Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (wivanov), 10 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 6 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#26724 - 02/14/07 04:25 AM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Quote:

Go after that first, scare Iran by making a mess next door.

Well, we all see how well that worked out. Our intervention in Iraq, which took out their totalitarian enemy neighbor, was the best thing the Iranian government could have wished for. Scared? They should be thanking us!




Yes I agree.

They are in it for their own interests. There's plenty in it for them - in addition to those already cited, starting an invasion this year, would guaruntee them the 08 elections, since we can't change guard mid-war.

Seems to me we just did. Iraq was the major issue last November. Starting a war with Iran without a clear mission would seem to me to be an obvious way to lose in 2008.




Just becuase the mission changes once in a while does not make it unclear to many people. Ccmon, half of America still thinks we went to war to fight that Akaida guy Sadam who was responsible for the destruction of the world trade center while he was trying making chemical nuclear weapons. A lot ofthem still think that's what were doing!

Quote:

And we can't invade if we have nothing to invade with. I'd think that would be self-evident,




I figure we have over 100,000 troops right next door to Iran who don't need to be where they are now! So, don't ya think it'd be kind of a good thng to kill all those Iranian Alkaida terrorists before our soldiers come home?

Top
#26725 - 02/14/07 04:48 AM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: mworking]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I figure we have over 100,000 troops right next door to Iran who don't need to be where they are now!

Maybe, but this administration says we should keep them in Iraq until we "win," which certainly won't happen by year's end. Even this administration can't defy the laws of physics and have the same people in two places at once. And if they reneged and pulled everyone out of Iraq, if our 100,000 troops there weren't enough to secure that place then they wouldn't be nearly enough to secure Iran which is 3.7 times Iraq's land area and over twice its population--who would likely be even more hostile to American occupation than Iraq's has been.

Again, I don't see how even the most neo neocon can see invasion as a remotely plausible option. It would be a disaster that would cost them whatever influence they have left. So while I've been as tough as anyone on this administration's capacity for self-delusion, I find it hard to take rumors of invasion very seriously.

Top
#26726 - 02/14/07 12:32 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63
"Instead of offering a counterproposal, Arafat walked away. The negotiators said they were close to an agreement. But Arafat apparently thought he had more to gain by continued conflict than by compromise. Anyway, Friedman has been justifiably critical of both Arafat and Israeli hard-liners."

This is the myth put forward by Friedman, Safire, NY Times et al. In actuality, the talks simply colapsed. Baraks "generous offer" was never put forward in any concrete proposal - instead bits and pieces. At best it looked something like this: A Palestinian State With a flag and anthem which takes in aprox 90% (of the22% of historical palestine. It would be broken up into 3 non contiguous blocks bisected by Isreali controled security roads. Isreal would control all borders, airspace, water - even the electromagnetic spectrum. As far as Jeruselem & Haram al-sharif/ Temple Mount no Arab leader could have accepted the Israeli position especially in light of UN 242.
To be fair Barak was under terrific pressure back home. Clinton was contending with both the campaigns of his wife & Gore. But look at Clinton' s negotiaters in Dennis Ross, who immediately afterwards took his family to Isreal for their annual Summmer vacation & Martin Indyk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Indyk
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1568

How would you like to be a figure skater in that competition?
The sad thing here is papers like the NY Times are completely biased as is much of the US media. At least over at Hareetz there are columnists such as Gideon Levy and Amira Hass who champion the Pals rights. You would never see this in the Times - too afraid of offending a third of its readership

Top
#26727 - 02/14/07 03:08 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
First, I mostly read the Times for my information, and my understanding was essentially what you wrote. So I don't think the coverage was as biased as you claim. Second, it's a mistake to confuse a paper's reporting with its editorials and opinion pieces. The Wall Street Journal has some great reporting, though its editorial board is loony. Third, Safire and Friedman are nowhere near comparable, in my opinion. As I wrote before, Friedman has been very critical of Israeli hard liners.

Yes, the Israeli offer was for an inadequate, cut-up Palestine. But it at least was more than had been proposed before, and there's no claim it was a "take it or leave it" offer. Where was the counteroffer? Friedman's critique of Arafat was that he was unwilling to lead his people to accept compromise. If Arafat wouldn't or couldn't to accept any compromise, then what was the point of attending negotiations?

And the Times being "afraid of offending a third of its readership"? I'm not sure what you're implying here. If the idea is that its readership may be disproportionately Jewish, I don't think hard line Jewish right wingers (or right wingers generally) constitute a third of its readership. To the extent that the readership may be disproportionately Jewish, a substantial number of those, if not a majority, are liberal or secular and are highly critical of Israeli actions (such as myself).

As far as resolving the conflict goes, we all know what the only possible solution generally looks like: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank approximately along the lines of the '67 border, Israel gives up most of its settlements, Palestinians give up the right of return and get compensation instead. Clinton was saying this for years. When/if both sides realize reach their senses and stop letting extremists drive the process, they'll come to this kind of agreement.

I think this Robert Wright piece from Slate Magazine does a pretty good job explaining how both sides failed at Camp David and afterwards.

If you want to discuss this issue further, I suggest moving it to a new thread.

Top
#26728 - 02/14/07 07:15 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
Our intervention in Iraq, which took out their totalitarian enemy neighbor, was the best thing the Iranian government could have wished for. Scared? They should be thanking us!

Sure. Until we come over and make the same mess in Iran.

They are in it for their own interests. There's plenty in it for them - in addition to those already cited, starting an invasion this year, would guaruntee them the 08 elections, since we can't change guard mid-war.

Seems to me we just did. Iraq was the major issue last November. Starting a war with Iran without a clear mission would seem to me to be an obvious way to lose in 2008.

I'm talking about 2004. That's what's truly amazed me: the problems and failures in Iraq were just as bad and evident in 2004, but a major force in the election was that we can't change leadership (and by leadership, I don't mean Congressional majority and non-binding resolution; I mean the White House, Sec of State and Defense, and their "consolidated powers") mid-war. Bush made the argument and kept his job by touting that he had The Plan for Iraq ... never mind what it was(n't), the majority of people bought into that.

And even if they could institute a draft without congressional approval, it would take months to put into action, months to train draftees, months before they could be sent abroad. I'm admittedly no expert, but I don't see any real possibility of sending any troops anywhere by the end of the year.

I have similar worries, of course, but remember that they're already come up with all kinds of ways to stretch the existing force, by extended tours of duty, etc. Just think: by their logic, we have half of our forces sitting home on their asses (that is sarcasm on my part) waiting to invade Iran.

I'm in such agreement with you, Daniel, but you have to remember that the point of view and values that the Bush war machine approaches things with, are so very different from ours.

Top
#26729 - 02/14/07 09:21 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Julie]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
but you have to remember that the point of view and values that the Bush war machine approaches things with, are so very different from ours.

I understand that their views and values--and even perception of reality--are different. But even they can't do the impossible. And we could take ALL the troops out of Iraq--which they obviously won't do, since it would constitute "losing"--and it still wouldn't be enough to occupy Iran. A draft would not conceivably get congressional approval, and even if it did, it still wouldn't be enough to put sufficient troops in Iran by the end of the year.

So I'm not saying that it won't happen because their world view and values agree with mine; I'm saying it won't happen because it physically and operationally can't be done, much less politically.

As for the 2004 election, is there any doubt that W would lose big-time if he could run again? I know the public is woefully uninformed about many things, but people are a lot more skeptical this time around. Let's remember that if 80,000 people had voted the other way in Ohio, he'd have been out. The scaremongering worked, but barely. I may be wrong, but I doubt it would work again.

Top
#26730 - 02/15/07 02:27 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
So I'm not saying that it won't happen because their world view and values agree with mine; I'm saying it won't happen because it physically and operationally can't be done, much less politically.

I don’t think this is what you were relating to Daniel, but I'd like to make a point. If we needed to go to war – anywhere, anytime, there would be plenty of volunteers including me, and we would do it in a heart beat. But, we would have to need to do it.

As for the 2004 election, is there any doubt that W would lose big-time if he could run again? I know the public is woefully uninformed about many things, but people are a lot more skeptical this time around. Let's remember that if 80,000 people had voted the other way in Ohio, he'd have been out. The scaremongering worked, but barely. I may be wrong, but I doubt it would work again.

Ya know I didn’t think it would work. I didn’t think Republican politicians would think it would work. But, they are trying to use the fight against terror again right now in their speeches against the resolution against troop escalation and the war in general.


Edited by mworking (02/15/07 02:38 PM)

Top
#26731 - 02/15/07 05:48 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: mworking]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
If we needed to go to war – anywhere, anytime, there would be plenty of volunteers including me, and we would do it in a heart beat. But, we would have to need to do it.

Exactly. I don't think there would be plenty of volunteers to go to Iran before year's end, even in two years, because there's no evidence of any imminent threat.

And it's not just a matter of volunteering. Volunteers have to be trained, equipped, deployed. That takes time.

And even if there are volunteers, would it be enough to occupy Iran? There's general agreement now that General Shinseki was right: it would have taken several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq. Iran has over twice the population and over three times the land area, so it seems to me that we'd be looking at over half a million troops for the job. I think it's really doubtful that volunteers will appear in those numbers--especially before this administration is over.

Ya know I didn’t think it would work. I didn’t think Republican politicians would think it would work. But, they are trying to use the fight against terror again right now in their speeches against the resolution against troop escalation and the war in general.

If Kerry had run a half-competent campaign and gone after W's credibility, it wouldn't have worked. But anyway ...

Yeah, they're trying it again. And they're losing in many districts. Dozens of Republicans are bolting because they know they won't get reelected if they blindly stick with the President.

Moreover, Iran isn't Iraq. We're already in Iraq, and the question is how best to deal with the mess that's there. That's a very different question than whether to create another mess in Iran. If some Republicans are skittish about continuing with one mess we've made, how will the feel about creating another?

Even if W can't say the "Fool me once " thing properly, there are plenty of moderate Americans who can. There are already Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate with Republicans who are joining them opposing W's management of the Iraq war. I just don't see how this administration will be able to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops--that we don't even have--to Iran under these conditions.

Top
#26732 - 02/15/07 07:13 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
I don't necessarily associate attack and at war with occupation. I worry that "we" can and might attack Iran, particularly where nuclear weapons are concerned. I worry that we won't too! But in either case I am not predicting that we will occupy Iran.

Top
#26733 - 02/15/07 07:28 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
Daniel, you are sorely underestimating the Bush PR machine, when it comes to stirring up clouds of confusion into the belief that we Must Go After The Bad Guys.

Even as we lambast Hillary for saying it, I think every one of us was more convinced about WMD and the threat of Saddam, five years ago than we are now.

Top
Page 6 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored