Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 28th, 2004, 11:00 AM        Countdown to war with Iran
"My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically," Bush said in a TV interview broadcast Monday. "We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them."

Pressed on whether he would allow Iran to build a bomb, Bush said: "No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon."
-W, yesterday.


Sound familliar? I think the decision, like the Iraq war decision has already been made. If W. is elected we will institute reginme change in Iraq. We won't need a massive buildup. We'll probably wait until the Iraqi elections, and just move our forces over the border. We didn't finish the mission in Afghanistan, I don't see why anybody would think we'll see it through in Iraq.

Here are the problems as I see them. Iran is an actual threat. I don't believe they'd have pursude such a bold, in your face nuclear policy is the US hadn't alientated it's alies, detsroyed it's own credability and expended so much money and equipment, so many lives in Iraq.

If we send Colin Powells replacement before the UN with sattelite photos that look like a bunch of buildings and we say they're nuclear weapons sites, who won't recall sattelite photos of supposed 'mobile WMD labs'? But going it alone is not something this administration minds. Ho har is it going to be for W to get a serious UN resolution when the last time we got one, we claimed it meant the UN said we could go to war, even though the head of the UN to this day says it was a criminal act to do so? I think the security council may be a little cautious in their wording if W. stays at the helm.

But I don't think any of these Neo con bastards care t all about any of that. They had a vision of 'democratizing' the middle east one nation at a time, and by god, one country overthrown is not enough. The fact that nothing has worked out they way they thought it would doesn't matter because you never admit mistakes, and you never change course.

Future historians are going to look back and call this Americas Lemming Period.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Sep 28th, 2004, 12:14 PM       
To be sure, Iran will be a major issue for either newly elected President. I honestly don't see Kerry allowing Iran to go nucular any more then Bush. I'm running with the idea that Kerry would be more aggressive than Bush, actually. Any credibility the Democrats would ever hope to claim in terms of foreign policy will be riding on Kerry's treatment of the WOT. Pandora's Box has already been opened. We can't go back to the world we had before the invasion of Iraq. Even if the bad guys never come to the conclusion that terrorism isn't the effective tool they once believed it to be, Western leaders are in the process of realizing that appeasement just doesn't work, and Western leaders have to answer to those that elect them.

I mean, what good did appeasement do for France or Russia? Did their resistance to US aggression buy them any preferential treatment from Al Quaeda? Germany held out to the last minute hoping to avoid sending it's NATO troops to train Iraqis in Iraq simply because Berlin doesn't want to deal with Germans making electoral decisions based on dead German soldiers that were just trying to do the right thing.

Europe is doing it's level best to grow now that it's not under threat of Soviet invasion. It's need for American protection no longer exists... unless Iran starts a nuclear build up that forces Israel, Pakistan, India and at least one other Arab nation to stockpile, which would make China and thus Japan and back-sliding Russia very nervous and more likely to join in the arms race... What about North Korea? Ever wonder why nobody has really bitched all that much about Americas withdrawal from the Nuclear Proliferation Agreement? The world is not all that far from being in a much more precarious position than it enjoyed back in the Cold War days...

If anything even close to the above scenario begins to play out, the still struggling to be born EU will lose any credibility it had by once again being forced to ask America for protection. We benefit from the technological advantage and geographical distance that would set our primacy in world power in stone were the world to arm up in a domino effect begun by Iran building just one nuke.

Iran won't change it's plans for Kerry any more than it might for Bush. That it's current plans are put aside and forgotten entirely is a necessity for any stable future for the entire world, and I'm not just being melodramatic. Isn't it nice to know that we now have troops based just a matter of miles from Iran's eastern and western borders now? Is it any wonder Iran sees that as a direct threat? It's a tense situation to be sure, but I'm not buying the scenario where our not invading Iraq caused Iran to give up it's nuclear ambitions.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 28th, 2004, 01:43 PM       
Oh, I don't think Iran would change it's plans for Kerry, I just think he'd be way better positioned to deal with it.

In making a case he wouldn't be saddled with W's credability problems Vs. the rest of the world. Almost nobody wants a nuclear Iraq, but any leader that supported America would have to sell that idea to their constituency, many of whom are still sore at W. over the whole WMD, go it alone thing.

The only way to make Iran back down without the disaster of another invasion (which would basically convince most of the Muslim world that this was indeed a crusade) would be convincing pressure from an actual coalition, like the one W senior assembled. Jr. isn't interested in that sort of thing, has evidenced no talent for it beyond his lack of interest and is far less likely to be trusted in negotiation by potential allies, since on several critical issues he treated lap-dog Britain pretty poorly.

I think a Non Nuclear Iraq is in the worlds interest. But I think anoter middle eastern war would be beyond disasterous. I think Kerry would have a way better chance of achieving non nuclear Iraq and avoiding war than W, who I'm not even sure is intereted in avoiding another war.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Sep 28th, 2004, 02:22 PM       
Hmmm... I honestly doubt Kerry or any other President would be able to convince France, Germany and Russia to go to war against their will, but I believe their minds will change as the situation grows more tense with Iran. No matter who is President, I cannot imagine what a GOOD confrontation with Iran will look like. While I get frustrated playing armchair quarterback while watching all the fumbles in Iraq, part of me knows that war is a stupid thing though sometimes necessary and there is no intelligent way to do stupid things...

Yes Iraq was badly planned and Yes that's mostly Team Bush's fault. There is a reason, however, that the Constitution says Congress should be the one to declare war just like there's a reason they've reliably abdicated that responsibility at every opportunity since WWII. Everybody that's bitching about the bungling of Iraq now had plenty of opportunity to make suggestions prior to handing over the reins to the neo-cons. It's not like these guys weren't already infamous for their desires and motivations before Dubya got elected, y'know...

Scape-goating and Finger-pointing is only giving time to Iran, which is pretty sure at the moment that it no longer has a choice between funding terrorism OR building a nuke. Terrorism was only effective when America and the rest of the West ignored it. It's only proving marginally helpful in prolonging the inevitable in Iraq, which is something America must at least somewhat finish before it focuses fully on Iran's growing threat.

Either way, Bush will still be President at least for a little bit after Nov 2. The only reason we're not dealing more sternly with Tehran now is because of the election. While I can't imagine either administration wanting a shooting war with Iran as a solution, I can't imagine what the alternative will look like no matter who's in charge. Would a broader or even world-wide coalition of negative-opinion stop Iran, or would it only send the signal that finishing up that nuke is more important than ever?

Iran's motivation is the problem, not the form of our response.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:50 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.