The case against Iran is a lot more compelling than Iraq, if anti-terrorism is your objective. Heck, the case against terrorism for just about any other country in the region is better than Iraq.
If stopping terror was the goal, a full-out assault on Washington DC was 1000x more logical than an assault on Baghdad. It’s not about stopping terror, it’s about stopping terror we dont like and promoting terror we like.
I want to believe that we won’t attack Iran. I really want to believe it. Of course, I wanted to believe that Bush wasn’t an immoral, lying beast before the Iraq war, so much for belief, eh?
That’s a measly excuse for an assault on an entire country (2x bigger, 3x more populated and better armed than Iraq, BTW) whether he was one of the hostage-takers or not. Wouldn’t surprise me if he was, afterall its not like the Revolutionaries went underground. The Bush admin. and the media will make hay for a while, then it will pass … I hope.
I just don’t know what difference it makes whether he was a hostage taker or not. He’s at least allegedly democratically elected, and while we’re apparently becoming a country that holds grudges, what exactly are our options anyway? It’s not as if that’s really a reason to invade the country. And it’s not as if our CIA contacts there are good enough to arrange for an “accident” to befall the guy, or we probably would’ve done it by now.
It seems more than anything just media masturbation.
It is not like this president has the authority to pass gas or anything without the approval of the ayatollahs (sp?).
Yeah, just because they are on the verge of getting nuclear weapons, have close ties to Al Qaeda and hold parades with weapons that say “death to America” shouldn’t concern us any more than the PM elect being a former hostage taker. Nothing to see here.
Given that they’ve been on the verge for some time, perhaps we should’ve gone into Iran first, rather than Iraq, if you’re so concerned. Or should we first pick off the other countries without WMDs?
As for countries that say death to America, if we invaded all of them, we’d need a bigger Army, don’t you think. Or perhaps we should engage countries with diplomacy, as well as guns.
For adamb, haondotri, trio-jeepy and other Doves on this board, a question for you. Since we are mired down in a quagmire in an illegal and unjust war in Iraq (your words), have a newly elected president terrorist in Iran, North Korea making threats of vaporizing Seoul, and China preparing to “take back” Taiwan what do we do? More precisely what would you do? Lets play out this fantasy and see how you, comrade, the newly installed president here in amerika would deal with these potential crisis’. Lets forget the past and not blame the ex President Bush I truly would like to know what our world would look like if you were living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Looking at the pictures they have of Iran’s new President-elect and those of the hostage taker he is accused of being, I wouldn’t bet any money on it being the same person. Different nose, brow, ears, etc. Plus, most of the former hostages say it wasn’t him.
I agree the pictures don’t lend to it being the same guy but I watched several interviews last night and the captives who are sure seemed pretty positive it was him. Twenty plus years can play havoc with the memory however. So I will take that one off the table and say OK he is not a terrorist. What do we do with the rest of the hot spots? I trully respect your views and opinions slowguy and know you have studied world geopolitics in depth. What do you think we should do?
For adamb, haondotri, trio-jeepy and other Doves on this board, a question for you. Since we are mired down in a quagmire in an illegal and unjust war in Iraq (your words), have a newly elected president terrorist in Iran, North Korea making threats of vaporizing Seoul, and China preparing to “take back” Taiwan what do we do? More precisely what would you do? Lets play out this fantasy and see how you, comrade, the newly installed president here in amerika would deal with these potential crisis’. Lets forget the past and not blame the ex President Bush I truly would like to know what our world would look like if you were living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The first thing I would do is declare war on the oil addiction. Announce that it is the stated goal of the US to reduce domestic oil consumption by 50% by the year 2020, then fund it like the space program was funded in the 1960s. Then watch the international fur fly.
Wonderful!!!
Somehow our oil consumption has something to do with international terrorism, nuclear proliferation and sovereignty issues.
Wonderful!!!
Somehow our oil consumption has something to do with international terrorsim, nuclear proliferation and sovereignty issues.
I yield to your overwhelming intellect.
That is a start Ken we do have an oil addiction. I think we should pursue alternative fuel sources but it should be done by the private sector with all of the incentives and tax relief available. Not the government. In the mean time we should also be free to “feed our addiction” by drilling for oil on US soil and opening up more refineries. Of course the environmental whackos will throw an absolute hissy fit.
Actually, I agree that with Ken that we should mandate stricter guidelines on mpg for autos and put forth an energy policy that pours money into the investment of alternative sources of energy as well as tightening efficiency and pollution standards for power plants.
I don’t see how that will help with global terrorism though.
I’m a quasi dove.
Besides our being involved in the GWOT, is there really much that is new in your scenario? It doesn’t strike me as being vastly different, though it may be and I just might not be seeing it. But here’s how it strikes me: Iran has always had militant leaders, this one is just less a part of the religious machinery, though still a part of it. China has been threatening (and preparing) to take back Taiwan for years. And North Korea has made hundreds of threats against Seoul. Now some of the surrounding details have changed. England was somehow a stabilizing force with China/Taiwan, despite some of the negative views held towards them. If nothing else we owe England a major thanks for spreading free market ideas throughout the world. Iran doesn’t really have a major enemy, which was one of the things that both spurred on its nuclear ambitions, though held them back from aggressive military conflicts. The lack of tension on them is bothersome, we don’t want them focusing on us.
I personally would need a few years of aging before I could even run for President, however, if I were the President as of right now: I’d continue training Iraqi troops so they would be moderately self-sufficient on their own. I would do this by increasing the amount of Iraqis serving alongside American troops, when feasible. The recent improvements in the training program have yielded great results, we should continue this and hopefully in a more aggressive manner. I’d then start to get more global support for our actions, and play things off that if the UN or NATO supports the Iraqis more then the US can be less aggressive in its military campaign. I’d try and get UN or NATO forces to work out plans for a more mid-term phase in of troops to assist the Iraqi forces.
In Iran, and the rest of the Muslim world, I’d continue trying to support, from a less public position, the seemingly increasing levels of democratization. While the Iranian leader won’t have much power, we can hopefully help influence the youth of Iran to demand more civil liberties and less of a secularized government. We need to study the paradigm of the limits of a Muslim democracy, there are few countries that are heavily Muslim that would seem to lend themselves towards a Democracy that isn’t principally lead by religious leaders. I’d press the members of the EU to stabilize what they are doing, and then promote the idea of bringing Turkey into the EU. I’d help Turkey out a lot because we need to get them involved in the global economy so that the ideas of freedom and commerce can flourish more widely in the Muslim world.
Related to Iran, I’d spend a lot of time with my experts trying to figure out where the focus of the GWOT will be once we leave Iraq in a substantial way. If we’re taking the war to the terrorists, funneling them into Iraq more specifically, then I’m worried about where they will go next. And of course related to this I’d want to increase the security of our borders, because we don’t want hand fulls of highly trained terrorists to seep through the border, lying low for a few years to then attack us.
There doesn’t seem to be a lot that can be done with Taiwan on the surface, we’ve made a lot of attempts in the future. Drawing a firm line in the sand with them is not advisable because the pompadourian leader is certifiably nuts. The Castro Method is probably the best one available: just wait him out. I’m not clear on how things would work if Kimmy died though, I don’t believe he has any children (though he’d probably sire one when he felt he was really getting old). It might be worth it to try and force a militarily controlled government on them next, that’s a somehow more healthy form of government. The militarily lead government could be forced to seek increased trade in order to keep the tanks rolling and fueled. If we can get them involved in more free trade then we can increasingly get “Western” products and ideals into their country.
I’d also keep our noses out of Israel for a healthy period of time, lots of progress is being made there without our (public) influence. I’d again want to try and find ways to push ideas of free market capitalism on the new Palestinian government, but presently I’m not sure how actionable that is.
PS: I’d also want to have someone a lot smarter than I am look into why in a recent AAA survey 90% of the people though buying an SUV was anti-American, but 30% of the same respondents were going to purchase and SUV in the next few months.
PPS: I’d stress that thinly veiled references to fellow Americans as Communists isn’t a very American thing to do, and lessens the meaning of who we are. I’d also want to impress upon those who disagree with the current ideology and actions of the White House (Bush, not me) that there are productive and non-productive ways of disagreeing. We are all after the same end state, but disagree on how we should get there. We need less back and forth arguments, and more meaningful discussions between differing view points, because the middle ground of those views are the best and most actionable ideas.
Absolutely a great, well written post. I am very impressed. Thanks. That is exactly the kind of information I like to have to give me a better understanding of these world events.
Thanks also for pointing out my attempted “jab” at some here. I was frustrated with their uncivil discourse and only complaining without providing positive options. I lowered myself to their level and should not have.
Thanks for the compliment. I’m not sure how good my thoughts really are, but I do know I spend (waste some might say) a lot of time thinking about it.
You’re better than negativity, I don’t even know you and can tell that. Don’t let your love for your country become a negative, it’s challenging when you are confronted with negativity, but we all have to strive to help out our country and those who sacrifice for it in the ways we can (and then seek to do even more). You’re a great advocate for the US military and its members.
If stopping terror was the goal, a full-out assault on Washington DC was 1000x more logical than an assault on Baghdad.
No matter what one’s opinion is on the Iraq war, what kind of brain fart produces a statement like that? Unless you are Osama bin Laden posting from deep within a Pakistani cave, that may win the prize for the dumbest statement ever posted on the internet.
Ken, I actually agree with you here, but I suspect for slightly different reasons. I think you have the right idea because we need to do this anyway, regardless of our foreign policy. We have to get this figured out now, for many reasons, and every year we wait is just going to make it more expensive and a bigger challenge.
As for Iran, I don’t think we are going to war with them, at least not in an overt way. I would not be suprised if we have been at “war” for a long time already against Iran in one form or another. In the case of Iran we have to be concerned about their ability to strike Israel (or other countries) which would be a nightmare. I think we have missed the window for any all out assault, not to mention who will fight there? Can’t fight Iran and Iraq plus all our other deployments at the same time and Iraq is not going to be over any time soon.