America Has Long Forced ME Political Outcomes

[Yamato]

The worst case scenario if we don't? The US starts another war in the Middle East to disarm another nation of weapons that it doesn't have. Unfortunately, these experts agree with what Ron Paul has said recently that Obama's new cabinet appointees will not equate to policy changes in the Middle East. A particularly interesting point in this 13 minute interview was an admittance that Syria is no longer an important ally for Iran, and the new important ally for Iran is Iraq, thanks in full to George W. Bush and his designer war on terror.

[media=]

[/media]

[Gromdor]

Which is sad considering it went from Sunni controlled Iraq at war with Iran for years, keeping it somewhat in check, to a Shiite controlled Iraq sympathic to Iranian values. Change might of been inevitable but not being the ones forcing the change could have saved the U.S. alot of resentment. But to be brutally honest, I actually believe that if the Iraqi war was more successful, the neocons would have pushed for military action against Iran and North Korea as well. (The Axis of Evil as Pres. Bush called it)

[Yamato]

Is balance of power between sects of a foreign religion preferable when the balance is made possible by a violent monster who invades his neighbors? How is that preferable? I don't have any preference between Sunni and Shi'ite and it's really none of my business from the completely different world over 7,000 miles away that I live in. So I'm neutral on the religious business, but I infinitely prefer national defense to starting wars on other countries, so I'll have to side with Iran on that one and the fact that they're Shi'ite is purely incidental.

I agree otherwise Gromdor. If Iraq and Afghanistan were both highly successful I think we'd already be in Iran today, with an impressive "coalition of the willing" along with us, that would include whatever other tag-along nations want to get in on the massive and lucrative oil opportunities our heavy weapons would make possible. I choose Iran over North Korea for several reasons, they already have the bomb and are predicted to unite with the South soon anyway, but even more than that, we've got Iran surrounded with our military forces. To the west in Iraq. To the east in Afghanistan. To the south in the Persian Gulf. If we had impressive victories on both sides, we wouldn't need this sanctions phase of softening up our target before going in with guns blazing. We sanctioned Iraq for a decade, killing upwards of a million people including 500,000 children.

And here we go again, and nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. A half a million dead children "was worth it", said Madeline Albright. I think the past 20 years will go down in history as the saddest darkest days of US politics since the US Civil War, although those history books won't be written and taught in US public schools. They'll be written by more objective scholars from overseas.

[+and-then]

Is balance of power between sects of a foreign religion preferable when the balance is made possible by a violent monster who invades his neighbors? How is that preferable? I don't have any preference between Sunni and Shi'ite and it's really none of my business from the completely different world over 7,000 miles away that I live in. So I'm neutral on the religious business, but I infinitely prefer national defense to starting wars on other countries, so I'll have to side with Iran on that one and the fact that they're Shi'ite is purely incidental.

I agree otherwise Gromdor. If Iraq and Afghanistan were both highly successful I think we'd already be in Iran today, with an impressive "coalition of the willing" along with us, that would include whatever other tag-along nations want to get in on the massive and lucrative oil opportunities our heavy weapons would make possible. I choose Iran over North Korea for several reasons, they already have the bomb and are predicted to unite with the South soon anyway, but even more than that, we've got Iran surrounded with our military forces. To the west in Iraq. To the east in Afghanistan. To the south in the Persian Gulf. If we had impressive victories on both sides, we wouldn't need this sanctions phase of softening up our target before going in with guns blazing. We sanctioned Iraq for a decade, killing upwards of a million people including 500,000 children.

And here we go again, and nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. A half a million dead children "was worth it", said Madeline Albright. I think the past 20 years will go down in history as the saddest darkest days of US politics since the US Civil War, although those history books won't be written and taught in US public schools. They'll be written by more objective scholars from overseas.

We are "surrounding" a nation of 80 million with fewer than 100 thousand troops? The US is never going to attempt a land invasion of Iran. That said, we may very well go to war with them in future but it will be one where we decimate infrastructure and their military capabilities while they create hot spots all over the globe and kill US citizens even here on our own soil. An ugly business but not near as ugly as having an Ayatollah decide the price of crude from week to week. An Iranian bomb will lead in time to Iranian hegemony of the gulf OR a nuclear arms race in the region - with all the dangers attending that outcome. As for the dead children, I think if my neighbor tells me to give leave him alone while he threatens the neighborhood - including my own family - or he will beat and starve his own wife and children then I am under no obligation to such coercion. Medicine and food were provided to the UN for the Iraqis. To say otherwise is just lying.