So is America finally getting wiser? Who still believes this nonsense?

by Jourles 76 Replies latest social current

• 

  Jourles

  They are in fact openly working on a nuclear device. The technology mostly came from that Pakistani rogue scientist that sold it and died under house arrest for it the other day. They also have supplied arms to the terrorists in Lebanon.

  If it was a "fact" that they are "openly working on a nuclear device," why is it such a secret in the media? Why hasn't the USA targeted this place?

  Has the USA ever supplied arms covertly to other groups? Nah, say it ain't so! I find it funny that any group/country that is against the USA is automatically labeled as a "terrorist" group. It does not matter what they stand for or how long they have been in power. What an easy label to remember.

  Example - What does the rest of the world do if Iran someday sneaks a nuclear weapon over to the Hezbolla?

  I think I already demonstrated what would likely happen. And it wouldn't be pretty for the nation who instigated it. What about North Korea? Why are we not invading them? Are they not part of the Axis of Evil? Oh, that's right. They can actually defend their nation. I guess a war with NK will have to be put on hold for now because we can only bring forced Democracy to one country at a time.
• 

  james_woods

  Jourles -

  If it was a "fact" that they are "openly working on a nuclear device," why is it such a secret in the media? Why hasn't the USA targeted this place?

  It is demonstrably not a secret in the media. You can hardly look at a news program in the past few weeks that did not headline the UN resolution, the nuclear issue, and the Iranian response. Iran plainly is seeking a nuclear weapon.

  Why hasn't the USA targeted this place? How do you know we have not? If we were preparing a contingency, Iraq would be a vital point of strategy, which was my point.

  Your last post disturbs me in it's implicit defense of Iran, its exportation of arms (oh, its ok for them to do it, because we sometimes sell arms too) and its seeming disgust for democracy.

  These problems will still be with us as long as there is the stubborn uncontrolled aggression of the Islamic extreme - no matter who is president.
• 

  Jourles

  You can hardly look at a news program in the past few weeks that did not headline the UN resolution, the nuclear issue, and the Iranian response. Iran plainly is seeking a nuclear weapon.

  So it's not quite a fact then. It is merely the Bush administration's opinion? If they had proof, they would present it. Why can Iran not work on a nuclear power plant for civilian uses? "Because it will be used for making a bomb!!!" So what? Let 'em make one. They can use it to defend against any prospective invaders of their country. If they use it outside of their country, well then, we all know what will happen...

  If I were the leader of a lesser ranked country in terms of technology and the USA was threatening me as being the next target of their democratic takeover, I would thumb my nose at them too and say FU! What right does the USA have to police the entire world? I just hope one day the US gov't reaps what it sows. I'm not looking forward to civilian casualties or anything, but I hope it gets nailed for the absolute war-mongering state that it presently is. A retreat from Iraq would be a nice black eye. Civil war in Iraq would also undermine everything the US is trying to accomplish. And the terrorists rebels in Iraq know that if all out civil war happens, they win.

  Wait a minute, we are already in deep shit from being over there. How many billions of dollars have we spent thus far? And what do we have to show for it? How is throwing that much money at Iraq helping our country?
• 

  Phil

  More than ten years ago, long before 9/11, the USA intelligence knew of the massive migration of Islam to the UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, China, India, Canada, USA, Mexico, South America, Australia etc. THen came the bombings in embassies throughout the world. HIstorically, the USA prefers to have any "warring" with hostile countries, outside of the North American continent. The decision was to impregnate the middle East with a democratic government and Iraq was and is the most suitable at this time, particularly having finished a miniwar over Kuwait. If we are able to make this work, a split among the Arab nations would be in effect softening the ability of the terrorists to operate. Furthermore, the main war is still outside the continent. Look how quickly we reacted when Castro was threatening to have nuclear weapons. All the reteoric that is going on in the media is just a bunch of politics, nothing more nothing less.

  Castro and his regime has been reduced to a pussy cat and should be returned to normal dipomatic relations immediately.
• 

  kid-A

  The US can not, and will not "win" the war in Iraq because 1) this is not a "war" in any conventional or reasonable sense of the term. 2) The "enemy" is not a static entity but a constantly evolving and growing population spread across multiple countries on multiple continents and 3) there is no "objective" that could even define victory.

  Iraq was and IS an artificial "state" comprised of 3 indigenous tribes that detest each other (Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites). Neither the US nor any other country will be able to avoid the Balkanization of the country presently known as Iraq because the alternative is a protracted civil war of attrition which will completely and utterly bleed the US economy and military dry, should it foolishly choose to keep troops there. The Marines are already invoking involuntary recall and it will be a matter of only months before a full scale draft is re-instated to perpetuate Dubya's personal Viet Nam.

  The decision to invade Iraq was so monumentally idiotic, ill-conceived, poorly planned and executed and hopelessly bungled, that withdrawal is now the only reasonable recourse, regardless of the consequences. The continuation of the Iraq war will completely destroy the US economy within several years, should it continue. Worse yet, the nations that did and still pose a potentially serious threat to the US (North Korea and Iran) now have free reign to pursue their policies whilst the US military and economy is hopelessy mired in the black cess-pool of Iraq, which has now become the number-one global training site for future terrorists and a breeding ground for anti-US islamic radicalism and hatred.

  After 9-11, the US should have adopted an isolationist policy, spent its resources improving the security of its OWN borders and improving domestic and foreign intelligence gathering. Instead of getting Bin Laden, they got Hussein, who had no involvement whatsoever with 9-11, was a 65 year old lame duck leader, who had an impotent military and posed no real threat to the US or surrounding region.
• 

  james_woods

  So, except for myself and Phil, as far as I can see...

  The consensus of the thread posters and the majority of the verbal people on this board -

  we should just up and leave Iraq?

  Yes or No?
• 

  SWALKER

  Here is the only viable solutions that I see working in Iraq, take your pick:

  1. We take over the country. Supply enough troops to set up a new democratic government and restructure the entire country. Separate the 2 or 3 main religious factions into their own separate states with their own laws, as these groups will NEVER get along. Always plan on having troops there enforcing civil behavior and close the borders to surrounding countries. (They will hate us, but so what? They hate us anyway!) Re-coup our billions of dollars in oil revenues while at the same time rebuilding the country we destroyed.

  2. Withdraw all our troops immediately....no one wants us there. Let them have civil war (we did it here in the U.S) and set up their own government. Spend billions of dollars here on alternative energy sources and get OVER our oil dependency! It's only a matter of time before we're forced to do that anyway. Build up our defences and shore up OUR OWN BORDERS...protect our own country!!!

  In my opinion, Donald Rumsfeld should go down in history as one of the worst military strategists on record. A 7 year old would have had a better concept of what to do after the invasion than the Bush Administration! What's ironic, they still haven't a clue as to what to do!

  Swalker (as I can't see the U.S. going for plan # 1, then I vote for plan # 2...anyone else see how this can possibly work out?)
• 

  AK - Jeff

  I must admit, that although I am glad Bush is pres instead of the alternate offered by the left, Iraq seems to have been a significant blunder in more ways than one.

  At the heart is some misguided notion that America can transplant democracy where it has never been. Things smell strangley like Vietnam in many ways to me here, and I unfortunately expect a similar outcome at some point future. When fighting off 'communism' or 'terroristic government, it has never proven easy to swap it out for your favorite ideology.

  It just doesn't work that way in the real world I fear.

  The premise of WMD had the cards for legitimacy stacked against this one to start - though I still want to believe it was with good intent - I may be wrong and prob am. Time will tell.

  No offense to James and other posters here who disagree. I try to save offending others for elders and GB.

  Jeff
• 

  kid-A

  we should just up and leave Iraq? Yes or No?

  Logistically, just "leaving" is not the ideal scenario. Having said that, what other choice is there? You can stay, as your economy continues to be gutted by a senseless and unwinnable guerilla war against invisible insurgents. OR you can cut your losses and get the hell out of there, and spend the money saved on improving the security of your own borders, and beefing up foreign and domestic intelligence services. What ground defenses will the US have available should things get hairy with north korea? Not much, if the entire armed forces are tied up in a guerilla war in Iraq.

  Its time for some REALPOLITIK. Iraq can not survive in its current incarnation. The Kurds are already pressing for an autonomous state. The Shiites and Sunnis will despise each other for as long as they are forced to live under the same borders.

  The answer? PARTITION Iraq into three separate states. Establish UN perimeter zones along the borders. Keep the Sunnis and Shiites separated and most of the problems are already solved. Withdraw US troops and let UN peacekeeping forces patrol the borders until it stabilizes. The US could still save face by overseeing the partition and contributing troops to the UN forces.
• 

  james_woods

  Kid-A: in reply to this good idea-

  The answer? PARTITION Iraq into three separate states. Establish UN perimeter zones along the borders. Keep the Sunnis and Shiites separated and most of the problems are already solved. Withdraw US troops and let UN peacekeeping forces patrol the borders until it stabilizes. The US could still save face by overseeing the partition and contributing troops to the UN forces.

  I congratulate you for coming up with an alternative to "stay forever" or "cut and run". Actually, I have had some of the same notions myself. However, this kind of thing may be very hard to do without further massive military action; I kind of get the impression that many posters here, including Jourles, are not really up for such a thing. As was posted, some are actually hoping for America to get a well-deserved black eye. Sadly, I imagine that many such are themselves Americans.

  Partitions may also prove to be quite tricky, would be dividiing up the spoils of the crude oil exports between the three, assuming that their territories would not have an equal share of the wells.

  One litle hangup I have with such REALPOLITIK, however is this: Isn't this kind of spookily familiar? Like east and west Berlin? The Balkanization of -- well, the Balkans?

  But I again congratulate a reasonable point of debate beyond "Iran doesn't really want a nuclear bomb" and "Bush is an Idiot".

  How refreshing - really.