It's going to take a war allright!

Originally posted by marcopolo
...why are they sending a further 20,000 troops in when in reality that many should be going home?

lol, well that about sums it up, and is the question the rest of the world is asking as well. The answer seems to lie somewhere between private interest and global domination- a pretty big span to cover. Fun discussing it though. Truely though, it's gotta stop, and I believe it will. In time. Through continual public awareness. Hopefully before a fatal mistake is made.

Just to be fair, and by all means to represent more opinions, a post from Anon in regards to this thread:

TrueAmerican, you are an idiot by the highest standards. Though America has its problems with the Anglos, do you really think the Chinese, those sneaky, corrupt, bureaucratic SOBs, the Venezuelans, led by an psychotic, megalomaniac thug by the name of Hugo "The Caudillo" Chavez, the North Koreans, led by Kim Jong "Mentally Retarded" Ill, Iran, led by a psychotic religious zealot in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has an obsession with placing Persians on top of the Islamic world and who also desires to manipulate both Arabs and Jews to the point that they both wipe each other off the face of the map, and any other anti-US leaders have America's interest of freedom at note? HELL NO!

Iraq and Iran under US control benefits all. The Chinese only care about creating another Mandate of Heaven, this time it would be a worldwide Communist government where those with yellow skin dominate all.

Think before you speak!

Well, my first reaction was to say bug off. But I won't say that. Instead, I'd rather ask why you don't register and participate in the discussion like the rest of us who have chosen to stand our ground and not be afraid: i.e. all ats members.

Once you do that, and respond in a thread, then I will accord you the same respect, and respond best I can to your post. But your effort was nonetheless appreciated, allbeit from behind your annonymous shield.

Truely though, it's gotta stop, and I believe it will. In time. Through continual public awareness.

I truly hope you are right, my own deepest fear is that even through "continual public awareness" it will only mean that when the time comes for the people of nations like the US to stand up against the men in charge it will be the start of something like if not Armageddon, If and when the US invades Iran the possibility of an allied Russian/Chinese force opposing the invasion will at first anger the US people and their troops,(the media will propogate a gung ho attitude) then they will become scared (in other words, "people will wake up and smell the coffee"). then and only then will they make the decision that will lead one of two paths, they will either fight (Nuclear war no questions, if the US does indeed have Alien technology its gonna be used) or they will turn against the leaders, rioting will ensue, police state will be introduced.

The only course of action the US would have in this kind of situation that would allow the US to preserve itself would be to back down, it is struggling in Iraq against militias it is not going to be able to tackle the combined military forces of the two biggest countries in the world, if it ever comes to this I would not be surprised to witness another Pearl harbor, 9/11 event by this I mean an act of aggression set up by the US government to rally the troops so-to-speak against whoever as an easy way of getting the American public to support their course of action (in this case if they did back down the people would put them out anyway)

TrueAmerican, although I agree with your sentiment 100%, I'm not so sure about your predictions regarding further American intervention in the Middle East.

You have proposed that countries such as China and Russia would join forces with Iraq or Iran in expelling American influence. I disagree on this point. China at present has a foreign policy which, in summary, plans on staying out of the way and out of anyone's business. China is advancing in leaps and bounds economically at present and would not engage in any conflict not directly related to itself.

Russia would likewise avoid conflict at the present. It has abandoned it's ambitions to control the middle east a long time ago. Russia is also still reeling from the setbacks of the Cold War and previous disasterous government. Despite being interested in what's happening all around the planet, I think they would stray on the side of caution when it comes to a war with America, economically they are highly unprepared for conflict.

I am also in disagreement with the whole concept of a war in general. To me, there are far better ways to achieve what both of us want in this instance; the evacuation of US intervention in the Middle East. I believe that the American people need to informed so as to make better choices in the future. To me, the US government is what is at fault here, not the American people as it may sound from that previous sentence. However, the government is still at the whim of the masses, and if the majority of Americans are informed about what it is that their government is actually doing, I am confident that they will direct their government which way they choose.

I believe that the internet can play a vital role in this education. There are plenty websites available which do not present a tainted view of the world as do American Media moguls.

War is never an option for me.

Furthermore, in response to a few comments about 'patriotism' and 'loyalty' etc. Loving your country is one thing. But every human on this earth is born as an equal and should be treated with decency and respect. When a government negates the basic rights of other human beings whom merely reside in a different geographical location, one must be able to step back and take perspective of the situation. Even if you like your country, you must be able to acknowledge when it has been led astray. Human rights and the ethical obligation every one of us holds over other human beings transcends any national, political boundaries.

I love listening to idiots talk about things like hanging Bush and "neo-cons." It's hilarious.

Remember everyone! Everything bad on the planet is ONLY THE FAULT OF BUSH AND THE NEO-CONS! They want involvement in the Middle East so THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY EVIL GENIUSES!

Get real.

Hahaha yea this Anti-American and Foreign people have no idea what is really going on!


Hurricane or Tsunami Happen they blame Bush
Mexican Hop the border they blame Bush
There house burns down they blame Bush

Its just getting out of control...im waiting for the next Democrat President to blame everything on from being late to work or anything else stupid I can think of just to show them how stupid they were for blaming President Bush for everything

If the world doesn't like it, oh well. Iraq broke the rules and paid the price of Bsing the world and playing cat and mouse games, firing on our pilots in a UN authorized no fly zone. The invasion obviously wasn't planned out all that great, but iraqis still have to step up to the plate.

It's not that I personally love Bush as a person or a president, but the majority of the country supported the war in Iraq at the beginning. Then, when it's not cool anymore, all the politicians turn around and change their minds, leaving Bush alone. It's not like his advisers didn't tell him that it was a good idea.

I couldnt have said that better!


I crazy to see how fast people get bored with everything then they blame Bush for it!


Atleast Hiliary hasent taken back what she did because she voted for the War but hasent voted against it.

Senator John Edwards has already taken his vote back!

Senator Barack Obama was neve involved in it so hes clean, but i hear he has a muslim past, dont know how true that is!

considering tons of dems voted for the war is even more laughable and it for me, it shows why i wouldn't vote for any democrat right now because they won't take any heat except lieberman, which is an independent. Whats all this BS quotes from 2004 from john kerry and other prominent dems saying Iraq has this and is a major threat. The worst crap is from the mikey moore 911 crowd, once you tell me about that movie, you lost all credability with me. I can disagree with the present administration on things and i do, immigration, out of control spending on stupid crap and to many social entitlement programs. But yet bush gives only to the rich!, the rich get all the tax cut money! You can't be both! Its either you give or you don't and we know which one Bush is.

Well said, I voted for President Bush during the last election and only disagreed him with on the stem cell stuff.

I know he has #ed up on several areas, but alot of people flipped on him on everything you could imagine then its makes him look like a tool, its actually awful how they pretray him these days


You may not like him but damn stop bashing him for everything little thing he does.


and he may not be the greatest talker on earth, so give him some room with that, I would love to see the rest of you sit up there and speak in front of milllions of people. I've done plenty of communications classes its not as easy as you think, and he does alot of it off his mind not cards, some speeches have been cards but he has it done good!

Originally posted by antmax21
He isn't an idiot Bush is like an evil genius, very smart, yet close to insanity.

No, he really is an idiot.

First, good posts marcopolo and Modulus. It is this kind of interaction I can respond to best. And I see I have my work cut out for me down a little further below your guy's posts.

Originally posted by The_Modulus
TrueAmerican, although I agree with your sentiment 100%, I'm not so sure about your predictions regarding further American intervention in the Middle East.

Well, I need you to understand the kinda angle I'm coming from on this. It was more in "hindsight," and not really a prediction, so to speak. I am basically saying with this piece, sarcastically in a way, that isn't it a shame that is has to come this far, with so many dead, so many lives fricken ruined, that it might have to take a joint action against the US military from that kind of alliance to get the message across. What message? That no, he can't rule the world.

You have proposed that countries such as China and Russia would join forces with Iraq or Iran in expelling American influence. I disagree on this point. China at present has a foreign policy which, in summary, plans on staying out of the way and out of anyone's business. China is advancing in leaps and bounds economically at present and would not engage in any conflict not directly related to itself.

Well first, I am not proposing that they do rise against us, and rather, that so far Bush's entourage has been lucky that that has NOT occured. Funny thing is, it is our TROOPS that have been REALLY lucky that that has not occurred. How much longer that luck is going to last is anyone's guess.

As to China's position, and your opinion that they wouldn't do that, I understand. But might I also point out that it is not only economically that they are advancing by leaps and bounds. Recent increases in their military spending have certainly raised eyebrows in Washington. And that little recent satellite killer test they did, along with a clear Sino-Russian alliance would certainly seem to indicate that they are not necessarily going to back down, either. But we'll see. Only time will tell.

Russia would likewise avoid conflict at the present. It has abandoned it's ambitions to control the middle east a long time ago. Russia is also still reeling from the setbacks of the Cold War and previous disasterous government. Despite being interested in what's happening all around the planet, I think they would stray on the side of caution when it comes to a war with America, economically they are highly unprepared for conflict.

Well, so much has been said about Russia, and you say they are not prepared economically for conflict. But Putin hasn't exactly been a fluffover either when pressed on the issue of a military strike on Iran.

From back in October, 2006:

Putin to Olmert: No military action against Iran

Russian president Vladimir Putin denounced any military operation against Iran in a meeting last week with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Putin told Olmert in the Moscow meeting that foiling Iran's nuclear program could end in disaster for the world. Russian sources attached great importance to the Russian president's first mention of a military option in talks with an Israeli leader.

And that's just one example. They have serious economic interests in Iran, and I believe they intend to protect them.

While the aquisition of Russian Tor-M1 and possibly S-300 missiles by Iran may have been done under the guise of sheer economic interest on Russia's part, I tend to believe he would not have agreed to equip Iran with those advanced systems for just that reason alone.

Why? Because while Russia did make similar sales of Tor-M1's to Greece and other countries, suppying them to Iran, particularly, they knew they were going to be pushing the White House's button. And as the heat has been cranked up on Iran, and rhetoric turned into Persian Gulf Fleets, the situation became a bit more pressing. That might be evidenced by the fact that they completed the order to Iran 12 months ahead of schedule.

From Defense-update.com:

Deliveries of the TOR systems began in November 2006 and by the year's end, over half of the order has been fulfilled. On January 16, 2007 Russia announced that deliveries were completed. Russian defense minister Sergei Ivanov confirmed the delivery and added that Moscow will continue to develop military and technical cooperation with Tehran. This could hint on further sales of S-300 air defense missiles, which were requested by Iran for several years, but so-far denied by Russia. The delivery was completed about 12 months ahead of time. According to the original schedule, completion of deliveries were expected to continue through 2008.

A couple points on this- First, there is uncertainty as to whether or not Iran has obtained S-300's from Russia, but this is the third link I have seen suggesting there are just as many who believe that Iran has them. And to add to that, with Washington's protests on the Tor-M1 sale, it might be conceivable and even understandable, that Putin ain't talking when it comes to the S-300's.

But in any case, the point here is that I'm not so sold that Russia would stay out of the loop at all if Iran is struck. I'd say at least they'd supply Iran by proxy if needed. There are other reasons I think that too, but let me move on...

I am also in disagreement with the whole concept of a war in general. To me, there are far better ways to achieve what both of us want in this instance; the evacuation of US intervention in the Middle East. I believe that the American people need to informed so as to make better choices in the future.

Well, you might reread the OP knowing that I am in complete agreement with you on that paragraph, and maybe that way you might see it in a slightly different light- more from the sarcasm standpoint.

Even if you like your country, you must be able to acknowledge when it has been led astray.

Now if you could only get that across to the rest of the planet, we, the people'd be in business, instead of Halliburton and Blackwater.

Human rights and the ethical obligation every one of us holds over other human beings transcends any national, political boundaries.

Might be nice if you added "monetary" to that.

Thanks for a great post, and I enjoyed responding.

edit: spelling

[edit on 21-1-2007 by TrueAmerican]

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by antmax21
He isn't an idiot Bush is like an evil genius, very smart, yet close to insanity.

No, he really is an idiot.

I'm not so sure about that.

Bush could possibly be one of the brightest military commanders the world has ever seen.

The Art of War -Sun Tzu

"A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective." - Master Sun

www.thebigview.com...

Ideological war is a thing of the past. Today's capitalistic world is profit motivated. I am of the firm belief that a nation shall wage war if it makes good business sense. Judging by this, it makes little sense to see Russian or Chinese troops involved in the Middle East. If the United States faced a coalition, it would comprise of nations directly threatened for their very survival. Iran and Syria are already waging proxy wars, with Venezuela in talks for further support. I do agree that Iran will be taken, Bush has already reasoned in that head of his that more troops is the answer. However, it would be incorrect to assume the entire Middle East will flare up, many countries there are already sold. How else do you think Iran is circled with troops?

Some of the Middle East still has value. Enough value to hold Cheney's arm and Bush Senior's hand. It would be prudent to factor this in speculations for the M.E.

[edit on 22/1/07 by SteveR]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Had China, Russia, Iraq, Iran and Syria flexed their muscles jointly the minute Bush decided to attack Iraq, this situation could have turned out completely differently. Had those countries used the UN as a legitimate international reason to intervene, they would have been arguably as correct as Bush claimed he was in attacking. And once it was determined that all the WMD's in Iraq turned out to be more hearsay than truth, all the more reason.

HAD those countries intervened, some might say that would constitute world war 3. But would it have? Faced against not only the insurgency on the ground, but against heaps of incoming missiles as well as air support, I believe the combined powers of those countries would have been more than enough to keep Bush out of Iraq. Even if Bush would have sent the entire US military. And all this in a conventional sense, of course, because if anyone was stupid enough to use a nuke- well, we all know what would happen then.

When faced with the reality that conventionally the US couldn't stand a chance against a force like that- even with the help of hesitant allies- there would be only one choice: retreat or break out the nukes.

Well.. what you depict there is what would drive most Evangelicals over the edge, swearing that the end of the world and Armageddon were at hand! Could you imagine the global atmosphere of fear this would cause, the tension?

BUT!! And this is a big butt. I dont think it will require a war to stop U.S. domination of the Mid East. Heres why. Bush Co. only has a little more time in office, the new guys take the White House in January 2009. Heated elections will be underway next fall, and Bush will be barred from running! Yay! Unless he becomes a dictator overnight to the public and openly seizes power, hehe, very doubtful. Cheney couldnt hope to possibly win, and Republicans are already! distancing themselves from Bush and the administration, starting to openly dissent against some strategies and policies in the Congress, or making their intention and opinion known to the media i should say.

Whoever runs on the Republican ticket in '08 cannot be someone with a strategy of stay the course and keep warring in Iraq and the region simply by having a deployment there, like say John Mccain for instance, whom i believe would call up the draft and start WW3 if he won the 2008 election. You want to talk about your scenario becoming a reality? Hope THAT guy doesnt get elected; hes been abused in a PoW camp.. he just doesn't care! He probably thinks everyone can sh*t bricks because he was forced to during his 'call of duty' in Vietnam.

So essentially the current Bush policy has to be wrapped up, because regardless of party, theres an extremely high chance that the incoming President will be someone running on a platform of open or masked criticism of Bush's war in Iraq & foreign policies during the election, basing that entirely on the current public opinion of Bush. So the U.S. has a bit of time left and then it will be forced, its' military at least, will be forced to draw down and come home over time because of the extended deployment, because of the debaucle of the war, and because a draw back is what the people want and what the next elected president will perform. Much like Nixon did when he entered office after Johnson in the 70's, bringing the troops home from Vietnam very quickly.

Very good thread TryeAmerican,

Bush's plan in middle east was twofold. Not only for oil, but to have access in countries adjoined with Russian and China. The military exercises between China and Russia is not something that should be underestimated.
I am afraid that an escalation of the war in Iran will lead Russia and China to support Iran and as a subsequent result may lead to WW3. An other ''Great War'' is the last every human wants. Since G. Bush consider himself an other Pope who calls the nations for an other crusade to the holy lands, i am afraid that this man is no more than ''medieval'' example of the America. My teachers used to tell me that the option of war is the last one, more, that war is something that used to be part of the old eras. Where is diplomacy? Diplomacy is the way to open war or to get people along?

As far as the option of the nuclear bomb, this is far of imagination. The mass destruction is immense and useless to accommodate the needs of those who bear these powers.

The days will come are hunging from a thin line...
...how a line can hold so much rage, so much hate?

Peace
Dragon

Originally posted by Johnmike
but the majority of the country supported the war in Iraq at the beginning. Then, when it's not cool anymore, all the politicians turn around and change their minds, leaving Bush alone.

Hmm. What you just describes sounds a little like... oh what is that thing? Right, a representative democracy!

Hey everyone, I guess it turns out that we actually do have a representative democracy in the United States! Who woulda thought?!

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Mezzanine]

Originally posted by KonigKaos
Hahaha yea this Anti-American and Foreign people have no idea what is really going on!


Hurricane or Tsunami Happen they blame Bush
Mexican Hop the border they blame Bush
There house burns down they blame Bush

Its just getting out of control...im waiting for the next Democrat President to blame everything on from being late to work or anything else stupid I can think of just to show them how stupid they were for blaming President Bush for everything

And the republican controlled congress didnt try to blame everything on Clinton when he was the President? And for the first three years of the Bush administration, they didnt blame everything on Clinton too?

If you want to talk politics son, I suggest you know what you're talking about.

As far as pertaining to this topic however, I just want to say that I agree with whoever said that they believe Idealogical wars are pretty much a thing of the past. I think it would take a coalition of Russia, China and several middle eastern countries to stop the United States with force, but I dont think that that's going to happen. Its all about capitalism these days.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Mezzanine]

Sorry for the double post, but I thought I should add this as well, with all the speculation going on about what is going to happen as Bush sets his sights on Iran.

Senate Intel Chairman Warns of Iran Drumbeat

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) tells the New York Times the Bush administration is “building a case against Tehran even as American intelligence agencies still know little about either Iran’s internal dynamics or its intentions in the Middle East. ‘To be quite honest, I’m a little concerned that it’s Iraq again.‘” Rockefeller had sharp words for President Bush. “I don’t think he understands the world,” Mr. Rockefeller said. “I don’t think he’s particularly curious about the world. I don’t think he reads like he says he does.”

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

I believe that most of the rest of world understands. I believe that most of the rest of the world still has faith in the American people.

They have, but it is dwindling. The Democrat's recent success provided renewed hope.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
But I also believe that most of the rest of the world is fed up with American government, and its insistence on meddling in foreign affairs to project its power and seize vital resources.

'Fed up' is an understatement.

Originally posted by TrueAmericanThe situation with Iran is more than just a bad movie on a late night TV show. There is much more at stake. Not only for the American military-industrial machine, but for China particularly. An American-controlled Iran is probably the last thing that China needs, and yet is the first thing, now, in this administration's gun sights.

China is not going to stand by. Not unless it's big dependence on Iranian oil is guaranteed.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
The beachead established in Iraq was a move to divide and conquer. Going into Iraq made absolute sense to those privy, while it was total lunacy to the innocent bystander. The UN, while taking its usual time, would have eventually cranked the pressure up on Iraq to the breaking point on its own without the need for military intervention.

Iraq is not the only beachhead towards Iran. Afghanistan is too.

The dividing of Iraq may have worked, but it has got way out of control for the US to control and conquer. Too many factions baying now for the US occupation blood. None have lost that while killing each other. If Iran is attacked, then Shia Militias holding back from full fire against US troops, will go at it full throttle. The Iraqi government will approve.

Hezbollah may mobilise as well. They are Shia too.

Afghanistan is not 'tamed' as people think. Soldiers from both the US and UK have said quite openly that the fighting there is worse than Iraq.

British soldiers are fighting what they say is the toughest fight they have fought since The Korean War.

In one recent British documentary on the situation, US Soldiers in one mountain top outpost near the Pakistan border were undernumbered and outnumbered. There was supposed to be 120 there. There was just 20 odd.

A US Soldier frankly and quite openly said the following which I wrote down because I found the documentary eyeopening:

"We got guys here who would prefer to be in Iraq. In Iraq you can see your enemy. Here you can't.....this is not just Joe (Afghan civillian) picking up a AK and joining the fight....these are fighters."

He said there was thousands of fighters surrounding the base in the valley they covered alone, that the war in Afghanistan is not clear, and that Pakistan, from his intelligence, knew about the fighters, adding "We are fighting Pakistanis" and "What do we do, invade another country?" and "Americans hear about Iraq, not Afghanistan."

They were constantly mortared and target of heavy machine gun fire.

I wish, I wish everybody could see this Documentary.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
But hey, Iraq as a beachead will serve its useful purpose. Not only did it put Iraqi oil under American control, but it allows unfettered access to its surrounding countries, particularly from a conventional weapons standpoint. And what lies directly across Iraq's eastern border? About 90% of Iranian oil.

Which Bush and his plump military-industrial machine are eying as does a lion an antelope.

But like an antelope, Iran has horns, and it will fight back if attacked.

Iran may lose a ground conventional war, but don't think American soldiers won't suffer in huge numbers. It would make Iraq and Afghanistan so far look like a minor kerfuffle in a school playground.

Iran have not been crippled militarily like Iraq before the invasion.

And the resulting Guerillia war?

I can see China and Russia supporting Iranian insurgents to give the US trouble. Major trouble.

'Just' an air attack will also have repercussions. They have already been discussed elsewhere on this site.

An attack on Iran would inflame the insurgency in Iraq, and are we forgetting Syria has a pact with Iran, where they will defend each other if attacked? Yep.

People go on about Iran helping the Shia Militias.

Think about it. You've got a powerful military belonging to a nation who you have a history with, and has a history of interfering in Iran (The toppling of the democratically elected President Mossadegh by CIA and MI6 in the '50s) sitting on your doorstep in two neighbouring nations.

One, you will want to tie that military down and keep them busy from invading you.

Two, you want the neighbouring nation has a government similar to yours.

Three, the militias you support share your religious belief.

Think if Canada then Mexico was invaded by China. The US would not like it, perhaps feel a bit, hemmed in? The US if it did not declare war, would help Canadian and Mexican insurgents, tie the Chinese down where they are.

I don't blame Iran for that, they feel threatened. Being branded as part of an 'Axis Of Evil' does not ease their concerns either.



[edit on 22-1-2007 by Regensturm]