>>We haven't won a major engagement since WWII, and even there some would argue that we let the Russians and the British carry the greatest burden.<<

1) You mean like 10,000 dead U.S. Marines in just one day at Iwo Jima?

2) Operation Desert Storm didn't count as a major engagement?

I think the neocons in the Bush administration can convince Bush to invade Iran, likely by arguing that an invasion of Iran would help secure victory in Iraq, and give us an unlimited supply of oil. The only problem is that an invasion of Iran would be an unmitigated disaster. Even if we were to only launch an air war against Iran, they could sink a few ships in the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off a large portion of the world's oil supply. Bush is acting increasingly like a cornered rat, so anything is possible. Our only hope is that the military will convince Bush that an invasion of Iran is impossible.

The short answer to your two suggested major engagements is NO.

If you want to count bodies, read some military history. You can start with the Romans - losing 100,000 in a day was just stuff that happened - and move to the Russians on the German eastern front. Yes, those 10,000 marines were ours and yes, they fought and won against a foe for whom surrender was not thinkable. That is how we create myths of our superiority. Americans also endured huge sacrifices in the great European battles os WWII. But if you look at comparative sacrifice it seems our greatest moments are when we come in and mop up the mess, after the protagonists have worn themselves out, not as in Korea and Vietnam when we ourselves are the major protagonist.

And no, I do not think that Desert Storm was a major engagement. In a way that is the problem. If you want to know what a major engagement is, start a war with someone who can fight back. Pick on someone your own size. Iraq's population is what - 25 million - and no WMD's. Iran's is 70 odd million, and we don't know yet about their capabilities.

But it's a fairly good bet that they have some of those missing Russian nukes and don't have to produce their own.

Karl Huber

The French never imagined that the Viet Minh could carry 105mm Pack Howitzers thru the jungle and over the mountains. These howitzers helped the VM carry on the siege of DBP, ultimately taking the garrison out.

The Iranians have no pack howitzer supprise in store for the US unless they are Exocet missles

intended for the fleet off Iraq.

Iran supplies 10% of the world's oil. It is a fairly safe assumption that, were we to attack Iran, they would cut off their oil from the market. They can afford to do so for an appreciable time without hurting themselves financially. They don't need us, but we need them - and they know it.

There is no longer a 'cushion' of extra oil production possible that can be called upon to even temporarily offset such a loss to the world market. (and to our oil-guzzling lifestyle here) The world is pumping oil at close to a peak rate which cannot be substantially increased. Look back at Katrina for a taste of what will happen here when crucial oil/production is reduced or disrupted for more than a week or so by terrorism, weather, deliberate action, etc. It won't just be gas for your car - anything that has oil in its production or supply chain (which is almost everything) will jump in price within a short span of time.

We want to invite this definite, guaranteed hell by attacking Iran over some murky possible threat at some foggy future point? Absurd. Bush and his Preemptive War Fascist Freak Show are dragging us to doom a lot quicker than the peak oil and global warming disasters to come would have done otherwise.

We will not only be crippled by peak oil and climate change - but we will also be broke, and venomously hated worldwide. Wonderful.

(We are obviously using the 'fight wmd, terrorism and tyranny/march of democracy' propaganda as a smokescreen to ensure unfettered, unlimited access to the dwindling world supplies of oil - oil which isn't ours to begin with - an 'ownership society' fact that many Americans don't seem to grasp)

We cannot attack Iran legally without Security Council approval, and it is almost certain that we wouldn't get it. Once again America would act as a rogue state, probably dragging a few thumbscrewed allies like England along for appearance's sake.

This action would have many far-reaching and as yet unforeseen negative consequences. After the Iraq debacle, Katrina, torture, secret prisons, secret spying on citizens, etc., how could anyone believe or trust Bush and his cronies about anything - let alone something this weighty?

A far better and very dependable yardstick has become apparent in the last several years - if Bush thinks something a good idea, it is a BAD IDEA.

It would surprise me if Bush, Cheney and the Repubs didn't attack Iran or at least engage in rhetoric that will keep the Iran issue 'on the boil' and therefore at the forefront of Americans thoughts. Why, because it is more of the same old fear mongering, hate mongering, war mongering that they use to stay in power. Keep the American voter afraid and the voter will vote Bush/Repub toadies in office yet again.

How do we know Rove and the Repubs will do this, because they said so, loud and clear is the Repub campaign strategy to win elections in 2006. How much more clear and obvious can they be. This rhetorical brinksmanship between our crazy pols and Irans crazy pols will continue through the 2006 election.

Shortly after the 2006 election our crazy pols will attack Iran no matter which party gains control of the House. Attacking Iran before the election may cause the voters to turn the Repubs out and they surely don't want that. Should the Dems gain control of the House the Bush cabal will move to immediately attack Iran before the Dems can start hearings and investigations of Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Gonzales, Rice, Ashcroft, Powell, radical right wing religious fundamentalists et. al.

So I will be watching for the attack on Iran to occur immediately after the elections.

Those who say that Bush will not attack Iran and give lots of very neat logical reasons why are forgetting that Bush&Co do not follow ordinary sensible logic. They just really have their own private/personal agenda for doing what they do. Hence their endless secrecy in all that they do. Those blind, lock step, knee jerk, 'Stepford Republican voters' will vote Repub no matter what the Bush/Repub agenda is and no matter what happens to America, American democracy, traditional American values or the people of the middle east. Polarizing and politicizing is what the Bushies are all about.

I pray that God will intervene and stop the Bushie/christian fundamentalist coalition rapturists before they can make dead-enders of all of us. We can only hope that by some strange turn of events they may become enlightened(not likely) or just annihilate themselves(equally not likely). The Creator did give us free will and this crew of crazies aka 'The Totalitarian Republican Theocracy', to quote myself, seems devoted to the destruction of true christian values and possibly the entire human race.

Possibily Bush is not the anti-christ but only one of many in 'The Totalitarian Republican Theocracy'. What will they think if they find out that their interpertation of the biblical end times is completely of their own making and has nothing to do with God's plan for armageddon. But since they know the mind of God... or so they claim.