Sunday, November 26, 2006
Iraq War Longer Than WWII
It's official - the Iraq war is now longer than World War II:
However the conflict finally ends for the United States, there seems little doubt that Iraq is much worse off and the Middle East much more volatile now than when Saddam was in power.
What carnage the little Boy King who wanted to best his daddy has wrought on the people of Iraq, the American military, and the Mideast region.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The war in Iraq has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in the war that President Bush's father fought in, World War II.
As of Sunday, the conflict in Iraq has raged for three years and just over eight months.
Only the Vietnam War (eight years, five months), the Revolutionary War (six years, nine months), and the Civil War (four years), have engaged America longer.
Fighting in Afghanistan, which may or may not be a full-fledged war depending on who is keeping track, has gone on for five years, one month. It continues as the ousted Taliban resurges and the central government is challenged.
Bush says he still is undecided whether to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq or add to the 140,000 there now.
...
The Iraq war began on March 19, 2003, with the U.S. bombing of Baghdad. On May 1, 2003, Bush famously declared major combat operations over, the pronouncement coming in a speech aboard an aircraft carrier emblazoned with a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Yet the fighting has dragged on, and most of the 2,800-plus U.S. military deaths have occurred after Bush suggested an end to what he called the Iraq front in the global fight against terrorism.
...
The outgoing Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John Warner of Virginia, a veteran of World War II and a former Navy secretary, noted solemnly at a recent hearing of his committee that Sunday would mark the day when U.S. was involved longer in the Iraq war than it had been in World War II.
Yet the October 2002 congressional resolution that authorized the Iraq war "addressed the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, which is now gone, and no more a threat to us," Warner said.
While the United States is helping the Iraq's current government to assume the full reins of sovereignty, "we need to revise (our) strategy to achieve that goal," Warner said.
U.S. involvement in the Iraq war has outlasted that of the Korean War (three years, one month); the War of 1812 (two years, six months); the U.S.-Mexican War (one year, 10 months); World War I (one year, seven months); the Spanish American War (eight months); and the first Persian Gulf War (one and a half months).
Democrats and Republicans are divided about what to do next in Iraq.
Many Democrats and some Republicans have called for a phased withdrawal. Some lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a 2008 presidential hopeful, are urging that more U.S. troops be sent to help stabilize Iraq.
Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who will be the next chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argues for beginning to bring troops home soon. "We should put the responsibility for Iraq's future squarely where it belongs, on the Iraqis," Levin said. "We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves."
Experts of various political stripes have suggested that the options are few.
"No mix of options for U.S. action can provide a convincing plan for 'victory' in Iraq," said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The initiative has passed into Iraqi hands."
However the conflict finally ends for the United States, there seems little doubt that Iraq is much worse off and the Middle East much more volatile now than when Saddam was in power.
What carnage the little Boy King who wanted to best his daddy has wrought on the people of Iraq, the American military, and the Mideast region.
Comments:
<< Home
The Cold War lasted more than 30 years. What of it?
Meanwhile, The Korean War, which, as you noted lasted three years, led to the deaths of 38,000 US troops.
38,000 in three years. And there are still about 40,000 US troops stationed on the border between North and South Korea. In other words, literally millions of US troops have served at least a portion of their enlistments in Korea.
It's grim and dismal and disheartening to see so many muslims determined to create as much misery for themselves as possible. The palestinian fools and clowns, the idiots fighting against democracy in Iraq, the sick bastards of Iran and their desire to wipe Israel off the map -- is it any wonder that these morons fail to create productive civilizations and societies?
Meanwhile, The Korean War, which, as you noted lasted three years, led to the deaths of 38,000 US troops.
38,000 in three years. And there are still about 40,000 US troops stationed on the border between North and South Korea. In other words, literally millions of US troops have served at least a portion of their enlistments in Korea.
It's grim and dismal and disheartening to see so many muslims determined to create as much misery for themselves as possible. The palestinian fools and clowns, the idiots fighting against democracy in Iraq, the sick bastards of Iran and their desire to wipe Israel off the map -- is it any wonder that these morons fail to create productive civilizations and societies?
Uh, we were told by Cheney, Rummy, Bush and Wolfowitz that the Iraq war would be over in a matter of weeks and would pay for itself with oil revenues.
4 years and $400 billion dollars later, here we, with the country now in the middle of a civil war stoked in part by the administration's utter incompetence in the post-invasion phase of the war.
That's my point about the length of the war.
There was a time in the Middle Ages when Europe was a backward place and the Islamic World was the place of culture, knowledge and technological advancement.
4 years and $400 billion dollars later, here we, with the country now in the middle of a civil war stoked in part by the administration's utter incompetence in the post-invasion phase of the war.
That's my point about the length of the war.
There was a time in the Middle Ages when Europe was a backward place and the Islamic World was the place of culture, knowledge and technological advancement.
No Slappz.
Points well taken, although I think for the most part, the regime in N. Korea is an anomaly.
RBE coorectly points out that while Europe was mired in the dark Ages, part of the Islamic worls was then the apogee of civilization. Unfortunately, that was the high water mark of Muslim civilization.
Here is a theory upon which I invite your comments: The failure of modern cultures to achieve a civilized equilibrium is due to some form of tribalism that forms the basis of that particular culture. I use tribalism in its broadest sense inasmuch as I percieve no empirical difference between tribe and religion.
Points well taken, although I think for the most part, the regime in N. Korea is an anomaly.
RBE coorectly points out that while Europe was mired in the dark Ages, part of the Islamic worls was then the apogee of civilization. Unfortunately, that was the high water mark of Muslim civilization.
Here is a theory upon which I invite your comments: The failure of modern cultures to achieve a civilized equilibrium is due to some form of tribalism that forms the basis of that particular culture. I use tribalism in its broadest sense inasmuch as I percieve no empirical difference between tribe and religion.
# posted by 
: 11:23 AM
: 11:23 AM
reality, you wrote:
"Uh, we were told by Cheney, Rummy, Bush and Wolfowitz that the Iraq war would be over in a matter of weeks and would pay for itself with oil revenues."
Neither you, me or anyone else was told such nonsense by the administration. No timetable was ever put forth, except by the members of the press who inferred and implied whatever struck their interests.
As for your claims about the erstwhile backwardness of Europe and the flowering of islamic culture, well, sorry, more crapola.
Implied in your comment is the idea that because Europe was might have been somewhat more primitive than the middle east for a century or two, the middle east may once again advance beyond the current heights of European culture and advancement.
Of course there's not a chance anything like that will happen. The permanent retardation of the middle east is insured by the lock-down power of islam to destroy any and all possibilities of achievement and inventiveness, except when it comes to disturbing other societies.
The muslim world peaked around the year 1,000. And it wasn't much of a peak. There were very few people in the world at that time and none of them had much. Intellectually speaking, about the greatest achievement the muslims gave the world was a new number -- ZERO.
And because they lack any sense of irony, they've been unable to laugh over the fact that islamic society has come to define its only memorable intellectual contribution.
"Uh, we were told by Cheney, Rummy, Bush and Wolfowitz that the Iraq war would be over in a matter of weeks and would pay for itself with oil revenues."
Neither you, me or anyone else was told such nonsense by the administration. No timetable was ever put forth, except by the members of the press who inferred and implied whatever struck their interests.
As for your claims about the erstwhile backwardness of Europe and the flowering of islamic culture, well, sorry, more crapola.
Implied in your comment is the idea that because Europe was might have been somewhat more primitive than the middle east for a century or two, the middle east may once again advance beyond the current heights of European culture and advancement.
Of course there's not a chance anything like that will happen. The permanent retardation of the middle east is insured by the lock-down power of islam to destroy any and all possibilities of achievement and inventiveness, except when it comes to disturbing other societies.
The muslim world peaked around the year 1,000. And it wasn't much of a peak. There were very few people in the world at that time and none of them had much. Intellectually speaking, about the greatest achievement the muslims gave the world was a new number -- ZERO.
And because they lack any sense of irony, they've been unable to laugh over the fact that islamic society has come to define its only memorable intellectual contribution.
loop garoo, you wrote:
"...I think for the most part, the regime in N. Korea is an anomaly."
Hardly. The world has hosted many dictatorships since man and his governments have arrived.
The anomaly is the US, and that is a truly disheartening reality.
You postulated:
"The failure of modern cultures to achieve a civilized equilibrium is due to some form of tribalism that forms the basis of that particular culture."
I agree. However, the accuracy of your observation takes a back-seat to a more pressing reality. Namely, that crazy bastards, like the psychos running Iran, are about to acquire nuclear weapons -- which they intend to use.
A war here or there and a few hundred thousand deaths is small potatoes compared and contrasted with nuclear weapons in the hands of madmen.
These pipsqueaks and tinhorn dictators -- Chavez and Ahmadinejad, Kim il Jong and the dying Castro -- were good entertainment for years.
But that all changes with bombs that could kill most of the people in New York City or Tel Aviv in a single shot.
These fools have added a new approach to the old concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.
They're ready to test it. They're willing to bet that if they set off a nuclear bomb and both the US and Israel retaliate with a nuclear counterstrike, enough muslims will survive for them to call their pre-emptive strike a success.
The next US president may be the first since Truman to pull the nuclear trigger.
In other words, it doesn't matter much about these little issues of tribalism because their effect has brought us to the brink of a nuclear conflagration and it is clear that muslims are not looking for compromise. It's not part of their equation. Therefore, we have to drop it from ours.
It seems in islamic society, as in other dictatorial settings, the government -- islam itself -- tells its adherents what to do in every aspect of life.
Contrast that with the US, where our political leaders respond to wants of large groups of people.
Our religious leaders beg us to follow certain paths, most of which are trampled by politicians who open the door for and legitimize every activity in which we persistently engage.
Meanwhile, the US is home to many tribes. Every tribe in the world has developed a base in the US. Yet here we manage to get along pretty well.
It is more or less illegal to be Jewish in most muslim countries. Yet muslims account for 1.5 million of Israel's 6.5 million citizens. Figure that one out.
Anyway, everyone and every idea is represented here. Yet the US hasn't degenerated into the racial holy war sought and predicted by some. There was no spree of killing muslims after 9/11.
On the other hand, muslims vehemently demand death for everyone who says muhammad was an asshole. Oops. Call me Salman Rushdie.
My reason for mentioning the blood lust of muslims is this. They, like most people who are part of uneducated masses led around sheep-like by their uneducated leaders, go overboard at all the wrong times.
That characteristic of going overboard is one of those traits of primitive tribes, which muslims comprise.
The democracies of the world have their squabbles and arguments and tiffs, but they are always negotiated to some point of equilibrium. That's something the primitive tribes never learn to do.
"...I think for the most part, the regime in N. Korea is an anomaly."
Hardly. The world has hosted many dictatorships since man and his governments have arrived.
The anomaly is the US, and that is a truly disheartening reality.
You postulated:
"The failure of modern cultures to achieve a civilized equilibrium is due to some form of tribalism that forms the basis of that particular culture."
I agree. However, the accuracy of your observation takes a back-seat to a more pressing reality. Namely, that crazy bastards, like the psychos running Iran, are about to acquire nuclear weapons -- which they intend to use.
A war here or there and a few hundred thousand deaths is small potatoes compared and contrasted with nuclear weapons in the hands of madmen.
These pipsqueaks and tinhorn dictators -- Chavez and Ahmadinejad, Kim il Jong and the dying Castro -- were good entertainment for years.
But that all changes with bombs that could kill most of the people in New York City or Tel Aviv in a single shot.
These fools have added a new approach to the old concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.
They're ready to test it. They're willing to bet that if they set off a nuclear bomb and both the US and Israel retaliate with a nuclear counterstrike, enough muslims will survive for them to call their pre-emptive strike a success.
The next US president may be the first since Truman to pull the nuclear trigger.
In other words, it doesn't matter much about these little issues of tribalism because their effect has brought us to the brink of a nuclear conflagration and it is clear that muslims are not looking for compromise. It's not part of their equation. Therefore, we have to drop it from ours.
It seems in islamic society, as in other dictatorial settings, the government -- islam itself -- tells its adherents what to do in every aspect of life.
Contrast that with the US, where our political leaders respond to wants of large groups of people.
Our religious leaders beg us to follow certain paths, most of which are trampled by politicians who open the door for and legitimize every activity in which we persistently engage.
Meanwhile, the US is home to many tribes. Every tribe in the world has developed a base in the US. Yet here we manage to get along pretty well.
It is more or less illegal to be Jewish in most muslim countries. Yet muslims account for 1.5 million of Israel's 6.5 million citizens. Figure that one out.
Anyway, everyone and every idea is represented here. Yet the US hasn't degenerated into the racial holy war sought and predicted by some. There was no spree of killing muslims after 9/11.
On the other hand, muslims vehemently demand death for everyone who says muhammad was an asshole. Oops. Call me Salman Rushdie.
My reason for mentioning the blood lust of muslims is this. They, like most people who are part of uneducated masses led around sheep-like by their uneducated leaders, go overboard at all the wrong times.
That characteristic of going overboard is one of those traits of primitive tribes, which muslims comprise.
The democracies of the world have their squabbles and arguments and tiffs, but they are always negotiated to some point of equilibrium. That's something the primitive tribes never learn to do.
"Of course there's not a chance anything like that will happen. The permanent retardation of the middle east is insured by the lock-down power of islam to destroy any and all possibilities of achievement and inventiveness"
Oh, so you can predict the future, all-knowing one?
It's the U.S. supported dictatorships that have been disrupting natural political processes and feeding fundamentalism as a rebellion to them. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are dictatorships supported by the U.S. Iran was taken over by fundamentalists after the deposition of the U.S.-backed dictator-monarch. There hasn't been too much chance for democracy to develop. Moreover, oil revenues sap the impetus for societies to develop other industries.
It has nothing to do with Islam. Your idiocy, "no slappz," never fails to amaze me.
Oh, so you can predict the future, all-knowing one?
It's the U.S. supported dictatorships that have been disrupting natural political processes and feeding fundamentalism as a rebellion to them. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are dictatorships supported by the U.S. Iran was taken over by fundamentalists after the deposition of the U.S.-backed dictator-monarch. There hasn't been too much chance for democracy to develop. Moreover, oil revenues sap the impetus for societies to develop other industries.
It has nothing to do with Islam. Your idiocy, "no slappz," never fails to amaze me.
elizabeth,
With the exception of Israel, the middle east has not advanced much in the last thousand years. Oil entered the picture only about 75 years ago.
If islamic societies can't move toward modernity from tribalism after 75 years of oil revenue flowing into them, you know the problem is them -- not us.
If you want to butt heads over the history of the middle east since 1900, let's go. I can see from your initial statements you're an apologist for murderers whose aim is to create a global caliphate.
Meanwhile, though the US installed and supported the Shah in Iran, he was a superior alternative to his predecessors and he was certainly more desirable than the current set of psychos running Iran.
While it's true we could have kept our hands off the region, you naively think no other power would have stepped in if we had butted out. Think Soviet Union. As you might know, Moscow regularly extended it reach in the years after WWII and Khruschev did say "we will bury you" in one of his more candid moments. That kind of effort takes oil.
Moreover, it was the British who laid down the rather haphazard boundaries that formed the middle eastern states. Perhaps if the Brits had thought more about where they should draw the lines, we'd have fewer problems today. But, that's water under the bridge.
Meanwhile, you can't blame sunni vs shia problems on anyone but muhammad. He's the one who forgot to mention the succession plans.
And as for your claims that we "support" various muslim theocratic dictatorships, well, that's a little lame, unless by "support" you mean the US and the rest of the industrialized world buys their oil at world market prices.
Yes, we send some "aid" to Egypt. But to suggest we "support" Egypt as though the country is an aged parent living solely on the strength of our kindness is overstatement. We send Egypt a few billion dollars a year. Egypt, meanwhile, isn't exactly a big-time oil producer. In fact, like every muslim dictatorship, it isn't a big-time producer of anything except raging muslim clerics who despise freedom and democracy.
So like I said, the muslim nations of the middle east are not headed for a future any brighter than the future they've looked toward for the last millennium -- unless a couple more of them get their hands on nuclear weapons.
I believe ahmadinejad when he says he wants to strike Israel with a nuclear bomb. But if he does, the future of the middle east will change within hours of his suicidal, maniacal act -- and after that we won't have ahmadinejad to kick around anymore -- to paraphrase a former US president.
By the way, I was in college with about 200 Iranian students in 1979 when the Shah was deposed. Most of the Iranian students at my college supported his removal. They were too stupid to understand that Iran was paying their tuition and without the Shah in power, they were in trouble. Within a short period, most of them had left school, unable to pay tuition and unable to work. Though I did bump into a few of them pumping gas and washing cars.
Those who supported the new fundamental regime of ayatollah khomeini returned to Iran and probably fought against Iraq. That war lasted about eight years and accomplished NOTHING except to kill about million men. But hey, that's muslims for you.
Elizabeth, it seems you think the US is the only country that meddles in the affairs of other nations. Your comments express the notion that peace would reign in the world if only we would mind our own business.
If only...
With the exception of Israel, the middle east has not advanced much in the last thousand years. Oil entered the picture only about 75 years ago.
If islamic societies can't move toward modernity from tribalism after 75 years of oil revenue flowing into them, you know the problem is them -- not us.
If you want to butt heads over the history of the middle east since 1900, let's go. I can see from your initial statements you're an apologist for murderers whose aim is to create a global caliphate.
Meanwhile, though the US installed and supported the Shah in Iran, he was a superior alternative to his predecessors and he was certainly more desirable than the current set of psychos running Iran.
While it's true we could have kept our hands off the region, you naively think no other power would have stepped in if we had butted out. Think Soviet Union. As you might know, Moscow regularly extended it reach in the years after WWII and Khruschev did say "we will bury you" in one of his more candid moments. That kind of effort takes oil.
Moreover, it was the British who laid down the rather haphazard boundaries that formed the middle eastern states. Perhaps if the Brits had thought more about where they should draw the lines, we'd have fewer problems today. But, that's water under the bridge.
Meanwhile, you can't blame sunni vs shia problems on anyone but muhammad. He's the one who forgot to mention the succession plans.
And as for your claims that we "support" various muslim theocratic dictatorships, well, that's a little lame, unless by "support" you mean the US and the rest of the industrialized world buys their oil at world market prices.
Yes, we send some "aid" to Egypt. But to suggest we "support" Egypt as though the country is an aged parent living solely on the strength of our kindness is overstatement. We send Egypt a few billion dollars a year. Egypt, meanwhile, isn't exactly a big-time oil producer. In fact, like every muslim dictatorship, it isn't a big-time producer of anything except raging muslim clerics who despise freedom and democracy.
So like I said, the muslim nations of the middle east are not headed for a future any brighter than the future they've looked toward for the last millennium -- unless a couple more of them get their hands on nuclear weapons.
I believe ahmadinejad when he says he wants to strike Israel with a nuclear bomb. But if he does, the future of the middle east will change within hours of his suicidal, maniacal act -- and after that we won't have ahmadinejad to kick around anymore -- to paraphrase a former US president.
By the way, I was in college with about 200 Iranian students in 1979 when the Shah was deposed. Most of the Iranian students at my college supported his removal. They were too stupid to understand that Iran was paying their tuition and without the Shah in power, they were in trouble. Within a short period, most of them had left school, unable to pay tuition and unable to work. Though I did bump into a few of them pumping gas and washing cars.
Those who supported the new fundamental regime of ayatollah khomeini returned to Iran and probably fought against Iraq. That war lasted about eight years and accomplished NOTHING except to kill about million men. But hey, that's muslims for you.
Elizabeth, it seems you think the US is the only country that meddles in the affairs of other nations. Your comments express the notion that peace would reign in the world if only we would mind our own business.
If only...
No Slappz
It seems to me that we would have been better off leaving Saddam Hussein in situ as a foil to Iran's ambitions.
It seems to me that we would have been better off leaving Saddam Hussein in situ as a foil to Iran's ambitions.
# posted by : 1:34 PM
: 1:34 PM
loop garoo, you wrote:
"It seems to me that we would have been better off leaving Saddam Hussein in situ as a foil to Iran's ambitions."
Not a chance. Iran is going nuclear and has promised to destroy Israel as soon as it has the nuclear capability.
What foolishness would lead you to think Iraq's stance would stop Iran from realizing that particular goal?
"It seems to me that we would have been better off leaving Saddam Hussein in situ as a foil to Iran's ambitions."
Not a chance. Iran is going nuclear and has promised to destroy Israel as soon as it has the nuclear capability.
What foolishness would lead you to think Iraq's stance would stop Iran from realizing that particular goal?
No Slappz,
Forgive me as I am responding desultorily having just posted the same question in a later post.
I think tou need to step back and take a long drink of Realpolitick.
Would the presence of a hostile Iraq stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Of course not. Would the presence of an Iraq hostile to Iran serve as a deterent to Irania ambitions? Of course it would.
If your neighbor is your enemy, even if it is also the enemy of Israel, you have to deal with it fisrt.
As American tanks rolled into Bahgdad, Saddam Hussein was more concerned about a Shia insurrection than he was about the fact that his army had just been defeated and had evaporated.
Any check on Iranian ambitions favors The U.S. and Israel.
Even Bill O'Reilly admits the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
Forgive me as I am responding desultorily having just posted the same question in a later post.
I think tou need to step back and take a long drink of Realpolitick.
Would the presence of a hostile Iraq stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Of course not. Would the presence of an Iraq hostile to Iran serve as a deterent to Irania ambitions? Of course it would.
If your neighbor is your enemy, even if it is also the enemy of Israel, you have to deal with it fisrt.
As American tanks rolled into Bahgdad, Saddam Hussein was more concerned about a Shia insurrection than he was about the fact that his army had just been defeated and had evaporated.
Any check on Iranian ambitions favors The U.S. and Israel.
Even Bill O'Reilly admits the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
# posted by : 1:56 PM
: 1:56 PM
loop garoo, you wrote:
"As American tanks rolled into Bahgdad, Saddam Hussein was more concerned about a Shia insurrection than he was about the fact that his army had just been defeated and had evaporated."
First, you have no way to know if this idea was saddam's leading thought in those early days of the war.
Second, even if those were his thoughts -- shiites at the palace doors -- it doesn't mean saddam had any more insight into his own future than anyone else.
Lucky for saddam then that it was US forces that found him first.
Statecraft is a tricky business. In the short run hiring osama bin laden to fight the Soviets was a brilliant move. But it was mistake in the long run. We should have killed him as soon as the Soviets threw in the towel in Afghanistan. But we took the high road and fulfilled our end of the bargain. Shoulda killed him when it would have been so easy.
You wrote:
"Would the presence of an Iraq hostile to Iran serve as a deterent to Irania ambitions? Of course it would."
Your claim is empty. This baseless assertion is put forth every time someone wants to argue that we're so smart we can manipulate ruthless despotic totalitarian regime operators into whiling away the days, months and years battling each other and slaughtering the natives as we rest easy believing the psychos are too engaged in shredding each other to look farther afield.
On the contrary, Iran would eventually consider hitting Iraq with a nuke if saddam were still around to goad Iran into another conflict. Then what?
Such an attack would be a handy little demonstration that would kill a lot of birds with one stone.
About a million fighters died in the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s. It took about eight years to slaughter a million people. Since life means nothing to these clowns, they wouldn't feel any compunction about setting off a leetle ole nuke that might wipe out another million or two in a few hours. A leetle present for the sunnis. Yeah.
That psycho in Iran can't wait to test his nuke on a real city, especially a city in a country no other nation would rush to defend.
Would Israel attack Iran for nuking Iraq? No. Would we? No.
Iran, if it struck Israel, would feel a counter-strike beyond imagination. Why demonstrate the bomb on the one country sure to retaliate with bigger bombs?
Show the world your ruthlessness by nuking a relatively helpless muslim nation that's an international leper. That way there's no counter-attack.
"As American tanks rolled into Bahgdad, Saddam Hussein was more concerned about a Shia insurrection than he was about the fact that his army had just been defeated and had evaporated."
First, you have no way to know if this idea was saddam's leading thought in those early days of the war.
Second, even if those were his thoughts -- shiites at the palace doors -- it doesn't mean saddam had any more insight into his own future than anyone else.
Lucky for saddam then that it was US forces that found him first.
Statecraft is a tricky business. In the short run hiring osama bin laden to fight the Soviets was a brilliant move. But it was mistake in the long run. We should have killed him as soon as the Soviets threw in the towel in Afghanistan. But we took the high road and fulfilled our end of the bargain. Shoulda killed him when it would have been so easy.
You wrote:
"Would the presence of an Iraq hostile to Iran serve as a deterent to Irania ambitions? Of course it would."
Your claim is empty. This baseless assertion is put forth every time someone wants to argue that we're so smart we can manipulate ruthless despotic totalitarian regime operators into whiling away the days, months and years battling each other and slaughtering the natives as we rest easy believing the psychos are too engaged in shredding each other to look farther afield.
On the contrary, Iran would eventually consider hitting Iraq with a nuke if saddam were still around to goad Iran into another conflict. Then what?
Such an attack would be a handy little demonstration that would kill a lot of birds with one stone.
About a million fighters died in the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s. It took about eight years to slaughter a million people. Since life means nothing to these clowns, they wouldn't feel any compunction about setting off a leetle ole nuke that might wipe out another million or two in a few hours. A leetle present for the sunnis. Yeah.
That psycho in Iran can't wait to test his nuke on a real city, especially a city in a country no other nation would rush to defend.
Would Israel attack Iran for nuking Iraq? No. Would we? No.
Iran, if it struck Israel, would feel a counter-strike beyond imagination. Why demonstrate the bomb on the one country sure to retaliate with bigger bombs?
Show the world your ruthlessness by nuking a relatively helpless muslim nation that's an international leper. That way there's no counter-attack.
No Slappz,
To quote Delbert McClinton: "The more your lips keeps moving, the more you keep losing ground."
1. We need not have pulled any strings to w/ respect to Saddam and Iran. It is staecraft to address your attention to the hotest and nearest fire to your country.
2. If I asked you: "Would you rather have Iran test its weapon on Iraq or Israel?" I don't think you would opt for Israel.
3. Given your not entirley unjustified antipathy toward Muslims in general and Arabs in particular; given the fact that Iran is a Persian, not an Arab nation; and given the historical precedent of pan Arab unity when an Arab state is threatened by a non Arab state, don't you think that an Arab mideast, unified against Iran, is a situation preferable to the one we face now w/ Iran spearheading the Shiite resurgence?
To quote Delbert McClinton: "The more your lips keeps moving, the more you keep losing ground."
1. We need not have pulled any strings to w/ respect to Saddam and Iran. It is staecraft to address your attention to the hotest and nearest fire to your country.
2. If I asked you: "Would you rather have Iran test its weapon on Iraq or Israel?" I don't think you would opt for Israel.
3. Given your not entirley unjustified antipathy toward Muslims in general and Arabs in particular; given the fact that Iran is a Persian, not an Arab nation; and given the historical precedent of pan Arab unity when an Arab state is threatened by a non Arab state, don't you think that an Arab mideast, unified against Iran, is a situation preferable to the one we face now w/ Iran spearheading the Shiite resurgence?
# posted by : 1:19 PM
: 1:19 PM
loop garoo, you wrote:
"To quote Delbert McClinton: "The more your lips keeps moving, the more you keep losing ground.""
Says you.
You wrote:
"2. If I asked you: "Would you rather have Iran test its weapon on Iraq or Israel?" I don't think you would opt for Israel."
The undertone of your assessment reveals your belief that Iran WILL fire a nuke at another middle east country.
Frankly, I'd like to change that inevitability to an impossibility. How? By destoying Iran's nuclear development program.
Whaddayathink? Should we? Should Israel? Should the world wait until the mushroom cloud rises before taking action?
You wrote:
"and given the historical precedent of pan Arab unity when an Arab state is threatened by a non Arab state, don't you think that an Arab mideast, unified against Iran, is a situation preferable to the one we face now w/ Iran spearheading the Shiite resurgence?"
Yeah. Those arab nations rushed to the aid of Kuwait. The same nations are now at war with the US in Iraq. And there was huge support from arab states when Iran and Iraq were at war.
What history texts are you reading that you think there is some pan-arab brotherhood of nations that would band together against Iran? The only middle east state attacked by pan-arab coalitions is Israel. And the pan-arabists have gotten their asses kicked every time.
Some threat they are! Of course that all changes when nukes become part of the military calculus.
By the way, is one of those arab states prepared to hit Iran with a nuke? Not a chance. Is an arab state opposing Iran likely to absorb a nuclear hit from Iran? Yes. Game over.
Post a Comment
"To quote Delbert McClinton: "The more your lips keeps moving, the more you keep losing ground.""
Says you.
You wrote:
"2. If I asked you: "Would you rather have Iran test its weapon on Iraq or Israel?" I don't think you would opt for Israel."
The undertone of your assessment reveals your belief that Iran WILL fire a nuke at another middle east country.
Frankly, I'd like to change that inevitability to an impossibility. How? By destoying Iran's nuclear development program.
Whaddayathink? Should we? Should Israel? Should the world wait until the mushroom cloud rises before taking action?
You wrote:
"and given the historical precedent of pan Arab unity when an Arab state is threatened by a non Arab state, don't you think that an Arab mideast, unified against Iran, is a situation preferable to the one we face now w/ Iran spearheading the Shiite resurgence?"
Yeah. Those arab nations rushed to the aid of Kuwait. The same nations are now at war with the US in Iraq. And there was huge support from arab states when Iran and Iraq were at war.
What history texts are you reading that you think there is some pan-arab brotherhood of nations that would band together against Iran? The only middle east state attacked by pan-arab coalitions is Israel. And the pan-arabists have gotten their asses kicked every time.
Some threat they are! Of course that all changes when nukes become part of the military calculus.
By the way, is one of those arab states prepared to hit Iran with a nuke? Not a chance. Is an arab state opposing Iran likely to absorb a nuclear hit from Iran? Yes. Game over.
<< Home
