U.S. government seriously needs/wants war with Iran

Originally posted by Justin OldhamBoth leaders are convinced of their future victories, based upon their preferred religious writings.

Justin,

I agree with you on this, and it raises a very interesting question (to me, anyway):

Can the representatives of two groups of peoples, both of which groups contain elements whose real worldview includes violent apocalypticism, and whose leaders themselves may hold these same beliefs, find a way to arrive at any solution which doesn't move them further towards mutual destruction?

This is, in my opinion, one of the very best reasons for "Church/Mosque/Synagogue/State" separation; yet, Iran makes no bones about pooh-poohing this idea and the US seems to be moving towards a closer "relationship" between Church/State.

Propagandamatrix are reporting the letter questions if 9/11 was an inside job:

www.propagandamatrix.com...


This letter seems to have been deliberately provocative, but regardless, any reasonable leader would offer to talk to the Iranian President to avoid conflict.

Bush is deeply hated and an obstacle to genuine diplomacy and that won't change unless Bush changes or the American people change Bush.

Originally posted by Low OrbitThe Bush Administration have made it a point on many occasions not to drag religion into this and make it Christians vs. Muslims. I can not say the same about the Iranians.

What I believe is one of the core problems is what Islam's Mullahs teach about the West. If we are serious about stopping terrorism we need to stop these schools from teaching its students to hate the west.

Bush doesn't have to spoon-feed us; he has the luxury of denying the religious aspects of a situation because he is the president of a nation which, at the least, views itself as "a bit above" others in the world and, at the more radical end of the spectrum, believes itself to be the special recipient of the favors of God, and with a corresponding role in the world.

I suspect most Americans are going to fall in along this spectrum somewhere; I, for one, think that both our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are some of the greatest documents produced by mankind. If we adhered to their core principles, while continuing to try to expand it's spirit and protections to those who have been screwed-over, historically, then this country truly would be a great world power, and not based simply on our military might or our ability to consume.

It's the "American Exceptionalism" of the religious variety which concerns me the most in our own country (not yelling, just...emphasizing...). The militant Islamic version is just as dangerous, in my mind.

I agree with you; what we teach our children about others, through our words or actions, has a lot to do with the kind of society we get, and how that society is going to choose to interact with the rest of the world. And I doubt that the Iranian religious school system has much interest in looking at anything good which America has done (and I believe we have done some very good things in our history...despite the emphasis on the bad in some corners).





[edit on 5/11/2006 by apocalypticon]

Originally posted by apocalypticon

Can the representatives of two groups of peoples, both of which groups contain elements whose real worldview includes violent apocalypticism, and whose leaders themselves may hold these same beliefs, find a way to arrive at any solution which doesn't move them further towards mutual destruction?

I am trained a political scientist and historian. I takethe long view on these things.

Here's the short answer. Reform or or revolt. Those are the two options open to any society that finds itelf ruled by any one group that seems capable of destructive policies.

All societies have within them certain elements which, if they come to power, are more destructive than others. The strength of democracy lies in its ability to genreally represent everyone, generally. None one group will tend to gain dominance, which means no one single position can dominate. That means no one single faction can drag everyone down the toilet.

Trouble is...every now and again...the pot settles. One group really does end up in charge. Some times, it's more or less harmless. In other cases, the group that achieve power dominance is more dangerous than most realize at the time. The most dangerous grups that achieve power are those that are most war like.

I can't speak for Muslim countries, but I do have a few things to say about the United States. I recently published a book, "Politics & Patriotism, (snip) in which I made my case for what could happen if the extremists get their way in America. Even in our own case, it comes down to reform or revolt.

If we don't want the hard Right to take us to war, we ned to take them out of power. There are only two ways to do that. Vote 'em out, or turn 'em out. I'm not trying to hedge the question of revolution. My book has a lot to say about that. I'm just trying to keep my language toned down for the board.

The Iranians are in the same boat. If they don't want this war that's coming, they've got two choices. It seems unlikely that they'll vote their leaders out, so that leaves 'em with one option. If saner heads prevailed in the U.S., we chould see American dollars and spies being used to make the reformers in Tehran get bold.

We're past the point when this can be dealt with without blood. If the right choices are made, only a few will die. If it goes down the hard way, it'll be 1916 all over again, and future historians will have to work overtime to catalog all of our mistakes.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14-5-2006 by mrwupy]

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I can't speak for Muslim countries, but I do have a few things to say about the United States. I recently published a book, "Politics & Patriotism," (snip) in which I made my case for what could happen if the extremists get their way in America. Even in our own case, it comes down to reform or revolt.

Justin,

If no one else has done so, let me be the first to welcome you to ATS! It is great to add another member with training in History or Political Science; and a published author, at that. .

Your bio says you received your Undergraduate degrees from the University of Alaska; I received mine from Sonoma State University in Northern California. I consider myself fortunate to have been able to study these subjects, as I am sure you are also.

I just ordered a copy of your work, "Politics and Patriotism: the Fisk Conspiracy" from Amazon (it's a 2006 edition, although it says you originally published in 2004). It also said you are working on a sequel; is the 2006 edition the sequel?

I do suppose there is a third "option", which is to surrender rights in exchange for a sense of security; a choice which can put any society on the road to perdition.

I've spent some time on our local radio station discussing how citizens can effect change, and the conversation always seems to drift to a halt when people begin to think in terms of "option" number 2.

Perhaps because it is so "unthinkable". And that caution is certainly justified...

Let's assume, for the moment, that the lawful methods of change are compromised to a degree which makes them irrelevant/ineffective; how does a society like ours move beyond that?

I think Jefferson certainly would have had some clear ideas on this...as would Ghandi.

Does it begin with mass work-stoppages?

Mass refusal to pay taxes?

Massive civil disobedience? (this one has certainly been done before, in both the Labor and Civil Rights movements).

"Anarchist" style actions, ala Alexander II, Canovas, Carnot, the emperess Elizabeth, Umberto I, or McKinley?

The odds of real horror unfolding increase as we think beyond the first three options...and anything beyond the fourth would certainly require the support of the military, and might very well set us back a long, long ways as a functioning state. Heck, number four could also.

How do you understand what it means to move beyond "reform"to "revolt"?

I am asking this only because, outside of the legal recourse provided by the Constitution, most folks I speak to are pretty much at a loss as to other means, although our Declaration of Independence describes the mind of The Founders on this issue.

But The Founders didn't live with the kind of security and military structures which are fundamental to our present society. The institutions of power the State could bring to bear on people's lives, in proportion to that held by the people or states, was a great deal less back then.

I admit that I find it impossible to honestly think of moving beyond the first three options, because it has the potential to be so absolutely horrifying.

Internecine conflicts are the worst, hands down.

I admit to having no good answers to some of these questions.

How do you see it?

To any of you NSA folks out there, the above remarks are my opinions only, raised only as a subject for debate, and bear no reflection on the beliefs or opinions of anyone else on this board... (talk about taking oneself too seriously!).



[edit on 14-5-2006 by mrwupy]

Originally posted by Brenden
New York Sun Editorial
May 11, 2006


President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, widely interpreted as a peaceful overture, is in fact a declaration of war. The key sentence in the letter is the closing salutation. In an eight-page text of the letter being circulated by the Council on Foreign Relations, it is left untranslated and rendered as "Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda." What this means is "Peace only unto those who follow the true path."

It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira - the late 620s - the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels.

crap

did anyone see the show on the history channel, "Iran, the next Iraq ?"

I forgot about how Iran lost 1,000,000 lives in that conflict. The scariest part was seeing 14 yeart old boys kissing the quran, and going into battle with just a quran ! they were waves of human fodder, the idea was to eat up ammunition and overwhelm the opponent
www.tnr.com...

Apocalypticon:

Thanks very much for the greeting. I really quite surprised to see that so many ATS members have taken an interest in my book. I know we've got a lot of authors here, and I'm glad to be one of them.

"Politics & Patriotism:The Fisk Conspiracy" (snip) was actually 16 years in the making. It's my look at our future, and what it might be like if we make certain mistakes.

You're quite right when you say we've got three real choices. We can just live with the mess. We can choose to make reforms. Or, we can revolt. None of these are as simple as they sound, and all have serious repercussions.

If we do nothing, we should expect things to get a lot worse. We've still got a lot of our freedoms to lose. Reformation could involve some forms of passive resistence. Failure to comply, or even the work stoppages you mentioned. Revolt is "unthinkable" because it really is the last resort. It's not something anyone in their right minds really wants. We fear it only because we are forced to admit that it's possible.

Thomas Jefferson stated his position quite clearly. He believed that the peole should rise up if they feel sufficiently threatened and oppressed. Using the analogy of a Yeoman farmer, he said that it would be the duty of every good citizen to when to initiate reforms and when to revolt.

In my book, the conspirators hatch a plan to pack the Federal government with as many corrupt polticians as they can make contact with. The idea is to accelerate the decay of big government. Crash the system sooner, rather than later. This is just one possible solution. I've been on a number of radio shows to discuss the mechanics of reform...and revolt. You're quite right when you say that revolt is a ticklish topic.

The mere fact that I wrote this book, in the first place, demonstrates that one person can make their voice heard. You may never hear me on Coast to Coast AM< but I'm out here and I am being heard. The mere fact that I can still speak and be heard gives me hope for the future. Recent laws now suggest that we're about to see the start of our own Gestapo. The society that tolerates me now might be willing to give me up later on.

The fact is that nothing will change for the better until our leaders have brought down the system. We have a long history, as a nation, of avoiding reform 'til something is actually broken. On the strength of our traditions, I say that the future is not all gloom and doom. Once we get past this rough patch, I think we could see a new era that re-defines a lot of things.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14-5-2006 by mrwupy]

1. Of course this corporate gansters who you call government want war. They need this war. Without it this well oiled machine called US would collapse. And they have to keep the price of oil around 70$ per barrel.

2. Of course want this war because they need another money grab. From that point of view I concour that this Iraq safari is a Mission Acomplished. The US corporations and Federal Reserve Bank stole 23 billion dollars from Iraqi people. This was money ment for rebuilding Iraq. Which this gansters of course bombed it to smitherines. The money is all gone chanelled trough dummy companies and they need another cash cow.
Iraqs Missing Billions

3. Of course they want this war because of Military Industrial Complex. They have their needs too. I don't want even want to go there.

4. Of course they want this war because then they can make up some pathetic scary story that even children in kindergarden wouldnt believe so they can take away more of yours and mine rights and freedoms.

5. Of course they want this war because the Presidents approvall rate is record low (around 28%) which is identical to George Sr.'s at the end of his mandate. Now Georgee Boy can be just like his daddy.

6. And finally of course they want this war because they are bunch of degenerate occultists which get of on suffering of people. Or they just kill alot of them.



[edit on 13-5-2006 by yanchek]

I find myself going back to the question raised by Apocalypticon:

We know what the problem is, so what are we gonna do about it?

Shucks, man. Even I am jaded. It's easy to complain about this state of affairs, but what are we doing about it?

The first and easiest option is to simply live with it. We can still complain, and nobody has to get up off the couch. Trouble, is eventually, it will be dangerous to complain. Anyone who lived in the former Soviet Union can tell you exactly how THAT story ends.

The second option is reform. You'll have to get your hands dirty, but the potential for better things goes up dramatically. There's no guarantee of success, but at least you'll know that you provided future generations with an example. If nobody makes the case for reform now...then...later on...nobody will know that that should even try to make the case for reforms.

The third option is revolt. This could take the form of passive resistance. This is a known weakness of all documented bureaucracies. In some places, like the Ukraine, an Orange Revolution takes place. The extent of reform is not total, but it's more than they had. In other cases, the extent of revolt is downright messy. The American revolution and the Civil War that followed are two examples.

The truth is that most of today's "resistors" don't actually know each other. We sit in the comfort of our own homes or apartments, and we type on our own keyboards. If we dig in and refuse to do something at work, nobody see us do it. We can fool ourselves in to thinking that we're the only ones who see the need for debate, reforms, or even passive resistence.

I had family on both sides of the Civil War. I've read their diaries. I had relatives who took part in World War Two and Korea. My own father did three tours in Vietnam. Younger members of my family have participated in both Gulf wars. For these reasons, I hope never to see this country pushed to the point of revolt. Nobody is equipped to handle that kind of violence.

Even so, I have to admit that it's a possibility. When I wrote "Politics & Patriotism" (snip) I accounted for it. The conspirators in my work do plan for the possibility of revolt. The extent of their preparations may surprise you. Anyone wyho likeds to read about what our next civil war might be like should enjoy this.

Going to book events and being on the radio has made me much more aware of the 'power' I have. I meet and speak with people who are just as aware as anyone else on this board. The difference? We know we're not alone.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14-5-2006 by mrwupy]

I spent a way above...well actually two because I was enjoying the back and forth between Apoc and Justin.

I have read the letter. The thing that bothers me so much about this is that the administration has decided not to respond. As I read Seekerof's reasoning (which was well thought out btw) I still find it odd that the government refuses to communicate with Ahmadinejad or any Iranian official, but yet, they want us to believe they are using diplomacy. If I were still fence sitting on the issue of NWO and elite control of our politicos this would definitely be perplexing. For a country really seeking a diplomatic solution this letter would be an opening to get out there and start a dialogue with Iran about the "philosophical" difference and our religions. Shoot, if a conversation about what would Jesus do saves lives then have that conversation. Get to the table bang something out...frickin talk. Anything to avoid war--anything to stop the unwarranted death of innocent men, women, and children that can't be avoided when you are talking about bombs and war and violence as a means of resolving nation to nation conflict.

All in all, I'm saying the US needs to grow up. Good grief, when did being stubborn and arrogant become a sign of good character. How can we cheer this...good try Seekerof but no way does this government have any imagination...no way do they want real diplomacy. Their actions speak volumes. But, I'm not fence sitting on the whole NWO thing, anymore. I'm definitely jaded when it comes to Washington. The whole place has rabies or some other rabid infectious disease that causes psychosis.

Saphronia:

Once upon a time, I was on hte fence. Seven years in the belly of the beast showed me just how wrong I'd been for even hesitating. I can easily appreciate your situation.

The Bush administration wasn't expecting that letter from the Iranians. They weren't happy at all to see it. In the world of politics and diplomacy, it's not what it is...but...what it looks like. Ahmedinajad LOOKS like he's offering an olive branch, and that's what has so many people upset.

Bush's doctrine doesn't actually call for making peace at this time. No gesture is acceptable. As you point out, this is nothing more than a result of unintended consequences. The elites behind the scenes in D.C. didn't see this one coming.

This kind of politically driven arrogance is just the sort of thing I wrote about. There comes a point in the history of every nation when its ruling class really does they they know best. Their arrogance goes beyond hte notions of priviledge or entitlement. It verges on divine justification.

This ties in to Apoc's question. Do we just live with it, or get our hands dity with solutions?

Originally posted by Saphronia I'm definitely jaded when it comes to Washington. The whole place has rabies or some other rabid infectious disease that causes psychosis.

You're right...I think it's called Power...made even worse because the system of checks and balances, designed to put a brake on things, is not functioning at this time. The Republicans, being in the Majority, get to control what gets debated in Congress and, with the recent additions to the Supremes, now have the luxury of quite possibly getting a sympathetic "hearing" for any laws, etc. they propose.

And, before anybody out there in the ethereal world jumps me on this, I realize it isn't the first time we have had this political imbalance.

But the stakes, both foreign and domestic, are pretty high right now...

For a country really seeking a diplomatic solution this letter would be an opening to get out there and start a dialogue with Iran about the "philosophical" difference and our religions

The Bush administration wasn't expecting that letter from the Iranians. They weren't happy at all to see it. In the world of politics and diplomacy, it's not what it is...but...what it looks like. Ahmedinajad LOOKS like he's offering an olive branch, and that's what has so many people upset.

I agree with both of you: if this were an issue of actually wanting to address the broader issues raised by The Letter, then this would be a moment of opportunity.
But, i don't think either side is interested in that debate.

I think that letter was aimed at world opinion; it has the potential to weaken bonds between America and our allies over the issue, and our (no doubt anticipated) response allows the Iranian leadership to say to other Islamic nations "See, 'The Great Satan' really isn't interested in your/our concerns".

I am pretty well convinced that Iran is developing it's nuclear program so that it can build itself some bombs...whether it's for the same reason other members of the "nuclear club" have (to become more powerful in the world of geo-politics) or to fulfill some apocalyptic scenario which exists in the mind of those in power...I don't know.

As Justin pointed out, if a Commander-in-Chief believes he has a prophetic insight which justifies his actions, and also guarantees that he and his fellow-travellers won't have to be around for the "untidy" parts (as Rumsfeld might characterize it) then the degree to which that influences decision making enhances the potential for a less than satisfactory outcome.

And if the Mullahs, and their people and military really believe that Ahmadinejad is actually "channeling" the Mahdi, that the US is ruled by the "Antichrist" in the form of a "Jewish World Conspiracy", as posited by some Muslim apocalyptic writers, and that a period of "Great Tribulations" and the imminant downfall of America will precede the Mahdi's arrival, then we are faced with an entirely new situation in geo-politics which we have yet to face.*

When two heavily armed eschatologies butt heads (and if Iran makes, or is given, some A-Bombs, they will be heavily armed enough to radically alter the nature of the debate)...how do you find a common platform for negotiating around that? Yet, it would seem that for the US to simply go in and "smite them" is going to raise a whole raft of problems with the Islamic world...and as far as I can tell, their concerns aren't going away anytime soon.


*(I set aside the ideological level of the 20th Century conflict between Communism and Capitalsim because, although Communism certainly had a sense of historical inevitability about it's ideology, it falls short of the "Divine Imperative" associated with purely religious eschatologies. Others may disagree, and the point could be argued).

My understanding of the varieties of Islamic apocalyptic thought are based on Cook's and Shahid's writings on the subject; I posted the titles earlier in the thread in a response to Brenden, if anyone is interested in these works.

And, the usual disclaimer, all of this is purely my opinion based on things I have read, thought about or experienced first-hand.

Knowing that the people in charge of both camps want and need the coming war doesn't excuse the rest of us from recognizing the bigger picture. Long after our leaders are dead, it'll be left to the rest of us to pick up the pieces.

My book, "Politics & Patriotism," (snip) was concieved in a pre 9/11 world. My scope of consideration is limited to the most basic drives and desires that our politicians have to get and keep long-term political power. I'll be the first to admitthat it does NOT account for the ideological "crusader" mindset that the current Republican regime brings to the table.

I think the first thing most American need to do is understand the situation here at home. To borrow a Cold War term, we need to comprehend our own Realpolitik. We are only part of the larger equation.

Both sides have been on this path since 1980. The 1978-79 hostage crisis wounded the U.S. politicial establishment. It also deeply offended the religious right in this country. Our failed effort in Beirut was interpreted as more treachery from the emeny. We have a political elite and a segment of our society have both been itching for payback.

The hostage crisis "proved" to the Iranians that America was weak. The death of the Shah only re-inforced this belief among their religious right. They chose to interpret the results of our adventure in Beirut as failure. Their leadership chose the road to nuclear capability as the most likely path to victory. From their point of view, the last 26 years have all been one long running conflict.

You could make the case that East and West are going to collide. It would have to happened at some point. The worry here is that both sides are rushing towards this confrontration. Because that is happening, you can say that this war is coming sooner rather than later.

Even if we voted in a fresh slate of reformers, its unlikely that we could avoid this fight. If we back down, step down or simply tune down our rhetoric, the Iranian leadership will only assume its more weakness on our part.

As Americans, we have more at stake here than just a future military victory. We risk becoming the very thing that we'll set out to defeat. Our leaders have been on a path of their own. Ever since the ink dried on the Constitution, they've been working to achieve total power. With our without this war, they now stand on the verge of getting what they want.

The total power they want is not good for the rest of us. If we don't take the right steps, this war could transform the nation in to a tyranny. We can choose to simply roll over and take it. By living with it, we change the history of the Human race for all time.

Good citizenship is hard.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14-5-2006 by mrwupy]

The US is falling into a huge trap that has been 50 years in the making. To start a wider war in the middle east with Iran alongside Afghanistan and Iraq is madness. Blind Freedy knows that to defeat the US all you have to do is drag things on and fight sparodically in isolated locations, never frontally attack their superior military hardware and just wait. Wait for the voting public to lose the war for their country by voting out the wartime president and electing a new sucker to tactically withdraw. Im suggesting this war on terror will be just like every other major conflict in the last 100 years - lots of young fit men of middle income/poor background dying for the Shrills who dont ever lose a child nor bat an eyelid to the pointless death's of thousands. I say # them, revolt and clean house !! the time has come to say enough is enough and have all political leaders ousted in the US and start off fresh because it plain to see that Babylon is rotten to the core.

you guys are right, if Iran or anyone for that matter wants to have nukes we should let them have it. (boo hoo)

What are you guys talking about?

Ever since the Nuke, Warfare has changed. St. Augustine's Just War Theory needs to be revised because of this new mass-destructive weapon.

Due to the mass destruction associated with this weapon, sovereign countries can no longer sit back and wait defensively for an attack, the stakes are too high.

The ultimatum has been laid out for Mahmoud and Iran, either stop pursuing nuclear weapons or face sanctions, or a possible attack.

What Mahmoud and the rest of the Middle Eastern World have to start understanding is that their actions have consequences. Once they understand this then they will be welcomed by America and the Global Community. If they fail to realize this, I predict Mahmoud will die in late 06 early 07 by decapitation by roundhouse kick.

www.thegreyeagle.com...



[edit on 14-5-2006 by Low Orbit]

Originally posted by Low Orbit
you guys are right, if Iran or anyone for that matter wants to have nukes we should let them have it.

Ya' know...I read your u2u, and went back and read through all my posts, and I don't see anyplace where I said that Iran should be allowed to have a nuke...I didn't even imply it.

My interest is to what degree apocalyptic expectations are coloring the decision-making of either Bush or Ahmadenijad...to the degree that they are, then that is precisely the degree to which we are accepting the inevitability of nuclear war in the region.

Yes, Iran is the major sponsor of Islamic terrorism and regime change there is, imo, of greater gravity than that in Iraq. Perhaps we should have focused on Iran before we got ourselves into our current mess in Iraq.

Ever since the Nuke, Warfare has changed. St. Augustine's Just War Theory needs to be revised because of this new mass-destructive weapon.

Hasn't Iraq demonstrated that we have already changed Augustine's justifications for war? And where are those WMD's that posed such a threat to us, and therefore brought into play Augustine's theory of just war, anyway? And what do we have? If the media is to be believed, Iraq is a broken country moving pretty inexorably toward a full-out civil war (if not already in the opening phases of it). How, exactly, did that help the region...other than to deliver leadership into the hands of the Shia who, last time I checked, were not exactly hostile towards Iran?

Sure, go bomb the snot out of the Iranians, or have the Israeli's do it...and we are going to verify that we have interrupted/delayed their construction of a nuclear weapon...how? And what will be the reaction in the greater Islamic world say, for instance, Egypt and Pakistan, both of which are in no way secure from takeover by militant Islam...and Pakistan already has a nuclear arsenal. I was under the impression that being able to win wars simply through airpower was a dead idea. So, that would seem to imply boots on the ground.

Are you suggesting that we apply severe economic sanctions in order to foment internal dissatisfaction and regime change? That might work, especially if we force them to allow inspections.
Granted, there are more moderate and popular leaders who could rally support in Iran than there were in Iraq. But foreign attacks tend to unify countries; wouldn't this work against the possibility of utilizing internal dissent to bring regime change?

And isn't regime change really the answer?

"My interest is to what degree apocalyptic expectations are coloring the decision-making of either Bush or Ahmadenijad...to the degree that they are, then that is precisely the degree to which we are accepting the inevitability of nuclear war in the region."

It is not "apocalyptic expectation" that are coloring the decision-making process, it is the real understanding of the destruction caused by one or two nukes.

Yes, Iran is the major sponsor of Islamic terrorism and regime change there is, imo, of greater gravity than that in Iraq. Perhaps we should have focused on Iran before we got ourselves into our current mess in Iraq.

When we invaded Iraq, Saddam was seen as the biggest mouth in the Middle East. At the time, he was the most unstabilizing factor in the Middle East. Since Saddam was found in a rat's hole, Mahmoud has stepped up as the biggest mouth in the Middle East. Americans think with their wallets and at the time, Iraq was the right choice.

"Hasn't Iraq demonstrated that we have already changed Augustine's justifications for war? And where are those WMD's that posed such a threat to us, and therefore brought into play Augustine's theory of just war, anyway? And what do we have?"

Yes, Iraq did demonstrate the fact that we have reached another realm of warfare. Just as did WW2. Where are the weapon's of Mass Destruction, who knows, ask Saddam, Im sure he could tell you. THE WAR IN IRAQ WASN'T A GIANT EASTER EGG HUNT!!! SADDAM WAS APPARENTLY BLUFFING ABOUT THEM, WE CALLED HIS BLUFF! HAS ANYONE EVER PLAYED POKER?

"If the media is to be believed, Iraq is a broken country moving pretty inexorably toward a full-out civil war (if not already in the opening phases of it). How, exactly, did that help the region...other than to deliver leadership into the hands of the Shia who, last time I checked, were not exactly hostile towards Iran?"

Do you know the history of Iraq and its leaders? Although many Iraqis are still worse off today than they were before the war began, many of them now see a brighter tomorrow where in the past there was no future for them.

"Sure, go bomb the snot out of the Iranians, or have the Israeli's do it...and we are going to verify that we have interrupted/delayed their construction of a nuclear weapon...how? And what will be the reaction in the greater Islamic world say, for instance, Egypt and Pakistan, both of which are in no way secure from takeover by militant Islam...and Pakistan already has a nuclear arsenal. I was under the impression that being able to win wars simply through airpower was a dead idea. So, that would seem to imply boots on the ground."

Ok, let's keep this as option 2, if sanctions don't work. I can not and should not speak for the Islamic World. However, Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq seem be getting a stronger sense of nationalism and this is helping them to defend their country from foreigners. If we could replace Islamic Fanaticism with a strong sense of Nationalism the Middle East will be on its way back to prosperity again.

"Are you suggesting that we apply severe economic sanctions in order to foment internal dissatisfaction and regime change? That might work, especially if we force them to allow inspections.
Granted, there are more moderate and popular leaders who could rally support in Iran than there were in Iraq. But foreign attacks tend to unify countries; wouldn't this work against the possibility of utilizing internal dissent to bring regime change?"

Iran has been ready for regime change for the last 25 years however we haven't seen any such thing. This is either because the Iranian leadership know how to suppress revolts or the Iranian people sincerely believe in the cause or a bit of both. Regardless, yes we must try sanctions with Iran before we start bombing them. The world will see sanctions against Iran as a final olive branch to be accepted by the Iranians. However, if Iran still pursues nuclear technology even with sanctions in place then the Free World will have no choice but to destroy(attempt to) their Nuke Facilities.

Originally posted by Low OrbitIt is not "apocalyptic expectation" that are coloring the decision-making process, it is the real understanding of the destruction caused by one or two nukes.

I never said it was the only consideration, but it exists among Bush's co-religionists. Have you listened to how many of our own fundamentalist preachers are portraying the situation? And what about Ahmadinejad's use of the "Mahdi" card? How can you be sure this isn't a bigger factor than you might think?

When we invaded Iraq, Saddam was seen as the biggest mouth in the Middle East. At the time, he was the most unstabilizing factor in the Middle East.

Really? More destabilizing than Iran and it's continued support for Hizbollah? More destabilizing than Iran and it's funding of terrorism throughout the Islamic world? Or it's continued support for Syria?
Sure, Saddam was making noise, and he was funding suicide attacks against Israel, as was/is Iran. But our sanctions and the no-fly zones were keeping him well contained. In this sense, Iran has always been the bigger problem.

Where are the weapon's of Mass Destruction, who knows, ask Saddam, Im sure he could tell you. THE WAR IN IRAQ WASN'T A GIANT EASTER EGG HUNT!!! SADDAM WAS APPARENTLY BLUFFING ABOUT THEM, WE CALLED HIS BLUFF!

He can't tell us because he didn't have them...our government took us to war in Iraq based on cherry-picked intelligence, which has turned out not to be true. And yet, Powell appeared before the UN to tell us what types they were, and Rumsfeld assured us that he knew where they were (around Baghdad, North, South, etc.)

Do you know the history of Iraq and its leaders?

Yes, I know something about the history of Iraq and it's leadership. B'aathist power has always been based on violence. But again, according to the media, and I have no other way to judge it, many of the Iraqi's view our continued presence as part of the problem.

Although many Iraqis are still worse off today than they were before the war began, many of them now see a brighter tomorrow where in the past there was no future for them.

Well, this certainly helps explain the death-squad activities being carried on by both Shia and Sunni, as well as the heavy movement of ethnic/religious groups out of mixed cities and neighborhoods, in order to be safe. Sounds to me like maybe they are preparing for civil war...Whoops, too late...I think it has already started.
This must be the "untidyness" that Rumsfeld alluded to:

www.wpherald.com...

However, Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq seem be getting a stronger sense of nationalism and this is helping them to defend their country from foreigners.

Well, this probably helps explain the news in the above link, as well as what appears to be a resurgence in Taliban activity in Afghanistan. Not to mention all the opium they are producing there. I understand this years crop will be a record breaker...

If we could replace Islamic Fanaticism with a strong sense of Nationalism the Middle East will be on its way back to prosperity again.

This I agree with you on; then we can get back to the normal kind of warfare between nation states.

The world will see sanctions against Iran as a final olive branch to be accepted by the Iranians.

This will be true only if we are perceived as applying sanctions in an honest effort to find a peaceful resolution to the matter. If the world views it as simply something we are "forced" by world opinion to do before we get on with the business of attacking them, then I don't think the world will necessarily view it as a good faith "olive branch".

However, if Iran still pursues nuclear technology even with sanctions in place then the Free World will have no choice but to destroy(attempt to) their Nuke Facilities.

I suppose this is true...but the more I think through the issues in this discussion we're having, the less hope I see for any real good solution. If we are going to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, then, imo, we are also going to have to go for the jugular as far as their radical regime is concerned.

If we attack them without destroying their current batch of extremists, then we are simply going to piss them off totally, and the level of suicide attacks around the globe will probably take a massive upsurge.

Put heavy sanctions on them, give them a chance to hurt and, concurrently, give massive support to elements more agreeable to the west. Perhaps, if Iran has to deal with a civil war of it's own, we might have a better chance of a positive outcome in Iraq. I don't know, just thinkin' out loud...

Hey, I used all but 10 of my characters in this post...WooHoo!



[edit on 5/14/2006 by apocalypticon]

In terms of real diplomacy, we should see an escalation of non-military options befure we see an escalation of military force. I'm not convinced that economic sanctioncs will break the grip of the Mullahs. As we speak, they are taking steps to move their omney from Western banks. This ,and other efforts to prepare their country for hard times would suggest that hey've taken some notes on Saddam's strategy, and made refinements of their own.

Sanctions are the fist real substantive step on the road to coalition building. If the Americans can make this happen, its much more likely in the future that they will be able to gather a military coalition when it is needed.

I'm guesing, but it looks more and more like Ahmedinajad is making long-term logistical deals with Russia that would lessen the severity of any international effort to sanction. The Russians and the Chinese would both be quite happy to take Iranian oil as payment for any number of things.

Saddam already proved that you could buy the U.N., so you can expect the Iranians to take this to the next level. the political scientist in me says that Bush was too slow and not vigorious enough to push for sanctions. He may not get them be-cause the Iranians were the first to make the best deals.

Going back to Apocalypticon's point, I still say that the Iranian leadership is inspired and motivated by a desire to bring about their own version of The End Times. To this end, they are not settling for half measures. They are girding for all-out total war. It's a strategy that plays well with the faithful, and it looks good to America's enemies.

Bush is a spoiled rich kid who thinks he's doing what God would want. His opposition is a professional priest who really does think he hears God. When W was spooning coke in a frat house, his future nemisis was starving and trying to understand why God wanted him to starve. Ahmedinajad is a old school street fighter. When you get right down to it, he wants this mor than Bush does.

It only takes one of these guys to push the button. Do we want it to be their guy, or should it be ours?

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I was hardly surprised, but the U.S. government's response to the the letter by the Iranian president further convinces me that the U.S. government needs/wants a war with Iran and will do anything to get it.

Ya' know...I am reminded that this was the original question of the thread...where did sweatmonicaIdo go, anyway...?

Geez, Low Orbit, I've been going back and forth with you so much that I forgot what the original question was......I'd even forgotten this wasn't your thread... .

To the degree that our government here in the states is based on the will of the people expressed through their representatives then, no, I don't think most of the American people feel that they either need or want a war with Iran.

And nobody in their right mind wants a nuke going off...anywhere...especially wherever whoever is thinking about it at the time happens to be sitting.

As I have said ad nauseum I am interested in the degree to which our "dueling eschatologies" are influencing the way "we" view each other. For the Christian viewpoint I am interested only in the president's brand which, I believe, is of the Dispensational Fundamentalist variety. (There are other Christian eschatologies, but they aren't sitting in the WhiteHouse).

And we were talking about The Letter and what it signified.

Again, I think it was aimed at the world audience. I think it's primary function was to sow discord among the west and to seek broader support for Iran in the Islamic world.

I think Justin is correct; Washington wasn't expecting The Letter, was not interested in debating the issues raised when it came, and doesn't appreciate having to deal with The letter while it is trying to build support for some action against Iran.

We address the issues, we appear weak. We ignore the issues, we provide the Iranian's with ammunition to claim that we don't take Islamic concerns seriously.

I also think it was aimed at bolstering support at home, based on the way in which many in the Islamic Middle East perceive The West's attitude towards them.

From what I understand, the President of Iran does not have that much independent power; certainly not enough to make the statements he's making and the actions he is taking, without the support of the hardliner's amongst the mullahs and the military.

I agree that there is a lot of realpolitic involved in all this. But I also wonder to what degree eschatology is involved.

When the government placed it's siege on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, anyone who knew anything about the eschatology of David Koresh realized that these actions by the government were only going to reaffirm in the minds of Koresh and his followers that what they believed about the world was true.

This doesn't mean that the US Government didn't have the right, especially after the deaths of the law enforcement folks, to arrest Koresh and his followers. They did.

But the manner in which they pursued that end, while lawful, failed to take into account the lens through which the Davidian's saw the world. A better understanding of this might very well have resulted in a different approach and a much lower resultant death toll among the Davidians.

I would be interested in knowing to what degree either side's view concerning End Times is "interfering" with a positive outcome in this situation.

That's about it, for me...I think...