" Inside 911 " premiers tonight

[boutons]

We're ed if we stay ("the course") and we are certainly ed if we leave soon.

If 130K US forces, well commanded and better equipped, can't control all of Iraq (the north and south are controlled by militias, the west is out of conrol) and its borders after 2+ years, then the much less equipped, much less professional, weakly commanded, and much weaker-now-and-forever Iraqi army/police won't be able to control Iraq.

The charade over the Iraqi cons ution is risible. More US BS, as if a piece of paper was gonna stop the jihad, and US could declare victory. That piece of paper won't be honored, can't be enforced, won't mean to the jihadis who will keep pouring in, more sophisticated, better organized, bigger bombs, more inflamed, and more motivated than the US. Jihadis everywhere will see the fall of Iraq as a huge defeat of the US, just like Viet Nam, and will be encouraged to take the jihad elsewhere, eg, into Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan.

Much more probable than Iraq metamorphosing into a beacon of democracy and freedom is Iraq descending into a of an yet another Islamic Republic, another brick in International Muslim Caliphate, riddled with terrorist training camps and financed by Irani and Saudi/Wahabbi oil money and dominated by Irani theocrats, de-stabilizing the region for decades, making the world, and therefore the USA, less safe than without the ing bogus Iraqi war.

shrub ed it up, shrub can un- it, but of course shrub can't and won't un- anything by Jan 2008 when shrub retires to the rubber-chicken speech/money-raising circuit to be sucked off by red-staters and other true believers, as the M/E goes up in flames.

The Repugs have opened the gates of with this bogus war and its's clear they don't have a ing clue how to deal with it.

[whottt]

murderous power hungry and oppressive, this sounds familiar.


oh wait, we haven't killed a single innocent in iraq

Yet again a moral equalizer lacks the brain power to differentiate between deliberate targeting of civillians to influence political change, and civillian casualties caused by civillians deliberately being put in danger by guerillas and undeliberate military action.

It's not that we are no different...it's that you lack the ability to differentiate...

oh wait, the guys calling the shots in this country are not power hungry

Most world leaders are...however, not all of them force you to pray to Allah...

Again...you exhibit a re ed ability to differentiate.

I can't help you...all I can do is say that I am sorry you are too stupid to see the differences.

[cecil collins]

Dude, they had several different churches over there. You wouldn't mind if they were all forced to be christians. Also, you call them guerillas, but what the would you do if they smashed into this country trying to dominate you. It's like you are part of Bush's cabinet. Your view is generally the view they try to give to the public, only angrier, and mixed up. I guess we are all stupid for not believing everything we are told.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The Repugs have opened the gates of with this bogus war and its's clear they don't have a ing clue how to deal with it.

Dude, Osama opened the gates of 9/11. This war will outlast the lifetimes of everyone reading this board today.

Militant Islam isn't going anywhere. Call me when you read a history book or two. I am so tired of this myopic Bush hate. Osama has played the first card in the final battle.

It's either going to end up with the whole world bowing to Mecca five times a day, or the civilized nations of the world wiping radical Islam off the face of the earth.

Personally, I'll root for the West thanks. Damn, people rag on Republicans for the way they went after Clinton with the Lewinskigate thing, but that doesn't hold a candle to the amount of venom I see towards W.

[boutons]

"Osama opened the gates of 9/11."

Then, duh, go after Osama.

I know, I know, it was too hard to find him, and wasn't a "slam dunk" completed by election day Nov 03, so the Rove/Repugs said "Iraq and Saddam are toothless and castrated, have been since the Gulf War. So let's tell lies about Saddam co-operating with jihadis, blame 9/11 on Saddam, trump up charges about WMD, and hurry up and go knock off Saddam in spring of 03 so shrub can run as the victorious war president and defender of USA during the election. THAT's why the Iraq war was unavoidably immediate in early 03. AND!! if the war was to drag on through Nov 03, the naive, simplistic, trusting USA red-staters won't change battle horses in the middle of the war, so shrub gets elected anyway (but by the tiniest margin). Starting the Repug's Iraq war was win-win for the Repugs, and that was their calculation.

Osama and jihadis weren't in Iraq until shrub invaded. Now Iraq is crawling with jihadis, terrorists, and Iraq is a huge recruiting poster for Islamic terrorism, and the US military is exposed as a huge sitting duck in the backyard of the jihadis.

"Dude", getting a blow-job (like any other man inside the beltway) and getting crucified /impeached for it (how many US military were killed by that blow job?) have NO COMPARISON with starting a bogus war that kills and maims 1000's of US military. Support our troops? GMAFB

Monica got on her dress.
shrub/ head/rummy/rice/rove/wolfy/powell have US military blood on their hands
(and have replaced Saddam as the prmary cause of death for 10' of 1000's of innocent Iraqis.)
And you red-state super-patriots think they are equivalent acts.

If only the Repugs had pursued evidence of Iraq-as-terror-state with the same rabid viciousness with which they pursued the Clintons, the Repugs, we see now, and as many of us suspected before the the war, would have come up as empty-handed as they did against the Clintons.

[Hook Dem]

"Osama opened the gates of 9/11."

Then, duh, go after Osama.

I know, I know, it was too hard to find him, and wasn't a "slam dunk" completed by election day Nov 03, so the Rove/Repugs said "Iraq and Saddam are toothless and castrated, have been since the Gulf War. So let's tell lies about Saddam co-operating with jihadis, blame 9/11 on Saddam, trump up charges about WMD, and hurry up and go knock off Saddam in spring of 03 so shrub can run as the victorious war president and defender of USA during the election. THAT's why the Iraq war was unavoidably immediate in early 03. AND!! if the war was to drag on through Nov 03, the naive, simplistic, trusting USA red-staters won't change battle horses in the middle of the war, so shrub gets elected anyway (but by the tiniest margin). Starting the Repug's Iraq war was win-win for the Repugs, and that was their calculation.

Osama and jihadis weren't in Iraq until shrub invaded. Now Iraq is crawling with jihadis, terrorists, and Iraq is a huge recruiting poster for Islamic terrorism, and the US military is exposed as a huge sitting duck in the backyard of the jihadis.

"Dude", getting a blow-job (like any other man inside the beltway) and getting crucified /impeached for it (how many US military were killed by that blow job?) have NO COMPARISON with starting a bogus war that kills and maims 1000's of US military. Support our troops? GMAFB

Monica got on her dress.
shrub/ head/rummy/rice/rove/wolfy/powell have US military blood on their hands
(and have replaced Saddam as the prmary cause of death for 10' of 1000's of innocent Iraqis.)
And you red-state super-patriots think they are equivalent acts.

If only the Repugs had pursued evidence of Iraq-as-terror-state with the same rabid viciousness with which they pursued the Clintons, the Repugs, we see now, and as many of us suspected before the the war, would have come up as empty-handed as they did against the Clintons.

You are one bitter individual aren't you?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

buotons, you just don't get it.

We are in an age of pre-emption post-9/11. We're not going to sit around waiting for another 9/11, we're going to seek out those who harbor similar ideas and deal with them accordindly.

And again, I've said this many times... would you rather have the jihadis sneaking into this country taking shots at you and me while we're on our way to work or in a business meeting, or would you rather have them flocking to Iraq and getting their express ticket to the 72 virgins courtesy of the US Army, Navy, AF, and Marines?

I'll take the latter thank you.

Lots of venom being spewed, what got your panties in a bunch?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

buotons, you just don't get it.

We are in an age of pre-emption post-9/11. We're not going to sit around waiting for another 9/11, we're going to seek out those who harbor similar ideas and deal with them accordindly.

And again, I've said this many times... would you rather have the jihadis sneaking into this country taking shots at you and me while we're on our way to work or in a business meeting, or would you rather have them flocking to Iraq and getting their express ticket to the 72 virgins courtesy of the US Army, Navy, AF, and Marines?

I'll take the latter thank you.

Lots of venom being spewed, what got your panties in a bunch?

Then why in the haven't we gone after Saudi Arabia? Huh?

[FromWayDowntown]

Then why in the haven't we gone after Saudi Arabia? Huh?

Or Iran?

And, assuming the program is correct, I wonder again, why we try to link Osama with Saddam when Osama's bitterness toward the West arises, at least in part, from the Saudi royal family's unwillingness to let his Mujahedeen repel Saddam's invading forces in 1990. Are we to believe that somehow, the Osama who was willing to fight Saddam to the death to protect Mecca in 1990 was, by 2001, a fast friend with his former enemy? I find that hard to believe, and the dearth of evidence to support the theory is shocking.

Afghanistan and Iraq are totally different wars, fought for totally different purposes under totally different cir stances. I don't think there are many on the left who would dispute the justifications for going to war in Afghanistan. I do think there are many on the left who fundamentally dispute the "justifications" for going to war in Iraq -- largely because those "justifications" have largely been debunked while the Administration plays a s game of ends-justify-the-means with secondary rationales.

[MannyIsGod]

I love how whottt loves to claim that we are so different from the terrorists when we have engaged in acts of war that delibertly target civilians in the past. The only reason we do not do that now, is because of technology not because of some vast social enlightenment.

In the thread were people are talking about why the world dislikes America, they go to lengths to point out that America's faults are not unique to America. Well, that is a two way street my friends.

As is always the case when I make a post like this, I want to point out that this is not support for terrorist actions. I just hate to see bull fly.

For once, take an objective look at the world. For ONCE.

[MannyIsGod]

In an objective view the terrorists are murderous power hungry and opressive thugs...


What's holding up the Iraqi cons ution...I know it's not the muslims arguing over Oil money...Couldn't be.

Thats because you're talking about imposed borders by the United ing States of America!!! If you wanted to let the 3 groups form their own countries, then you wouldn't have this squabble going on. But the US is still trying to ram those 3 groups into one ing country regardless of how stupidly it has worked out in the past. We're still trying to ram a square ing peg in a round hole.

[SWC Bonfire]

Thats because you're talking about imposed borders by the United ing States of America!!! If you wanted to let the 3 groups form their own countries, then you wouldn't have this squabble going on. But the US is still trying to ram those 3 groups into one ing country regardless of how stupidly it has worked out in the past. We're still trying to ram a square ing peg in a round hole.

Iraq isn't being broken into 3 countries because Turkey and the northern middle east would be scared less of what a Khurdish state would mean.

[MannyIsGod]

Iraq isn't being broken into 3 countries because Turkey and the northern middle east would be scared less of what a Khurdish state would mean.

Yes, and they are facilitating their influence through the US to then influence Iraqs supposedly sovreign cons ution.

There is also the case of the Iranian ties to a Shiite state that scares the western world as well.

Look, I couldn't care less at this point. I want that cluster settled one way or another, and our troops home where they belong. But I'm tired of people here putting things out of ing context for the purpose of their arguements.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The problem is Britain and France ed it up when they set up all the borders back after WWI.

Yet again, it's France's fault

I don't think letting them form three seperate countries would solve anything.

Next thing you'd know, Turkey would crush the Kurds from the north, Syria would absorb the Sunni west, and Iran would make the grab for the Shi'ite south/east.

THEN you'd see Syria and Iran sparring over borders, another mess.

BTW, those clamoring for the US to go after Saudi Arabia should read George Freidman's book America's Secret War (George is the director of Stratfor, and if you don't know what that is you probably shouldn't be involved in this thread).

He argues that Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, and Co. realized after 9/11 that SA was no longer our allie, and that part of the Iraq campaign is to intimidate SA into working with us on squashing AQ for good, and if not then it is a staging ground for the US of A heading south and knocking heads in the Arabian peninsula.

I disagree in part with all that though. If you guys think we've got a storm in Iraq the day that we roll into Saudi Arabia we might as well go ahead and declare war on all of Islam because that's how it would be viewed over there.

[MannyIsGod]

Turkey woudln't do without our approval. Turkey would have more internatl problems with their Kurds, but quite frankly I could give a rats ass about that. Turkey hasn't dealt their Kurds a fair hand most of the time and if they suffer because of that, so be it.

Syria intimidate someone? HA! They can't even with Lebannon now.

I think Iran would have some serious influence over the Shiites, however. But if the Shiites love us as much as we think now, then we would have the same.

Either way, the moment you with self determination, its no longer self determination.

But like I said, I understand the reasoning, and I don't really agree with it, but at least keep the arguments in context.

[whottt]

Then why in the haven't we gone after Saudi Arabia? Huh?

Or Iran?

Chalk up two more libs that are too stupid to differentiate...

Iraq= In violation of umpteen cease fire agreements over the past decade....and therefore tecnically at war with the other parties to the cease fire agreement.


Iran and Saudi= Not in violation of cease fire agreements.





Again...I think my point is proved...liberals lack the mental capacity to see the differences. Whether they have law degrees or not.


Again...it's not that there are no differences...it's that ya'll are too stupid to see them.

Cannot tell right from wrong.


But let's just re our ability analyze, and lose the capacity to tell right from wrong...in short...let's all dumb ourselves down and be liberals for a second, and pretend that there were no differences between Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia...


Let's do what liberals do and pretend that they are all the just the same bunch of camel jockies(that cannot be a racist statement because I am pretending to be a liberal and everyone knows liberals are never racists, no matter how racist they are)....


We didn't invade Japan at the start WWII either....

Militarily it makes the most sense to go after Iraq....


Iraq was in a weakened condition and therefore they were the easiest to take out...




Iran has a relatively strong military...

And invading Saudi Arabia...in addition to causing a world wide economic collapse...would have definitely been considered an act of war against all Muslims...


So let's see what we have learned about liberals in this discussion.

1.They, universally, are incapable of seeing right and wrong.
There is a fine line that separates causes sometimes...and liberals can definitely not see it.


2.They are ignorant when it comes to military tactics.

[FromWayDowntown]

Chalk up two more libs that are too stupid to differentiate...

Or one more poster who is too lazy to read the discussion. Had you bothered to read what has been posted, you would have seen that the questions about Saudi Arabia and Iran are referrable to AHF's post, which made no mention of any concerns about violations of UN resolutions (not cease fire agreements, by the way) and spoke about the need to strike preemptively against Iraq:

We are in an age of pre-emption post-9/11. We're not going to sit around waiting for another 9/11, we're going to seek out those who harbor similar ideas and deal with them accordindly.

AHF's sentiment is the most sincere justification for the Iraq war that I've heard. I don't support the idea, because IMO it is reminiscent of the Domino Theory of Cold War fame, which had questionable effect. But, rather than trumping up some sort of evidentiary support or meaninglessly distinguishing Iraq's violations of UN resolutions from other violations, the preemption argument is at least rooted in reality and aimed at actually trying to fashion a a cure to the problem. Again, I disagree with it, but I understand the rationale.

I think the biggest problem with the preemption strategy is the lack of consistency it breeds. That, whottt is why, in probing AHF's argument, Johnny Marzetti and I suggested other nations that fit the definition that AHF put on the table.

Again...I think my point is proved...liberals lack the mental capacity to see the differences. Whether they have law degrees or not.

That, or "liberals" choose to stay on the topic at hand, bothering to read what has been posted, rather than trying to find some non sequitur to throw bombs at the other side of the debate. I don't know though. I can't speak for all "liberals."

[whottt]

Also posted by Whottt and ignored by the you know whos:

Let's do what liberals do and pretend that they are all the just the same bunch of camel jockies(that cannot be a racist statement because I am pretending to be a liberal and everyone knows liberals are never racists, no matter how racist they are)....


We didn't invade Japan at the start WWII either....

Militarily it makes the most sense to go after Iraq....


Iraq was in a weakened condition and therefore they were the easiest to take out...

Hey...and if all we wanted was Oil...we would have gone after Saudi Arabia first. Saddam was giving out better deals in the OFF program than the Saudis are giving...

[MannyIsGod]

Who said anything about wanting oil? I swear, you guys can go all over the place sometimes.

[FromWayDowntown]

Let's do what liberals do and pretend that they are all the just the same bunch of camel jockies(that cannot be a racist statement because I am pretending to be a liberal and everyone knows liberals are never racists, no matter how racist they are)....

We didn't invade Japan at the start WWII either....

Flash: we didn't invade any nations at the start of WWII. In fact, we were basically the last ones in, IIRC. I don't see what the isolationist policies of the Roosevelt Administration have to do with the "selectively preemptive" policies of the Bush Administration. They are polar opposites in political and military terms.

Militarily it makes the most sense to go after Iraq....

Iraq was in a weakened condition and therefore they were the easiest to take out...

Iran has a relatively strong military...

And invading Saudi Arabia...in addition to causing a world wide economic collapse...would have definitely been considered an act of war against all Muslims...

Right. So what you're really talking about, then, from a preemption standpoint, is not a full-blown commitment to preemptively striking against nations we perceive to be potential supporters of terrorists, but an ad-hoc, willy-nilly, "we'll attack when its easiest on us" concept. If that's true, you've answered the questions that Johnny and I posed. Thanks.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Whottt you are just as STUPID as anyone else on this board.
You are too freackin' ignorant and stupid to see right before your own eyes. Dubya has pulled the wool over your eyes and all the way down to your stupid face, err...ass!

You are one of the best spin doctors on this board.

No matter evidence is thrown at you, you still think Dubya walks on water but you'd better open your eyes because he is sinking faster than you can post you BS posts.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

AHF's sentiment is the most sincere justification for the Iraq war that I've heard.

Welcome to the Bush Doctrine

But, rather than trumping up some sort of evidentiary support or meaninglessly distinguishing Iraq's violations of UN resolutions from other violations, the preemption argument is at least rooted in reality and aimed at actually trying to fashion a a cure to the problem.

The UN violations thing is (IMO) the one mis-step this administration has made since 9/11. I think history will show the administration felt it couldn't just come out and say "we're going to go into Iraq because they are a threat, and we aren't going to sit around waiting for Saddam to do something stupid (when the guy already said he would)."

That they were still operating in essence under the post-Cold War doctrine of coalition building, and trying to get the UN to come along. It's my big beef with Bush's national security team.

Afghanistan made it perfectly clear to me that the usual suspects wouldn't step up to help (France, Germany, etc.), so why ask them to again for Iraq? 9/11 war was declared on America, and Bush should have just come out and said if we deem you a threat, we will deal with you, and if you want to help us, fine. If not just stay the out of the way and shut up.

Of course, that's not the best way to deal in world politics, but Afghanistan and Iraq (moreso) have proven to be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type thing for the U.S. No matter what we do, people in other countries worldwide are going to criticize us anyway, so why not just say the with them and do what we need to do to ensure our safety?

But I also see where the Bush camp was coming from on this - they wanted world support for one thing. For another, if we just came out and said we're taking down any threats and then started going after these Mideast regimes, it would have given Osama even more legitimacy and more momentum.

So we went the UN route, hoping that our old friends would at least step up to the plate with us in rhetoric, but got burned, in large part due to the Oil-For-Food scam that was putting millions in the pockets of the French, Germans, and Russians.

To answer the questions on Iran and Saudi Arabia...

Again, the strategy WRT SA is to make them comply by them being incredibly uncomfortable with us in their backyard. Plus, we negotiate a favorable oil deal with the new Iraq, and suddenly we're less dependant on the House of Saud (something that scares the out of them).

You go into SA, you get the Iraqi insurgency x100, and like I said - may as well just declare war on all of Islam. The Arabian peninsula is the birth place of Islam, and that would be a storm the likes of which we have never seen.

As for Iran, the reason we don't go there is simple (well there's a couple).

Revolution is already in its infancy internally in Iran - there is a movement with momentum that wants to see that country normalize relations with the West. You let that movement take down Tehran from the inside out.

The moment you go into Iran, you galvanize all of Iran against the West, including those who now want to do away with their current regime.

To put it another way: right now Iran is a country divided, invading would unite the out of it and be akin to swatting the hornet's nest and then sticking around to have a really bad day.

The other reason we don't go into Iran is Israel. Long before Iran becomes a WMD threat, the Israelis will out and out destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Israel's got the best spies in the world, and you can bet your ass they know where every single nuclear weapon related facility is in Iran and how to make it go boom.

So before Iran really becomes a threat, Israel will do the Iraqi Reactor raid all over again, and that settles that problem.


-----------
To an extent I agree with Manny, federalism is not a problem with me (it's one of the solutions I thought had the best chance of working when we decided we were going into Iraq).

I can understand why the folks in DC don't want to go down that route though, particularly WRT Iran and the Shi'ites in the South. I imagine behind the scenes Turkey has also been doing a lot for us in the war on terror, and one of the few conditions they seem to be adamant about with us is no Kurdistan/Kurdish republic.

Yeah it sucks and its politics, but that's the way the game's played in the world today.

[FromWayDowntown]

Welcome to the Bush Doctrine

Understood. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do find it to be the most plausible justification for being in Iraq in the first place.

The UN violations thing is (IMO) the one mis-step this administration has made since 9/11. I think history will show the administration felt it couldn't just come out and say "we're going to go into Iraq because they are a threat, and we aren't going to sit around waiting for Saddam to do something stupid (when the guy already said he would)."

Perhaps, had the Administration done that, the effort in Iraq would have more domestic support. Bush Doctrine aside, the issue for the Administration is a lack of credibility about the reasons for the war in Iraq. I think, though, that it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. I mean had the Administration set forth preemption as the essential argument for invading Iraq (with no specific mentions of WMD) I wonder if it would have obtained Congressional support to begin hostilities. Instead of trying to win over Congress by putting out that argument and justifying the strategy, though, the Administration set forth on a campaign of relying on sketchy and inaccurate intelligence and cobbling together a justification for war that proved to have little basis in fact. It is the lack of evidence to support the original justifications that, I think, has many people upset and disfavoring the war.

That they were still operating in essence under the post-Cold War doctrine of coalition building, and trying to get the UN to come along. It's my big beef with Bush's national security team.

It worked for his father to great success in 1990-91. But, then again, his father's war wasn't a U.S. first strike and it was a wildly popular idea with most of the world, including a number of Arab states. It's very easy to build a coalition against an invader -- it's much harder to build a coalition to invade.

Afghanistan made it perfectly clear to me that the usual suspects wouldn't step up to help (France, Germany, etc.), so why ask them to again for Iraq? 9/11 war was declared on America, and Bush should have just come out and said if we deem you a threat, we will deal with you, and if you want to help us, fine. If not just stay the out of the way and shut up.

Again, I think this is where the credibility problem arises and explains much of the criticism for both the Administration and the Iraq war today.

Of course, that's not the best way to deal in world politics, but Afghanistan and Iraq (moreso) have proven to be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type thing for the U.S. No matter what we do, people in other countries worldwide are going to criticize us anyway, so why not just say the with them and do what we need to do to ensure our safety?

I think you're right to put the moreso with Iraq. My belief is that most of the world sees our campaign in Afghanistan to be a supportable war based on the rationale that people within the protection of the Taliban's government were solely responsible for the attacks on 9/11, just as the world largely supported Gulf War I, based on the fact that Saddam had unilaterally begun hostilities against a sovereign nation. The fact that the focus of the Afghan war will be the capture or killing of bin Laden, I think, is also a measure that the world can support, given the continuing specter of bin Laden's threat to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the Administration seems to be spending its public time and energy to retrospectively justifying the Iraq war, rather than focusing its effort on the far more important task of hunting bin Laden in Afghanistan. With the hullaballoo about Iraq, the Afghan War is almost a forgotten issue.

But I also see where the Bush camp was coming from on this - they wanted world support for one thing. For another, if we just came out and said we're taking down any threats and then started going after these Mideast regimes, it would have given Osama even more legitimacy and more momentum.

Which makes me wonder why we didn't just focus our efforts on Osama and, when that task was completed, leave a clear example of how we'll deal with those who attack us. If you complete that task successfully and other regimes still pose a threat, you don't have to worry about emboldening bin Laden by your actions and can, instead, fight a single front war aimed at the evil you seek to eradicate. That strikes me as a logical solution to the dilemma.

To answer the questions on Iran and Saudi Arabia...

Again, the strategy WRT SA is to make them comply by them being incredibly uncomfortable with us in their backyard. Plus, we negotiate a favorable oil deal with the new Iraq, and suddenly we're less dependant on the House of Saud (something that scares the out of them).

You go into SA, you get the Iraqi insurgency x100, and like I said - may as well just declare war on all of Islam. The Arabian peninsula is the birth place of Islam, and that would be a storm the likes of which we have never seen.

I understand that. I think any political-military strategy is part brute force and part intense wisdom. Just as the consequences of deposing Saddam in 1991 would have been immensely negative (thus, not justifying anything other than capitulation by Saddam in Gulf War I), the consequences of invading Saudi right now are incalculably bad.

But, to me, that speaks more to the selective implementation of the Bush Doctrine, and suggests that the Bush Doctrine doesn't truly have application beyond Iraq. Hence, the criticism. It's not much of a doctrine if it only applies to one place at one time for one purpose.

As for Iran, the reason we don't go there is simple (well there's a couple).

Revolution is already in its infancy internally in Iran - there is a movement with momentum that wants to see that country normalize relations with the West. You let that movement take down Tehran from the inside out.

The moment you go into Iran, you galvanize all of Iran against the West, including those who now want to do away with their current regime.

To put it another way: right now Iran is a country divided, invading would unite the out of it and be akin to swatting the hornet's nest and then sticking around to have a really bad day.

I agree with this as well. It's definitely worth seeing whether the revolution will take hold in Iran. But it makes me wonder whether the Bush Doctrine would be more tenable if it was a doctrine that supported revolutionary movements against hostile governments in the Middle East with arms and money. Of course, I guess you could argue that we've been there and done that with both the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan and our support of Saddam during the Iran/Iraq War. Nevertheless, it strikes me as a wise foreign policy choice to support internal revolutions like the revolution in Iran while devoting our forces entirely to the cause of capturing or killing the true cause of 9/11 and virtually every other terrorist attack we've faced since about 1996.

The other reason we don't go into Iran is Israel. Long before Iran becomes a WMD threat, the Israelis will out and out destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Israel's got the best spies in the world, and you can bet your ass they know where every single nuclear weapon related facility is in Iran and how to make it go boom.

So before Iran really becomes a threat, Israel will do the Iraqi Reactor raid all over again, and that settles that problem.

There is no doubt, in that regard at least, that Israel is a tremendous ally.

[whottt]

Yes, and they are facilitating their influence through the US to then influence Iraqs supposedly sovreign cons ution.

There is also the case of the Iranian ties to a Shiite state that scares the western world as well.

Look, I couldn't care less at this point. I want that cluster settled one way or another, and our troops home where they belong. But I'm tired of people here putting things out of ing context for the purpose of their arguements.

Geez...stop being scared of life...

You think Iran is the only mid-east country trying to influence the direction of the New Iraq?

You think that is the only country it has potential ties with?

The Saudis have a vested interest in it as well...and they don't like the Shias or Iran.

Every country over there...and most of the Western World is trying to influence things...

Iraq is not going to embrace Iran like everyone thinks...I don't care if Ayatollah Khomeni is the new President of Iraq....

They will have separate ageneda and it's not going to be to be Iran's .

They are not going to want to jump from years of sanctions and war right to pariah sanctioned status from getting into bed with Iran...


They are going to want El Deniro...and the US and the West is the place to get it...Iran can't even ing feed their own people...much less the Iraqis.

Iran has a lot of offer Iraq in terms of Oil refining arms etc....not to mention a peaceful powerful neighbor...It's only smart for the Iraqis to want good relations with them...

But for example...if you think Iraq is going to side with Iran if we should declare war on them...you are wrong. They won't have any part of that. And they are going to stay a respectful distance from Iran...

[MannyIsGod]

Stop being scared of life?

You're insights to anything deterioriate on a daily basis.