Solve Iran to win Iraq

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Feb 22, 2004
82,283
10,143
2,070
Minnesota
The Real Story

Saw this on television earlier and i wanted to take a closer look because it was quite and interesting dialogue. This is what I thought was interesting:

While everyone today is focused on President Bush's announcement about a troop surge in Iraq, we're all missing another part of his speech that might be even more important. Did you hear this?

"Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops...I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will (also)...deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies."

The Real Story is that if you want to solve Iraq, you first have to solve Iran. I understand that it's the last thing the American people want to hear but we've got to stop kidding ourselves into thinking that ANY new strategy will work if it doesn't include figuring out how to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and trying to control the entire Middle East.

Last month the Gulf Cooperation Council, which is made up of six Arab states, met in Saudi Arabia and did a lot of talking about the threats from Iran. According to a participant, the leaders reached the conclusion that Iran has already drawn up plans to take-over Iraq once the U.S. backs out. They also determined that Iran is increasingly putting a stranglehold on Lebanon, by funding Hezbollah, and on Syria, a country that is dependent on them for support.

Now, picture yourself as a leader in, say, Saudi Arabia. You're sitting there and watching how Iran is not only actively working to take over three countries, but also starting a nuclear program that no one is doing anything about.

So you get together with the other five countries in the Gulf Council and come up with a great plan. You decide that you're interested in starting a "peaceful" nuclear program too! "That's right," you said, "if Iran is going to have nukes, then so are we!"

But that creates a whole other problem. The Gulf Council is only made up of six countries, so what about the Arab states that aren't members, like Egypt -- they can't be left out! So their President does exactly what any of us would do. He calls a press conference and says:

"We don't want nuclear arms in the area but we are obligated to defend ourselves...It is irrational that we sit and watch from the
sidelines when we might be attacked at any moment."

Is it starting to sound just a little bit like a nuclear arms race yet? It should, because that's exactly what's happening even though NO ONE wants to admit it. And don't fool yourself, it IS about weapons, not fuel. These countries are literally floating on oil and it's not like they to deal with California environmentalist whack-jobs yelling at them about finding clean fuel. In fact, Iran has flat out admitted that they might use the technology for weapons, but no one is listening! Their Chief Nuclear Envoy said that they really want to use nuclear technology peacefully, but, that, "the situation could change" if his country were threatened.

Oh, well that makes me feel a lot better - especially when Iran has already said over and over again that we're already threatening them just by our very existence! Remember, the whole "great Satan" thing?

Stop Iran and you not only stop the nuclear arms race before the entire middle east is a parking lot made of glass, but you also do the one thing everyone seems to actually care about: you win the war in Iraq.
 
The Real Story

Saw this on television earlier and i wanted to take a closer look because it was quite and interesting dialogue. This is what I thought was interesting:


I disagree with the author's premise. If on this very day we had a twenty foot high, twenty foot thick concrete wall with imbedded glass and concerntina wire on top, 2-mile deep minefield, and motion sensors evey 25 yards .....in other words, managed to effectively seal off the Iranian border ... the factional infighting in Iraq would be the same.

Yes it would be nice to stop AQ from stirring up the pot and supplying men and weapons for thir own nefarious reasons, but they are following their own agenda, hiding behind traditional Arab tribal infighting and a battle for control between the Shia and Sunni.

Then there's the fact that the author's plan rests on five Arab nations to get together, agree on a plan, and actually do something other than jack the price of oil or cut production.

Iran and its nuclear ambitions needs to be dealt with in and of itself, and the UN is more likely to act before the Arabs will.
 
I disagree with the author's premise. If on this very day we had a twenty foot high, twenty foot thick concrete wall with imbedded glass and concerntina wire on top, 2-mile deep minefield, and motion sensors evey 25 yards .....in other words, managed to effectively seal off the Iranian border ... the factional infighting in Iraq would be the same.
.....

I don't agree. Iran and also Syria contribute fighters, weapons and money to the instigators in Iraq.
 
How do you explain that? We agree that they'll always be fighting, but the degree is dependent on the money and weapons given to them.

They got past rock-throwing during WWI. They'll get their weapons regardless. We can no more stop that than we can enforce our own Southern border.

Iran and Syria are not the only places weapons and supplies come from. Arabs move in and out fo Arab nations like we move between states. You would have to seal off the entire Iraqi border; which, is not feasible.

Not for us. We don't know how to seal off a border.
 
They got past rock-throwing during WWI. They'll get their weapons regardless. We can no more stop that than we can enforce our own Southern border.

Iran and Syria are not the only places weapons and supplies come from. Arabs move in and out fo Arab nations like we move between states. You would have to seal off the entire Iraqi border; which, is not feasible.

Not for us. We don't know how to seal off a border.

We've been able to seal them off before, as in WW2. No one has yet been able to explain to me why we don't do as we've done before: two rows of razor wire 400 yards apart and a free fire zone between. With predator drones, we could even do it with very little manpower.

I know your answer: we don't have the intestinal fortitude. And I agree.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #11
I think the more interesting information is the rest of the Arab countries demanding nuclear arms.

However, do you think you can ever stop the infighting if you don't stop the source of arms and cash supporting the infighting? You have to stop the room from flooding before you can drain it of water.
 
I think the more interesting information is the rest of the Arab countries demanding nuclear arms.

However, do you think you can ever stop the infighting if you don't stop the source of arms and cash supporting the infighting? You have to stop the room from flooding before you can drain it of water.

If you plug one hole and have six others you can hardly declare the room secure.
 
Forecasting the future in the Middle East is like telling the people in California when the next earthquake is going to hit. One thing you can count on in the Middle East is WAR.

I am just wondering how long Israel is going to wait before they launch a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear program.

Will the Demo-whits de-fund the war effort? Were they not just crying about not having enough troops in Iraq about six mouth ago? And now they are angry at the President for his option to implement. The U.S. troop presence is not going away anywhere anytime soon.

I hear Socialist Chavez and DR. Doom of Iran are getting together for a little meeting. Hmm talking over the latest cooking recipes?

The bottom-line is the only thing these people seem to understand is fierce overwhelming force raining down on their heads. The U.S. has yet to show this force with anger and determination that was seen in WW2.
 
Originally posted by Dilloduck
Tell me---Just WHO exacty is WE ??

Originally posted by Dilloduck
I love the "we" thing.

Originally posted by Dilloduck
Reckon I can withdraw a few hundred K from the treasury ?

I just can’t believe my eyes Dillo...

I even doubt it’s really you behind the computer.

The “we” is the quintessence of nationalism.

The tribalist “we” marks the ultimate identification between the individual and the tribe he belongs to.

Seeing an american patriot like you questioning the tribal “we” is like seeing the Pope telling the world that priests in Jerusalem have just found the bones of Jesus.
 
Surge and Mirrors

Bush's "surge" speech is a hoax, but members of Congress and media commentators are discussing the surge as if it were real.

I invite the reader to examine the speech. The "surge" content consists of nonsensical propagandistic statements. The real content of the speech is toward the end where Bush mentions Iran and Syria.

Bush makes it clear that success in Iraq does not depend on the surge. Rather, "Succeeding in Iraq . . . begins with addressing Iran and Syria."
Bush asserts that "these two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops."

Bush's assertions are propagandistic lies.

The Iraq insurgency is Sunni. Iran is Shi'ite. If Iran is supporting anyone in Iraq it is the Shi'ites, who have not been part of the insurgency. Indeed, the Sunni and Shi'ites are engaged in a civil war within Iraq.
Does any intelligent person really believe that Iranian Shi'ites are going to arm Iraqi Sunnis who are killing Iraqi Shi'ites allied with Iran? Does anyone really believe that Iranian Shi'ites are going to provide sanctuary for Iraqi Sunnis?

Bush can tell blatant propagandistic lies, because Congress and the American people don't know enough facts to realize the absurdity of Bush's assertions.

Why is Bush telling these lies? Here is the answer: Bush says, "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

In those words, Bush states perfectly clearly that victory in Iraq requires US forces to attack Iran and Syria. Moreover, Bush says, "We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region."

What do two US aircraft carrier attack groups in the Persian Gulf have to do with a guerilla ground war in Iraq?

The "surge" is merely a tactic to buy time while war with Iran and Syria can be orchestrated. The neoconservative/Israeli cabal feared that the pressure that Congress, the public, and the American foreign policy establishment were putting on Bush to de-escalate in Iraq would terminate their plan to achieve hegemony in the Middle East.

Failure in Iraq would mean the end of the neoconservatives' influence. It would be impossible to start a new war with Iran after losing the war in Iraq.

The neoconservatives and the right-wing Israeli government have clearly stated their plans to overthrow Muslim governments throughout the region and to deracinate Islam. These plans existed long before 9/11.

Near the end of his "surge" speech, Bush adopts the neoconservative program as US policy. The struggle, Bush says, echoing the neoconservatives and the Israeli right-wing, goes far beyond Iraq. "The challenge," Bush says, is "playing out across the broader Middle East. . . . It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time."

America is pitted against "extremists" who "have declared their intention to destroy our way of life." "The most realistic way to protect the American people," Bush says, is "by advancing liberty across a troubled region."

This, of course, is a massive duplicitous lie. We have brought no liberty to Iraq, but we have destroyed their way of life. Bush suggests that Muslims in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine are waiting and hoping for more invasions to free them of violence. Did Bush's invasion free Iraq from violence or did it bring violence to Iraq?

It is extraordinary that anyone can listen to this blatant declaration of US aggression in the Middle East without demanding Bush's immediate impeachment.

Republican US Senator Chuck Hagel declared Bush's plan to be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam." In truth, it is far worse. It is naked aggression justified by transparent lies. No one has ever heard governments in Iraq, Syria, or Iran declare "their intention to destroy our way of life." To the contrary, it is the United States and Israel that are trying to destroy the Muslim way of life.

The crystal clear truth is that fanatical neoconservatives and Israelis are using Bush to commit the United States to a catastrophic course.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01122007.html
 
Capt: Hey XO, hand me my coffee will ya?
XO: Sure skipper, here ya go!
Capt: Did you see that game last night?
XO: Nope, I was reading.
Capt: You missed a good one!
XO: I taped it skipper.
Capt: Oh! Okay, Good. Your gonna love the ending.
XO: Great, let's get this done, I'm hungary sir!
Capt: Oh! Sure! You got that key?
XO: Yup
Capt: Here's my code!
XO: Here's mine!
Capt: Mr. Dalton! Raise # 2 and # 8, here are the codes!
MD: Aye Sir!
Capt: Okay, that ought to do it!
XO: Targets are all verified sir, weapons armed, aimed and ready to fly to Tehran.
Capt: Fire Mr dalton!
MD: Aye Sir!
XO: Would you like some cream for your coffee sir?
Capt: Nah, I think I'll get some milk from ther fridge.
XO: Lets go eat huh!
MD: Don't forget your hat XO!
XO: Oh! Thank You Mr. Dalton




Problem over! There is no Chapter two to this story!
 

Forum List

Back
Top