The ironic thing is, Iran is probably a much greater threat than Iraq. And yet, we cannot attack Iran because many Americans are tired of war due to the misrepresentations that got us into Iraq.
I am not sure if mc mark's intended question is actually "Shall we" rather than "Will we," but I bet there are people interpreting the poll differently.
No, I meant it to be pretty straight forward. But you do pose an interesting question and I'm sure the results would be different if the question was worded as "Should we?" instead of "Will we." The responses have been interesting though.
No but- "What might precipitate a conflict between Iran and the U.S.? Next month (March 2006), Iran will bring online the "Bourse" exchange for oil sales around the world, which could accept Euros, etc., instead of dollars (currently nations must use dollars to buy oil). In November 2000 (when George W. Bush was elected president), Iraq stopped accepting dollars for oil and under the U.N. oil-for-food program switched to the Euro. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, we had Iraq switch back to accepting the dollar. According to economic expert Jim Puplava, the Iranian action this March will be the first serious challenge to Anglo-American dominance of the commodities market globally. "-Dr. Dennis Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education. If Iran continues to try to torch the dollar like Sadaam did they will meet the same fate if neo-cons are in power. Democrats are more likely to allow the dollar to plunge and accept the damage of a huge recession. The war in Iraq is an economic war and the problems with Iran are economic problems. We will do what it takes to prop up the dollar.
you can't with a straight face demand that iran not pursue nuclear weapons when you allowed if not secretly encouraged israel to get weapons. color me disillusioned.
If I'm Iran I would do everything I could to keep the pressure on in Iraq. As long as we are tied up there the options of the US are very limited. I believe GWB wanted to go after Iraq, then Iran then North Korea. He started with what he thought would be the easiest, Iraq, who also had a SOB dictator that everyone hated even in the Muslim world. If he won that quickly and set up a democracy he would have the troops readily available and the political clout to take on Iran.
I was kinda hoping we would just nuke the entire middle east, including israel. Can oil survive being nuked? I must ask a team of scientists to research this at nasa. Heres the plan: Nuke, Wait, take oil.
As long as Israel practically dictates US policy in the Middle East through its lobbies and 'friends' appointed to some of the highest decision-making offices in the U.S. [Defense Dept (Pentagon), State Dept, Congress, and various influential think-tanks], then war will always be a possibility/reality in that region; in this case, Israel is strongly agitating for war with Iran -- they just don't want to go into it alone, they want the 'daddy' to take care of the 'bad guy'. Obviously, if the Israelis decide to attack Iran (the most likely scenario), then the US won't be able to plead 'ignorance' because we would have most certainly had advanced notice of it and coordinated with them on many fronts, provided them with our intelligence, and likely will be forced to take part in the war once the Iranian retaliation takes place...in other words, it would most certainly spark a region-wide war that will draw in more than just the neighboring states, which will be 'in the line of fire', so to speak. Yeah well, I am sure Israel is worth tens of thousands of American lives and American reputation in the region and around the world...it has already cost us dearly. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
I don't think Bush would like to go down in history as the US President that allowed Iran to go nuclear. If Iran can't be bribed or doesn't back down, there'll have to be action.
Glynch, Did you feel that Clinton bombing that milk factory (or whatever it was) was a war crime? Whatabout all the bombing the US did in Kosovo? Also, Clinton bombed Iraq with about two dozen cruise missiles after the Gulf War in retaliation for an attempted assasination attempt against George Bush. Was that a violation of international law as well? From Cruise Missile Strike - 26 June 1993 "US forces targeted 6 buildings in the complex and attempted to launch 25 Block II TLAM-C missiles, 23 of which (92 percent) were successfully launched and transitioned to cruise flight. Of the 23 Tomahawks launched, 16 missiles (69.6%) hit the target, Three (13.0%) struck a residential area, killing nine civilians and wounding 12, while four missiles (17.4%) were unaccounted for." (Emphasis mine) The point of this post is not necessarily to bring up Clinton as an excuse for Bush, but to ask "what's the difference?"
Iran has not really violated any international accords and is not currently under UN sanctions. Therefore, if the U.S. or Israel or any other state launches an attack against an Iranian target, it would be a defined as an act of 'aggression' that was not sanctioned by the UN body. In fact, Iran would be 'in the right' to retaliate, it would be seen as 'self-defense'. Of course, International law is not 'binding' in many cases, because it's rarely applicable to the 'big dogs' while it's usually used as a weapon to hammer the weaker states and for the 'big dogs' to get their way and pursue their agendas. However, in the eyes of the international community, a nation-state that continually breaks international norms is usually called an 'outlaw/rogue state'. This is also why the UN is rediculed by most nations around the world, because it fails time after time to stand up to the 'bully' states and yet is quick to get used/abused as a tool for those 'bully' states to pursue their policies as they please. The best way for the UN to work well is for us to live in a multi-polar world, were vying powers can 'check and balance' one another and thereby hoping that conflicts will be more rare than they're in the current/previous world orders.
