Totally agree, I can't name it as a war too. If iraqie's forces could reply with bombings in US, then it would be called a war. It's a small campaign, just like military test-run ups big countries practice, somewhere far away from the motherland. For US that is.
I agree mahmood. This war like many others before is just a diversion, to the real issues. Poverty, Healty, Education, Energy, Immigration, ...etc.... Now who wins: - Bush wins: Probably the most incompetent President ever, in the developed world enjoyed 2 terms and some of the highest ratings of any US President. - Cheney & Buddies win: Enjoyed incredible ROI with this war. Check the 5 year graph on Halliburton (The company Cheney ran before becoming the VP): http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c= or better check the 10 year graph and you can see when the war started: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c= Halliburton is just an obvious example many other winners some are even private firm (with no public records). Example of such a company: http://www.blackwaterusa.com/ - The ignorant Amercian people win: They get cheap thrills about patriotism, sence of sacrifice, sence of proudness, sence of greatness, sense of unity, sense of superioity. - The terrorist win because they get to recruite more youngster that also want to fell (sacrifice, proudness, greatness...etc). A last thought, you say "They will lose an excellent chance for democracy". This is a another grave misleading idea promoted by the US Goverment. I also believed in the power of dreams. But builting a democracy in 5 years is a childish idea, even in 20 years this has never been done before. Most with a bit of history knowledge already know. This is especially true in the middle-east. I lived in Egypte for 3 years and loved it. But those countries are very complex and require expert knowledge before going to war. The average Americain has no clue of the "arab culture/mentalty". I use to say "I'm not americain" (translate I'm not stupid, I know the real rates) to get cheaper rates on my cab drives. Dig a little in the history of these countries and the colonial past of Europe in Africa, Middle-East and Asia and how it ended with each colony and you will see that Democracy is something a country has to mature into at its own pace. Irak use to be the most "democratic" arab country, just like Iran was under that Shah before the Iranian revolution of the 70s. My Iranian sister in law (who fled Iran during the revolution) told me that the US/CIA dropped support for the Shah because he was making Iran too "strong/independant". That's pretty Ironic. "the main losers of the war was Vietnamies" this is true and not true. My grand parents were part of the well establish wealthy "french-vietnamise". They lost it ALL: their plantations, houses, cars, servants, drivers, concubines ....but two suitcases full of jewerly and clothes. But was it fair that 95% of the wealth in that country was held by a few (often of "foreign" origin). Probably not, so what happened in Vietnam was probably an "organic" thing in that countries evolution. So most Vietnamese will win in the long run. If the US (and the French before) had not started the Vietnam war, my grand dad might have realized what was happening and sold most of his stuff. But according to my dad, he firmly did not believe the US would loose against a bunch of bar-footed little men running in between the trees of the jungles. In conclusion, we all lose in Wars. Wars have always left behind them death & destruction and done very little to address the issues that started then. But somehow wars have alway been part of the Men's history, I hope one day we all put our "thinking caps" on and make wars a thing of the past. The issue of the middle-east appear complex but are pretty simple, if you spend the time and energy to look into them... Cheers, Chris
chrisd I agree with most of the things you said but ironically not with the principal . I wanted to talk a lot about different aspects of what you said but instead I speak of something that we can see and prove. 2 years from US's air strike on Iran every body will say "US started the war, they didn't need to do it." But lets see it now, who do you think is going to start the war? US or Mullahs? What do you say, do you say that we sit and let mullahs to become an atomic power? Are you going to blame US/Bush if there is an air strike on Iran? .
The Iraq war is out of hand because the American administration isn't willing to suppress the population adequately. Bremer started to talk the talk of a viceroy towards the end of his tenure, but never actually walked the walk. It's probably not politically correct to say this, but meh.
No we don’t sit and do nothing. But we use our Talent and Pragmatism to devise the best approach to our goal (delay Iran from getting Nuclear weapons until they become a little more mature). If not, we take a huge risk of making things worse just like in Iraq. Which is costing us in the $8 billions/m, 100+ kids/m and worse of all, the number of Al Qaeda affiliates is increasing. We made Al Qaeda into a worldwide flourishing franchise. After 9/11 our obligation was to eliminate Al Qaeda and put in place the tools to make it near impossible to perform "terrorism of international reach". Now we seem to be focusing on anything but that. What will it take to delay the Iranians goal ? Insulting then is not constructive since it only justifies further that they would want to be able to defend them selves from the biggest nuclear power. That has pretty much been our policy towards Iran since the 2002 State of the Union Address (axis of evil). Now we are starting the talks with Iran, after years of saying we will never talk with then. It's counter-productive to constantly talk tough and come back on your words like the administration has done. Most of the rest of the world has keep their thinking caps on and they know we have "stupid" in the white house. The country being "contained" right now is the US and most here are "too asleep" to notice it. Before bombing nuclear facilities in Iran see any of the following would work: - international effort to put pressure (not just the easy way but all means and even "dirty" means, complex montage and alliances) - Covert disruption of all stages of the making of a bomb (supplies, suppliers, talent, material ...etc...) - Covertly try by all means (corruption, seduction, flattery) to influence any of the players (from the mullahs to the genitors at the power plant) Now we do have a fundamental problem is that technically the Iranians are in their right to develop nuclear power plants. It is their right under the NPT. That treaty is nearly 40 years old. Today many ex-"3rd world countries" are developing or want to develop civilian nuclear power plants. Once you have mastered that civilian technology you are not far from a nuclear weapon. So how are we going to handle that? Furthermore how are we morally justified to ban a country from developing nukes, when we are the only country in the world that actually used an atomic bomb and under this administration regularly threaten to use then. We need to think about that and come up with answers and solutions that other will buy into. But this is probably going to take more competent administration... Dannico I agree with use and most likely that is just what will happen: Another dictator will emerge and show us (like Saddam did) how you keep the peach until the system can sustain a democracy. Most likely that dictator will be worse then Saddam (who was a very progressist leader for the region) and from the circles of Moqtada Sadr. Cheers, Chris
chrisd Lets not mix things. If we are going to talk about mullahs right to have atomic bomb, it would be another issue which must be discussed separately. Discussing the right of mullahs in having atomic bombs only feeds mullahs propaganda machine and wastes our time. Lets assume that mullhs have every single right in the international law, Bible, Koran and right mind to have atomic bomb. Now my question "Do we want them to have it or not?". Just to give you some useless information, Koran gives mullahs absolute right to have the most advanced weapons and encourage them to be superior in any aspect of weaponary possible. According to Koran, it is not the matter of "should", it is the matter of "must" and the responsibility of muslims. I am going to add some comments on the solution you gave for delaying mullahs atomic devlopment. .
chrisd Assming that you agree that under any circumenstances we have to stop mullahs I give my ideas about the solutions you suggested. Put it simply all the solutions you suggested are the tactics that mullahs are using to delay "delaying their atomic development." They have the money and an inteligent service that never sleeps and never makes a mistake. Do you know how their atomic program was revealed? It wasn't for 007 agants in CIA. It wasn't for satelites and pilot less air planes. Most poleticians say they had hiden their program for 20 years, it is a lie. It wasn't hidden, MKO - Iran Mojahedin group - had warned the west for many many years but nobody wanted to listen. Western politicians were heavily bribed to put a cap on it. This is what I call politics. They are ready to kiss "the great satan"'s ass to buy enough delay until they don't need to kiss anybodies ass. They say "insult us but let as go ahead." , put sanction on us but let us go ahead. I am amazed how some people get mullahs for fools. .
mahmood You can't have serious negotiations with Iran if you do not accept to discuss the "mullahs right to have atomic bomb"... We need to look at the proliferation of nuclear technology and weapons. It will continue until the day even tiny countries can create major nuclear damage on this planet. As the world leader, the US must anticipate that rapidly approaching time and develop updated, enforceable treaties that are acceptable to all (not just our friends). Until now, we haven't had this problem because 3rd world countries were too poor and lacked the competency. Today bombing the nuclear facilities of Iran creates the following risks: - The Iranians will continue with even more anger and in total secrecy. - We will strengthen the Iranian government for another 10 20(?) years but making its people rally against the "US aggression". - You will make it easier for the "Bin Laden" types to recruit young terrorists, in the face of this "humiliating imperialist act". - You will set a bad precedent so that the next countries working on nukes will to it in total secrecy until completed. - You will encourage certain countries to develop nukes so the US does not bomb then when they see fit. - You will increase the anger toward the US in the Arab world, which is at an all time high already, playing in the hands of their corrupt leaders. You have two fundamental problems in the middle east, we directly or indirectly help create. Until we address these 2 issues, we will continue to have growing problems (ie 911) coming from that region: - ALL their governments are deeply unfair and corrupt (Take a map and look a each country from the Kingdom of Morocco to the Kingdom of Jordan). The only exception is Algeria (struggling to start a democracy...after the military cancelled elections in the early 90s that the "mullahs" won democratically...). We (US + Europe) have help establish, solidify and continue to help strengthen these governments. In turn many of them play double games (smiles when they come to our cities) and a carefully crafted tolerance/encouragement for the mullahs to spread negative rhetoric about us. From the Egyptian President (a president since over 25 years, talking of having his son replace him) to the Saudi Royals, they all carefully maintain and manage a certain anger against us (especially the US) so that anger does not turn on their unfair governments. It's an art they have been practicing for a long time. Each time we do something rogue (invasion of Iraq, bombing of Iran?...etc....) we create anger that the Arab leaders are all to happy to see channeled against the US. The more their people are angry at the US the less they are at their own governments. We need to stop participating in this vicious circle. - We helped in the creation of Israel after WW2. We need to find a true and fair settlement to this issue. Israel has become the symbol of Western unfairness and a reminder of the colonial times, when we (US+Europe) alone decided what, where and when, in the world. We help create this situation and defended Israel until now. If we do not help find a settlement, it is a matter of time before some Arab country "erases" Israel from the map and until then the rhetoric and the anger will justifiable continue and increase. We have helped Israel become a nuclear power and that also does not play well in the Arab world. The times when no "3rd world country" dare talkback to us are over. Today Iran is showing us that it's a fact. We better start "getting on with the program" and become pragmatic about world issues then to continue living with our heads in the sand... Cheers, C
chrisd OK, so you accept that you cannot come up with a reasonable solution to stop mullahs, am I right? At best you believe that we can delay it for a few years. You believe they have the right and knowledge and there is no way we can stop them effectively.
I just listed a lot of "reasonable solutions". It's better to negotiate hard and then go to war. All Wars have end up in negotiations, might as well save some lives and money and try negotiating before. Secondly I don't know were all the money for or NSA/CIA is going but they are also suppose to be active and finding solutions to world issues and provides alternatives solutions to war. However I will be frank with you, I don't believe the Bush Administration will accomplish any progress without just bombing Iran. If I was as brain-less as Bush I would probably just go ahead and bomd Iran. What is he waiting for....such a girly-man. They have proven to be poor negotiators, poor diplomats/coalition builders, and have "transformed" our CIA into another totally ineffective government body. -------- I believe all people are equal: Americans, Brazilian, Iranian even the French ...etc... So under that principal I believe in the right of all nations to have nuclear weapons (we have then and have actually used them in the past). Now like I said before, I believe we should do ALL IN OUR POWER to ban nuclear weapons on this planet. The world would be a better place with no or very little nuclear weapons. ---- Again I do not have much hope about anything done about this issue under Bush. After 6 years of talking tough: About Ben Laden: Dead or Alive About North Korea (just before their nuclear testing): They will have a future or Nuclear weapons, not both Iraq: We will never negotiate with Terrorist Iran: We will never talk with a country sponsor of terrorism ...etc.. Just recently this administration seems to have understood, that it's in the best interest of the US, to start talking about some of these issues with others. But this administration has angered too many people and countries to get any results, we will have to wait for the next prez. And it will probably take him/her at least 2 years of hard work to undo the damage done by George Bush. Mahmood what do you say ? Cheers, Chris
OK, so you say that if we exahuast all the other ways a war would be a reasonable option? Lets say US did whatever you say and Iran still insisted on "their right" to develope an atomic bomb, would it make sense to go to war to stop Iran then?
Yes it would. Nukes in the hands of those who will be likely to use them = bad. Any argument otherwise = idiotic. When does Nukes in the hands of our enemies = good? Never - unless you're our enemy.
What a reliable source, an Islamic terrorist group (according to U.S. state department) working for Saddam until couple of years ago.
Those graphs you show mean nothing about cheneys previous business. I am an economics major and it shows that the company was in a growth stage and once the war started it continued. Even after the war there was a sharp decrease. It proves nothing . It means nothing. Those graphs are nothing but conspiracies.
That is the dumbest thing i have heard. There has been international pressure on Iran for 3 years and they have only accelerated their development of nuclear weapons. The country is run by mullahs and will be for another century if not more. Your points are really pointless, if we do one of your options, by that time Iran will have nuclear weapons. IAEA predicted 3 years from last month. The time for diplomacy is long gone with Iran. Unless you can get Russia to up the pressure big time and cut off business deals. But with that unlikely the only real option is air strikes on facilities by the IAF.
Once again. The so called possible negative effects of air strikes of Iran are startling on me. Because correct me if im not but these things are already happening. 1 The iranians have been working in total secrecy, e.g denying making a bomb but international research says otherwise. 2 the precedent set to the small countries would be don't make a bomb 3 they are finding recruiting terrorists easy, 911, Iraq everyday. 4 nothing is in total secrecy. You can't hide things from the CIA. 5 who is going to develop nukes next? Saudi Arabia? even if they do you can use the same actions as air strikes on Iran. 6 If the angers at an all time high already, then forget about it because even if it gets higher it can't get much higher.
Adsenseking44, you say those graphs mean nothing, however you also say "it(the graphs) shows that the company was in a growth stage and once the war started it continued". Indeed, it's pretty much a fact that Halliburton gained from the war. The $8+ billions/month is going somewhere. However I'm not looking to argue that point it really too trivial (sorry). You loosing me here those graph are publicly available on any financial site. What's the conspiracy I proposed? I agree with you: the "negotiations" performed by this administration have been total failures like nearly all of the international or national crisis it has been involved with. I already said in a previous post: "... I don't believe the Bush Administration will accomplish any progress without just bombing Iran. If I was as brain-less as Bush I would probably just go ahead and bomb Iran. What is he waiting for...." I don't think it will take that long. In fact Iran was starting to transform, before we gave the mullahs the perfect catalyst to unit its people and stop thinking about reforms. If we bomb then they probably will get another "free" 10/20? years. This reminds me of the "speech pattern" from the government before the Iraq war. At that time it was "time for debate is over". There was never a debate. In this case there has never been serious diplomatic efforts. Two reasons: - We have been constantly and consistently insulting and threaten then even before the 2002 State of the Union Address (axis of evil), 5 years ago already. - The reasons we have offered to refuse talks with Iran or exactly what they want to talk about, their right to defend themselves went threaten by a nuclear power. Yes that is one of the items I would include in "international effort to put pressure (not just the easy way but all means and even "dirty" means, complex montage and alliances)" It is one of most obvious ideas, plentifully exposed in the media already. Yes many of these points are already happening, mainly created by our own doing (threats and the Iraq war). Iraq has been a self fulfilling prophecy for G. Bush. Ben Laden hated Saddam nearly has much as he hates us. Now Iraq is full of Ben Laden wanna-be terrorists. Bush made Iraq a flourishing breading ground for terrorism. The situation can get a lot worst, making today's problems seem like the good old days. There is another "self fulfilling prophecy" that could happen. If we continue our action without considering the Arab public opinion, we will make our still relatively "small issues" into The full World War 3, Bush has been talking about since years. In this catastrophic scenario, Arab countries will actively fight the US. Not a conventional war, since we have far superior conventional weapons, but a nasty terror type war and not like 911 financed with a few thousands but sponsored by governments by the billions. Situation in which many 3rd party countries will have to side, and right now I do not think many would side with us. So in other words, yes things can get a lot worth. Sometimes I wonder if this administration is not looking to make things worth. Because they sure are making the right moves in that direction. This scenario could lead to the type of devastation WW1 created in Europe. For example, during the 4 year World War 1, 4% of the French polution died and it took more then 30 years for France to regain it's pre-war population. Today that would translate to 12 million dead in the US...or 8220 dead/day for 4 years.... -------------------------- Adsenseking44, when I read the tone of your responses, I can’t help to think our education system does not emphasize enough the devastation of a full war. Not realizing that, many like you do not understand that success is resolving issues without using force. We should each do all in our power, to avoid putting ourselves in a position where WW3 will seem inevitable. Cheers, C