US will invade Iran in '06

Originally posted by 27jd
No, I'm afraid it's the other way around. You didn't read my question, obviously. I did not ask you what you think is causing Iran to pursue nukes. You've already have stated why you think Iran is after nukes, over and over again. I asked you if you would rather have more nuclear weapons pointed at your family for the sake of being "fair" to Iran. That's it. Simple question. Instead of an answer you danced around it like Bobby Brown after too much coke. If I asked you if you thought it was acceptable to eat babies, I suspect you would answer by saying the only reason people eat babies to begin with, is because fast food is too unhealthy, when the question called for 'yes' or 'no'. If you don't want to answer directly because it screws up your arguement, just say you don't want to answer. Those nations that hate me hate you too, my young fellow American. Think they care to interview every American to determine where they stand politically before they press the button?

[edit on 8-1-2006 by 27jd]

no i dont want more nukes, there, now im waiting for you to say, "then its simple, we should allow them to get nukes and go bomb them" or whatever your going to say to make it seem like you are right.

but the truth is that you couldnt be more wrong. you think that will solve anything? did it last time? maybe this time will invade though and lose more troops goin out on a rouge mission to give iran democracy. hell maybe we will lose some iraqi people and maybe some saudi arabians when they let off their chemical and bio weapons in attempt to fight us off.

you seem to think because i want to be fair to iran that i want them to have nukes, thats why im convinced you arent reading. if you read youd see i dont want either to have nukes, so we can go about it as unbias and fair as possible, and maybe have some middle eastern tension go down.

because saudi arabia and israel were in a race for weapons preparing for a war, and those weapons came from us. thats besides the point of where they came from, all saudi arabia needs to know is that iraq was just overthrown, israels enemies are going down like flies, and in 2003 we withdrew our troops from their country, which we have had there for a decent amount of time to protect them from iraq and iran. no we are gone and they are relatively weak.

irans leaders gotta be scared though, they either go to war or hand over the fate of their country to bully countries.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
you seem to think because i want to be fair to iran that i want them to have nukes, thats why im convinced you arent reading. if you read youd see i dont want either to have nukes, so we can go about it as unbias and fair as possible, and maybe have some middle eastern tension go down.

Fine, then the only first step is to make sure no more nukes are created, then we can pressure Israel to give up theirs. That is as unbias and fair as possible.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
words alone can be enough, if you listen to them instead of just say yours then expect them to be followed.

But then how do you explain the nuclearization of North Korea? Everyone said all of the right words during the Clinton Administration, but that's when Iran's nuclear program achieved its first few bombs.

Words did not stop Hitler at Munich either.
It is axiomatic that treaties only last while they are good for both parties. The only way to fix that is to back the treaty up with verification.

we havent pursued peace, weve been fueling their wars for years with supplying them weapons and stuff.

Granted, and that's the best argument I can think of against letting them buy nukes. If people are willing to be played off of one another, buy arms like there's no tomorrow, and use them like they don't want there to be a tomorrow, the last thing they need is control of the little red button.

At any cost, they have to be stopped from nuclearizing- that's job 1. Impeaching anyone who keeps stirring the crap over there is job 2- a very imporant job 2, but job 2 none the less.

who are we to say a nation cant have its own peaceful reactors. i wouldnt want another country in charge of my power source.

I agree, but they'd better be willing to have some seriously hard-nosed accountability of every scrap of material that goes into and out of their country, and they'd be very wise to consider trading away the fast-reactor option in exchange for some kind of help from the US or Europeans, because if they start arming, America would have to be nuts not to shut them down fast and hard, and that's a real strong motive for Iran to try act in good faith.

want peace? you dont say stop fighting then give the two enemies guns to shoot eachother, thatsa mixed message to say the least.

Not so much a mixed message as a very very clear unspoken one, because words alone mean nothing, but the action of handing somebody a gun is pretty clear. You're preaching to the choir in some respects.

(3.) who are you to deem they will violate it.

A student of history.

if in fact we did it as a nuetral fair nation instead of a israel bias greedy nation, maybe the terms would be reasonable and they could bare with it till maybe more stable ideas came along.

Money rapes, fairness gets raped. Iran wanting nukes affects Israel greatly, the consequences strongly involve Israel, but the MOTIVE is more about Iran than it is about Israel. Iran is in a position where a nuclear program promises both to be profitable and to be a huge "just in case" security item. They've got two huge incentives to arm, no matter how far we distance ourselves from Israel.
There's nothing biased or unfair about an agreement which promises Iran's security in exchange for Iran promising not to threaten anyone else's security.

(4.) further the hatred for america which is already high...i can see the terrorist attack and terror alert rising as im typing right now

NOBODY BREATHE! The sky might fall! So what do we do? Nuke Israel so the terrorists will be our friends? Show me a nation that never makes anybody mad and I'll show you Tibet bent over in front of China.

(5.) some how in this option we can catch them if they violate it but not the other one?

Maybe I haven't been clear enough on this. The point I've been hammering is verification and enforcement. If there is not verification and enforcement, Iran will do what North Korea did. If there IS verification and enforcement, things will work out.

then we go with an option 4 followed by a 2?

Nobody said invade, that's your own lack of vision speaking. If we can't confirm that they're disarming, we disarm them by blowing up their facilities, and there's no need to invade because we just blew up the threat.

this seems like 3 but instead of handling it like a civilized society we come in guns blazing and occupy iran like we did iraq.

Your statement implies that a civilized society expects and tollerates lies and deception. My point is clearly that the civilized way to handle this is to offer them the option of peace, give them every reason to take it, and if they resort to barbarism by attempting to stab us in the back, then we should subdue them rather than allow it.

There is a common misconception out there that we can all just get along. You people have apparently never driven on Interstate 15. We can't all just get along. There is always somebody who wants to do their own thing.

Civilized does not mean that we never fight. Civlized only means that we try not to. If you try to kill a civilized person, you should fully expect him to fight back to the extent necessary to stop you. That hardly makes him a barbarian.

because you feel we cant have peace without military action,

On the contrary, I have made it abundantly clear that we can and should have peace without military action. You are blinded either by bias or by language skills into the insistance that I have demanded military action.
The truth is that I have insisted only that while purusing a peaceful option both sides should be transparent in and accountable for their actions, so that neither side need fear that the other will betray it's promise and take belligerent action.

That is no less civilized than a handshake. You are aware that a handshake originated as a demonstration that you were not armed and planning to use a peaceful interaction as a cover for a violent attack, are you not?

according to you we are at war unless iran steps down and allows their country in the hands of others.

We are at war if Iran seeks the ability to hold the fate of their neighbors in their hands by gaining nuclear weapons. Iran need not "back down" in most regards. They should be allowed to have nuclear power. Their security should be ensured by international law as all nations are entitled to. Illegal nuclear weapons within range of their country, including those belonging to Israel, ought to be removed. All that Iran must back down from is their insistance on violating the NPT, and their threats to commit genocide. If they'll back down from those two things, we should give them what they want.

no theres is no THEN we do it. we do it at the same time. we have people over in iran suspending enriching uranium and have MULTIPLE NATIONS support irans needs of nuclear fuel till we can reach a further agreement while AT THE SAME TIME disarm israel of all nuclear weapons and also suspend THEIR nuclear capabilities and give them the same deal iran got for their nuclear program. thats non proliferation and easing the needs for any nukes in the middle east at the same time.

should israel deny this then they obvious dont want peace, because getting rid of their nukes would be a gesture of wanting peace.

alright well apparently since israel hasnt signed the NPT whats your stance on the nuclear capabilities if you were an iranian civilian?

also yes you made it very clear they peace will only come by a military action, you made this clear when you said "I'm only saying that words alone are not enough- there must be action, and a preclusion of hostile action." you clearly stated there must be action. this makes me believe that you see peace as threatening your enemy into not attacking, that is why peace as you refer to it, doesnt work.

peace is when you understand eachother sides and work out something that will grant it you put all differences aside and make an agreement where its understood no more attacks will come. after that the first nation to attack is the one that gets attacked by the UN, not the united states. the UN comes in and handles it. peace can be achived after they made the treaty and stick to it. a suicide bomber who blows himself up is hardly considered an attack from the country unless proved the country was tied to it. if an american blew up a club in the UK, the UK cant come bomb us and hold us responcible.

so you agree we sent a very clear message we want them to continue fighting over there and we want war in the middle east to continue?

you say theres nothing bias about an agreement? o believe me it can be bias. iran could be far more restricted then israel when ensuring both peoples securities. israel and iran need to be put on the same exact field as far as nuclear power wise goes. you dont want iran with nukes?disarm israel. dont want iran with their own program, and want it in russia? do the same for israel. simple as that.

bomb israel? i dont appriciate you putting words in my mouth. i said be unbias to both countries so we dont create more terrorists. just because israel is our "friends" doesnt mean when trying to come to peace we can treat them better, that kind of peace wont last a minute.

apparently you didnt pay attention to when israel blew up irans nuclear facility in 89. they blew it up and that was the end of the discussion, turned it into rubble. 15 years later, here we are again, dejavoo?

lol i had to say this, yes well apparently civilized societies to accept lies and deception, at least thats what weve been doing for god knows how long with our current and previous leaders, accepting their lies to us. the way we are acting isnt civilized. civilized uses all its resources before going to war. we didnt. a civilized nation check with other civilized nations before it goes rambo on a country. we didnt. we havent shown any restraint for going to war, thats why my friends who joined the military because they wanted to kill people voted for bush again.

i have a feeling our idea of creating peace is very similar to the point where i cant tell the difference between the two. i feel we should come to a simple agreement, that which is unbias to both countries, and simply let them follow it. if they betray, UN takes action, not with words but just overthrows them and lets the people choose the new government and leader.

whether or not israel says it, they hold the fate of their nieghboring nations with nuclear weapons. they are in the same position that iran is in accept they are further along, and iran sees them as a threat.

also yes you made it very clear they peace will only come by a military action, you made this clear when you said "I'm only saying that words alone are not enough- there must be action, and a preclusion of hostile action."

Do you even know what preclusion means? While you've got your dictionary out, look up "action" too.

Yes, there must be ACTION. If Iran says they are not going to pursue nukes, then they have to ACT on that promise by visibly getting rid of whatever they've got and inviting some kind of verification.

If America says it's not going to attack Iran, they have to ACT on that promise by entering some kind of binding legal agreement which authorizes and enables somebody to do something about it if America reneges.

Tell me something, if I were waving a knife at you, would you want words, or action? I could say I'm not gonna stab you, or I could put the knife down. Which would be more assuring?

so you agree we sent a very clear message we want them to continue fighting over there and we want war in the middle east to continue?

Of course I do. It's hardly deniable that the United States and most other major powers in this world do a great deal of profiteering on war. Everybody who's anybody has been in the arms business at some point in the last 20 years.

The difference between our positions is
1. I think that if the American people will take an interest in the government of their nation, America can and will change.
2. I don't think reforming ourselves means we can never fight again, I only think it means we have to stop intentionally starting unnecessary wars for profit.
3. I don't think that the fact that we've done wrong gives Iran or any other nation the right to threaten its neighbors, nor to arm itself for the purpose of carrying out those threats.

iran could be far more restricted then israel when ensuring both peoples securities. israel and iran need to be put on the same exact field as far as nuclear power wise goes.

It would be nice if Israel and Iran could be put in the exact same field, but that's impossible. Israel and Iran cannot possibly be in the same situation because Iran is not surrounded by nations which have attempted to invade their country and exterminate them. Now, if Iran was surrounded by larger nations who on average try to exterminate them every 20 years or so, then I'd be all for giving Iran nukes.

The argument you are making falsely assumes that Israel is a threat to Iran. Israel has shown no belligerence to Iran which was not first precipitated by Iranian threats.

Israel should be disarmed, that is clear, however Iranian disarmament is not to be contingent on Israeli disarmament. Furthermore, right now, there are no nations hostile to Israel who have nukes- that makes it relatively easy to get Israel to disarm- we could probably work that out if we tried hard enough. If Iran refuses to stop making nukes until Israel disarms, pretty soon they will both have nukes, and we both know full well that Israel will never surrender its nukes while Iran has them.

What would be profitable for Iran right now is, instead of saying "Israel's got them so we're gonna have them and that's it", say, "fine, we're giving it up, but we're doing it because we expect you 1. To protect us from Israel in the short term and 2. To make Israel obey international law too so that we will not need your protection in the long term. If you don't even try to do that, we have the right to start again later- so that's the deal and lets both honor our part".

apparently you didnt pay attention to when israel blew up irans nuclear facility in 89. they blew it up and that was the end of the discussion, turned it into rubble. 15 years later, here we are again, dejavoo?

1. Iraq bombed Bushehr, Iran in 1989, not Israel.
Israel bombed Osirak, Iraq, in 1981.

2. We can hold Iran back for 15 years with a couple of bombs, and you see failure, while I see a perfectly viable way of bringing them to the negotiating table.
Now before you even start, let me point out that there's nothing wrong with forcing someone to compromise. Nobody would ever compromise if they couldn't be forced to- everyone would just have it their way all the time. When something is unacceptible to others, and you don't have the ability to just bulldoze those who reject your actions, then you have to compromise- that's how compromise works. And Iran's dang lucky that Americans have any notion of what it is to compromise, because it's well within our ability to just bomb them every 15 years for the next few centuries if needbe, but instead there's this big to do about how to make a deal with Iran. I'd say Iran is getting a hell of a deal compared to what would happen if we tried to be unfair with them.

a civilized nation check with other civilized nations before it goes rambo on a country.

If I punched you, would you ask everyone in the room permission before fighting back? If you didn't, would that make you uncivilized. Alright then, you can give up now.

iran sees them as a threat.

You're the only person saying that. Not even Iran says that.
Israel never threatened a genocide. Israel is surrounded by people who want them destroyed. Israel is not in the same place that Iran is. Israel would be lucky as hell to be in the same place Iran is, do you know why? Because if Iran would just behave itself everyone would leave them the hell alone. See how far that would get Israel- start by asking HAMAS.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
israelcd, wanna know why we wont have a draft? because the citizens here for the most dont want war unless its absolutely necessary. we as people dont really want to fight, our leaders do. this is becuase our leaders can benefit from it. personally if theres a draft here, no one will go because they dont believe in the war we are creating. its obvious that the people here dont care. i wouldnt go, im not going because we create wars for big business personal gain, for rich peoples personal gain. i am nowhere near rich and this war doesnt help me or my community, in fact it does the opposite. friends dying over there for reason we dont even know because big business owns our media so we cant even figure out whats true and isnt.

I understand... but please understand the paradox... fundamentally, the draft provides man power to the arm forces for support and defence of this country... As it stands now being an all volunteer force the military leadership methods are those of a ruling party dictatorship. With a draft you would really have a cross section of americans who will have a variety of views regarding the right and wrong of wars and potential wars

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I have to disagree that diplomacy alone will do the trick ECK. Diplomacy is phase 1.

I never suggested we could solve all the problems through diplomacy alone. It would be nice, though, if our government actually employed some of it. As it is now, our so-called representatives speak out of both sides of their mouth.

Insurance is phase 2, and that relies on the ability to enforce negotiated conditions.

We have nukes. Israel has nukes. We have all the reinforcements we need. Let's put ourselves in Iran's place for a moment.. they don't have that insurance. In nukeworld, they're powerless. After what they've seen us do to neighboring countries, they're probly very paranoid right now.

I remember back in the late '70s, everyone was paranoid b/c the data our media fed us claimed that the Soviets were leading us in several areas of conventional weaponry. I remember seeing a nifty little chart showing that they had much bigger fleet of fighter aircraft. That made me nervous. Hence my desire to see Reagan stomp Carter.

America's foreign policy has been insane for something like 16 years, not 5. The minute we allowed Iraq the misguided idea that we would stand for an invasion of Kuwait, thus devastating what had been a promising relationship, we became certifiable.

That's very true, Vagabond. To this day, its hard for me to get my mind around that decision. It also took me more than a few years to put it together. The Gulf War and invasion of Iraq are not two different wars. They're merely different phases in the total war. Gulf War was shock and awe - we devastated that nation, sending them back to the stone age. We also shattered them psychologically. The sanctions was phase two: further weaken them internally. The invasion was the final phase: occupation.

None of this had to happen.

When we stuck our thumb up our butt and whistled a happy tune from the afforementioned orifice as North Korea nuclearized... well that was straight-jacket time.

I lay that one at the foot of the Clinton administration. Back in the early-mid '90s, I thought they were out of their minds to believe N. Korea was keeping their promises. The Clinton administration was naive and inept in a lot of ways militarily speaking and in foreign policy.

Getting rid of Bush won't necessarily get us out of the woods, because the last two presidents were nuts too (which should be shocking since one of them had a great foreign policy resume coming into the job)

The only thing that will get us out of the middle-eastern woods is our government enacting a comprehensive energy policy to make us energy-independent. Without that, we're screwed into perpetuity.

One more time for emphasis: We need strictly verifiable and strictly enforceable terms of peace. If we can't get them, we almost surely ARE going to war whether we want to or not, and we'd be wise to do it sooner rather than later.

There's no reason we can't get that.

If Israel is so certain that it can't happen, I suggest they take care of it. It's their neighborhood and they're fully capable. Look at how they socked it to Saddam in the early '80s. If that happens, though, we better be ready for the blowback to our troops in Iraq.

israelcd: see thats the thing "to defend this country" people (that i know of) dont see this as defending our nation. and they would be right to believe so becaquse we arent defending our nation in these wars. terrorism is caused because the sides we have taken(israel) and now we have started a war on terrorism that can never be won.

vagabond: i dont know about you, but i find any nation with nukes a potential threat. i dont know what powers could come in, overthrow a nation and turn on us. ive had many times where you make friends, then it becomes their best interests to stab you in the back, those are the ones you must watch closest. a nuclear israel threatens me as much as iran, because they would both have nuclear weapons, only difference is we wouldnt be expecting israel to turn on us. that would be very dangerous.

you dont agree its possible to have iran and israel put on the same playing field, while i dont believe its possible to have peace without doing so. explain to me what other countries pose an immediate threat to israel other then iran? not iraq, saudi arabia doesnt have enough power, has jordan been threatening an invasion? and syria can easily be put on the same playing field as them if the UN chose to. turkey wont either.

i do believe action needs to be taken but i think i misunderstood what you said, it seemed to me you intended physical action(as in violent) because words werent enough. my mistake, in that case we hold the same view. only if they break their part should they be attacked, correct?

weve had alot of time to calm the middle east yet weve choosen not to. we could have did it in the past and came to an agreement before iran even started a new reactor...we didnt though, and our government doesnt learn from mistakes well. my faith that the US will actually take away weapons in the middle east, from israel no less, doesnt exist anymore. as much as id like to see iran disarmed frist then israel, and it actually happening, it probably wont and the past proves that.

you said that if the US were to back out they could take action. ok so then if the US disarmed iran but then didnt disarm israel and just moved on to the next issue, would you say the UN has a right to launch an attack against us for breaking our word? when will the US be accountable for what its done? the UN should disarm iran and the UN should have invaded iraq. it wasnt a US issue, iraq didnt throw a punch at the US. terrorists did, and now weve taken over 2 countries because some terrorists said they were from that country. afganastan was ok because they were the government, but not iraq. the UN should disarm Israel IMMEDIATELY after iran disarms.

further more they should be put on the same playing field for nuclear powers. they dont need nukes tyo defend themselves. should another country decide to launch an attack, the entire UN would come down upon that nation. thats how it should work. israel has no excuse for nukes unless another country which is an immediate threat has them, iran is pursuing them, yes, but thts because nukes are already in the middle east. if israel doesnt have nukes then iran has no excuse at all. they cant say any reason to have them then. that way if they did pursue them wed be fully justified to go in.

they don't have to. the only thing to do is giving some info to russia and china so they will go ahead with the plans of nuking iran

russia usa uk china israel all joining forces.

there is only one nation in the world which is very bad and wrong and some in the world say it is the USA but they are wrong its the iran/syrian alliance.

I am against using nukes but if you don;t use them once in the 50 years the effect is lost and they can not be used to ensure peace as they were use in the cold war era. for letting know them what the effect it has and what destruction it delivers the effect wil fade away and people forget what the weapon does.

Originally posted by 27jd
Fine, then the only first step is to make sure no more nukes are created, then we can pressure Israel to give up theirs. That is as unbias and fair as possible.

Don't hold your breath, 27. That'll never happen.

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
there is only one nation in the world which is very bad and wrong and some in the world say it is the USA but they are wrong its the iran/syrian alliance.

On what do you base that opinion? Before BushCo. went severely bellicose with Syria (before the Iraq invasion), Syria was actually being quite helpful on our so-called War on Terror. They were giving us good information on real terrorists and cooperating with us on operations. BushCo. totally screwed that up - same thing they did with Saddam. If this administration was actually interested in our security, they'd be working with the Syrian government rather than trying to push it around.

[edit on 1/8/06 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Don't hold your breath, 27. That'll never happen.

Ya never know for sure. Either way though, that's just how I think it should be handled. I just don't understand how simply wanting nuclear proliferation to stop, immediately, equates to being bias as I've been called continuosly by other posters (not you). We can't stop Israel, but if Iran gets them it'll be that much harder to get them both to give them up. And again, what about Iran's other enemies? They'll need some nukes too. It's ridiculous how some like to attack my position has having fantasies about invading Iran and so on, my position is that I don't want to see millions of Iranian and Israeli children and innocent civilians vaporized at the hands of corrupt governments. I think that's about as pro-Iranian as you can get. It may be hard for some here to comprehend, but I value mass human lives over politics and level playing fields. I don't want to see their lives put on the line for an experiment to see if Iran will actually do what it says it will and wipe out Israel or not. But I guess that's just me (and maybe Vagabond and a few others).

i dont want death anymore then you, but 9/11 will keep having over here if we screw this up. its simple, im not saying let iran have nukes, im saying its unjust to let israel have them and leave the rest of the middle east at their mecry.

we cant stop israel? why is this? i guess israel is stronger the the UN? why cant we stop them? we could stop them if we actually wanted to, but we dont.

I belive that if one country should have to disarm there nukes, then all countrys should have to do so. What gives any western country more right to own them then Iran or Israil, and please dont say becouse there leaders are dangeriouse as the country with the most nukes is run by a psyco. If any are needed they should be controled by a allience so that one country cant push the trigger.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
we cant stop israel? why is this?

We can't stop them because they already have them. Your parents can't stop you from buying a pack of cigarettes if you already bought them.

i guess israel is stronger the the UN? why cant we stop them? we could stop them if we actually wanted to, but we dont.

We can't stop them, unless we have a time machine. But we can try and get them to give them up, but that won't happen if Iran gets nukes. I know you think we should do it all at once, but that's biting off alot to chew at one time. Iran is under no threat from Israel at this point, Israel wouldn't even look their way if they weren't constantly calling for it's destruction. The situation will only get much uglier if Iran gets nukes. That's the bottom line. Then yours and my wish for the innocent folks of both countries to be safe will have a snowball's chance in hell, IMO.

truthfully we dont have anymore right then them. but the fact that we need to stop nukes from being made doesnt change. unfortunately untill nukes are confirmed out of israel and they cant enrich any uranium, iran will be justified in pursuing nukes.

we must start somewhere, the constant warring middle east would be the best place to start.

Originally posted by picklewalsh
I belive that if one country should have to disarm there nukes, then all countrys should have to do so. What gives any western country more right to own them then Iran or Israil, and please dont say becouse there leaders are dangeriouse as the country with the most nukes is run by a psyco. If any are needed they should be controled by a allience so that one country cant push the trigger.

Please read back a few posts, I think you'll find everyone of us involved in this discussion would like to see all nukes done away with. As I've said before, if your gonna fight a fire, you stop it from spreading first. You fight it from the outside in.

Originally posted by 27jd
We can't stop them because they already have them. Your parents can't stop you from buying a pack of cigarettes if you already bought them.

exactly but if you havent smoked them yet, the parents can still take them away. we can stop them from creating any further (which is also proliferation, just because you already have them doesnt mean its no longer proliferation if you make more) and from having them anymore at all.

We can't stop them, unless we have a time machine. But we can try and get them to give them up, but that won't happen if Iran gets nukes. I know you think we should do it all at once, but that's biting off alot to chew at one time. Iran is under no threat from Israel at this point, Israel wouldn't even look their way if they weren't constantly calling for it's destruction. The situation will only get much uglier if Iran gets nukes. That's the bottom line. Then yours and my wish for the innocent folks of both countries to be safe will have a snowball's chance in hell, IMO.

personally your right, but because of previous experience i just dont have the faith in my government to follow through. what does the UN do when we dont back them like we said we would to rid israel of nukes?

yes it can be considered alot if you have our president on another vacation instead of actually getting stuff done. if they all started really doing their jobs, it wouldnt be as hard. they are too busy playing golf and tennis to care though. we theres a good chance we could do it if we were determind and actually cared about stopping war in the middle east. as we both know though, war in the middle east is more profitable, so they want as much money as possible from it. (more then just weapons if you really look)