Iran

[Kelly-47]

It's just a little too much to expect our people to stand behind the interests of the corporations for much longer.

I long for the day the pendulum starts heading in the other direction.

Another interesting facet of this whole Law of Attraction thingy...war on terror, more terror; war on drugs, more drugs; the more we fight anything...okay, I'll stop now. Kelly climbs down off her soapbox.

[SusanK]

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

"US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned."

This is in some respect "old news".

but, this isn't...Second US aircraft carrier arrives near Iran http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/Second_US_aircraft_carrier_arrives_near_0220.html 

The second carrier group is news, but the war plans isn't news, which is what I was referring to. The US military plays strategic and tactical simulated war games and updates war plans against any "hostile" nation continuously to give the President military options as part of the President's choices. They've had war plans against Iran probably since the overthrow of the Shah, and now has been updating them with Iraq and Kuwait in mind along with the reactions of the other Middle East nations and the UN. I'm sure they have a multi-layered war plan from tactical strikes on nuclear and military targets to all-out invasion and ground offensive. That's what they do. That was what I was referring to, they're the military, and despite the often blind and narrow goals and agenda, they're still smart and smart enough to have the plans in the President's briefcase for his review.

The Hans Blix response is interesting and noteworthy. One thing Bush and Cheney can make for war is to fight terrorism and divert attention from Iraq. But an interview on CNN (Lou Dobbs) a retired general experienced in the war games made it clear war with Iran would be "messy and ugly" and likely very unpleasant for the American people to swallow the loss of lives for no obvious reasons. And as noted, it would require the draft and lots of money to rebuild the military, but he also pointed out, that's what they're in the business of doing, waging war. And the biggest business in the world is military hardware.

The question is who has the President's attention to help him decide. Truthfully, it's scary to think there are people in the White House who want another war. God help the troops in Iraq, which is more reason to find a solution to exit Iraq and let the Iraqi's solve their own problems. They're not lacking anything except our exit. Almost every middle-eastern expert has said the sooner we exit, the better they can get on with their country, for better or worse, it's theirs, not ours. Something some Americans seem to forget.

I'll make my last point and park the soapbox. If any American had to suffer the damage we've inflicted on Iraq, and especially Bagdad, and had to live under the fear and occupation they live now, there would be a revolution. Would anyone in the US want to live they way they do now? No one doubts things are slowly getting better (although the Brooks Institute say it's been about the same for the last 3 years), but at what point can you expect real progress than the appearance with lots of money gone, and much unaccounted for. But then maybe that was the real goal, money and oil? And as long as it can be sold for the taxpayers to foot the bill and the corporations get rich, who's to say who's the fool?

Enuf said, folded and parked.

--Susan--

[Melissa]

If you take any world history course, you will see that countries are ever-evolving.  What this means is that there will be wars to win land and there will be some countries.  Borders are always changing.  This could be a farce to gain more area for the united states over in the middle east.  US already has control of iraq and I bet they will attemp to take control of Iran.  It's been over a hundred years since we fought for more land and I wouldn't be surprised if this is what is happening.  I just hope GWB isn't being another Napoleon and taking over other countries, because ultimately it failed and too many people died for nothing.

Melissa

[togetherwecan]

I predict we will be targeting Iran in 6 wks or less, surely no more than 3 months...my guess is mid march.

[ChildOfTheLight]

It all boils down to this:  You can not kill an idea.  Once a people hold on to an idea, they fight and die for it until they win.  There is no stopping an idea... death only solidifies it (think of Christianity in its early years with the Romans for example).  Our version of facism isn't going to work.... we know countries that tried it.  It ain't gonna work for us either.  It's just a little too much to expect our people to stand behind the interests of the corporations for much longer.  There's just not much in it worth dying for.

Cindi

You can kill an idea.  The idea of Nazism is dead.  The idea of the divinity of the Japanese emperor -- and all the things these two ideas led to -- is dead, and the US (with some help) killed them both.

But to kill an idea like that, you have to be willing to wreak unholy destruction far beyond the things the "world community" is calling Bush another Hitler for.  And you have to know you are right to do it, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whatever anyone may say.

Likewise, it is possible, with pure force and destruction, to kill the idea of Islamic jihad being destined to take over the world.  But it won't be done.  What it would take is too horrible for politicians to contemplate.

But terrorism cannot survive without the governments that fund it.  A serious president would take the money being wasted in Iraq and put it into researching other sources of energy than oil.  Not depending on governments that fund terrorism is real national security.  Like Kennedy declaring that America would have a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s, a real leader would call for the US to become independent of Arab oil -- terror oil.  And it would be, quite soon. 

But Bush has no integrity to speak the truth and say "terror oil" -- instead, he keeps pretending Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are friends of the US.

Another interesting facet of this whole Law of Attraction thingy...war on terror, more terror; war on drugs, more drugs; the more we fight anything...okay, I'll stop now. Kelly climbs down off her soapbox.

The "War on Drugs" has all the same effects Prohibition had.  Ending that deadly farce would be a great step for the US.  That's why I'm supporting Ron Paul for President of the US -- he's the only candidate who would even consider ending the "War on Drugs."  He also voted against the "USA PATRIOT" (more like USSR COMRADE) act, the undeclared war in Iraq, the "Federal Marriage Amendment", and many other attempts to put the federal government where it doesn't belong.  He's a strict constitutionalist passing as a Republican in the House of Representatives.

[togetherwecan]

The "War on Drugs" has all the same effects Prohibition had.  Ending that deadly farce would be a great step for the US.  That's why I'm supporting Ron Paul for President of the US -- he's the only candidate who would even consider ending the "War on Drugs."  He also voted against the "USA PATRIOT" (more like USSR COMRADE) act, the undeclared war in Iraq, the "Federal Marriage Amendment", and many other attempts to put the federal government where it doesn't belong.  He's a strict constitutionalist passing as a Republican in the House of Representatives.

you would support a candidate over a single issue?

[ChildOfTheLight]

That he would end the "War on Drugs" is not the whole reason.  The whole reason is in four words toward the end of my post: "He's a strict constitutionalist."  Everything else, ending the "War on Drugs" and all, follows from that.

[Laurry]

Just to play Devil's Advocate...

What happens when Iran completes their development of nuclear weapons?  Does anyone think the guy running Iran, who doesn't believe the Nazi holocaust really happened, will be any more reasonable than he is now?

And, if we keep insisting on fighting wars where no one is allowed to be killed or die fighting, how are we going to deal with people who are willing to strap a bomb on themselves and walk into any large gathering and blow themselves up?  How do you respond when someone captures innocent people and chops off their heads just because they disagree with their religion?

I'm not saying we Should be in Iraq ('cause we probably shouldn't), but the fact remains that we are.  So, how do we resolve this mess?  And, IMO, just packing up and leaving ain't the answer.  And what should our response be to nutcase dictators and their sabre-rattling, be it Iran, North Korea or some other place?  You can talk till you are blue in the face, but all the diplomacy in the world won't help without a real physical threat...reminds me of the joke about cops in England who aren't allowed to carry guns, only whistles...Stop or I'll toot!

......Laurie (stirring the ant pile with a stick)

[kaelin]

If you're suggesting that we wage war with every single country that wants to create a nuclear capabilities, there's just no way the US (or even US + EU) is going to overthrow them *and* install a government in each one afterwards.  It's a policy we are applying in Iraq, but it is not one we can enforce consistently (heck, we can't even enforce it in Iraq).  We could try that policy for all of the Afghanistans (which we are failing to do, but we probably could if not for Iraq), but it just doesn't work for every country that looks at us wrong.

Our general options seem to be strong diplomacy, or just leveling defiant countries and leave them to pick up the pieces on their own.  The latter is a problem because it'll turn those countries into breeding grounds for bad things in general.  The former *can* work, but we have to make certain adjustments before it will work in the Middle East.  In particular, we need to stop depending on their oil.  We need to research alternative energy (and mostly clean energy such as solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal) aggressively; it's a good idea to develop clean energy anyway, because pollution is a serious and growing problem.  The goal isn't to make us a completely self-reliant country, but it should give us leverage against other countries -- when we place hard diplomatic restrictions against Iran or whoever else, we won't give a damn if they cut off their oil exports.

It won't undo Iraq, but it gives us a means of dealing with other countries.

[cindianna_jones]

And, if we keep insisting on fighting wars where no one is allowed to be killed or die fighting, how are we going to deal with people who are willing to strap a bomb on themselves and walk into any large gathering and blow themselves up?  How do you respond when someone captures innocent people and chops off their heads just because they disagree with their religion?

When we decide to wage war, it should be to win.  Victory must be absolute and total.  Now, if we can't do that, we shouldn't be starting one.  We didn't learn in Korea, we didn't learn in Viet Nam, we still haven't learned that in Iraq.  Unless we can commit to total victory at all cost, we shouldn't be there.  In the case of Iraq and Iran, the cost would be very high in terms of human life, but it can be done. And in the process, we would kill millions.

Now, before wars start, we should find out why we tend to piss the world off.  It makes much more sense to prevent a war than it is to start one.

The weapons in Iran?  I don't know.  There is a solution somewhere. But parking the US army on their boarder and our mighty fleets off their coasts.... don't you think for just a little bit that they feel threatened?  No... this again is a lesson we still haven't learned.  We did this to the Soviets.  They were terrified of us planting tactical nukes on their boarders... so they built a bunch more.  

Negotiation and compromise should ALWAYS be at least tried first.  We don't even try.  We just rattle our big stick.  And if that we are going to do, then the full might of that big stick should be yielded when we fire the first weapon.

It might help our people if we could understand what we are fighting for.  The suicide bombers know what they are fighting for.  We sure don't.

Cindi

[Melissa]

Cindi, I think a lot of the problem is that we are the superpower and we come across as an arrogant nation.  The problem is that not all of us are arrogant, but there are people in other countries that think precisely that.  The other part of the reason we piss the world off is for the reasons you mentioned.

Melissa

[cindianna_jones]

I think if you ever get a chance to live in a third world country, you'll get a better perspective on the good ole USA.  We wonder why people hate us.  For we don't see what really goes on.

We rape the resources of third world countries.  We buy their drugs on one hand and castigate them for selling on the other.  We bomb houses, promise to rebuild them, and then never do.  We send our corporations in to kill local companies.  We make some people exceedingly rich while pushing the impoverished further into the mud. We strong arm countries to abide by our policies.  We destroy and build governments of our chosing.

As citizens, we go to their countries and flash money around as tourists. We are rude and crude. No one appreciates our arrogant manners.

It can all be summed up by the words of our esteemed leader:  "You're either with us or agin us."

Most people of the world have chosen the latter.

Cindi

[Laurry]

Kaelin,  You are right about developing alternative energies to free us from a dependence on oil.  The entire world economy is based on oil.  It is required for the shipping of goods and services, not to mention all the electricity required to watch TV and power our Playstations.    Sadly, all these things are years away, so what do we do for right now?  Conserve where possible, yes, but realistically, these are the cards we have been dealt.

And no, I am not suggesting we start wars/conflicts/police actions/whatever with folks who disagree with us.  But there is a reality to the fact that there are folks in the world who want to destroy this and other countries.  The real problem, as I see it, is that we have no answer on how to deal with people who not only are unafraid to die for their cause, but that is the only way to be sure they get to Heaven.  The way the Western culture resolves conflicts is by depending on both parties to want to stay alive and unharmed...we just don't have a clue how to reason with someone who is happy to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up so they can be assured a place at the side of The Prophet...I'm not even sure you can.

Melissa,
I agree.  We currently are the superpower, therefore we have a big target on our back.  And, for some reason, it also makes us believe we have to be the world's cops...and we all know how most folks feel about cops--we respect the job they do, but they also scare the crap out of us.

Cindi,
Have Americans, both government and private sector, done many disgusting, horrible and reprehensible things?  Yes.  Have they done fantastic and wonderful things?  Yes.  Problem is, good news doesn't sell newspapers, so little of the great things we are doing in Iraq and around the world get reported.

You made the comment that we don't even try to negoiate, just "rattle our big stick".  I disagree.  There were at least 17 UN resolutions (with severe military penalties) against Iraq demanding they show that they had destroyed the WMDs...all of which were ignored.  Were they there?  Who knows...we know they had them (because they used them)...but were they destroyed or shipped elsewhere?  Nobody is talking.  At what point do you decide talking isn't working and you have to take stronger actions?

I know I sound like I support everything that is going on...I don't.  But I also can't just jump on the bandwagon that says everything we do is wrong.  I have many problems with the way (and direction) "W" is leading the country, but it is not enough to just say he is wrong...alternative viable solutions need to be proposed.  Sadly, when I listen to the Democrats who want to lead the country, I hear a lot of "Bush is wrong" and very little of how to fix it.  It is not enough to just say it should be fixed, or that a solution will be found, give me some specifics on how they would fix it.  Conversely, when I hear the Republicans talking, most have their heads buried so deeply in the sand (yes, I cleaned it up) that they aren't even aware that there is a problem.  And most of the citizens are so apathetic or uninformed that 5 minutes of CNN tells them everything they need to know about the world...I guess it really is true that we deserve the leaders we elect. 

As always, these are my opinions and if you disagree, great...let's discuss.  I probably won't convince you and you probably won't convince me, but rational, intelligent conversation about these issues helps everyone, (and often can be highly entertaining).

......Laurie

[cindianna_jones]

Laurie,  yes... let's discuss.  I promise I won't get mad. For you see, I have what I believe, but that changes as the facts roll in.  And you may have some in your pocket.  You may even have a different perspective I might want to adopt. I believe we need to be able to discuss these issues. It is enlightening to do so.  So yes.  Let's discuss.

Let's pick one issue out of one of the many listed above. Your choice. And let's analyze it.

Cindi

[Omika]

Hi.

I just thought I'd stop in and say that ever since I saw Iran's president interviewed on 60 Minutes, I've fallen in love with him and want to have his babies.

Seriously.  I'm not kidding.

So, yes, I'm very much against the United States stomping off to another exercise in stupidity.  I don't want them to hurt my hubby.  *teardrop*

~ Blair

[Laurry]

Hey Cindi...let's have some fun.  Since the title of this thread is Iran...might as well talk about them, and the Daddy of Blair's children.

Couple of starting points:
1 - I am not advocating military action against Iran, but I also understand the possibility that it may be called for.
2 - I freely admit that the United States has its share of the blame in this whole mess, but I do not agree that we are entirely to blame.

What we have here is a "bit of a pickle".  Iran has stated that they are close to developing nuclear weapons.  They have also stated that given an opportunity, they would wipe Israel off the map.  And, if that's not enough, there are some indications that a lot of the weapons and bomb components being used against us in Iraq can be traced back to Iran.  Are any or all of these true?  Beats me, but this is what is being reported from multiple sources, both inside and outside the US, so I have to accept them until proven otherwise.

So, what do we do?  Consider this hypothetical situation:

Obviously the first step is to talk to them.  Basically, we go in there and say "Stop it" and they say "Go pound sand", or "Make me" or something like that.  So, we step up the talking..."Stop it or else", and they say "or else what?"  That's where things break down.

Based on how spectacularly the "Oil for Food" program failed with Iraq and the number of countries that ignored the sanctions and sold goods and services to Iraq, I would propose that any economic sanctions against Iran will be ineffective.  So, we don't buy their oil, they sell it to China...whoopee.  They need parts and help with the nuclear program, we say "no way Jose" and they get it from the folks who are currently providing it (Russia, Pakistan??).  So, economic sanctions won't stop them. 

So, telling them to stop doesn't work.  Economic sanctions don't work.  Next stop, threaten to kick their rears and send in the military...oh wait, we can't do that, the people in the US won't stand for it.  Not only can we not send the military, we can't even threaten to send it...OK, take the Army off the table.  Chances are, if we actually tried to use it there, it would be the start of WWIII as I believe the whole region would errupt in war.

So what's left?  Send a couple of squads of Special Forces??  Send in the spies??  Isn't that the kind of stuff we've done in the past the makes the whole world hate us?

The solution?  I don't know, but by eliminating the threat of military action, we severely limit our negotiating position.  Do I want us to start fighting there?  No.  Do I understand that you have to be able to threaten and occassionally take some action?  Yes.  Anybody who has seen the mom in the grocery store telling Jr over and over again "Stop that or I'll spank you" knows that occassionally you have to spank them.

So, we don't do anything (except talk on and on) until Iran completes building their nukes.  Then, we just have to pray that they don't give/sell one to some terrorist group.  I don't believe Iran would openly attack Israel or the US, but I wouldn't bet my life that they aren't above some covert actions...Ahmadinejad has been too vocal in his hatred.

OK.  That is a starting point.  I don't have any answers, but I am open to other opinions.  How we got here may have some part in this discussion, but I would much rather limit it to what do we do now?  Whether we elect a Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever as our next President, that person will have to deal with this.  It has been going on since before Bush, so you can't just blame it on George (even if he may have made it worse, I don't know).

I've summed up the situation as best as I see it.  If you disagree with the starting point, bring it up, I'm easy (yes, I really did say that).  So, kick back, have a drink, and let's play...I don't care whether I bring you around, you bring me around, or we both just agree to disagree...who knows, we may already agree and don't know it.  In any case, have fun and let me have it. 

Everyone is free to join in, just remember, THIS IS FOR FUN.  If you find yourself getting angry at someone or the position they espouse, you are missing the fun of this, and I would suggest that you may want to consider either drinking more or drinking less before reading this...recreational pharmaceuticals may also be good idea.

......Laurie




 

[Kelly-47]

The solution?  I don't know, but by eliminating the threat of military action, we severely limit our negotiating position.  Do I want us to start fighting there?  No.  Do I understand that you have to be able to threaten and occassionally take some action?  Yes.  Anybody who has seen the mom in the grocery store telling Jr over and over again "Stop that or I'll spank you" knows that occassionally you have to spank them.

But how much of a threat is military action? Our latest military offensive (yes pun absolutely intended) has not been a glaring success. I can't help but think we are looking a tad impotent, and arrogant...now there's a combo, rattling a flacid sabre. You can watch the evening news and see how our mighty military machine is spread too thin already. Who are we going to send in there, the Boy Scouts? 

Just havin some fun, sorta,

Kelly

[Laurry]

Maybe we're trying to achieve Peace through Comedy.  Maybe we're trying to make them laugh so hard they just say "Forget it, we don't need nukes."

And I loved the "flacid sabre" comment....LMAO

....Laurie

[cindianna_jones]

Laurie,

I may pick a very few points with you on your presentation,  but I pretty much concur with your point of view.  We've got a royal cluster-.... in the making.  So we had better be doing EVERYTHING we can to prevent military action.  We should have people over there full time negotiating.  We should be pushing a 100 percent effort in the UN and NATO to get other countries interested in this problem.  If we could get a real coalition together, it might have some clout to it.  I do agree that we are in a heck of a mess.

I don't think that we should ever retire the threat of using our military.  We have it and it is a resource.  But I do believe that it should be the very last thing used both in threat and actual implementation.  It seems to be on the forefront of options for everything we consider it seems.

Yea... it's a real mess.  And with reports of Iranian arms leaking into Iraq, I wonder what that may lead to.  Perhaps it won't rile us too much.  We've seen this sort of thing in every conflict we've had in the last half century where either China or the USSR provided weapons to our enemies.

The bottom line on all this.... I agree with you on your points.  From the political perspective, we'd be twinners.

Cindi

[Melissa]

Hey Cindi...let's have some fun.  Since the title of this thread is Iran...might as well talk about them, and the Daddy of Blair's children.

Hmm, have some fun?  ok >

How about this:
I saw Blair's children and Iran, Iran so far away ay ay.  >

Melissa