Iraq II: Will we be THAT stupid again?

If anything happens with Iran, it won't be till after this year's elections. And it will be airstrikes, not a ground invasion. We don't have enough troops to control Baghdad, let alone attack a country the size of Germany.

And there will be NO draft. Full stop.

 

Nice dancing there Lyman. Now how about answering his question because it is legit. Just because you proclaim it so doesn't mean it's not valid. So you don't trust the U.N. Fine. Does this mean you're willing to open up yet another front in another war? And who, pray tell, are we going to get to fight this war? Seriously. These are legit questions and if you don't answer, then you're proving you don't care to debate serious issues.

 

alley --
What really bothers me about this latest lunacy is that clearly, it falls under that famous playground axiom of war summarized as, "Yeah? You and what army?" So, instead, I think they're itching to use some tactical nukes. Nukes over troops. Welcome to your WW III (or IV).

 

I'm still waiting for the personal, scatilogical reference from Ly.

Must be Kool-Aid time.

 

If anyone thinks nukes of any kind can be safely used without things escalating out of control, they're clinically insane. Seriously.

 

The short answer to the title of this thread is, "Yes."

The long answer is, "Hell, yes."

The only issue is how easily the rubber-stamp Congress and shit-for-brains Washington press corps is going to let it happen.

Just another day in the life of the country we voted for -- and the country we deserve.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think so.

The American people are 70-30 against the current war. The military is overextended. The GOP is about to get slaughtered in the mid-terms. I don't think Iran is in play — in part because the American people have had enough, in part because the Iranian army is nothing to laugh about. Invading Iran would make Iraq look like a walk in the park.

Not even Bush is dumb enough for this one. This is sabre rattling with a "you keep your nukes, we get a better deal on oil" outcome.

 

Which is why I think the window for bombing is between the election and the seating of the new Congress. Do it so Bush isn't seen as wagging the dog, but before a Democratic Congress can call a halt to it.

 

It is a serious question, lyman.

Come on, you know as well everyone else here that there have been numerous lies. That's no secret.

Hell, Fredo lied as big as you can possibly lie during the debate when he denied saying he wasn't worried about bin Laden. On the grand scale, that's one of the smaller lies, but it's well documented and can't be denied.

So, again, that doesn't bother you?

 

I think people in this administration think that very thing. (I'll leave it to each of us to determine the relative sanity of these folks, although I'm with the Navy here.)
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/focus/terrorism/archives/0302/e11nukes1.html

 

Wasn't Ronald Reagan one of those who thought America could "win" and "survive" a nuclear war? Do we really think, it the way of the collapse of USSR, that if one nation fired a shot like that, others wouldn't follow along?

 

http://amcop.blogspot.com/bush_hero_blog.jpg