Bomb Iran.

[Misty]

In case you were wondering who is the US going to attack next. :) Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html) it is.

[future man]

Thank God it's someone, the news has been boring as hell lately.

[Digital Pimp]

Love how they say McCain is Bush's replacement for 2008. Hey if the country does vote for a republican again, at least they will get a more intelligent, moderate one, who actually realizes what's going on in the world and how other nations view our actions.

[SuperDavidGT]

WTF, they should be attacking North Korea and finish what they started.

[Yian]

What if the election result can be faked? Wouldn't that allow them to choose whatever president that fits to further the current agenda?

[schnitzel_bob]

What if the election result can be faked? Wouldn't that allow them to choose whatever president that fits to further the current agenda?

Why bother? The current Democrats couldn't campaign their way out of a wet paper bag.
For what it's worth though (very little): I like McCain a hell of a lot more than Hillary Clinton.

[RADiator]

I no longer feel any compassion for those people. So go Bush, rip the whirlwinds of war.

[RacerX]

Well, I hope it doesn't come to that but I'm behind our President 100%. Also, I think the Israelis will probably launch an air strike if we don't. They've done it in other situations when they knew of nuclear weapons development - I think it was against Saddam before.

Anyhoo, war sucks but it's still the most effective way to end up with a lasting peace. Hitler wasn't going to be reasoned with and neither was Saddam. It looks like Iran is run by a few crazy fuckers as well. Just this week, even France is saying they've had enough with Iran. Check it out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11380487/

[tisl]

Anyhoo, war sucks but it's still the most effective way to end up with a lasting peace. Hitler wasn't going to be reasoned with and neither was Saddam.
Oh please, the US didn't go to war with Saddam because they're big humanitarians and they want to save the poor Iraqi people from oppression. Or because he was a threat.

At least the crazy fuckers in Iran stand for something, however stupid it may be, and are not just a bunch of fat greedy men in suits deceiving a bunch of fat ignorant morons in football jerseys. The only reason this whole Iran "crisis" exists is because a few assholes don't want Iranians to have nuclear technology. Really, common sense. They aren't going to go to war with the US or Europe. Alright? There's no fucking way they'll be able to make enough warheads to overpower the US or any other asshole country with nukes. An entire country can't become a suicide bomber. They aren't going to launch 20 nukes at a time, destroying your precious cities. Because if they did, they would be obliterated in about 15 minutes. They just want nuclear technology. But in the end I support the future war in Iran because I don't really give a crap about people in general and it would be good entertainment. The same reason I supported the war in Iraq. There's the initial combat phase, which is always cool. Then there's the terrorism which can sometimes be dull if the original population were pussies. Then there's the controversy of crap like the "liberators" piling a bunch of naked men in a pyramid and taking pictures...

Also, Iran is a pretty sweet country and I'd be happy to visit it if they get rid of the extremist Muslims.

[schnitzel_bob]

I was going to respond to what Racer X said, but I thought better of it. Lets not turn this into a thread about Iraq: it'll just turn into stupid arguments and one of the admins will close it.

[SuperDavidGT]

Iran doesnt use the nukes; it sells them to terrorists.

[RacerX]

Iran doesnt use the nukes; it sells them to terrorists.
Exactly.

And to tisl, threats come in all shapes and sizes. Iran's nuclear program has been analyzed by several independent research groups and intelligence agenices and they've determined that Iran is making weapons grade plutonium. I'll try and find the link to the news article I read about the type of nuclear program Iran has.

Iran has ties to terrorist organizations and they would probably sell any nuclear weapon technology they created to these terrorist groups.

And when it comes to Iran, I'm not advocating going to war with their general population - it's their leadership that is making the decisions. Unfortunately, war means that their will be innocent civilian loss of life. When it comes to avoiding innocent casuallties, the US military does all they can to minimize it. Terrorist groups actually rely on destroying as many military and CIVILLIAN lives as they can.

I also never said Iran was planning any type of conventional war with the US or our allies. It's exactly what SuperDavidGT wrote: "sells them to terrorists"

[Odm]

I no longer feel any compassion for those people. So go Bush, rip the whirlwinds of war.Why not? I don't think the general population has much to do with whatever has robbed you of your compassion...

[RADiator]

My view is very defined regarding the situation. My reasons are mine to keep. The least thing I want is to be involved in the flamewar (oh the irony) which my angle will surely ignite.

[SuperDavidGT]

now i'm curious.

[Digital Limit]

As am I. This place is for discussion, so please share. Worst case, this turns into a flamewar and the forums jump in activity.

Shoot!

[unskinnybob]

Death to all who wrap towels around their heads.

[schnitzel_bob]

As I understand, only Sheiks wear turbans.

[xenophage]

And Sikhs

[TopSecretBoy]

AHahaha. That gave me a good laugh.

[schnitzel_bob]

Actually, the sheiks are a... uh... subsect (yeah, that's it)... of the sikhs. A subsect that can't spell very well.

[SuperDavidGT]

i thought sheik was the title of their leaders

[xenophage]

Sikh

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4892/usasikh2ap.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Sheik

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3685/sheik31xi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[unskinnybob]

Looks like a towel to me.

[farsimon]

so were back to the mohammed pics again?

[Misty]

Those guys are nuts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/wiran19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/19/ixportal.html).

They are asking for it. Id rather see some thousands of innocent civilizans killed by american bombs than millions killed by some lunatic atomic ayatollah.

[Vlad]

Those guys are nuts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/wiran19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/19/ixportal.html).

They are asking for it. Id rather see some thousands of innocent civilizans killed by american bombs than millions killed by some lunatic atomic ayatollah.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Hitman]

How could I have missed this.. so yeah i'm all for attacking Iran, think of it like this.. these countries that cannot fight back provide the American military with a testing ground for all sorts of cool new technology. Practice makes perfect on the weak, the Korean military is not as weak so it would be a good fight... Round Two... FIGHT!

From the Iraq war came new IED jammer devices and slotted vehicular armor, it also gave the US a chance to try their new camo uniforms in the field, they work well. Lastly though it gave the US a chance to battlefield harden our troops and war tactics.. So yeah folks, we must all thank Saddam and his loyal forces for providing a much needed training ground to strenghten our army, without them we couldn't be ready for such threats as Iran or North Korea.

[jesuskingofpeace]

Iran has ties to terrorist organizations

So does the U.S., simpleton.



The biggest terrorists in the western hemisphere (The Colombian military and their death squad AUC paramilitary allies) murder more civilians every year than the Iran-backed Hezbollah ever have.

What do you think the weapons we send to Israel get used for? Lately, it's been trying to kill militants with missiles, but missing and blowing up children.

The U.S. is a far bigger terrorist state than Iran is.

[greymeister]

I'm high as a mother fucker.

[Yian]

The biggest terrorists in the western hemisphere (The Colombian military and their death squad AUC paramilitary allies) murder more civilians every year than the Iran-backed Hezbollah ever have.

What do you think the weapons we send to Israel get used for? Lately, it's been trying to kill militants with missiles, but missing and blowing up children.

The U.S. is a far bigger terrorist state than Iran is.

It is true. However, we must remember that that's also how we have survived as a technological advanced soviety, which consumes way more resources with much less people willing to commit their time and manpower to achieve that standard. The only way U.S. citizens could enjoy what they have today is to abandon many things we now take for granted.

So, when you are talking about terrorism, you have to exlude U.S. from the discussion, unless you want to advocate for a world of global peace and with very little pleasure of ourown. I for one totally support this idea, but I'm not sure if everyone call U.S. a "terrorist" would be ready to embrace such idea.

[jesuskingofpeace]

when you are talking about terrorism, you have to exlude U.S. from the discussion, unless you want to advocate for a world of global peace and with very little pleasure of ourown

what the hell are you talking about?

Opposing Plan Colombia and U.S. subsidizing Israel is going to lead to less pleasure?

What?

[Yian]

what the hell are you talking about?

Opposing Plan Colombia and U.S. subsidizing Israel is going to lead to less pleasure?

What?
I was being sarcastic... I guess that wasn't a very good job. :p

[Drama.King]

Well, I hope it doesn't come to that but I'm behind our President 100%. Also, I think the Israelis will probably launch an air strike if we don't. They've done it in other situations when they knew of nuclear weapons development - I think it was against Saddam before.

Anyhoo, war sucks but it's still the most effective way to end up with a lasting peace. Hitler wasn't going to be reasoned with and neither was Saddam. It looks like Iran is run by a few crazy fuckers as well. Just this week, even France is saying they've had enough with Iran. Check it out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11380487/


- Then what do you call Bush who resembles stupidity..?

- Who cares about France..?

- Israel has Nuclear "weapons".. why the world is silent about that..? Isn't that a major threat to the world..? instead, they object Iran's peaceful nuclear project..!

- Israel couldn't win against Hizbuallah.. do you want it to go into a war with Iran..? lol

[Cheddar]

"Iran's peaceful nuclear project"

Definitely el oh el.


And no, Israel does not have ICBM capability, so they don't have the capacity pose any truly significant "world threat." They only pose a nuclear threat to other nations in their immediate region.

But in every one of the wars Israel has had to fight in their nation's brief history, they were always the ones getting invaded; NOT the other way around. That needs to be noted.

Israel is only aggressive when it comes to defending themselves. Probably something to do with getting tired of having their people slaughtered. Israel has never shown any real expansionist and imperialistic behavior. Israel is merely interested in surviving in a region where they are surrounded by nations who harbor thinly veiled hostility and a festering grudge, and so the Israelis do whatever they feel is necessary to ensure that survival. Anyway, Israel developing nuclear weapons was probably a primary factor in what finally stopped the Arab states from continually making war upon them.

That said, Iran, in contrast, is obviously a wannabe imperialistic state. They're absolutely itching to be a world power, and to dominate all of the Middle East. You know, Israel isn't the only nation in the Middle East that's nervous about Iran. Even the other Arab states are. So just what do you think that indicates? Hell, honestly, I'd say nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are much more afraid of Iran than they are of Israel.

If Iran develops nuclear weapons, I GUARANTEE YOU there will be another major war in the Middle East within 5-10 years, a war directly initiated by Iranian aggression. Not by Israel, not by America.

And obviously, the possibility of a resulting nuclear holocaust in the Middle East is very, very plausible.


But hey, don't take my word for it. Just watch the slaughter when it happens, and remember, I fucking told you so.

[unskinnybob]

Bring it.

[iha‏teyou]

So what? They have n00ks, we have n00ks too. Does that mean we get to be bombed? Saying that they're going to use them for malicious purposes is just like outlawing guns from black people because they're going to use them for robbing convenient stores.

[Lehesu]

Saying that they're going to use them for malicious purposes is just like outlawing guns from black people because they're going to use them for robbing convenient stores.
No, that's just a bad analogy.

[tisl]

I love how people are actually protesting about how unfair the aggression is. It's not fucking CS. Get over it.

[SuperDavidGT]

So what? They have n00ks, we have n00ks too. Does that mean we get to be bombed?

I wish. Someone should kick America off its high horse. Bush, Cheney, Rice, all those other dickheads in your government need a lesson in shutting their mouths and letting the world govern itself.

This bitterness was brought to you by : American farmers suing Australian wheat exporters for supposed lost profits, even though American farmers like to brag to Australia about their higher general export margins. Fuckin assholes. I'm going to sue the American government on behalf of anyone affected by anything American, from 9/11 to McDonalds to Tom Cruise and his scienfuckintology.

[schnitzel_bob]

No shit. They do the same thing to canadian farmers, even though we're supposedly in a free trade area. They also imposed duties on canadian softwood lumber and refused to pay back the full amount even though they consistently lost at the WTO a bunch of times. They're in a contract only so long as it suits them.

[Roq]

god im drunk

[CXalculus]

Even my small country made steel for the usa, now sinds things are going worse with the economie over there and our steel became way cheaper then their own they made a new tax for about 250% extra on imported steel only just so we couldnt trade anymore, so there own steelcompany's became protected and could keep producing. so never say to me that the usa is the protector of the free market and shit, only when its good indeed!

you guys make a thread about "bombing a country" and everyone agrees here without even blinking, you guys say fuck you to human rights because you are the only ones with rights to torture people because there on a small island and they arent really humans, we wrote a special text to ensure that thought so we can have no blame.

Why are you all so arrogant, if i would be like this where i live i would have no friends and it would be correct to have no friends if i would be like that, the only thing you Americans think about is Americans and especialy yourself!

pls can someone tell me why you are all thinking like this because i cant understand it, im not mad i just cant figure it out why you all only care about the usa and nothing else in the world and still feel no remorse and keep thinking it should be like this, dont you know you wont have any friends left and your only 500 years old? µ

sorry for my english.

[BodomBeachTerror]

Even my small country made steel for the usa, now sinds things are going worse with the economie over there and our steel became way cheaper then their own they made a new tax for about 250% extra on imported steel only just so we couldnt trade anymore, so there own steelcompany's became protected and could keep producing. so never say to me that the usa is the protector of the free market and shit, only when its good indeed!

you guys make a thread about "bombing a country" and everyone agrees here without even blinking, you guys say fuck you to human rights because you are the only ones with rights to torture people because there on a small island and they arent really humans, we wrote a special text to ensure that thought so we can have no blame.

Why are you all so arrogant, if i would be like this where i live i would have no friends and it would be correct to have no friends if i would be like that, the only thing you Americans think about is Americans and especialy yourself!

pls can someone tell me why you are all thinking like this because i cant understand it, im not mad i just cant figure it out why you all only care about the usa and nothing else in the world and still feel no remorse and keep thinking it should be like this, dont you know you wont have any friends left and your only 500 years old? µ

sorry for my english.

Just reading your post, your view of America is quite ridiculus and you have no idea what you are talking about. Go click the nearest PC game on your desktop or press power on one of your consoles and fuhgetaboudit.

[manas]

Iran doesnt use the nukes; it sells them to terrorists.

rofl

then why didnt they use it to blow up washington dc?

I love when you think everybody else is evil, and god has given you the task to watch over the world. Seriously , do you really think that you are the world's police? It's hilarious.

It's obvious that Iran supports some terrorist groups , though it decreased gradually. But that doesnt give you the right to invade Iran. Because your so righteous , terrorist hating country, actually supported terrorists in the past and it is supporting still where its interests dont clash.

I have a political sciences major and I know one thing for certain. If a country labels terrorists as "freedom fighters or rebels" , you can be %100 sure that it is backed up by that state/country. Read your newspapers and media thorougly , you will see what I mean.

IMO ; igniting a fire and fueling that fire ,is the same thing. Someone has to stop it.

[Dark_Swordmaster]

You're the reason we invaded you idiot.

[AssMan]

In case you were wondering who is the US going to attack next. :) Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html) it is.
The US should keep there F*&%^$g noses out of that part of the world.Cause we all know how well things are going in IRAQ:mad:

[Cheddar]

You know, the reason why Iran is getting so frantic about Iraq (as belied by their own underhanded actions in aiding the insurgency there, and in pushing forward with their desire for nuclear capability), is because they're well aware that the successful installment of a democratic, freely-elected, non-theological government in one of the two most powerful nations in the Middle East (the other being Iran itself) could easily become the tipping point that finally brings all of the Middle East into the modern age of society, and thus signal the end of the barbaric, hate-mongering quasi-third-world society typical of all theologically ruled nations.

Add this to the fact that 70% of Iran's public is already against their government's radical ways, and you can see why the powers-that-be in Iran are becoming more and more belligerent in the last few years.

You can basically liken it to the behavior of a rat backed into a corner.


So, the point is, very likely, in 30 years time the US's efforts in Iraq right now will be seen as the turning point in finally bringing peace and stability to one of the world's worst hot-spots for the last 50 years.

And Dubbya Bush might very well end up being viewed as a hero in our history books because of it.


Something to think about.

[Cheddar]

Oh, and btw, the reason Iran wants nuclear capability is simple and transparent to anyone with half a clue and has given any objective thought to the matter.


Remember those constant wars of aggression waged against Israel by the Arab nations in the latter half of the 20th century? There were three in quick succession, in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, but then that all suddenly stopped.

Do you know what happened?

Israel developed nuclear capability, that's what happened.

Suddenly, all the Arabs started thinking twice about invading the Jews. So instead, nations like Iran, Egypt, and Syria started sponsoring terrorism, as an indirect method of bringing down the hated Jews.

Now Iran wants nuclear arms so that they can nullify Israel's own capability. That would be instrumental in achieving the two primary goals of Iran's Shi'ite government: the destruction of Israel, and political and religious (read: Shi'ite) dominance over all of the Middle East.

The latter goal is why no one expects any of the other powerful Arab nations to come to Iran's defense in the event of a US invasion. Frankly, everyone in the Middle East is afraid of Iran right now. Only Syria can be considered a true ally to Iran, and that's only because on their own, Syria is extremely weak and impotent (probably the poorest nation in the Middle East), and so basically they're nothing more than Iran's puppet and lackey right now.


But anyway, 9/11 basically threw a lit match onto the entire gasoline-soaked mess, and with the US's intervention in Iraq, Iran's plans are becoming endangered, and that's why everything is coming to such a head right now.

[MrBored]

If you stop watching the news, all these problems go away. Its so awesome.

[AssMan]

If you stop watching the news, all these problems go away. Its so awesome.

Yeh CNN can kiss my big hairy ASS!!,,,,, so there!!!:cool: :cool: :cool:

[RAY16]

If you stop watching the news, all these problems go away. Its so awesome.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

[Cheddar]

Yeh CNN can kiss my big hairy ASS!!,,,,, so there!!!:cool: :cool: :cool:

Well, It's not like CNN or Fox actually gives you any clear impression of the truth anyway.

[MrBored]

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

Yip, its way better than getting an ulcer worrying about this shit. Especially as there is almost nothing you can do about it, except vote Democrat if you are in the US.

[MrBored]

Well, It's not like CNN or Fox actually gives you any clear impression of the truth anyway.

Thats why I used to watch Aljazeera English before I decided to give up on news ( and TV for that matter ) all together.

[burnart]

"Bomb Iran"

Thats your solution to everything.. stupid people

Just leave it alone.. let it attack some of us first. Then we can eradicate them and institute a west-friendly regime.
Just a minor slipup would have done the trick.
hehe

[Cheddar]

Thats why I used to watch Aljazeera English before I decided to give up on news ( and TV for that matter ) all together.

I generally agree about TV being pretty worthless, but South Park, The Colbert Report, The History Channel, and The National Geographic Channel are still worth watching. And occasionally ESPN.

[psydude20]

You're leaving out Futurama!

As far as Iran goes, yeah, we'll probably wind up having some sort of military action against them in the next few years because of the increasing amount of arms/training they're funneling into Iraq. I figure I'll either wind up there or Afghanistan. Depends on how long this insurgency by the Taliban/Al Qaeda lasts and whether or not I still feel like becoming a member of a light-infantry unit.

[MrBored]

I generally agree about TV being pretty worthless, but South Park, The Colbert Report, The History Channel, and The National Geographic Channel are still worth watching. And occasionally ESPN.

*cough* usenet *cough*. The only thing I watch on TV is sport and thats only when I've got nothing else to do.

[schnitzel_bob]

I'm dissapointed, Cheddar. Though I often find myself at odds with you on issues, your opinions are well thought out and defended. When I read this, though, all I see is dogmatic american conservatism.

You know, the reason why Iran is getting so frantic about Iraq (as belied by their own underhanded actions in aiding the insurgency there, and in pushing forward with their desire for nuclear capability), is because they're well aware that the successful installment of a democratic, freely-elected, non-theological government in one of the two most powerful nations in the Middle East (the other being Iran itself) could easily become the tipping point that finally brings all of the Middle East into the modern age of society, and thus signal the end of the barbaric, hate-mongering quasi-third-world society typical of all theologically ruled nations.

Have you been paying attention to Iraq lately? It can hardly be called a model for middle-eastern democracy. For one thing, it's not secular, since the constitution clearly recognises the importance of Islam. At the same time, though, it (the constitution) also makes reference to the supremacy of democratic institutions (supreme court, parliament). It's a hodge podge in which either the theocrats or the secularists can both claim that the constitution supports them and them alone.

Second, the very structure of the government is non-functional. It's meant to be a federal government, but lets be realistic here. Kurds in the North will not accept to be dictated to by a Sunni lead federal governement, and Sunnis and Shias won't just let the Kurds take a huge chunk of the country's oil wealth. It's a classic case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't': any democratic government in Iraq cannot be anything other than federal, but federalism will only lead to chaos.
Then there's the issue of Turkey. There's no way that Turkey will live peacefully next to a newly rich and autonomous Kurdish province.

A quick look at the current attempt at democracy in Iraq looks like an unskilled first year poli sci student's attempt at creating democracy where before there was none.



Add this to the fact that 70% of Iran's public is already against their government's radical ways, and you can see why the powers-that-be in Iran are becoming more and more belligerent in the last few years.

Agreed. Ironically, Iran has the best chance of any middle eastern country of becoming a proper democracy. And yet the Bush administration has managed to completely eliminate any goodwill the Iranian public might have towards american intervention in the middle east with the current quagmire in Iraq.


You can basically liken it to the behavior of a rat backed into a corner.
So, the point is, very likely, in 30 years time the US's efforts in Iraq right now will be seen as the turning point in finally bringing peace and stability to one of the world's worst hot-spots for the last 50 years.
And Dubbya Bush might very well end up being viewed as a hero in our history books because of it.
Something to think about.

I can't accept that you really believe this. You're far too thoughtfull to actually buy into that claptrap. History doesn't judge LBJ as a hero for escalating in Viet Nam, and it won't judge Bush kindly for starting an unnecessary war and throwing away american influence for future presidents.

[psydude20]

Then there's the issue of Turkey. There's no way that Turkey will live peacefully next to a newly rich and autonomous Kurdish province.
I agree with everything else you posted, but I'd like to make a comment on this. The Kurds have been the most pro-U.S. group in the war. They provided valuable intelligence and assistance to our troops that jumped into northern Iraq and have been very forthcoming in rooting out Al Qaeda. As such, if and when Iraq transforms into the 3 separate states (per the expectations of every cultural and political analyst) Kurdistan will most likely be begging us to build up a military presence there. With one or two U.S. combat brigades there I doubt Turkey will do too much to stop the creation of a Kurdish state.

[tisl]

The traditional Kurdish pants are very cool.
http://img128.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-2973/loc558/97536_27_122_558lo.jpg

[Cheddar]

I'm dissapointed, Cheddar. Though I often find myself at odds with you on issues, your opinions are well thought out and defended. When I read this, though, all I see is dogmatic american conservatism.

I'm not very conservative, actually. It's a frequent source of irritation to the rest of my family, in fact. I think you're just reading into my words a political siding I don't actually take.

For example, when I'm speculating about the long-term historical hindsight that could very well end up favoring Bush's legacy, I'm not saying that as a condoning of Bush's administration... no, I'm saying it in terms of a cynical truth that vexes me as much as it sardonically interests me.

But unfortunately, it's just the sort of cynical truth that people don't like to hear, and the messenger is often blamed for the message.


I'm pretty centrist, I think. Or at least, it's what I try very hard to be. I still have a default inclination to lean conservative that I'm very aware of and try very hard to compensate for (it's difficult to overcome the programming one receives as a child). But of course, lots of people claim to do that, and it's not actually true for most. So I can only leave it to your opinion.

But you know, this always seems to happen to me. Liberals call me conservative, and conservatives call me liberal. Pretty much, I consider this the best evidence available to me that I am fairly centrist.


The downside, however, is that the true centrist rarely finds friends whenever he debates... because he of the perfect shade of grey is the most alien creature of all.

Have you been paying attention to Iraq lately? It can hardly be called a model for middle-eastern democracy. For one thing, it's not secular, since the constitution clearly recognises the importance of Islam. At the same time, though, it (the constitution) also makes reference to the supremacy of democratic institutions (supreme court, parliament). It's a hodge podge in which either the theocrats or the secularists can both claim that the constitution supports them and them alone.

Second, the very structure of the government is non-functional. It's meant to be a federal government, but lets be realistic here. Kurds in the North will not accept to be dictated to by a Sunni lead federal governement, and Sunnis and Shias won't just let the Kurds take a huge chunk of the country's oil wealth. It's a classic case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't': any democratic government in Iraq cannot be anything other than federal, but federalism will only lead to chaos.

Well, obviously, there's still much up in the air, much work that still needs to be done, much that still needs to be improved upon. I never claimed that the new government in Iraq is already a success. Obviously, that's not true. If it were, US troops wouldn't still be needed in the region.

But that doesn't change the possibility that eventually, the new government might very well be able to find its footing and become a success... and that's the speculative route of logic I was making my entire point upon. And, personally, my opinion is that it will happen... if the US is willing to stay committed long enough to see it through. So we shall just have to see.

Now, maybe it's your opinion that the whole enterprise is already doomed for certain. And if that's the case, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Then there's the issue of Turkey. There's no way that Turkey will live peacefully next to a newly rich and autonomous Kurdish province.

This I disagree on. I think Turkey will behave as long as the US is seen as a staunch ally. Sure, they won't like it. But Turkey isn't Iran.

A quick look at the current attempt at democracy in Iraq looks like an unskilled first year poli sci student's attempt at creating democracy where before there was none.

Is that surprising? Revolutionary shifts are always rife with blundering and ineptitude. Just look at the United States' own early history, post-War of Independence. Hell, just look at every one of the various revolutions that took place in the West from the 18th century forward.

And alas, the efforts in Iraq's revolution are not helped much by the US's fairly hands-off policy in trying to let the Iraqis figure it out for themselves as much as possible. But the rest of the West and the other other Arab nations would frown greatly upon the US taking too much of a hand, and so we are thusly hindered. Ah, politics.

And yet the Bush administration has managed to completely eliminate any goodwill the Iranian public might have towards american intervention in the middle east with the current quagmire in Iraq.

The Iranian people? Well, what has Bush actually done to the Iranian people? Nothing, actually. We haven't invaded. We haven't bombed. We've (together with the UN) imposed sanctions of course, but Iran nevertheless remains a wealthy nation that enjoys a high standard of living, by Middle Eastern standards.

And besides, it doesn't even really matter. The Iranian people don't need to like America to bring about revolution in their government. According to what I've read, the average Iranian still blames their own government's actions more for the pressure their nation is receiving than those in the West who are applying said pressure.

I can't accept that you really believe this. You're far too thoughtfull to actually buy into that claptrap. History doesn't judge LBJ as a hero for escalating in Viet Nam, and it won't judge Bush kindly for starting an unnecessary war and throwing away american influence for future presidents.

But we didn't actually gain anything from Vietnam, nothing but 20,000 dead American soldiers and a failed attempt at a South Vietnamese democratic government. So of course LBJ is not favored by history.

Obviously, what I'm speculating is reliant on the possibility that the situation in Iraq will eventually stabilize and comes to order, and the freely-elected democratic government there becomes firmly entrenched and permanent.

And if that happens, you must logically concede that what I'm suggesting could very well come true... whether you like it or not.


But if the US's efforts in Iraq are ultimately a failure, we pull out, and the democratic government eventually falls and the nation goes back to totalitarian rule (and Iran's probable pawn)... then yes, Bush Jr. won't be remembered by history much better than the approval poles show for him right now. No argument there.

[schnitzel_bob]

I'm pretty centrist, I think.


The downside, however, is that the true centrist rarely finds friends whenever he debates... because he of the perfect shade of grey is the most alien creature of all.


Now this I agree with. I consider myself relatively centrist, though left leaning. No political party particularly appeals to me (I'm not american, remember) because I don't believe in any one party being able to englobe my various opinions and beliefs.
Another challenge with being a moderate is that it's difficult to get people passionate about centrism. "Come on people, lets get out there and be rational!" Yeah, not so much.



Well, obviously, there's still much up in the air, much work that still needs to be done, much that still needs to be improved upon. I never claimed that the new government in Iraq is already a success. Obviously, that's not true. If it were, US troops wouldn't still be needed in the region.

But that doesn't change the possibility that eventually, the new government might very well be able to find its footing and become a success... and that's the speculative route of logic I was making my entire point upon. And, personally, my opinion is that it will happen... if the US is willing to stay committed long enough to see it through. So we shall just have to see.

Now, maybe it's your opinion that the whole enterprise is already doomed for certain. And if that's the case, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

What I meant by saying you sounded dogmatically conservative is this: in your belief that US actions in Iraq will ultimately prove successful and George Bush will be a hero, you're sounding an awful lot like Cheney and the like. Now, I'm fully willing to accept that you may well have information I don't, but I'm not some uninformed moron from Hicksville and from where I'm standing, unless some kind of miracle happens, the invasion of Iraq will not lead to a stable democratic Iraq.


This I disagree on. I think Turkey will behave as long as the US is seen as a staunch ally. Sure, they won't like it. But Turkey isn't Iran.
Turkey is caught between a rock and a hard place, though. Obviously it doesn't want to antagonize the US, but there is considerable domestic pressure to deal with Kurdish insurgents in Turkey and in the north of Iraq, and Turkey is not being silent about the issue.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/turkey/story/0,,2115284,00.html
Call it sabre rattling if you want, but it's something to think about.


Is that surprising? Revolutionary shifts are always rife with blundering and ineptitude. Just look at the United States' own early history, post-War of Independence. Hell, just look at every one of the various revolutions that took place in the West from the 18th century forward.

And alas, the efforts in Iraq's revolution are not helped much by the US's fairly hands-off policy in trying to let the Iraqis figure it out for themselves as much as possible. But the rest of the West and the other other Arab nations would frown greatly upon the US taking too much of a hand, and so we are thusly hindered. Ah, politics.


Consider this: revolutions are usually started from the bottom up, not top down. Actually, to be realistic, revolutions are started from the center down, usually by the Bourgeoisie or middle class. Take the American, French or Russian revolutions as examples.
In Iraq, though, the middle class and the majority of the population had nothing to do with the imposition of democracy, and the middle class had now been gutted. Many have either fled, been killed or simply become part of the lower class. Comparing western revolutions to Iraq today is spurious and you know it.


The Iranian people? Well, what has Bush actually done to the Iranian people? Nothing, actually. We haven't invaded. We haven't bombed. We've (together with the UN) imposed sanctions of course, but Iran nevertheless remains a wealthy nation that enjoys a high standard of living, by Middle Eastern standards.

And besides, it doesn't even really matter. The Iranian people don't need to like America to bring about revolution in their government. According to what I've read, the average Iranian still blames their own government's actions more for the pressure their nation is receiving than those in the West who are applying said pressure.


I didn't say the US had done anything direct. My point was that US credibility in the middle east is so low that when Bush tries to reach out to the Iranian people in his speeches, their reaction is to say "oh yeah, he'll help us like he helped the iraqis".