Bush propping up the Iranian government.

[RandomGuy]

At least 45 killed in wave of Baghdad attacks
Full article at CNN
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Mortar attacks and bombings killed at least 45 people and wounded 180 others Thursday across the Iraqi capital in the latest wave of apparent sectarian violence, police officials said.

In Shiite neighborhoods of southeastern Baghdad, forty-three people died and at least 160 were injured Thursday in five attacks using mortar rounds and explosions.

Also in the southeastern neighborhood of Mashtal, a car bomb killed two people and wounded 13 others near a gas station, police said.

In other blasts Thursday, three people were wounded when a bomb exploded near a restaurant on eastern Baghdad's Palestine Street, police said.

Another car bomb exploded near a police patrol in the central Baghdad neighborhood of Harthiya, wounding at least four people, including two police officers.

Thursday's violence came after insurgents launched a string of bombings Wednesday in Baghdad and the nearby provinces of Diyala and Babil, killing at least 47 people and wounding more than 100 others, emergency officials said.

Iraqi and U.S. security forces are pressing ahead with an extensive security crackdown in the capital called Operation Together Forward.

More than 250 Iraqis and 14 U.S. soldiers have been killed since Sunday[emphasis added]. Sixty American soldiers have died in August.

President Bush on Thursday again asserted the battle for Iraq is the "central front in our fight against terrorism."

In a speech before the American Legion convention in Salt Lake City, Utah, Bush likened the effort to World War II and the Cold War and warned that failure to persevere will lead terrorists to take their battle to U.S. shores. (Full story)

"As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before. They are successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians of the 20th century," he said in the first of a series of new speeches on the fight against terrorism.

(KEEP READING BELOW)

[RandomGuy]

If you go here, you can see the US soldier casualty trends since the fall of Baghdad:
http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm

Notice that the line remains flat. This is important.

Over time, US soldiers have consistantly DECREASED the risks that they take. They have added thousands of armored vehicles, improved tacticss, and started handing off missions to Iraqis.

If casualty rates remain flat, but risks taken are decreasing, then overal risk is growing.

Simple conclusion from this is that Iraq is getting worse, not better. "The insurgency is in its last throes..." echoes hollower every day.

[RandomGuy]

The vast majority of US casualties have been from mainly sunni insurgents, with Shia groups remaining, for the most part, neutral to the US presence.
Iran=Shia Iran=training and support for Shia militia in Iraq.

Now imagine US military strikes on Iran.

Will those shia militia, heavily influenced by Iran, remain neutral?

The fast easy answer is no.

The invasion of Iraq has strengthened Iran's hand.

GW and the neo-cons will continue to strengthen the Iranian government through a series of further blunders.

[RandomGuy]

Fidel Castro has been isolated and had US sanctions on his government for 50+ years, yet has remained in power even after his main sponsor, the USSR, evaporated.

Why?

Because stupid US policies supported him the whole time by doing exactly the opposite of what they were intended to do.

Nationalism is a powerful force to be reckoned with, and Cuba is the best example of the strength of nationalism.

The US handed Castro, in form of vitriolic rhetoric and sanctions, the means by which to say, "Look at this foreign devil, trying to tell our country what to do."

As bad as Castro's government is, as much of a failure it is in producing a decent standard of living for it's citizens, it is still a CUBAN government that has an easy enemy in the US.

The US becomes a constant foil to be held up as an easy explanation as to why things are bad, REGARDLESS OF THE TRUTH. It is not the truth that is important, it is the PERCEPTION of the truth that matters in winning support of peoples for governments.

The same holds true for any country, such as Iran. Iran's government is deeply unpopular with its citizens for many of the same reasons that Castro's is.

[RandomGuy]

You want to cause problems for the Iranian government?

Treat is with dignity and respect.

That will start undermining the constant drum beat of "the US government is out to get us" that they harp on now.

[RandomGuy]

The scary thing is that we are marching towards a military confrontation with a nation and a government that we are constantly strenthening.

The Iranians know this, and their maneuverings demonstrate it.

[Crookshanks]

Who are you talking to? You're the only one who's posted!

[ChumpDumper]

He's talking to you.

And me.

And anyone else who reads it.

[RandomGuy]

Here are some snippets from a guy who also has reached much the same conclusion.

Nothing is clear, yet. For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran.

I argued with my friends. I pointed out that a military strike would be disastrous for the United States. It would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. And it would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years

[RandomGuy]

Who are you talking to? You're the only one who's posted!

I am trying to get some thoughts segregated for easy comment. That way all one has to do is hit the "quote" button on the segment to comment on that segment instead of picking out a segement or quoting a much longer bit.

[Crookshanks]

Okay, that makes sense. For a minute I was afraid you'd lost it and were carrying on a conversation with yourself!

[RandomGuy]

Okay, that makes sense. For a minute I was afraid you'd lost it and were carrying on a conversation with yourself!

I take my meds to prevent that kind of thing.

Sorry about that bit. Think about how long the original post would have been had I not broken it up.

heh no one would read it.

[101A]

Here are some snippets from a guy who also has reached much the same conclusion.

Nothing is clear, yet. For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran.

I argued with my friends. I pointed out that a military strike would be disastrous for the United States. It would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. And it would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years

You're logic throughout the thread is sound; but not this post.

There would be no Iranian govt capable of carrying on a nuclear program were the US to invade. Yes, there would be insurgents, and our casulties would be higher than in Iraq, and yes, I believe there might very well be some Shia problems in addition in Iraq, but Iran, as a viable, nuclear bomb building power, would not be.

[ChumpDumper]

The article didn't say invasion -- it said military strike.

So it's "much" the same conclusion, not exactly the same.

[RandomGuy]

You're logic throughout the thread is sound; but not this post.

There would be no Iranian govt capable of carrying on a nuclear program were the US to invade. Yes, there would be insurgents, and our casulties would be higher than in Iraq, and yes, I believe there might very well be some Shia problems in addition in Iraq, but Iran, as a viable, nuclear bomb building power, would not be.

The US does not have the capacity to invade, unless an all out draft is issued, and even then would not be able to keep the country. It would make the vietnam war pale in comparison.

BUT

Chump dumper is correct, as is the article's author on this point. The administration knows that invasion is impossible, but is seriously considering a military strike.

[RandomGuy]

chumpdumper dumping chumps as he is wont to do

How many chumps can a chumpdumper dump if a chumpdumper could dump chumps?

[101A]

T...
Chump dumper is correct, as is the article's author on this point. The administration knows that invasion is impossible, but is seriously considering a military strike.

You mean like Clinton was so fond of: Cruise missles from 400 miles?

THIS administration has not shown a fondness for that methodology of using the DOD. I would be surprised (but not completely) if they were that shortsighted. I read "strike", but my preconceived notions about what would actually be done made me process "invade".

You think the "WWIII" rhetoric that is beginning makes a draft LESS likely?

I'm bettin the "D" word is beginning to be bandied about in certain quarters, that NFL - style signing bonuses for PFC's.

[RandomGuy]

You mean like Clinton was so fond of: Cruise missles from 400 miles?

THIS administration has not shown a fondness for that methodology of using the DOD. I would be surprised (but not completely) if they were that shortsighted. I read "strike", but my preconceived notions about what would actually be done made me process "invade".

You think the "WWIII" rhetoric that is beginning makes a draft LESS likely?

I'm bettin the "D" word is beginning to be bandied about in certain quarters, that NFL - style signing bonuses for PFC's.

Clinton's strikes were measured for risk-benefit. He was risk averse (aka conservative) when it came to such things.

I don't think that this administration hasn't considered risk-benefit, but they are willing to accept MUCH more risk, and more importantly/dangerously consistantly underestimate how much risk they are taking as well as how much benefit can be gained from that risk.

Iraq is a good example, Katrina another.

The president misjudged the amount of risk and went on vacation for Katrina, and misjudged the risk/benefits of Iraq by not having a post-war plan in place.

[101A]

The president misjudged the amount of risk and went on vacation for Katrina, and misjudged the risk/benefits of Iraq by not having a post-war plan in place.

I agree. I think (and hope/pray) he has learned from these.

[RandomGuy]

I agree. I think (and hope/pray) he has learned from these.

That is what scares me.

They guy whose article I quoted has very good reason to think that the administration has a significant faction pushing for military action, and I believe him.

[clambake]

Let's just all admit that Bush's bullying tatics have backfired. Goliath is face to face with David.

[austinfan]

I agree that the US can't afford a full-scale ground invasion and that they'll try to go with airstrikes instead. I think you'll see a big uptick in US casualties in Iraq, as the Shia militias really start targeting GIs en masse. You'll see oil leap to $150-200/barrel, with gas prices going up here accordingly. And you could see some serious destabilization in Pakistan, with a group or groups trying to overthrow Musharraf, who is perceived to be cozy with Bush. That last scenario is the one that scares me the most, considering that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and isn't just trying to make them like Iran is.

I predict that a US attack on Iran will be shortlived, once the US public feels signicant pressure on their pocketbook from $5/gallon gas and our general economy takes a hit.

Remember too that Venezuela has hinted that they'll support an oil embargo if Iran is attacked. They're our fourth largest supplier, after Canada, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. And it's not like Venezuela and Iran don't have other customers besides the US for their oil. The whole thing would put our economy in a world of hurt.

[Extra Stout]

At what point would such deleterious stupidity start to destabilize this country?

[boutons_]

"start targeting GIs en masse."

I'm surprised nothing heavier, so far, than mortars and RPGs have been fired at the Green Zone, and with not much frequency or effect. Bombing Iran will probably have Iran pouring in much heavier munitions into Iraqi Shias and non-Iraqi terrorists.

[101A]

Let's just all admit that Bush's bullying tatics have backfired. Goliath is face to face with David.

David never let Goliath get close - he hit him from afar.

As much as we might think our leaders are being stupid; WHAT if you lived in Iran right now, and you, David, kept throwing sand at Goliath, calling him names? This David has some big friends, but they dont have the all-powerfull committed ally David had