Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by onedomino, Feb 26, 2005.
I have one question: Are you pro Iraq war people disappointed that Bush appears to be "weak "on Iran. He won your applauds for being so bold and sure of himself when it came to Iraq but he seems to be looking for a consensus as per Iran. I for one am glad to see a little hesitation and consideration of Europe and other allies.....I think it is a good thing. But how does this fit in with former attitudes that if the US wants to do it, we should go ahead, (and stopping a nuclear program probably equates pretty well with WMD's), not worrying about seeking the approval of others.
Iran is different on many levels. In no way was it weakened like Iraq was with the earlier Gulf War. In Iran the problem isn't one rouqe leader, but rather one very conservative leader that is to the left of the controlling mullahs.
The population is 'controlled' but not anywhere near what one was talking about regarding the Taleban in Afghanistan or Saddam in Iraq. There have been waves of student protests over the past decade and the Iranians are a substantial voice on the Internet.
For all these reasons and more, diplomacy seemed to be the weapon of choice, but if it breaks down, especially in light of the now official agreement between Syria and Iran, I do not think that Iran is going to be allowed to go nuclear.
My question was to "pro Iraq war" types....so I guess it would apply to you??, And I tried to say that I approve of a more cautious approach being taken with Iran/ NKorea even though I am of the opinion that either of these poses maybe even a greater threat than I ever felt from Saddam/ Iraq. even Afghanistan seemed a greater threat. As you say, our eagerness to engage on this front, Iraq, has hindered our credibility to pursue actual and perhaps greater advesaries. It just goes along with my opinion that we occupied Iraq for very different reasons than to "get rid of Saddam" or to defeat terrorism. whatever. There is no evidence that Saddam was going to nuke us, in fact evidence to the contrary.....so I wasnt especially afraid of it or waiting to get my ass nuked. Actually I see much greater causes that the might and will of the US could serve and are currently being neglected.
Ridiculous. For example, the fact that America destroyed the murderous regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq is precisely the reason that we have credibility with the Iranians, Syrians, North Koreans, etc. Those outlaw regimes know that America, in contrast to the UN, will back up what it says with action. When the US says, "allow for verifiable, complete nuke-facility inspections; adhere to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty," the Iranians need only look to Iraq to see the price of non-compliance. The E3 (UK, FR., GR.) are currently trying to purchase (appease) Mullah compliance with the NNP Treaty, which Iran signed. The EU "negotiators" would have zero credibility without the US standing ominously in the background.
Once again, you're laboring under the leftist delusion that diplimacy was not attempted in iraq and that we went in alone. These are both wrong.
Since the premise of your question is wrong, I don't know how to answer except to say, "the premise of your question is wrong."
I dont know you well but I would not call you a warmonger. We just have substantially different takes on the issues. I too am weary of any explanations of the reasons we went to war. Life is change and I would be most glad to see things change for the better, (it is my belief that the better off EVERYBODY is, the better off we all are). I would not hold it against GW if his actions resolved the many many problems in the middle east, all over for that matter, and did in fact make it a safer and better world for all. I wouldn't sing his praises but I would surely give him credit. (War by its very nature is a clumsy and brutal way to bring about change, but it has proven its effectiveness over time, and also its self perpetuating nature).
My comments on the nuclear issue.....I think the threat of nuclear weapons or "dirty" bombs (a obscure euphenism if I ever heard one) is our greatest challenge. Nuclear weapons should be treated with the same amount of regard as the destruction they can bring about. That should be no tolerance, no exceptions. So I wont resign to living in fear of being nuked, I will do and say all I can to express my opposition to any nuclear proliferation.
There is a chance for us to introduce new concepts to the nations of the middle east and I will credit the present show of force for opening that door. It did need to be opened...the time of fascism and martyrism has been long and harmful for many, change is difficult and we are expecting a large group of people, very set in their religious and traditional ways, to surrender to a freer and more modern world, its not going to happen overnight. The resolution of our efforts may only come about years from now, but every journey starts with the first step and we and they have started that journey. Let us all hope for success.
This is where I stopped reading. Anyone else care to share a funny story about this post?
...you mean other than the fact that it's a redundant sentence?
Do you have a funny anecdote regarding your reading of the post? If not, step aside, Vonda.
Separate names with a comma.