invasion. W and Co. have proven they are not above something despicable like this if it will help the GOP win elections (just ask McCain advisor Charlie Black). The GOP's aren't polling well, so they need some sort of desperate power move.

And now our dear Joseph Leiberman has joined the politics of fear campaign saying the US will face an attack in 2009 to test the President early on and of course John McCain would be the better person to keep us all safe and sound (and possibly a chicken in every pot).

Interesting how often Bush is mentioned in the wiki article on 9/11, yet Clinton not at all in the one on the 1993 WTC bombing.

Joe Lieberman makes a great deal of the supposed similarity of the two: occuring in the beginning of their presidencies.

But the differences are more telling IMO.

And I suspect that Bush could tell us a lot more about 9/11 than Clinton could ever tell us about the 1993 case.

That is, assuming he ever decides to be honest.