Iran President Again Lashes Out at Israel

Rhetoric is one thing though, action is another. Scared? Ahmedinajad talks a good game but words are not bombs.

I think the guy wants a US knee-jerk reaction and that should be the last thing we should see.

I think the US and Europe would like to impose sanctions, but Russia and China don't want to. It seems more pressure needs to be applied to Russia and China and for them to show they are not part of the problem.

I think the US and Europe would like to impose sanctions

Have sanctions ever come close to solving any problem? Maybe we need the anti-sanction. Give incentives for Americans and Europeans to go to Iran, to do business with them, to let our culture take over. If we think that our way of life is better, then lets prove it. Give Iranians the option of choosing our way of life, and see if they bite.

Look at Russia after the USSR collapsed, McDonald's did more for our message than any official government action besides not using the nukes. The people of the world may claim they hate our consumer society, but when given the choice, that is what they choose. This is also slowly working in China too. Anti-sanctions are the way to go. For every uranium enrichment, they must allow one Wal*Mart. See how that works.

I would imagine that the Iranian government would take issue with their people choosing our way of life. There are many there who most certainly wood, were it not for their leaders forcing them otherwise (as student protests gave evidence to). I think recent news of some high-profile tech companies dealings in China show that corporations will simply bend to foreign governments demands as opposed to the other way around.

Anti-sanctions....I like that.

I think recent news of some high-profile tech companies dealings in China show that corporations will simply bend to foreign governments demands as opposed to the other way around.

They bend for now in order to gain a foothold, but freedom is good for profits, so those companies will probably slowly bring freedom in.

Anti-Sanctions indeed...

"I see stupid people... they walk around like everyone else...they don't even know they're stupid!"

It is quite obvious that you've spent very little time interacting with people in foreign nations. You have the "Frank Burns" mentality (see MASH). It is illegal to own a bible in many middle eastern countries. There is not freedom of speech. You'd be jailed (or worse) for suggesting what you just suggested in open forum there.

What you might need to understand is that there is a fundamental difference in the way they think. We can't just treat them as if they were from Iowa.

Islam is a friendly and peaceful religion that has been distorted by a few noisy people that fire up the rest of the population there.

Sure, send lots of westerners in there just to watch more beheadings in the news.

I agree that we need to do something about Iran and, as always, the military should be the LAST option. Education of the populations of the middle east might be best but see free speech comment above. In the end, military and economic might is what makes political negotiations have effect. Since we don't have a solid inroad for economics (we need their oil more than they need Wal-mart and Mcdonalds) we have to carry a big stick...and be willing to use it.

Give Iranians the option of choosing our way of life, and see if they bite.

The Iranian people are not the problem. The violent government and party activists are the problem. Remember that Iran once did have a more American-like way of life, and many of them preferred it. The people of Iran don't necessarily want the way of life they've been forced to have. The problem is that they can be jailed or killed for making the choice you talk about.

For a really great social read about life in Tehran during that transition (written by a liberal woman who's now living in the US), check out Reading Lolita in Tehran

Chrissy: That was the point that I was trying to make. The people of Iran, well most of them, are not the problem.

Interestingly enough, when that earthquake leveled Bam, American aid workers went to Iran. . . and the American aid tent was the most popular tent of them all. The Iranian people aren't the problem so much as the insane leaders that were shoehorned into power this past time. Iran was headed toward reform, but the mullahs who hold the real power messed with the latest election, if I remember correctly. This is not to say that there aren't enough crazy Iranians in the populace to make it a threat, but by and large, Iranians are not universally insane.

Yes, diplomacy must not be thrown out the window. That would be foolish to an enormous extent.

They do not have a nuclear bomb; we know this for sure because if they did, they would have dropped it on Israel already. Maybe they're already more advanced in their enrichment of Uranium but just aren't saying anything. Either way, they don't have a bomb at this time.

However, if/when they do finally get one, military action absolutely must be taken. Yes, he is looking for a reaction. He wants to restore Arab pride, to make the Iranians and the surrounding countries feel pride in their nation going beyond their vast oil reserves.

If The United States attempts a one-man attack, they will fail. Occupation is completely out of the question, of course. But the United States must realize that they are weak. Yes weak. The Iraq war has been enough, but considering the potential conflicts with China and North Korea, it would be lunacy to attempt this alone.

The diplomacy must be vigorous and hard fought with Iran but even more importantly we must build up our allies.

If he does drop the bomb then he can wave the Palestinian and Syrian people good bye because they will die as well.

The Iranians are not Arab and might not mind the predominately Sunni Arab countries suffering from the fallout. The question is how far will the Arab countries allow Iran to go uncontested on the rhetoric knowing they might suffer the consequences.

I'm not confidant that the Iranian leadership intends to use a nuke when they get one. I think it's more likely they will use the threat of the nuke to try and offset the Israeli/USA threat of a nuke while trying to garner support from other middle east powers for a conventional war against Israel. I don't think that strategy will actually work but it seems more likely to me than just immediately nuking Israel.

@Edward Sebastian:

Iran is not an Arab nation. It is Persian. However, it is Islamic. (I don't suppose you confuse Islamic and Arab, but some people do.) They have their language using Arabic orthography since they were conquered by Muslims centuries ago.

Mykola,

Though I would not qualify as a member of your "clique", even those of us that may be seen as taking a conservative stance on this feel the same way.

Where is that paper?

The thing is, he really does not like the progresso-liberal-pinko-ameri-socialists. That way of life is probably even worst to him than neoconservatism. At least then it is a fight with rules he understands, one army against another one. One religion v another. But when the progresso-liberal-pinko-ameri-socialists enter the equation, craziness ensues! "What do you mean they want to understand us?"

Good point, hob jr. I would like to point out, tho, that it's a double-edged sword - he's also most effective against us, because he leaves us speechless. It's a difficult situation, and I dunno.

I guess we just count our blessings that he's years from a weapon, and cross our fingers and hope somebody told W that.

You hope that they are years away from a nuke. Remember how close Saddam was in reality? Remember when we thought North Korea was years away? The clock is ticking faster and faster and we are almost down to zero.

Mykola---

Instead of a rolled up news paper, how about a lead pipe?

I agree. Israel is none for their ability to defend their own country. I do not believe that the U.S. has any plans of performing any major operations in Iran unless things get really bad (or if Iran targets the U.S.) However, Bush would be wise to to attempt to occupy Iran, as this would be bad news for the U.S. once again.

FYI, Employers value military experience more than civilian work experience, because they are actually taught something.

As far as Israel having to defend itself. They're our allies, and we have to help our allies. In addition to that, it's them vs. every single Arab country in the middle east.

Oh. Sorry about the double post, but I failed to mention that they are a key ally -- providing intelligence, technology, and space for military bases in case we need to do something in the middle east.

Let them defend themselves.

I think this is at the heart of the problem. ilyanep - cjlewis, in my opinion, thinks its high time we stop doing any fighting for them with our men and women. You don't see us bickering, or sacrificing our people, with any of our other allies enemies.

I personally feel, phuck'em, they wanna die attacking Israel, so be it. I am sure they'd get their a$$ kicked. And if after Israel has fought and probably stretched super thin, THEN we can lend a hand, not before.

Where to start.

First, 1/4 of our young people are *not* in the military. Luckily. The U.S. Army is, however, importantly tied down in Iraq - and in other commitments at home and overseas. This and other issues reduce our ability to use conventional military forces to reverse the nuclear progress of Iran.

Second, I agree with you that we should not be fighting Israel's wars. I don't think that this has ever happened. I think we need to realize that Iranian nuclear weapons would threaten our ability to influence political trends in the Middle East and in the Persian Gulf. In that sense, our strategic leverage -- political influence and freedom of action if force becomes necessary -- is now hostage to the growing nuclear potential of Iran.

Third, the ballistic missile potential of Iran in addition to a credible nuclear capability, would allow them to threaten many countries that are our close allies. Again, our influence and strategic options in the entire Middle East will be undermined by Iranian nuclear weapons.

Fourth, I don't know what to do about the current Iranian regime, as I do not see any usable military options right now, and certainly not after they succeed in achieving nuclear weapons possession (either in three to five years, or within the next 10 years). I think that we may just be left with a containment option -- and the hope that the nature of the regime in Tehran will change to something that is less radical and more rational. Our record on fostering regime change is sufficiently poor that I do not have much confidence in our ability to bring about predictable alterations in the Tehran government in the near term.

Fifth, if President Ahmedinijad's rhetoric about Israel accurately reflects his true intentions, then all hope is lost - and we will have begun a "count-down" to some sort of nuclear crisis. If Ahmedinijad tries to use such weapons against Israel, I am sure that he would be pre-empted by Israel. If the Israelis *believe* that he is about to use such weapons, they will try to pre-emptively attack them.

If Ahmedinijad tries to transfer nuclear weapons to terrorists -- and we are lucky enough to discover the attempt before it succeeds -- we will be at the brink of war.

In short, if containment fails, I do not see many peaceful outcomes flowing from Iranian nuclear weapons possession. Those who think that these weapons are a stabilizing counter to Israeli capabilities -- or to U.S. power influence -- need to put together a logic of disengagement and conflict resolution that deals with a deep geopolitical and ideological conflict -- involving the U.S., Israel, and parts of the West on one side, and the ruling regime in Iran, on the other.

FYI, Employers value military experience more than civilian work experience, because they are actually taught something.

Sorry I have to disagree. If I apply for a job at Google with civilian experience with..lets say Yahoo Inc..and another applicant has only military experience..who do you think will be hired? So it depends on what industry we are talking about. Even if you want to work for the FBI, you need a bachelors with a GPA of 3.5 and above. Just becuase you joined the military fresh out of high school does not mean that you will be valued above a person with civilian experience. That is the myth military recruiters use of naive high school students. Probably 10 years ago when the US was mostly concentrated on manufacturing but now..mostly it is technology industry and you actually need education. A military person with great education will always be an ideal candidate. But what happens when US young men and women sacrifice their education years, fighting some elses war?
Let me be clear that I am not against US military but I feel that we should invest on our youth carefully for their future and not give it away.

Okay, but what about people who join them millitary out of college? Let's say I have a Bachelor's and Masters in CompSci and I have worked in a highly technical job in the millitary. Won't that be a huge major major plus?

"All our baby boomers will retire in 5 years" .... Not true. There's quite a difference in age of these "baby boomers", some won't retire for another 10 years. Also, don't you realize that war can be GOOD for the economy. In times of war industrialization and production can boost the economy far more than in peace time.

War is never good for the economy, for war is about destruction and economic prosperity is about creation.

Sorry..I should have said.."the baby boomer will start retiring in 5 years"

I think Vulgrin is referring to the "liberation" of Iraq and "freedom" bombs. The words have to be chosen carefully.

The US administration is trying to take attention away from themselves while Ahmadinejad is trying to get attention from the world. That is why you will not hear the US making retarded statements like Ahmadinejad.

In this case the words are speaking louder than the actions.

So am I to understand that you think that the US leadership is just as guilty as the Iranian leadership in making irresponsible and provocative statements?

I love how you distort convenient meaning from what others say. Even so, you fail to realize that the preceeding is an understatement.

Can you point to a time when the current administration has stated that a free nation, "will be eliminated by one storm"

No, but they did wage unilateral, unprovoked war on a soverign nation.

And has our current administration denied the holocaust?

No, but they did repeatedly and knowingly use forged or debunked information to bolster their still unjustifyed case for war against said sovereign nation.

Your moral relativism is offensive and gross.

Your blind nationalism is treasonous.

I am not sure how much Ahmedinijad learned from us, but I agree with you that our "crying wolf" over Iraq dramatically reduces our credibility this time.

After all, which countries would join us in an attack on Iran? Other than perhaps Israel?

And it goes without saying that any such attack would likely not succeed. See my comment above.

This is one of the situations that makes me wish I had faith in a "higher power". We will be lucky to escape this crisis without some sort of bloodshed.

kmak wrote
No, but they did wage unilateral, unprovoked war on a soverign nation.

Are you referring to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq? If so, it most certainly was not unilateral (48 nations supplied forces to the invasion coalition), nor was it unprovoked (see UN Resolution 1441).

kmak wrote
No, but they did repeatedly and knowingly use forged or debunked information to bolster their still unjustifyed case for war against said sovereign nation.

I assume you are still referring to Iraq. If so, the above is not fact but opinion.

It is your opinion that they knowingly used forged or debunked information to bolster their case. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm sure Senators Kennedy, Fiengold, Boxer et. al. would like to hear from you, because they seem to believe the same thing but have yet to prove it, or redact their own statements to the contrary.

As to the justifications for the coalition's military actions, beyond those outlined in U.N. Resolution 1441, there were many (Saddam sponsoring terrorists, Saddam unilaterally invading a sovereign nation, Saddam possessing weapons like short-to-medium range ballistic missiles in violation of several U.N. resolutions, French, German, and British intelligence and virtually all of the U.S. Senate believed Saddam had and was continuing to produce WMD).

Can you point to a time when the current administration has stated that a free nation, "will be eliminated by one storm"

William: we use the word "terrorists" around here. Substitute terrorists for Israel, and you may be able to see the similarities...

In that Israelis are the victims of terrorism, yes, there is a similarity. The tie that makes Israelis connected to terrorism is that Israelis get blown up by ruthless terrorists. Terrorists make Israelis the victims; Israelis != terrorists, by any stretch of the imagination.

The people in Israel now are decendents of the Juden that were terrorized with the yellow Star of David patch they were forced to wear.

Saddam sponsoring terrorists

Funny. Guess who sponsored Saddam? And who trained Bin Laden?

Saddam unilaterally invading a sovereign nation

Which was then dealt with and he was neutralized.

Saddam possessing weapons like short-to-medium range ballistic missiles in violation of several U.N. resolutions

I'm not sure that's true, but frankly can't remember if he had banned missiles. I thought that was rolled up in the bad intelligence, along with the balsa wood "drones".

French, German, and British intelligence and virtually all of the U.S. Senate believed Saddam had and was continuing to produce WMD

This is a nonsensical argument for the war. Many reports show that the intelligence was murky, at best. No one should have gone to war on the information, based on all of the caveats and unconfirmed reports. Face it, the Bush administration had its heart set on invading Iraq, and looked at the intelligence in that light, even when bits of the information or their sources were discredited. (One source was notoriously wrong and admitted making up information. Chalabi, another prime source, wanted to rule Iraq himself and was playing the U.S. like a fiddle.)

If you remember, France and Germany were very against us going into Iraq. They may have seen simliar intelligence as the U.S., but they didn't buy into it all because they didn't already have a pre-set agenda for invasion.

Congress voted because they were all lazy idiots who didn't take the time to actually investigate the information they were being handed by an administration who had already made up its mind. Remember the atmosphere at the end of 2002. Riding a wave of fear mongering after 9/11, the Administration dropped all sorts of soundbites about "nuclear cloud" and linked Saddam to Al Qaeda. Those who said ANYTHING against the war were called unpatriotic or anti-american. Then, when they wised up and realized and acknowledged they had made a mistake, they were called "Flip floppers."

A skillful group of people can spin any information to their agenda. Regardless of the intelligence, they would have found a way to wage this war. And as we find out more about that information, we find that they were dead wrong. Well, they're not dead. But a couple thousand American soldiers are, with many thousand more wounded. Not to mention the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi men, women and children caught in the cross fire. And the millions more who have had their lives disrupted and destroyed for at least the next generation.

Its sickening. Its disgusting. And it was wrong.

Vulgrin wrote

Saddam sponsoring terrorists

Funny. Guess who sponsored Saddam? And who trained Bin Laden?

Sponsored Saddam? Supported would be more accurate - and we supported Iraq as a counter-weight to Khomeini in the same way that we supported Stalin against Hitler. Bin Laden was trained by the U.S. to help Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

Saddam unilaterally invading a sovereign nation

Which was then dealt with and he was neutralized.

If you call bilking billions of dollars from the Oil for Food program, paying off European leaders to look the other way, starving his citizens, firing repeatedly on U.N. planes, continuing his WMD program (which no one denies was stillin existance through 1998 at a minimum) and offering $25k to the families of suicide bombers "neutralized", I'd hate to see what a non-nuetralized Saddam might look like.

French, German, and British intelligence and virtually all of the U.S. Senate believed Saddam had and was continuing to produce WMD

This is a nonsensical argument for the war. Many reports show that the intelligence was murky, at best. No one should have gone to war on the information, based on all of the caveats and unconfirmed reports... If you remember, France and Germany were very against us going into Iraq. They may have seen simliar intelligence as the U.S., but they didn't buy into it all because they didn't already have a pre-set agenda for invasion.

Nonsensical? I haven't seen any of those nations back down from their pre-war intelligence. The foreign leaders who were against us going into Iraq also had other agendas, like the millions of dollars they were receiving for the Oil for Food scam and trying to downplay the amount of arms their own countries sold to Iraq, since the U.S. supplied Iraq with ~5% of their arms.

Congress voted because they were all lazy idiots who didn't take the time to actually investigate the information they were being handed by an administration who had already made up its mind. Remember the atmosphere at the end of 2002. Riding a wave of fear mongering after 9/11, the Administration dropped all sorts of soundbites about "nuclear cloud" and linked Saddam to Al Qaeda. Those who said ANYTHING against the war were called unpatriotic or anti-american.

Please back up your claim and cite any example of the administration calling anyone unpatriotic or anti-American.

Not to mention the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi men, women and children caught in the cross fire. And the millions more who have had their lives disrupted and destroyed for at least the next generation.

Tens of thousands dead from the crossfire? More likely IEDs, car bombs, and suicide bombers detonating themselves inside mosques.

Its sickening. Its disgusting. And it was wrong.

Besides telling us how you feel, are you saying that an evil tyrant with a history of killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and sponsoring international terrorism no longer in power is wrong?

...are you saying that an evil tyrant...

Not factual.

...with a history of killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens...

Unproven. Please support with facts, if you are going to make claims like this.

...and sponsoring international terrorism...

Unproven. Please support with facts, if you are going to make claims like this.

...no longer in power is wrong?

So, in your mind, this justifies war and occupation? He was after all, despite being an "evil tyrant," the legitimate leader of a sovereign nation. And, as we are seeing so clearly now, he was far more competent at ruling his country then we are. His government was also stable and secular, both good things for a middle eastern nation. And our unprovoked war is now responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths and has isolated us from the international community. Wrong is an understatement.

@kmak - interesting that you point out only things that you think may be incorrect yet choose to skip over any requests for proof to the contrary.

With that in mind:
Please describe, in two words, Saddam Hussein. Was he an "evil tyrant?" A "benevolent sage?" A "Common leader?" A "Decent human?" What would you call the man who, according to a 2001 Amnesty International report, was responible for "victims of torture in Iraq subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage" - A nice guy? Evil tyrant is about as factual as you can get.

..with a history of killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens...

kmak wrote
Unproven. Please support with facts, if you are going to make claims like this.

Here you go:
From globalsecurityDOTorg:

Under Saddam's regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions - the vast majority of them Muslims. Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. o The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that the "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."

I'd say Human Rights Watch is fairly non-partisan, wouldn't you? On to your next denial:

...and sponsoring international terrorism...

kmak wrote
Unproven. Please support with facts, if you are going to make claims like this.

From Council on Foreign Affairs:

Hussien sponsored groups his regional foes. Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel , including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Perhaps you don't believe them, either.

kmak wrote
So, in your mind, this justifies war and occupation? He was after all, despite being an "evil tyrant," the legitimate leader of a sovereign nation. And, as we are seeing so clearly now, he was far more competent at ruling his country then we are.

That's just we - the U.S. isn't ruling his country. Iraq has its own government. It is up to the Iraqi people and their elected officials now. It sounds like you're saying you'd prefer Saddam Hussein back in power instead of the Iraqi people with their own form of democracy. I hope that's not the case.

kmak wrote
His government was also stable and secular, both good things for a middle eastern nation.

Murdering your country's innocent civilians, bribing U.N. officials with Oil for Food funds, and invading your neighbors is most definitely not a definition of stable.

And our unprovoked war is now responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths and has isolated us from the international community.

The war was not unprovoked. See U.N. resolution 1441. See the 750 reported shots fired at U.S. aircraft patrolling no fly zones during 2002 alone. As to the war isolating us from the international community - that is up for debate.

Read the book "Saddam's Secrets" by: Georges Sada. He was an Iraqi General, Head of the Airforce, one of Saddams most respected advisors, and a Christian. In the book he writes that Saddam had WMD's and were getting them.

Here's how they hid them from inspectors. Saddam would tell his scientists to memorize the plans line for line and if they didn't he would kill them. So when the inspectors came in they would watch the scientists burn the plans but as soon as they left they would just write them down again. Then they would dissemble the weapons and hide them in schools and in people's homes and when the UN inspectors left they would just put them back together. Also leading up to the Second Gulf War Saddam was feeling a lot of pressure from the UN so he had people in China making them for him and then shipped them over. (He goes into more detail but I don't feel like typing it out.)

Then Saddam got rid of them. I don't remember the exact time but sometime between the first and second Gulf War there was a major flood and Syria and they needed a lot of aid. A lot of surrounding countries helped them out but Saddam told them that if they wanted there aid they would have to do them a favor. What was the favor? They were to harbor Saddams WMD's for as long as necessary. So Saddam took a fleet of commercial jetliners. (I think like 1 747 and a handful of 727s) He ripped out the seats and the bottom section of the plane making it a cargo plane. This way they didn't have fear of them being stopped by coalition forces because they wouldn't stop commercial jets. Saddam would also move them with trucks and even ambulances on a couple of instances.

The book was a fascinating read and is defenantly worth recommending. This says that the war was necessary at that time. He also talks about how the suicide bombings will stop but that is for another post.

This guy was a tyrant and evil and who knows what he would have done in time. Bush made the right call on that war and lets hope he does the same for this war.

Georges Sada was not Head of the Air Force, he officially retired in 1986 as a 2-star general, but was called back to active service for the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. He claims that he was discharged and imprisoned on February 5, 1991, for refusing to execute POWs and has not been employed in any official capacity in Iraq since then, until after the U.S. invasion in 2003 when he served as spokesman for the interim leader Iyad Allawi, and was appointed as National Security Advisor.

His book is based on hearsay, what others allegedly told him. The Deulfer report notes these kind of rumors and found no support for them in its investigation.

"victims of torture in Iraq subjected to a wide range of forms of torture ... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage"

But enough about Abu Gharib under American rule,

That's just we - the U.S. isn't ruling his country.

No kidding. We have overseen its deterioration, though, as incompetent, unprepared occupiers.

It sounds like you're saying you'd prefer Saddam Hussein back in power instead of the Iraqi people with their own form of democracy.

So how's that democracy working out? Saddam is better than us wasting thousands of soldiers and $300 billion to turn Iraq into the biggest, most unstable terrorist training camp in all of the world which abounds with US targets. Besideds, if/when their own form of democracy turns out to be a militant Islamic one, will you stlill champion it?

Murdering your country's innocent civilians, bribing U.N. officials with Oil for Food funds, and invading your neighbors is most definitely not a definition of stable.

Well killing innocent civilians, bribing the UN and invading other countries is nothing the US can hold against Saddam now, is it? Not that we mind being hypocritical with our foreign policy.

The war was not unprovoked. See U.N. resolution 1441. See the 750 reported shots fired at U.S. aircraft patrolling no fly zones during 2002 alone.

Why didn't Russia, France, and China, all who voted for the resolution, invade Iraq along with us? How does touting 1441 bolster your claims? Also, ou may want to look deeper into our enforcement of those no-fly zones. We weren't the only ones being fired on.

As to the war isolating us from the international community - that is up for debate.

Until we attack Iran. Have you paid any attention to foreign travel by Bush/Rice recently?

@ kmak -
It's nice that you cherry pick portions of Amnesty's statements about the horrors of Saddam's torture methods so you can snidely joke about Abu Gharib. Conveniently leaving out the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings, and electric shocks to equate the U.S.'s treatment of prisoners to that of Hussein's is disingenous to say the least.

I heartily agree that the U.S.'s treatment of those prisoners was completely wrong (and, so does the U.S. military, who initiated the investigation BTW). Yes or no question for you: Was the treatment of the prisoners at Abu Gharib under U.S. rule equal to the treatment of Hussein's prisoners who had their eyes gouged out, lost limbs, and suffered other sever beatings?

kmak wrote
Besideds, if/when their own form of democracy turns out to be a militant Islamic one, will you stlill champion it?

Unfortunately, no - I wouldn't champion it. I would be extremely disappointed. It would be, however, what their people wanted and voted for.

kmak wrote
Well killing innocent civilians, bribing the UN and invading other countries is nothing the US can hold against Saddam now, is it? Not that we mind being hypocritical with our foreign policy.

You'll notice I said "murdering innocent civilians" - which you changed to "killing." There is a difference. If you can not tell the difference between targeting innocent civilians versus accidental and/or collateral deaths to due military action, you are not rationally engaging in debate. If you are implying that the U.S. military is targeting innocent civilians, please support your claims.

kmak wroteWhy didn't Russia, France, and China, all who voted for the resolution, invade Iraq along with us? How does touting 1441 bolster your claims? Also, ou may want to look deeper into our enforcement of those no-fly zones. We weren't the only ones being fired on.

You seem more than ready to question, hint, and imply further information that would back up your statements, yet very few of your posts include facts and sources that you ask others so readily for. Since you seem to read only selective posts in this thread, you missed mine pointing out just a couple of reasons why Russia and France didn't invade with the coalition of 48 nations who participated (see #11.9).

Until we attack Iran. Have you paid any attention to foreign travel by Bush/Rice recently?

You're now arguing from a position where you are predicting the future. As long as you know what's going to happen, any stock tips in that crystal ball of yours?

gzirra, let me present my point in a different way. I don't feel, as you do that Iraq provoked the war in question. I also feel that the current administration is repeating much of their behavior and rhetoric from the build up to war in Iraq during 2002. Here is an excerpt from an interview (4/17/06, Democracy Now) with retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner:

COL. SAM GARDINER: Well, the evidence is beginning to accumulate that a decision has already been made to use military force in Iran. Now, let me do a historical thing, and then I'll tell you what the current evidence is. We now know that the decision and the actual actions to bomb Iraq occurred in July of 2002, before we ever had a U.N. resolution or before the Congress ever authorized it. It was an operation called Southern Focus, and the only guidance that the military — or the guidance that the military had from Rumsfeld was keep it below the CNN line. His specific words. The evidence that we've already –

AMY GOODMAN: Keep it below what?

COL. SAM GARDINER: The CNN line. In other words, I don't want this to appear on CNN, okay? That was his guidance to the military, you can begin to bomb Iraq, but don't let it appear on CNN.

Do the possible Constitutional consequences of this not chill you? The secratary of defence knows that if he keeps such operations off of CNN, no one will ever know about them, just as you apparantly did not. Now you know. We began the air war under cloak of enforcing a no-fly zone. Long before 1441.

Learning the Lesson: Ultimately, the public and our congress must demand to know if military operations are being conducted in Iran prior to a Congressional authorization. A fundamental principle that our nation was founded on was that the executive must not have the power to wage war, only to execute it at the direction, by way of legislation, of the peoples' congress.

kmak wrote
Do the possible Constitutional consequences of this not chill you? The secratary of defence knows that if he keeps such operations off of CNN, no one will ever know about them, just as you apparantly did not. Now you know. We began the air war under cloak of enforcing a no-fly zone.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but operation Southern Focus was born out of the existing Operation Southern Watch, which had been in existence since 1991. Operation Southern Watch included the same type of bombings and strikes against anti-aircraft installations - Operation Southern Focus merely intensified the number of strikes. For Operation Southern Focus, coalition air forces dropped 606 bombs, responding to 651 attacks from June 2002 until OIF began March 19, 2003.

From wikipedia:

Prior to invasion, the United States and other coalition forces involved in the 1991 Persian Gulf War had been engaged in a low-level conflict with Iraq, enforcing Iraqi no-fly zones. Iraqi air-defense installations were engaged on a fairly regular basis after repeatedly targeting and firing upon American and British air patrols. In mid-2002, the U.S. began to change its response strategy, more carefully selecting targets in the southern part of the country in order to disrupt the military command structure in Iraq. A change in enforcement tactics was acknowledged at the time, but it was not made public that this was part of a plan known as Operation Southern Focus.

Of course the military isn't going to publicize their plans - What's the point? Hey Hitler - We're landing at Normandy! Make sure you're there to say hello!

Do believe that Congress was unaware of OSF and OSW? If so, link away.

Thank you for stating facts i'm already familiar with, but you still have some reading to do, further than the first two google results for "Southern Focus." Nothing you present refutes my claim because there is a large strategic difference between enforcing a no-fly zone and engaging in offensive military operations, hence Southern Focus. But you apparently a subscribe to pre-emptive, extra-congressional, extra-constitutional military offensives and I do not.

Of course the military isn't going to publicize their plans- What's the point? Hey Hitler - We're landing at Normandy! Make sure you're there to say hello!

Did I advocated publicizing strategic planning? This is about the media. Why did the US media not cover the rapidly escalating conflict? If Iraq were the true aggressor, why keep this from the US media?

Do believe that Congress was unaware of OSF and OSW? If so, link away.

Obviously select congresspeople were breifed, what is your point here? Could they even speak of it? Was there oversight? Do you beleive congress authorized OSF, a broad military offensive against strategic Iraqi targets? Few nations would not consider something like OSF a declaration of war.

@ kmak - Observation: I notice you never seem to answer any of my specific questions for you. Any reason?

With regard to your statement assuming I only read two results on google - once again you're making assumptions based on opinion and projection. Throw all the stones you like - I was merely providing a source for the facts I provided. About the only factual, sourced evidence I've seen in your posts is the transcript from retired Col. Sam Gardiner, whose partisan issues are more important to him than the military's task at hand and can hardly be called unbiased.

I remember hearing about the change in tactics to OSW prior to OIF, as it was reported in the media - it just wasn't reported as OSF. I recall lots of hand-wringing about the increase in the number of patrols because it might raise Hussein's dander even further.

I'll state it as clearly as I see it:

1. Iraq was not supposed to fire on patrol aircraft, yet they repeatedly fired on patrol aircraft for over 10+ years.
2. Return fire was the result, and it was the result for many, many years.
3. The amount of return fire increased prior to OIF to secure potential future air routes that were within the boundaries of the no-fly zone.
4. The increase was not based on an already decided-upon military invasion, rather in-case of one.
5. The increase followed the existing rules for enforcing the no-fly zone.
6. You have a problem with the change. I don't.

We disagree and I believe we are at an impasse.

kmak wrote
Obviously select congresspeople were breifed, what is your point here?

My point is that just prior you stated:

kmak wrote
Learning the Lesson: Ultimately, the public and our congress must demand to know if military operations are being conducted in Iran prior to a Congressional authorization.

So in one instance, you believe Congress was briefed, but in another instance, they should demand to know - because you believe in this instance they aren't being and won't be briefed? If so, do you have any evidence to support that belief?

kmak wrote
Few nations would not consider something like OSF a declaration of war.

Few nations would not consider something like getting their aircraft repeatedly and systematically fired upon a declaration of war. Coalition forces managed to endure it for 10+ years.

I do not think Iraq has anything to do with it. If we had not invaded Iraq, then he would have no reason to fear us, for the precedent of preemptive war would not have been set. Even with Iraq, I really think that he believes that we would still not invade him. And he may be right there. I see no good coming from an Iranian invasion, at least not by us. Israel may need to do something just to stay in existence. But from the U.S. perspective, war with Iran is about as desirable as war with Korea or China. Iran has a growing dissident population, it is far better to sit back and see what comes of them. They look around at the smaller more free middle eastern nations, such as Kuwait and Jordan, and look at the prosperity their peoples have, then look at themselves and ask why not us? As long as the U.S. can stay away from outright meddling, Iran cannot use us as an excuse, and any military reaction would cause the dissidents to unite with the current rule against the U.S.

Good points.

I also meant that if Iraq was stabilized and locked down then Iran might be slightly more worried because there would be evidence present that would show that the US is in control.

Right now Iran is seeing the worlds most powerful force having trouble with criminals with homemade bombs. And, like you said, Iran now knows that USA is in no good position to start a war on yet another front.

I agree. Of course, the situation in Iraq is as it is.

So Ahmedinijad can continue to boldly challenge us - secure in the knowledge that there is little we can do in response.

Hob, I don't agree with you on everything, but you're one of the most reasonable people I've encountered on here. Keep it up.

This has everything to do with Iraq. What happens when you invade a country without provocation based on false intelligence? The surrounding countries get very scared, especially when you're knocking on their door. So they elect lunatic extremists who they think will protect them from the impending invasion of US forces. MANY experts predicted before we ever went into Iraq that the action would completely destabilize the region, and this is a very clear example of that. I would also point to Palestinians electing a Hamas-controlled government. Same cause, similar result. The fact is, and I'm sure Bush's minions will jump all over me for this, the actions of this administration have destabilized the world and made this world a MUCH more dangerous place now than it ever was before 9/11. The way Bush and his buddies reacted to 9/11 is EXACTLY what Osama Bin Laden and his kind wanted. He fed right into their plan, and we're much worse off for it.

Of course, weren't the Persians ruling what is now Iran for most of it's existence? Not so much anymore, though.

Persian and Iranians are the same thing! Please, tell me you know that.

Well, I'll tell some of what I know. The current governmental system of Iran is actually younger than the nation of Israel ('79 versus '48). The ancient Persian rulers bore more resemblance to the former constitutional monarchy than to the current theocratic republic we now know as Iran. The Jews lived in what is modern Israel thousands of years ago, long before Islam existed to create a Muslim state (although, they obviously weren't governing much back then).

Lastly, to base a current nations political savvy on the seniority of a civilization is, in my opinion, absurd. Given that notion, should we all be looking to central African nations for ques on foreign policy? Mr. Ahmadinejad may indeed have more up his sleeve that most realize, but to say it is a result of the antiquity of his nation would be like saying that Saddam Hussein knew more than he let on simply due to ancient Babylon. Nations rise and fall and have rich heritages as a result, but do so based on the leaders of the time and not the brilliance of former glory.

And, yes, about half of all Iranians are ethnic Persians.

First, I did not say governmental system. I said country. Kurds have been living in Turkey seemingly forever, but they don't have a country. Jews had the same fate until they established the country in the late 40s by essentially buying the territory.
Second, basing political savvy on a country's longevity is a valid warning for those who argue for wiping Iran off the map by nuking them. The logic is that Persia (currently Iran) has had the ingenuity to survive when faced with threats over its long history.
Third, Persian longevity has no relation to Islam becoming a religion. These are independent events.
Finally, the president having something up his sleeve does not relate to longevity. It's just an observation based on current events.

I'm surprised they aren't using the Iron Sheik as a spokesman.

Unfortunately, that sounds very accurate.

Why would Israel be intentionally killing innocent people? That makes absolutely no sense. Israel has always been reasonably rational, agressive, but pretty rational. But put yourself in Israel's shoes. Your a country surrounded by countries that swear to kill you by any means, while at the same time you're fighting a bunch of lunatics who blow themselves up because they want tradebacks on the land the sold off. Aggressive action often saves hundreds, without Israel's stance on their neighbors and the Palestinians, they would've been thrown out long, long ago.

Read more facts.

It is impossible to overstate how ignorant you are of history. You could never begin to grasp such a complex issue, so please stop polluting this debate with your lunacy.

Better to be silent and assumed a fool then open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Maybe it would be better to add some constructive criticism, or contradict what he is saying with some information and knowledge.

It is better to voice a mistake and have it corrected with respect, than it is to stay silent in ignorance.

How about you point out which statement of mine you disagree with before you call me a dumb lunatic. This site is for debate, the real version, not the 8th grade self-righteous version.

Maybe I should give you a lesson on how Israel was created and when these tensions started. In 1881 jews were being persecuted by Europeans-again. They had nowhere to go to, so they started buying land in the country from the british ruled, palestinian occupants. Jews would come to the land that was bought as various persecutions and problems happened. As more jews came, more and more land was bought. The arabs tried to stop it, which the jews didn't like, so tension was created. Eventually jewish militant groups were created, and in 1947, when the British were giving Palestine its independence, the amount of Jews in the country was so overwhelming that the UN partition plan called for Jerusalem to be in a neutral area, 55% of the colony to go to the jews, and 45% to go to arabs. The jews accepted this, but the palestenians wanted all, so they started there attacks, which eventually lead to civil war, and the palestinians got nothing. This all stemed from their stupidity, and further back, them selling the land to jews.

Before flaming people, make sure they deserve to be flamed (no self-righteousness intended).

This all stemed from their stupidity

Oh...now I get it. Thanks for clearing that up.

You're right. I didn't notice how short this guys is until now- what a good laugh to break the tension of this debate.

Does anyone honestly believe that we would be in this situation with Iran if 911 had not transpired? It just seems that there were a roll of dominoes lined up prior to that day and when the events of that day happened, it started a chain reaction that I can see no end to. If you really think about it, it was the pretext for just about all of our latest foreign policy agendas.

Israel is understood to have nuclear weapons, and it's also understood that since they are not allowed to have them they will keep this a "secret" officially, though it is common knowledge.

Why is ok for Israel to have them and not Iran? I guess cuz 1) we're friends with Israel, 2) Israel, despite its massive shortcomings and terrorist activities, is a relatively progressive nation, and 3) we don't expect Israel to use them.

I guess that's what it comes down with. Is it fair? No. But there it is.

Mykola - I would add this point as to why it's okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons and not Iran:

4) because you never heard Prime Minister Sharon saying things like
"Like it or not, the Mulsimist regime is heading toward annihilation..."
"The Muslimist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
"I Believe that Israel will be freed soon..."
"The existence of this (Palestinian/Iranian/etc) regime is a permanent threat to the Middle East..."
"Its existence has harmed the dignity of Israel."

The blind eye which has been turned to Israel's weapons program shows precisely the sort of hypocrisy which Iran is rightly angered by. The assumption Israel will never use them against American interests is hardly justification for allowing them to remain unmonitored by the UN, anymore than it is fair to assume that all the unreported action taken by Israel in disputed territory must be restrained, just because Israel says it is.

The fact is without any real condemnation of Israel by the Americans, despite daily reports from international observers, aid workers and journalists on the ground that soldiers regularly indiscriminately shoot into crowds of children, Iran is just the next Muslim country on the list of people waiting to take a fundamentalist approach to a problem Bush could fix peacefully at the stroke of a pen, if his Bilderberg handler's weren't so skewed against people who don't happen to be white, middle-class and affluent.

Wow .. people forget that in the days prior to '89, when the Soviets moved, no one whined about fairness. IT simply was. On occasion even the US had to accept it.

What has given anyone in this world some idea that life is fair?

Oh gosh, someone is a hypocrite for changing one's mind at some point or choosing one side over another?

Now we are in the 21st century, and we pretend that somehow that the past never happened. We are so much more enlightened now. EVERYONE is .. right? We expect nations around the world to behave like those of us in the West, and are shocked when they don't. We also expect them to respond to diplomacy and a sense of commonality.

Guess what, many countries don't think this way.

You may forget that at one point Israel WAS smaller. However a very short war changed all that .. a war that Israel won. So a country FAR away wants to provoke its masses with a sense of commonality with those in Palestine? How charming .. and for those of you that suggest moving or somehow changing the situation with Israel .. I don't see Iran offering to take on Palestinians and giving them a new home either.

Aww that's not fair . come on .. if life were fair, none of us would have pc's or internet and our families would have fallen to the cave men clubs someone else was waving about.

I am really not ok with Israel having nukes, and I basically support them in every other way I think. I believe at this point of time and how the world is set up there is no longer any reason for nuclear weapons.

I believe that nuclear weapons were of the utmost importance during the Cold War when MADD was a functional, if not insane, policy. The USSR had every reason to not want a nuclear war as the US did. Not only that but nuclear weapons prevented any shooting wars from developing involving the US and USSR, for we were afraid that any shooting war would evolve into a nuclear war, and no one wanted that. Nuclear weapons kept the Cold War cold, and not a real shooting war.

MADD no longer applies. What does nuclear weapons protect Israel against when they face an enemy that invented the suicide bomber? These leaders might just be crazy enough to get into a nuclear because loosing 90% of their population is ok as long as Israel is off the map. Nuclear weapons no longer protect Israel or any of the West's interests.

I would fully support a U.N. ban on all nuclear weapons, as long as it was strictly enforced and did not require the Security Council's approval for action. A nation gets nukes, we move in and take them out, no questions asked.