Bow Down Before Iran?

DonPanic · 2006-11-03 05:45:53

the problem is they are Arabs,

Iranians aren't arabs, iranian isnt' an arab language, you'd better go back to school take some geography and foreign civilisations lessons

noosfractal · 2006-11-03 05:52:23

Ritter compares Iraq and Iran ...

The Case for Engagement
Scott Ritter
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061120/ritter

DonPanic · 2006-11-03 07:11:51

It seems that the press is mostly of a single mind about who they want running this country, so they attempt to control the information that gets to the voter. the are overly negative about Republican Candidates, and overly positive about the Democrats and it shows. I don't like it one bit, its sort of like an attempted coup by the News Media, its like they want a Media-ocracy running this country so they get to pick the government instead of the voters.

US Press massively supported Iraq war, it doesn't anymore, back to realdom.

We saw how Bush managed New Orleans disaster, he slept well while anxious friends from Martinique and friends from Paris and I stood awaken all night watching minute by minute the hurricane progress, did he so ? Isn't it a shame that your president did care less than foreigners about what was happening to american citizens ?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-03 09:18:06

More and more ... Iran resembles Hitler's Germany in the 1930's, but with the addition now of long-range ballistic missles. Hitler could've taken "us" out without invading if he'd had them then. That little twit running Iran only has to change his name to something easier to pronounce like "Hitler" to make the comparison quite believeable....
the problem is they are Arabs, not white people as the German Nazis were, so as far as the extreme left wing is concerned its ok for them to be anti-semetic and intimate that they want to kill all the Jews in Israel while they seek to process Uranium.
Iran is Not an Arabic country it may be Muslim but the population are Persians and Azeri. Actually there national blood enemy is Arabs. It is one of the reasons that Saddam thought a war with them as the main population of Iraq is Sunni arabs and Arabs and Iranians hate each other. There is also the religion card where Shi'te and Sunni religions just do not get on. Iran is Shi'te.
Saudia Arabia is arming itself just to protect itself from Iran.
Still what is Irans long term aims. Certainly it was an empire and every child is told stories of the great Persian empires of the past. It may be that they see themselves as becoming the regional power of the middle east again and certainly they see the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia as a block to this.

It makes no difference to me what they are called. I see no distinctions between Persians and Arabs, just as I see no distinctions between Arabs and Germans during World War II. Some Hard Leftists do however, while they see the NAZIs as the facist enemy, a conclusion they came late too when NAZI Germany attacked their great Patron Russia, the left wing is willing to give the Arab and the Persian a break for their anti-Semitism, for them it is excusable for middleEastern men to be warmongers, bigots and antisemites, its just not excusable for Americans to be these things. If the Arabs and Persians want to wipe Israel off the Map, that's ok in their book, if America wants to stop it, that is Imperialism or interference, and I don't believe the left-wing in the western world sees the difference between Persians and Arabs either other than their unfortunate tendency to fight each other rather than concentrate their attacks on Americans and Jews.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-03 09:33:49

the problem is they are Arabs,
Iranians aren't arabs, iranian isnt' an arab language, you'd better go back to school take some geography and foreign civilisations lessons

I know what's what, and those distinctions are only important for them, and not for me, just as I don't side between Shiite and Sunni, do you want me to discriminate and favor one over the other? Why should I do that, neither faction has proven to be our ally, and both Arabs and Persians, Shiites and Sunnis have attacked Americans and Jews. Making up distinctions between the different types of Muslims that attack us does no good. We can perhaps exploit their tendency to fight each other to some degree, but we can't count on that mechanism to defeat them, it is much simpler to treat them as a single enemy to fight than to try to get involved in their internal politics, because that would mean siding with one side against another, and then having the side that were on suddenly turing around and attacking us when they believe they have the upper hand.

To be honest, I don't care what happens to Iraq, I just don't want any withdrawal by us to like like a victory for them. If we were to do such a thing, I would want to do it in such away as to punish both sides that have given us the most problems, that means if we were to partition Iraq, then we should do it in such as way that the Kurds get all or most of the Oil and they get the port facitility in the Persian Gult from which to sell it, and build a pipeline through Turkey to sell it, and the Arab Shiite, and Sunnis who are't Kurds can have whats left. What do the Turks get, they get to deport all there Kurdish minority into the new state of Kurdistan, all those who'd rather be Kurds than Turks will get to be deported to the country whose nationality they prefer. Problem solved. The Kurds get to carve their new state taking all the choice portions entirely out of Iraq, and those Iraqis that betrayed us get punished by getting only the most worthless pieces. Either the Iraqis make this Iraqi Republic work and thus a victory for our war aims, or we reward the Kurds with a new state to call their own, and the nonKurdish Iraqis end up as the big losers, and in the future, they maybe learn not to mess with us.

Palomar · 2006-11-03 09:41:36

...Persians and Arabs either other than their unfortunate tendency to fight each other rather than concentrate their attacks on Americans and Jews.

Israel is the Islamoterrorist's "best friend," isn't it? Israel's existence has kept them in business all these decades.

Yes, Israel is a convenient red flag for hatemongers to wave around in order to stir up passions, incite riots and violence, etc. They need Israel.

If Mahmoud Imanutjob (nods to Cobra) would succeed in wiping Israel off the map, the Islamoterrorists would soon find something else to carp on and on about to further their genocidal cause.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-03 09:42:09

It seems that the press is mostly of a single mind about who they want running this country, so they attempt to control the information that gets to the voter. the are overly negative about Republican Candidates, and overly positive about the Democrats and it shows. I don't like it one bit, its sort of like an attempted coup by the News Media, its like they want a Media-ocracy running this country so they get to pick the government instead of the voters.
US Press massively supported Iraq war, it doesn't anymore, back to realdom.
We saw how Bush managed New Orleans disaster, he slept well while anxious friends from Martinique and friends from Paris and I stood awaken all night watching minute by minute the hurricane progress, did he so ? Isn't it a shame that your president did care less than foreigners about what was happening to american citizens ?

No they did not, the Press simply hid their disdain for the war while it was popular, because they didn't want to seem unpatriotic to their audiences, they've been carefully chipping away at public opinion with unfavorable reports ever since the first shot was fired. We don't really have a free press in this country, one political faction has managed to take control of it, and they've carefully controlled the information that they report to the people so as to undermine support for the war, with the ultimate aim of losing it. I can see how they are coveing the campaigns for congress and that coverage is blatantly biased, with Democrats making all sorts of gaffs and the Media ignoring that, and with the Media focusing on Republican gaffs like a laser. Its easy to tell which side the Press wants to see win. If the press had its way, we'd be a one party state, with that one party being controlled by the press.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-03 09:46:05

...Persians and Arabs either other than their unfortunate tendency to fight each other rather than concentrate their attacks on Americans and Jews.
Israel is the Islamoterrorist's "best friend," isn't it? Israel's existence has kept them in business all these decades.
Yes, Israel is a convenient red flag for hatemongers to wave around in order to stir up passions, incite riots and violence, etc. They need Israel.
If Mahmoud Imanutjob (nods to Cobra) would succeed in wiping Israel off the map, the Islamoterrorists would soon find something else to carp on and on about to further their genocidal cause.

If all the hatemongers in this world had their way, the human race would become extinct. just add up all the groups they want killed off, and no doubt some other groups will want them killed as well. If we couldn't magically grat each one of these groups their wish, there would be no more humans on the planet.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-11-03 18:38:22

I keep the basic facts in my head and ignore the speeches, basically the Iranians, Lebanese and the Syrians started the War with Israel, and no amount of talking and propaganda is going to make me believe that the Israelis are responsible for that war. The Muslims have the Jews outnumbered by a considerable amount, hence the Israelis first priority is toward survival, with sparing the civilian lives of their attacking enemies being a distant second. The Israelis certainly cannot afford to lose one soldier for every terrorist they kill, it is simple mathmatics, hence they will want to use weapons that keep their enemy at a distance, these weapons unfortunately also kill some civilians, but Israel didn't start this war.
The modern state of Israel has been at war with its neighbors literally since day one. To speak of who "started" the most recent action is ludicrous.

The test-firing of three new models of sea missiles in the Gulf should send a strong message to the U.S. to cease military maneuvers in the zone, an Iranian navy chief said Friday.
http://online.wsj.com/

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Friday said Moscow was still open to international "measures" against Iran for its nuclear program, but he said a European draft resolution that would impose U.N. sanctions goes too far.

Iran test-fired dozens of missiles, including the Shahab-3 that can reach Israel, in military maneuvers Thursday that it said were aimed at putting a stop to the role of world powers in the Persian Gulf region.
http://www.auburnpub.com/articles/2006/ … tion02.txt
The show of strength came three days after U.S.-led warships finished naval exercises in the Gulf that Iran branded as “adventurist.” Iran remains locked in dispute with the West over its nuclear program, which Washington says is geared to producing atomic weapons but Tehran says is only for generating electricity.
Asked about Thursday's maneuvers, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she thought the Iranians “are trying to demonstrate that they are tough.”

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-04 00:53:28

I keep the basic facts in my head and ignore the speeches, basically the Iranians, Lebanese and the Syrians started the War with Israel, and no amount of talking and propaganda is going to make me believe that the Israelis are responsible for that war. The Muslims have the Jews outnumbered by a considerable amount, hence the Israelis first priority is toward survival, with sparing the civilian lives of their attacking enemies being a distant second. The Israelis certainly cannot afford to lose one soldier for every terrorist they kill, it is simple mathmatics, hence they will want to use weapons that keep their enemy at a distance, these weapons unfortunately also kill some civilians, but Israel didn't start this war.
The modern state of Israel has been at war with its neighbors literally since day one. To speak of who "started" the most recent action is ludicrous.

No, not ludicrous. Israel wasn't at war with Lebanon or Gaza until they kidnapped those Israeli soldiers. There may have been previous wars, but those were ended. Lebanon and the Palistinians started a new War with their unprovoked attacks. And here is the World calling for a cease fire. If it was one continuous war, I doubt they would have any reason to call for a ceasefire now. If it was just one continous war, it would be very simple for Israel, all it would have to do is kill Lebanese and Palestinians until there were no more, but you see ceasefire is part of their strategy to attack Israel and then call for a ceasefire so Israel cannot hit back, and then they attack Israel again and call for another ceasefire. Why is the World such a sucker, it should be obvious by now that the Lebanese and teh Palestinians only want war, and that they only use ceasefires as a strategy to protec themselves while they fight it. If I was the Israeli PM, I would not listen to the World's call for ceasefire the next time the Palestinians start another war with us. I'd let them start a War and then I'd finish them. My patience is at an end for these long unending wars, someone should have the guts to finish off the warmoners once and for all. None of this garbage of their making an attack and then coming to the peace table and then making another attack!

noosfractal · 2006-11-04 02:17:02

To be honest, I don't care what happens to Iraq

Actually, you do, because chaos there will generate wave after wave of terrorist attacks on Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US, probably in that order. Even if the blood-soaked streets don't bother you, the economic shock from higher oil prices will.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-11-04 06:22:58

I keep the basic facts in my head and ignore the speeches, basically the Iranians, Lebanese and the Syrians started the War with Israel, and no amount of talking and propaganda is going to make me believe that the Israelis are responsible for that war. The Muslims have the Jews outnumbered by a considerable amount, hence the Israelis first priority is toward survival, with sparing the civilian lives of their attacking enemies being a distant second. The Israelis certainly cannot afford to lose one soldier for every terrorist they kill, it is simple mathmatics, hence they will want to use weapons that keep their enemy at a distance, these weapons unfortunately also kill some civilians, but Israel didn't start this war.
The modern state of Israel has been at war with its neighbors literally since day one. To speak of who "started" the most recent action is ludicrous.
The test-firing of three new models of sea missiles in the Gulf should send a strong message to the U.S. to cease military maneuvers in the zone, an Iranian navy chief said Friday.
http://online.wsj.com/

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Friday said Moscow was still open to international "measures" against Iran for its nuclear program, but he said a European draft resolution that would impose U.N. sanctions goes too far.
Iran test-fired dozens of missiles, including the Shahab-3 that can reach Israel, in military maneuvers Thursday that it said were aimed at putting a stop to the role of world powers in the Persian Gulf region.
http://www.auburnpub.com/articles/2006/ … tion02.txt
The show of strength came three days after U.S.-led warships finished naval exercises in the Gulf that Iran branded as “adventurist.” Iran remains locked in dispute with the West over its nuclear program, which Washington says is geared to producing atomic weapons but Tehran says is only for generating electricity.
Asked about Thursday's maneuvers, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she thought the Iranians “are trying to demonstrate that they are tough.”

good photo there, too bad the Iranians seem like a bunch of crazy jihadists

If I was the Israeli PM, I would not listen to the World's call for ceasefire the next time the Palestinians start another war with us.

Who is 'us', the people of Palestine never attacked America that's where they get their charity cash - are you Israeli or something ? The Isreali media was giving the USA such a hard time for the operation in Iraq but look at where they are now. Isrealis didn't pull away from Lebanon because they achieved their goals or wanted peace, they backed away because their operation was a failure. They dominated the air for a time, its ok being superior in the skies for a while but that's useless against a militia that's dug-in terrorist group hidden in tunnels and town areas. Former defense minister Moshe Arens spoke of "the defeat of Israel" in calling for a state committee of inquiry. He said that Israel had lost "to a very small group of people, 5000 Hezbollah fighters, which should have been no match at all for the IDF but Israel got their rears kicked.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/merkava.jpg
The ground war was a disaster for Israel, 40 Merkavas were badly damaged or even destroyed, IDF battalion commanders were killed by anti-Tank weapons or improvised explosive devices. They didn't disarm hezbollah or destroy all the rockets and failed to get the two hostages back.

DonPanic · 2006-11-04 08:23:35

To be honest, I don't care what happens to Iraq,

So, don't you stance anymore that "us", as you say, meaning yourself, are interested in spreading democracy or welfare to any one in the world.
That's all pure propaganda at the boobies

but Israel didn't start this war.

They are at war as long as they violate the Palestinian's right to have a territory unmastered and uncolonised by the Israelis.
Wearing a kippa and bringing a Bible don't give any right to steal palestinian internationally recognized territory, and do not prevent from a fascist type behaviour.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-04 08:48:15

To be honest, I don't care what happens to Iraq,
So, don't you stance anymore that "us", as you say, meaning yourself, are interested in spreading democracy or welfare to any one in the world.
That's all pure propaganda at the boobies
but Israel didn't start this war.
They are at war as long as they violate the Palestinian's right to have a territory unmastered and uncolonised by the Israelis.
Wearing a kippa and bringing a Bible don't give any right to steal palestinian internationally recognized territory, and do not prevent from a fascist type behaviour.

France is in the same boat as the Israelis, like it or not, violence is in the streets of the West Bank and Gaza and violence is inthe streets of Paris. Look around you fella, do you really want to make friends with people who have terrorize parisians, rioted in the streets, burned cars, and suppressed yo0ur freedom of speech? Have the Israelis ever done that to your country? Why don't you make friends with people who don't attack you instead of those that do? Is being anti-American so important to you that you are willing to tolerate gangs of arab commiting arson in Parisian streets. The Israelis don't like these things either, why don't you make common cause with them as you are both on the side of civilization?

The problem with the Palestinians is that they can't stop fighting, they elect terrorists into their government and they go on killing and kidnapping Jews no matter what they agree to. When is enough going to be enough?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-04 08:57:49

Who is 'us', the people of Palestine never attacked America that's where they get their charity cash - are you Israeli or something?

If they attack our allies, they are in essence attacking us. Unlike some other countries I shall not mention, we value our alliances, and we try to stick up for our allies when they are attacked, Vietnam being the exception forced upon us by the Democrats taking control of Congress in 1974. What holds alliances like NATO together is our committment to stand up for our allies. Do you prefer fickle allies that cut and run?

The Isreali media was giving the USA such a hard time for the operation in Iraq but look at where they are now. Isrealis didn't pull away from Lebanon because they achieved their goals or wanted peace, they backed away because their operation was a failure.

Because the US pressured them too because all the liberals in the World convinced George Bush that it was the right thing to do. I think it was a mistake for George Bush to cave into pressure from liberals who wanted peace at Israel's expense.

They dominated the air for a time, its ok being superior in the skies for a while but that's useless against a militia that's dug-in terrorist group hidden in tunnels and town areas. Former defense minister Moshe Arens spoke of "the defeat of Israel" in calling for a state committee of inquiry. He said that Israel had lost "to a very small group of people, 5000 Hezbollah fighters, which should have been no match at all for the IDF but Israel got their rears kicked.

I wouldn't say that the Israeli army was crushed or destroyed, they weren't driven out either, they pulled out under US pressure, as that was the only pressure they would listen to.

dicktice · 2006-11-04 17:44:05

Tsk, tsk, Tom. When your patience is really at an end, I expect you'll drop everything and join up to fight the fight--not just talk the talk. Or if what you really mean is: "Let's you and them fight?" War is hell ... it takes more real guts to stop a war than to start it. Brave words--mine as well as yours--from (let's face it) a couple of couch tacticians, eh?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-04 22:54:16

Tsk, tsk, Tom. When your patience is really at an end, I expect you'll drop everything and join up to fight the fight--not just talk the talk. Or is what you really mean is: "Let's you and them fight?" War is hell, and it takes more real guts to stop than than start the fighting. Brave words, mine as well as yours, from a couple of (let's face it) couch tacticians, eh?

So you want to pit everybody who's beyond fighting age against those who are at fighting age. So everybody who's beyond fighting age sould council defeat and vote for Surrendercrats, who want to quit, give up, and throw in the towel. My time to fight was from 1985 to 1995, I registered with selective service, and if they really needed me during those years, they could have drafted me. The first Persian Gulf War really didn't last that long, and I was not about to quit college in order to fight it, I was pursuing other career objectives than training to shoot people. Still I have a son who is three years old, it would be nice if all the terrorist countries and movements were gone and eliminate by the time he is 18. As I have said before, I have no patience with long protracted wars, but my preference is not to quit them, but to destroy the enemy so he will not rise again. I have no patience for the traditional policy of engage the enemy, then back off until he attacks you, then engage the enemy again.
Do you know why I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992?
Because he didn't finish off Saddam Hussein in the First Persian Gulf War. I look upon George W. Bush's activities as a correction to his Father's mistake of letting Saddam live to fight another day. The reason why this war has gone on for too long is that George W. Bush has been to nice too he enemy, he got rid of Saddam, but as they say 'the apple doesn't usually fall very far from the tree'. George W. Bush has a chivalorus streak, where his inclination is to give his enemy quarter whn he asks for it. I knew the enemy was going to take advantage of the change in strategy from overthrowing Iraq to rebuilding that country, and so they have. The only problem is that the Democrats want to be that much nicer to the enemy and hand over to them victory laurels, they want to defund the war and put our troops and ultimately the American public in greater danger! The only way to withdraw from Iraq is by crushing them enemy so that they can never rise again and so my son will never have to fight them. If Iraq can be built, fine, but if the Democrats make that impossible, then I think the factions that have been most helpful to us should receive the largest and most valuable portion of Iraq, and those fairweather friends and sometimes enemies should be punished for not helping us, especially that Prime Minister that ordered our troops to abandon the search for that kidnapped US soldier. George Bush that nice and accomodating President complied of course.

You see, I don't care if Iraq is rebuilt or not. If the Iraqi people aren't sufficiently interested in that project, that is their problem. All I really want is for our enemy to be sufficiently punished and whipped so bad, that he'll never mess with us again. If Iraq self-destructs, then that will stand as a lesson to those who mess with us. I would like to reward the Kurd, who have been helpful to us handsomely, and shove aside those groups who weren't so helpful or who actively harmed our troops or aided and abedded the terrorists. The the Iraqis as a people are willing to destroy their own country so that a temporary US President can be called a failure, I want to make sure that they do not enjoy the loss of their country in any particular way. Meanwhile we can arm the Kurds just like we do the Israelis if they remain cooperative, we'll give them a free hand in dealing with minority Shiite and Sunni Arabs, that have given us so much trouble. If we can't help build a working Iraq, then at least we could wreck revenge against our enemies, so that they'll be deterred in the future. The Germans and the Japanese were interested in helping us rebuild their countries after we conquered them, if the Iraqis are fools and do not help us, then we can offer them only the stick after our patience with the carrot is exhausted.

I'm not really interested in fighting wars. I am interested in fighting the wars we have to fight in such a way that future wars are prevented because our enemy is defeated. If we give them a victory as the Democrats seem so enthused about, there will be future wars against us by that same enemy. Do you understand where I'm coming from. Just because I'm not in uniform right now, doesn't mean I should be a Surrendercrat. We will do our young people no favor by letting the enemy win and encouraging them to fight future wars against us. Our reputation is very important, if we fight and finish off our enemies, future enemies will be much less eager to fight us, than if we just quit and give up the fight like we did in Vietnam.

Grypd · 2006-11-05 07:27:47

It makes no difference to me what they are called. I see no distinctions between Persians and Arabs, just as I see no distinctions between Arabs and Germans during World War II. Some Hard Leftists do however, while they see the NAZIs as the facist enemy, a conclusion they came late too when NAZI Germany attacked their great Patron Russia, the left wing is willing to give the Arab and the Persian a break for their anti-Semitism, for them it is excusable for middleEastern men to be warmongers, bigots and antisemites, its just not excusable for Americans to be these things. If the Arabs and Persians want to wipe Israel off the Map, that's ok in their book, if America wants to stop it, that is Imperialism or interference, and I don't believe the left-wing in the western world sees the difference between Persians and Arabs either other than their unfortunate tendency to fight each other rather than concentrate their attacks on Americans and Jews.

Tom, the world is not black and white. We have already seen that in the situation in Iraq if we knock of the top dog in this case the Sunni Arab Baath tribe/party aka Saddams crew we end up with other sections rising. In this case since we in a stroke removed the Sunni control of Iraq we empowered the oppressed Kurd minority and more importantly the Shia as well.

The US army showed just how effective it was in destroying Iraqs army but it then made the mistake that though you need a certain amount of men to win the war often you need double that to actually control the country. Since the US and its allies did not have that manpower insurgency thrived. The security that Iraq had before the war was beheaded and the police in short disbanded. Militias from the minorities increased if only to defend themselves. Fear of these other minorities gave Al-qhaeda its chance to arm and train the Sunni and Iran and its secret services have given training and arms to the Shi'te forces. The Kurds are being trained by Israel.

It is now at the point that death squads are killing other ethnic groups off and we have ethnic cleansing working in Iraq on our watch. We also can do little to stop it as the insurgency and Militias are more or less in control of the countryside and our patrols run serious risks if we venture outside. Even increasingly in the cities the insurgencies have made it risky for us as the technology and arms flood across Irans,Syria's,Saudia Arabia's borders.

When we leave we had better have left a much more stable country behind than what is currently present. We may even have to divide the country into three. If we dont what will happen is that as soon as we leave conflict will break out and this could easily pull in all the other local countries and cause the middle east to explode. Tom you may not care but you will if it puts the cost of petrol up to the point you cant afford to use it. This is quite likely since the most common tactic in middle east wars is to attack the defenceless floating bombs that are oil tankers to stop the other sides finances. Iran is already planning it why do you think she has built all these new attack boats and Surface air effect attack craft.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-05 11:01:05

It makes no difference to me what they are called. I see no distinctions between Persians and Arabs, just as I see no distinctions between Arabs and Germans during World War II. Some Hard Leftists do however, while they see the NAZIs as the facist enemy, a conclusion they came late too when NAZI Germany attacked their great Patron Russia, the left wing is willing to give the Arab and the Persian a break for their anti-Semitism, for them it is excusable for middleEastern men to be warmongers, bigots and antisemites, its just not excusable for Americans to be these things. If the Arabs and Persians want to wipe Israel off the Map, that's ok in their book, if America wants to stop it, that is Imperialism or interference, and I don't believe the left-wing in the western world sees the difference between Persians and Arabs either other than their unfortunate tendency to fight each other rather than concentrate their attacks on Americans and Jews.
Tom, the world is not black and white. We have already seen that in the situation in Iraq if we knock of the top dog in this case the Sunni Arab Baath tribe/party aka Saddams crew we end up with other sections rising. In this case since we in a stroke removed the Sunni control of Iraq we empowered the oppressed Kurd minority and more importantly the Shia as well.
The US army showed just how effective it was in destroying Iraqs army but it then made the mistake that though you need a certain amount of men to win the war often you need double that to actually control the country. Since the US and its allies did not have that manpower insurgency thrived. The security that Iraq had before the war was beheaded and the police in short disbanded. Militias from the minorities increased if only to defend themselves. Fear of these other minorities gave Al-qhaeda its chance to arm and train the Sunni and Iran and its secret services have given training and arms to the Shi'te forces. The Kurds are being trained by Israel.
It is now at the point that death squads are killing other ethnic groups off and we have ethnic cleansing working in Iraq on our watch. We also can do little to stop it as the insurgency and Militias are more or less in control of the countryside and our patrols run serious risks if we venture outside. Even increasingly in the cities the insurgencies have made it risky for us as the technology and arms flood across Irans,Syria's,Saudia Arabia's borders.
When we leave we had better have left a much more stable country behind than what is currently present. We may even have to divide the country into three. If we dont what will happen is that as soon as we leave conflict will break out and this could easily pull in all the other local countries and cause the middle east to explode. Tom you may not care but you will if it puts the cost of petrol up to the point you cant afford to use it. This is quite likely since the most common tactic in middle east wars is to attack the defenceless floating bombs that are oil tankers to stop the other sides finances. Iran is already planning it why do you think she has built all these new attack boats and Surface air effect attack craft.

How about three unequal sized portions, with the ones that have given us the most help and cooperation receiving the largest and most valuable part of Iraq.

dicktice · 2006-11-05 13:23:25

This is a pretty important week for the powers that be ... I think I'll wait until things have resolved themselves politically before continuing this rant. Back at you in a week or so, Tom. Meanwhile cross fingers for our people who have to be there while we merely talk, eh?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-06 11:53:08

This is a pretty important week for the powers that be ... I think I'll wait until things have resolved themselves politically before continuing this rant. Back at you in a week or so, Tom. Meanwhile cross fingers for our people who have to be there while we merely talk, eh?

I do hope of course that Iraq manages to hold itself together. The other position I mentioned is a fallback position in case the Democrats take over the Congress. I think in any case, you can say that George Bush gave it his all to make Iraq a success. American patience is finite, and George Bush is putting that patience to the test to see how much aid he can give the Iraqi government. But the Iraqis must realize what a precarious situation we're in and by extention they. The Iraqi people must take responsibility for their continued survival or else their will be consequences. I think there are other ways we could be victorious without the Iraq situation being a total success. Either we win and our opponents lose, or we lose and our opponents still lose, at least we'll retain our ability to deter if we see to it that our opponents don't win in the wake of a pullout from Precipitous Iraq. we just have to support the factions that are on our side which are capable of governing themselves.

noosfractal · 2006-11-06 18:47:31

I think in any case, you can say that George Bush gave it his all to make Iraq a success.

Really? The kindest word his closest allies have for him is incompetent.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat … cons200612

According to Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the administration of President George W. Bush. Perle says, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.… At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible"

Grypd · 2006-11-07 07:50:35

In 1999 the pentagon developed a wargame to see what would happen if they invaded Iraq. They looked at what it would take to defeat the Iraqi regime and what it would take to hold the country afterwards.

The "Desert Crossing" game had 70 Military and Diplomatic and Intelligence staff and considered a minimum necassary troop deployment of 400 thousand soldiers to seal the country. It still considered a high risk of insurgency and trouble occuring anyway.

Past War Games Foresaw Iraq Problems

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-07 09:37:12

I think in any case, you can say that George Bush gave it his all to make Iraq a success.
Really? The kindest word his closest allies have for him is incompetent.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat … cons200612
According to Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the administration of President George W. Bush. Perle says, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.… At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible"

Who has the ultimate responsibility for Iraq? The Iraqi people of course. George Bush has given the Iraqi people the chance to choose their own government and they have, it is now that government's responsibility to make Iraq a success, not the Bush Administration.

All George Bush has done is give the Iraqi people a chance to take back their country, and George Bush has been very patient with them, he has expended just about all his politivcal capital to bring this chance to the Iraqi people, a chance they did not have under Saddam Hussein. The real question is whether the Iraqi people are going to let this opportunity slip through their fingers or are they going to rise to the occasion? You really can't blame George Bush for the Iraqi people making the wrong choice and commiting violence against themselves.

The problem with the Iraqi people existed before George Bush became president, it is not his fault that they are so violent and unruly, it is an Islamic Cultural problem, and if the Iraqi people aren't ready for democracy, that is their problem, but if any future unelected government of theirs causes more problems for us, we'll make that their problem to, as they'll see out armed forces once again and be at the wrong end of our bombs and guns once more.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-07 09:40:40

In 1999 the pentagon developed a wargame to see what would happen if they invaded Iraq. They looked at what it would take to defeat the Iraqi regime and what it would take to hold the country afterwards.
The "Desert Crossing" game had 70 Military and Diplomatic and Intelligence staff and considered a minimum necassary troop deployment of 400 thousand soldiers to seal the country. It still considered a high risk of insurgency and trouble occuring anyway.
Past War Games Foresaw Iraq Problems

But only the Bush Administration brought Saddam Hussein finally to trial and to be sentenced to Death, al the past Administrations simply Managed Saddam Hussein, it was George Bush and George Bush alone that got rid of him. If it weren't for George Bush, the World would still be fretting about Saddam Hussein.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2006-11-03 05:45:53

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#152 2006-11-03 05:52:23

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#153 2006-11-03 07:11:51

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#154 2006-11-03 09:18:06

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#155 2006-11-03 09:33:49

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#156 2006-11-03 09:41:36

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#157 2006-11-03 09:42:09

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#158 2006-11-03 09:46:05

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#159 2006-11-03 18:38:22

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#160 2006-11-04 00:53:28

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#161 2006-11-04 02:17:02

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#162 2006-11-04 06:22:58

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#163 2006-11-04 08:23:35

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#164 2006-11-04 08:48:15

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#165 2006-11-04 08:57:49

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#166 2006-11-04 17:44:05

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#167 2006-11-04 22:54:16

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#168 2006-11-05 07:27:47

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#169 2006-11-05 11:01:05

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#170 2006-11-05 13:23:25

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#171 2006-11-06 11:53:08

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#172 2006-11-06 18:47:31

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#173 2006-11-07 07:50:35

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#174 2006-11-07 09:37:12

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#175 2006-11-07 09:40:40

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Board footer