wnd.com— Pat Buchanan highlights the various facts and moves by the President, Vice President, Congress, Israel, Iraq, Iran, and other parties whose actions all point to a coming inevitable war with Iran.
Apr 11, 2008View in Crawl 4
The analysis is more than plausible as outlined by Pat Buchanan. There are three scenarios depending on who is the next President:1. Barack -- will pull out troops and it's possible that Iran will stay out of Iraq for enough time such that Troops are significantly drawn down -- then make moves on areas like Basra fully expecting a U.S. foreign policy to leverage diplomacy rather than military confrontation. Outcome: bloody civil war between Shia and Sunni forcing International Coalition back into the area2. Hillary --- She will listen to the instructions of the Pentagon despite her rhetoric to her voters and justify a sustained presence of enough force to avoid another Iran / Iraq War. Outcome: Status Quo3. McCain --- Will attempt to form coalition with Moderate Arab states to bolster support for Iraqi Military. Will take advice from Commanders on the ground and also draw a line in the sand with Iran. Outcome: Status Quo.... Over time our presence in Iraq will be viewed by most Americans as a necessary strategic presence in the region to keep Iran in check vs. Israel. Pulling out of Iraq is a strategic blunder.... Obama is more inclined to do it than Hillary... but I suspect they are both pandering to the left for their vote but once in office they will make the all important National Security Speech to the American public and put forth the case as to why its necessary for us to remain with boots on the ground in the Middle East. --- Just a Hunch...
Well thought out comment. I agree with you mostly, but the what should of happened is not what is happening. Iran is killing American troops by proxy. They, nor anyone else, should be allowed to skate on that, don't you think? Regardless of if we pull out of Iraq or not?
A lot of nations aren't speaking Russian right now because of the various compromises the U.S. made during the cold war with sometimes less then moral regimes. Sometimes we went to far, and maybe sometimes we still continue to go to far, but most of the world benefited from your efforts. Rather then getting on your high horse and talking down to Americans, even though they have done more for world peace in total over the last 100 years then any other nation in existence, maybe you should start offering alternative plans of action. Also, what America does does not justify terrorism against Americans. Actually nothing justifies terrorism.
Did you even read the article? Do you get that the United States might "want" Iranians to stop killing our soldiers, abetting terrorists, threatening our friends and allies, and seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons? Then, if you get that, do you get that force - a "short, sharp war" - is one method we could use to get the Iranians to stop killing our soldiers, abetting terrorists, threatening our friends and allies, and seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons? Finally, do you get that to many people, a "short, sharp war" appears to be the best method, or possibly the only method we could use to get the Iranians to stop killing our soldiers, abetting terrorists, threatening our friends and allies, and seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons? You might disagree that it's the best option, but please don't pretend it's not an option we might "want" to use.
ugotz2Apr 11, 2008
The analysis is more than plausible as outlined by Pat Buchanan. There are three scenarios depending on who is the next President:1. Barack -- will pull out troops and it's possible that Iran will stay out of Iraq for enough time such that Troops are significantly drawn down -- then make moves on areas like Basra fully expecting a U.S. foreign policy to leverage diplomacy rather than military confrontation. Outcome: bloody civil war between Shia and Sunni forcing International Coalition back into the area2. Hillary --- She will listen to the instructions of the Pentagon despite her rhetoric to her voters and justify a sustained presence of enough force to avoid another Iran / Iraq War. Outcome: Status Quo3. McCain --- Will attempt to form coalition with Moderate Arab states to bolster support for Iraqi Military. Will take advice from Commanders on the ground and also draw a line in the sand with Iran. Outcome: Status Quo.... Over time our presence in Iraq will be viewed by most Americans as a necessary strategic presence in the region to keep Iran in check vs. Israel. Pulling out of Iraq is a strategic blunder.... Obama is more inclined to do it than Hillary... but I suspect they are both pandering to the left for their vote but once in office they will make the all important National Security Speech to the American public and put forth the case as to why its necessary for us to remain with boots on the ground in the Middle East. --- Just a Hunch...
infocydeApr 11, 2008
Well thought out comment. I agree with you mostly, but the what should of happened is not what is happening. Iran is killing American troops by proxy. They, nor anyone else, should be allowed to skate on that, don't you think? Regardless of if we pull out of Iraq or not?
infocydeApr 11, 2008
A lot of nations aren't speaking Russian right now because of the various compromises the U.S. made during the cold war with sometimes less then moral regimes. Sometimes we went to far, and maybe sometimes we still continue to go to far, but most of the world benefited from your efforts. Rather then getting on your high horse and talking down to Americans, even though they have done more for world peace in total over the last 100 years then any other nation in existence, maybe you should start offering alternative plans of action. Also, what America does does not justify terrorism against Americans. Actually nothing justifies terrorism.
infocydeApr 11, 2008
I like it, the information came from someone I don't like, thus the information must be false. I like your little box that you live in. Stay in it.
mustangmike53Apr 12, 2008
Did you even read the article? Do you get that the United States might "want" Iranians to stop killing our soldiers, abetting terrorists, threatening our friends and allies, and seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons? Then, if you get that, do you get that force - a "short, sharp war" - is one method we could use to get the Iranians to stop killing our soldiers, abetting terrorists, threatening our friends and allies, and seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons? Finally, do you get that to many people, a "short, sharp war" appears to be the best method, or possibly the only method we could use to get the Iranians to stop killing our soldiers, abetting terrorists, threatening our friends and allies, and seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons? You might disagree that it's the best option, but please don't pretend it's not an option we might "want" to use.
techie06Apr 12, 2008
The max you know about Buchanan is what's from the Wikipedia article.