Iran , Why ? - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
March 4th, 2015  
brinktk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
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.
March 4th, 2015  
tetvet
 
Iran's Navy consisted of 2 tugboats one to tug the other .
March 4th, 2015  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetvet
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.
--
Boots
March 4th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
This is spot on, from my perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
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.
March 4th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetvet
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
March 4th, 2015  
tetvet
 
Yes it was meant to be a joke , yossarian seems to be a bit slow on the uptake .
March 5th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
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.
March 5th, 2015  
brinktk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
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.
March 5th, 2015  
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" .
March 5th, 2015  
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 .
 


Similar Topics
De-Arabization of Iran
What If Iran Gets the Bomb? Good Analysis
'We've Got To Bring the Hammer Down on Iran'
Rice warns Iran of UN sanctions
Iran's Military