On a very cynical note, that may be a part of the plan. Iraq may have been the best place on Earth to setup and say "This is where we will fight the Islamic holy warriors."* Iraq's location makes it perfect for this. Afghanistan lacks a seaport, and that's a necessity. Plus, it is conveniently located close to other target, without annoying high mountain ranges. In addition, Saddam made it perfect for this. He was flouting UN resolutions and ignoring promises he had made in the last peace accords. He was unpopoular with almost the entire planet. Frankly, he seemed to be doing everything within his power to encourage the U.S. to invade. Now, I can't tell you whether this is the real plan or not. I can't tell you if this was all thought out ahead of time. I can tell you that it is working. The advantage (for us) is that we are fighting the Islamic holy warriors* there instead of in NYC and Washington D.C. It is, however, not a nice thing to do to our Iraqi brothers. * Previously known as Al Qaeda
Yes a staging ground from Iraq to attack Iran would be perfect, I almost wouldn't doubt if we weren't so bogged down in Iraq if we might have already? Who knows. You actually believe this though?
The problem is that the only acceptable proof to the left seems to be a nuclear explosion inside the U.S. And that, to me, is unacceptable. Of course, even then they would claim that it was the Israeli's or the Bush Administration, just like they are still claiming about 9/11. You just have to accept that you won't get your proof until its too late. You are operating with insufficient knowledge. What will you do? Try this analogy. A mugger is pointing a guy at you and screaming that he will kill you. You don't know if the gun is loaded. You have no proof. You won't have proof until it sprouts from your torso in the form of a gushing chest wound. What would you do?
I do not know what to believe. I know that, on an amoral level, it is a beautiful plan. I know that our military strategists are very smart people. I know that our military strategists have America as their #1 concern and responsibility. I do not know their level of concern for other countries, such as Iraq. I cannot know the thoughts within their heads. I do not have access to classified intelligence. It's a plan I would have thought up -- but I personally might have been too squeamish to implement it. The Iraqi's do gain (if we win) their freedom. That's a big plus for them. Unfortunately, they have to endure two opposing forces using their country as a battleground for many years. The Islamic holy warriors we are currently battling in Iraq are no more Iraqi than a E-3 from Pocatello. I guess life isn't fair. That much I do know that I believe.
As it would be unacceptable to me, however they have to know any attack on us especially via nuclear weapons they will be decimated. Why aren't we or in fact you as well worried about those who could actually do that to us now and not some country who the Admin is claiming to obtain nukes, but would still not have any real way to deliver them? Possible countries to trully fear come to mind North Korea of course or even China? This in itself loses credibility with me as the reason to take Iran or even Iraq on. Some might but I however would not. I do get your analogy however I realy don't think it works in this instance. For it's stretch in the first place, plus unlike the muggers victim the US would not be destroyed in one single shot and would beable to kill the mugger in a heart beat. If we are going to start taking on anyone we want to simply because we ourselves spray threats at them, and they in return send them our way 'reguardless of who starts it!' I honestly believe we will become hated even further in the world. If I was in a different country than the US and watched the US take on country after country, especially if the US would be wrong again and no proof of what we claimed turns up I'd be furious. A stretch but I could see countries and their citizens trully believing we were the new Natzi's of the world. Not to mention the economic impact, how do you suggest we start another war at this time without HUGE tax hikes and possible permanent costs to the economy? Of course bomb building, ammo and other industries will go up but that would be short lived.
My problem with the entire saying Is simply we never would have been fighting them in NYC or DC. A terrorist attack on the US still could occur reguardless of the situation in Iraq. I almost wouldn't doubt if the war wouldn't make it more likely to happen. The argument of, 'we haven't had an attack since 9/11' also doesn't wash with me as it makes it sound like we get hit every month from terrorists in the US. They are not that stupid, they will wait until our guard is down at home. Possibly giving the false impression that we trully are fighting them in Iraq and not at home will give them just the opening that they need to strike.
Here's why they would not be decimated: 1. A nuclear explosion levels Manhattan. 2. No one claims responsibility. 3. We decimate who? Alternatively: 1. A nuclear explosion levels Manhattan. 2. A non-geographic NGO such as Al Qaeda claims responsibility. 3. We decimate who? Psychoanalysis. Kim Jong Il shows up as "not likely to use nukes unless we attack." The majority of the Iranian leadership shows up as "very likely to use nukes, either directly or in nuclear blackmail." How is it a stretch? Yes, the U.S. will survive. Will that bring 11M New Yorkers back? Will that rebuild our trade and commerce? There are two kinds of hate to be dealt with here: 1. The passive and useless form of hate for America that is currently fashionable in Paris and Hollywood. I really don't give a damn what these people think. 2. The active and agressive form of hate for America that leads people to actually do something. By killing people in the second category, we gain more people in the first category. I'm fine with that. Let the whiny people whine. The moment they pick up a gun or a bomb, they become acceptable targets. That's logistics for 'ya. That's something that professional military strategists do. That's why we waited to invade Iraq until Afghanistan was cooled down enough for us to lower troop levels. That's why we're waiting to attack Iran until Iraq cools down a bit. It's like deciding how to spend your own paycheck. How much will you budget for food, how much for education, how much for safety? It's all about tradeoffs. If you buy a handgun and a lot of doorlocks, and you starve to death -- you probably made some poor decisions. If you spent all of your money on food and didn't buy a handgun or door locks, and bad people come in and steal your food and kill you -- you probably made some poor decisions. Right now, Iran would be a very difficult and expensive target. However, we do appear to be able to spread that cost over time by fighting the militant Iranians in Iraq. Another benefit of that dynamic is that Iran will end up with fewer militants. In the long run, this will serve to moderate Iranian politics. We might just be able to avoid a full-scale war with Iran -- by fighting the Iranian militants in Iraq before the war with Iran begins. Wouldn't that be nice?
please, there is only tiny fraction of the insurgents that would even desire to come here to fight us, out that tiny fraction, an even smaller fraction could ever make thru homeland security, There is no logical way to say that we are actually killing any of that tiny elite faction in iraq the whole we fight them there so we don't fight them here make no sense, it like little kid logic we kill a bunch of clowns over there, armed with small arms, that never in million years would every make it over here But yet we create the motivation, and on the job training for the ones who might actully make it over here All in all the war has made us less safe
We have fought them in NYC and DC. Two World Trade Center bombings... someone flying an airplane into the Pentagon... stuff of that nature. Yes, it could -- but it isn't. It isn't because the enemy is really damned busy getting their butts kicked right now. They have a much more intensely exciting war going on right now on the home front. And, of course, going back to military thinking, they really don't have the logistics support here that they do in the Middle East. It's easier for them to fight there. They win, we win. They get to fight a war in a location convenient close, we get to fight a war luxuriously far away. The most important point however, is that when this is over - they will be dead. Dead Islamic militants are not likely to attack NYC, D.C., or anywhere else. That is the real advantage to fighting them now in Iraq -- they end up dead. Umm... let's think that one through. On a scale of 1 to 100, where would you rate American domestic security? Above 5? I don't think so... We could not realistically "lower our guard" much more than it currently is. America is one big fat target without any real defense. Who said The best defense is a good offense?
Will can you tell us the city you live in so we can have that city bombed instead of NYC? You are one of the biggest idiots in America Will, there are fools like you that advise Bush and that is why America is the laughing stock of the world. Do you really think Russia is going to sit back and let the USA bomb Iran? You are really a fool to think that Will, because if we were to Nuke them you can be sure that the Russians and China will send a shitload of them to America with your fucking name on them asshole! Jackass, crazy bastards like you will be the reason that WWIII will destroy the earth, you are a fool man!
Have you analyzed Russian military capability lately? Russian conventional forces are in such a horrible condition that their only option would be nuclear -- which Russia is clearly not going to use to defend Iran. Please, think before you post.
We were attacked, I fail to see how that was fighting them. We could still be attacked by terrorists even with fighting insurgents and terrorists in Iraq, this does not stop them from hitting us Yes but do you not see that we are only fighting a portion of them? It's not like we are attacking every single terrorist that is in the world at this time in Iraq. The war also brought them into Iraq. I see this argument also bomb on many other merits including if you agree with it then it's ok to turn a country into a waste land in order to wage a war against terrorists who were not in any large numbers in the country in the first place. Kind of like having your dog shit on your neighbors yard so you don't have to worry about stepping in it in the morning. Not to mention the argument has also gone to we are there to free the Iraqi people, not WMD's as a main reason but it's ok for us to put them through our fight against the terrorists? Logistics here? Once a terrorist cell is dispatched, and who knows one might already be here it's not like they require the same logistics that our military forces do. Do you honestly also believe the cells that would more than likely be attacking the US are in Iraq at this moment? More than likely they are in some different country, who knows possibly near by getting ready if anything. Send the grunts to fight the US, while keeping the operatives nice and safe elsewhere, sounds reasonable and probable to me. Hell even with giving it a 200 rating on the scale it still can happen. The best defense is a good offense if you attack the correct country, I personally don't feel we have. Attack the incorrect country, take the war to somewhere it realy was not at the first place and I don't see why it's not rational at all to see a possible decrease in the whole defense/offense theory. Through reading of your posts I do believe we feel the same way on many fronts, the main difference is you've been convinced of the link to terror in Iraq of which I have not. My objection yet again is not to defend Saddam at all, my objection is how Bush misled this nation into the war with many misleading and untrue statements. I realise you don't believe them to be misleading or untrue, this is an area we may never agree on.
Yes I will admit this is a possibility be it far fetched. Pretty much the same argument used in the build up to Iraq I might add. Not to mention first Iran needs to get a nuke, then they have to engineer a small enough one to carry, then Iran needs to be stupid enough to give it directly to a terrorist organization knowing full well if those people use it against us they would be more than likely the first blamed, then the terrorist needs to get it inside of the US. A nuclear blast on the US is extremely far fetched from the current facts especially originating from Iran, I also suspect if we ever were actually hit with one we would not care where it came from and at that time simply destroy any enemies of ours with nuclear weapons that we felt it could have come from. Maybe not, but look at the responce to 9/11, imagine a nuke, don't think the president would face many problems with taking anyone out he/she wanted to. That might be, Iran however does not currently have nukes under any report or story I have ever read. Nope wont bring them back, and will continued wars without proof hurt our commerce especially worldwide? I suspect it will. Maybe within the US that holds true, in a place with Iraq killing both #1 and #2 creates more #2, same holds true in other countries of which many are coming into Iraq. Logistics doesn't equate to having the funds to pay for it, we're going into debt at the moment with Iraq the way it is. Your point at the end however Yes that would be great, but I still see it under the point of having your dog shit on your neighbors lawn
no will believes the government lied and mislead the public, but he thinks the ends justify the means
Ask Iran why they need uran if there power resources are satisfied. They are making nukes without a single doubt. Electricity - production: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 129 billion kWh (2002) Electricity - consumption: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 119.9 billion kWh (2002)
Iran's a different case than Iraq. It's a democratically elected govt. Even if US manages to topple the govt, it will never find any support from the Iranians. To attack Iran would be the silliest thing that US could do. Instead of solving the problem of terrorism , the attack would inspire more terrorists. The moderate Islamic countries may turn against US. I dont think US will ever attack Iran. At best it may try out little arm twisting with economic and other sanctions.
That may help you make up your mind that they are making nukes, but for a reason for war give me a break. Many in the US want to build more oil refineries to help ease oil prices, enviromentalists however do not want them built for fear of what it could do to the environment. So using your logic since it's only to help for the cost of gas right now the people in the US who wish to make more refineries simply wish to destroy the environment. Your own info above also shows them getting very close to topping off, so they should wait until they have gone over this limit, have power outages then decide to build 'something' for more power that's going to take years to build? You might be right, but it is in no way proof of nukes, or a reason to invade. I have a feeling from your posts you have some sort of other reason for wishing the US to invade and are trying to grasp at anything you can to get others on your side.
They may not be up to US standards, but are you actually saying they are fake to the point that the votes are not counted, the people put in place by the powers that be are there and will not be removed unless the powers that be state they will? -edit I am not disagreeing with you before you accuse me of it, just wanting your overall take on the situation.