Trooper

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2001682,00.html


So we are now attacking Iranians who attack us in Iraq. Sounds like both sides are just looking for excuses to take each other out. Guess life is about to get a lot harder for our military and families.

Why doesn't anyone in the US see our plan for Iraq is not working. Democracy in a Muslim country does not fit in their culture. Their culture is more religious then ours and their governments are tied to their religious beliefs.


This should be an interesting thread

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan

icky

plan?

__________________
Peace through fear... since 1947!

Trooper

touche

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan

aeroripper

Democracy isn't exactly something you can invade and force upon a very different culture, especially in the mideast. It may take generations before democracy flourishes in the middle east, assuming that's the natural form of government people in that region would want to have or be able to keep.

Just because it worked so great for us and the western world doesn't mean its the best for everyone else. Although I'm sure nobody likes living under a dictator, unless their one of more benign ones, if there is such a thing.

Atomic Dog

Tonight, on the Colbert Show, Stephen had a guest who pretty much said the U.S. is there to build military bases as they had always been trying to do (along with the British) since Eisenhower. I've read and heard this arguement before and I've always pretty much believed this to be true. It makes sense.

The idea that we're there to bring Democracy to Iraq is a farce and has always been so. This is probably why the Iranians are stepping up their actions in Iraq. I'm sure it's the last thing they want to see.

__________________

aeroripper

I thought this was common knowledge, well minus the democracy part.

xTYBALTx

Will the Iranians have enough roses to toss under our troops' feet? Maybe we should plan ahead start air-dropping some roses now.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

WhiskeySix

NPR Interview with President Bush (mp3) from this morning in case you missed it.


Transcript

__________________




PoE2 Version 2.5 Overview | Get started with PoE2 (for free!)

thebleakaffinity

I think we all knew something like this was coming. Let's just hope some more diplomatic action happens before everyone pulls out their toys.

Coridon

Alright, I don't know much about the matter so I'll spill what I know and pose some questions.

1) We know the Iranians are supplying shape-charged IEDs which are much more deadly than the "mortars strung together" variety. So far there hasn't been widespread usage of them because most of the fighting has been with Sunni insurgents, who don't have access to the shape-charged IEDs. Now that the US and Iraqi government are moving against the Shiite militias we'll probably see more of these more lethal IEDs used. Is that all the dirt we have on the Iranians, because if so I don't see much of a difference between that and our supplying F-16s to all sorts of shady governments around the world. Granted, one is done for money and one is done for ideology and influence. Hmmm...

2) Is Iran really building a nuclear power plant because its energy needs are that great? I mean, the country still has oil reserves but it seems almost 30 years of sanctions have really crippled their capacity to supply their own energy needs. Nevermind the fact the largest source of revenue for many middle eastern countries comes from their oil exports; if Iran can't even meet its own needs, how can it export? I guess what I'm saying is this: the Iraqi infrastructure was brought to its knees after 12 years of sanctions (who's dealing with this now, again?); how robust can Iran possibly be after 30 years of the same? A follow-up would be that if we went to Iraq for WMD + regime change, I'm hoping the American people wouldn't fall for the same BS a second time in such a short amount of time. Give us at least 25 years to repeat the same mistakes, sheesh!

3) OK, assuming both the Iranians and Americans keep their heads here (and I believe this to be the case), who's to say the Israelis won't bomb the nuclear plant? This is actually interesting because Israel will either fly over Jordan or Syria, then fly over Iraq to get to Iran. Of course, the Iraqis really aren't in control of their airspace so US would either need to give the Israelis a "nod", thus enraging the majority of middle eastern countries, deny Israel the use of Iraqi airspace (aaaaaaaawkward!), or lie and tell the world they had no knowledge Israeli planes ever flew over Iraq. Nobody could possibly believe the latter.

4) Ultimately, if Iran produces a nuclear weapon, the middle east will become a mess 100x worse than its current state. Multiple countries would seek to "go nuclear" and it couldn't possibly end well, for anybody.

Am I missing something here, or is that pretty much the situation?

xTYBALTx

The hot word on the street is that the Iranians have many locations for nuclear development, and that these sites are spread throughout the country. They are said to be at least partially and at most almost entirely underground or fortified: If this rumor is true, it pretty much renders any Israeli military option outside of nuclear strikes worthless.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

Steeler

Turkey is 99% Muslim and has had a representative parliamentary democracy for about 50 years. It has been a rocky one occasionally marred by coups or governments that were reluctant to leave power, but overall it has been fairly stable.

Lebanon, for all it's troubles, has been trying to build a stable republic since the Ta'if Accord.

Other predominantly Muslim nations in the region have experimented with representative governments to a varying degree of success, usually culminating in a mixed secular/Islamic monarch/parliamentary system. Difficult, not ideal, but workable. Certainly, the greater obstacle to the formation of many of these democracies is the entrenched monarchy, not the local religion.

My point is, it's misleading to paint with the broad brush that says Islam is incompatible with democracy. It just so happens that the currently depressed, fractured sectarian culture of places like Iraq make democracy very very difficult. Especially when you knock off their only known nationalist power structure.

Anyway, Iran. Yeah, we might be f@#$ed.

__________________

Trooper

Well said steeler, after reading your post i relized more and more islamic countries are starting to go toward "democracy or representative" governments. I think the problem with Iraq's government now is the USA has to many hands in the pot and is trying to control it while not trying to make it to obviouse, not working. Those other countries that have democratic type governments only acheavied after fighting and possible civil war.

Im not to sure the Iranians actually want anything to do with the USA or Iraq seeings how some reports of other leaders in Iran want nothing to do with their current "president".

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan

AMosely

Actually in this case it is working, and quite well. Bush has said multiple times over that part of the overall Iraq 'strategy' is to take the fight to the enemy. Rumsfeld had predicted all along that foreign fighters would attempt to fight in Iraq from Syria and Iran. A large part of this plan was to let Iraq crumble just enough so foreign fighters (Al Qaeda and anyone else) would rush in.

At this point, I believe that the Bush administration likes the prospect of drawing Iran into a ground war in Iraq instead of simply face the prospect of 'working' through the UN, imposing sanctions for decades while carriers sit waiting for air strike orders.

Why are we hearing more about this now? Because Bush sees it as additional ammo in the argument for continuing the conflict. If Iran is involved, that's all the more reason to continue 'taking the fight to the enemy.'

Bush started one hell of a chess game, and it's still only getting started.

AMosely

This really struck me, because don't we have a similar situation here in America. A vast majority of the public (about 65% right now), as well as 'leaders' (Congress), want nothing to do with Iraq, Iran, or the current "president."

If the cooler heads prevail in all places, which is entirely possible, things may actually settle down (except not in poor Iraq). Then, perhaps we can simply get back to the business of running our own country and properly defending it against groups like Al Qaeda, which will always exist in one form or another.

I still can't get over how ridiculous the concept of a 'war on terror' is, and how mind-boggling it is to have a sitting president that believes we will somehow emerge 'victorious' from such a conflict. I'd like to wage war on foolishness. Wouldn't that be a noble victory.