Iraq, Iran and the Middle East in general

[TGO David]

Perhaps we can discuss this maturely albeit passionately here.

What do you think of the current situations in the Middle East?

• Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq
  
• Likelihood of successfully stabilizing Iraq
  
• The apparent upcoming stare-down with Iran

I noticed this news story hit the wires just an hour ago. (LINK)

Gotta admit that I'm not real crazy about the collision course we seem to be on with Iran. I definitely think Iran needs to have it's ass spanked but I'm not sure now is the time as hard as our guys are already working over there and as thin as they seem to be spread.

Thoughts?

[Guest drewi]

Without going into details I would say that it's volatile. But everyone already knows that.

[towerclimber37]

but thats because I know everyone has a different opinion. I HAVE spent quite a bit of time, on a couple of occasions, in the middle east, as well as in other countries that were predominantly muslim.

Instead of giving my opinion right away, I'd like to ask a question.

Does anyone believe that the social mores and responsibilities of middle eastern countries equate to, in any way, those of our own society?

[TGO David]

Does anyone believe that the social mores and responsibilities of middle eastern countries equate to, in any way, those of our own society?

I have absolutely no such delusions.

[Guest Ghostrider]

towerclimber,

I think there are VERY few places in the world and fewer (if any) in the middle east that have anything similar to our values, esp. when it comes to the value we place on human life.

I spent time in the far east, a little in N. Africa and in those two places life is VERY cheap, values are completely different, and I have no interest in going back. I spent more time in Europe (Germany) and their values are closer, but yet very different.

did I miss anything?

[Guest J.D.D]

I won,t say what I really think about the whole thing, BUT even when it has been muddled(is that a word?) up.

I thank we need to finish what we started! I think it will be a miracle if we can get out of there without having a run in with Iran.

[molonlabetn]

The decision to send more troops:

I think that it is necessary, though perhaps a bit late. More importantly, the ROE should not be so tightly reigned... If the guys on the ground (and in the air) had been allowed from the beginning to do their jobs at full-speed, this would likely have not dragged on like it has, with seemingly little to show. The cause is just, and the need is real... But due to liberals dragging their heels, pointing fingers, and their exacerbating media propaganda; the follow-through of this campaign is becoming more and more futile. It is very frustrating to see, for anyone who is able to form their own opinion in their mind, without the media putting it there first.

The likelihood of stabilizing Iraq (or the mid-east, in general):

This all goes back to a blood feud which started several millenia ago. The religion of 'peace' has festered in the souls of too many generations, for a resolution to be found within merely a few years, or even decades. The people in general want peace, but their culture will not allow it... because it is at the mercy of obsessive fanatics with world-domination and mass genocide as their goal, at any cost. That ultimate cost must delivered by us first, to all of those radicals, before healing can begin. Presently, much of the world is either blind or un-willing to take on the responsibility and sacrifice needed to prevent the further perpetuation of islamo-fascism.

The stare-down with Iran:

Much like N. Korea, and mutually assured... It will come down to more of the same, only worse. In light of the changing political framework in this country, and a few others, the world is in for a pretty nasty next 10 years, at least.

[shaftbass]

[f'n morons]WEWWWWWW HEWWWWWWWWWWW LET AWL JUST MAKE IT A GLASS DEZZZZURT!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/idiots]

[TGO David]

[f'n morons]WEWWWWWW HEWWWWWWWWWWW LET AWL JUST MAKE IT A GLASS DEZZZZURT!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/idiots]

[shaftbass]

Come on.. we've all heard it before. The "lets just turn it into a glass desert" crowd. While it would be nice, most people who really think that are about two iq points short of a rock's iq.

[TGO David]

I think we should turn it into a glass parking lot.

[Guest Ghostrider]

I agree reef, it's not practical to turn it into a glass floored, self illuminated parking lot, but it's a good idea.

With that said, I do think we need to take the gloves off. Give Iran a very short period to knock it off, no negotiation, and when they don't put a few MOABS on Tehran and promise more. And do NOT apologize for any collateral damage.

But I realize I'm a hawk on policy like this...

[Cannon Fodder]

I think we should turn it into a glass parking lot.

Glass mining. Think of all the new jobs.

I'm with the Ghost who Rides with this. They could care less about the collateral damage they inflict on their own people, why should we care.

Dump on dem foos.

[molonlabetn]

Tehran is simply biding its time until there is an American administration in place who will not give them any resistance. In the mean-time they are quite content to supply the insurgents with weapons, to sustain the destruction and killing.

Iran and N. Korea will inevitably be a threat which must be directly dealt with, one way or another... Why give them the advantage of waiting to fight them on their terms? It is a choice between worse, and MUCH worse, given the fact that they refuse to back-down from world-wide confrontation and arms build-up. Iraq is a test of American resolve, it can only escalate from here.

I say, set them back on their heels. That is the only way to prevent them from bringing their 'jihad' to us.

[Guest MemphisReason]

• Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq

I think this is too little too late. Bush's policies failed from the beginning with his refusal to hear outside opinions on just about everything. Now I know a few of you want to blame the liberal media boogeyman, but there's only so much that they could have done. And in reality, they did very little except question the President, which is their moral duty to do as elected individuals. No one on the right-wing side was complaining about officials questions Clinton's plans during the Bosnia affair. All in all, this whole war was botched from the beginning and we're essentially putting a band-aid on a gaping axe wound at the loss of more lives. This war is turning into a war of escalation, like Vietnam, and look how well that turned out. We withdrew in 1975 and they finally stopped fighting in 1989.

• Likelihood of successfully stabilizing Iraq

That country will not ever stabilize, especially if we're there. It would be entirely different if there weren't warring factions of Sunni and Shiites in the region attacking each other, but there are and they will completely undermine any attempts to form a lasting government. I don't see this region stabilizing for at least 10 more years.

• The apparent upcoming stare-down with Iran

I'm not sure about this whole situation because their President seems to be far more accessible than North Korea's - a country with virtually no foreign contact and a larger arsenal. I hope that we can resolve things with Iran peacefully, otherwise I think Israel should take care of it. The US should really stop screwing around in the affairs of other countries lest we are directly attacked (which is why I was bothered about invading Afghanistan, only the subsequent neglect in which we focused attention on Iraq and let the Taliban come back).

[Marswolf]

Iraq hasn't been stable for millennia except when some strong-man forced the people to act semi-peacefully for a while. Really true of the whole region.

I'd have gone after Syria first.

Our Intel was lousy. I mostly blame Jimmy Carter for that, but all the Presidents after Carter should have fixed it.

But since we are in Iraq, we need to finish the job. Not maintaining control there makes it much more likely we will be attacked. We are not there to free the Iraqi people. We are there to prevent terrorist attacks on us here in the US.

I was talking to one of our guys in Iraq the other day who is pissed at our Congress and a lot of the American people. He says that you can not support the troops without also supporting the war. I totally agree with him. It's just word play to pretend you can support our military without supporting their cause.

We are going to have to get out of this thinking that we are going in, cleaning up the place, and leave. Terrorism doesn't work that way. We are no longer protected by our oceans. This is a long-term conflict. We need to think in terms of decades rather than months. But I don't think we will do that. It's going to be a roller coaster. They attack and we go after them then withdraw, followed by another attack on us.

So what do I think will happen? We'll sent in a few more troops that will be insufficient to do the job, declare victory and leave. That will be followed by civil war with sections of the country used to train more people to kill us. And they will kill us. We never learn.

[Guest MemphisReason]

No disrespect towards you or your friends (and my friends) in Iraq, but you can support the troops without supporting the war much in the same way you can support someone that doesn't hold the exact same beliefs as you. I support the troops in that they are my fellow countrymen and I wish them to come home safe so that they can secure our borders rather than waste time fighting a conflict that was based on specious reasoning and intel. It is entirely possible to disagree with a conflict and support the military at the same time. Audie Murphy comes to mind - a man who was an objector yet fought valiantly.

Our intel was lousy because our intelligence agencies and communities are outdated and should be rebuilt from the ground up. All these agencies we have were designed to fight an entirely different enemy and it's time for them to go. No longer do we worry about the Soviet Union, we have to worry about small organizations who use obscure sources for funding. The 9/11 Commission Report says as much.

I honestly don't think we can finish the job at all. The administration greatly underestimated the cost of staying there and the manpower involved despite repeated warnings from knowledgeable officials who had a hard time even getting the ear of the President for the mere fact that they offered an opposing view. Fortunately, no blame goes on any man or woman taking orders on the ground as our elected officials screwed this one up.

I think we all realize that the fight against terrorism is definitely going to be a long one, but it can't be won by forcing people to adopt a new form of government which is the antithesis of everything they grew up with. What could help is to get some of the neighboring countries to help with reconstruction and enforcement of anti-terrorism laws and policing. That won't happen though.

What we will never learn is to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. Once we stop doing that, it will definitely take the heat off of us for awhile until we get another person in office that doesn't understand the perils of entangling alliances. If we gave Bush everything he wanted, he still couldn't complete the job.

[Marswolf]

[towerclimber37]

Audie Murphy comes to mind - a man who was an objector yet fought valiantly.

thats' horse crap. Audie Murphy only objected to the religious complications of taking another persons' life. This was because of his upbringing. After he was able to speak to his Preacher, who explained the reason for taking human life to his satisfaction, he was more than fine with killing the enemy.

he was NOT a contentious objector after that.

I think we all realize that the fight against terrorism is definitely going to be a long one, but it can't be won by forcing people to adopt a new form of government which is the antithesis of everything they grew up with.

Its either teach them to adopt a different form of government or we'll have to KILL them. what you're ignorant of is the fact that to THEM there is NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

this means that under the auspices of their religion, one is allowed to KILL another for trespass.

Under the tennants of their faith, you're either converted to islam, or you're KILLED...GET IT? If you don't believe me, read up on it.

What we will never learn is to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. Once we stop doing that, it will definitely take the heat off of us for awhile

This is a fight against Radical Islam..unfortunately thats about 70% of the middle east. so its either meddle, or get our teeth kicked in again..why? because a. we're predominantly christian and yes thats the religion that our country was founded on. about 10 flavors of christianity..

we have the ability to change our government..its a dynamic thing..the ISLAMIC LAW DOES NOT have this ability. that means they'll be stuck in the rut of killing those that disagree with them.

Where exactly does that leave us? we either MEDDLE in their affairs or else they will KILL us.

I apologize for being abrupt but I speak a fair amount of Arabic and have spent more time there than I have watching the stupid reporters on tv and it ticks me off when I hear this drivel about how we're doing the wrong thing by being there.

[Guest Ghostrider]

Our Intel was lousy. I mostly blame Jimmy Carter for that, but all the Presidents after Carter should have fixed it.

ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner - don't forget to spread a lot of it around to Mr. clinton, as well, he pretty much undid everything Ronnie did to try to fix the previous messes. Petty easy to have a good economy if you gut the DoD...

..but you can support the troops without supporting the war much in the same way you can support someone that doesn't hold the exact same beliefs as you.

No, you can't. Much like breakfast, you have to decide if you're the chicken or the pig. I may respect the opinion of someone I disagree with, or I may tolerate them, but I don't support them.

Our intel was lousy because our intelligence agencies and communities are outdated and should be rebuilt from the ground up. All these agencies we have were designed to fight an entirely different enemy and it's time for them to go. No longer do we worry about the Soviet Union, we have to worry about small organizations who use obscure sources for funding. The 9/11 Commission Report says as much.

Yeap, and the Warren comission fed us all that crap about a magic bullet, too. I personally know that in the 60s and 70s, you couldn't take a dump anywhere in the world without the CIA knowing it and likely having file of it. But it was too "expensive"...

I honestly don't think we can finish the job at all.

That is QUITE a statement. It may reveal more about your thought process than you intended.

... but it can't be won by forcing people to adopt a new form of government which is the antithesis of everything they grew up with.

Do tell? So the democratic governments of Germany and japan are??? what??? Imaginary constructs???

What we will never learn is to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. Once we stop doing that, it will definitely take the heat off of us for awhile...

Yes, it'll take the heat off for a while, and then we will have some attacks in this country that will make 9/11 look like a weekend in Saigon. Appeasement has never worked, and it never will.

The "treaty" with PRNK will disolve like smoke on the wind as soon as they get the promised money and fuel, and then the reactors will crank up again.

Iran is killing time until they get (as previously stated) a US administration that will not oppose them and then they will take the middle east and the oil. Just like they are accusing us of doing. If we don't support Isreal now, and then, they will cease to exist and then we will face a world wide jihad.

Islam is currently the fastest growing religion in the US, and most of that growth is in the prison system. Ready made bad ass army. The war on terror is already being fed to the masses as a battle between the rich and the poor with the muslims on the side of the poor. It amazes me how many people are eating this theory whole.

Ask yourself this. Since 1972, I've had a rifle or shotgun (seldom both) around the house and maybe half a box of ammo. Maybe I'd shoot off a couple of 3 rounds a year. So why have I been buying more weapons and ammo over the past 5 years, in rifles, shotguns, and handguns??? And why does my new years resolution include at least one trip to the range a month, preferable 3?

Perhaps because I'm a paranoid old fat guy? or maybe not?

[towerclimber37]

Iraq hasn't been stable for millennia except when some strong-man forced the people to act semi-peacefully for a while. Really true of the whole region.

That would be the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) until they got their keisters handed to them by the english in World War I.

Before that it was the Persians (Iran..take HEED of this..they are STILL in conquest mode).

I agree with Ghostrider...Iran is already working to take as much of the middle east as they can. They funnel weapons and materiel to Hezbolla (party of God) through Syria, into Lebanon to attack Israel.

if you think brute force doesn't work...ask yourself how many more soldiers have been kidnapped from the Lebanese border lately? Study the newscasts of when they (Israeli soldiers) were kidnapped. watch the dialog between Israel and Syria and Iran. When Israel threatened to destroy ALL parties involved in the kidnapping, Syria shut up the yapping and put pressure on Iran to do the same..why? because they're in between IRAN and Israel...and Israel would go through Syria like eggs through a hen.

Naked aggression has solved more conflicts than any other way in the history of mankind.

Most elitist liberals would like to believe otherwise because they live in an insular world.

Republicans may be S.OB's but at least they're OUR s.o.b's.

[RandyC]

The region is going to remain a quagmire for many years to come. And until the American people are united in support of a conflict there will be no truly satisfactory conclusion. All the old definitions of victory don't apply here.

Today's enemy does not adhere to any of the rules of warfare with which we saddle ourselves. The Geneva Convention? Forget it. The UN only expects the Americans to abide by it. (And, I might add, the American people as well.)

I'm afraid it will take a cataclysmic event to terrify the population into supporting all out war. And that event will have been planned in, and delivered from, the region we're talking about.

Will our troops being there have an effect on the timetable of such an event? I don't know.

[Marswolf]

Regrettably, I have to be a realist. The American people are pretty spineless. They are good at braggadocio but not much on staying with something until it's finished. Unfortunately, our enemies understand that.

[molonlabetn]

Regrettably, I have to be a realist. The American people are pretty spineless. They are good at braggadocio but not much on staying with something until it's finished. Unfortunately, our enemies understand that.

Too true...

We haven't actually FINISHED a war since 1945.

[Guest jackdog]

It in my humble opinion time for America to stop being the worlds policemen. It is also time for America to stop trying to run the damn world. Let us take care of America and it's citizens. Stop foreign aid and for sure get the hell out of the UN and get the UN out of America.

Jackdog