hehe not that i disagree, i just wish i could write statements like this, and sound off with as much authority as our comrade here…

“After careful study of recent moves and statements by the Bush Administration, I have concluded that there is at least a 10% chance of an American attack on Iran before the November 7 Congressional elections and about a 90% chance before the administration’s end in 2008. “

lol “I have concluded” that there is a 10% chance that i will drink the rest of my beverage tonight.

still i like Will’s reasoning, just want to see his research… there is so little in the Administration, basing statistics on research might be misleading… =)

Bush underwent a personal “rebirth” and emerged from what he described as a life-long alcoholic haze into the belief that he had a God-given role to fight off the forces of evil and prepare a new world order.

Very profound for something that you just pulled out of your ass.

Things don’t become a fact just because your argument needs it to be a fact. Facts are what grounds us to reality. Without facts we’d all be … we’d all be … oh maybe 911 deniers.

About the author (not Shifty):

Mr. Polk was the member of the U.S. Policy Planning Council responsible for the Middle East from 1961 to 1965. Subsequently, he was professor of history and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Chicago and later president of the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International Affairs. Author of many books on international affairs, world and Middle Eastern history, he recently wrote Understanding Iraq (HarperCollins, New York and London 2005 and 2006) and, together with former Senator George McGovern, Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2006)

Very profound for something that you just pulled out of your ass.

It’s been cited in a number of sources.

they gotta get in there before they get the nuclear deterrent, if they’re going in, right? Maybe right after the elections to save face…still doesn’t seem likely, but I wouldn’t put anything past these Israeli-loving Neo-Cuntz. If anything is done to the history of Persia the way it was done in Babylon, then there should be no rest until the biggest cities of Israel are turned into graveyards.

wasn’t izzy nomad? poddy you rocky? it’s an old act either way. you’re the one without facts brah.

After careful study of recent moves and statements by the Bush Administration, I have concluded that there is at least a 10% chance of an American attack on Iran before the November 7 Congressional elections and about a 90% chance before the administration’s end in 2008.

i don’t care how eminent the author is, statements like this are ludicrous

this is how i see it:

all the recent movements of military hardware and personel are just a part of the scare tactics used to back up the diplomatic efforts in Iran and before the 2008 election, Bush and his cronies will probably try again for a great push in Iraq: a major military operation (maybe preceded by a number of smaller ones), which will be “won” – at least in the eyes of the American public, before they pull the majority of the troops out right before the election.

going for war with Iran is just plain stupid, even in the eyes of “neocons” (i truly hate that word!) like Rumsfeld and co.

an other reason for the movement might be that they expect that Iraq will brake up in three or two states sometime soon

I agree with the percentages given being ludicrous, but the current U.S. policy in Iraq has played out.

Public support here has evaporated and the Iraqi people are becoming increasingly anti-U.S. and anti-West. They know it’s all about the oil and there is no getting around that fact.

The only hope of maintaining U.S. control and access to the Iraqi reserves and the Persian gulf region generally is to take down the current regime in Iran as well.

Once we become involved in a major military conflict with the Iranians the gloves will come off inside Iraq and it won’t get a by line with a major new war in progress.

Defeating the Taliban was a front page story till the Iraq drum began to beat. After “shock and awe”, Afghanistan became the forgotten war and has largely been delegated to NATO forces.

I expect our forces will finally leave Iraq to be replaced by our NATO allies, not to come home, but when they are called upon to conquer and occupy Iran.

For those who believe that there’ll be no ground war, just limited air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, read this article in the Chicago Sun Times.

U.S. can’t afford to pull out of Iraq

The only way of “winning” in Afghanistan and Iraq is to defeat the current Iranian regime as well.

Remember the domino theory. Look at a map of that hemisphere over the past couple of decades. This is no bluff or diplomatic strategy.

We are still winning the “cold war”.

Sometimes no Peace.

This is what the neocons are thinking:

Heritage Foundation experts James Carafano and James Phillips explained in a recent paper what’s likely to happen if we withdraw quickly. “Such a shortsighted U.S. policy would be a severe blow to the Iraqi security situation, Iraqi oil exports, U.S. allies in the region, the global war against terrorism and the future of all Iraqis,” they write.

If we leave now, we’d leave the Iraqi army (with all its heavy weapons) up for grabs. That’s likely to spark a civil war, as soldiers align themselves into religious and regional militias.

Under that scenario, we can expect Iran — already a regional power — to support the Shiite Muslims in the south, a move that would give Tehran control of most of Iraq’s oil. Not that this would necessarily keep the oil flowing; as the civil war escalated, guerrillas would cut pipelines and blow up oil wells.

Now, Iraq produces 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, and the country’s government aims to increase that to 2.7 million by year’s end. If production is disrupted, though, worldwide prices would skyrocket.

If we cut and run, Iraqi civilians would be the biggest losers. Millions would flee the starvation, disease and destruction that civil war brings. Meanwhile, al-Qaida would tout its role in forcing the United States out, providing a huge recruiting boom for the terrorist group.

This doesn’t mean we should stay indefinitely. As they say, there are only two “exit strategies” from any war: A country can win and go home, or it can lose and go home. Either way, all our troops eventually will exit Iraq. What really matters is what they leave behind.

Excerpted from the U.S. can’t afford to pull out of Iraq by Ed Feulner who is the president of the Heritage Foundation.

© Copyright 2006 Sun-Times News Group

GwHunta Public support here has evaporated and the Iraqi people are becoming increasingly anti-U.S. and anti-West. They know it’s all about the oil and there is no getting around that fact.

I hardly think Iraqis are thinking abstractly about oil, I think they are worried about their security. The people loathe the terrorists and are looking for anyone who can stop the gangs. Obviously the foreign Islamo-fascsist gangs are the worse. For a while many Shia Iraqis turned to Shiia militias as a means of stopping Sunni terror. They are now realizing that militia are not an answer either. Unfortunately the US can’t stop the sectarian death gangs either.

The answer is going to have rest with the Iraqi government. The US will help them with training and some operational support but the days of the US protecting Iraq alone are slowly coming to an end.

I hardly think Iraqis are thinking abstractly about oil, I think they are worried about their security. The people loathe the terrorists and are looking for anyone who can stop the gangs.

Stop hardly thinking and read some of the polls out of Iraq.

The majority of the Iraqi people feel attacks on U.S. forces are justified.

The majority of the Iraqi people feel that the U.S. is there for their oil.

Once the U.S. is no longer occupying Iraq and the Iraqi people see the Iraqi military and police forces as legitimate government agencies and not puppets of the U.S. military, then they will align themselves with the government and the rule of law in Iraq will be restored. So long as the U.S. military is seen as the primary force and enforcer, the insurgency will continue.

Official says U.S. may consider pre-emptive Iran strike: The United States or other countries will one day be forced to consider pre-emptive action if Iran and North Korea continue to seek nuclear weapons, a senior U.S. government official said on Tuesday.

Bush will not hesitate to use force in Iran: Israeli ambassador: Ayalon said that a US military operation against Tehran would differ substantially from its invasion of Iraq in 2003.

US media reports say Mr Bush will also name Admiral William Fallon, the top US commander in the Pacific, as the new head of Central Command, which covers Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

The choice of a naval commander for Centcom could signal growing concern over Iran – any move against Tehran would rely heavily on ship-based missiles and carrier-based aircraft.

Here’s what I said three months ago:

Bush and his cronies will probably try again for a great push in Iraq: a major military operation (maybe preceded by a number of smaller ones), which will be “won” – at least in the eyes of the American public, before they pull the majority of the troops out right before the election.

and here’s what Bush said today:

“If we increase our support [meaning an increase of 20,000 in trooplevels] at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home. [2008?]”

Once the U.S. is no longer occupying Iraq and the Iraqi people see the Iraqi military and police forces as legitimate government agencies and not puppets of the U.S. military, then they will align themselves with the government and the rule of law in Iraq will be restored. So long as the U.S. military is seen as the primary force and enforcer, the insurgency will continue.

Perhaps the Iraqi government should have something to say about whether they need US assitance and how?

heres something you may not get izzy, the iraqi insurgency is made up of…...wait for it…... iraqis . chew on that.