DescentBB

Iraq has just come out and said the they have info that Iran and Syria (surprise, surprise) are supplying insurgents in their country with personnel and material. Now this could be interesting. With sovreignty now in hand, what happens if Iraq lays down the smack and tells these two countries that Iraq considers supplying insurgents as acts of war? Do we back Iraq up? Iraqi foreign minister has stated that Iraq would not object to U.S. troops taking action against these countries. Time to put your thinking caps on to discuss implications:

1) Would we

2) If so, when

3) While we know Bush has the cajones, does Kerry?

4) Will Syria and Iran back down or act tough?

5) Add your own question

Syria would be easier than Iraq was.

Iran only if you want to commit to at least 3 years of fighting,

Iran has double the popluation and an army that hasn't been sapped by a decade of sanctions.

...we know Bush has the cajones...

Yeah, yeah. Bush has balls (and you're obsessed with them), but he also lacks discretion and has an acute inability to think with anything but those balls, it seems.

5) Add your own question.

5) Do we have the troops to do it while maintaining a volunteer military?

I wouldn't mind seeing Iran or Syria ground into dust, but it's time to start thinking logistics, Woody. Until Iraq is able to police itself, the US has 140,000 troops tied down, not to mention other deployments around the world.

This is what people mean when they say Iraq distracted the US from the real war on terror. Now that we've got our feet stuck in the Iraqi mud, we haven't got enough of an army to spare in order to invade any nations that really need invading.

If the information turns out to be credible, and I mean really credible not just politicle hocus pocus, I say we immediately admit Iraq into Nato. This way we don't have to commit so many of our own troops whist we commence with the Syrian and/or Iranian butt kicking.

Joining NATO isn't like being knighted by the queen. Syria would be a lot easier to overrun in the short run (and probably harder to control). Iran could theoretically be liberated if we went in only to take out the ruling parties (they're the guys with the long beards so they should be easy to identify). More likely, an Iraqi request of the US would provide justification for cruise missile and air strikes for a number of years until we're certain we've obliviated their nuclear programs.

I really hope we don't.
# of middle east countries occupied by the USA: 2
# of middle east countries in which democratic elections have been held: 0

But, I think Bush would back anything to do with invading middle east countries. He's a war president, you know.

Syria and Iran will not back down.

My question:
If we still haven't set up a successful middle east democracy, do you still support invading more middle east countries?

Geeze, Birdseye, Rome wasn't built in a friggin' day. I realize we live in a fast-food, fast-forward society, but some things take a little time.

Hey, I didn't say things wouldn't take time. It's simply my opinion that before we should even CONSIDER occupying another country, we should establish democracies as we claimed we would in the countries we currently occupy. I don't see how you can't agree with this point.

That was a big criticism of the war in Iraq for me--there was no imminent threat of Saddam Hussain, yet before we were able to stabilize afghanistan, we moved into Iraq. Something like 11,000 troops in Afghanistan, 140,000 in Iraq. Afghanistan is quickly becoming the forgotton war torn country with severe trouble with elections. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _elections

As it's clear, there is an "insurgent" problem in Afghanistan. We forgot to clean up our mess there, and we ran over to Iraq to forget about it. With Saddam posing no threat, it would have made far more sense to take those 140,000 troops and finish the first job we started, especially considering that Afghanistan is the much clearer terrorist haven.

Now people are considering invading *more* countries? Are they crazy? There is still no evidence that we can even occupy a middle eastern country and successfully shape it into a coherent democracy. I'm not saying it can't be done, but we should at least develop a track record and learn how to do it first before we run into more countries and committ many of the same mistakes.

Sorry for being practical.

Actually I'm surprised Birdseye accepts the premise that we can invade just to plant a democracy in a terrorist haven!

Even I want a little more reason like we had with Saddam being vulnerable due to cease fire and U.N. sanction violations.

Damn, you're a regular war monger after all Birdseye

Seriously just because the new Iraq wants us to is certainly no reason to go. They do have a history of disagreements with their neighbors, I think we're smarter than to become their stooge strongman.

Should we tear Syria a new one? Absolutely, but for reasons of our own and only when we are ready. That chore is way past due!

Birdseyes point about getting one right before we start another is something we should include in the plan though, both for practical logistic reasons and for political reasons as well.

IIRC, the president does not currently have authorization from congress to send troops anywhere but Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush originally asked to add Syria and Iran to the list, but had to compromise. Getting that permission now would be a tough sell.

Wars and rumors of Wars have been a part of mankind's life on this planet from the beginning of recorded history. Nothing has changed and nothing ever will. The only difference today is massive real-time information, which most people can't handle let alone absorb with some kind of educated understanding. Most people just rely on what a friend has to say about something even if that friend really knows nothing about the subject. Today as in past years the majority of people are just a part of the flock, and are willing to except facts from whoever talks the the most and the loudest, regardless of if its right or wrong. We can talk until were all blue in the face about who did what, and was it the right thing to do. It will solve nothing, nor will it bring new light on the subject. Only time, and the future looking back will show the truth, and then that truth is only true for the victors who always write the history books.
One thing is for sure, we as a people and a nation are hated by most of the world, even by our so called friends. Why? Envy! Simple truth, we are the richest most advance country the world has ever seen. Even our working poor are 20 times better off than most of the worlds population. They want what we have, but lack the ability, hard work, and understanding to gain it for them selves. We as a country and a people are the most generous on this planet, we give aid to even our enemies. The more we give the greater the hate, and until we learn that we can not buy friendship our troubles will continue to grow. The Romans had it right, and they lasted far longer than any civilization before it or after it. The Romans did not give, they took, and a boot on the neck along with swift retribution on anyone who stood in their way. While the Romans were hated as we are today, they at least had the respect of their enemies and friends, which I can't say about our Country. You can buy sex, but you can't buy love.

As for the Middle East, we will never change them, not in a thousand years. Take a good look at the Middle East, since the beginning of recorded history, thousands of years nothing has changed. They still, with the exception of some modern technologies, live and think as they have from the days of the Old Testament. Were wasting our money even trying, but that's ok, we are the richest country on earth and we have to spend it on something even if it will one day bite us in the ares.

If the threats are credible, and Iraq formally asks us to assist them with this problem, I think the only thing we should do at this time is lend military aid in the form of non-human support. Like missiles and such. Absolutely we should DEFEND Iraq from any attacks, but we should not counter attack for them. Help them raise an Army, yes. Become their army, no.

Ok, this is getting really scary now.

I think that nuclear war is inevitable now... Too many countries with aggressive unstable leaders are racing to produce the bomb now in the middle east and elsewhere. It's not a question of if...it's when.

I think that nuclear war is inevitable now... Too many countries with aggressive unstable leaders are racing to produce the bomb now in the middle east and elsewhere. It's not a question of if...it's when

Is Iran a credible nuclear target?

Zuruck wrote:I think that nuclear war is inevitable now... Too many countries with aggressive unstable leaders are racing to produce the bomb now in the middle east and elsewhere. It's not a question of if...it's when

Is Iran a credible nuclear target?

You Bet it is!

so I have a question.

Under what circumstance now, would any of you guys permit a nuclear attack?

I personally think that all war with Iran would be a horrible mistake.

Why? This may seem odd, but Iran has the most pro american population in the middle east. Why?

they have an extremely anti-american government, as well as a government they don't like very much. I'd rather let the iranians gradually over throw their corrupt government on their own rather than go to war there and possibly ruin that pro-american sentiment.

UZI wrote:Joining NATO isn't like being knighted by the queen.

Left field called, it wants its comment back.

It's not a question of if...it's when.

The French are ready ....

France could use its nuclear capability to defend its neighbours, French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said in an interview Monday, while also urging European Union states to increase military spending.

She said that rogue states "could one day point their missiles toward France and its neighbours. We could say to those countries: 'Watch out, if you try to carry out your threats we will destroy you before you know what's hit you.'"

The French are such "cowboys".

Dedman wrote:

UZI wrote:Joining NATO isn't like being knighted by the queen.

Left field called, it wants its comment back.

HAHAHAHAHA

Zuruck wrote:Under what circumstance now, would any of you guys permit a nuclear attack?

I'm not convinced there are any circumstances in which a nuclear attack would be the best response -- in particular, not any circumstances we'll find ourselves in. Enemy nuclear weapons and their construction capabilities can be taken out with conventional weapons (Israel did it to Iran once, IIRC.) Even North Korea... they're not going to authorize any sort of strike that would require a nuclear response. They're trying to play MAD, but they simply aren't big enough.

FOR DIEDEL: Check your private messages. The reason for your post being deleted is explained there.

A scenario for a U.S. backed take-over in Iran. There are Iranian Kurds, who mainly inhabit the province of Kurdistan, Kermanshah, Llam and the south-west of Western Azerbaijan province, and have been dwelling in Iran since ancient times (see link below for map). These Kurdish provences are neatly along the Iraq/Iran border. With the Kurds in northern Iraq as the overt backers, a uprising could easily be sponsered and equipped. With a little nudge from provocatuers, once the Kurds rebelled students and other young people, tired of the mullahs rule, would demonstrate and call for reform. Of course the mullahs would react in typical autocrat style and try to put down the uprising in a bloody manner.At this time the Iranian Kurds would ask for more support and somehow America would find a way to help...perhaps much the same way we helped the northern alliance in Afghanistan.
Things like Irans nuclear policy, Iranian insurgents in Iraq would give the U.S. credentials to giving aid to the Iranian kurds. I suppose I would have to think more about this to flesh it out, but I think this is a good over view. Once Iran falls, Syria would re-think their policy toward the U.S.and sponsering terrorists abroad.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_e ... _pol01.jpg

The rumors are starting to look like facts:

WASHINGTON â?? American and Iraqi joint patrols, along with U.S. Special Operations (search) teams, captured two men with explosives in Baghdad on Monday who identified themselves as Iranian (search) intelligence officers, FOX News has confirmed.

Senior officials said it was previously believed that Iran had officers inside Iraq stirring up violence, but this is the first time that self-proclaimed Iranian intelligence agents have been captured within the country. Link

Why this isn't all over the headlines is beyond me.
-------------------------------------------

A little more food for thought:

Iranian Guards Expelled From U.S. on Suspicion of Spying
By N.J. Burkett

(New York-WABC, June 29, 2004) â?? Two U.N. security guards from Iran have been booted out of the U.S., accused of posssible espionage. The two were caught on several occasions taking pictures of high security areas in New York City.

Our N.J. Burkett reports from outside the Iranian mission in Murray Hill with details.

The mission here is where the government said the two men worked as security officers. Now the U.S. State Department says the two men may have been here on a reconaissance mission. It's the fifth time in two years that Iranian government employees have been caught making suspicious video here in New York City.

The Iranians were last seen taking pictures with a video camera in Midtown, including sites like St. Patrick's Cathedral, city buses, and Rockefeller Center. And Eyewitness News has learned that the two men were not shooting the scenes like tourists, but instead made deliberate attempts to hide their camera. Link