The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says that We will have a difficult time in Iran, as his people are united and ready against attack. I believe him on that point. He also says that even a man like George can be brought to wisdom and truth, I think he's full of shit on that point. (he don't know George very well, do he) Even if the Ayatollah, were to get on his hands and knees an beg Deadeye to take the OIL, George would still attack, 'cause he got to be a Warrior in Chief.

So if that Iranian man on the street is right, how did we get from "old Yankee know-how" to "can't do anything?" Georgie boy and his gang of thieves did not bring that on alone.
But, in the spirit of Norman Vincent Peale and other great American thinkers, let's consider of what we still can do:
1. Make lousy movies
2. Make lousy TV shows
3. Resist education, knowledge and thoughtfulness
4. Adore talent-less, teenage celebrities
5. Eat too much
6. Worship money
7. Think business is man's highest activity
8. Refuse to examine our past
9. Confuse the drivel of self-help gurus with
wisdom
10.Insist that God has chosen us to carry out
some sort of mission, either with the Bible
or an A-10
11.Maintain that democracy and capitalism are
identical
12. Fall for every snake oil salesman in town

The single most chilling moment of the briefings presented to the 1000+ activists gathered on Jan. 28 to prepare for the United for Peace & Justice lobby day:

Phyllis Bennis (of the Institute for Policy Studies), after a concise run-down of the arguments that undermine the case the administration and others are trying to make for attacking Iran, related her discussion with progressive, antiwar members of Congress who'd called in her and a few others last fall to brief them on the situation with the U.S. and Iran.

After doing so, Bennis asked the assembled representatives and staffs -- and remember, these are our best friends in Congress -- what they thought Iran's response to U.S. military attack would be. The reply: "We haven't really thought about that."

Now, admittedly, it's hard to force yourself to think about such a thing. And Congresspeople have a lot on their plates at any time, much less in the heat of an election -- but still.

Bennis pointed out to them the extent to which the huge presence of U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq and U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, not to mention the carrier groups in the Gulf, presents Iran with, in milspeak, a "target-rich environment" -- aside from responses that could involve interruptions of oil delivery or actions on the part of armed organizations sympathetic to and influenced by Iran. And the effect on popular feeling against all Americans anywhere in the world is hideous to contemplate.

I suspect that the Congresspeople who called for the briefing were having a hard time convincing themselves that such an attack is possible exactly because the consequences are unpleasant to imagine. But while Iran does not present any threat that could justify a U.S. attack, neither is it a weak, inert object -- and it's not Iran's response alone we would have to contend with.

Bennis got across to the Congressional reps that there is no such thing as a "surgical" strike. War is war, and events beyond the first hours are almost impossible to predict, much less contain.

There is a reason Candidates DON'T get out and talk to the average voter on the street, they want to get elected. Opening that mouth without a script to read and reherse IS the best way to lose an election. I can't understand why we, as electors, think that the winning electee is suddenly endowed with knowledge and wisdom just by winning a popularity contest.

It depends on what the US is looking for in a confrontation with Iran.
The US is able to bomb Iran, no doubt, wether it is with cruise missiles, aircraft...
Against such a threat, the iranians won't be able to fight a lot.
But the US won't be able to put a lot of troops into the country, let alone stay in the country.

In Afghanistan, US (and other) forces were fighting a bunch of guys armed with small arms and a few mortars. It is still the case today. Western forces a relying on heavy fortified bases here and there in the country.
In Iraq, there were no more army to fight against the US forces. And a highway network going from Bassoorah to Baghdad through every place needed to control the whole country.

Iran still have ground forces, with heavy weapons, aviation. Iran is a huge country, with long coastlines, montainous countries, everything that could provide hide out and battleground against US forces.

Maybe the US is going to bomb Iran, to destroy the nuclear facilities supposed to develop military devices. Maybe the US would like to destroy Iran as a country, as they already destroyed Iraq, but they will only destroy facilities, not the will of the people to keep their country unified.

Maybe the US would like to destroy Iran as a country, as they already destroyed Iraq, but they will only destroy facilities, not the will of the people to keep their country unified.

Which is why the US is reportedly giving money to regional separatist movements, for instance in Arab-majority and oil-rich Khuzestan province (which Saddam wanted to annexe during the Iran-Iraq war).

A weak Iran divided into de facto autonomous regions would suit US interests -- until and unless the US installs a friendly government in Tehran, at which point it would be in their interests to have a strong central government in Iran. (Compare how the US simultaneously favours Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq and a strong Iraqi central government.)

SHAH WANTED: Full time position, must be willing to relocate. Only the seriously ruthless need apply.

Iran is way too far off the farm to be brought back. As the CIA saying goes, "If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't come back, hunt it down and kill it."