Why we're really in Iraq: Exhibit 1

[AllisterFiend]

You're really in Iraq because your average muslim is a fanatic.
Because to them, Life is of no value, and pride is greater than life.
They have leaders that blinds their eyes and enrolls mechanisms of political brainwashing beyond your imagination.

Democracy is out of their vocabulary, freedom of speech does not exist, and most of them still live by a code of the ancient world.

I know you'll say "hey, it's not my problem", and you may be right, but we all know the role of US of A on our globe.

I think the question should be "Why you're not out of there already?".

I'm not following closely the situation over there, but I guess it's a thing for the UN and not the USA.

And if its not them, you can always have Iran, Syria, Bin Laden's gang to name a few.

Maybe its hard for me to be objective, but I think some of you might still agree.

I agree that a democracy would not be easy over there, and It could fail (especially if they do not do anything about teaching kids at the ripe old age of 3 to hate and kill in the name of religion), but remember, the same thing was probably stated at the time when certain European countries were going from having kings and queens to elected officials.

Anyone who has any faith in the U.N. should have their head examined, just look at their history over the years. First off, I did not vote for anyone in the U.N., therefore I do not want them having any say on what my country can and can not do, and you should feel the same about your country.  At least in the U.S. if you dislike your president, you do have an option of voting him and his administration out of office.

My friends and I used to joke around when we were younger that if you had a problem and you saw those light blue helmets around you, you situation was already a lost cause.

Allister Fiend

[c64rulez]

Youre absolutely right about education. absolutely.
As for the UN thing, all I'm saying is that the USA should have been out of there long a go. put the UN in or just let it be. They must learn to solve their own problems.

[RayB]

Youre absolutely right about education. absolutely.
As for the UN thing, all I'm saying is that the USA should have been out of there long a go. put the UN in or just let it be. They must learn to solve their own problems.

Pretty naive thinking for someone your age. If the US pulled out so Iraq could "solve their own problems" the first thing anyone would say is that the US CAUSED the current problems. So who's responsibility is it to "solve" it? If someone comes into your house and destroys half your furniture, who should fix/replace it. You? Doesn't the vandal owe you anything?

[ChadTower]

Besides, the UN has no interest in being in control when they can still reap the benefits of Iraq being a mess while handing all responsibility to the US.

The UN is a failed experiment in global government.

[Grasshopper]

Don't buy it.

The US already had bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and could easily have sent an aircraft carrier or two to the gulf at any time if Iran started sabre rattling. There was no military justification for the invasion. Indeed Saddam was helping to keep Iran in check. That's primarily why the US supported him in the eighties.

An air craft carrier is not enough to take on an entire military.  We would need a REAL presence there, one that we could never have had in Saudi Arabia or Turkey.  Saudi Arabia is clearly playing both ends against the middle and Turkey isn't much of a military staging ground when they keep revoking permission to use their airspace.

The type of installations now built in Iraq completely dwarf anything we had in the Middle East 5 years ago.

Forgot to mention Afghanistan. Oh, and Pakistan's Musharraf has shown he's open to bribes.

But that's beside the point. A full scale invasion of Iran is not necessary at this point and would almost certainly be counterproductive in the longer term.

If Iran is suspected of developing Nuclear Weapons and refuses to cooperate with UN inspectors then the most proportionate response would be to destroy the sites where the weapons are being developed, either from the air, or by commando raids. If the sites cannot be found (which I think is unlikely) then punitive raids on military targets could be carried out until Iran let inspectors in. This was broadly the approach adopted towards Iraq for 12 years and I believe that by and large it worked.

However, if Bush was foolish enough to launch a full scale invasion of Iran then finding ways to get his troops to the border would be the least of his problems. For a start where would he get the extra men from? He already hasn't got enough to secure Iraq and Afghanistan. Not even Blair would help him this time. He'd probably have to consider reintroducing the draft and that would certainly concentrate the minds of US voters. After the invasion there would be an insurgency of such ferocity it would make Iraq seem like a picnic in comparison.

And what would be the exit strategy? There's no point in trying to impose democracy on Iran as it's already (sort of) democratic. OK it's not really democratic by western standards but the wacko currently in charge was actually voted into office.

Incidentally, when it comes to dealing with Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme the west is once again guilty of double standards. Israel developed its own nuclear weapons many years ago and yet no action has ever been taken. I'm sure the Arab world would find western intervention in Iran far more acceptable if the issue of Israel's nuclear weapons was dealt with at the same time.

[c64rulez]

Youre absolutely right about education. absolutely.
As for the UN thing, all I'm saying is that the USA should have been out of there long a go. put the UN in or just let it be. They must learn to solve their own problems.

Pretty naive thinking for someone your age. If the US pulled out so Iraq could "solve their own problems" the first thing anyone would say is that the US CAUSED the current problems. So who's responsibility is it to "solve" it? If someone comes into your house and destroys half your furniture, who should fix/replace it. You? Doesn't the vandal owe you anything?

Not when you called and asked for him to do it

[danny_galaga]

PNAC isn't about oil. It's about balance of power.

ROFL!!!

you americans. such corny names for things...

RayB is Canadian.

[Harry Potter]

Not when you called and asked for him to do it

No one asked the burglar (US  )  to go into Iraq.

[ChadTower]

I think Grasshopper has been playing too many military simulations on Xbox.  That isn't real life.  You don't just "send commandos in" to destroy military capability. That is not a real life scenario.

[Grasshopper]

I think Grasshopper has been playing too many military simulations on Xbox.  That isn't real life.  You don't just "send commandos in" to destroy military capability. That is not a real life scenario.

Yeah I guess I'm living in a fantasy world. I mean my plan is almost as ridiculous as trying to invade, secure, and impose "democracy" on a large country deeply hostile to the US with a mere 140,000 troops.

Aerial bombardment is generally far safer and predictable than sending in special forces, that much we can agree on, but there will be a few limited scenarios where the latter is the best option.

Anyway, if diplomacy and economic sanctions don't work then the only other game in town is full invasion which would be utter madness.