dagblog - Comments for "Attacking Syria as prelude to attack on Iran"

Have you read anything

oleeb — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:53:57 +0000

In reply to Attacking Syria as prelude to attack on Iran

Have you read anything Seymour Hirsch has been writing in the New Yorker for the past year? If you had, you would not have written from a position of total ignorance. Go to the New Yorker and start reading up. Hirsch has the best and most reliable sources of any journalist in America and is seldom wrong.

Stick a fork in JNagarya's

readytoblowagasket — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:43:56 +0000

In reply to Attacking Syria as prelude to attack on Iran

Stick a fork in JNagarya's comment: It's done!

It is more likely than

diachronic — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:11:57 +0000

In reply to Attacking Syria as prelude to attack on Iran

It is more likely than prelude to attacking Iran, a consequence of the 'Sunni Awakening' turning against us because of our unconditional support for al-Maliki.
We have to stay in Iraq long enough to ensure that there is no civil war, and make al-Maliki indebted to us again. The UN mandate is about to expire and there needs to be some leverage we can hold over him to justify an indefinite stay.

I have thought for many

JNagarya — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:28:10 +0000

In reply to Attacking Syria as prelude to attack on Iran

I have thought for many months now that Bush's sick mind would prepare for and then launch an attack against Iran after the election but before the next President is sworn in so as to make permanent war a fait accomplis that the next President will have no choice about other than to keep fighting. Today's idiotic provocation in Syria is a transparent set up for further "cross border raids" to stop the alleged foreign elements of Al Qaeda from entering Iraq. This is such a transparent lie it is rivaled only by the prewar lies of BushCo before illegally invading Iraq.
_____

Where is the EVIDENCE for ANY of that?

Oh -- you haven't any? I not only thought that but noted that.

No matter: Obama would respond with the same calm, the same thoughtfulness, while McSame would run around with his self-important head cut off, and it would have the same result as his running around with his head cut off over the economic crisis.

Stick a fork in it: it's horseshit.

Stick a fork in McPalin: they're done.

Stick a fork in Bushit: his criminal enterprise is done.

Where is the EVIDENCE? There

JNagarya — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:25:42 +0000

In reply to Attacking Syria as prelude to attack on Iran

Where is the EVIDENCE?

There are also doing cross-border attacks in Pakistan.

Note that it was Obama who said that should be done -- over against the less-agressive posture by more-Macho McSame.

Those evidence only that they are happening, not the why. I am really fed up with the lame speculations that galvanize so many into wasting their time with them.

It is more likely a

Abroadabroad — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:30:41 +0000

In reply to Attacking Syria as prelude to attack on Iran

It is more likely a provocation, to begin a scenario with Iran's staunchest ally in the region that would perhaps justify action against Iran.

Honestly, I think Iran and Syria will recognize the politics involved and calculate their response accordingly. Remember, about a month ago Putin claimed that US advisors were present in Georgia during the military engagement and it didn't even register on the US public's radar. This will likely be the same. Americans generally don't pay much attention to foreign policy matters. The current economic worries only intensify the national pasttime of navel-gazing.

Whether this is an attempt by the Bush administration to change the topic from the economy to foreign policy is really irrelevant. Nothing is going to get voter's attention away from their individual economic peril. Most Americans, sadly, will just view this incident something like the Syrians deserved it. The facts or implications will get little consideration.

I think right now they are

oleeb — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:38:06 +0000

In reply to Attacking Syria as prelude to attack on Iran

I think right now they are simply establishing a policy of crossing borders to ostensibly get at "foreign" fighters with Syria. The real purpose is to set the stage for bombing Iran sometime prior to the end of the year depending upon the scenario they choose to manufacture as justification for the attack.

Iran has always been the target to follow Iraq. They won't be looking for another place to "park" the army. They are looking to attack Iran from Iraq. This attack is most likely to come in the form of extensive and ongoing air raids on a wide variety of Iranian "targets". They don't have the manpower to invade Iran but they do have airpower that can easily attack from bases in Iraq and carriers in the gulf.

how does this incident

tpmgary — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:30:12 +0000

In reply to Attacking Syria as prelude to attack on Iran

how does this incident specifically point to a planned attack on Iran?

I do understand that since Iraq wants our troops out, history tells us that the U.S. government needs to find another place to park our army. When we got kicked out of Saudi Arabia, we moved to Iraq.

SERIOUSLY, You have to really

theone718 — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:04:04 +0000

In reply to Attacking Syria as prelude to attack on Iran

SERIOUSLY, You have to really tink about why this is happening just 8 days before te election.

First thought: Bush is

Abroadabroad — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:48:35 +0000

In reply to Attacking Syria as prelude to attack on Iran

First thought: Bush is trying to give McCain another reason to suspend his campaign and show his FP leadership skills. Get ready for a "my friends we must act" speech.

Second thought: Bush/the Republicans are manufacturing an internatinal crisis by picking on the "most likely to respond by invading Lebanon and inviting war with Israel" country...all the while provoking Obama to take a calm posture in the face of this crisis rather than a bellicose one. Remaining calm will in effect be some sort of campaign secret code for "he's really a Muslim" or some such crap.

Third thought: Bush is definitly drinking again.

If the reports are true (as they appear to be) then the US has only added gasoline to the fire.