Some senior administration officials still relish the notion of a direct confrontation.
February 13, 2007 1:53 AM Subscribe
"2007 is the year of Iran", Vice President Cheney's top security aide John Hannah said, indicating that a U.S. attack was a real possibility. Of course, we've talked about this before.
This post was deleted for the following reason: please put this in the open iran thread on the front page.
What do you think those troop surge troops are really for?
posted by caddis at 3:57 AM on February 13, 2007
posted by caddis at 3:57 AM on February 13, 2007
So Iran is the new black Iraq right?
Can't see the UK involving itself in this one. Just not fashionable enough. One half of America against the world. Is America trying to destroy itself, cause it sure looks like it's going the right way.
posted by twistedonion at 4:03 AM on February 13, 2007
Can't see the UK involving itself in this one. Just not fashionable enough. One half of America against the world. Is America trying to destroy itself, cause it sure looks like it's going the right way.
posted by twistedonion at 4:03 AM on February 13, 2007
WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH IRAQN
posted by quonsar at 4:14 AM on February 13, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by quonsar at 4:14 AM on February 13, 2007 [3 favorites]
One half of America against the world. Is America trying to destroy itself...
Perhaps one half of America is indeed trying to destroy itself. But I can't say for sure what they really want... It's beyond me. But I do think 1 percent (or so) of Americans (say, the vice president and other major shareholders in Halliburton and the like) are definitely trying to enrich themselves. There's big money in blood.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:25 AM on February 13, 2007
Perhaps one half of America is indeed trying to destroy itself. But I can't say for sure what they really want... It's beyond me. But I do think 1 percent (or so) of Americans (say, the vice president and other major shareholders in Halliburton and the like) are definitely trying to enrich themselves. There's big money in blood.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:25 AM on February 13, 2007
I'm not sensing a lot of support for the troops in this post.
posted by DU at 4:32 AM on February 13, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by DU at 4:32 AM on February 13, 2007 [1 favorite]
Troops are just a bunch of pawns. I would neither support or demonstrate against soldiers. The administrations who send their pawns off to battle... They are the bastards who need to stand to account for their actions (and rarely do it seems)
posted by twistedonion at 4:40 AM on February 13, 2007
posted by twistedonion at 4:40 AM on February 13, 2007
Wait, you mean the Administration wants to go to war with Iran? I totally missed that!
posted by moonbiter at 4:41 AM on February 13, 2007
posted by moonbiter at 4:41 AM on February 13, 2007
Wait, you mean the Administration wants to go to war with Iran? I totally missed that
Better late than never moonbiter, you nearly had the wool pulled over your eyes, thank god for Metafilter!
posted by twistedonion at 4:47 AM on February 13, 2007
Better late than never moonbiter, you nearly had the wool pulled over your eyes, thank god for Metafilter!
posted by twistedonion at 4:47 AM on February 13, 2007
I ran just last night. Three miles on a treadmill.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 5:02 AM on February 13, 2007
posted by TBoneMcCool at 5:02 AM on February 13, 2007
Troops are just a bunch of pawns. I would neither support or demonstrate against soldiers. The administrations who send their pawns off to battle... They are the bastards who need to stand to account for their actions (and rarely do it seems)
This is exactly why I hate those "I support our troops" bumper stickers. Fuck, those things make me want to ram right into their damn bumpers.
There are quite a few Iranians I know living abroad who would welcome the war--but I think it's purely out of desperation.
posted by Menomena at 5:30 AM on February 13, 2007
This is exactly why I hate those "I support our troops" bumper stickers. Fuck, those things make me want to ram right into their damn bumpers.
There are quite a few Iranians I know living abroad who would welcome the war--but I think it's purely out of desperation.
posted by Menomena at 5:30 AM on February 13, 2007
tadellin writes: "Good. The sooner the better."
Anyone who actually says that, and really believes it, should be enlisted, should have volunteered for the armed forces, to go fight in Iran. That is, personally. You. Go fight. Get shot at. Possibly die. In Iran. If not, you have no business saying it.
And guess what? It's a stupid thing to say even if you are enlisted. I bet you're not, though.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:31 AM on February 13, 2007
Anyone who actually says that, and really believes it, should be enlisted, should have volunteered for the armed forces, to go fight in Iran. That is, personally. You. Go fight. Get shot at. Possibly die. In Iran. If not, you have no business saying it.
And guess what? It's a stupid thing to say even if you are enlisted. I bet you're not, though.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:31 AM on February 13, 2007
Ever since this Iran Invasion topic got off the ground (it's been, like, what? Two years or something?) I've been thinking that the more the media talks about it, the less likely it is to happen, simply because the general public will be so opposed to it that the whitehouse won't have any choice but to back down.
Please, god, don't let anything happen to change my mind about that.
posted by Clay201 at 5:41 AM on February 13, 2007
Please, god, don't let anything happen to change my mind about that.
posted by Clay201 at 5:41 AM on February 13, 2007
...the general public will be so opposed to it that the whitehouse won't have any choice but to back down.
Welcome to the future, Man From Before The Day That Changed Everything. Here are your food pills, flying car and subscription to Fox News. Please enjoy your stay or you will be incarcerated.
posted by DU at 5:44 AM on February 13, 2007 [2 favorites]
Welcome to the future, Man From Before The Day That Changed Everything. Here are your food pills, flying car and subscription to Fox News. Please enjoy your stay or you will be incarcerated.
posted by DU at 5:44 AM on February 13, 2007 [2 favorites]
If the US goes into Iran, it will just be continuing proof that America has no sense of history and a wildly optimistic sense of it's power.
Not that we needed more proof, really.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 5:45 AM on February 13, 2007
Not that we needed more proof, really.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 5:45 AM on February 13, 2007
Ever since this Iran Invasion topic got off the ground (it's been, like, what? Two years or something?) I've been thinking that the more the media talks about it, the less likely it is to happen, simply because the general public will be so opposed to it that the whitehouse won't have any choice but to back down.
Unfortunately, I think it's quite the opposite. People are getting used to the idea.
posted by empath at 5:48 AM on February 13, 2007
Unfortunately, I think it's quite the opposite. People are getting used to the idea.
posted by empath at 5:48 AM on February 13, 2007
the general public will be so opposed to it that the whitehouse won't have any choice but to back down.
One more terrorist attack, blame it on Iran, and there you go.
Besides, the right has been selling this stuff hard for a while now. I read a fair number of those cheezy military fiction books, and they've all been demonizing Iran for a few years now.
It's a very real and viable possibility.
I do think 1 percent (or so) of Americans (say, the vice president and other major shareholders in Halliburton and the like) are definitely trying to enrich themselves.
The number of people who are directly involved in this business is far, far less than 1%.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 5:51 AM on February 13, 2007
One more terrorist attack, blame it on Iran, and there you go.
Besides, the right has been selling this stuff hard for a while now. I read a fair number of those cheezy military fiction books, and they've all been demonizing Iran for a few years now.
It's a very real and viable possibility.
I do think 1 percent (or so) of Americans (say, the vice president and other major shareholders in Halliburton and the like) are definitely trying to enrich themselves.
The number of people who are directly involved in this business is far, far less than 1%.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 5:51 AM on February 13, 2007
This is exactly why I hate those "I support our troops" bumper stickers. Fuck, those things make me want to ram right into their damn bumpers.
Exactly. Want to support your troops then bring them home.
posted by twistedonion at 6:01 AM on February 13, 2007
Exactly. Want to support your troops then bring them home.
posted by twistedonion at 6:01 AM on February 13, 2007
The number of people who are directly involved in this business is far, far less than 1%.
You're probably right, Tacos, but unfortunately their influence far outweighs their actual numbers, which was essentially the point I was trying to make.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:01 AM on February 13, 2007
You're probably right, Tacos, but unfortunately their influence far outweighs their actual numbers, which was essentially the point I was trying to make.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:01 AM on February 13, 2007
I thought 2007 was the year of the wombat. Damn.
posted by IronLizard at 6:10 AM on February 13, 2007
posted by IronLizard at 6:10 AM on February 13, 2007
I think the first I remember seeing anything about the possibility of US military action against Iran might've been here in the blue, like...2004? And it's reasonable to expect that at least as far back as 1979, somebody in the five-sided funny farm alongside the Potomac has been maintaining plans for a whole range of scenarios, Just In Case.
What I don't get is why the "axis of evil" 2001 SOTU reference and now the saber-rattling. Do they have all that much oil? Can the PTB make that much more money off of prosecuting a war from Jordan and Syria all the way to the Hindu Kush? Is the goal to turn the Persian Gulf into an American lake? Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Monroe are probably flippin' in their graves. No wonder Putin gave that speech last week.
posted by pax digita at 6:13 AM on February 13, 2007
What I don't get is why the "axis of evil" 2001 SOTU reference and now the saber-rattling. Do they have all that much oil? Can the PTB make that much more money off of prosecuting a war from Jordan and Syria all the way to the Hindu Kush? Is the goal to turn the Persian Gulf into an American lake? Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Monroe are probably flippin' in their graves. No wonder Putin gave that speech last week.
posted by pax digita at 6:13 AM on February 13, 2007
I'm working on a draft letter for people to send out to their Republicans representatives and senators. It will probably be about a page long, include a brief history of the Iranian revolution as well as some cogent arguments explaining why attacking Iran would be a very, very bad idea, even though we've been setting up for it since 2003 (Pincer move, baby!).
But the one for Democrats is already finished. It simply reads:
Hon. [Senator or Representative]:
Dude. Get a fucking spine.
posted by thecaddy at 6:40 AM on February 13, 2007
But the one for Democrats is already finished. It simply reads:
Hon. [Senator or Representative]:
Dude. Get a fucking spine.
posted by thecaddy at 6:40 AM on February 13, 2007
pax digita: No need to worry about Washington, Madison, et al. They spun out of their graves years ago.
posted by moonbiter at 6:47 AM on February 13, 2007
posted by moonbiter at 6:47 AM on February 13, 2007
« Older Please pass the syrup... | Display your typing and editing Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by peacay at 3:46 AM on February 13, 2007