Will Bush invade Iran?

[Faithless]

Watch the for signs people.
* Halliburton getting ready to leave.
* Seymour Hersh's recent revelation.

Scott Ritter Claims Iran Attack by US Coming in June (http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/02/22/0155237&mode=thread)
Controversial ex-Iraq UN arms inspector Scott Ritter dropped a dual bombshell of a charge this past weekend, one that he has knowledge that the US intends to attack Iran in June, and also that the Iraqi election results were "massaged".

"Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans’ duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%."...more at article link ed: presented FWIW

[VV o n g B a]

from what u quoted in the article, it doesn't seem like ritter is claiming invasion. only bombing and regime change. they would expect regime change to happen from within. there's no way the US has enuf troops to invade.

if i thought bombing would actually solve the iranian nuclear problem, i might support it. but it's hard for me to believe that the iranians are so dumb as to not know they might get bombed and move much of the significant equipment to more secure areas.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Massaging election results in a new and highly unstable democracy in order to preventing one party or ideological faction from gaining an overwhelming majority isn't exactly "anti-freedom", or a bombshell, for that matter. The same thing was done in South Africa, with Mandela's knowledge (and consent!) expressly so that his party would not have a supermajority. Another example of the blind assumption that "rule by majority vote" is the same thing as "freedom."

As for Iran ... yeah that stuff scares the crap outta me. Fortunately, I live in Hong Kong.

[Faithless]

from what u quoted in the article, it doesn't seem like ritter is claiming invasion. only bombing and regime change. they would expect regime change to happen from within. there's no way the US has enuf troops to invade.

if i thought bombing would actually solve the iranian nuclear problem, i might support it. but it's hard for me to believe that the iranians are so dumb as to not know they might get bombed and move much of the significant equipment to more secure areas.
So, okay, a bombing, might be one way of putting it. I think there might be more to come than just bombing.

It all sounds so similar to how we got into Iraq -- accept I don't think we can claim, in the end, Iran is now free to vote, or whatever.

The US is certainly reviewing its intelligence of Iran. And in many ways, they're an easier target of claims of WMD's.

I think Iraq was a stepping stone to a possible attack of Iran. PNAC is in full affect.

U.S. Reviewing Its Intelligence on Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17526-2005Feb11.html?sub=AR)
Council Working on New Assessments of Country's Rulers and Arms Programs

By Dafna Linzer and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 12, 2005; Page A12

The intelligence community is conducting a broad review of its Iran assessments, including a new look at the country's nuclear program, the future of its ruling clerics and the impact of the Iraq war on Tehran's powerful position in the region, according to administration officials and congressional sources.

Two separate reports -- a wide-ranging National Intelligence Estimate and a second memo focusing exclusively on Tehran's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities -- will reflect an updated consensus within the intelligence community. The documents are meant to guide the Bush administration as it continues to deliberate on a policy for dealing with Iran and its nuclear ambitions.

The review, which began last month, comes after several weeks in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have challenged Iran to halt an alleged nuclear weapons program. The pattern and tone of the administration's comments have struck some as similar to claims made in 2002 about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Five months before the invasion of Iraq, the administration produced a National Intelligence Estimate that listed among its key findings that Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program, one of several errors in the intelligence community's prewar assessments.

Now, the intelligence community's past assessments on Iraq -- as well as its judgments on Iran and North Korea -- are under review by a presidential commission studying U.S. intelligence, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence recently warned CIA Director Porter J. Goss that it also will review the intelligence being gathered on Iran.

A senior administration official said yesterday that there will be "a rigorous scrubbing of the intelligence" before the new Iran assessment is complete, and that "extreme care" will be taken in reaching conclusions.

The last published intelligence report on Iran's program, released publicly in November, said that "Iran continued to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." It went on to say, "The United States remains convinced that Tehran has been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program in contradiction to its obligations as a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty."

But it stopped short of concluding Iran has nuclear weapons, and did not include any details to clarify how the assessment was reached. Iran has maintained that its nuclear program was built for civilian energy purposes, not weapons.

The upcoming intelligence assessment was ordered by David Gordon, acting chairman of the National Intelligence Council, according to a senior administration official. The council, a group of government and academic intelligence experts, taps senior analysts from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and other components of the intelligence community to work on National Intelligence Estimates.

Administration officials said the intelligence estimate on Iran will be conducted without any input from Bush administration policymakers. "The policy people can't even look at until it's a finished product," one U.S. official said.

Bush administration officials are avoiding taking detailed public positions on Iran until the papers are completed and the administration decides on a policy, officials said. This is one reason, they said, that Rice last week refused to directly answer questions from reporters in Europe about whether the United States favors regime change in Iran.

According to officials, all of whom discussed the classified process on the condition of anonymity, the new estimates will examine the strength of Iran's clerical regime, the nation's economic strength and nuclear issues.

There is no deadline for the report's completion, but several officials said they expect the comprehensive review to be ready by March. The second document is also expected to be completed in the coming weeks. Known as a "memo to holders," it will focus only on Iran's weapons capabilities and will be for limited circulation among the most senior officials.

"It will reassess the timeline for getting nuclear weapons, reassess Iran's motivations and what it would take to make them give up fissile material capability," said one official.

Since 2003, Britain, France and Germany have been negotiating with Iran toward a deal to ensure that its nuclear energy program is not used for developing weapons. The United States has declined to join those talks.

Administration officials have increasingly questioned Iran's nuclear capabilities and intent. Cheney said on Fox News last Sunday that the Iranians claim their move to uranium enrichment is "only for peaceful purposes, although there's some evidence to suggest that they have military aspirations and they're trying to acquire nuclear weapons."

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a physicist who has studied the Iran program, said yesterday that much is known about Iran's nuclear efforts from inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency but that "there is no direct information on a decision to build nuclear weapons."

"They want a capability, but it's all inferential that they are building a weapon," he said. He went on to point out that much of the intelligence about Iraq having a nuclear program "was also inferential."

Staff writer Glenn Kessler contributed to this report.

[yoMAMA]

I'm sure bush is having wet dreams about invading Iran.....but the reality is, there's just not enough troops to invade Iran, but he can start a draft and all those SUV driving, "support the troops" suburban types can have their sons and daughters drafted and send to a warzone, wouldn't that be lovely.

:D

[Faithless]

Bush denies any plans of invasion, but say the US is keeping its options open.

Bush scoffs at Iran attack (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/national/s_306577.html)
By Michael A. Fletcher and Keith B. Richburg
The Washington Post
Wednesday, February 23, 2005

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- President Bush on Tuesday dismissed as "simply ridiculous" the idea that United States was preparing to attack Iran, but warned he was keeping all options open as his administration tries to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
...
.
He keeps them open despite public sentiment that seems to oppose an invasion. But if you're a skeptic, you'd feel that Bush could sucker the same people again with some BS claim of the "common good".

Survey: Americans oppose Iran invasion (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050119-025055-5513r.htm)
By Anwar Iqbal
UPI South Asian Affairs Analyst

Washington, DC, Jan. 19 (UPI) -- A major new national opinion survey of 1,608 American voters released this week shows that only 42 percent would support the U.S. invasion of Iran to stop its nuclear program.

Nearly half -- 47 percent -- of U.S. voters would oppose such a move and 11 percent are unsure.

The survey was conducted by the Washington-based Opinion Research Corporation for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Results For America, which is a project of the Civil Society Institute.

The survey comes amid media reports that the United States was contemplating military actions against Iran's nuclear sites.

President George Bush told NBC News on Monday he would not rule out military action against Iran if that country was not forthcoming about its suspected nuclear weapons program.

"I hope we can solve it diplomatically, but I will never take any option off the table, if Iran continues to stonewall the international community about the existence of its nuclear weapons program," said Bush.

Iran denies it has been trying to make nuclear weapons and says its nuclear program is geared solely to producing electricity.

The survey shows that less than one in 10 American voters -- 7 percent -- think that the primary focus of American foreign policy and security should be on the "democracy building" that is now the major thrust of U.S. efforts in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Civil Society Institute President Pam Solo said: "The Iraq experience clearly has been a sobering one for Americans. Voters are embracing a 'new realism' in foreign policy and security matters that puts more emphasis on safer U.S. borders, intelligence gathering, diplomatic initiatives, multinational interventions when necessary and greater energy efficiency in order to decrease America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil."

The survey also shows that voters want to de-emphasize current strategies such as nation building, unilateral military invasions and the direct or indirect use of torture. The American public seems ready for an open, honest and democratic debate on the best course of action.

Keeping in mind how the war in Iraq has gone so far, voters were asked if they are now more or less likely to support a greater emphasis by the U.S. on diplomacy and multi-nation military action versus a 'go it alone' approach. A clear majority of 64 percent are now much or somewhat more likely to support diplomacy and multi-nation action. Interestingly, there was no difference on this question between Bush and Kerry voters.

The ORC survey of 1,608 voters was conducted Dec. 2-6, 2004 and found that voters strongly support the following foreign policy initiatives:

-- America's highest foreign and military policy priority should be close to home -- "defense of U.S. borders and homeland security" was selected by a plurality of 43 percent of voters versus considerably smaller groups identifying their top priority as "democracy building" in other nations (7 percent) or "going it alone" on military interventions (6 percent).

-- 64 percent support a greater emphasis on diplomacy and multi-national military action than is currently the case in the U.S.

-- 81 percent agree that it matters whether people around the world respect our country and that the U.S. needs the rest of the world on its side to effectively fight terrorism.

-- 86 percent feel it is important for the U.S. administration to pursue a fuel efficiency target of 40 miles per gallon, in part in order to reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

-- 65 percent favor the U.S. taking a leadership role to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the same time, voters strongly oppose the following foreign policy actions or initiatives:

-- Strong majorities of American voters believe that a number of current policies leave the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, including: acting alone without international support (71 percent); and U.S. involvement in Iraq (71 percent).

-- Two-thirds oppose a long-term occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq;

-- 81 percent think access to Middle Eastern oil plays a role in U.S. foreign policy and about half think the U.S. policy of keeping oil prices down (thus increasing U.S. dependence on it) is not in their best interests.

-- A strong majority oppose the use of torture in other countries (66 percent) or by this country (75 percent) even to crackdown on terrorists.

-- Over half (54 percent) do not support the U.S. extending its "unquestioning" support to Israel if doing so undercuts U.S. interests.

The ORC survey found U.S. voters roughly split on the following issues: the wisdom of the Iraq invasion; invading Iran or North Korea to stop nuclear proliferation; continuing to support undemocratic regimes that are US allies; the likelihood of Iraq becoming a stable democracy; and keeping a military presence in the Arabian peninsula for security reasons despite religious objections of the Saudi population.

The survey results are based on telephone interviews conducted among a sample of 2,090 adults 18 years old or older residing in private households in the continental United States.

Respondents were screened for voting in the 2004 presidential election. These findings are based on the 1,608 respondents who say they voted.

The margin of error at a 95 percent confidence level is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the entire sample. Smaller sub-groups will have larger error margins, the surveyors said.

[Arex]

President George Bush told NBC News on Monday he would not rule out military action against Iran if that country was not forthcoming about its suspected nuclear weapons program.Of course, it's up to Bush and his cronies to determine whether or not Iran is "forthcoming" about its nuclear weapons program. If memory serves me correctly, the Bush administration conveniently ordered the invasion of Iraq after unilaterally deciding that Saddam was not "forthcoming" with information on Iraq's WMDs because Saddam denied possessing such weapons.

We'll see if Bush and the American public have learned their lessons.

RX

[hooligan]

ok, let's start the YW betting pool

1:2 US bombs Iran in June
1:5 US bombs not only Iran but also NK by the end of the year

[A.R.A.M.]

"I hope we can solve it diplomatically, but I will never take any option off the table, if Iran continues to stonewall the international community about the existence of its nuclear weapons program," said Bush.

Haha, there's gotta be a playbook that this guy is operating from. This is just a repeat of what he was saying about Iraq in the leadup to war. I guess that means there really is a plan already in the works. Yo Joe!

[bulldog]

Iran should be attacked. It gets Iraq off the front page of media, americans will be out of baghdad, they have wmd for sure, more moslems don't want to migrate to US, this time the coalition will be welcomed with flowers and chocolates.

[Martino]

We'll see if Bush and the American public have learned their lessons.

The last election already answers that question. Those Americans who voted for Mr Bush have tacitly already given him the green light to attack Iran and/or Syria. Russian support for Syria increases that countries chances of being attacked by the US, IMO.

I fully expect the US to find a reason to enter Venezuela in the near future as well, to secure oil interests there.

[rotrab]

At this time, I doubt we'll bomb Iran. Bombing by itself may not be an invasion but it is certainly a prelude to one. Once the bombing is over, you have to send in the fott soldiers to make sure it had the intended result and THAT is an invasion. And we can't do that without a draft. But then again, you can't invade Iraq without a draft and we did it and we're paying for it. Who knows what this idiot will do next? But at this time, I would nothing will happen before 2007 as far as a draft goes UNLESS there just happens to be another attack on US soil and then a draft before 2007 becomes extremely probable.

[Martino]

Iran should be attacked. It gets Iraq off the front page of media, americans will be out of baghdad, they have wmd for sure, more moslems don't want to migrate to US, this time the coalition will be welcomed with flowers and chocolates.

Either my Universal Translator is on the blink again, or else this message really is complete gibberish.

[yoMAMA]

The last election already answers that question. Those Americans who voted for Mr Bush have tacitly already given him the green light to attack Iran and/or Syria. Russian support for Syria increases that countries chances of being attacked by the US, IMO.

I fully expect the US to find a reason to enter Venezuela in the near future as well, to secure oil interests there.

the venezulelan upper class, along with the CIA, has already conducted a failed coup in 2001 [it was only aborted after the venezulean military refused to carry out the plan].

and they say they love democracy?

last time i check, this chavez guy [which is painted as the devil, BTW, by this administration and the venezuelan elite], is democratically elected with a real mandate to redistribute wealth and create more social programs for the poor.

apparently his biggest sin is he wants to redistribute the vast oil wealth to the poor underclass [which is the vast majority of the people of venezuela].

but no.....let's get rid of chavez!

why?

because he wants to improve the lives of everyone....not just the 1% elite.

:mad:

[nola]

Throw all the bums out!

Chavez=cool

[loserbutt]

no, although imo, the Iranian regieme was more deserving of an invasion than Saddam. But seriously, we can't because our troops are tied up in Iraq atm. Now, once they're withdrawn, then there's an opening.

[rotrab]

no, although imo, the Iranian regieme was more deserving of an invasion than Saddam. But seriously, we can't because our troops are tied up in Iraq atm. Now, once they're withdrawn, then there's an opening.

How is it that supposedly Asian-blooded people can act just like whites when it comes to dealing with other nations as long as they are not populated by Far Easterners?

Why is Iran deserving of invasion? Why not China? Why not North Korea? Why not Japan? These all have nukes. These all have been critical of the US and one was a sworn enemy not so long ago.

Why SHOULDN'T Iran arm itself against the monster Bush? If this asshole accuses you of being in any way a threat to the U.S., your goose is cooked.

All he has to do is accuse you of having nukes (never mind that HE has enough to destroy the world 10 times over). He does NOT accept denials--whether the truth or not, he does not accept invitations to come in and look around to prove you are hiding nothing, he does not care whether the rest of the world disapproves of how he operates. You have no choice but to arm yourself once Bush decides he doesn't like you and you had better take him seriously because he has already shown that he WILL invade other nations on the flimsiest of evidence--on mere rumor--and he doesn't care how many lives get wasted in the process.

Far from making the world safer, Bush provokes other nations into arming themselves against him and then he accuses them of stockpiling WMDs. Everywhere his policies go, they leave a trail of blood, destruction and bitterly angry terrorist groups behind them.

Iran and North Korea are doing what any country would do when faced with a foreign threat--they arm themselves against it. If the U.S. was being threatened in this fashion, it would arm itself against that threat and the American people would be demanding to know what right this other nation has inserting itself in our business and threatening us when we have done nothing to deserve it. They would hang any president that didn't immediately arm the nation against that threat. Why, then, should Iran, North Korea or any nation lay down and submit? What have they to lose by standing up and fighting rather than allow themselves to be occupied by lowlives, sadists and abusive hate-filled trash that calls itself the American fighting man? (I'm a 6-year veteran of the US military so spare me your stirring freedom speeches)

Bush is a power-mad war-monger and the sooner you people get that through your heads the better. And you had also better understand that he specifically targets NON-WHITE, NON-EUROPEAN nations for this treatment.

Bush is war criminal who needs to be brought before a world court and tried for war crimes and for being the world's biggest and worst dictator. A thousand times worse than Hussein.

If he bombs Iran this year, prepare for a draft immediately. I see now that too many of you are whitewashed, brainwashed sheep who think in terms of Western domination of the world no differently than he does. And I see that if he drafts you to enforce his dictatorial ambitions in some poor, non-white nation that you will go unhesitatingly and you will perform as ordered.

Shame be upon you who support him or even one of his policies. He is to be opposed vigorously on any and every front and level and NEVER EVER to be trusted much less liked.

[Mr.Lum]

No, he will not. He will not invade Syria or anybody else either. The reason for this being that US forces are not great enough in number to complete a battle in Iran and there is the issue that Russia is now backing Iran outright. Also, Iran is now basically allied with Syria, which is also firmly backed by Russia. The US has no intention of irritating Vladimir Putin right now. Bush won't get much done in Iran from what I can see. If any major upheaval happens in IRan, it will be domestic.

[Faithless]

No, he will not. He will not invade Syria or anybody else either. The reason for this being that US forces are not great enough in number to complete a battle in Iran and there is the issue that Russia is now backing Iran outright. Also, Iran is now basically allied with Syria, which is also firmly backed by Russia. The US has no intention of irritating Vladimir Putin right now. Bush won't get much done in Iran from what I can see. If any major upheaval happens in IRan, it will be domestic.
That makes sense. Maybe, that's why Bush is trying to get on Putin's good side.

With the idea that Russia is backing Iran and Syria, what does this mean in terms of a possible attack by the US? Is the implication that Russia would physically intervene on the side of these countries?

Now, Bush has said that he's leaving his "options open", so is that a bluff, or the words of someone who is deeply considering this option?

[Mr.Lum]

With the idea that Russia is backing Iran and Syria, what does this mean in terms of a possible attack by the US? Is the implication that Russia would physically intervene on the side of these countries?


This means Russia would probably arm them if we attacked them. Russia is already providing Syria with new, highly advanced surface to air missles and other arms. Assad and Putin just met and expressed strong "support" for each others corses of action (autocracy), against many calls by Israel not to. Russia is trying to secure allies in the Middle East (they just signed a strategic arms/cooperation treaty with Algeria, they're becoming ever closer with Syria and Iran etc etc). The US is trying to fix realtions with Europe and Europe gets lots of oil and gas from Russia and is mostly affraid to contradic Putin. The US is a little bit less afriad to but, they're not going to tell Putin what to do and they're not going to take any moves that are not superficial at best to counter Russian efforts. If the US attacks either Syria or Iran, the battle on the opposite side will be feuled by Russian arms. I doubt that Russia would physically intervine in a conflict like that but I do see them giving belligerents fighting invasion aid and prolonging the conflict.
Now, Bush has said that he's leaving his "options open", so is that a bluff, or the words of someone who is deeply considering this option?

That's a bloody bluff. He's talking tuff, like most other presidents have about Iran. What'd they do though? Sanctions. I don't see the US invading them. They have too many interests in regaurds to their Russian relationship to attack one of their satelites over there. Not to mention that Iraq, while getting better is still a mess and taking troops from there and moblizing them into Iran would be a huge failure as far as I am concerned. Not to mention the Iranians have lots of "group feeling" when it comes to fighting foreign aggression. The result of this would be excedingly sore US-Russian relations and a climate of hostility that I do not think the US wants at all.

[loserbutt]

Why would Putin want to do that? Is he trying to reestablish the Soviet Union or something?

Also, Syria and Iran are terrible dictatorships which deserve to be overthrown. But, alas, we don't have the resources :(

[Faithless]

This means Russia would probably arm them if we attacked them. Russia is already providing Syria with new, highly advanced surface to air missles and other arms...
.
Nice analysis on the Iran / Russia tie.

I just read a news report that says -- Bush, Putin agree Iran and North Korea should not have nuclear weapons (http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20072)
BRATISLAVA, SLOVAKIA -- (OfficialWire) -- 02/24/05
President George W. Bush reported that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin had found common-ground Thursday in America's renewed quest to keep nuclear arms away from the likes of Iran and North Korea.

Following their meeting in the castle in Bratislava, Slovakia, Bush said: "We agreed that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. I appreciate Vladimir's understanding on that," Bush said. "We agreed that North Korea should not have a nuclear weapon."

Well, that's alright then. Now all they need to do is convince two sovereign nations to kowtow to the wants and desires of two madmen.
Sounds like, despite the Iran/Russia tie, that Putin is concerned with Iran's nuke capabilities. The tie is more like one of holding one another at arms length.

[Mr.Lum]

Why would Putin want to do that? Is he trying to reestablish the Soviet Union or something?

Also, Syria and Iran are terrible dictatorships which deserve to be overthrown. But, alas, we don't have the resources :(


He's trying to do what all countries do, get political support, allies etc. Most countries in the Middle EAst are terrible dictatorships that deserve to be overthrown. The question isn't should we do it. It's how long will it take for them to die off themselves. Most countries in the ME are liberalizing, Algeria's doing it, Jordan, Egypt, even Saudi Arabia is as well. Iraq was froced to do it. Syria by intrinsic and extrinsic forces will have to. You see the uprising in Lebanon right now? This will force Syria to with draw with in 2-3 years, possibly sooner. When this happens, the regime will lose it's coult on the home front (lots of Syrians view the occupation as a mater of pride but many are just tired of it) and Syria will loose its main bargening chip. IT will colapse on itself. Theres 2 roads they can take. Liberalization on their own, or being forced into the status of an international pariah. Theyre taking the latter right now but eventually they're going to have to liberalize either by force from the inside or voluntarily within the regime. The Sunni states around them (sunni ruled, Syia is mostly sunni but is ruled by Alawites and Christians) are liberalizing and are going to (they already are) push for more Sunni influence in the government. Its natural selection. The Syrian government usually says "we're no different than our neighbors" when they justify their rule, but they wont be able to do that anymore if the people win out in Egypt and elsewhere. Syria's loosing mroe and more support every day (there is only 1 real faction in Lebanon that supports them and its Hezbullah and they're annoying Egypt and the other countries around them). Their only sure fire backer is Russia. In the ME, Syria and IRan will be to Russia like North Korea is to China though with better human rights records. Iran is not so much a dictatorship as it is a fairly liberal Islamic autocracy. It's not good but it's not as bad as it could be. It's not much worse than it was under the worst days of the shah. Having bitch states to back you up is the halmark of a world power. Russia doesn't want to be an American bitch state and the way to do that is to have bitch states whereever you can get them. US has Mexico, UK, Jordan, Egypt etc. Russia has central Asia, Syria, Iran (to an extent that is growing), Algeria (sadly :frown: ), and several Eastern European dictatorships. He's not making a second Soviet Union, that idea is often brought up and is usually wrong. He's trying to rebuild Russia's clout. Russia lost a lot of that because of Yeltsen and a lot of Russians are behind him. Are a lot fo Syrians? I doubt it. But theres nothing sinister about it.

Sounds like, despite the Iran/Russia tie, that Putin is concerned with Iran's nuke capabilities. The tie is more like one of holding one another at arms length.

I disagree. Putin is known for his doublespeak. He is pro democratization right? But he's rolling back on a lot of the more liberal sectors in Russia. He still talks the talk but does he walk the walk? Nobody wants Iran with nukes, however, Russia does not want to be surrounded by the US in a ring, Afgahniastan, Iran and Iraq all in close proximity. That's not his perrogative. Remember that Russia has given Iran quite a bit of technology to create their nuclear program. Putin's not taking an antiIranian or pro intervention stance here. I think he's keeping his face white with the US and then doing his own thing with Iran. He has taken Iran's side in the "war of words", the allegations of an Iranian nuclear weapon ambition
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0%2C12858%2C1418070%2C00.html
Mr Putin welcomed Iran's national security chief, Hassan Rohani, to the Kremlin and declared that Tehran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, flatly contradicting repeated allegations by the US.

Moscow has also signalled that Alexander Rumyantsev, head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency, will fly to Tehran next Saturday to sign a deal that would open the way for delivery of nuclear fuel to a Russian-built reactor in Bushehr.

[rotrab]

Bush does not think about consequences until AFTER he commits the act. To say, he won't do this or that because of this or that consequence is pointless. A sensible person might not do it but Bush is not a sensible person. He does whatever he feels he can get away with and from what I've seen, he gets away with it. While I doubt we'll see an attack on Iran this year, I wouldn't presume to look any further down the road than that. This bastard is liable to do anything.

Nor is Iraq getting better as Lum seems to think. It is getting substantially worse. There will be civil war there before long. I won't put a date on it but it is coming and coming quickly. While I think we cannot deny we don't currently have the troops, Bush will just start the draft when he feels he needs it. I used to think that such a thing would infuriate Americans but I no longer do. I now believe most will go and do what they are told--including killing women and children if need be. We have learned nothing from Vietnam. So we will have to learn that lesson all over again. Hopefully, this will be the last time--at least while I'm alive.

[Mr.Lum]

Bush does not think about consequences until AFTER he commits the act. To say, he won't do this or that because of this or that consequence is pointless. A sensible person might not do it but Bush is not a sensible person. He does whatever he feels he can get away with and from what I've seen, he gets away with it. While I doubt we'll see an attack on Iran this year, I wouldn't presume to look any further down the road than that. This bastard is liable to do anything.


While this may be true, he's not making those decisions on his own.

Nor is Iraq getting better as Lum seems to think. It is getting substantially worse. There will be civil war there before long. I won't put a date on it but it is coming and coming quickly. While I think we cannot deny we don't currently have the troops, Bush will just start the draft when he feels he needs it. I used to think that such a thing would infuriate Americans but I no longer do. I now believe most will go and do what they are told--including killing women and children if need be. We have learned nothing from Vietnam. So we will have to learn that lesson all over again. Hopefully, this will be the last time--at least while I'm alive.

If you can show me how Iraq has gotten worse since this past summer this would be nice. Obviously it's not perfect but it is not falling apart at its seems like it was during the summer of last year. I do agree with you however that the US has not learned since Viet Nam about occupation. Houri Boumeddiene once said "the occupier is a slow learner, he went to school in Viet Nam and Algeria and still he has not learned the most basic of lessons" or something to that effect.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/24/wbush24.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/24/ixnewstop.html

Bush hints at talks rather than threats to rein in Iran
By Alec Russell in Mainz
(Filed: 24/02/2005)

In pictures: Bush in Europe

The White House held out the prospect yesterday of supporting the European Union's diplomatic approach to Iran's nuclear goals, in the first concession offered during George W Bush's European tour.

After meeting Germany's chancellor Gerhard Schröder, one of his principal critics in the past three acrimonious years, President Bush repeated his tough line of refusing to rule out military action to stop Iran building nuclear weapons.


George W Bush and Gerhard Schröder yesterday
"All options are on the table," he said. But he went on to give a warm endorsement of the initiative of Germany, Britain and France to try to engage with rather than confront Iran.

"We've just started the diplomatic efforts and I want to thank our friends for taking the lead. We will work with them to convince the mullahs to give up their nuclear ambitions."

Later the White House strikingly expanded on his remarks. Stephen Hadley, Mr Bush's new national security adviser, said America and Europe had now "converged" on the goal of stopping Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. He indicated that Mr Bush was pondering the European tactic of enticement.

"There was a lot of discussion about where we go from here," he said. "Discussions about should there be a mix of carrots and sticks, and who should the carrots come from and what should they be.

"The president did a lot of listening. The chancellor did a lot of listening. The president has got to go back and think about it.

"I think there is a kind of stereotype out there that, if you want carrots, you go to the Europeans. If you want sticks, you go to the Americans. I think they all agreed we have to be also clear that we're all on board in the tactics of play."

Asked if America was open to offering "carrots", he said: "Mr Bush was in a listening mode."

The remarks were in keeping with the conciliatory tone of Mr Bush's tour but it remains to be seen if they are more than an attempt to soften his image.

If Mr Bush does pursue a softer line on Iran, he can expect a ferocious debate back in Washington where hawks have long derided the EU initiative as a waste of time.

Mr Bush's European audiences over the past three days have been deeply sceptical of his rhetoric on Iran, comparing his talk of pursuing diplomacy with his ambiguous language about his intentions towards Iraq in late 2002 in the countdown to the war.

Yesterday, however, for the second time on his four-day tour, Mr Bush rejected the parallel. "Diplomacy is just beginning," he said. "Iran is not Iraq." He described as "ridiculous" the suggestion that America was about to attack Iran.

He said the problem was not disagreements with Europe but with Iran.

At a joint press conference in Mainz, Mr Schröder then did his part to convey a rare sense of unity with an unusually forthright condemnation of Iran.

Mr Schröder said: "Iran must not have any nuclear weapons. They must waive any right to the production thereof and they must renounce the right to even close the fuel cycle."

He added that the European troika's temporary agreement with Iran to freeze the production of nuclear material "has to be nailed down fully and completely".

For the third day running since his arrival in Brussels on Sunday, Mr Bush held out the hand of friendship to old EU foes and hailed an end to rows over Iraq.

Many disagreements remain, in particular over the future of Nato. But in a sign of the change in mood, Mr Schröder added: "We have agreed that we are not going to constantly emphasise where we're not agreeing but we want to focus on where we do agree."

[rotrab]

If you can show me how Iraq has gotten worse since this past summer this would be nice. Obviously it's not perfect but it is not falling apart at its seems like it was during the summer of last year.

It isn't? Fooled me. We do not have control of that country, which is absolutely essential if we are to accomplish anything. When you invade, you are supposed to take total control and squelch all resistance. We did not do that. We allowed large masses of Iraqis to riot and to loot an important ammo dump we failed to secure and you could instantly see that the war was already lost. We failed to take control at that crucial time and so we do not have control now and if we don't have it by now, we never will have it. We blew it and everyone from Colin Powell to L. Paul Bremer to Eric Shinseki knows it. Consequently, all three men are gone from their posts now. If Bush could have, he'd have had them shot.

We cannot measure success by "it wasn't as bad as last year" but by true significant gains and I do not see any being made. The elections were the biggest farce and have had no effect on insurgent activity and no effect on easing the criticism Bush is getting from Europe who simply don't like him because he dragged them into a war they don't want and know they cannot win. Because of the elections, Iraq is hurtling faster than ever towards civil war.

I do agree with you however that the US has not learned since Viet Nam about occupation. Houri Boumeddiene once said "the occupier is a slow learner, he went to school in Viet Nam and Algeria and still he has not learned the most basic of lessons" or something to that effect.

It's a lesson that will be repeated over and over again until we finally get it. Unfortunately, that will come too late to be of any help in this situation. And it also means another similar situation awaits us down the road.

[John0101]

I'm sure bush is having wet dreams about invading Iran.....but the reality is, there's just not enough troops to invade Iran, but he can start a draft and all those SUV driving, "support the troops" suburban types can have their sons and daughters drafted and send to a warzone, wouldn't that be lovely.

:D

I totally agree with this statement. There is already heavy anti-war settlement within the United States and its allies (except Israel). Iraq is looking more and more like a quagmire for the administration and an invasion without hard infomation is just going to add fuel to the fire. American troops are already tied down in a very volatile and costly Iraq. The only way that the Administration will invade Iran is if they pose a serious and legitimate threat against the U.S. and/or they succeed in creating a stable independant Iraq.

So basically the Costs > Benefits of an invasion.

[Mr.Lum]

It isn't? Fooled me. We do not have control of that country, which is absolutely essential if we are to accomplish anything. When you invade, you are supposed to take total control and squelch all resistance. We did not do that. We allowed large masses of Iraqis to riot and to loot an important ammo dump we failed to secure and you could instantly see that the war was already lost. We failed to take control at that crucial time and so we do not have control now and if we don't have it by now, we never will have it. We blew it and everyone from Colin Powell to L. Paul Bremer to Eric Shinseki knows it. Consequently, all three men are gone from their posts now. If Bush could have, he'd have had them shot.

We cannot measure success by "it wasn't as bad as last year" but by true significant gains and I do not see any being made. The elections were the biggest farce and have had no effect on insurgent activity and no effect on easing the criticism Bush is getting from Europe who simply don't like him because he dragged them into a war they don't want and know they cannot win. Because of the elections, Iraq is hurtling faster than ever towards civil war.

I'm not saying its finished, but its improving. Much of the infrustructure has been rebuilt (though certainly not all) and as for the elections being a "farce", could you tell me just whats so farcical about them? The biggest fraud I've read about during these was Kurds in the north intimidating Assyrians (though Americans don't get hear about this so much because in American media the Kurds are angle-victims) and insurgents doing the same to anybody they could. Also, Iraq already has a civil war. The conflict qualified as one from the start. However, it's a civil war like the Algerian civil war. A bunch of alienated Islamists against a population that is tired of them. There may have been support for it initially but all but a few of the Iraqis I've heard from (both in person and on the internet) are sick of their crap and would like to move on.



It's a lesson that will be repeated over and over again until we finally get it. Unfortunately, that will come too late to be of any help in this situation. And it also means another similar situation awaits us down the road.


Nobody learns this lesson, not one country in history. The Americans are not special.

[Martino]

The US has no intention of irritating Vladimir Putin right now.

Russian sensitivities will not be a consideration when Bush decides on further military adventures in the theatre. If anything, Bush thinks he can still pressure on the Russian Federation in line on the 'war on terror'.

Bush presses Putin on democracy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4292807.stm

Both leaders were keen to stress areas of common ground
US President George W Bush has told Russian President Vladimir Putin of his "concerns" about Russian democracy.
Following talks in the Slovak capital Bratislava, Mr Bush told reporters he had expressed these worries in a "constructive and friendly way".

Mr Bush said they agreed that Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

The US has concerns about Russian nuclear co-operation with Iran. Mr Putin has said there is no evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.

Washington has repeatedly accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. It is also concerned about Russian arms sales to Syria.

A senior US official speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity, said the summit had not produced any breakthroughs on either issue.

At a joint news conference at Bratislava Castle, the two leaders stressed their close ties and agreed to accelerate efforts by Russia to gain entry to the World Trade Organization.

However, the BBC's Moscow correspondent, Damian Grammaticas, reports that when it comes to the details of the issues they discussed, the two men appear to be on divergent paths.

President Putin told reporters that Russia had chosen democracy "independently", not because of pressure from outside.

"Any return to totalitarianism would be impossible," he said.

But he added that democracy must be adapted to Russian conditions, taking into account "our history and our traditions" - and he said that comparing which of the two countries had more or less democracy was "not the right thing to do".

Mr Bush said: "Democracies always reflect a country's culture and customs and I know that.

"But they have certain things in common. They have rule of law, and protection of minorities, a free press and a viable political opposition."

The meeting with Mr Putin was the final event of a European tour aimed at healing divisions over the Iraq war. Mr Bush is now heading back to Washington.

Before the Bratislava summit began, Russia and the US signed a deal to control the spread of shoulder-fired missiles - seen as a growing threat to civilian aircraft.

They also agreed on better safeguards of nuclear materials.

The US president has been under pressure from some senior US politicians to make it clear to Mr Putin that his friendship with the US is at risk unless he maintains Russian democracy.

A senior administration official told journalists travelling with Mr Bush that Mr Putin had recently told the US president that the Russian people had a history of strong tsars, and that they were accustomed to government playing a strong role in their lives.

The official said President Bush had rejected that notion.

Russian concerns include the increasing US influence in former Soviet republics such as Georgia and Ukraine.

In a speech which correspondents say is likely to have annoyed Russia, Mr Bush addressed Slovaks in a snowy Bratislava square, praising the country's stance as a loyal US ally.

Drawing applause from the crowd, Mr Bush praised the 1989 "Velvet Revolution" that defeated communism in the then Czechoslovakia.

"In recent times, we have witnessed landmark events in the history of liberty: A Rose Revolution in Georgia, an Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and now a Purple Revolution in Iraq," he said, referring to the voters' ink used in Iraq's recent election.

[rotrab]

I'm not saying its finished, but its improving. Much of the infrustructure has been rebuilt (though certainly not all)

No, sir. Iraq is in a shambles. Everything we try to rebuilt gets sabotaged and we can't stop it. All those oil pipelines we rebuilt have already been blown up and we couldn't prevent it. It is STILL too dangerous to travel the road from Baghdad to the airport where most of the kidnappings have taken place. It's a 10-mile stretch of road and we cannot guard even that. Much of the insurgent activity indicates that inside information is being given to them meaning this new govt we're touting so much has serious leaks and we have no idea where or whom.

We are in a game of whack-the-gopher. Insurgency pops up over here. We blow the shit out of that entire area and the insurgency is gone. Then it pops up over there and we run over there and blow the shit out of it and the insurgency is gone. Then it pops up somewhere else and so on. That is not success by any stretch of the truth. Success is NO insurgency and that is not about to happen. We had a chance to squelch but did not have the troop numbers and still don't.

and as for the elections being a "farce", could you tell me just whats so farcical about them?

We don't have control of that country! Elections mean nothing beyond picking out who the next target of the insurgents will be. They're kicking back and waiting to hear the name so they know who to go after. What good is an election whose victor has essentially won a death sentence? The US is responsible for security there and we cannot provide it short of completely shutting Iraq down and that is not an option.

The insurgents don't want a part in drafting a new constitution, they want total control and they want the US out and until that happens they will not rest. If they don't rest, we don't rest and that is simply going to exhaust us. Vietnam all over again.

The biggest fraud I've read about during these was Kurds in the north intimidating Assyrians (though Americans don't get hear about this so much because in American media the Kurds are angle-victims) and insurgents doing the same to anybody they could. Also, Iraq already has a civil war. The conflict qualified as one from the start. However, it's a civil war like the Algerian civil war. A bunch of alienated Islamists against a population that is tired of them. There may have been support for it initially but all but a few of the Iraqis I've heard from (both in person and on the internet) are sick of their crap and would like to move on.

Of course they're sick of it and the insurgents want them to be sick of it. The insurgents are forcing the hand of the Iraqis by showing them the US cannot provide security and that the people will have to take matters into their own hands. Once that happens, the US is done. It will be too dangerous for us to stay. The insurgents are deliberately pushing the Iraqi people to their last nerve--trying to get them to finally say, "Fuck the US" and lash out on their own. That is why it is critical that the US stop the insurgency and it cannot.

Nobody learns this lesson, not one country in history.

Plenty of nations have learned it. Europe has learned it and that is why they HATE Bush--don't let the media coverage fool you. Try to find one European who can stand the sonofabitch. Japan has learned it. The average Japanese is very critical of Koizumi sending troops there and Japanese troops are non-combat. All Bush did was promise favors and already nations are dropping out believing the losses are not worth whatever Bush promised them.

The Americans are not special.

Then maybe they should stop acting like it.

[Martino]

Plenty of nations have learned it. Europe has learned it and that is why they HATE Bush--don't let the media coverage fool you. Try to find one European who can stand the sonofabitch. Japan has learned it. The average Japanese is very critical of Koizumi sending troops there and Japanese troops are non-combat. All Bush did was promise favors and already nations are dropping out believing the losses are not worth whatever Bush promised them.


President Bush pretty much bribed the countries of what he then called 'New Europe' into sending troops to Iraq. Troops for economic aid. In the process he alienated his traditional allies.

Mr Bush's recent visit to Europe was certainly the strangest presidential visit I can remember. The Germans of Mainz gave Mr Bush a very cold reception.

At present, there are too many divisions for him to have a hope of healing the trans-Atlantic rift with just rhetoric. I can foresee a greater Atlantic divide forming over the course of this presidency.

The shortlist of problems:


France and Germany remain angry about the references to 'Old Europe' and the bitterness caused by the US trying to bully Europe into the Iraq war; US criticism of Europe prefering to contain and weaken Saddam's regime (which has been demonstrated to have been working);

The US's dismissive attitude towards the talks between Iran and the EU;

The US's criticism of the EU's desire to lift the arms embargo with China;

Kyoto.

On-going trade wars.

[Mr.Lum]

Of course they're sick of it and the insurgents want them to be sick of it. The insurgents are forcing the hand of the Iraqis by showing them the US cannot provide security and that the people will have to take matters into their own hands. Once that happens, the US is done. It will be too dangerous for us to stay. The insurgents are deliberately pushing the Iraqi people to their last nerve--trying to get them to finally say, "Fuck the US" and lash out on their own. That is why it is critical that the US stop the insurgency and it cannot.



I've not seen this happening. Usually when a militant group is trying to proove their superiority over another force (be they an occupier or a central government), they provide services. The insurgents aren't doing that. They're killing people and blowing shit up. They're not winng. If they were winning, there'd be more of them, they'd be seting up their own fiefdoms (the only one of which had really been al Sadr) and having control of large parts of the country. They don't. The insurgents are pushing the people more to the point that they say "fuck you" and alienate themselves. They're working off the wrong model if theyre trying to do what youre saying. The last time "insugrents" tried to do this in a country on this kind of scale was Algeria. They had popular support initially but as time went on and they started loosing, they started just attacking random people, bombing mosques killing innocent people for no reason etc and the people wouldnt have it and sided with the military. It took 12 years. You don't win these kinds of things overnight.

Plenty of nations have learned it. Europe has learned it and that is why they HATE Bush--don't let the media coverage fool you. Try to find one European who can stand the sonofabitch. Japan has learned it. The average Japanese is very critical of Koizumi sending troops there and Japanese troops are non-combat. All Bush did was promise favors and already nations are dropping out believing the losses are not worth whatever Bush promised them.


Thats because they see it as an act of aggression and their military is only supposed to be defensive. Also, Europeans haven't learned it otherwise they wouldn't be sending troops and special forces into parts of Africa where people don't want them. And they wouldn't be giving thier military support to the US to do the same bullshit they were doing elsewhere.

We don't have control of that country! Elections mean nothing beyond picking out who the next target of the insurgents will be. They're kicking back and waiting to hear the name so they know who to go after. What good is an election whose victor has essentially won a death sentence? The US is responsible for security there and we cannot provide it short of completely shutting Iraq down and that is not an option.


The Shia in Iraq won a death sentence when the insurgents started their struggle. Everybody in Iraq has a death sentence if they're not an insurgent.

The US destroyed a nation. It taks a long long time to build a new one.

[rotrab]

President Bush pretty much bribed the countries of what he then called 'New Europe' into sending troops to Iraq. Troops for economic aid. In the process he alienated his traditional allies.

Mr Bush's recent visit to Europe was certainly the strangest presidential visit I can remember. The Germans of Mainz gave Mr Bush a very cold reception.

At present, there are too many divisions for him to have a hope of healing the trans-Atlantic rift with just rhetoric. I can foresee a greater Atlantic divide forming over the course of this presidency.

The shortlist of problems:


France and Germany remain angry about the references to 'Old Europe' and the bitterness caused by the US trying to bully Europe into the Iraq war; US criticism of Europe prefering to contain and weaken Saddam's regime (which has been demonstrated to have been working);

The US's dismissive attitude towards the talks between Iran and the EU;

The US's criticism of the EU's desire to lift the arms embargo with China;

Kyoto.

On-going trade wars.






Did you see where Bush went to Poland and was having dinner someplace and there was an anti-Bush/anti-war riot outside! I was like, "Holy shit! Look at that!" How long before the American people grow some brains and start doing the same?

I was at a metal website that is now defunct just before the November elections. The board had divided itself into two camps: Euro metalheads and American metalheads. The point of the dispute? The Americans loved Bush and the Euros hated him. Flames wars going back and forth. I was ashamed at the myopic stupidity of those American kids. They would hit the ceiling if they got drafted into this war--how the hell can they support this jerk??

I've not seen this happening. Usually when a militant group is trying to proove their superiority over another force (be they an occupier or a central government), they provide services. The insurgents aren't doing that. They're killing people and blowing shit up. They're not winng. If they were winning, there'd be more of them, they'd be seting up their own fiefdoms (the only one of which had really been al Sadr) and having control of large parts of the country. They don't.

Actually it is WE who have to demonstrate control and we cannot. The insurgents don't have to do anything except what they are doing and it will be enough to topple us eventually. It's only a matter of time and they know it and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have to know it. If they don't, they are incredibly stupid.

As for insurgent numbers, I don't know how you can say there are not enough of them when Rumsfeld won't hazard to guess how many there are. I hear everything from 8000 to 40,000. the latter is more likely and that is a more than adequate insurgency to eventually drive us out.

The insurgents are pushing the people more to the point that they say "fuck you" and alienate themselves. They're working off the wrong model if theyre trying to do what youre saying. The last time "insugrents" tried to do this in a country on this kind of scale was Algeria. They had popular support initially but as time went on and they started loosing, they started just attacking random people, bombing mosques killing innocent people for no reason etc and the people wouldnt have it and sided with the military. It took 12 years. You don't win these kinds of things overnight.

We don't have 12 years, sir. We're spending up to $2 billion a week in Iraq. We've already spent half of what we spent in the entire Vietnam War which was 15 years in the losing and we had 500,000 troops there at any given time--far, far more than what we have in Iraq. What do we do when we run out of money? Force soldiers to stay and fight with no pay??

We have to stop the insurgency NOW and get some control NOW or this war will bankrupt us. And that is simply not happening. And it is not going to start happening.

Thats because they see it as an act of aggression and their military is only supposed to be defensive. Also, Europeans haven't learned it otherwise they wouldn't be sending troops and special forces into parts of Africa where people don't want them. And they wouldn't be giving thier military support to the US to do the same bullshit they were doing elsewhere.

The world isn't perfect. There will always be wars. But Europe is not interested in invading other nations and neither is Japan--both learned from WW2. When wars break out, however, there are interests that have to be protected and so some troops may have to be sent to protect them. That's a FAR cry from what we are doing which is fighting a horribly bloody, nasty, illegal war based on lies and ideological differences.

The Shia in Iraq won a death sentence when the insurgents started their struggle. Everybody in Iraq has a death sentence if they're not an insurgent.

Hence, the insurgents will win. They will get what they want--total all-out civil war and they will emerge the victors. come on, they walk into police stations and gun everybody down and walk back out. The Shias don't look to me like they have it in them to fight. God, they remind me of the South Vietnamese--let them American GI Joes fight and die, why should I?

The US destroyed a nation. It taks a long long time to build a new one.

As I said, we don't have a long time. It's a horrible quandary bush has created--we can't leave but we can't stay. Either way, we lose.

[Yeahman]

How long before the American people grow some brains and start doing the same?
Because we Americans, even those who protested Bush's first inauguration, are dumasses. :rolleyes:

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table." - Bush

Say what? Anyway, I don't think we're going to invade Iran. What would we invade them with? Attack dogs? Suicide squirrels? I think this is all just a scare tactic.

So what do you guys think can be done to promote democracy in Iran? Can any outside influence help or would it just be counter-productive?

[Mr.Lum]

Actually it is WE who have to demonstrate control and we cannot. The insurgents don't have to do anything except what they are doing and it will be enough to topple us eventually. It's only a matter of time and they know it and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have to know it. If they don't, they are incredibly stupid.

As for insurgent numbers, I don't know how you can say there are not enough of them when Rumsfeld won't hazard to guess how many there are. I hear everything from 8000 to 40,000. the latter is more likely and that is a more than adequate insurgency to eventually drive us out.


If they keep using the mediocre tactics the US is they will. If a third world state with significantly less troops and money can destroy an insugency proportionally the same in most repsects, so can the US. The problem is not their numbers its the way theyre fighting them. The US is worring about feelings and all this other bullshit that is getting the way of fighting war correctly. They can put aside human rights of baby killers for a little bit. You are correct that the US is not showing enough control over the situation. What they should be doing is using as much force as they can to massacre as many of the insurgents as they can at one time. They don't need to worry about this geneva bullshit because they didn't worry about it before and it doesnt affect much in terms of public opinion.


We don't have 12 years, sir. We're spending up to $2 billion a week in Iraq. We've already spent half of what we spent in the entire Vietnam War which was 15 years in the losing and we had 500,000 troops there at any given time--far, far more than what we have in Iraq. What do we do when we run out of money? Force soldiers to stay and fight with no pay??

We have to stop the insurgency NOW and get some control NOW or this war will bankrupt us. And that is simply not happening. And it is not going to start happening.


It is not going to bankrup the US in any respect except morally. Yes it costs a lot of money but its money that will be gotten back and American soldiers historically have fought whenever they've been told. ITs not as if they're a bunch of hippies. There is always a supply of soldiers ad they will stay on regardless of pay. There have been worse wars that were more expensive.



The world isn't perfect. There will always be wars. But Europe is not interested in invading other nations and neither is Japan--both learned from WW2. When wars break out, however, there are interests that have to be protected and so some troops may have to be sent to protect them. That's a FAR cry from what we are doing which is fighting a horribly bloody, nasty, illegal war based on lies and ideological differences.


Most wars are fought on that basis. That's the world. Most wars (if not all of them) are based at least in part from ideological differences and all of them are bloody, nasty and usually illegal.

Hence, the insurgents will win. They will get what they want--total all-out civil war and they will emerge the victors. come on, they walk into police stations and gun everybody down and walk back out. The Shias don't look to me like they have it in them to fight. God, they remind me of the South Vietnamese--let them American GI Joes fight and die, why should I?


Well the reasoning there is that "we didnt ask you to come here you can fight them". The Shias don't look like they care much about the insurgents. Thres more of them than there are insurgents and they're going to be incontrol and they've got a pretty stable hold on power. The insurgency is not the strongest force in Iraq and if you think it is then it doesn't have to. They can be wiped out. It's simple they should ask Mr. Bouteflika how he did it. They were basically all either killed and then the ones left were given amnesty if they put down their guns. The US has a good opprotunity because the insurgents started killing for no reason early on, they dn't have to wait. They can use full force in geting the insurgents. The US isn't fighting liek theres a war, they're fighting like theres an uprising.



As I said, we don't have a long time. It's a horrible quandary bush has created--we can't leave but we can't stay. Either way, we lose.

They do have a long time. And it doesn't even need to be along time. If Bush used real force to fight the insurgents this crap would have been over by now. And if the US stays, they're not going to loose.


So what do you guys think can be done to promote democracy in Iran? Can any outside influence help or would it just be counter-productive?

The IRanian regime will collapse on itself in the near future just like most of the other middle eastern states. There will be too many young people to control through sharia. Young people don't want to put up with that shit. The US dosen't need to offer anything but lipservice and possibly covert aid to dissidents (Id caution against proShah or things liek that though). Anything overt is just going to piss people off. An invasion of Iran by almost any country would be disasterous (they still have guerrilla units that are anywhere from 5-8 million men strong, I know people from Iran who told me that they applied to be in one of these units but were refused because there were too many applicants) and a formidable military and very strong national/group feeling. Thinking it is even possible to invade and conquer Iran is so ridiculous I would give that to a real crackhead to attempt but not Bush. He talks big but he delivers small packages. Iran can take care of itself, regime, dissidents and all.

[rotrab]

Because we Americans, even those who protested Bush's first inauguration, are dumasses. :rolleyes:

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table." - Bush

Say what? Anyway, I don't think we're going to invade Iran. What would we invade them with? Attack dogs? Suicide squirrels? I think this is all just a scare tactic.

So what do you guys think can be done to promote democracy in Iran? Can any outside influence help or would it just be counter-productive?

To ask what can be done to promote democracy in Iran is as productive as Iranians asking what can be done to promote Islam and Shariah in American politics. Americans don't care about it, why should Iran care about democracy? They aren't arming because they are anti-democratic, they are arming because Bush is threatening them and they have to take it seriously and they have every right to do what they are doing. bush does not. He is out of line and out of control and he needs to be stopped.

If they keep using the mediocre tactics the US is they will. If a third world state with significantly less troops and money can destroy an insugency proportionally the same in most repsects, so can the US. The problem is not their numbers its the way theyre fighting them. The US is worring about feelings and all this other bullshit that is getting the way of fighting war correctly.

You can't fight guerillas in their own country. Get it? They know the terrain, they have contacts and safehouses, they are normal, everyday citizens by day. There is no way to beat them on their own soil. We will lose because there is NO WAY to fight them. It's not that we are using wrong tactics--they are NO tactics to use.

They can put aside human rights of baby killers for a little bit. You are correct that the US is not showing enough control over the situation. What they should be doing is using as much force as they can to massacre as many of the insurgents as they can at one time. They don't need to worry about this geneva bullshit because they didn't worry about it before and it doesnt affect much in terms of public opinion.

WHOM, sir, do they begin to massacre? You have to know whom you are fighting and where they are at all times. We don't have the first clue. If we did, we'd have control over the situation.

It is not going to bankrup the US in any respect except morally. Yes it costs a lot of money but its money that will be gotten back and American soldiers historically have fought whenever they've been told. ITs not as if they're a bunch of hippies. There is always a supply of soldiers ad they will stay on regardless of pay. There have been worse wars that were more expensive.

Such as? As far as I know Vietnam was our most expensive war and we will outstrip that one by 2007 at the rate we are flushing money down the toilet and we will still be no closer to getting Iraq under than we are now.

It doesn't matter how hard our soldiers fight. There are not NEARLY enough to get a handle on Iraq. They would have to increase troop levels to more than twice what they are now to have any hope and that is not possible without a draft. By the time, the draft is implemented, it will be too late. Already is.

Most wars are fought on that basis. That's the world. Most wars (if not all of them) are based at least in part from ideological differences and all of them are bloody, nasty and usually illegal.

No, sir, most wars are fought over land. We have no stake in land in this war just as we had no such stake in Vietnam. Consequently, we will suffer the same result.

Well the reasoning there is that "we didnt ask you to come here you can fight them". The Shias don't look like they care much about the insurgents. Thres more of them than there are insurgents and they're going to be incontrol and they've got a pretty stable hold on power.

I can see this discussion is pointless because you are obviously not paying attention to the situation over there. The Shias have no stability whatsoever. Without the US presence they are sunk--done. How many bombings, shootings, beheadings and battles does it take for it to register that iraq is out of control. No one has control there and that makes it ripe for civil war.

[Faithless]

I thought there was democracy in Iran. Don't they hold general elections? Don't they have the same style of government as Iraq?

BBC on Iran's 2000 elections (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_election_news/627344.stm)

[Mr.Lum]

No, sir, most wars are fought over land. We have no stake in land in this war just as we had no such stake in Vietnam. Consequently, we will suffer the same result..

Most wars are fought over land and justified with ideology. The US does have stake in the land there (well, whats under the land). Would you like the insurgents to control that territory? That oil? Viet Nam's motives were different. We didn't need Viet Nam for anything. That had nothing to give. Iraq does.

I can see this discussion is pointless because you are obviously not paying attention to the situation over there. The Shias have no stability whatsoever. Without the US presence they are sunk--done. How many bombings, shootings, beheadings and battles does it take for it to register that iraq is out of control. No one has control there and that makes it ripe for civil war.

Iraq is not out of control because the insurgents don't control any of it. You're paying attention to the fighting whereas I'm paying attention to the fighting, the people and the situation over most of the country. Furthermore, you seem intent on wanting the American effort to fail. If you want it to fail, say so.


You can't fight guerillas in their own country. Get it? They know the terrain, they have contacts and safehouses, they are normal, everyday citizens by day. There is no way to beat them on their own soil. We will lose because there is NO WAY to fight them. It's not that we are using wrong tactics--they are NO tactics to use.


You CAN fight guerrilas in their own country. Morocco was quite successful at in the Western Sahara, the Indonesians in Papua, the Americans in Afgahnistan (mostly) and there are likely other example. Most of the insurgents are not even Iraqi and are probably no better aquainted with the territory than the Americans. The major problem holding the Americans back is too much human rights bs. They have no clamped down on the insurgents hard and they have refused to make usuage of hardline, tactics that would probably cost some liberties in areas where there are many insurgents but would get rid of them quickely.

I thought there was democracy in Iran. Don't they hold general elections? Don't they have the same style of government as Iraq?

It's a theocratic democracy that has a big ass government and it's antiAmerican. Thus, the US doesn't like them. Plus a lot of Americans have wounded pride from the hostage crisis and are intent on seeing that the Islamic Republic fail. My attitude towards these people is get the fuck over it. It was how many years ago? Make regular relations and move the fuck on. It's not like it was a little group that kicked our guys out, it was a huge movement. Iran is about as progressive as the Islamic states in the region get. You compare with Saudi or Bahrain I'd choose Iran over either of those.

[Faithless]

It's a theocratic democracy that has a big ass government and it's antiAmerican. Thus, the US doesn't like them. Plus a lot of Americans have wounded pride from the hostage crisis and are intent on seeing that the Islamic Republic fail. My attitude towards these people is get the fuck over it. It was how many years ago? Make regular relations and move the fuck on. It's not like it was a little group that kicked our guys out, it was a huge movement. Iran is about as progressive as the Islamic states in the region get. You compare with Saudi or Bahrain I'd choose Iran over either of those.
Which makes one think about this democratic Iraq, you know.

Since people foresee Iraq becoming just another democratic Iran. :rolleyes:

[Faithless]

Alright, so Bush is not letting on, one way or another, but what Israel?

Green light for Iran attack? (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3057518,00.html)

"Sunday Times": Security Cabinet has authorized attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, American's won't object. Khatami: time is running out for diplomacy * By Ynet

London’s “Sunday Times” has reported top secret Israeli plans to attack nuclear research sites in Iran, should American and European diplomatic attempts to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear program fail.

According to reports, the security cabinet gathered last month for a secret meeting at Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s home at the Shikmim Ranch, near the southern town of Sderot, to discuss plans for a potential attack. At the meetings conclusion the cabinet gave initial authorization for the attack.

The "Times" states that elite IDF forces, including the Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando and air force Squadron 69 units have started training for the daring mission against a mock reactor in the Negev desert. The program is reported to include “bunker-buster” bombs powerful enough to destroy underground laboratories.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, speaking during an official visit to Mexico, called on the U.S. and Europe to shut down Iran’s nuclear program, and said that an nuclear Iran would be a “disaster” for Israel and the world.

Hatami: ready to cooperate

Iranian President Muhammad Khatami said Iran had “no intention of giving up our national rights”, but said Tehran would cooperate to ensure his country would not develop a nuclear bomb.

But he warned that time forreaching an agreement was running out, and implored the Europeans to act quickly.

American support

American officials have previously unofficially indicated the United States would not object to an Israeli strike should talks fail. U.S. Vice-President Dick Chaney said Friday that Iran would face “stronger action” if it failed to accept a joint U.S.-European initiative by which Iran would be invited to join the World Trade Organization and could purchase spare airplane parts in return for abandoning nuclear plans.

Iranian officials rejected the proposal.

[Faithless]

Cheney's Plan: Nuke Iran --Stand athwart the apocalypse, and shout: "No!" (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6734)

by Justin Raimondo

A recent poll shows six in ten Americans think a new world war is coming: the same poll says about 50 percent approve of the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Somewhat inexplicably, about two-thirds say nuking those two cities was "unavoidable." One can only wonder, then, what their reaction will be to this ominous news, revealed in a recent issue of The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

Two points leap out at the reader – or, at least, this reader – quite apart from the moral implications of dropping nukes on Iran. The first is the completely skewed logic: if Iran has nothing to do with 9/11-II, then why target Tehran? As in Iraq, it's all a pretext: only this time, the plan is to use nuclear weapons. We'll wipe out the entire population of Iran's capital city because, as Paul Wolfowitz said in another context, "it's doable."

The other weird aspect of this "nuke Iran" story is the triggering mechanism: a terrorist attack in the U.S. on the scale of 9/11. While it is certain that our government has developed a number of scenarios for post-attack action, one has to wonder: why develop this plan at this particular moment? What aren't they telling us?

I shudder to think about it.

The more I look at it, and the more I think of it, the more I sense a monumental evil casting its shadow over the world, and I have to tell you, it makes me wonder how much more time I want to spend on this earth. In my more pessimistic moments, I doubt whether we can avoid the horrific fate that seems to await us just around the next corner, the next moment, looming over the globe like a gigantic devil stretching its wings and blotting out the sun.

It seems to me that the question of whether life is really worth living anymore is inextricably bound up with the question of whether or not these madmen can be stopped. If not, then the only alternative is to live it up while we can and laugh defiantly in the face of the apocalypse. Why write columns, why comment at all, if we can't have any effect on the outcome? On the other hand, some ask

"Surely the New York Times and the Washington Post can find a lede here: 'US has plan to nuke Tehran if another 9/11.' Can we get at least a bloody story out of this?"

Might I suggest another lede?: "Armageddon approaches." Or perhaps, for the literary-mind secularists among us: "After many a summer dies mankind."
...

[Faithless]

Bush talking tough about Iran again. CAll it the "PNAC effect". :rolleyes:

Bush Says Military Reaction to Iran Nuclear Program Possible (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=alUi.3E60JJw&refer=top_world_news)



Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush yesterday raised the possibility of a U.S. military response to Iran's decision to restart its nuclear energy program.

``All options are on the table,'' Bush said in an Israeli television interview from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, according to a transcript provided by his staff today. He said military force would be a last resort.

``We've used force in the recent past to secure our country,'' Bush added, when asked to elaborate. ``It's difficult for the commander-in-chef to put kids in harm's way. Nevertheless, I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure this country and to provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies.''

Iran reopened uranium conversion facilities at its Isfahan plant on Aug. 8, restarting a uranium enrichment program the oil- rich nation claims is needed for energy purposes. Material produced by the process, which Iran hopes to export, can fuel a nuclear power plant or a nuclear bomb.

Western countries including the U.S., France and Germany, say they are worried the Islamic state will secretly develop nuclear weapons. Iran is the second-largest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

The European Union has been negotiating with Iran to limit the program. Iran implemented a voluntary freeze on its uranium processing in November.

The United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, adopted a resolution Aug. 11 expressing ``serious concern'' about Iran's decision to resume uranium conversion activities and demanding their immediate suspension. Iran rejected the resolution.

Israel

A military raid on the Isfahan plant wouldn't be unprecedented.

Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in a 1981 pre- emptive raid to disrupt a similar program by a nation whose leadership had threatened Israel.

The U.S has branded Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. Former Revolutionary guardsman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president of Iran on June 24. He is suspected of participating in the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by some survivors of the incident.

``The United States and Israel are united in our objective to make sure that Iran does not have a'' nuclear weapon, Bush said during the Israeli television interview.

Russian is building a nuclear energy plant at Iran's southwestern Persian Gulf port of Bushehr and has called for both sides to return to negotiations.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said he wouldn't support U.S. military action against Iran, Bild am Sonntag reported today, citing an interview. Schroeder said a military response would be ``highly dangerous.''

[yoMAMA]

I'm sure the Iranians are so scared......

(sarcasm)

[Faithless]

When Richard Perle speaks like this, you know something's cooking. Because he tries to have a hand in it.

The PNAC co-architect hints at possible war with Iran:

A New "Perle Harbor": Neocon Foreign Policy Architect Richard Perle reveals US War Plans in the Iranian Theater (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CAR20060607&articleId=2596)

...
Questioned by a largely supportive audience of admiring students willing to attend a late lecture on a Friday night, Perle touched upon the diplomacy between the West and Iran in the most insipid terms he could muster. Taking into account the latest diplomatic developments, he gave his Oxford audience the impression that the outcome remains obscure in spite of the fact that he is one of the principle architects – and the sternest - of the Iran negotiations.

Perle emphasised that President Ahmadinejad holds fanatical religious beliefs involving the necessity for an Armageddonite conflict to trigger the return of the Hidden Imam at the end of the world in the Shiite tradition for the Last Judgement and the Islamic Apocalypse. Perle singled out the fanaticism of Islamic terrorism as the most serious threat to international security, and he praised the Israeli air-strike against Saddam’s nuclear reactor in 1981 as a model of pre-emptive military intervention. In his view, the threat of precision air-strikes against the nuclear infrastructure of Iran constitute the best negotiating option.
...
The morning after his Oxford talk, Perle appeared on the very influential BBC radio programme, Today, where he was interviewed by John Humphries, the ranking heavyweight commentator in Britain. Admitting President Bush’s political weakness, Perle made a revealing comment when Humphries pressed him on US plans to bomb Iran. When Humphries pointed out that a unilateral US bombardment of Iran would be greeted with global howls of derision, Perle said,

“No American president who believes that there is a last opportunity to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state is going to be deterred by derision. He will do what he believes to be in the best interests of the protection of those who might come under attack from an Iranian nuclear weapon including the United States.” (Today, BBC4, 3rd June 2006)
...

[stupidredhead13]

What i was wondering is whether the Senate would agree to a war with Iran given how their last "ohhh ok, let's all be partriots and vote 'yes'!" didn't go over so well.

[Faithless]

What i was wondering is whether the Senate would agree to a war with Iran given how their last "ohhh ok, let's all be partriots and vote 'yes'!" didn't go over so well.
That's a good question that I have been pondering. And it's good to let them know, too.

You'd hope they'd have more moral fiber the second time around and say, "Enough, you dumb son of a Bush! Clean up the shit you've caused so far!"

It scares me to think that Bush will pull the same shit near this next election.

[Yeahman]

This scare tactic on the part of the Democrats is working well for them. They're learning. Scare the American people and they'll vote for whoever they think will keep them safer.
As for what is actually happening, Bush is offering Iran nuclear technology in exchange for measures to ensure that it's for civilian use only.

[neo7001]

Bush is a dork, fighting for a free land he says... what a crock of shite... are all those soliders free right now... every war the usa starts they lose... gun ho idiots..

iran will slay usa if it comes to war. there are 70 000 000 people there all ready to fight for their rights. no one can honestly say usa has won the iraq war. look at the number of troops lost... and after all this what the fuck happened to bin larden the dude killed around 3000 americans in a few hours the so called war on terrorism broke out the states never caught him... tell me one war the states have won outright... look at the vietnam war what a joke

[Martino]

iran will slay usa if it comes to war. there are 70 000 000 people there all ready to fight for their rights. no one can honestly say usa has won the iraq war. look at the number of troops lost... and after all this what the fuck happened to bin larden the dude killed around 3000 americans in a few hours the so called war on terrorism broke out the states never caught him... tell me one war the states have won outright... look at the vietnam war what a joke

2738 Americans, 236 foreigners (including 67 British, 28 Koreans, 26 Japanese and 5 Chinese). Please don't forget it wasn't just Americans who died in the towers

[VV o n g B a]

tell me one war the states have won outright... look at the vietnam war what a jokelets see, the revolutionary war, mexican war, the civil war (how could it lose? wtf), spanish-american war, ww1 & 2, cold war, iraq 1. thats not counting all the wars that obliterated the american indians.

[neo7001]

lets see, the revolutionary war, Mexican war, the civil war (how could it lose? wtf), Spanish-American war, ww1 & 2, cold war, Iraq 1. thats not counting all the wars that obliterated the American Indians.

all wars fought on the American continent, apart from ww1 and 2 which they did not win. maybe they played a part in winning, but USA can not claim the title for that...

[Faithless]

This scare tactic on the part of the Democrats is working well for them. They're learning. Scare the American people and they'll vote for whoever they think will keep them safer.
As for what is actually happening, Bush is offering Iran nuclear technology in exchange for measures to ensure that it's for civilian use only.
There's a mixed message going on.

One day the US plays good cop. On the next, they talk about time tables in terms of weeks, not months, for Iran to shape up.

Meanwhile, Iran, through it's idiotic president doesn't flinch much. It becomes a showdown then. Will Bush say, "How dare that mofo try to show me up!"? Or will he say, "I can't very well call up my already super, overextended troops. That just wouldn't be right."?