1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't think it's what Iran has done as much as what Iran could do. If thought that some crazy guy had nuc's, and wern't too sure what they may do with then, wouldn't you do something about it? Or would you wait until they detonated it in the London Underground, the Louve in Paris, or the oil fields of Saudia Arabia? Although the yahoo running N. Korea is out of his gourd, he seems content starving his own people and shadow boxing the world, but will probabaly never strike outside of his own borders (could be wrong there). Iran on the other hand, seems determined to wipe Israel off the map, and together with their religious desires, the rest of the non-muslum world will quickly find themselves in their sights. I think that the EU should be more concerned then they are.
What has Iran done to the United States?
Originally posted by Dace AceSo exactly the same rhetoric spouted out beforw the West invaded Iraq................
I don't it's what Iran has done as much as what Iran could do. If thought that some crazy guy had nuc's, and wern't too sure what they may do with then, wouldn't you do something about it? Or would you wait until they detonated it in the London Underground, the Louve in Paris, or the oil fields of Saudia Arabia? Although the yahoo running N. Korea is out ...[text shortened]... nd themselves in their sights. I think that the EU should be more concerned then they are.
Try a different tune this time if you want you to get your so called allies on board....
Originally posted by millermanI wonder which is worst...being proactive or reactive. More we learn from history, the less likely we are to repeat it.
So exactly the same rhetoric spouted out beforw the West invaded Iraq................
Try a different tune this time if you want you to get your so called allies on board....
Maybe if England had been more involved what Hitler was up to in the 1930's & 1940's, maybe they wouldn't have to have sacificed so many civilian during the bombing of London. Heck, think about how many German civilians wouldn't have had to die, either.
Yea, don't worry. Who would ever plant bombs in London anyways!
What jam is talking about is probably the embassy. An embassy is sovereign territory. The attack on the U.S. Embassy and holding those hostages for 444 days was an attack on America.
That's not why Iran is going to be attacked.
The old paradigm no longer applies. Its not official national actions that are going to get Iran attacked. No nation makes official terrorist attacks on another. Terrorists are used as proxies by some countries. Those are the countries that are at risk of being attacked.
America is at war with terrorists. States that support those terrorists are supporting our enemies. Iran is one of those states that sponsor terrorism.
That is why Iran is likely to be attacked.
Originally posted by Merk10's of millions of dollars? I think it is a little higher figure than that my friend. So you think we should not stop in Iraq but go right into Iran? If you do that you can't stop there. You then have Pakistan to worry about. After all, where do you think Bin Laden is? But wait, you can't stop there. How about Syria? But wait, you can't stop there. How about Lebanon? But wait, you can't stop there.....
And yes, I suspect Iraq is a stepping stone to Iran. Stopping at Iraq would be complete waste of the 10 million dollars an hour we spend there.
No one knows for sure if it would do any good, but going to Iran instead of Iraq would have at least made more sense in the context of the war on terror. Iraq boggles my mind.
Originally posted by whodeyWOW...that's a great idea! Keep going....
10's of millions of dollars? I think it is a little higher figure than that my friend. So you think we should not stop in Iraq but go right into Iran? If you do that you can't stop there. You then have Pakistan to worry about. After all, where do you think Bin Laden is? But wait, you can't stop there. How about Syria? But wait, you can't stop there. How about Lebanon? But wait, you can't stop there.....
Originally posted by whodeyThe trick to understanding my post is actuslly reading it. If you had you would have noticed I said about 10 million AN HOUR. Last I checked, the budget for Iraq was about 90 billion a year.
10's of millions of dollars? I think it is a little higher figure than that my friend. So you think we should not stop in Iraq but go right into Iran? If you do that you can't stop there. You then have Pakistan to worry about. After all, where do you think Bin Laden is? But wait, you can't stop there. How about Syria? But wait, you can't stop there. How about Lebanon? But wait, you can't stop there.....
The other neat thing that happens when you read instead of being an irrational reactionary is that you will understand the post. What I said was very logical. If the goal is to reduce terrorism through military means, then invading Iraq was the wrong country to test that theory on becuse Saddam had nothing to do with funding terrorists. Iraq argueably had the least ties to terrorism of any Arab Middle Eastern nation.
As for Bin Laden being in Pakistan, you could be right. The nice thing is that the military would never have to go into Pakistan very far. If he is there, he is most likely in the Wazirastan province that borders Afghanistan. And since Musharaff has recently granted that province autonomy, he only has to go the one more step and grant it independence. Then American troops would never have to go into Pakistan at all.
Anytime you would like to compete on the field of thought, I'm right here. Boy.
Originally posted by MerkYou have to remember. WMD was the original reason. If you read some of the notes/documents uncovered in Iraq after the war, Sadam was intentionally giving the impression he still had WMD to keep Iran at bay. It was deliberate deception, if not miscalculated when it came to the US and what the reaction would be.
The other neat thing that happens when you read instead of being an irrational reactionary is that you will understand the post. What I said was very logical. If the goal is to reduce terrorism through military means, then invading Iraq was the wrong country to test that theory on becuse Saddam had nothing to do with funding terrorists. Iraq argueably had the least ties to terrorism of any Arab Middle Eastern nation.
So, yes.. in 20/20 that makes historical genius of the Communist.. I mean Washington Post, we should not have invaded and did not have to given the lack of WMD.
Having said that.. what now is the question? You can't simply leave; that would place billions in oil revenue directly into hands of those that would, if they could, push a button and chuckle madly as the world blew up. It's too late to go back, and too convient to cloak solutions in "I told you so"s aka Nancy "Bella" Lagossi.
If it takes decades, it is preferrable to the onslaught the west (.. don't think Spain is immune for their cowardice..) would face in unfettered, fully funded attacks. I don't say this lightly, having done two combat tours already.. I know the cost; there simply is no alternative at this point.
Originally posted by RagnarDannYeah. That WMD deal. What a "slam dunk" that was. That will go down as one of the biggest intelligence failures in history. As it should.
You have to remember. WMD was the original reason. If you read some of the notes/documents uncovered in Iraq after the war, Sadam was intentionally giving the impression he still had WMD to keep Iran at bay. It was deliberate deception, if not miscalculated when it came to the US and what the reaction would be.
So, yes.. in 20/20 that makes historic ...[text shortened]... wo combat tours already.. I know the cost; there simply is no alternative at this point.
As for what to do know, the only thing that makes any sense is to bring the violence down and build the Iraqi government up to a point that its strong enough to handle it themselves. The Iraqis are the only ones that can ultimately solve this. We just need to get it to a point where the Iraqis can have a chance at success when they take over.
All this hype about pulling out is silly. The bad areas are pretty limited. Its about 20% of Bagdad and Anbar of course. The rest is *relatively* stable. Its no different than saying that Los Angeles is a quagmire so California is unwinnable, therefore we should "pull the cops out".
Strategically speaking, any pull out should consist of falling back to the oil fields. That would make it impossible for any future unstable government to fund terrorrism. This of course, is not really an option.