(_._)

*^_^*

(-_-#)

(O,o)

Hi... Very interesting site.

(-_-+)

(;_;)

(O,o)

=__=

(^_^)

(*_*)

(-_-+)

(;_;)

Thank you very much.

(>_<)

Hi... Very interesting site.

This is a very informative site.

=__=

-__-

(-_-#)

*^_^*

very interesting and informative

(%_%)

(@_@)

Thank you.

very interesting and informative

(%_%)

(>_<)

(-_-")

(-_-")

(;_;)

(_._)

///_’

very interesting and informative

-__-

-__-

Hi... Very interesting site.

(^_^)

(*_*)

This is a very informative site.

(-_-")

(O,o)

Hi... Very interesting site.

(^_^)

(*_*)

(O,o)

(*_*)

(;_;)

(+_+)

(^_^)

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

j23l998goyzgr6 [URL=http://www.507432.com/1043247.html] yo1nb9nlccqff0n [/URL] 6afo0yex3qpt

-__-

^.|.^

(>_<)

(+_+)

=__=

(@_@)

This is a very informative site.

(;_;)

*^_^*

This is a very informative site.

()

(O,o)

Sorry...

(^_^)

Thank you very much.

^.|.^

^.|.^

(O,o)

(*_*)

*^_^*

(%_%)

very interesting and informative

Thank you.

(_._)

*^_^*

(_._)

*^_^*

Sorry...

*^_^*

-__-

very interesting and informative

(+_+)

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

(%_%)

(O,o)

(*_*)

This is a very informative site.

(>_<)

(>_<)

(+_+)

Thank you very much.

///_’

^.|.^

=__=

(-_-+)

This is a very informative site.

(O,o)

=__=

(-_-+)

very interesting and informative

///_’

(_._)

///_’

(-_-#)

(-_-+)

Thank you.

(-_-#)

(-_-+)

Thank you very much.

ufucir5hkm2 rjxgd409n5if2ue u42zyto262l61

ufucir5hkm2 http://www.722723.com/368459.html u42zyto262l61

Very good website you have here.

Children arent happy without something to ignore, and thats what parents were created for.

Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.

Great web site - lots of useful information!

All who would win joy, must share it, happiness was born a twin.

Very good website you have here.

A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody has read.

Looks nice! Ill come back to check out more!

Cool website you built here ! I just surfed by but i realy like your site !

j25fkfln1czr x26srkq2t [URL=http://www.1033109.com/349248.html] nv5cwe1b7k [/URL] j26ugicvt0x03c4

What we need is to stop intervening in other countries affairs! Listen to Alrbight apologize to Iran here! Great job she did!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KVg2t31c3Ts

What we need is to stop intervening in other countries affairs! Listen to Alrbight apologize to Iran here! Great job she did!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KVg2t31c3Ts

Does anyone remember the vociferous Democrats crying for war after 911? That consistent taunting of this President was manifest after a Chinese interceptor downed a US Spy craft over the international waters off the China coast. This taunting is not a warning, it has a certain 'je ne sais quoi', a seemingly 'absence of soul' in light of their pacifist posture. Bush isn't going to war in Iran the reasons are sound. If Iran pushes their nuclear development past a date of intolerance established by the IAEA, then there will be a collective of western nations raising hell in the UN, to say nothing of questions addressing Israel's sovereignty or survival. You do remember the NIE waved at the American public by Curly, Larry and Moe of the State Department; now widely held in intelligence communities around the world as erroneous? It was GWB who reminded us of Iran's persistence and, the UN/IAEA reiterated Iran's unswerving course. With certainty it can be said: Our State Department is no longer trustworthy. I only hope the IAEA is doing its job adequately.

The International Atomic Energy Agency:..."is an independent intergovernmental, science and technology-based organization, in the United Nations family, that serves as the global focal point for nuclear cooperation;"...does this not have the ring of double speak? What entity is "independent" within a family? They are now the de facto trigger mechanism. This thought frightens me. Now the Democrats are pressuring the President to embargo the Iranian Central Bank. Is this an olive branch to Tehran coming from the left side of the isle? He (Mr. Bush) resists. Will a neo-liberal please explain? Perhaps it is because The European Union, in a statement issued Friday in Brussels, denounced the upcoming Iranian election as "neither fair nor free."? I think not. It sounds to me as it is in the will of the socialist to declare war without voicing a declaration. He resists.

Does anyone remember the vociferous Democrats crying for war after 911? That consistent taunting of this President was manifest after a Chinese interceptor downed a US Spy craft over the international waters off the China coast. This taunting is not a warning, it has a certain 'je ne sais quoi', a seemingly 'absence of soul' in light of their pacifist posture. Bush isn't going to war in Iran the reasons are sound. If Iran pushes their nuclear development past a date of tolerance established by the IAEA, then there will be a collective of western nations raising hell in the UN, to say nothing of Israel's sovereignty or survival. You do remember the NIE waved at the American public by Curly, Larry and Moe of the State Department; now widely held in intelligence communities as erroneous? It was GWB that reminded us of Iran's persistence and, the UN/IAEA reiterated Iran's unswerving course. With certainty it can be said: Our State Department is no longer trustworthy. I only hope the IAEA is doing its job adequately. They are now the de facto trigger mechanism. This thought frightens me. Now the Democrats are pressuring the President to embargo the Iranian Central Bank. Is this an offering of peace coming from the left side of the isle? He (Mr. Bush) resists. Will a neo-liberal please explain.

Does anyone remember the vociferous Democrats crying for war after 911? That consistent taunting of this President was also demonstrative after the Chinese interceptor downed a US Spy craft in the international waters of the China coast. This taunting is not a warning, it has a certain 'je ne sais quoi' a seemingly 'absence of soul' in light of their position. Bush isn't going to war in Iran the reasons are sound. If Iran pushes the nuclear development past a tolerable date established by the IAEA then there will be a collective of Western Nations raising hell in the UN. You do remember the NIE waved at the American public by Curly, Larry and Moe of the State Department; now widely held in intelligence communities as erroneous? It was GWB that reminded us of Iran's persistence and the UN reiterated Iran's unswerving course. I only hope the IAEA is doing its job adequately. They are the trigger mechanism. This thought frightens me. Now the Democrats are pressuring the President to embargo the Iranian central bank. Is this an offering of peace coming from the left side of the isle? He resists.

Following the invasion of Afghanistan, set up a puppet government, Got his Contract signed to build a Gas Pipeline to India, No longer cared about Osama bin Laden, then Bush unloaded it off to NATO.

Then he attacked Iraq. Well well Bush couldn't' unload it to the UN or NATO and we've been stuck there borrowing billions of dollars to sustain our Occupation.

If Bush could have unloaded Iraq to the UN or NATO he would have already attacked Iran.

Now NATO countries are backing out of Afghanistan and others are backing out of Iraq.

America is bankrupt, our borrowing power is greatly diminished the dollar value is declining. Bush can't borrow more Trillions of dollars to sustain a war with Iran.

//As far as the 'threat' you postulate, an "embargo" on US oil imports from Iraq, (which by the way accounts for only 3.18% of total US oil imports www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html). My unsophisticated reading of the nation's appetite for war leads me to believe that the people of the United States would not, in the near or midterm, allow their President to wager American "blood for oil."\\ --Frank

Aside from your threat comparisons, which deserve consideration - my focus is on the Iraq/Iran situation at hand.

IF Iran was to take control of Iraqi oil through a indirect means (Mahdi Army/Al Sadr), the mere fact that Iran could control a larger part of the market and raise prices by usurping control of the Halliburton facilities in Iraq/Iran can affect the entire market.

It wouldn't matter if the US only aquires 3 percent of Iraqi oil IF the market has Iran to change the scheme of control. They would be able to change the price by affecting the supply and demanding more per barrel would double the price overnight.

Halliburton/Brown/Root doesn't have the same capacity as US forces to stop such a takeover by force; and removing our present forces could open the door to such an action. Is it speculation to say that this has been the plan that the US has been doing up to this time? This 'if scenario' would push the price of crude to outrageous prices - and would bypass the speculators and push them out of the market. It would upset the entire market supply/flow. An 'oil coup' - as it would be.

Of course, I am talking about an 'if scenario' - and I too reserve the right to be wrong. It is the CIA's job to do this kind of threat assessment reasearch; but that doesn't stop me for thinking out loud - so tho speak. I am speculating upon the possibillities, based upon the news being the source for the facts...

-- So you agree with me that it is a threat, and any president would have to recognize this scenario as such. --

A threat to US economy. Sure. In much the same sense that global warming is. Or a deteriorating national transportation infrastructure. Or an increasingly uneducated workforce. Or over aggressive speculation in the market. Or an economy skewed too far towards consumerism rather than manufacturing. Or an increasingly larger trade deficit. Or accumulating too much per capita consumer debt. Or a weakenening dollar. And so on, and so on. Bottom Line -- There are LOTS of 'threats's to our nation's economy. (Here I use the term 'threat' much as I might use the term 'risk'.)

As far as the 'threat' you postulate, an "embargo" on US oil imports from Iraq, (which by the way accounts for only 3.18% of total US oil imports www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html). My unsophisticated reading of the nation's appetite for war leads me to believe that the people of the United States would not, in the near or midterm, allow their President to wager American "blood for oil."

Again. Getting back to my original point.

Reading 'the signs' and trying to fathom whether the US is going (or not going) to wage war on Iran is academic.

There is no casus belli. Nor, outside of a attack of the United States that is DIRECTLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY attributable to Iran, I do not think any President would be able to manufacture one that would be sufficiently credible for a skeptical US populus to rally around and support.

The people of the United States hve learned much about casus belli since 2003. Those lessons are soon not forgotten on a war weary nation.

No. The US will not go to war with Iran. Because we have no COMPELLING reason to. Ambiguous talk of "state sponsored terrorist", "WMD", and "UN resolutions" won't be enough. We, the people, have heard that tune one too many times.

==So you agree with me that it is a threat, and any president would have to recognize this scenario as such.
OK==

Iranian influence among the Shia of Iraq is only a "threat" to a mindset which is convinced, or rather based upon the idea that United States of America actually owns the world.

Indeed, this strange and illogical belief system permeates the American political elites and dictates our foreign policy, which grows more and more aggressive and self-destructive year after year.

When there were repeated statements by our civilan and military leaders that United States will not permit foreign(!) interference in Iraq, there was no shocked questioning by the media as to how a completely foreign nation of occupiers can rail against interference in a country half-way around the world by its neighbor. It was understood by all that Iraq was "OURS" and any nation that meddles in it was going against the wishes of that country's owners, i.e us, and therefore was acting in a hostile fashion.

This shocking intermingling of perception of our national interests confounded with a false and hubris filled implicit ownership of any place in the world we deem worthy of our takeover, is leading to our moral, economic and military ruin as a nation.

But like any hubris-filled empire in history, our leaders are marching the population lockstep to the abyss, while pleding alliegence to the false gods of militant nationalism and American exceptionalism.

//IMHO, no. Not with the current national mindset.

You postulate a indirect Iranian influence over Iraq economic policy through a internal Iraqi political surrogate. Though ANY President may perceive this as a legitimate threat to US interests, unless Iran were to embark on DIRECT military action against Iraq, no President could make that case of "American blood for oil." Not now. Not in the immediate future. The US is just too darn war weary.\\ --Frank

So you agree with me that it is a threat, and any president would have to recognize this scenario as such.
OK

Now Frank, would derailing our economy to the point past recession to depression change our mindset?

OR what would be the defining element(s) that could/would 'break the camel's back' so to speak?
IYHO?

I'm not convinced.

You may underestimate the
recklessness and
incompetence and
irresponsibility
of Cheney & Bush and the party of the Iran Junkies.

But I hope you are right, Mr. Arkin, and it may well be that you are right.

==Bush should attack now. The Iranian people are pro USA, much like Poland at the height of the cold war. They would welcome regime change in Iran. I wouldn't be surprised if Israel joins as they also have a vested interest in securing the region, as they rightly should.

God Bless America.==

Let me make a wild guess and suggest you said the same thing before Bush attacked Iraq.

God protect America from self-destructive fools like you.

The flaw in Mr. Arkin's analysis is that he attempts to assert reason from the American perspective into the debate which, after 7 years of this administration, is almost comical. Instead, one needs to view the world from the Bush/Cheney perspective which is wholly different and which, I'm sorry to say, will have Arkin eating his words within the next 10 months.

...however any thing can happen if tel aviv orders anything to washington...chow.

US is not going to war with iran.... the neocons have billions at stake in iraq...
halliburton or what you call that company belonging to cheney or mc cain, it has a contract of over 14 billion $ in iraq... and moreover there are hundreds of contractors who actually started the war in Iraq, who are having a good time with american tax payers money.. ...any attack on iran would mean losing the easy found el dorado...

Bush should attack now. The Iranian people are pro USA, much like Poland at the height of the cold war. They would welcome regime change in Iran. I wouldn't be surprised if Israel joins as they also have a vested interest in securing the region, as they rightly should.

God Bless America.

Bush should attack now. The Iranian people are pro USA, much like Poland at the height of the cold war. They would welcome regime change in Iran.

God Bless America and Israel.

I demand that this hack of a propagandist is fired immediately.
This is nothing but blatant Bush propaganda, and it's really embarrasing to see this crap published in what's (in America at least) perceived as a serious publication!

Shame om the Washington Times for allowing this douchebag to spread Bush's lies unhindered and calling it "journalism"...

how many shekels have you been paid arkin?

Dude, You're an idiot. If you been reading the news, The Us Navy is loading up bombs and heading to Iran.

You don't see very well, do you?

You forgot the most important reason and that is the current high oil prices and US economy recession

Let Americans see this and see democracy in Iran. Something nonexistent in all of America's allies in region. aka SAUDI Arabia and Jordan and the rest of the puppets.

http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=530

It's not Arkins fault. He's being told to lie to us, to keep our minds off the topic. Or he's very naive. Besides, if we ever decide to invade Iran, it will be with our H.A.A.R.P. technology, airstrikes and disease control. Things are about to get really ugly. Right now, we're currently setting the stage and privatizing our military, just in case a Democrat wins the Presidency in November. Oil = Money. It's now $110.00 a barrel. We're holding the world hostage with it and overpricing it. Soon, we'll all have something a lot bigger to worry about. Some of us lucky ones, will be somewhere up in a space station, or a D.U.M.B., as our precious earth will perish.

You argue that America won't invade Iran, because it doesn't have a plan, as if America never invaded a Middle Eastern country without a plan.

You have left out an important factor that should be taken into any assessment of this issue: Bush is irrational because his convictions are based on belief and not an impartial assessment. His invasion of Iraq is a clear example as is his willingness to seek to delude the Public with his lies on any issue in which he wants an outcome that defies logical assessment.

Your claims that hundreds of geberals and admirals would not tolerate an invasion of Iraq because it is foolhardy is tantamount to saying that the officers would be disobedient and would engage in behaviour that would threaten the stability of the USA and be seen by many as a coup. I would expect them to follow orders.

Bush has long been bellicaose about Iran and, just as he did with Iraq, he relies on lies to prop up his designs. For instance, he claimed that Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons that it would use against the USA. Well, they are unlikely to develop such an arsenal for many years and they would have to pay a price of being bombed into the stone age if they took nukes to US territory.

The world's most dangerous leader at the moment is Bush and the world's most aggressive nation is the USA.

Your article is, I submit, full of holes.

Plainfacto writes:

--Is it economic warfare IF Iran should take over southern Iraq and dominate the oil region through their manaipulation of the Mahdi Army/Al Sadr?

Would this be considered compelling enough to force the US to intervene? --

IMHO, no. Not with the current national mindset.

You postulate a indirect Iranian influence over Iraq economic policy through a internal Iraqi political surrogate. Though ANY President may perceive this as a legitimate threat to US interests, unless Iran were to embark on DIRECT military action against Iraq, no President could make that case of "American blood for oil." Not now. Not in the immediate future. The US is just too darn war weary.

In a Sept 2004 article for the LA Times titled "Five Big American Blunders in Terror War" you wrote:

"With dismaying frequency, Bush, Rumsfeld and senior military leaders have made critical decisions on the basis of what they thought was a clear view of their adversaries - looking at the enemy through an open window, so to speak. In reality, they were looking at a mirror and seeing fuzzy images of themselves."

While I dearly want you to be right about no war with Iran, I would feel better if you could explain the basis for your assessment about Bush's improved state of mind.

1. Fallon's resignation
if you ignore the top military who have left because bush wanted it done cheaper?
the majority of them appeared to start out in his camp but fell out with them when they heard the numbers...

2. Contingency plans:
your logic assumes we were not trying to give them the impression we were comming for them in the last 2 years and or that when we come it will look different at the start. are you sure about that?

3. The military just follows orders:
yes they do, the realy good ones resign sometimes before and sometimes after
most simply soldier on
ignore you only have to get rid of the one because you can cherry pick the next one...
you also ignore the fact that the resignation must happend before or after the order not during as long as it is lawfull

4. Bush and Cheney:
even when they know the other side isnt going to give them what they want havent they more often than not tried to give the appearance of "coilition builing"?
havent they settled for "you may not be able to sing that tune in your country but when the camera pans to you lip synch"?

5. Israel:
dude... were talking israel here when have they ever listened to anyone 2 seconds longer than they thought to their advantage?
the same argument can carry just as much wieght the other direction... in order for iran to attack back they would have to go thru american forces...

6. Iran:
run by a bunch of senile religious nut jobs far nuttier than bush and thats saying something!
bush is out there, id guess about 20k feet but the leadership of iran is some place the other side of mars

are we headed for war? depends on how you look at it... from their perspective we are at war with them and have been for a while...
if hilly gets the job we will see 4 years of war at a distance with our special forces making semi regular raids... sounds familar
if obama? not sure i think he will fall some were between hilly and mcain
with mcain it will depend on circumstance
im not say he hasnt seen the light and is now honest but his past behaviour has show him to be your everyday republican rich man thief... i respect his military service and if i was going to let someone steal from me it would probably be him... maybe thats why out of the keating 5 he is the last one standing in public life
still at the end of the day i think he is a slightly wiser version of what he was in the 80's... a con artist thief... i suspect the republican parties disdain from him is more sham than anything else
after all were are they going to get anyone with a more pro "we need to help the rich steal from the poor, trickle down economics" past?

Re: "An Army marches on its stomach" and "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics" -- that should adequately explain why the United States is not headed for war with Iran.

Are you speaking of reasonable people in the real world? It would appear so.

So just what part of this world do you think Messers Bush and Cheney reside in?

I think this writer has previously posted that they exist in the faith based community; meaning our President has had no qualms at all about his commiting this country to ruin, bankruptcy, and possible collapse because of his faith based decision making.

"If these resistance groups want to liberate their land from foreign control, they have peaceful means of doing so. Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi showed us that peaceful protest is possible. The fact that militants have turned to unnecessary violence shows that they are slaves to their hatred and should not be supported."

I commend your devotion to peaceful means. Did you also advocate peaceful Martin Luther King means to resolve America's dispute with Iraq regarding the alleged (nonexistent) WMDs? Are you advocating a peaceful, nonviolent Ghandi like resolution to the dispute with Iran? Following your logic, shouldn't Israel attempt to seek a nonviolent solution is Gaza...rather than mass starvation and raids that kill a hundred at a time?

If you feel that the U.S. and Israel were "driven" to violence, bear in mind that the militants you describe make the same point.

//For better or worse, the US is war weary. And without a clear, compelling case for IMMINENT danger, the people will not accept war with Iran as an appropriate course of action.\\ -Frank

Hey Frank,

Is it economic warfare IF Iran should take over southern Iraq and dominate the oil region through their manaipulation of the Mahdi Army/Al Sadr?

Would this be considered compelling enough to force the US to intervene?

Doesn't the control of a larger Iranian oil market be considered a direct or indirect threat to the US/Western economies?

When would these possibillities be considered imminent dangers to the US?

What do you think, Frank?

"Iran has the right to defy the West. Iran does not support terrorism at all. All it does is support organizations who want to liberate their territories. Such organizations may be guilty of terror attacks."

If these resistance groups want to liberate their land from foreign control, they have peaceful means of doing so. Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi showed us that peaceful protest is possible. The fact that militants have turned to unnecessary violence shows that they are slaves to their hatred and should not be supported.

//Iran has the right to defy the West. Iran does not support terrorism at all. All it does is support organizations who want to liberate their territories. Such organizations may be guilty of terror attacks.\\

Yea, and out here in the West, we call that 'terrorism'. If Captain Kangaroo were to commit a terrorist act, then he has become a terrorist. When the West/US retalliates, we call it counter-terrorism.

SO, you don't know that Iran sponsors terrorism and Hezballah? Hezballah sponsors are primarily Iran, paid for with oil profits. Three-fourths of Iranian citizens are in rags and are suffering while their gov't/Ayatollahs commit huge sums to kill/destroy/disrupt people of neighboring countries. Iran has some two million Revolutionary Guard members; not a real stand-up army per se - they all are potential terrorist by default.

Have a cup of coffee and figure out that Hillary is one hundred percent wrong about this point, but this is only one of many reasons that she has no business to become president.

A word of advice, I would make it a point if I were you, to understand the region of this area a bit more. You will find that since the discovery of oil and wealth comes the disgruntled who are jealous of anything western, and hide behind the Qu'ran as the excuse for their actions. Most Muslims are not terrorists and do not abide by it, and are killed by these same terrorists in their own countries - too.

You are proud of whay you should be ashamed of. You should live in Lebanon or Syria to understand what you are saying - because obviously you don't get it...

Always something to fear from the Bush administration.

The draft that was surely to come.

War with Iran.

Such simpering on this thread.

'6 Signs Why the US is headed for War'.

'6 Signs Why the US is NOT headed for War.'

Signs??? Signs???

Get serious. They're are lots of 'signs' out there. And you can read them anyway you care to. But arguing about which to read, and how to read them, is academic.

Because there is no caus belli. There is no justification. Period.

The American people have learned a lot about "casus belli" since 2003. And about the realities of war. They no longer will accept unsustantiated 'threats of WMD' or 'state sponsored terrorism' as a reason for war.

No.

For better or worse, the US is war weary. And without a clear, compelling case for IMMINENT danger, the people will not accept war with Iran as an appropriate course of action.

Today, with the realities of war so freshly etched in our minds, the President CANNOT act contrary to the will of the people in something so grave and serious. Our governance systems and processes won't allow it. Without the support of a clear majority of the people in the US, war will with Iran will NOT happen.

It's that simple.

Plainfacto wrote:

"Iran may have the right to develop nuclear energy - but since they are major contributors to terrorism and terrorist acts - there is little or no trust that can be afforded to them by the West. Iran is displaying a very dangerous brand of defiance when one considers the entire circumstance."

Iran has the right to defy the West. Iran does not support terrorism at all. All it does is support organizations who want to liberate their territories. Such organizations may be guilty of terror attacks.

The West supported the Afghan Mujahideen who skinned captured Soviet Soldier alive before beheading them. I didn't hear anyone complain about that then. The US supported the Contras in Nicaragua and they were guilty of many war crimes too. Whatever Iran is dong, it pales in comparison to what the West was doing only recently.

And how dare the US call an attack on their marine barracks in Lebanon a "terror attack" and blame Iran for that (without any hard evidence of Iranian involvement). The US told Saddam that he and his two sons must leave Iraq in 48 hours and then bombed his bunker because he refused to listen to "Supreme leader of the World, Bush".

Iran is defying the world??? I'm glad they are!!!

From Irans recent elections. People lining up to VOTE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmxT484Fgws

Had Iraq agreed to reimburse us for any part of what we are spending there? Why not?

Watch this Video and explain to me who won the 2003 Iraq war?

http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=506

Ahmadinejad enters Iraq with a CAR, not afraid of roadside bombs, catered to by Iraq's leaders. Bush sneaks in and out of Iraq and comes in at night. 160,000 troops present all that security, yet for what? 4000 US soldiers dead for what? Iran is punking america right now in Iraq and that VIDEO is proof of it. Wake up people. Iran won this war.

But what if Arkin is wrong and the Cheney/Bush/neocon gang of war criminals do get us involved in yet another war? Will he speak against it? Join a protest? Why should anyone ever believe the current administration?

how dare the us attack those poor iranians...all they want is to wipe israel off the map with a nuclear weapon, maybe stop the us economy.....who are we to stop them. oh yeah, we are the bad guys----this seems to be the undertone of all your remarks. your all pathetic

The only way to prevent first strike wars (such as that against Iraq) is to make laws that will immediately draft all members of congress and Executive branch who support the war. They must be a part of the ground surge force to be on location within 48 hours of first strike. All their assets must be seized and sold to support the war costs. Thirdly, they must be tried for crimes against humanity.

The only way to prevent first strike wars (such as that against Iraq) is to make laws that will immediately draft all members of congress and Executive branch who support the war. They must be a part of the ground surge force to be on location within 48 hours of first strike. All their assets must be seized and sold to support the war costs. Thirdly, they must be tried for crimes against humanity.

If President George Walker Bush and his corrupt Administration end up going to war with Iran based on lies it will just strengthen charges by the International Courts against them for creating war based on lies against humanity. George Walker Bush and his Cabal of liars from the PNAC all need to be charged as War Criminals and tried by the International Courts in the Hague, Netherlands. If found guilty let them all swing by the hangmans noose as they are not above International Law and the little Dictator George Walker Bush needs to find that out.

THIS IS A LOT MORE CONVINCING

6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran
March 11, 2008 06:52 PM ET | Permanent Link

Is the United States moving toward military action with Iran?

The resignation of the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East is setting off alarms that the Bush administration is intent on using military force to stop Iran's moves toward gaining nuclear weapons. In announcing his sudden resignation today following a report on his views in Esquire, Adm. William Fallon didn't directly deny that he differs with President Bush over at least some aspects of the president's policy on Iran. For his part, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it is "ridiculous" to think that the departure of Fallon--whose Central Command has been working on contingency plans for strikes on Iran as well as overseeing Iraq--signals that the United States is planning to go to war with Iran.
Related News

* How the War in Iraq is Changing the American Soldier
* The Weary Army: Strains Show in Various Ways
* Scoping Out the Political Battlefield

Fallon's resignation, ending a 41-year Navy career, has reignited the buzz of speculation over what the Bush administration intends to do given that its troubled, sluggish diplomatic effort has failed to slow Iran's nuclear advances. Those activities include the advancing process of uranium enrichment, a key step to producing the material necessary to fuel a bomb, though the Iranians assert the work is to produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors, not weapons.

Here are six developments that may have Iran as a common thread. And, if it comes to war, they may be seen as clues as to what was planned. None of them is conclusive, and each has a credible non-Iran related explanation:

1. Fallon's resignation: With the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much of the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based warplanes and sea-launched missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and nuclear infrastructure. Centcom commands the U.S. naval forces in and near the Persian Gulf. In the aftermath of the problems with the Iraq war, there has been much discussion within the military that senior military officers should have resigned at the time when they disagreed with the White House.

2. Vice President Cheney's peace trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what is described as a Mideast trip to try to give a boost to stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other stops: One, Oman, is a key military ally and logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit chokepoint into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose support would be sought before any military action given its ability to increase oil supplies if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mideast trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy toward Iraq and not war, which began a year later.

3. Israeli airstrike on Syria: Israel's airstrike deep in Syria last October was reported to have targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear program. An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran (also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq), and knowing the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to reduce the risks for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.

4. Warships off Lebanon: Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system for defense against air attacks.

5. Israeli comments: Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said they were prepared to act alone -- if that becomes necessary -- to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?

6.Israel's war with Hezbollah: While this seems a bit old, Israel's July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not only as a threat on it own but also as a possible Iranian surrogate force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon's border with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been able to rearm, though a United Nations force polices a border area buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

Defense Secretary Gates said that Fallon, 63, asked for permission to retire. Gates said that the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do." In Esquire, an article on Fallon portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy and said he was a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program. In his statement, Fallon said he agreed with the president's "policy objectives" but was silent on whether he opposed aspects of the president's plans. "Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon, said in the statement issued by Centcom headquarters in Tampa, Fla. "And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," he said. Gates announced that Fallon's top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, will take over temporarily when Fallon leaves. A permanent successor, requiring nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate, might not be designated in the near term.

--Terry Atlas

I found the article by Mr. Arkin logical. The only problem is that current US administration is not logical and hasn't acted logical since it came to power.

When one of the most respected position in the world as United State Secretary of State, General Colin L. Powell present fake and manipulated data to the whole world to motivate a war, there is not much space for logical arguments.

The article has seen the facts but has taken it for granted that anyone realize these facts (as many comments on this page verify it). Current US administration is in a desperate condition and an irrational mood. It might need to do a desperate attempt to do something very right in the name of "goodness" against "evil", and Iran is just a right word.

Iran, get your nukes, you saw what they did to Iraq and Saddam was there friend just twenty years ago. They got them, so Iran should get them too. It is funny that the only country to ever use them is telling another not to get them.

Well I hope there is no war.
I am off to Iran on my holiday next week!
I am looking forward to it, all of the Iranians I have ever met have been very friendly.

The war with Iran has already begun.

Ok, that's all very interesting but where did Paris Hilton party tonight?

Many interesting thoughts. A few that would seem to qualify for the aluminium foil hat club.

War in Iran. Highly doubtful. Mr Arkin makes some good points. As a retired Navy Chief, who was part of the planning and operations for the Navy part of OIF, I have more than a little experience regarding war and logistics.

In order to effect attacks on Iran, there are numerous indicators that would have to be true. Where are the carriers? US doctrine requires Air Dominance or close to it at start of hostilities. Only way to effect that is to increase number of carriers in the region. That doesn't happen overnight. Along with carriers go their escorts. Hard to hide that many ships moving. They aren't. In OIF, planning started in 2001. Takes that long to put things into motion.

Army does not have the horse power to pull an invasion off. Iran would NOT be an easy nut to crack. Terrain there favors the defender in ways that the terrain in Iraq doesn't. Lots of mountains. Not favorable for tanks, nor infantry, even assuming we had enough to spare to go in on the ground.

Logistics support of Iran operations, at the same time supporting Iraq AND Afghanistan, is not feasible. Too few assets to support the enormous requirements it would take to even get a foothold in Iran.

Flag/General officers would not just roll over and execute the mission. If they felt that the odds of even partial success were as dubious as they are, they would delay delay delay. You'd be surprised how easily the brass could derail such an ill advised adventure as a strike into Iran.

Fallon resigned as a result of being in PUBLIC disagreement with the White House. Not a good career move. But I don't think it signals anything, viz an impending invasion. It's what happens when a combatant/unified theater commander talks out of school so to speak.

Contingency plans. The US Military has tens of thousands of contingency plans. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if there was a contingency plan to invade Disney World. Just because there is a number of contingency plans relevant to war/attacks with/on Iran, doesn't mean anything. There've been CPs regarding Iran since before I joined the Navy 25 years ago. Like one of the posters said, it's just like being a scout - be prepared. Easier and better to have a library full of CPs that have been written than to have to write one from scratch right when you need it. Saves a lot of time and effort.

Politically, I think that Bush knows, or should know (please pass this on NSA) that starting something with Iran would be the straw that broke the camels back, and would most likely get him impeached...we except for that whole Cheney succeeding him. Gotta admit, having Cheney as a VP is just about the BEST life insurance policy Bush could have.

Just my humble opinions, and I reserve the right to be wrong.

I find it ironic that we are trying to stop a nation from making the exact same WMD's that we already have. In fact we are the only counrty that has used a WMD. Shouldn't the rest of the world be more scared of us? Since when did we gain the right to dictate and force Democracy on the world as a whole. Didn't we start this nation because we were being forced to follow someone else's beliefs and not our own? The U.S. has enough problems here that need to be addressed. We should unite as a counrty and be a role model to the rest of the world, not just a counrty that others fear will bomb them if they diagree with us.

All those points cited in the above article are irrelivant, because Bush isn't going to order an attack on Iran without a false flag attack. Besides, such a US attack would be almost exclusively naval, and the plans are already drawn up, plus the logistics are prepared as a contingency regardless. Frankly, I think Mr Arkin is an apologist for consensis reality, rather than a true analyst with something insightful to communicate.

By the way, the one significant factor maximizing American military aggression is that recently Iran tried to open an oil bourse that sold oil in Euros, not American dollars. Somehow multiple separate undersea internet connections were cut, cancelling the opening set for early February. See by blog entry on that date for more information ( www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod ).

Overall, I think that the Pentagon, the civilian leadership in Washington, and talking heads (like Mr Arkin) don't understand what is about to happen to our climate, and as such are thinking in an outdated paradigm:

"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Bagdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." Dr James Lovelock, Climate Change on a Living Earth

arkin leaves out a seventh, and most important, reason why bush won't attack iran: that it would doom mccain's run for the presidency and probably assure the democrats the 60 votes in the senate they need to beat back republican filibusters.
with two unsuccessful wars now under way, and the public still convinced that the iraq war should never have been started, it's inconceivable that bush would start a third in an election year.

arkin leaves out a seventh, and most important, reason why bush won't attack iran: that it would doom mccain's run for the presidency and probably assure the democrats the 60 votes in the senate they need to beat back republican filibusters.
with two unsuccessful wars now under way, and the public still convinced that the iraq war should never have been started, it's inconceivable that bush would start a third in an election year.

arkin leaves out a seventh, and most important, reason why bush won't attack iran: that it would doom mccain's run for the presidency and probably assure the democrats the 60 votes in the senate they need to beat back republican filibusters.
with two unsuccessful wars now under way, and the public still convinced that the iraq war should never have been started, it's inconceivable that bush would start a third in an election year.

I really dislike ad hominem forms of logic. The use of the phrase "Iran war junkies" is pejorative. This implies that if you think war with Iran is necessary for the defence of the country or even the world, you are a "Iran war junkie". Obviously being a junkie is "bad" which is why the label is pejorative.

So the article is written in the new journalism style in which the journalist takes a side and even tries to sell that viewpoint to the readers, kind of like what propaganda is.

I long for the good old days of plain speech and where both sides of an issue are given and the reader makes his own decision. Instead of being told how to think. But I guess we cattle can't be trusted to think by ourselves.

I find it disturbing that ideologues will continue to assert that the RNC and Republican in general are the sole warmongers in Washington. The DNC and Democrats in Washington may play foil to the President, but they are profiting just as much, and arguably more in fact when you consider the political climate, as any other group.
WAKE UP!
The "Ruling Party" of Republican and Democrats is running the show. They keep 'we the people' paralyzed and ineffective with partizan rhetoric. Stop looking at the world through Red or Blue lenses. Realize that Clinton was not evil, and neither is Bush, but that those who rule America are not truly looking out for the people, but for their own profit and power - regardless of party affiliation.
Kick them all out.

I have no concern at all about 'going to war' with Iran.

I have grave concerns that Bush & Cheney may order pre-emptive airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities prior to leaving office.

That will not constitute war.

It will cause significant disruptive shockwaves in already destablized global financial markets and perhaps further damage to the image of the US abroad.

But it won't be a war anymore than the invasion of Granada was a 'war' or than the various airstrikes carried out by the Clinton administration in the 1990's etc.

It may violate the desired normative standard for international behavior, but it won't be 'war'.

Hey I assume you have what it takes to join the military, or are you just a cheer leader in a mini skirt dodging the military like dick chainey and Bush?

The main reason US will not war with Iran is that all the moneies that US had and a few trillion dollars more (borrowed from China) are all spent up in Iraq and Afghanistan. no more money left. The financial health of the country is becoming so bad everyday that more and more people will be begging in the streets. The chest beater poster who talks about crushing Iran like ants, probably is waiting in the line with a begging bowl already - if not today then tomorrow but not later.

In Falon's own words: "if it came to war with Iran, we would crush them like ants."

The US has, by far, the most powerful military force on this planet. No one disputes this. No one. If the US Government wanted to crush a stupid little tin-pot country like Iran, the military would respond "how hard?"

Why do the same people that say "The US should get out of Iraq NOW" also say "The US is bogged down in Iraq?" The US has over 100,000 combat-hardened soldiers on the border with Iran, right now, in Iraq and Afghanistan, fully supplied by established logistics. It would be easier now for the US to invade Iran than it was for them to invade Iraq. Yes, Iran has a more powerful military than Iraq had... they might last twice as long. So, what's that... two weeks, maybe three?

It is simply wrong to say that the US could not crush Iran at any time, especially now that it is completely surrounded by US forces. Yes, it would strain the military to occupy Iran, but that isn't actually necessary. Crushing may be all the US Government wants.

Diplomacy is, by design, difficult to predict. I have no idea if Bush will engineer an attach on Iran. But, if he does, the US military will crush the Iranian military "like ants."

Look, the USA has had invasion plans for Canada since the 1930s, and probably many other countries.

Granted, Iran is the current bogeyman and there are plans in place, as well as equipment. Like a good boy scout, be prepared...

Iran is much tougher a nut to crack than Iraq, and only madmen would invade.

Which means that the USA may be in for more trouble. Soon.

Yeah, we are not gearing up for war with Iran. What are you? Stupid? Bush and Cheney want to attack Iran so bad their pants are tight in inappropriate places, you propagandist. Well, propagandist or simpleton, take your choice.

It seems that Iranian leaders have enough evidence to believe Arkin's point: That war with Iran is not an option for the US. Does it make sense, then, to continue to use the threat of war in Iran policy? There are costs to making this threat, however empty it may be: It shores up support for extremists across the region; It justifies Iranian military development; It strengthens the hand of Iranian hardliners and thereby stifles reform. Is it possible to pursue our policy objectives in Iran - e.g. preventing nuclear proliferation, promoting reform in Iranian politics and halting Hezbollah and other Iranian surrogates from destroying the Israel-Palestine peace process - without invoking this threat? How can we save face after making this transition?

"Speak softly and carry a big stick." If Arkin is right, we're frantically shouting while flailing a twig.

...you don't go to war with an enemy that could hurl 1.5 million fanatical men at you. The ensuing body count plus civilian deaths would create a stench that...

Factually, the war with Iran has already begun...

I gurantee you that American spies, scouts and seals are all over Iran right now. We have already wronfully sought the help of other nations of the world to isolate Iran economically, as well as to freeze their assets. All of that constitutes an act of war.

Now we are simply waiting to see when THE SURGE into IRAN will begin. If it doesn't happen during this current administration, if McCain takes over - there will be a military surge into Iran!

You can bet your Repulican votes that it will happen if he gets elected!

Once again, you try to create something that isn't there.
Smoke w/o substance

That assumes rational people are in command in Washington.
Can we be so sure?

i agree with you RoberG. it will be a war like no other. step these idiots before it is too late!

Iran has a strong capability compared to all of the countries we have fought so far. This will be a war like no other. We should be afraid of playing with a sleeping Lyon. Although unlikely, start saving gas cans in your garages.

==What is laughable - Timidry==

The immature name-calling is the calling card of an overgrown fool.

Sanctions, threats, these are all acts of war.... We're hurting Iran's economy, we're motivating them to fund our enemies with our attitude. Any country in the world would do what Iran is doing, and I think you are pretty ignorant or just plain lieing to say it's impossible we will go to war with Iran...

//2. Contingency plans: Iran war junkies say that the United States has "plans" for war with Iran and has sharpened those plans. Over the past two years, there has been much speculation about air strikes against weapons of mass destruction targets in Iran, about Fifth Fleet movements indicating imminent war, about improving Iranian air defenses making the timing right now, about Israel's intentions.\\ -Arkin

There you go again; claiming that US intentions are wrapped-up in nothing more than striking percieved 'WMD'.

IF we were to strike Iran - I doubt very much that the illusionary WMD's that you brewed up will be the targets of opportunity. You are baiting and switching your audience into believing that we are really up to no more than we were in Iraq - which was also a falsehood.

If we go into Iran - it would be to take out all of the Revolutioary Guard and their finger organizations (Hezballah, Quds, Basij, etc..) - and those points that support and nourish military materiel productions that supplies Iraqi, Lebanese, and Syrian terrorist cells. And I believe anything that comes close to these ends - as well...

Bill, you went out of your way to sponsor a lie...

The Iran-Iraq war dragged on an on for years and years for no reason except to keep the mullahs in power. They sent children out on the battlefields to sweep them for mines. The mythology taught to Iranians is so sad. Iran had the power to end the war but rejected all truces and peace proposals. So sad that anyone in Iran still buys into the propaganda of those responsible for the death of a generation.

Controlling the price of oil between the west and the middle east, western economics dependency on oil for infrastructure, and remainder of cold war fanatic Muslim Rambos programed to fight communism left without an end plan, is taking its toll on US. This arrogant kill planning must stop and care planning must start. The world will be better if we all truly care for one another, even if that means not driving $60k cars, $70 boats, 200k RV etc. Life is more important than toys!
I love freedom and USA. I also love the world. Killing and war is very primitive. Intelligent beings that we are, can and should reach the tipping point to world peace sooner. We as a leader we should lead by teaching and helping.

See they are not like US, where Bush has never been to War. Or any other of these politicians. In Iran, the "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei was at the frontlines in the Iran-Iraq War, when Saddam used to be an "ally" to US, at a time when Iran was defending itself against him.

In fact here is a VIDEO of their supreme leader giving speech at frontlines of warfront (with ENGLISH subtitles):

http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=451

See they are not like US, where Bush has never been to War. Or any other of these politicians. In Iran, the "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei was at the frontlines in the Iran-Iraq War, when Saddam used to be an "ally" to US, at a time when Iran was defending itself against him.

In fact here is a VIDEO of their supreme leader giving speech at frontlines of warfront (with ENGLISH subtitles):

http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=451

Either way Iran seems ready:

http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=377

Either way Iran seems ready:

http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=377

What is laughable - Timidry - is that you are attempting to bait me with your pathetic rhetoric.
Go build a go-kart frame!

The major flaw in the argument is to suppose that Bush-Cherey are rational actors. They are not. And unfortunately they can still find Brass Hats who will do anything or agree to the basest stupidity if it advances their careers. We are not out of the woods by a long shot.

==Saddam wasn't attacked for WMD - that was only one more reason - not the main reason. The reason - was that he refused to follow the UNSC sanctions and flagrantly violated them - which was the real reason for the final invasion. The UNSC had left an open option for the US to re-invade Iraq if Saddam went against their conclusions/findings.==

Still flogging that dead horse, even after the last thumping I gave it? Commendable! Where is the lawyer brother of yours to defend the indefensible? Bring him on!

Only dead enders keep insisting that our invasion was legal - and they have to envoke logic-and-law defying concept of "never expiring authorisation of force resolution" from 1991, which is on its face laughable, and should be an embarassment for any honest person. But they don't call you "dead enders" for nothin'!

Iraq was invaded for the foolishest(!) of reasons - because we could and the President deemed it prudent to invade somebody in the ME, to "show 'em" what a tough recovered alcoholic he is.

So, to recap: same president, even less to loose, thinks the same way, remembers that his party gets boost during active military actions, fires theater commander who wasn't ready to back near-term war.

I would give this even odds.

//Therefore, what should Iranians do to prevent a US attack?\\ -Persian

Stop using Hezballah to destabilize Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq to begin with.

//Iranians behavior is not a part of the war equation.\\

Respectfully, I must disagree for the same reason that I just mentioned. Iran has been the sole cause of destabilization in this region - even moreso than Al Qaida is now.

//Saddam did what ever Americans wanted him to do. Still he was attacked for WMDs.\\

Saddam wasn't attacked for WMD - that was only one more reason - not the main reason. The reason - was that he refused to follow the UNSC sanctions and flagrantly violated them - which was the real reason for the final invasion. The UNSC had left an open option for the US to re-invade Iraq if Saddam went against their conclusions/findings.

//Hence Mr. Arkins 6 reasons should be reduced to 1.\\

And which one might that be? Israel's need to punch at the dangerous single source of terrorism through Lebanon and Syria - provided by Iran's Hezballah, al Quds, and the Basij?

Or maybe its the US need to stop the saturation of the Shia-controlled southern Iraq by Iranian dictation? Which is attemping to break up Iraq as a single nation - thereby solidifying a stranglehold of the oil industry of Iraq.

Iran may have the right to develop nuclear energy - but since they are major contributors to terrorism and terrorist acts - there is little or no trust that can be afforded to them by the West. Iran is displaying a very dangerous brand of defiance when one considers the entire circumstance.

Iran's use of trade within this region is also their avenue of approach for infiltration and terrorism that points directly back to state-sponsorship or Iran. Small wonder this issue is being the subject of great/profuse debates.

Adm. Fallon's resignation may well be an indicator that Iran is not interested in negotiations and diplomatic solutions to these problems they cause. Bush may be showing a loss of patience with the leadership of Iran and their lack of interest/willingness to stop terrorism. Indeed, if anything Iran has done nothing at all to stop, and has shown many signs of increasing their terrorist support/training.

Beware the Ides of March:

The American people never know what
our present day Caesar is up to.
We may wake up one morning and
discover that he has ordered
a strike on Iran. It
will not suprise in spite of all
to the contrary!

More and more America is becoming 'NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN of the kind that have been running our federal government!

pranson:

Seems to me you are just as uneducated.

In case you did'nt know this, US is considered to be the last conservative Christian country remaining.

Yes the good number of Muslim popluation is uneducated.

Then again, if you are living in the US and a Christian, you likely fit this catagory of uneducated hoard aswell.

If you truly seek to be unbiased, drop your religion or moderate it, like much of EU and Asia does.

From my stand point, US Christians and ME Muslims on average are just as biased and uneducated, just on opposite sides.

Dear w.boune, you got the point. Iraq was the battle field and they don't care about people. But what everybody need to think about is the way this war orchestrated and initiated.... there is a lesson for rest of us...

While your points are well taken, I have chewed on them a while and realize that though they may be somewhat convincing there is one factor that dominates them all, the President, the commander in chief, will do as he likes, after all he is the decider, if he decides to bomb bomb bomb Iran It will be so!

If we place Mr. McCain at the helm, we may get more of the same and it is highly probable that we will then bomb bomb bomb Iran.

I like Obama's cool headed approach in his thinking, we need an end to this administration and we need to turn a fresh page into the future.

Controlling the economic growth rate of China is the main goal. Historically, wars have done more good for the American economy than harming it. Americans got out of the great depression by spending money and not by saving it. Now the recession is here. Many people think that by spending on military the economy will get back on its feet. The first "Persian Gulf War" served well for the US economy. Off course, Clinton got the credit for the booming economy. A new war could be virtual. It means that if the atmosphere of war could result in weakening of the Chinese and vitalizing the American economy that would serve the purpose. If that can not contain the Chinese then an actual war is required. Oil prices of 200 dollars a barrel would create a fair global market for the Americans. Then the Chinese goods would be produced at "fair" prices and Americans can compete well in that situation.
Therefore, what should Iranians do to prevent a US attack? Iranians behavior is not a part of the war equation. Saddam did what ever Americans wanted him to do. Still he was attacked for WMDs. Hence Mr. Arkins 6 reasons should be reduced to 1.

We only go to war with countries that are small, weak, and managable. Iran is neither