I mean obviously they would love to do this. Is it possible that Bush and Rummy have driven every last decent competent General in the Pentagon?

No military person that cares about this country of the future of the military would attack Iran, especially unprovoked. Forget Iraq and Iran and the joining of the Shi'a into one big F-U... This would be all out... 1 billion people are pissed at you kinda thing.

On the one hand Bush is already a war criminal, so there is no reason (except China and Russia) to not proceed... I mean one the one level there is Iraq war type violation of UN Charter.. And then... there bombing Iran for really no reason, which is a whole different story. (By the way, why doesn't Congress impeach Bush on Wednesday for violating UN Charter which is Constitutionally binding agreement.)

Ok, I'm off track. Why we won't bomb Iran...
(1) it would have to commence by the 12th at the latest, unless they are stupid enough to do this during Ramadan.
(2) it would require false flag event
(3) China would arm Afghans and Iranians and it would get ugly, heck Kim Jong might get in on the action, and they actually HAVE nukes (sort of).
(4) and this is what I'm unsure of.... it would require cancelling the 2008 elections. I mean you are committed at that point, so why the hell not. Once you order a hit on Iran, the game is up, heck Congress might even grow a pair in that event. But, to cancel elections would require more than just riot cops. In order to cancel the elections in this country, it would require drawing down reservists and bringing them home. Even a draft wouldn't work, because no draftees would police marshal law.

And if they didn't cancel the elections, the GOP would lose almost every race and maybe even for a decade. Sure you made some war profiteers happy, but at what cost? Is Halleberryburton really running this country? Does Cheney have human hearts and voodoo mind-control dolls in his man-sized vault?

Here's why the US might not attack Iran
By Andrew Exum
Andrew Exum, a Soref fellow at the Washington Institute for Near Policy, led a platoon of US Army Rangers in Iraq in 2003.
Friday, August 31, 2007

Admiral William Fallon, the new commander of US Central Command, has rejected calls for a third carrier group to be sent to the Gulf as a message to the Iranians. War against Iran, he has said, "will not happen on my watch."

Leaving aside the relative merits of a strike against the Iranians, why might America's military resist such action? First, consider the fact that the US has at the moment 162,000 troops in Iraq, 30,000 in Kuwait, 4,500 in Bahrain and 3,300 in Qatar - not to mention the two carrier battle groups in the Gulf or the 8,500 troops on the ground in Afghanistan. In the event of an American or Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, for example, the troops in Iraq, the Gulf and Afghanistan would be in even greater danger than they already are, vulnerable to an Iranian counterattack or, more likely, an Iranian-sponsored terror campaign.

....

Third, in the wake of the Iraq war, professional military officers are more suspicious than ever of think-tank types with theories on how easy military victories can be achieved. As an active-duty US Army officer recently told me: "If I hear one more lawyer with no military experience explain to me how air power alone really can do it this time, I'm going to kill him."

.... the Pentagon is almost Ottoman in terms of its scale and complexity. The system is dependent on thousands of mid-level military officers and civilian bureaucrats, and if a few determined bureaucrats set their minds to slowing a march to war, they can do it. The employees of the Pentagon can insist that every form be filled out in triplicate, that every authorization be approved by Congress, and bury those agitating for war in so much paperwork it would take a determined effort just to dig out.
...
Finally, it is not inconceivable that serving military officers would resign rather than sanction another poorly planned military adventure in the Middle East. High-profile resignations, along with leaks to the press, would only feed already strong domestic opposition to a war with Iran.

In the end, it is still possible that the US military might assent to going to war against Iran. US Air Force Major General Charles Dunlap - a respected strategist - has publicly advocated bombing Iran in order to win in Iraq, and Air Force officers in general are far more enthusiastic about the potential of air power than Army and Marine Corps officers.

But...

The commander on the ground and the commander in the region last year declared that this war couldn't be won militarily and recommended against any surge or escalation in the number of U.S. troops. They were replaced by the fourth U.S. ground commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus, and the third head of the U.S. Central Command, Navy Adm. William Fallon.

And..

"Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush’s nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM.

"Fallon’s resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration’s Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon’s resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran."

One source said Fallon sent a memo that “insisted there was no military requirement for” for an additional carrier. Fallon private conveyed around the time of his confirmation hearing that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch.” IPS notes, “Fallon’s refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it.”

Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, “You know what choices I have. I’m a professional.” Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, “There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box.”

The war profits are so impressive, Carlyle cannot pass up another war while their people are still in charge. The bottom line is all you need look at.

Ruth

Even a draft wouldn’t work, because no draftees would police marshal law.

Martial law quickly shuts down everthing except Fox News and its clones. That includes sites like this.

Immediately there are billions for new private security, armed for bear, and indoctrinated to shoot the godless. On sight. Although protestors will doubtless mostly be carted off to the new work camps, also run for a tidy profit by all that private security.

Cheneyburton only has the support of 20% of 'Merika. But they are the 20% with the most and biggest guns, and the 20% most likely to use them.

Think your DINOcratic representatives are going to help? Think again. Think your local police, maybe your neighbors, are going to help? Think again.

This all boils down to whether they think they can maintain their precious economy and profits in a police state. If they really think they can, we are really in trouble. I think this is the only factor that's kept them from martial law so far: when the market and economy tanked after 9/11, the Company was really surprised and hurt in the only place they really care about.

Their wallet.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

if they tried marshal law it would take many many reservists, I don't think local police (despite our militarizing them) would handle it. And right now, the only way to get enough national guard would be a draft. And drafted service members probably wouldn't enjoy policing Americans.. But who knows.

ANyways, it looks like Iran is playing their part in the scripted Act II of "Chicken Hawk Theatre"

[AP] Iran: Uranium Centrifuge Goal Reached

16 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran has reached its long-sought goal of running 3,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium for its nuclear program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Sunday in a report on state media.

The U.N. Security Council had threatened a third round of sanctions against the country if it did not freeze the uranium enrichment program — which Iran maintains is for peaceful energy purposes, but the U.S. says is to hide a weapons program.

"The West thought the Iranian nation would give in after just a resolution, but now we have taken another step in the nuclear progress and launched more than 3,000 centrifuge machines, installing a new cascade every week," the state television Web site quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

Still, Ahmadinejad's comments seemed at odds with independent assements of the status of his country's enrichment program.

As recently as Thursday, a report drawn up by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, put the number of centrifuges enriching uranium at closer to 2,000 at its vast underground hall at Natanz.

The 2,000 figure is an increase of a few hundred of the machines over May, when the IAEA last reported on Iran. Still the rate of expansion is much slower than a few months ago, when Tehran was assembling close to 200 centrifuges every two weeks.

As well, Iran continued to produce only negligible amounts of nuclear fuel with its centrifuges, far below the level usable for nuclear warheads, the report said.

"They have the knowledge to proceed much more quickly," said a U.N. official.

While Iran has denied stalling, the official and others suggested it could have decided to proceed at a slower pace as it increases its cooperation with agency investigators looking at past suspicious activities so as to reduce any sentiment to impose new U.N. sanctions.

almost as badly as our religious loons need their religious loons.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

(or terriffiedly, depending on the stimulus) just roll over and accept martial law?
Personally, I have utterly NO confidence that the 'people' would reject it, under a BIG LIE campaign that was about terror, fear, and jingoism.
I have NO confidence that, even if they might be just a tad skeptical, they'd actually do anything about it.
I have NO confidence that the "people" would sacrifice their comfort for their liberty.

and gas goes to $9/gal, Exxon/Mobil PROFITS go through the fucking ROOF, cuz all that additional money goes right into the corporate bottom line.

BTW: Today is the anniversary of the surrender of Japan and the end of WW II.

We don't have a whole lot of rules on language--advocacy of lethal force against persons, particularly elected ones, is pretty much the only absolute no-no--but let's just say that that word "sheeple" has been very strongly discountenanced hereabouts.

It's rude, it's condescending, it's snobby/snotty, and worst of all it's inaccurate. People believe what they believe for all sorts of reasons, some of which might appear to us to be against their own best interests. Many times these beliefs are based on having been lied to, particularly by elected persons or the media. The solution there is to tell the truth, not spit on people for being credulous cretins.

"Jane, you ignorant slut" works as a conversational opening in a comedy sketch, not so much in actual discussion with well-meaning but misinformed people.

n/t

Damn

This has been floating around for a minute now. I can't find it much now but the market is buzzing about put options in September.

I check Northrup and Rayteon calls and they would be higher if the market "knew" something.

Read this on why it is just normal crap that people with billions of dollars do with their money. I'm not sure what is normal. It is interesting that Sept13 is the earnings announcement for big subprime folks. Maybe the housing market is the real terrirsts.

This will work out very well for them. (A heads-up on the passage of the oil law.)

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Iran is dead set on starting this war. The comments made against Israel were an act of war. Israel attacking Iran may bring us into this war, and Iran closing the Straights of Hormuz.

The anti war left needs to protest Iran now, before the war.

Iran is the problem, Iran has been the problem since that weak sister Jimmy Carter let the radicals take over that country.

For a minute there, I had some hope for your rationality, plumber.

Since when are words a casus belli?

Since when is out national interest dictated by Israel's?

And if you have any actual evidence that Carter could have kept the Shah of Iran in power--by what, invading Iran back then--I'd really like to hear it.

Your credulity makes you so vulnerable to a false flag operation, too. Pitiful to see.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan