Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He "Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win"

[Dan.Linehan]

In other words, vote for who we say or we will wreck more havoc before we leave.

Think Progress » Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win’

As far as bombing Iran -- my take on it is pretty simple. If we bomb Iran, pick an American city.

YouTube - UN Inspector Scott Ritter: Fools would Bomb Iran

Even Russia has warned us against military action in Iran.

Russia warns against military action in Iran | World news | guardian.co.uk

At a news briefing in Moscow, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said: "We are worried by reports that there is serious consideration being given to military action in Iran. That is a threat to a region where there are already grave problems in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Here is another photo essay of life in Iran.

Life in Iran :: A Photo Essay by Arash Shiva

[Dharma]

Iran will get bombed no matter who is in the White House if they start trading oil in Euros and undercutting other oil producing nations.

The Energy Non-Crisis

[Stu]

I cant see him bombing Iran and then handing the situation off to a new president. He seems genuinely concerned about how history judges him and doing something this stupid would make him not only one of the worst presidents in the history of the country but one of the most senselessly destructive ones as well.

[Eric Revelin]

Not to mention there's a lot of pressure on him to not do anything. Unlike Iraq, Bush and the media seem to be having a hard time pushing this agenda.

[Dan.Linehan]

Bush might also bomb Iran if he is impeached.

I Thought We Didn't Negotiate With Terrorists

[Eric Revelin]

I don't doubt that he wants to, but I think by and large it's a scare tactic.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. That is to say, I don't believe reptiles are in control of the world powers. I don't believe groups like the illuminati or the masons have as much power as people think (I doubt many of the groups even exist). I do believe there's a lot more going on than what we see, both positive and negative. Fortunately more and more of what's going on in the shadows is coming to light.

This feels like the build up prior to the climax of a Hollywood movie. The villain is fighting to gain the upper hand, or has the upper hand, and the heroes are trying desperately to stop him. Will we get a traditional ending wherein the heroes save the day just in the nick of time? Maybe we'll get a twist and find out the villain never had any power at all and his biggest fear is that we'd call his bluff. Maybe the villain will succeed, in which case we're guaranteed a sequel.

Perhaps I'm a fool, but I'm optimistic. This is exactly the kind of thing you'd expect when an old empire comes crumbling down. There's the risk that it could go either way (even right down the middle), but we're the ones that decide that, no? These aren't easy times but they're surely interesting. We need things like this to grow as individuals and as a species.

Let the monkey throw a tantrum and fling his poop at the world. Mr. Bush will get his due.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by Dharma

Iran will get bombed no matter who is in the White House if they start trading oil in Euros and undercutting other oil producing nations.

Iran already trades oil in Euros. The Iranian oil bourse opened in February 2008, and trades in multiple currencies other than US dollars.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Eric Revelin

This is exactly the kind of thing you'd expect when an old empire comes crumbling down.

So who's the old empire - Iran or the US?

[Still Growing]

Its not in Bush's interest nor the US gov'ts interest to attack Iran.
1. They have nuclear capability
2. They have friends such as Lebanon, Saudi Arabia
3. They are a free country

The US attacked Iraq because:
1. It was a dictatorship. The US would like to wipe out all dictatorships if there are collateral benefits.
2. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon didn't care if we did
3. Iraq bluffed about having WMDs to appear stronger to Iran. Fatal move.
4. The US wanted bases in the middle east. Saudi Arabia was having no part of it, Iraq was the only location
5. Politically the US could twist things to make a case

The US did not attack Iraq because:
1. It would get oil or cheaper oil. This is absurd.
2. It believed they would harbor terrorists. This was just a reason.
3. They believed that Iraq had WMDs. They knew Saddam was bluffing.

I know that this post will draw a lot of criticism however I am not stating that I agreed with the US doing so. Only that Iran does not fit the criteria necessary for the US to make a movement.

Under the current conditions the US will NEVER go after Iran. They will however, bluff for negotiation purposes.

People over estimate the power of the US President and under estimate the true calculation ability of the US gov't. They knew exactly what the backlash would be but calculated the militaristic benefits of positioning bases in Iraq.

Even during Clinton they had their eyes on Iraq. Bush was sitting in the seat during the ideal climate. 911 also gave the perfect cover in which to execute what we wanted to do for decades.

OK, now I'm ready for the verbal assault. Just don't assume that I agree with any of this or assume my position on the situation.