so you dont think that iran could possibly be an invader of iraq? i dont think thats a ridiculous possibility. possibly to detour any other group that looked to take over the country?...a country with not very much power no less. I dont think the similarities are that far off. i post what i feel, think or am wondering about. If you want, i really feel that anyone with a second to think about the situation would understand the reasons for a base there. if you want to know how i feel is one think, if you want to know what i think..well thats not always the same.
Donkey, those "reasons" are nothing more than "silly off the cuff guesses with no rationale behind them". I might just as well argue that those bases are there to protect against elepahant attack. Then, when no elephants attack, we know that we did the right thing.
no crap they are off the cuff, i just came up with them. what the freak do you want a 300 page essay? good lord, its a message board, everything is off the cuff. Do i really need to start coming with notes? elephant attacks right...now whos being silly? no rational, didnt i explain that iraq could be an easy target? that the location is beneficial. first you wanted to know how i feel, now its what do i think the right thing is. i dont know what the right thing to do is. But i certainly think that its a prudent thing to have a presence there, i.e a base, for the foreseeable future. obviously you are coming after me hard, for whatever reason...and thats fine but please dont set me up like a straw man so you can huff and puff and blow down weak arguments that you say i made. if you dont agree, fine. tell me why and we will go from there. thus far you have done nothing but post "what i meant" and really havent said much about why you disagree...which sure does help in a discussion. Of course, thats if you want a discussion. Perhaps your just want a whipping boy today and im the lucky one...thank you sir may i have another
Bush is such a stupid idiot. We're not going to be able to maintain a "presence" in Iraq like SK ever. Any force we keep in Iraq will always be a target. It's not going to be a situation even close to SK where we are actually welcome. I can't wait for this worthless president to be out of office. He speaks nothing but garbage. He has no realistic view of anything. The only picture he draws is one of continuation of imposing his will on other countries. He will never control the Middle East. He will never bring peace to the Middle East. All lies. Nothing but lies.
So Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq was a stategic stroke of genius? An Iraq under Saddam that had nothing to do with 9/11, despite that lie being trumpeted to the American people by Bush and company, a military emaciated by the Gulf War and no threat to anyone outside of Iraq, despite more lies saying that it was, a country under a "no fly" zone, under constant surveillance, far weaker then (at the time of the invasion), and for the foreseeable future, compared to what it was pre-Gulf War. A country alleged to have WMDs, although there was no evidence that they existed after extensive investigation by the UN, with further and even more extensive investigation agreed to by Saddam that was prevented by Bush and his invasion. One could go on about the reasons not to invade Iraq. One could add that rather than being a base for AQ terrorism, Saddam was the enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, because he rightly saw it as a threat to his own power, and ruthlessly kept it suppressed. That Saddam's Iraq, even in its weakened state, was a counterweight to our avowed enemy, the theocratic dictatorship of Iran. That Saddam's Iraq helped suppress the Kurdish move for independence so feared by Turkey, and today we see Turkey threatening to invade Northern Iraq, an invasion that could destroy the one "stable" region in that country, and our closest ally there, as well as bringing us into conflict with a powerful and longtime ally. And obvious to anyone that doesn't have their head under a rock, an act that was certain to bring instability to the most strategic region in the world, increase fundamentalism and terrorism, detach allies of this country from our side, and weaken friends in the area. Any fool could see that Bush's mad act was a blow to American interests in the Middle East, and elsewhere, before the balloon ever went up. Any fool not in the White House and 10 Downing Street, and who didn't buy into the false propaganda being spewed by Bush and his merry cabal. What astonishes me is that anyone still bothers to attempt to find reasons to support Bush's war, which is as obvious an abject foreign policy disaster that we have seen in generations. D&D. Replicant City.
Fair enough. My post above was really more of a statement about the analytical merit of your reasons, not the reasons themselves. For example, using bases to protect against Iranian takeover seems to gloss over the fact that the only reason Iranian takeover is a potentiality is because of our collasal screwup in invading at all and subsequent post-invasion planning (lack thereof). And why would Iran want to invade? Certainly, there are some cultural/historical reasons, but the end of the line is that there is a huge resevoir of oil under there. Which brings us back to...
A ton of reason ??? #1 and 3 are exactly the same and #2 makes no sense. I don't understand why people like to deny that it's about oil and money, the powerful will always take advantage of the weak, that's life, why deny it? If what GWB is doing works then it will at least give a chance for the U.S to remain a hegemonic power for the next 30-50 years, I'd rather have that than see a country like China become the next big power. This whole thing is about power not alqueida/WMD/Freedom to the Iraqi people. Hell if it was about alqueida you'd probably want to go Saudi no Iraq, that's where the extreme ideology is coming from, Iraq had nothing to do with alqeida (they may have had a few member in that country, but there are a lot of countries with em so don't understand why Iraq), it's just a reason to be there just like WMD, which gave a reason to attack. Power is an addictive thing, everyone wants it, and once you get it you don't want to loose it. As GWB said, the U.S is an addict of oil, and I'm sure the addict is making sure it knows where to get it's next fix. As I said the weak will always be taken advantage of, that's life.
very true. iraq is vulnerable because of the war, but does that mean that the US shouldnt do anything to counter that? Meaning, It would seem like a responsible thing to do, build a base and not leave them undefended (one could argue). i dont know why iran would, why are they causing such a commotion about nuclear power? why are they known for sponsoring terrorism? all of this isnt necessarily b/c of the current times either, 10 years down the road who knows what could unfold.
Not only do I think there shouldn't be a base(s) built, I think we should have left yesterday. I am far more angry that brute stupidity, and the laziness of the American people to delve into the nuances of foreign policy, much less the sledge hammer methods of the Bush Administration, allowed this to happen. The only scenario I would have been inclined to look at would be to put bases in an independent Kurdistan, since we are there, in order to preserve it's independence, which I think is well deserved and well overdue, if not a reason for this mad invasion. The sad truth is that you only have to look at a map to see that this is an impossibility. None of the surrounding countries would be anything but hostile to the idea, including the rest of Iraq. There would be no way to supply such bases, because those surrounding countries would forbid flyovers, much less ground access, in such a case. Turkey would go ballistic. This entire mess just sucks... no ifs, ands, or butts about it. We were screwed as soon as Bush decided to invade disregarding the opinions of the best experts on the region, and in my opinion, that call was made before 9/11. 9/11 just happened to provide an excuse, at the expense of the War in Afghanistan, capturing and/or killing those actually behind 9/11, it's rebuilding into a nation-state with even a remote chance of making it. Afghanistan... Bush's one foreign policy jewel, that he couldn't wait to put on the back-burner as soon as he could get the ball rolling with his invasion of Iraq. As soon as he thought his propaganda had prepared the way. Afghanistan, which we are busy losing, while up to our ears in losing Bush's fiasco in Iraq. D&D. Planets not Aligned.
it is a mess, which is why answers are so tricky to come by, at least good answers. but why not build a base there as an insurance policy if nothing else? i tend to think that a base could provide a much greater asset than a liability.
why would we have cared if iran attacked saddam? that's the the other crux of the problem, there is a legitimate point for them to be there now, but not before the war. that's the problem with the arguments that still support what's going on over there, they change with the wind. and now bush is trying to argue we need a base over there because its a mess, ignoring the fact that we created the mess.
whether we think we should or shouldnt have gone is completely irrelevant now, imo. You have to deal with whats going on now and go from there. I actually always had the feeling a base was going to be built there so its no surprise to me. I wouldnt be surprised if the president knew that this mess was created by them, but its not like he can say "see. were building a base, cause we screwed up"
yes he can, if he would admit he made a mistake he would have a lot more support. just jumping from plan to plan isn't helping.
Don't know if it's worth the long read, but it is worth thinking about... Byron King Editor How's democracy taking hold in Iraq? Not too well. Meet Moztada al-Sadr, son-in-law of a grand ayatollah. He's young. But he can trace his family lineage directly back to the prophet Muhammad. That gets him a lot of credibility. al-Sadr heads the Mahdi Army. It's not an official army. It's a band of 10,000 Shiite militiamen, vying for control of Iraq. His followers battle coalition troops in Baghdad. They've taken control of cities in the south. They run police stations, holy sites and political offices. His own father, two brothers and father-in-law were all murdered by Hussein's secret police. In a U.S.-run poll in Iraq, al-Sadr ranked more popular than Iraq's "elected" prime minister. Then you've got the "Badr Brigade." The Brigade is also Shia. It's the armed wing, in fact, of SCIRI, the party of Shia Muslims who dominate the newly elected Iraqi Parliament. Shia Muslims - or Shiites - are a sect of Islam. Around the world, there aren't many of them. But in the Middle East, the 140 million Shia Muslims make up more than half the population of the entire region. The other half is Sunni Muslim. Shiites and Sunnis hate each other. They have been at war in Iraq ever since Saddam fell. They have been at war across the Middle East for the last 1,374 years. The 40% of people supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon are also Shia. President Assad in Syria is Alawi, which is a Shia subgroup. The new president of Iraq is Shia. In fact, 60% of the Iraqi population is Shia. Sadr City, Karbala and Najaf, Iraq... they're all jammed with Shia Muslims. The oppressed Shiites partied in the streets when Saddam fell. Today, they terrorize the coalition troops and take potshots at their Sunni neighbors. They call it the "Balance of Terror" - a cycle of violence and counterviolence between Sunnis and Shias across the region - that's supposed to keep Shia populations from being marginalized ever again. This virtually guarantees the Iraqi civil war will happen. In fact, even though Washington says we don't have to worry, our own top generals, CIA insiders and Middle East experts all say it's already begun. Gen. John Abizaid was our top U.S. military commander in the Middle East. Here's what he had to say recently: "I believe that sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have ever seen it." And William Patey, the U.K. ambassador to Iraq who just retired, says, "The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy." Bush and his advisors have turned a deaf ear. They're in denial. Think about it. Shias dominate the new Iraqi government. This is a "New Middle East" all right. Just not the one anyone ever hoped for. The Iraqi Highway Patrol, run mostly by Shias, doubles as a not-so-secret Sunni Arab death squad. When Sunni's bombed the Shias' Golden Mosque, Shias bombed eight Sunni mosques and killed over 50 Sunni Arabs in retaliation. Gunmen spraying worshippers with automatic fire during morning prayers... blasts in a crowded marketplace... over 1,000 Shia dead in a stampede, on rumors of a Sunni suicide bomber. The last time Shia militias threatened to blow up oil fields in southern Iraq, they shut down - cutting off 90% of Baghdad's oil revenue. This is the seat of world oil wealth on edge, worse than at any other time in history! And behind it all... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the son of a blacksmith. He's smart. With a PHD in engineering. He's also ruthless. In the late 1970s, he graduated as one of the top students from Iran's version of MIT. He joined the Revolutionary Guard. During the Iran-Iraq war, Ahmadinejad trained 12-year-old boys to march into mine fields, sacrificing their own lives, to make way for the Iranian army. After his election, he said in his speech, "Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution is arisen..." He's doing everything possible to make sure he's right. Take Iraq. The Iran-Iraq war was one of the bloodiest battles of the 20th century. Iraq was run by Sunni Muslims then. Now it's run by Shiites. And Iran, also nearly 91% Shiite, is sending electricity to Iraq. It's sending wheat. It's sending $1 billion in foreign aid. Ahmadinejad knows what he's doing. Iran just offered to pay for three pipelines running across Shia territory in Iraq. Iran has offered to open its ports, so war-torn Iraq can use them for shipping. And every day, Iraq will ship 150,000 barrels of light crude direct to Iran, for refining. Remember, Iran also funds Hezbollah in Lebanon. And it's busily buying influence in Syria. You've seen, so far, how much of a chip Iran has on its shoulder. The British sailors... the rebuffed U.N. inspections... the direct verbal challenges to the authority of the West. What happens once Iran gets the bomb? Everything changes. Shias unite across the region, behind the new dominant power in Tehran. The Sunni House of Saud... Saudi Arabia's ruling family... collapses. Along with any remaining alliance with the U.S. More radical fundamentalists step in to take charge. Inside the region, the Sunnis get isolated - away from most of the oil. Now it's the Shiites who get to call the shots. And with the backing of the Iranian oil bourse, they're not afraid to price oil through the ceiling. Here's what our own government says, through the U.S. Council on Foreign Affairs: "Tehran sees itself as a regional power and the center of a Persian and Shiite zone of influence stretching from Mesopotamia to Central Asia. Freed from the menace of the Taliban in Afghanistan and of Saddam in Iraq, Iran is riding the crest of the wave of Shiite revival, aggressively pursuing nuclear power and demanding international recognition of its interests." Iran's Shiites... along with Shiites in Pakistan and Afghanistan... the Shia majority in Iraq... the Shia-friendly government in Syria... and Hezbollah and the large Shia movement in Lebanon... add up to a total 140 million people. That has Washington worried. It has Saudi Arabia even more worried. Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni. In Saudi schools, they teach Sunni kids that Shiites aren't real Muslims. And that it would be better to marry a Christian or a Jew than to marry into the Shia sect. Here's the thing... Nearly 20% of Saudi Arabia is also Shia. But the land the Shia occupy happens to include virtually all of Saudi Arabia's biggest and most important oil fields. It's only a matter of time before the Shia movement in the north... reaches the Shia communities across the major Middle Eastern countries to the south. Already, Saudi Arabia is feeling like a second-class power. The House of Saud is in trouble. Its stubborn alliance with the U.S. has destroyed local credibility. Many of its 5,000 princes live decadent lives that don't square with Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia's especially strict form of Sunni Islam. And new geological research shows Saudi Arabia's oil fields may be drying up. Meanwhile, Iran's economy is bigger than Saudi Arabia's. Iran is mineral rich, it's people are highly educated and its army is powerful and well rested. And by forging an alliance with the Shia majority in Iraq, it's now combining two of the largest oil deposits in the world. For decades, Iran has hung back in the shadows. With the growing Shia alliance across the Middle East, that's changing radically. Iran's current super-nationalist, hostile government is like Japan in the 1930s. Not just overconfident, but ready to assert its place in the world. With nuclear weapons. With support of terrorists. With missile threats. And with tentacles of subversive ideological support reaching from Pakistan to Lebanon. link
thats not how the game is played. Thats like people asking the texans for an apology for not drafting VY. its just not going to happen, nor does it really need to. Maybe after he is out of politics he can be more candid, but when you're in office you have to maintain
fine, but i dont see how that directly effects what the next step is. There is plenty of time to 'hold someone accountable' (whatever that entails) but you still have to proceed with whatever is seen fit at this moment. no? i mean, i dont think holding someone accountable is help with the actually efforts. Sure, it may help some people feel better at home b/c now they can blame someone but thats not really helping with the real issue.
