Bush had best think long and hard before going off half-cocked against Iran. The worst thing he could do, while struggling with two wars, would be to pick a third. We have neither the troop strength nor the will to win.
I'll even say this - if Bush starts a third war, he will be, without a doubt, the worst President this country ever had - surpassing even the cowardly James Buchanan. This country cannot afford a third war to satisfy the neo-conservative delusions of American hegemony.
Well we're all entitled to our own opinion sweet cheeks but here's a truth. Three wars,five wars or fifty wars,one of the most potentially dangerous countries as far as the USA is concerned is Iran NO QUESTION. These crazy bastards given nuclear weapons would not only seek to destroy Israel,but would use any chance they had to hit the US also. If we or the Israelis or both combined don't do something about this pain-in -the-ass country soon,I believe we will regret it bigtime !!!
And it won't have it either. Contrary to the 'hoo-rah' gang, the financial leaders and markets (the ones who hold the real power) have had enough. And it is also becomingly evidently clear that more within the administration and those surrounding it while not speaking publicly are voicing their opinion (a correct one loud and clear). Cheney and Bush can rant all they want and get the shrinking war support base whipped into a frenzy but make no mistake. There will be a diplomatic solution to this.
We'll be praying for you, jude.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, we are not fighting 2 wars, we are fighting one war, the war on terrorism, and Iran would simply be the 3rd front in that one war.
The US could easily defeat the Iranians in ground combat. The only issue would be what we'd want to do with that nation. Hopefully, we'd just leave after we destroyed their nuke capability. (The Iranians couldn't defeat the Iraqis in 10 years. We defeated the Iraqis twice in a total of about 3 weeks.)
Any idea that generals would quit is idiotic. Generals won't quit. That's just ignorant.
"...neo-conservative delusions of American hegemony."
he·gem·o·ny
1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation.
2. leadership; predominance.
3. (esp. among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.
Would you do me the favor of telling me which of the above definitions you were referring to in your post #72?
Thanks in advance.