RaisedFromTheDead wrote:We will go at it with Iran in some fashion this year.

In what way I wonder?  There is no way Russia, Europe, and China will go for any military action against Iran without a major catalyst to sway their stance.  Russia and China both have major interests in Iran and vice versa.  I dont think we will be doing anything to Iran militarily unless they do the unthinkable and attack Israel or another regional state with a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.  We cant afford to distance ourselves politically and economically any further from the European Union, Russia, and China.  And we certainly cannot afford to "deal with" Iran alone unless we use nuclear weapons to do so.

Come to think of it....I wouldnt put it past our government to allow Iran to build and use a nuclear weapon on an ally just so they can justify the destruction of an entire nation.

Uh oh...the conspiracy theorist I had sequestered away in my subconcious is trying to escape.

jasonw1239

Iran has twice the population of Iraq and is far more mountainous.

It would not be a war like the occupation of Iraq with a fairly straightforward drive to the capital city.

Unless the definition of occupation has changed lately, the U.S. has not occupied Iraq. They had elections for pete's sake.

With nuclear weapons being available in the world for over sixty years now, the only country that has dared to use them against an enemy is still the US. This has placed the US in a position of massive leverage. Why wouldn't any other country want to be in the same position?

Spare me the "the U.S. used nukes" speech. Also, the U.S. does not use its nukes to leverage piece of crap nations like Iran.  All of this talk is pointless anyway.
The U.S. is not going into Iran. End of story. Ok, at least not unless Iran acts out militarily first. Iran is going to simply wait things out. President O is going pull the boys out of Iraq and our projection of strength in the Middle East will be severly limited. Iran can then destabilize Iraq and swoop in. It will be the classic case of the U.S. setting itself up for failure. The job in Iraq is not done...and we are leaving...

enough distractions, back to mailing  

bbarsh wrote:Spare me the "the U.S. used nukes" speech. Also, the U.S. does not use its nukes to leverage piece of crap nations like Iran.  All of this talk is pointless anyway.
The U.S. is not going into Iran. End of story. Ok, at least not unless Iran acts out militarily first. Iran is going to simply wait things out. President O is going pull the boys out of Iraq and our projection of strength in the Middle East will be severly limited. Iran can then destabilize Iraq and swoop in. It will be the classic case of the U.S. setting itself up for failure. The job in Iraq is not done...and we are leaving...

I've had this discussion before to no good conclusion...

And this is regardless of wether or not you supported the troops going to Iraq. It's already done...

The question I pose is:

The problem with Iraq is its division of religious sects (Sunni vs. Shiite muslims), and how they are trying to control/influence Iraq. The majority (the Shiite muslims) were being suppressed (it's a poor choice of words at the moment) by the minority (the Sunni muslims).

The Shiite's were backed by Iran, and the Sunni's by Saudi Arabia, hence Iraq became kind of a middle ground between the two, and not in a good way.

Now throw in years of being "liberated" by various foreign powers over the last 200 years (Turkey, U.K. and the U.S.). And you have a people basically disenfranchised by just about everyone. And they're sitting on a huge pile of oil.

So what's the best way to give them independence, without making it seem like we're putting in a puppet/governor (like the Shah of Iran, per se)?

If my facts aren't correct, please do so.

Kingofpain89 wrote:
Even if we find out that Osama bin Laden is hiding in Tehran?  Wonder how that would pan out?

You gotta feel for the Iranian people. They are obviously not happy with the situation or the latest rigged election, and when they speak up their leaders are executed.  Their media is censored, and their internet ability is restricted, and their freedoms are taken away daily. Talk to an Iranian student here in the US and see how much they want to stay here instead of go back home   They know it sucks there. Unfortunately as long as the religious icons there hold power the elections will be rigged and the leader of Iran will be whoever the imans want.

Mike B.

RaisedFromTheDead wrote:Occupying a nation, historically, has never been successful.

Japan?

Germany?

FormCritic wrote:
Japan?

Germany?

Excellent post.

And take it a bit further. US/UK occupy "west" germany, Socialists occupy "east" ...which was better off? And I must have missed all those west germans trying to sneak into the east.

bbarsh wrote:Excellent post.

And take it a bit further. US/UK occupy "west" germany, Socialists occupy "east" ...which was better off? And I must have missed all those west germans trying to sneak into the east.

The South Korea/North Korea division mirrors that effect as well.

However, countries that the U.S. could conceivably invade, occupy, or otherwise heavily influence today are different from the above examples.  

• Some nations like Afghanistan do not take well to invaders.  Iran has never been conquered by a foreign power; overt foreign involvement would create a verrry interesting problem.
• Made-up nations like Pakistan (Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Balochistan) and Iraq are not stable except under a military rule, if that is an acceptable definition of "stable".  Yugoslavia and Iraq were stable until their dictatorships were overthrown.
• Africa has many corrupt countries, though Africans take offense at being reduced to the worst stereotypical examples as seen on TV.

Military or political involvement in any of these countries is a very different game from the black-and-white of World War II and Korea.  Nation-re-building versus nation-creation . . .

sauromatian wrote:???  ...up is down..black is white.. Saddam had WMDs & was responsible for 9/11...

No, Saddam violated every sanction placed on Iraq after the first gulf war. Most of them several times over. Everytime the UN placed a restriction on him, he basically told them to go fuck themselves. I am sorry, but he agreed to them when we kicked his ass the first time.
And not to be missed is the simple fact that he is, or was, evil. Rape rooms, torture chambers, murder, starvation gased his own people, etc...Evil is evil. I went the first time (U.S. Army) and I would go again. Stop defending that evil regime with strawman arguments of WMD and 9/11. No one ever said Iraq was responsible for 9/11 as justification for the invasion and subsequent liberation. Yes, they fubared the WMD deal. Shit happens. But to suggest we did not have ample cause to remove that regime is nonsense.

bclarkie wrote:Ummm, politics.



So when are we planning to go into Africa?

Come on, Brian. We liberated Kuwait from a murderous, raping, army out of Iraq and then placed sanctions on them. The consistently violated every single sanction placed on them. How is that related to anything in Africa?

Any you can live in a world where you deny any relationship between evil middle east countries and OBL. I do not. That said, Iraq clearly had no direct connection to 9/11. But I do believe that their interior "security" forces assisted OBL to some degree - and probably completely unrelated to 9/11. But Saddam was surely smart enought to see the potential threat of one OBL, and he certainly figured that he could throw him a bone to keep in on  his "side."
I don't think Iraq was in bed with OBL, not like the Saudis, but I am sure they had conversations.

Again, in my mind I really don't care about the relationship between the two. Saddam = evil. We were in the neighborhood already. Saddam = dead.