OMG--- First strike on Iran "gaining traction"

[TexasLawyer]

I hadn't seen this before today, and didn't know--if this article is for real-- that the Israeli code-name for the pre-emptive strike against Iran is "Project Daniel".

This is scary stuff, folks.

The article was posted on the homepage of Mothers Against The Draft.org

http://mothersagainstthedraft.org/

1st strike on Iran
'gaining traction'
Report urges U.S., Israel to consider
pre-emptive attack against Tehran

Posted: May 4, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM – With Tehran announcing it will shortly resume some nuclear activities in spite of ongoing negotiations with European countries, a private report that was issued to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urging an American or Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran has been gaining some steam here.

<snip>

In response to the growing Iranian threat, a panel of foreign policy and military experts delivered to Sharon last year a series of recommendations entitled "Project Daniel: Israel's Strategic Future," regarding Israeli pre-emptive action.
The authors of the plan, first reported by Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, a premium online intelligence newsletter, told WorldNetDaily this week their report has been gaining traction in certain high-level military circles.

"Decision-makers at the very highest levels of government in Jerusalem and Washington as well as NATO have been briefed on Project Daniel. Sharon last month carried our urgent message directly to President Bush," said Dr. Louis Rene Beres, Project Daniel chair and a professor of international law at Purdue University whose books and articles are routinely considered by military officials.

Project Daniel recommends that with Tehran now developing the infrastructure that could allow the country to go nuclear, the United States or Israel should strike pre-emptively against Iran's nuclear installations if the diplomatic track fails.

"The group suggests strongly and unequivocally that conventional Israeli pre-emption against selected enemy nuclear infrastructures now in development be executed as early as possible and – wherever possible – in collaboration with the United States. Where America may be unable or unwilling to act proactively against these infrastructures, it is essential that Israel be able and willing to act alone," says the report.

<snip>

[Jo March]

1. Oh, no. No, no, no, no

This cannot be happening. It just can't.

[Zenlitened]

2. That's a nutcase news source, isn't it?

A tiny speck of factula info, served up with heaping amounts of spin, fear-mongering, and right-wing lies.

[wiggs]

3. Doesn't congress have a say in this?

This action is tantamount to war I would think. Such action would not fall under the crazy authorization congress gave to Bush in 2003, so he would have to go back to congress, wouldn't he?

[jojo54]

5. I would certainly hope so.

And if congress votes for this strike, we can all hang it up folks.:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[orwell]

14. No

The unconstitutional commitment of US forces by the executive branch has been going on for decades.

Remember Vietnam?

[jojo54]

18. Ya know, you're right

OMG, why did you have to remind us????

The chimp is gonna get us all killed!!

[OneTwentyoNine]

71. Wrong,Gulf of Tonkin Resolution......

Ok,it was a put up piece of shit just like Chimps WMD but thats what it took to get Congress to commit to that War.

[Nothing Without Hope]

21. The obviously unconstitutional law was passed to "give" Congress's sole

power to declare war to the Prez. And he will use it, never doubt it. He can and will attack anyone he pleases, and they have been open about their support for pre-emptive strikes. This has been planned for some time.

[Sir Jeffrey]

39. All Congress can do under the war powers act...

is to seek consultation from the president anytime troops are deployed up to sixty days after they've been committed. Doesn't really make much sense to me, but that's the rule.

[rainy]

51. If it can be tied in with Iraq congress already gave bush cover

to strike Iran.

[PKG]

64. Why would Congress have a say in the actions of Israelis?

[OneTwentyoNine]

72. Sure,same Dems going to vote for that one? Clinton,Kerry, etc....

Or are they going to grow some backbone and say HELL NO??

[lala_rawraw]

4. Bullshit... Israel is no position right now

To play "dare a terrorirst" but the US might frame them nicely.

[liberaltexas]

27. Are you kidding?

Terrorists attack Israel daily. They are under constant threat and constant attack. Why would things be different if they hit Iran? Do you think that if they hit Iran then Iran will "really mean it" or something?

They mean all the threats and calls for distruction of Israel that they've made and that they continue to make. There are no Arab countries that are void of calls for the destruction of Israel.

[Bridget Burke]

41. Iran is not an "Arab" country.

Ready for the Crusade?

[manic expression]

54. YOU must be kidding

Israel has brought on the hatred you cite BY ITSELF. Due to its own despicable actions, it has received warranted disdain. Israel is CARRYING OUT constant attacks. They are only under threat from their own disgusting behavior, and the reactions thereof. The biggest reason Iran would have to develop WMD's is to level the playing field with Israel, which has MANY nuclear weapons. Iran has also said that it would accept any peace agreement acceptable to the Palestinians. If only Israel would give the smallest bit of respect to others, they might accomplish some progress.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[manic expression]

70. Umm....

I certainly did not miss the theft of land done by Israel. Those "unprovoked" wars were in response to Israel's taking of land. Do you know what happened during al-Nakba? I doubt it. The Zionist settlers began to make aggressive actions against Arabs/Palestinians, and after awhile, the reaction was inevitable.

If there has been "endless" concessions by Israel, then what do you call the West Bank? Golan Heights? The "Security" Wall (built far away from Israeli land)? Israel has made aggressive action against its neighbors countless times. They are occupying Palestine right now, and you foolishly claim that Israel is being defensive. If you would open up a history book, you would see that Israel made the first strike during the Six-Day War.

Don't forget that virtually all of the current states in Africa were created in the 20th century. Does that give some of those states the right to take land from the others? Does that give some of those states the entitlement to oppress other peoples? OF COURSE NOT.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[manic expression]

75. WOW. Thank you!

"If I had a group of people at my doorstep who constantly and intentionally tried killing my non-military citizens (women and children included) then I would exteriminate them."

That sums up your beliefs perfectly. Thanks for exposing yourself as a supporter of crimes against humanity. By that logic, you should also support the massacres in Rwanda and Sudan. You are completely confused and obviously wrong in every way.

"Personally I think they would have been just as justified in wipeing out every refugee camp that spawned a terrorist."

Thanks again! I love it when people do my work for me. Again, you just showed your sick beliefs to the world: you support genocide.

"However, to be less violent I think what Israel should do is just round up the refugees, put 'em on a truck and stick 'em on Jordan's doorstep. Let an arab state take care of them."

Umm...that's called ETHNIC CLEANSING. Your points are disgusting and base, just like the actions you support. People like you make me sick. Go think over your values and get back to me when you have an ounce of compassion or clarity of thought.

"Anyone who genuinely reads the history of Israel from some place other than a Palestinian text book can find concession after concession by Israel."

Then what, exactly, is the security wall doing ON PALESTINIAN LAND?!?!?! What are Israeli troops doing subjugating Palestinians? Why are innocents attacked for no reason? Why is it that Israel has settlements in Palestinian land? I'll let you think about that for awhile.

I believe you may be in the wrong forum. I don't think we support the extermination and oppression of a group of people here.

[johnaries]

40. just like they weren't in the position in 1981?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

snippet:
1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor
The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.
It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant.

With remarkable precision, an undisclosed number of F-15 bombers and F-16 fighters destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. WND is about as reliable as Sludge n/t

[TexasLawyer]

16. Their secondary sources are a little suspect...

The article cites to "Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin" as if this is an independent news source. But this is what the "Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin " says:

Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is your independent, online intelligence resource edited and published by the veteran newsman and founder of WorldNetDaily.com. Each week he taps his vast network of international intelligence sources to bring you credible insights into geo-political and geo-strategic developments.

Sorry, I didn't know that this was an unreliable source of news.

But I still can't help but think there's something to this, given the Sy Hersh and Scott Ritter stories corroborating US/Israeli plans to strike against Iran, and the demonizing propaganda on Iran flowing out of Fox.

[Norquist Nemesis]

20. I do think they are in the process of hyping up for Iran

and possibly Syria, as well. Unfortunately, Syria has some reinforcements having just put all of its troops back at the border upon leaving Lebanon.

Even though WND is not reliable, there is something to be said about these "whispers" going out to feed the base. Get them geared up enough and it won't be long till they're all screaming about the liberal media refusing to cover it. Then...voila!

So, what I'm saying is, while you can't wholly rely on the specifics of what WND and other favorite RW sources are "reporting", it's wise to keep track of the "message". Right now, it's "WAR BABY!!! HeeeeeHaw!!!!"

[jojo54]

7. This reminds me of a long ago commercial

Instead of "let Mikey eat it, he eats everything" it would be

"Let Georgie do it, he bombs everything"

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE THREAD - there is a lot of iinfo and it supports

this contention. The US media push is starting. I will try to repost in a more easily digested format in the next day, but for now, you need to read through the whole thread and look at the video parts and read about what is coming and what the consistent rumors are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1768708
Thread title: Is anyone watching Jerome Corsi saying Iran planning to nuclear-bomb {the US, presumably New York?}

[Nite Owl]

13. I saw that Corsi piece on cspan

last Saturday after Griffin was on. Some scarey stuff. He said that * would wait no longer than June. That was the date given by Scott Ritter and Sy Hersh too I think. That's next month! Israel would start and we would have to help.

[Nothing Without Hope]

19. Yes. And he's also trying to terrify people with tales of how Iran will

set off a nuclear bomb in this country - probably in NYC - the minute they get a warhead. It's "sleeper cells," see, they don't need a missle, the "sleeper cells" have it all set up. There is a planned TV ad campaign, Ariel Sharon and Rick Santorum have already appeared on Fox in a 60 min program on the "iran nuclear threat."

The links and much discussion are in the thread I linked to. The Corsi talk on CSPAN is apparently a rebroadcast of a talk he gave at the Heritage Foundation and that is available. Link in thread.

They want Bolton because they want to be sure their corrupt bully makes this war go the way they want. They do NOT want diplomacy, never have.

[liberaltexas]

29. While the threat to the US may be overplayed

the threat to Israel is completely real and totally unacceptable. I fully support their right to defend themselves from a country that has openly proclaimed their desire for the destruction of the Jews and Israel.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

23. Remember:

Jerome Corsi writes for, amongst others...


World Net Daily.

Joe Farah is a Lebanese Christian, as I recall. He has a dog in this hunt.

[wiggs]

24. Like our source Chalabi in Iraq? That worked out great for him. nt

[Nothing Without Hope]

25. yes, it's all incestuous. But we know that that's how the Bush cartel

likes to run their PR - nice and controlled, push the propaganda at the right time. Little of this is solid, but the rumors are consistent and the contacts of Seymour Hersh said invasion of Iraq was scheduled for June. Scott Ritter apparently said it too.

Very consistent rumors, all fitting together.

[barbaraann]

9. Iran is the "Lion of Persia." Daniel was in a lion's den.

http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/RUMOURMILL%20NEWS_Map%20of%20Oil%20Corridor%20-%20Iraq-Iran.htm

[jojo54]

10. And on another note

this "security scare" today near the W.H. is just another cover up 'cause they got wind of this organization spilling the beans.

[bloom]

11. At the very least

it is evidence that someone is trying to rally the right-wingers.

[orwell]

12. Emporer's Clothes

Let me get this straight. Now that we all accept "pre-emptive" strikes as the new coin of the strategic realm as defined by the lone remaining superpower, we must rely on "intelligence" to determine, Kreskin-like, the intent of another sovereign nation.

But at the same time we "admit" that the intelligence community hopelessly failed when it came to pre-Iraq war "information". So the cornerstone of pre-emption relies on that which we now admit is unreliable.

So the bottom line is, we now permit first strike for any reason we find in our political/economic interest, not only by us, but by our global subsidiaries.

So tell me again why this isn't naked aggression?

[Bridget Burke]

42. So December 7th will NOT live as a Day of Infamy?

Just S.O.P.

Another swipe at FDR.

[jojo54]

15. Anybody feel a draft?? I've got chills down my spine. n/t

[Chicago1]

33. DRAFT = POLIITICAL SUICIDE

CALM DOWN EVERYONE!!!!

We've already figured out that these IDIOTS start wars to make money or drill oil. THEY CAN'T START A WAR AND YOU CAN'T HAVE A DRAFT.

The American people have already figured out how this REGIME works.

Please relax.


Waiting for the IMPEACHMENT WHILE THE SCANDALS KEEP UNFOLDING
America's Work Stories
http://usaworkstories.blogspot.com
[e-mail]

[liberaltexas]

35. We could just level the place

With their backs against the political wall (draft), they could just choose to decimate and not occupy.

That's easy enough and we've plenty of ability to do so.

It's the ground wars and occupations that get ugly.

[Bridget Burke]

43. Leveling the place would not be "ugly"?

And you don't know what "decimate" means....

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sir Jeffrey]

45. No WMD= Political Suicide too...right?

Or so I thought in early 2003.

[Donailin]

49. actually, let them try to reinstate the draft

it will ensure the victory for the left all the more sooner.

[OneTwentyoNine]

73. Rigged up Voting Machines= Political Victory.......n/t

[Finder]

17. Well that explains why Bolton is being pushed...

if true, I mean.

[Nothing Without Hope]

22. Yes, the push for this is happening - see the thread I linked to upthread

The time frame is said to be June, which Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter also said.

They want Bolton, their corrupt bully who is in the middle of all these schemes. They do NOT want diplomacy, they want war.

[converted_democrat]

52. Finder.........

I honestly believe your right on. The only reason the are intent on putting Bolton in is so he can run it down the throat of the U.N. by either threat of disbanding the U.N., or offering to "forget" the oil for foods program. Just a guess, but I doubt I'm to far off.

[liberaltexas]

26. At least they genuinely have a reason

Since Iran and *virtually* all Arab nations are overtly and vocally comitted to destroying Israel then I see no reason why Israel should allow Iran any slack.

It's not a matter of IF, Iran threatens Israel, it's how much will Israel allow the existing threats to be carried out.

Wait until Iran is nuclear? WHY ON EARTH?

[liberaltexas]

28. Alternatives

Out of curiosity what would you see as a viable alternative?

Iran is not an acceptable steward of nuclear weapons.

[TexasLawyer]

30. For one thing

the US should not be trying to torpedo the EU/Iran negotiations.

For another thing, why must the US be Israel's pawn? We're already in Iraq doing Israel's bidding. Enough is enough.

[liberaltexas]

31. I think if Israel will do it, great!

However, Iran has made it clear that we're their enemy too.

I think the proper thing to do is let Israel wail on Iran though. Let 'em just decimate them and give them time to consider their stance on the annihilation of Israel.

I agree that diplomacy is preferable, even over an Israeli strike. However, the controls and oversight of Iran must be incredibly thorough and backed by real and terrible consequences if found in violation.

[wuushew]

36. Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons if it chooses

the only thing holding it back is the NPT which it can withdraw from any time and join other countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel.

If attacking Iranian nuclear facilities is legitimate then so to is an attack on Israel. To think other wise is subjective and racist.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasLawyer]

37. WWIII

Israel doesn't unilaterally get to decide who is in the nuclear club and who isn't. Iran also has enemies in the neighborhood and might legitimately need a defense (of the MAD variety). And that is even assuming that Iran will be using its nuclear capabilities for weapons.

And unfortunately, the lesson to be learned from the US attack on Iraq is-- "get yourself some nuclear weapons ASAP." We attacked Iraq, a country with a weakened military and no nukes (and we KNEW it), but left North Korea alone-- because N.Korea actually has nukes and its leader seems unstable enough to use them.

Wailing on Iran will be a highly provocative act that will endanger everyone in the Middle East, and eventually everyone in the world. The US has Iraqi bases and thousands of US troops in harm's way.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anakie]

46. Iran has repeatedly said they are not developing

nuclear weapons. Why is it so hard to believe them. Personally I find it unacceptable that Israel has nuclear weapons and I see them as more of a threat to use them than anyone else in the Middle East.

As a non American I find it incredibly hypocritical that no one is allowed to develop nuclear weapons except the US. And with an idiot like Bush having his finger on the trigger. And he wants to develop bunker busting nukes.

[welshTerrier2]

32. here's what the Dem platform says about Iran

source: http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

"Even as we have scoured Iraq for signs of weapons of mass destruction, Iran has reportedly been working to develop them next door. A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies.

The same is true for other countries that may be seeking nuclear weapons. This is why strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is so critical. We must close the loophole that lets countries develop nuclear weapons capabilities under the guise of a peaceful, civilian nuclear power program. We also need to strengthen enforcement and verification and make rigorous inspection protocols mandatory."

Mandatory inspections??? I wonder what they would find if the US had to undergo "mandatory inspections"??? Democrats, have we abandoned the idea of national sovereignty???

[liberaltexas]

34. Sounds good

Lets see them walk the walk though. This platform calls for us to "strengthen enforcement" with respect to mandatory inspections. Iran isn't allowing for this and the danger increases day by day as well as the boldness of their rhetoric. The situation is different than pretend WMDs and claims they were destroyed. This is a country that claims the right to WMDs and their intention to produce them.

If the EU talks cannot achieve mandatory inspections and controls on Iran and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they have complied (Mind you that's assuming that Iran would agree (which they haven't); then we need to have Israel deciminate their capabilities or do it ourselves.

The worst thing Bush has done with Iraq is undermine our creditibilty and readiness to deal with real problems like this and North Korea.

[welshTerrier2]

38. international law?

by what standard of international law do you enable either the US or Israel to launch a first strike against Iran?

is your standard that no nation should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons? no nation except the US?

or is your basis for an attack against Iran that they have attacked the US or that there is substantial justification to believe that an attack on the US is IMMINENT?

or is it that you think the US should be able to do whatever the hell it wants to do anywhere in the world?

i'm concerned about nuclear proliferation in Iran and in the US ... i'm concerned about massive stockpiles of these insane weapons in the old Soviet Union ... invading Iran is not an acceptable answer ... pre-emptive invasion is a violation of international law ...

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

44. Got some links to that bold rhetoric?

Why is Pakistan allowed to be nuclear? Iran is a democracy--albeit too dominated by the religious nutcases & the military. Pakistan is a flat-out military dictatorship. But Pakistan is our friend.

By the way: "Decimate" means to destroy 10%. The Romans did this to some conquered armies--it had to do with drawing lots. Remember the Meier Expedition from Texas History?

[welshTerrier2]

48. the two countries named to "decimate"

Israel and the US both have nuclear weapons ... is there an element of hypocrisy in calling on either of these two countries to destroy Iran's weapons when both countries have these weapons themselves? seems like it to me ...

and what role has the US had in peddling its WMD's all over the planet ... the US is the arms merchant to the world ... we allow American-based mega-corporations to sell their deathware just to make money while millions and millions die from the damage they cause ... has the Democratic Party taken a position on this in their platform?

maybe if the US wasn't so busy "disseminating" WMD's, we wouldn't be so worried about need to "decimate" them ...

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[welshTerrier2]

65. here's what i'm trying to say ...

if you are sitting in Tehran listening to the US threatening you (and you have not attacked the US nor threatened the US), it is very difficult to see how you arrive at a conclusion that it's OK for the US to have nuclear weapons and accept the idea that you should not be allowed to develop them and possess them ... i don't accept the granularity of your argument that there is a difference between possessing nuclear weapons and proliferating new weapons ... that's nothing more than saying the game is over just because your team is ahead ... and it's not just the view from Tehran either ... exactly what standard of international law would such discrimination be based on ???

you may hold the view that the US is "a far superior steward" but those threatened by the US military dominance and track record of invading sovereign nations are unlikely to be convinced ... you see the US as the good guys; most of the world does not ...

my VIEW is that Iran should NOT have nuclear weapons ... my POINT, however, is that the US is in absolutely no position to claim any right to enforce such a policy ... the US is an outlaw nation ... we invaded Iraq without UN authorization ... there was no imminent threat ... the US has a long, tainted history of using its military and economic might to kill foreign leaders and exploit the resources of foreign countries ...

if the US wants to have credibility on calling for the ELIMINATION of nuclear weapons, they should make this a much higher priority for themselves as well ... meanwhile, bush is busy building "smaller scale" nuclear weapons ... we truly do have madmen in control of the US "deathware" ...

my objection to the wording in the Democratic platform is my perception of the arrogance it projects about the US role in the world ... I would not object to an international consensus to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons but I strongly object to any suggestion that the process should be controlled by or dominated by a corrupt US regime ...

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zodiak]

47. Bad situation made worse by Bush and pre-emptive war

This is a hairy, hairy situation. It was made infinitely worse by our pre-emptive invasion of an unoccupied country. Bush named his "Axis of Evil" and he invaded one of them on the thinnest pretense. The pretense has been disproven, but there have absolutely NO political consequences for those that developed that pretense. Hence, Iran has a reasonable fear that they are next.

They look to the last remaining "Axis of Evil" power other than themselves and see how willing Americans are to negotiate with a crazier, more armed dictator there. Naturally, the conclusion is that the only way to ensure safety and a seat at the negotiating table is to develop nuclear capability (not necessarily weapons, which have yet to be proven).

Iran is negotiating with brinksmanship tactics right now because they KNOW they are about to be bombed/invaded. I do not blame them. Their backs have been put against the wall. Funny how just a few years ago, it was very possible that Iran could have changed governments from within. The invasion of their neighbor changed all of that.

I am not going to get into Israel but to mention that that is one country that has sullied its international reputation by hiding under America's wing for far too long. I do not wish any blood to be spilled at all.

Oh, and can anyone tell me what happens to a nuclear plant that is bombed? Woldn't that trigger a Chernobyl-level disaster? Surely the lives of thousands of Iranians are not worth sacrificing to destroy a nuclear power plant, which is all Iran has right now.

No one has the right to preemptive war without a true causus belli (determined by investigation and international consensus; not the warring parties). That goes for any state, including really powerful ones and their toadie allies.

[TexasLawyer]

50. Awesome post, Zodiak Ironfist

Welcome to DU.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Doctor_J]

53. Ridiculous!

andn right on schedule

[Q]

63. This may come as a shock to some of you...

...but there is no way in hell that Bush could get away with a 'preemptive strike' on Iran without the help of enough Democrats to make it appear legitimate and 'bipartisan'.

[uppityperson]

66. And your point is? He'll figure out something, some reason

Be patient Grasshopper and watch the masters at work. Coming soon, another fabrication!

[Q]

68. My point is: IRAQ

Contrary to what many seem to think...Bush couldn't have attacked Iraq (without consequences) unless enough Dems went along to make it appear legitimate.

The same could be said about Bush escaping accountability on so many issues. From stolen elections to 9-11 to illegal wars to the favor to corporate donors bankruptsy bill...there were always Dems there to help push his agenda through.

[uppityperson]

69. Seems like we're in agreement, thanks for clearing it up with me

Mr.bush will need some democratic backing. My concern is wtf is he going to do to get it, or are there enough dems who will moan and still give him what he wants as this is a possibility too (example, Bolton). Bah to Mr.bush and his evil minions

[GetTheRightVote]

76. I sure hope this is in fact, not true, but I see greedy * wanting it

:kick:

[_ed_]

77. I thought it was crazy when they started talking about Iraq...

Hi,

I've only posted here a few times, so I'll reintroduce myself. I'm an Iraq Vet (2003-04), a West Point Grad, and my final rank was Captain in the Army.

In one sense, I'm not all that shocked by your post. I remember sitting in a meeting with my battalion commander in November of 2001 when he started talking about us "taking down Iraq." I leaned over to one of my fellow officers and said, "Did he say Iraq?" "He must have meant Afghanistan..." Well, he wasn't kidding, as incredulous as it seemed at the time. I remember, after the meeting, disregarding all of his thoughts as nonsense. He was a good man, but he must have gone off the edge to believe such a ridiculous thing. Iraq didn't attack us...

Fast forward two years, and I found myself packing gear to invade Iraq.

Realistically, I don't think the Army has the resources right now for another offensive on the scale Iran would be. I think anything else right now would simply break the Army. Unless we took every soldier out of Iraq, and all the equipment and headed for the Iranian border, it just isn't possible.

But who knows... I thought only a fool would invade Iraq in 2001, too.
-ed