Just a general question.

Why do all the peacenic Liberals think that a known timetable to pull out of Iraq is a great idea?

Because without a firm deadline, we won't be out of Iraq until January 2009. Deadlines create accountability. Vague statements about "staying the course" don't. There's no reason for a single soldier to still be in Iraq; the job was done a long time ago, and if they want to kill one another now, it's none of our business.

Every day we're there is costing us money. W/o a timetable we could be there forever and when we finally have enough the other side merely goes "*shrug*, I never said we'd be done at a certain date."

Why should our leaders be any different then a engineer who has to give a deadline on a project that is costing a company money?

I think you're kidding yourself if you think we'll be out of there by 2009.

I don't think we'll ever be able to squelch the insurgency and the Iraqis don't seem to be able to squelch it either, or even get things together enough to come up with a stable police force or army that doesn't splinter into sectarian groups to murder one another.

Setting a deadline might make them all realize that they've either got to work out their differences or else get ready to plunge into a civil war.

I don't see us really helping things there. If anything our presence just makes a wonderful excuse for creating more jihadists. I don't see how you unfook such a massive cluster-fook without committing far, far, far more troops, and an absolutely ginormous amount of money for an indefinite period of time. I don't think Americans want to bankrupt themselves and waste more lives in the process of trying to salvage George W. Bush's legacy.

I don't think we'll ever be able to squelch the insurgency and the Iraqis don't seem to be able to squelch it either, or even get things together enough to come up with a stable police force or army that doesn't splinter into sectarian groups to murder one another.So? I don't care. I doubt most Americans do. The war was about securing <i>our</i> country, not theirs. We've done our job. Let's go home.

The war was about securing our country, not theirs. We've done our job. Let's go home.
According to whom? The Administration told us it was about WMD and terrorism, but when that proved to be false it was about democratizing the middle east. And well, we know how well that is working...

So? I don't care. I doubt most Americans do. The war was about securing our country, not theirs. We've done our job. Let's go home.

That is exactly the attitude that makes the rest of the world cautious of American foreign policy.

Why do all the peacenic Liberals think that a known timetable to pull out of Iraq is a great idea?

An exit strategy is a good idea. Nobody is going to disgree with that. Political opponents of the war cannot criticise the President for not having an exit strategy as the President says that he has one, even though that strategy isn't working at the moment. The most obvious failing of the exit strategy is that there is no plan B. A timetable for removing troops would provide plan B.

According to whom? The Administration told us it was about WMD and terrorism, but when that proved to be false it was about democratizing the middle east. And well, we know how well that is working...Our job was to remove Saddam, WMDs, and any other possible threat to our country. We were done a long time ago. Democracy would've been a nice icing on the cake, but it wasn't the cake itself. Bush is just using it as a convenient way to sidestep the WMD embarrassment, instead of admitting his mistake and taking steps to correct matters.That is exactly the attitude that makes the rest of the world cautious of American foreign policy.It's no different than any other country's. You protect yourself first.

Our job was to remove Saddam, WMDs, and any other possible threat to our country. We were done a long time ago. Democracy would've been a nice icing on the cake, but it wasn't the cake itself.

Removing Saddam isn't the end of the story. It becomes meaningless if the next ruler of Iraq is another power hungry dictator, a pseudo-democrat who wants to blow up Israel and Kuwait, or an Ayatollah Khomeni lookalike.

It becomes meaningless if the next ruler of Iraq is another power hungry dictator, a pseudo-democrat who wants to blow up Israel and Kuwait, or an Ayatollah Khomeni lookalike.Not if he's powerless (i.e., no WMDs). Besides, we should pull out, let them duke it out, and deal with situations as they arise. If the wrong party comes to power, we can step in and clean up the situation far more easily than we're dealing with the current one.

Besides, we should pull out, let them duke it out, and deal with situations as they arise. If the wrong party comes to power, we can step in and clean up the situation far more easily than we're dealing with the current one.

So you'd happily invade Iraq again on the basis of the good job done this time? I think you need a reality check.

So you'd happily invade Iraq again on the basis of the good job done this time? I think you need a reality check.

We took over a country and deposed its leaders.
In war that is usually deemed a success.

If the so called innocent civilians can't act civilized without us resorting to iron boot gestapo tactics, why would you think that is our fault, or problem.

They are the ones acting like Dark Ages barbarians. We have only shown restraint in the matter. I mean its not like we are going to keep the country, which we have every right to do; we are going to be giving it back, and they act outraged and insolent in accordance.

It is easy to argue that Saddam was a tyrant because his people forced him to be. Pax Americana is soft and squishy.

We took the country with very few American casualties. It has been the police action that our military has been unfortunately charged with which has wracked up the most deaths for us. That, that, would be a very good case for pulling out quickly, and then going back in at a later date if the mood suits us.

Let them fix their own goddamned toilets and lights. Bunch of ingrateful ignorant assholes, they deserve to **** on their floors in the dark.

Not if he's powerless (i.e., no WMDs). Besides, we should pull out, let them duke it out, and deal with situations as they arise. If the wrong party comes to power, we can step in and clean up the situation far more easily than we're dealing with the current one.
So was Saddam.

God, never again. I should like to think that even the idiots running the government now (ours) could learn from their mistakes.

Just a general question.

Why do all the peacenic Liberals think that a known timetable to pull out of Iraq is a great idea?

I think there are three points of concern with regards to Iraq. First, the British decolonized quickly after world war two and many of those countries devolved into despotic regimes. Second, those involved with nation building can become blinded by the reality such as the ambassador to Vietnam after US troops were withdrawn from Vietnam. Third is the current press/political climate of "always being right".

I think Iraq and the American public would be ill served to have American troops withdrawn too quickly. This would result in a power vacuum and Politicians know this. The candidates running against incumbents who talk about immediate withdrawal do not see the results of quick withdraw which can be seen in various dysfunctional former British territories... or the results of the US withdrawal from Vietnam as manifested in "the killing fields" of Cambodia.

The other side of this issue is supporting a government that can not or will not get serious about the task before them. The last days of Vietnam is a good example of a country that was in collapse without direct US involvement and the Ambassador was in a state of denial about the actual situation on the ground.

The last point involves US politics. In order for Bush to withdrawal would require him to "flip flop" on foreign policy. The American press would be unrelenting and badger him until the end of this term. I think Bush sees staying in Iraq as a better choice than choosing to withdraw.

The next president will, most likely, withdraw from Iraq.

So you'd happily invade Iraq again on the basis of the good job done this time? I think you need a reality check.What are you talking about? We did a fantastic job. We invaded in March of 2003, and Bush declared victory in May, with Saddam in hiding and the military crushed. We even captured Saddam in December. By that point, we should have definitely pulled out, as our job was over.

If we need to reinvade Iraq, I'm sure we'll crush them. Again. As long as we have a leader who knows when to quit.So was Saddam. God, never again. I should like to think that even the idiots running the government now (ours) could learn from their mistakes.We didn't know Saddam was powerless. He scoffed at the UN ceasefire agreement, refused inspection, and behaved as though as he had WMDs, so although we weren't sure he had them, we couldn't say he didn't.

Our mistake wasn't going in, it was not getting out once we declared victory.I think Iraq and the American public would be ill served to have American troops withdrawn too quickly. This would result in a power vacuumA power vacuum isn't bad if it sucks in all the factions and does the job of depleting them for us. It's only bad if an extremist takes over with the full support of the people, and if that happens, we can just step in again.

What are you talking about? We did a fantastic job. We invaded in March of 2003, and Bush declared victory in May, with Saddam in hiding and the military crushed. We even captured Saddam in December. By that point, we should have definitely pulled out, as our job was over.

Well perhaps you could invade Guatamala next, kill a hundred thousand people who want to defend their country from foreign invasion, declare a victory and pull out again. You'd do a fantastic job. Lots of people killed. Then you can invade an african country, then somewhere in asia, lots of fantastic jobs done. Lots of nations crushed. Lots of votes for US Presidents. Who cares what the purpose of any of those wars is, you don't seem to care about Iraq at all?

The purpose of any war the US gets involved in is to be in our best national interest.

If it doesn't serve our national interests in some way, we should not be involved.

Selfish it may seem, it's how all successful nations operated throughout human history. Not that throughout history, nations don't trip up again and again and get involved in wars that don't advance their own interests. When they do, however, the public back home always, without fail, will not support any such war beyond a certain point.

So yes, if it did improve the US in some way, we should get involved in Guatemala, countries in Africa, you name it. However, what are they doing that can impact us in some way? Are they building nuclear devices? Are they sending troops over to US soil by boat? Do they have something we wish to control, oversee, or possess? There has to be a case made for the dimmest Senator or Congressman to vote for moneys in order to prosecute a war, or what they are fond of calling them these days, military actions.

Do not confuse nations with individuals. National interests are not the same as individual morals or interests. Nations are corporate entities. Therefore, just like corporations, nations also do not have morals. Morals are for individuals, who, if enough agree on the same moral, can enshrine it within a national body as a principle by which the nation will operate. I cannot find anywhere in the Constitution the concept that we can only be involved in freedom wars. Or liberation wars. Or humanitarian wars. Or whatever label you want to put on them.

There is only one kind of war the US should be involved in: The Beneficial to The US war. Any other war is doomed to lose support by the American people, who generally can tell when a war is benefitting the US or not.
Initially, Iraq was a such a war, ostensibly removing Saddam was beneficial to us. Iraq could have continued to be such a war had we taken over the oil fields, but we did not; we haven't even charged the Iraqs the cost of removing Saddam from their country.

Now Iran, there's a country in which the US might benefit from going to war with. We could benefit ourselves and the world if we stopped the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons. It's the same justification that we used for going into Iraq, but the president of Iran is openly defiant; he is not even trying to look like he will submit to the rest of world, in fact he has made it abundantly clear that he will not stop Iran's development of nuclear technology for any reason. Read up on him, he's about a finger's breadth away from declaring himself the 12th Imam.

Gunny. I utterly disagree with absolutely everything you just posted. It presents an inhuman picture of war, nationhood, humanity, and you. I was going to post a detailed reply but it just got longer, and longer, and longer. There's just no common ground.

we haven't even charged the Iraqs the cost of removing Saddam from their country.


Enough said.

Who cares what the purpose of any of those wars is, you don't seem to care about Iraq at all?Of course we don't. We care about the danger Iraq poses to us (and, secondarily, our allies). The despot-of-the-month African countries and Guatemala pose no danger to us, so why would we invade them?

Tell me, when has a country gone to war for reasons other than its and its allies' well being?

Gunny. I utterly disagree with absolutely everything you just posted. It presents an inhuman picture of war, nationhood, humanity, and you. I was going to post a detailed reply but it just got longer, and longer, and longer. There's just no common ground.

Enough said.

I like the sweeping statement you made. So you disagree with every sentence in my previous post? It would be educational to go back to my previous post, and rewrite it using converse statements to every sentence, to find out your beliefs on the subject, but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

I'll state again, what I advocate nations do with other nations is not the same thing I would advocate a person does with his neighbor. Apples and oranges.

Strangely, I agree with Tudamorf's question. Can you name successfully waged wars in which the nation went counter to its own best interests solely to achieve altrustic ends? You might be able to name unsuccessful wars, because when wars run counter to the nation's interests, the citizens grow weary of the conflict, and without support from home, the war eventually ends in defeat.

A power vacuum isn't bad if it sucks in all the factions and does the job of depleting them for us. It's only bad if an extremist takes over with the full support of the people, and if that happens, we can just step in again.

*sighs*

I guess you have forgotten that it was the power vacuum of Afghanistan that pretty much allowed the terrorist attacks of september 2001 to happen? What do you think will happen when the USA withdraws.

I will give you a hint.

It starts with the Kurds secceding from Iraq. If that does not spark off a civil war it certainly will honk off Turkey in a major way, possibly enough to draw the USA right back into that political sink hole.
After the Kurds declare their independance the situation in Iraq devolves into outright civil war (which is what the Kurds are trying to escape from) between the various shiite and sunnite factions.

Not only will this civil war cause a substantial stream of refugees burdening the neighbouring countries, most of them are not remotely stable enough to handle hundreds of thousands of refugees. Nor can they support them economically. Jordan is marginally stable and can collapse without much pressure. The very last thing that Syria wants is a large influx of Iraqis with a different interpretation of the Islam to mess up their unstable political situation. Saudi Arabia is already building a wall against the refugees it expects.
Of course Iran is gambling heavily on their ability to ally themselves with the Sunnite factions which would give them control over the southern oil fields. By that time they plan to have enough uranium to, if not build a nuclear weapon outright, at least build dirty bombs, and this -is- a government mad enough to use them and with sufficiently suicidal fanatics to not care about blowing themselves up for the greater glory of their god, as long as they take a few infidels with them. In the Iraq-Iran war they had volunteers marching into minefields so the armed troops could cross them. While enthusiasm for fundamentalism has waned lately, you can expect that an attack by the USA will quickly whip up a lot of fanatical support again. You may want to ask Aidon what it is to live with neighbours who would dearly love to blow themselves to bits as long as they can take you with them. One in every three people in the world is a muslim, and we are setting up one of the most hostile and oppressive regimes to be their moral authority and representation.

so, no, I do not think the 'job was well done', nor do I think the USA was in any way or form threatened by Saddam Hussain's Iraq (other than in the fevered imagination of the spin doctors). I do however think that by creating this complete mess in the middle of this vital and sensitive piece of real estate, the USA has managed to make itself a <i>lot</i> less safe. It has the potential to inspire fanatics for decades to come and twist the balance towards a regime that is a lot more hostile towards the USA than Saddam Hussain ever was. And all this because a couple of utter morons could not be bothered to consider that people who spent their lives analysing the political situation in the middle east actually knew what they were talking about when they strongly advised against the ill conceived and completely pointless military adventure. Bush needed his 'short, victorious war' to ensure his reelection and to cement the power of the republican party for years to come. The war he got. Short it was not, and victorious is highly debatable by now.

Not that I expect you will agree with anything of this.


Eri

Can you name successfully waged wars in which the nation went counter to its own best interests solely to achieve altrustic ends?

That's a strange question which doesn't deserve an answer. War isn't altruistic. It is the murder of fellow human beings. If you ask the wrong questions you get the wrong answers.

The reason I didn't give a detailed answer to your previous post is that your moral foundation is different to mine. If I were to say that war is a human tragedy that should be avoided, that in itself is contrary to everything you posted. You seem willing to repeat this human tragedy again and again, for single minded national gain, with no moral scruples, ignoring the impact on fellow human beings. There's no common ground and you're not going to sympathise with any point I make as you just don't get it.

so, no, I do not think the 'job was well done', nor do I think the USA was in any way or form threatened by Saddam Hussain's Iraq (other than in the fevered imagination of the spin doctors).We know that now. We didn't then. Predicting the unknown is far more difficult than using hindsight to point to historical facts. For every middle east "expert" who you <i>now</i> realize was right, I could probably find you another who ended up being wrong.I do however think that by creating this complete mess in the middle of this vital and sensitive piece of real estate, the USA has managed to make itself a <i>lot</i> less safe.A debatable question, and also a pointless one. The only important issue is how we proceed. And with ~100 U.S. soldiers dead just this month in Iraq, and thousands overall, the evidence suggests we'll be safer if we cut and run. For now, at least.

Strangely, I agree with Tudamorf's question. Can you name successfully waged wars in which the nation went counter to its own best interests solely to achieve altrustic ends? You might be able to name unsuccessful wars, because when wars run counter to the nation's interests, the citizens grow weary of the conflict, and without support from home, the war eventually ends in defeat.

I'd put Bosnia and Kosovo in that column. Ok, not really wars but neither is the current morrass. The 1st Iraq war too.

I think the 2nd Iraq war is the first time we've ever invaded and occupied a country that wasn't a threat to us.

The reason I didn't give a detailed answer to your previous post is that your moral foundation is different to mine. If I were to say that war is a human tragedy that should be avoided, that in itself is contrary to everything you posted. You seem willing to repeat this human tragedy again and again, for single minded national gain, with no moral scruples, ignoring the impact on fellow human beings. There's no common ground and you're not going to sympathise with any point I make as you just don't get it.Eh? We go to war to protect ourselves, not to build colonies, rape, and plunder (unlike certain other nations). If the middle east would just leave us and our allies alone, we'd leave them alone. If your morality tells you not to go to war to protect yourself, it's inconsistent with basic concept of survival.

Eh? We go to war to protect ourselves, not to build colonies, rape, and plunder (unlike certain other nations). If the middle east would just leave us and our allies alone, we'd leave them alone.

That's fine if that is actually the practice. It isn't clear that is the case. It's certainly not what Gunny said about "waging war to improve the US in some way", which is what I was replying to.

That's fine if that is actually the practice. It isn't clear that is the case.Of course it is. We don't need Iraq's oil, and certainly not at the cost of $200 million a day in war expenses. And I think we have plenty of sand.

That's fine if that is actually the practice. It isn't clear that is the case. It's certainly not what Gunny said about "waging war to improve the US in some way", which is what I was replying to.

I guess I should have continued to repeat the phrase "in the US's best interest", but I hate repeating the same phrase again and again. Lacks imagination, and volume of literary expression. But I'll rephrase.

"If it is in the US's best interest to go into Guatamala, African countries, etc, then we should go into those places."

The tricky part is knowing before you go in, that the military action you are about to undertake is the US's best interest.

There has to be some reason for us to militarily move into a place and set up shop. Are they threatening us? Do they have something they shouldn't have (weapons grade plutonium, intercontinental ballistic missiles, US citizens held hostage)?? Do they have something that is essential to the US's interests (oil, cold fusion, perpetual motion machines)?

We don't just throw darts at a globe and say, "Hey, it'd be fun to ruin these people's lives with our smart bombs, let's go here!"

But you are correct. There lies an essential, basic, intrinsic difference between your mindset and others.

You think there is no valid reason to go to war, because war is a horrible, brutal thing, that always winds up killing some innocents.

Others, including myself, think there are many valid reasons to go to war, because even though war is a horrible, brutal thing and there will be wrongful deaths, no matter how hard the best fighting force in the world tries to avoid it, the consquences of not going would be greater.

But both opinions are still at the individual, personal level. National interests don't take that view. It's an entirely different mindset when you talk about nation vs. nation.

We know that now. We didn't then. Predicting the unknown is far more difficult than using hindsight to point to historical facts. For every middle east "expert" who you <i>now</i> realize was right, I could probably find you another who ended up being wrong.

Sorry but I do not buy that argument. There were UN arms inspectors IN Iraq who had been given unlimited access to any place they wanted to visit, free of supervision and at any time they chose to. These people had been in Iraq <i>before</i> and they <i>knew</i> where and what to look for. There were all those spy satelite photes that showed potential factories. Those were visited and showed up as innocent. These inspectors even visited Saddam Hussain's palaces as the only remaining places where he might hide something nefarious. There was no indication of any large scale purchases of equipment and resources to build any of the possible weapons of mass destruction.

The so called 'compelling' evidence that Colin Powell was presenting to the UN security council did turn out to be only so much hot air and conjecture, most of it already debunked by independent media <i>before</i> he made his case. None of the additional evidence he gave stood up to scrutiny.

All that Saddam Hussain could be accused of was that he was a power-mad tyrant who <i>wanted</i> those weapons. Wanting is not a crime yet. Certainly not one for which 30.000 innocent people (at the most conservative estimate) had to die for.

All of those was known before Bush kicked off his little war, and the most likely consequences (and the ones that indeed have come to pass) of that invasion were published well in advance of that tragedy. Interviews with experts on Iraq before the war started clearly show that Bush's inner circle did indeed interview experts in the field, and then only listened to those who agreed with them. Those who put a warning or cautioning word in were quickly disinvited from that council.


A debatable question, and also a pointless one. The only important issue is how we proceed. And with ~100 U.S. soldiers dead just this month in Iraq, and thousands overall, the evidence suggests we'll be safer if we cut and run. For now, at least.

And I have given you all the reasons why cutting and running is not going to make you any safer in the medium to long term. And no, this is not something I have come up with on my own, just more advise from the same experts who warned what would happen after the invasion successfully crushed the Iraqi armyand toppled Saddam Hussain's regime.

Guess this does not conform to how you want your world to be either and you are going to ignore it as well. You have been warned though.


Eri

Well perhaps you could invade Guatamala next, kill a hundred thousand people who want to defend their country from foreign invasion, declare a victory and pull out again. You'd do a fantastic job. Lots of people killed. Then you can invade an african country, then somewhere in asia, lots of fantastic jobs done. Lots of nations crushed. Lots of votes for US Presidents. Who cares what the purpose of any of those wars is, you don't seem to care about Iraq at all?
Why would we want to invade Guatamala?

Besides Llama wool, it has no resources.

Besides some Indians throwing limestone at us, it does not pose a risk.

What a silly comparison.

I'd put Bosnia and Kosovo in that column. Ok, not really wars but neither is the current morrass. The 1st Iraq war too.

I think the 2nd Iraq war is the first time we've ever invaded and occupied a country that wasn't a threat to us.

Bah!

Germany was never really a threat to us during WW2.

Japan, yes. But not Germany.

Korea was not a real threat to the US in the 50s. Viet Nam was never really a threat to us. Panama, nope. Grenada, nope. Somalia, nope.

They were all a threat to our interests. That is to say, a threat to what we want.

Korea is NOW a real threat to us. Just as Iraq would have been had we not invaded when we did.

Yugoslavia, now that would have been cool to go in a stop that genocide. But the UN prevented us from doing so.

Germany was never really a threat to us during WW2.
Didn't they sink our boats a lot?

Looks like liberals aren't the only ones looking at time-tables: http://youtube.com/watch?v=9q0TyVrsKhM&mode=related&search=

That is exactly the attitude that makes the rest of the world cautious of American foreign policy.

Because the rest of the world has such a hot record on that issue? Hypocrits.

Well perhaps you could invade Guatamala next, kill a hundred thousand people who want to defend their country from foreign invasion, declare a victory and pull out again. You'd do a fantastic job. Lots of people killed. Then you can invade an african country, then somewhere in asia, lots of fantastic jobs done. Lots of nations crushed. Lots of votes for US Presidents. Who cares what the purpose of any of those wars is, you don't seem to care about Iraq at all?

You mean, kind of like Britain did up until the 60's with frightening regularity?

The horse is too high for you to ride. You can't accuse us of imperialistic action when your nation is the quintessential example thereof.

Oh wait...you stuck around to rape the natural resources after invading and killing a bunch of people, that's right. I guess that makes you better.

Oh and by the way. The US hasn't kill 100,000 people you imbecile. Don't spew figures that are so blatantly wrong as to render your entire outlook as stupid as you seem to be.

You cannot attribute deaths caused by suicide bombs and internecine conflict on the US. We didn't kill the people.

*sighs*

I guess you have forgotten that it was the power vacuum of Afghanistan that pretty much allowed the terrorist attacks of september 2001 to happen? What do you think will happen when the USA withdraws.

Actually, that's a fallacy. Afghanistan provided Bin Laden nothing but a place to hang his hat. If it hadn't been Afghanistan it may have been Turkmenistan or Khazakistan or Myanmar or Indonesia. Regardless, Bin Laden still would have had the cash to start Al Qaida and been able to recruit plenty.

I will give you a hint.

It starts with the Kurds secceding from Iraq. If that does not spark off a civil war it certainly will honk off Turkey in a major way, possibly enough to draw the USA right back into that political sink hole.

I hope the Kurds to seccede. The US simply has to indicate that they will defend the Kurds and there will be no civil war. Turkey would be upset, but the US could easily buy them off with arms sales.


After the Kurds declare their independance the situation in Iraq devolves into outright civil war (which is what the Kurds are trying to escape from) between the various shiite and sunnite factions.

So? Let them kill themselves.

Not only will this civil war cause a substantial stream of refugees burdening the neighbouring countries, most of them are not remotely stable enough to handle hundreds of thousands of refugees. Nor can they support them economically.

Hey, it'll allow the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) something to do besides provide Palestinians with weapons and explosives. They can expand their 'humanitarian' aid to all of the Arab world.

Jordan is marginally stable and can collapse without much pressure.

Eh? Jordan is the most stable Arab nation outside the Arabian Pennisula proper. Its more stable than Syria, Lebanon, or Egypt. It is certainly more stable than Iraq.

The very last thing that Syria wants is a large influx of Iraqis with a different interpretation of the Islam to mess up their unstable political situation.

...The majority of Syrians are Sunni, as are the Iraqi's near the Syrian border.


Of course Iran is gambling heavily on their ability to ally themselves with the Sunnite factions which would give them control over the southern oil fields.

Except that Iran is majority Shi'a, and the religious council is Shi'a. I don't see them allying with Sunni's unless its for an opportunity to kill Americans or Jews.

By that time they plan to have enough uranium to, if not build a nuclear weapon outright, at least build dirty bombs, and this -is- a government mad enough to use them and with sufficiently suicidal fanatics to not care about blowing themselves up for the greater glory of their god, as long as they take a few infidels with them.

All the more reason the world should be threatening them with annihilation instead of considering to meet in order to determine whether the feasibility of possible sanctions might spark a possible negative reaction from Iran, which would make Baby Jeebus cry.

In the Iraq-Iran war they had volunteers marching into minefields so the armed troops could cross them. While enthusiasm for fundamentalism has waned lately, you can expect that an attack by the USA will quickly whip up a lot of fanatical support again. You may want to ask Aidon what it is to live with neighbours who would dearly love to blow themselves to bits as long as they can take you with them. One in every three people in the world is a muslim, and we are setting up one of the most hostile and oppressive regimes to be their moral authority and representation.

The answer is not appeasement. It didn't work in WWII, it won't work here. The answer is to destroy the current Iranian government before such a nightmare senario comes to fruition.

so, no, I do not think the 'job was well done', nor do I think the USA was in any way or form threatened by Saddam Hussain's Iraq (other than in the fevered imagination of the spin doctors). I do however think that by creating this complete mess in the middle of this vital and sensitive piece of real estate, the USA has managed to make itself a <i>lot</i> less safe. It has the potential to inspire fanatics for decades to come and twist the balance towards a regime that is a lot more hostile towards the USA than Saddam Hussain ever was. And all this because a couple of utter morons could not be bothered to consider that people who spent their lives analysing the political situation in the middle east actually knew what they were talking about when they strongly advised against the ill conceived and completely pointless military adventure. Bush needed his 'short, victorious war' to ensure his reelection and to cement the power of the republican party for years to come. The war he got. Short it was not, and victorious is highly debatable by now.

Not that I expect you will agree with anything of this.


Eri

I actually agree with most everything you said in that last part. Bush screwed the pooch to make his corporate masters wealthy, get revenge for his daddy, and to help pave the way for his dictatorial asperations. Unfortunately that die is cast and cannot be retrieved, and so we need to ensure it does not do those things you suggest could happen.

History is clear that sanctions, talks, treaties, etc. (appeasement tactics all) does not work with despotic or fanatical regimes. Only war can halt their aggression. They will use the periods of talks and meetings and diplomacy to further improve their military capabilities and then nod their heads agree to whatever and then attack, regardless.

Didn't they sink our boats a lot?

Yes...because our boats were shipping war supplies to Britain. All in all, Germany was no direct threat to the US (at least not while it was still digesting Europe).

In fact, there are many Historians who suggest that the greatest mistake Germany made during WWII was declaring war on the US three days after the US declared war on Japan in response to Pearl Harbor. Every indication pointed towards the US not declaring war against Germany even then, had Germany not declared war on us.

Actually, that's a fallacy. Afghanistan provided Bin Laden nothing but a place to hang his hat. If it hadn't been Afghanistan it may have been Turkmenistan or Khazakistan or Myanmar or Indonesia. Regardless, Bin Laden still would have had the cash to start Al Qaida and been able to recruit plenty.

True enough about the richness of Bin Laden (which should make the US foreign policy a lot more wary about Saudi Arabia than it is, incidentally), but the Taleban government did a lot more than merely 'giving Bin Laden a place to hang his hat'. Both are militant muslim fundamentalists bent on waging a holy war against the rest of the world. Bin Laden was training an army in Afghanistan, and the Taleban supported him in that.


So? Let them kill themselves.


This is really rather cynical, given that our international policy has created the situation in which this civil war became possible. We had no business deposing a legal (albeit tyrannical and abusive) government. Not when we do not live up to our highly tauted democratic 'morals' and leave 30 or 40 other governments that are at least as abusive alone. E.g. Mugabe in Zimbabwe is deliberately starving his opponents to keep power. He is as much a threat to the USA as Saddam Hussain was, but there is not a blip of a comment to do something about his regime and 'restore democracy' in Zimbabwe.


Eh? Jordan is the most stable Arab nation outside the Arabian Pennisula proper. Its more stable than Syria, Lebanon, or Egypt. It is certainly more stable than Iraq.


Not really no. It is actually rather fragile polictically speaking with the king having to do a lot of fancy footwork to keep the various factions from attempting to grab the power and run with it. You are right though that it is the most democratic Arab state and has been mostly managed to keep out of trouble the last several decades. Remember though that its government felt compelled to somewhat and verbally support Saddam Hussain during the first gulf war because of the large palestinian population, and the rising influence of more fundamentalist muslims. It was just appeasement of the more radical segment of the population and they never did actually do anything to help Iraq, but it does show that the politcal situation in Jordan is a lot more precarious.


...The majority of Syrians are Sunni, as are the Iraqi's near the Syrian border.


Of course that is about as meaningful as saying that the southern baptists church and the mennonites are both protestants. Syria's ruling elite is Sunni, but they are a different branch and would gladly have nothing to do with the Sunni in Iraq. They certainly are not waiting for a hundred thousand Iraqi refugees muddling their own political situation.


Except that Iran is majority Shi'a, and the religious council is Shi'a. I don't see them allying with Sunni's unless its for an opportunity to kill Americans or Jews.


Who said anything about allying itself with she Iraqi Sunni? They are trying to gain control over the Iraqi Shia, already the majority and concentrated in the oil rich south of Iraq. The central Sunni dominant part of Iraq is generally poor and was irrelevant until the British made those tribes the leaders of Iraq (so they could control everything through divide and conquer techniques).
The likely outcome of a civil war is that Iran ends up having a lot of influence in the southern part of Iraq and giving itself (more) control over a lot of oil.


All the more reason the world should be threatening them with annihilation instead of considering to meet in order to determine whether the feasibility of possible sanctions might spark a possible negative reaction from Iran, which would make Baby Jeebus cry.


And Iran has ignored threats and American rethoric for decades now and will continue to do so. Why should they not? America got itself mired in two wars and is unlikely to start another adventure that it is even less likely to win. Threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran is hollow and they know that. Besides, they probably already have enough uranium to make a dirty bomb that will put a pause to any American invasion plan. Even if the soldiers are unaware of that an area is soiled by uranium dust and march through it, you can be sure the American public will find out and the political retribution will be swift and harsh.


The answer is not appeasement. It didn't work in WWII, it won't work here.


*shrugs* I agree that appeasemen is not a solution, but butting your head against a brick wall is not going to hurt that wall a tiny bit. Unless all relevant countries in the world are willing to work together to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, they are going to get them.
It is better to stop yapping and start to deal with that reality.


The answer is to destroy the current Iranian government before such a nightmare senario comes to fruition.


Good luck with that plan though.


History is clear that sanctions, talks, treaties, etc. (appeasement tactics all) does not work with despotic or fanatical regimes. Only war can halt their aggression. They will use the periods of talks and meetings and diplomacy to further improve their military capabilities and then nod their heads agree to whatever and then attack, regardless.

I agree that sanctions are damage control and nothing more. They kept Saddam Hussain from realising his ambition of getting bigger and more deadly weapons. That was all they were able to accomplish, but that was pretty much the point of them anyway.
The price though is to keep up those economic sanctions regardless of provocation and dramatic (doctored) news from the quarantained regime. Going to war is sometimes the only possible solution, but claiming that is always the only solution is short sighted. Every situation is different and going in with a big stick to smash things is rarely making things better. Especially not in the long run. It also does not make you more popular. (To which you will say that you do not care so we can leave that pointless back-and-forth out and pretend we both said our parts in it).


Eri

In Iran, I think I'd rather have the bomb in the hands of a government that is stable than one that is in unstable, likely to topple, or selling arms to terrorists. As near as I can see, Iran is pretty stable.

Afghanistan provided Bin Laden nothing but a place to hang his hat.

Afghanistan provided a place for Bin Laden to teach terrorist techniques using his battle hardened troops who fought the Russians. It also provided a theological base for his ideology spread as an official governmental religion. The whole country acted as a model for the Islamic revolution he hoped to spread.

He couldn't get that anywhere else, especially given Al Qaeda's ambition to overthrow the corrupt leaders of other islamic nations (like Saddam Hussein).

True enough about the richness of Bin Laden (which should make the US foreign policy a lot more wary about Saudi Arabia than it is, incidentally), but the Taleban government did a lot more than merely 'giving Bin Laden a place to hang his hat'. Both are militant muslim fundamentalists bent on waging a holy war against the rest of the world. Bin Laden was training an army in Afghanistan, and the Taleban supported him in that.

Again, he could have trained that 'army' in any number of Muslim nations. Until the US blew the crap out of Kaddafi's home in Libya, that was the place to be for all the chic terrorists of the world...



This is really rather cynical, given that our international policy has created the situation in which this civil war became possible. We had no business deposing a legal (albeit tyrannical and abusive) government. Not when we do not live up to our highly tauted democratic 'morals' and leave 30 or 40 other governments that are at least as abusive alone.

Because we can't do it for everyone, its impossible, so we focus on those which are in our interest, or ones which are becoming untenable. If you're so concerned about Zimbabwe, get the Netherlands to send their mighty military out there. Europe wouldn't even intervene in genocide occuring in their own sphere of influence..hell in Europe proper. Don't go telling us who we should or shouldn't be helping, when you folks haven't done anything to stop despotic genocide since WWII and that was only because you were invaded, not out of any altruistic reasons.

Not really no. It is actually rather fragile polictically speaking with the king having to do a lot of fancy footwork to keep the various factions from attempting to grab the power and run with it. You are right though that it is the most democratic Arab state and has been mostly managed to keep out of trouble the last several decades.

You neglect to take into consideration the good relations between Amman and Tel Aviv. Israel, with some regularity, provided the Kings Hussein (of Jordan) with intelligence, which permitted them to put down Palestinian insurrections.

Remember though that its government felt compelled to somewhat and verbally support Saddam Hussain during the first gulf war because of the large palestinian population, and the rising influence of more fundamentalist muslims. It was just appeasement of the more radical segment of the population and they never did actually do anything to help Iraq, but it does show that the politcal situation in Jordan is a lot more precarious.

And this time they were rather supportive of the US against Iraq.



Of course that is about as meaningful as saying that the southern baptists church and the mennonites are both protestants. Syria's ruling elite is Sunni, but they are a different branch and would gladly have nothing to do with the Sunni in Iraq. They certainly are not waiting for a hundred thousand Iraqi refugees muddling their own political situation.

Its not quite the same as saying baptists and mennonites are both protestants, no. Syria's ruling elite and some 75-80% of its population are Sunni The nations border each other. It is not coincidence that the ruling party of both nations were the same party. Further, Syria is actively supporting the Sunni insurrection in Iraq, from out of uniform military personnel to financial aid to weaponry. No, they want civil war. They want to maintain a strong Sunni nation between it and Shi'a Iran.



Who said anything about allying itself with she Iraqi Sunni?

You did...

They are trying to gain control over the Iraqi Shia, already the majority and concentrated in the oil rich south of Iraq.

This is true. Though it doesn't help that the rest of the Arab world is essentially associating all Shi'ites with Iran already thus driving the Shi'ites in Iraq into Iranian arms.



And Iran has ignored threats and American rethoric for decades now and will continue to do so.

That is correct, because it was nothing more than threats. The time for threats is over.

Why should they not? America got itself mired in two wars and is unlikely to start another adventure that it is even less likely to win.

First of all, as I've mentioned before, the US doesn't need to occupy Iran, just destroy its military and leadership.

Secondly, Iraq isn't that much of a war and we're not mired. If anything our presence there provides us with less difficult logistics issues. We're already there.

Threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran is hollow and they know that. Besides, they probably already have enough uranium to make a dirty bomb that will put a pause to any American invasion plan. Even if the soldiers are unaware of that an area is soiled by uranium dust and march through it, you can be sure the American public will find out and the political retribution will be swift and harsh.

Uranium dust is not a deterrant. We used depleted Uranium in every tank round. Further, transport the troops through any contaminated areas in NBC sealed vehicles. Our military is designed to continue fighting through the use of tactical nuclear devices used against us...a dirty bomb would be a poor weapon of deterrance against us.

As for using nuke against Iran...its not necessary.



*shrugs* I agree that appeasemen is not a solution, but butting your head against a brick wall is not going to hurt that wall a tiny bit. Unless all relevant countries in the world are willing to work together to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, they are going to get them.
It is better to stop yapping and start to deal with that reality.

There isn't a country on the planet that is going to engage in a war with the US to defend Iran...and there isn't a thing Iran can do militarily to defend against us. There would be no wall butting. It would be over within a month and a complete decimation of their military assest and their civil leadership. So long as we don't attempt to occupy the nation afterwards, we'll barely notice it.







I agree that sanctions are damage control and nothing more. They kept Saddam Hussain from realising his ambition of getting bigger and more deadly weapons. That was all they were able to accomplish, but that was pretty much the point of them anyway.
The price though is to keep up those economic sanctions regardless of provocation and dramatic (doctored) news from the quarantained regime. Going to war is sometimes the only possible solution, but claiming that is always the only solution is short sighted.

It may be short sighted at times...but its less dangerous than following your Chamberlainian approach of talk talk talk talk think about sanctions, talk talk talk. By the time the UN even gets around to drafting sanctions (which will be a wrist slap anyways, since Russia and China and France make good money selling Iran weapons and whatnot), Iran will have nuclear weapons.

Every situation is different and going in with a big stick to smash things is rarely making things better. Especially not in the long run.

Going in with a big stick to smash things is sometimes the better answer in matters of State. Especially when the alternative is to allow madmen to get their hands on the most destructive force humanity has discovered. I don't care about long term consequences when the short term consequences include a very high potential for a nuclear attack on Israel or America.


It also does not make you more popular. (To which you will say that you do not care so we can leave that pointless back-and-forth out and pretend we both said our parts in it).


Eri

Actually, behind closed doors the Arab nations would be cheering us on and thanking us. They are deathly afraid of Iran.

Germany was never really a threat to us during WW2.

ost of the scientists that sent a rocket to the moon and built the first nuke were German. Perhaps a glowing US is not a threat but two nukes brought Japan to its knees...

Most of the scientists that sent a rocket to the moon and built the first nuke were German. Perhaps a glowing US is not a threat but two nukes brought Japan to its knees...
The US did not know that at the time.
They did not know that Germany was building rockets.

You speak of stuff with knowing stuff in hindsight.

Try thinking of it in terms of when they were going through it.

And besides it took decades to perfect those rockets to reach the distance between the US and Germany.

And none of those who built the first nuke, even though they may have had German names were actually Germans. Well, Einstein was born in Germany of course. Robert Oppenheimer was an American. Unless you mean the first Hydrogen bomb, not first nuke, lots of expatriated Germans on that team, if memory serves me correctly.