Iran , Why ?

[Yossarian]

In this argument it doesn't help to complain that when we shake Iran's hand their palms are greased in horse###t when our palms are greased with bull###t in the first place.

In Yemen's case it does not help for Youthi tribesmen have relatives who know loved ones killed by either Hellfires from U.S. drones targeting Al Qaeda, (Which is how they came to prominence By the way, pushing Al Qaeda out of most of their Territory on their one, no glorious inspiration from America on their part either). Pared with the fact it doesn't help their emotions toward the U.S. when MK 82s. and CBU's dropped on them to wipe them out by the Saudis say USAF MADE IN AMERICA on them.

Gee so much for the hearts and minds. These people may suffer from illiteracy and lack running water, but they aren't stupid.

Basic reason behind this Conflict. We don't like Iran's economic and socio stance in the middle East.


When America doesn't like something someone is doing here they must be eliminated, understand ? Eliminated.

That is what we do, that is what we done in a list of spots on the Earth, we can dress it up for all the justifications we want but it's the bare facts.

Honestly I don't get too caught up on the moral side of it because when our next debt bubble pops and we can't afford the cold war style arms races all around the globe some other world power will take our place.

Welcome to Empire, in the long run our slanted skin deep child like justifications won't matter.

 

[hamidreza]

The US is negotiating with Iran because there is not any other better way!The US is super power, economically and military, but your power is not infinity!

 

[lljadw]

That is certainly the Israeli side of the story however "who started what" is somewhat more complex than that after all Gaza fishermen were being attacked before Hamas fired a single rocket and Israeli troops were rounding up anyone in the West Bank that owned some green cloth under the justification of recovering 3 kidnapped squatters that they already knew were dead.



Bollocks.
You are arguing that it is acceptable to make up intelligence to start a war, I am not sure you will get too many backers on this one and even less if they are required to prove their sanity.

The attack on Iraq was not only justified,but it was also the duty of Bush to attack Iraq


1)USA were attacked by Arabs,Iraq was an Arab country


2)Iraq had used already chemical weapons

3)Iraq was an enemy of the US

4)Iraq refused UN inspections of its MDW factories

5) Conclusion of 1,2,3,4 : Iraq was a danger for the US

6) For an attack,conviction was enough,written proofs were not needed :Congress and public opinion were convinced that Iraq was a danger,thus Iraq would be invaded,unless Iraq could prove that it was no danger for the US .

 

[lljadw]

The US is negotiating with Iran because there is not any other better way!The US is super power, economically and military, but your power is not infinity!

No : That SOB of Obama is "negotiating" (=surrendering) with Iran for 2 reasons :

1) He wants to be remembered as the man who brought peace to the ME (and not as the worst president of the US) and therefore he is giving Iran carte blanche .That it will result in the destruction of Israel and a new Auschwitz? That's not important for Obama .


2)He wants to impose liberalism and democracy in the ME (things for which there is no place in the ME) and therefore he is eliminating the de facto allies of the US in Libya,Egypt,Syria . That this results in a Muslim invasion of Europe,that is not moving him . The only thing that's driving him is his ego .We have seen the results of Wilson,Roosevelt, Carter ,but Obama is surpassing them .

 

[hamidreza]

The main reason the US attacked Iraq was Israel and Zionist lobby.

 

[Queensman]

At one time the clerics in Iran, after the revolution, were opposed to nuclear power and weapons, i never thought I would say so, but perhaps it would be better if the old ayatollah were still running things.
This is a thought at the moment because I haven't done any research on Iran and nukes.

 

[MontyB]

The attack on Iraq was not only justified,but it was also the duty of Bush to attack Iraq


1)USA were attacked by Arabs,Iraq was an Arab country

So why didn't he attack Saudi Arabia or and other Arab country, I am still confused how after America was attacked by a predominantly a group of Saudis that arrived from Germany, Iraq became the logical target.

2)Iraq had used already chemical weapons

So had Iran

3)Iraq was an enemy of the US

According to the likes of Tetvet the entire "other" world is the enemy of the US [Other = the world that isn't America]

4)Iraq refused UN inspections of its MDW factories

No they didn't, the US just refused to accept what weapons inspectors were saying.

5) Conclusion of 1,2,3,4 : Iraq was a danger for the US

Yes it is just a pity that the danger was entirely manufactured.

6) For an attack,conviction was enough,written proofs were not needed :Congress and public opinion were convinced that Iraq was a danger,thus Iraq would be invaded,unless Iraq could prove that it was no danger for the US .

It did prove it was not a danger but when one of the nations involved had already committed itself to war it was never going to accepted, America 2002 was very similar to Germany 1938 it was going to war come hell or high water on any pretext it could manufacture.

 

[brinktk]

The attack on Iraq was not only justified,but it was also the duty of Bush to attack Iraq


1)USA were attacked by Arabs,Iraq was an Arab country


2)Iraq had used already chemical weapons

3)Iraq was an enemy of the US

4)Iraq refused UN inspections of its MDW factories

5) Conclusion of 1,2,3,4 : Iraq was a danger for the US

6) For an attack,conviction was enough,written proofs were not needed :Congress and public opinion were convinced that Iraq was a danger,thus Iraq would be invaded,unless Iraq could prove that it was no danger for the US .

You have got to be kidding me!

1. So if the US was attacked by Latins we would have carte blanche to attack any Latin country we have a beef with...SERIOUSLY?

2. And the US had already used nuclear weapons, what is your point?

3. We have had an enemy off our coast for fifty years yet we haven't invaded them AND they had nukes in their country at one point that COULD hit us...

4. Did it ever occur to you that unequivocally admitting that you no longer have a weapons capability that you once had when you're surrounded by enemies is a sure fire way to get the enemies on your borders to attack you? If the UN was so concerned about it then why didn't they sign off on the invasion of Iraq in the first place? And Iraq DID allow inspections for a majority of their factories. A huge proportion of their chemical weapons were disarmed all throughout the 90s. Perhaps the fact that most those chemical weapons, including the ones used in Halabja, were bought from the US in the first place was reason enough to sweep this seemingly insignificant fact under the rug...

5. This is about the weakest, most regurgitated, most debunked list of reasons of why we "should" have gone into Iraq on this site...

6. By your logic, facts don't matter, just feelings. Therefore, if the public can be manipulated by an effective propaganda effort to go to war, then by golly that country is justified in going to war. I'm sure all those people in Germany and all those soldiers on the Polish border were convinced the Poles really needed to be invaded because they were certainly a danger to Germany, of course it is Poland's fault because they couldn't prove they weren't a danger to Germany...<<<You see what I did there?...yeah, that's what your version sounded like when I read it.

 

[JOC]

4. Did it ever occur to you that unequivocally admitting that you no longer have a weapons capability that you once had when you're surrounded by enemies is a sure fire way to get the enemies on your borders to attack you? If the UN was so concerned about it then why didn't they sign off on the invasion of Iraq in the first place? And Iraq DID allow inspections for a majority of their factories. A huge proportion of their chemical weapons were disarmed all throughout the 90s. Perhaps the fact that most those chemical weapons, including the ones used in Halabja, were bought from the US in the first place was reason enough to sweep this seemingly insignificant fact under the rug...

6. By your logic, facts don't matter, just feelings. Therefore, if the public can be manipulated by an effective propaganda effort to go to war, then by golly that country is justified in going to war. I'm sure all those people in Germany and all those soldiers on the Polish border were convinced the Poles really needed to be invaded because they were certainly a danger to Germany, of course it is Poland's fault because they couldn't prove they weren't a danger to Germany...<<<You see what I did there?...yeah, that's what your version sounded like when I read it.

Some important differences: One not all Germans favored war in 1939 " being uncertain that the results would be so swift and one sided" they feared a repeat of WW1. However unlike in the US any protesters were put into concentration camps or executed.
The Germans did not invade Poland for the sake of defending another sovereign nation as we did in the case of Kuwait, but for purposes of eliminating nearby Jewish and Slavic influence and peoples, acquiring slave labor and obtaining future German living space. Germany basically didn't even try to hide their evil intentions for the nation of Poland who lost > 20% of it's population before the war ended (mostly civilians at the hands of the Nazi's. Note: BTW f I misinterpreted your Polish analogy, scratch it wasn't sure where you were going with that?
Whereas the US exaggerated Saddam's chemical treat it was the invasion of Kuwait that actually trigger the war.
As for the war mongering Americans. All I can say is what my brother passed on to me during his time in service during desert storm: this was that Iraqi troops gladly surrendered to the Americans by the countless thousands.

 

[Yossarian]

In terms of Iraq episode 1, it can be seen as a misunderstanding of intent on the part of American Diplomats to Iraq, and a underestimating Western Resolve to Reclaim Kuwait on Saddam's part.

America Armed Kuwait, and armed Iraq to the teeth during the Iran Iraq war, even went as far as destroying Iran's navy.

Saddam being the evil man he was, in his eyes those didn't spell friendship then I don't know what is.

So when he blurted out to then U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie that he wanted Kuwait she relayed it to Washington and Washington basically told Saddam (Oh no Don't do that!)

In state political terms we greased palms with the man, he up until then did what he wanted us to do.

Up until Kuwait, the mood was so what he MAY have slaughtered a few thousands of his own citizens... But he hates Iran!

Soon as Saddam crossed the into the against foreign interests zone with the West, it went downhill from him ever since.

The guns and money stopped coming and he was labeled for what he was, an evil leader of a murderous regime.

But make no doubt, the Kurdish struggle didn't matter until after 1991, hell even Hillary Clinton dismissed the true concern about their suffering from Saddam's chemical weapons in the 90's

My point? Morals then mattered jack all in the big picture and our concerns with Iran smell so much of that same pile of BS.

As the saying goes in Washington Gents. "Business as usual".

See that, then maybe make your conclusions on Iran, which mind you, I understand complelty is just as bad in just as many ways. But you'd be naive to think a few bunker busters here or there will change anything for the better.

 

[brinktk]

Some important differences: One not all Germans favored war in 1939 " being uncertain that the results would be so swift and one sided" they feared a repeat of WW1. However unlike in the US any protesters were put into concentration camps or executed.
The Germans did not invade Poland for the sake of defending another sovereign nation as we did in the case of Kuwait, but for purposes of eliminating nearby Jewish and Slavic influence and peoples, acquiring slave labor and obtaining future German living space. Germany basically didn't even try to hide their evil intentions for the nation of Poland who lost > 20% of it's population before the war ended (mostly civilians at the hands of the Nazi's. Note: BTW f I misinterpreted your Polish analogy, scratch it wasn't sure where you were going with that?
Whereas the US exaggerated Saddam's chemical treat it was the invasion of Kuwait that actually trigger the war.
As for the war mongering Americans. All I can say is what my brother passed on to me during his time in service during desert storm: this was that Iraqi troops gladly surrendered to the Americans by the countless thousands.

I wasn't talking about Iraq 1....I was, clearly I thought, talking about the 2003 invasion.

I was also being satirical with the Polish comment to point out the absurdity of lljadw's logic.

 

[tetvet]

Iran's Navy consisted of 2 tugboats one to tug the other .

 

[Yossarian]

Iran's Navy consisted of 2 tugboats one to tug the other .

Cite sources and historical evidence.

And how this fits into the greater topic of Iran's sovereignty and it's conflict with American Foreign policy.

 

[JOC]

In terms of Iraq episode 1, it can be seen as a misunderstanding of intent on the part of American Diplomats to Iraq, and a underestimating Western Resolve to Reclaim Kuwait on Saddam's part.

This is spot on, from my perspective

See that, then maybe make your conclusions on Iran, which mind you, I understand complelty is just as bad in just as many ways. But you'd be naive to think a few bunker busters here or there will change anything for the better.

The US Bunker busters are the only thing that could presently remove any Iranian Atomic concern, that is all. I believe if determined enough they may eventually get the bomb, I believe they are very patient.

This is one of those treads laced with ME controversy. So responses are often laced with opinions.

 

[JOC]

Iran's Navy consisted of 2 tugboats one to tug the other .

Tet I'm sure it's a bit bigger than that. But I'm still laughing. LOL

 

[tetvet]

Yes it was meant to be a joke , yossarian seems to be a bit slow on the uptake .

 

[lljadw]

I wasn't talking about Iraq 1....I was, clearly I thought, talking about the 2003 invasion.

I was also being satirical with the Polish comment to point out the absurdity of lljadw's logic.

There is nothing absurd,even with hindsight :

US had to do something,otherwise it would cease as a great power : remaining in a corner and whining (as the present inhabitant of the Oval Room would do) was no option ,George had to do something,otherwise he would not be reelected,thus,he did something .

Was there something else George could do ? Answer : NO .

SA was no option : it was an ally of the US

Iran was no option : it was to big :the voters wanted a short and cheap war of revenge with a lot of dead Arabs and few US casualties .

Saddam was the obvious candidate culprit :

He had fought against the US

He publicly rejoiced over 9/11

He had used chemical weapons (and a 9/11 with MDW was a nightmare for the US)

He was not only hostile to the US,but also a danger for the US :the US nucleair arsenal could not prevent an attack with MDW.

Everything was pointing out to Saddam .

Besides,there was no other one who could be accused :it was Saddam or remaining in the corner and whining .

A great power (the US) that nearly was decapitated needs no written proofs to attack someone .

The US would no longer accept Saddam with MDW,the risk was to great,and,as Saddam refused UN inspectors to go in his factories,the conclusion in Washington was : Saddam was busy with the reconstruction of his MDW capability,and the US would not accept this any longer .

If Saddam had accepted the presence of UN inspectors and if the result of their inspections was that he had no MDW/he was not busy with the reconstruction of such weapons,there would be no attack against Iraq .

It was all the fault of Saddam who thought that he could continue to laugh at the US with impunity.

 

[brinktk]

There is nothing absurd,even with hindsight :

US had to do something,otherwise it would cease as a great power : remaining in a corner and whining (as the present inhabitant of the Oval Room would do) was no option ,George had to do something,otherwise he would not be reelected,thus,he did something .

Was there something else George could do ? Answer : NO .

SA was no option : it was an ally of the US

Iran was no option : it was to big :the voters wanted a short and cheap war of revenge with a lot of dead Arabs and few US casualties .

Saddam was the obvious candidate culprit :

He had fought against the US

He publicly rejoiced over 9/11

He had used chemical weapons (and a 9/11 with MDW was a nightmare for the US)

He was not only hostile to the US,but also a danger for the US :the US nucleair arsenal could not prevent an attack with MDW.

Everything was pointing out to Saddam .

Besides,there was no other one who could be accused :it was Saddam or remaining in the corner and whining .

A great power (the US) that nearly was decapitated needs no written proofs to attack someone .

The US would no longer accept Saddam with MDW,the risk was to great,and,as Saddam refused UN inspectors to go in his factories,the conclusion in Washington was : Saddam was busy with the reconstruction of his MDW capability,and the US would not accept this any longer .

If Saddam had accepted the presence of UN inspectors and if the result of their inspections was that he had no MDW/he was not busy with the reconstruction of such weapons,there would be no attack against Iraq .

It was all the fault of Saddam who thought that he could continue to laugh at the US with impunity.

You have a very strange view of reality...

Short and cheap war...laughable. Even a passing knowledge of history would make it abundantly clear that anything other than a locked tight case to make pre-emptive war ANYWHERE is a recipe for disaster. Even a glancing knowledge of that area over just the last few hundred years would have also made it abundantly clear how big of a pandoras box was going to be opened.

Bush and his cronies got tunnel vision because the liberation of Iraq, to them, was a problem looking for a solution. If you had ever done any real research on the subject, The 2nd Bush administration had already planned to invade Iraq anyways. 9/11 just gave them the green light.

Of course, you don't mind when American soldiers have to die and taxpayers have to foot the bill for an UNCONSTITUTIONAL war. That may not mean anything to you, but adherance to the constitution is kind of fundamental to America and being American. You know your country will never participate in such things so the ramifications for people like me going to fight will never touch you. Have you even been to America? You have a very narrow view of how we are...

Also, explain to me "how it would have ceased as a great power"?

The electorate was clearly split on going to Iraq, there was even an anti-war protest that numbered in the 100,000 range in Washington that didn't want to go to war. I wouldn't call that a blood thirsty population. Of course, why would we try to respond effectively when we can just invade another country that had ZERO ties to 9/11?

You must have a very limited imagination if you think the only thing GW could have done was invade Iraq.

I would expect the leader of the free world to consider more than anecdotal evidence before deciding to go to war. You know, that whole leadership, burden of proof, democracy thing...

And even a super power...a democratic that is...needs PROOF to go to war. It is kind of fundamental to ensuring we are the good guys. Is democracy new to you? Or do you think an elected official gets to do what they want in a democracy.

You should probably stick to your WWII statistics because understanding current events, the US, the ME, and how the real world works is apparently not your forte.

 

[lljadw]

1)The war was not unconstitutional : the decision to go to war was approved by Congress .

2)That Bush II had plans for a war against Iraq does not mean that it had the intention to attack Iraq.

3) A great power that is not riposting after it is attacked,ceases as a great power .The credibility of the US depends on its willingness to riposte after an attack .

4) The electors wanted no second Vietnam,but a short and cheap war .


5)The aim of the war was not the liberation of Iraq .

6) The leader of the US does not need a written proof to start a war,he only needs the consent of Congress .The war against Iraq was as constitutional as the war of 1898 against Spain, or the war in Korea,or the war in Vietnam .All depends on Congress ,not on the usual anti-patriotic protesters,besides: 100000 is nothing on a population of 300 million :the electors approved the decision to go to war and reelected Bush .

7) Don't give me the usual liberal nonsense of "the good guys" .

 

[tetvet]

My opinion in short Bush drew a red line Iraq crossed it so Bush took action however I disagree with an invasion several cruise missals might have got Iraq's attention then we could have set back and see what developed .