Rummy rattles saber again

[Bill Sikes]

plazul wrote: Rumsfeld


Do you think that the government have somewhat lost contact with reality

and/or the feelings of the population and/or the international community?

There seemed to be an amount of protest at the action in Iraq - don't

they think it will be multiplied by further such action in Iran?

[Bill Sikes]

plazul wrote: Don't think for a minute that the chaotic situation in Iraq will deter this administration from expanding the war across the border to Iran. They now have a platform for launching such an attack and they feel that American air superiority would decimate an Iranian blitzkrieg.


I'm sure that American air superiority (for I don't think an action like this would

find any International support) would quickly quell any resistance. However, if

I was an Iranian in a position of power, I would even now be concealing the

more useful weapons in my posession and settling down to a campaign of

resistance and attrition against any invaders. I would not go head to head

and simply lose - if the population at large in the 'States does not realise that

this is a possibility, surely the government must? Iran has twice the population

of Iraq, nearly four times the area, and did not suffer during the "Gulf War" of

the early '90s.

[anastrophe]

problem: unless they bring back the draft, there are simply not enough troops to wage a significant war anywhere else in the world, period. and even if they reinstated the draft tomorrow, it would be about two years before those troops could be deployed in any number - because all the commanders and officers etc are all already deployed in the field, so it would require a full infrastructure of higher command before sending troops into battle.

so, we may eventually wage war with iran. if so, assuming bush is re-elected, it won't be until 2006 or so.



a lot can change in that amount of time.

[anastrophe]

Bill Sikes wrote: Iran has twice the population

of Iraq, nearly four times the area, and did not suffer during the "Gulf War" of

the early '90s.
they may not have suffered during the gulf war, but more than a million iranian soldiers died during the 1980-88 iran-iraq war.



of course, that was a longer interval ago. a whole new generation of bodies is likely available to throw into the meat grinder.

[anastrophe]

plazul wrote: That assertion goes against the JCOS and Rumsfled's contention that our military is still ready to fight other wars should they erupt. I agree that a draft would be likely but we 're just using reserves in Iraq to maintain deployments in other areas of the world like Europe, Japan, and Korea. But guess what? Bush has said he's preparing to bring many of those troops *home*... Don't bet on it.i agree, the timing of the announcement of scaling back nato troops does fall in line with your assertion. although, all other things being equal, i agree with the plan to begin with - it's time europe took on defending europe without our help.



but, i still maintain that while indeed there may be troops enough to quell a 'brushfire' war in haiti, or whereever, it will be years before an all-out offensive could be waged against iran. the military aren't fools, common rhetoric notwithstanding - they aren't going to send 100,000 troops to fight an army of several million.

[anastrophe]

i really don't know. but again, i don't think any major action would happen for several years, and much can change in several years.



with the spanking the administration has taken for the failure to find WMD's in iraq, i think the move to war would be far more measured, and obviously would come under a lot more scrutiny, skepticism, and resistance from both the people, and our representatives in congress.



time will tell.

[anastrophe]

plazul wrote: The move to war, in my opinion, will be based on another manufactured incident. I'm astonished that the Republicans who cheered at the Republican war-fest don't get that what they're witnessing is another fabricated WMD claim that will be used as a pretext for war. Maybe they do.
what was the 'republican war-fest'? you mean the republican national convention? so much for not polarizing the debate....



The other thing that rankles my ass is that self righteous Republicans and turncoat Democrats like Zel Miller accuse people like me of betraying the troops and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. We know the enemy. We know who's going to get many more of our troops killed for big oil and bring more terrorism to our shores and his name is *George W Bush*.
The other thing that rankles my ass is that self righteous democrats accuse people like me of being war mongers and hateful people. we aren't war mongers, and we aren't hateful people, and we aren't in league with 'big oil' to try and get as many troops killed as possible.



your candidate has said he expects to have our troops out of iraq in FOUR YEARS. so, under his watch if he becomes president, then clearly, we know who's going to get many more of our troops killed for big oil and bring more terrorism to our shores, and his name is john kerry. otherwise, he'd pledge to BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW which is what all the demonstrators outside the republican national convention were shouting, endlessly.



of course! democrats=good people, republicans=bad people.



it's so simple, how could i have missed it.

[anastrophe]

plazul wrote: What else would you call that convention? Did you see the videos they ran and listen to the martial music? Somebody counted the number of times the word war came up in the speeches. Forget the number, but it was big. John McCain used the word war something like 50 times. War, War, War. That was the controlling idea, if you ask me.and, i guess, the point is, we aren't at war, so talking about war makes them war mongers? or, wait a sec - that's right, we are at war. but you're not supposed to talk about it.



They didn't talk about many other issues except in superficial terms. All the star speakers focused on 9-11 and how Bush was going to save us all from terrorism. They also made ominous statements about taking the war to where the terrorists were. Translation: War with Iran. They stayed on message, which is one thing they're good at.but the democratic convention was nothing but issues, up and down the line, is that correct? there was no mention about how john kerry would save us from terrorism? or how he'll be a tough commander in chief?



I'd say that most of the speeches were pretty hateful compared to the DNC. I don't think anybody would argue that the RNC was more civil and issue oriented than the DNC. And you couldn't help but notice the "we're the good people" smirks on the Republican speakers face's when they talked about self reliance, the work ethic, and the American dream, as though Democrats were all a bunch of parasitic slugs who never worked a day in their lives and want to sell the country out to terrorists and perverts. I wonder how many of those old folks at the convention were on Social Security and Medicare?but none of the speakers at the DNC had anything unkind to say about the republicans, is that the case? no 'we're the good people' smirks? nothing negative was said about conservatives? The democrats said nothing about their embrace of self-reliance, the work ethic, and the american dream? nobody implied that the republicans are all hate, fear, and war mongering monsters?



When it comes to social issues Republican spokespeople win hands down, in my opinion, on the hate factor. At least their hatred is more vocal and visible. I'm not talking about hatred towards political opponents. I'm talking about hatred towards people like gays, lesbians, welfare recipients, public employees, abortion rights advocates, peace activists, environmentalists, and so on. and they're all in lockstep of course, yes? no dissent from that is ever voiced by other conservatives? for example, dick cheney, the second in command of our nation, did not recently say that he disagrees with the president WRT gay marraige, as he does *not* have a gay daughter whom he has not turned his back on? yes, cheney, the disinguous, erstwhile succubus, who has no heart, and only speaks in terms of war and hate.





They bash them all through their talk radio networks, religious broadcasting networks, phony news services, churches, etc..i can't speak to the veracity of that, as i don't listen to talk radio, or religious broadcasting networks, and don't attend church. i do watch phony news though, as i believe The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is more relevant than any 'real' news show.



Democrats have their hate mongers (Mother Jones, the Nation) too but they're more ideologically oriented, as I see it, than the Republicans. Dems focus more on institutions and politicians. Republicans get up close and personal.of course, there were no demostrators at the RNC, with hooded street artists covered in mock blood, shouting epithets about how every republican is evil and hateful. and democrats never get up close and personal about it. Al Sharpton is next in line for sainthood as i recall.



And contrary to popular myth, there isn't more liberal than conservative bias in the press though it does exist. Just ask Annerberg School of Communications and other media watchers. that is open to debate in my opinion. it really depends upon what the definition of 'more' is, to put it in a clintonly manner.



I challenge you to turn on any AM radio station and see how much liberal hate you hear. Not commentary, *hate*. Libs are struggling to get a market share with Air America but it's dying, probably because liberals read more. ahem. you don't see anything offensive in that statement? you're saying that seriously?



'liberals are smarter, because people like me are smarter. people who don't agree with me are a priori not as smart as me, therefore they must be stupid. and we all know stupid people don't read. therefore, republicans are stupid. QED.'



that's pretty pathetic. your blinders are showing.



NPR is said to have a liberal slant but I don't hear them calling Republicans names like human debris, wimp, scum, and worse. I saw a compilation of excerpts from Limbaugh, Hannady, Liddy, and others in one of our alternative papers and these guys are preaching hardcore hate. No doubt. Republicans own the airwaves (literally) and there's no such thing as a liberal broadcasting network.true. NBC news has no liberal bias whatsoever. they've never put forth a left-leaning agenda in any of their news shows. never ever.



Thanks to the constant hate drumming, Republicans have made great strides, mainly by exploiting the fears and prejudices of white 25-54 males. I said that in another post. It's called the bandwagon technique. They sucker these guys on social issues and instead of telling the truth about who's really responsible for their struggle they turn them into foot soldiers for corporate power.so who is responsible for their struggle, whatever that struggle is?



I know Republicans but they're all pretty liberal on social issues. They resent that the party whackos have hijacked the caucus system but taxes are such a big issue for them they hold their noses and vote the ticket.but the democrats haven't been hijacked by the whackos on the far left. no, there's no call for a renewed welfare state, entitlements, and higher taxes. nobody on the left demonizes the right. because, of course, left is right, and right is wrong.



I never used to be an angry Democrat. I actually liked Reagan as a person. But this administration is so over the top that I have to step up.okay. i never liked ronald reagan as a person. he always struck me as a big phoney baloney. i was just in college when he was elected, and i'd been so brainwashed by the liberal rhetoric of my upbringing that i contemplated fleeing to canada because this right wing monster was going to run our country. remarkably enough, we survived. he managed to topple the soviet union, freeing us from the world of the cold war - a world i had never known other than - having been born in 1959. i grew up thinking the cold war world, with the imminent annihilation of the human race at the push of a button was 'normal'. it was just the way the world was.



now we have a different threat - but one not as overwhelming as that nuclear fear of two decades ago.



republicans are just people. democrats are just people. demonizing one or the other simply accomplishes nothing, besides increasing distrust.



i'm not your enemy. i've voted democrat, independent, and republican. i'll continue to do so.



our two party "system" is an anachronism in this day and age. there's got to be a better way. a centrist party.

[anastrophe]

plazul wrote: And Schwatzenegger called the dems, (intended for Kerry) "economic girlie men." That's a typical Republican ploy. The macho, man's man, dig at the limp wristed libs. And who better to deliver such a manly blow than the Terminator?
proof that the left has no sense of humor!



(and if you take that seriously, then we *do* have a problem here)



:yahoo_big :yahoo_big :yahoo_big