Iran

[silverback66]

I want to talk about Iran. They've decided to move ahead with their nuclear program and claim it's only for energy. Of course if that were the case they'd have no reason not to accept Russia's deal to provide and remove uranium. The international community is increasingly beginning to believe that Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon and is also aquiring the neccessary missile technology from China to deliver nuclear warheads. Not only this, but the Iranian President said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. So basically, we have a leader driven by blind hatred threatening it's neighbors in the middle east with nuclear weapons. If this is in fact proven to be the case in the UN council which it will inevitably come before, would you all support military action against Iran? Also consider that the majority of nuclear facilities are underground, and some I believe are beyond the range of bunker busters. Given this, us and our allies would most likely have to invade Iran. What do you think about it. At this point as I understand it, the UK is taking the lead in this and if anythign I think you'll see wounds between nations over Iraq healed by uniting together against Iran.

[zimv20]

They've decided to move ahead with their nuclear program and claim it's only for energy. Of course if that were the case they'd have no reason not to accept Russia's deal to provide and remove uranium.
count me among those who thought the russian offer was clever and that iran had taken it. however, there are other factors that go into wanting to do something one's self. national pride is among them.

if the international community sanctioned the use and its use of nuclear technology, how would you feel about letting, say, canada provide the fuel? what would you think of a leader who would submit to such international pressure?

[silverback66]

National Pride can be dangerous. Isn't that in large part what was responsible for the rise of the Axis powers in WWII? They felt they'd been shortchanged (Germany anyway) at the end of WWI and this was their way of trying to show the world they could'nt be pushed around and that they would do the pushing. That's what initiated the german military buildup and led to Hitler becoming dictator for life. Now, we have a very similar figure once again threatening the jews and essentially propogating the idea of a second holocaust though this time birthed not of concentration camps and gas chambers but a nuclear weapon. We saw what happened when we tried appeasement many years ago and how many lives were lost. Can the world afford to let it happen again?

[mactastic]

Does that count as a Godwin?

[aquajet]

Does that count as a Godwin?

ugh:rolleyes:

[mactastic]

I'll repost the article I posted to DHM, with the same caveat:
In between the reference to Hersh in the beginning, and the reference to FICA at the end, is some good solid analysis of the Iranian issue.
Link'd (http://www.bopnews.com/archives/005732.html#5732)
We're past the point of 'if' with Iran and nukes. It's a question of when and under what conditions.

[silverback66]

I think this ought to be a strictly UN and NATO issue. Doing that would alleviate some of the international pressure off the US. We could still be part of the coalition, but not the spearhead....not this time. We need to finish what we started in Iraq first and get troop levels below 50,000. Granted though, if Iran's president decided to pull a Hitler, we'd be in a heck of a position to send our reply. Can you say hammer and anvil?

[belvdr]

I want to talk about Iran.

And The Secular Progressive Society (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=172571) and Religion in the Public Square: All or Nothing (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=172578) all within 21 minutes of each other. Drink too much coffee and read the paper tonight?

[Ugg]

I want to talk about Iran. They've decided to move ahead with their nuclear program and claim it's only for energy. Of course if that were the case they'd have no reason not to accept Russia's deal to provide and remove uranium. The international community is increasingly beginning to believe that Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon and is also aquiring the neccessary missile technology from China to deliver nuclear warheads. Not only this, but the Iranian President said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. So basically, we have a leader driven by blind hatred threatening it's neighbors in the middle east with nuclear weapons. If this is in fact proven to be the case in the UN council which it will inevitably come before, would you all support military action against Iran? Also consider that the majority of nuclear facilities are underground, and some I believe are beyond the range of bunker busters. Given this, us and our allies would most likely have to invade Iran. What do you think about it. At this point as I understand it, the UK is taking the lead in this and if anythign I think you'll see wounds between nations over Iraq healed by uniting together against Iran.

First of all, there aren't enough soldiers to do the job. Second of all, an all out war on Iran without global support would be suicidal for the US and could well spell the end for Israel. The US even with condaleeza steering things, has a heck of along way to go before it gets global support to wage war on Iran. You'll not see the wound of Iraq healed by invading another predominantly Muslim country. That just doesn't wash. By the way, how much is rummy goint to estimate this one costs? A fraction of its real cost I'm sure.

Iran is attempting to create a non dollar based oil trading system. The dollar based world trade in oil is part of what is propping up our bankrupt country that you are so inordinately proud of. I think this is one of many reasons that the neo cons are so strongly for bombing the heck out of Iran.

Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is obviously trying to stir things up and is pretty right wing. What's needed in Iran is a nice little revolution to get the religious whackos out of power. Unfortunately, due to that little oopsie (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/03/iran.mistake/) at the CIA, CIA operations were seriously impaired. Most Iranians don't feel the way their prez does and just want to get on with their normal and mostly secular lives. Hmmm, the same could be said for the US too.....

[skunk]

Even if there were enough troops, I wouldn't trust the Bush Administration to run a tea-party, let alone another war. Besides, I doubt that China would cooperate in any international action since they recently signed the largest energy deal in history for Iranian gas, and the Russians, too, are deeply enmeshed. This is a perfect example of how Bush has squandered any political capital he might have had internationally - after 9/11, not from any investment of his own - and how his unilateralism, arrogance, misjudgment and hubris has made the world a more dangerous place for us all.

[solvs]

National Pride can be dangerous.
I don't think you have to tell us about that... we know. As for Iran, I can't say I blame them for being scared, what with us knocking on their doorsteps and all. Sorry, I can't think of a better analogy, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Our government going about things all wrong and trying to threaten without actually threatening. Re: Axis of Evil. The best bet would be for a peaceful resolution. We might be able to actually talk with them in a rational way and work something mutually beneficial out with the full support of the rest of the civilized world. Believe it or not, Iran isn't actually all that different from us.

Failing that, we should nuke them. (sarcasm BTW, but something some have actually proposed... and it's very sad that I have to make that distinction)

[pseudobrit]

National Pride can be dangerous. Isn't that in large part what was responsible for the rise of the Axis powers in WWII?

It's also in large part responsible for the US being in Iraq today.

When Iran deploys their nuclear delivery systems (as someone else said it's only a matter of when, not if) we will have no option of invasion. We will be forced to the bargaining table or risk a very costly nuclear exchange (even if the US isn't initially targeted, it will open a door that will likely lead to the end of the modern era as we know it).

[Dont Hurt Me]

What we need to do is demand that Russia and China stop exporting this technology. It isnt like Iran,N.Korea just dreamed up this stuff. They were given this technology or bought it. Russia is making Nukes happen for Iran just as China made it happen in N.Korea.

[Peterkro]

First off I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons,however you can see Irans point of view,they are surrounded by Russia China India Pakistan and Israel all who have nuclear weapons and leaders who are none too sane.About Russia exporting nuclear technology Germany and Pakistan have their fingers in the pie and where do you think Israel got the technology.I might point out the only country to have used nuclear weapons is the US and the present leader would be ostracised by the mentally ill.

[Dont Hurt Me]

First off I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons,however you can see Irans point of view,they are surrounded by Russia China India Pakistan and Israel all who have nuclear weapons and leaders who are none too sane.About Russia exporting nuclear technology Germany and Pakistan have their fingers in the pie and where do you think Israel got the technology.I might point out the only country to have used nuclear weapons is the US and the present leader would be ostracised by the mentally ill.
I might point out that a World War was going on and the U.S. used it to end that war Thank you.
The bottom line is this genie is out of the bottle and we need to find a way to put it back in. Man's animal nature is for war & greed & tradition, mankind cant live in peace for even a single day? Its time to really stop the proliferation of these weapons but it aint going to happen as long as those Gigantic defense bomb making companies fund these politicians and tell them how to vote on matters. Bush & gang have managed to get the whole world stirred up on military weapons.

[Peterkro]

I might point out that a World War was going on and the U.S. used it to end that war Thank you.

I might point out that is complete ********,the Japanese had offered surrender at least six times on the same conditions that the US accepted before the bombs were dropped.There is another thread that discusses this in detail,thank you very much.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I might point out that is complete ********,the Japanese had offered surrender at least six times on the same conditions that the US accepted before the bombs were dropped.There is another thread that discusses this in detail,thank you very much.
What B.S. the bottom line is we used it to end the war, spin it all you want this is about Iran this isnt about trying to rewrite WW2. A Nuclear Iran wouldnt make me feel safer at night.

[miloblithe]

I think this ought to be a strictly UN and NATO issue. Doing that would alleviate some of the international pressure off the US. We could still be part of the coalition, but not the spearhead....not this time. We need to finish what we started in Iraq first and get troop levels below 50,000. Granted though, if Iran's president decided to pull a Hitler, we'd be in a heck of a position to send our reply. Can you say hammer and anvil?

If Iran invades another country, all bets are off. But barring that, Iran is safe. As you point out, the US does not have the strength to invade Iran right now without radically rethinking our militry policies (i.e., implement a draft and war economy, or withdraw from worldwide presence and let, say, China, Japan, and Russia decide what happens in Asia). Israel no lnoger has the military advantage necessary to just bomb Iran's facilities. European governments like sanctions, and without US help virtually no European militaries have the logistical capacity to invade foreign lands with significant militaries (France and UK excepted).

Iran's leadership realizes all this. Invading Iraq has openned up an opportunity for them to aquire weapons and assert Iran's ascendence in the Middle East, which it has the potential to dominate (and generally has over the past 3000 years).

[IJ Reilly]

Even if there were enough troops, I wouldn't trust the Bush Administration to run a tea-party, let alone another war. Besides, I doubt that China would cooperate in any international action since they recently signed the largest energy deal in history for Iranian gas, and the Russians, too, are deeply enmeshed. This is a perfect example of how Bush has squandered any political capital he might have had internationally - after 9/11, not from any investment of his own - and how his unilateralism, arrogance, misjudgment and hubris has made the world a more dangerous place for us all.

Yes, it's no coincidence that Iran elected a hard-right president after two of their neighbors were invaded and occupied. Prior to that, the government in Iran was seen as becoming more moderate politically and more open to the West. Much of the dangerous nonsense being spouted by Ahmadinejad today is intended for domestic consumption, but this together Iran's intransigence on nukes, serve as indicators of the current appeal of nationalism within Iran. We might want to ask ourselves why this dramatic shift occurred.

[miloblithe]

We might want to ask ourselves why this dramatic shift occurred.

Or we could engage in a spiral of right-wing, nationalistic politics and move inexorrably towards conflagration.

[Thanatoast]

So we've just about all agreed that Iran's gonna get their nukes. So the question becomes what will come of it?

The scenario being pushed at the moment involves international sanctions, in order to pressure Iran economically. I think this is a bad idea. If I recall, sanctions worked(?) against South Africa concerning aparthied. However, in Iran's case I think that the rising nationalism, combined with the fear produced by our actions elsewhere and the economic woe produced by the sanctions would actually get the population on the side of the government there.

Do we want Iran to have nukes? Probably not. Are they gonna get 'em anyway? Yes. It's like having a sixteen year-old with a license. Do you want them to drive at night in the expensive car? No, but they're gonna do it anyway. The best we can do is treat them with respect and encourage them to make the right decisions.

This doesn't mean we can't get nasty if they if they screw up. But we have to use a different set of rules when handling them. The days of treating the rest of the world like insubordinate children are over.

[pseudobrit]

Or we could engage in a spiral of right-wing, nationalistic politics and move inexorrably towards conflagration.

I love the smell of fallout in the morning. Where the ****'s my surfboard!!??

[miloblithe]

Exports: $38.79 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)

Exports - commodities: petroleum 80%, chemical and petrochemical products, fruits and nuts, carpets

Exports - partners: Japan 18.4%, China 9.7%, Italy 6%, South Africa 5.8%, South Korea 5.4%, Taiwan 4.6%, Turkey 4.4%, Netherlands 4% (2004)

sanctions won't do much because they won't include petroleum (China and Japan won't sacrifice power and their economies) and the other 20% of exports only account for a very small portion of the Iranian economy. They don't need to import that much either.

[Peterkro]

What B.S. the bottom line is we used it to end the war, spin it all you want this is about Iran this isnt about trying to rewrite WW2. A Nuclear Iran wouldnt make me feel safer at night.

I think you would profit from a reading of history,by historians not the propaganda that passes for history to lots of people in the US(and other countries).You might want to look into what the US(along with the brits)did in the fifties which ultimately brought about the situation in Iran at present.As for the second world war you are simply wrong.

[IJ Reilly]

Exports: $38.79 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)

Exports - commodities: petroleum 80%, chemical and petrochemical products, fruits and nuts, carpets

Exports - partners: Japan 18.4%, China 9.7%, Italy 6%, South Africa 5.8%, South Korea 5.4%, Taiwan 4.6%, Turkey 4.4%, Netherlands 4% (2004)

sanctions won't do much because they won't include petroleum (China and Japan won't sacrifice power and their economies) and the other 20% of exports only account for a very small portion of the Iranian economy. They don't need to import that much either.

Point taken, but sanctions would also include imports. Iraq under Saddam was in a similar situation -- oil was probably an even greater proportion of their exports, but sanctions did hurt the Iraqi economy considerably just the same. Not as much as it should have, though, given that they were allowed to cheat.

I don't think Iran wants to face sanctions. The question is whether the major world players can get themselves together behind a sanctions regime.

[pseudobrit]

Point taken, but sanctions would also include imports. Iraq under Saddam was in a similar situation -- oil was probably an even greater proportion of their exports, but sanctions did hurt the Iraqi economy considerably just the same.

But this would be moot if even one major country will buy from Iran.

I don't think Iran wants to face sanctions. The question is whether the major world players can get themselves together behind a sanctions regime.

I don't think that's going to happen. The UN is certainly unlikely to align itself with US policy as readily as it did for Iraq's sanctions. Not after what we did.

[Thanatoast]

I don't think Iran wants to face sanctions. The question is whether the major world players can get themselves together behind a sanctions regime.
Or a sanctimonious one. :D

[IJ Reilly]

But this would be moot if even one major country will buy from Iran.

I'm referring to selling to Iran.

I don't think that's going to happen. The UN is certainly unlikely to align itself with US policy as readily as it did for Iraq's sanctions. Not after what we did.

Every instance is a new one, and I think all of the nations on the Security Council will look at Iran pragmatically, as a separate case, and evaluate their national interests apart from other outside factors. But I do agree that the environment isn't a good one for agreement, and our ambassador to the UN isn't the kind of person who seeks consensus on any issue.

[pseudobrit]

I'm referring to selling to Iran.

Ah, okay. Though if one country is willing to buy, they'd presumably be willing to trade more than cash for oil.

Every instance is a new one, and I think all of the nations on the Security Council will look at Iran pragmatically, as a separate case, and evaluate their national interests apart from other outside factors. But I do agree that the environment isn't a good one for agreement, and our ambassador to the UN isn't the kind of person who seeks consensus on any issue.

I think in the case of Iraq the US held a bit of a bully pulpit before. Before we lied to the UN and invaded just to pull a bully out of a pit.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Remember many U.N. resolutions were ignored by Saddam. Who is giving Iran the tech? Russia! what are we doing about Russia? Oh Yeah buying russian spaceships because Nasa is such a mess, just like our own govt.

[skunk]

I think in the case of Iraq the US held a bit of a bully pulpit before. Before we lied to the UN and invaded just to pull a bully out of a pit.Oh, very bloody clever.
:)

[mactastic]

Do we want Iran to have nukes? Probably not. Are they gonna get 'em anyway? Yes. It's like having a sixteen year-old with a license. Do you want them to drive at night in the expensive car? No, but they're gonna do it anyway. The best we can do is treat them with respect and encourage them to make the right decisions.
That's the most sane idea I've heard yet regarding Iran.

This doesn't mean we can't get nasty if they if they screw up. But we have to use a different set of rules when handling them. The days of treating the rest of the world like insubordinate children are over.
Exactly, and that is precisely the result Iran seeks by pursuing a nuclear program. International respect. The general consensus is that if we don't provoke a radical leader, Iran has no interest in either using them or supplying them to anyone who may use them on us.

I'm guessing Silverback hasn't read the article I linked to yet...

[skunk]

That's the most sane idea I've heard yet regarding Iran.I second that.

Exactly, and that is precisely the result Iran seeks by pursuing a nuclear program. International respect. The general consensus is that if we don't provoke a radical leader, Iran has no interest in either using them or supplying them to anyone who may use them on us.Unfortunately "we" have already contributed to the election of a radical leader. It's going to be a tricky one.

I'm guessing Silverback hasn't read the article I linked to yet...Who?

[mactastic]

Unfortunately "we" have already contributed to the election of a radical leader. It's going to be a tricky one.
Yeah, I realize that we're a long ways down the road to bringing a worst-case scenario upon ourselves -- and the rest of you. Take that world. Told you we'd get the last laugh... :p

I'm cautiously hopeful that in a little less than 3 years we can stop going down that path.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Iran is taking a visit to the security council, I wonder how China and Russia will vote if at all? The world should watch what these two do, it will show what the two govts are about...........had to go pretty far back to find a iran thread, seems everyone is pissed at bush and who can blame them but we do have a bunch of fanatics wanting the big one. The world needs to just say no.

[solvs]

Sure seems like they want to attack Iran, but how and with what military? I guess we all know now why they want to start pulling troops back from Iraq all the sudden. :rolleyes: And all I see all over the news is that they want to deal with Iran diplomatically. Diplomatic solution my ****, if Iraq had gone better we'd have invaded Iran and/or Syria by now. You know they want to anyway.

And I'm sure that would make things much better.

[mactastic]

Iran is taking a visit to the security council, I wonder how China and Russia will vote if at all? The world should watch what these two do, it will show what the two govts are about...........had to go pretty far back to find a iran thread, seems everyone is pissed at bush and who can blame them but we do have a bunch of fanatics wanting the big one. The world needs to just say no.
Don't worry DHM, Bush has looked into Putin's eyes and he knows his heart. As for the Chinese -- fogetaboutit. Those guys are so cool we gave them Most Favored Nation status. Nothing to worry about there. ;)

You touched on the real problem though. Bush, by his actions, has rendered America less safe by provoking our enemies and alienating our friends. Add on a military rapidly being run into the sand, and you come to the inescapable conclusion that Iran and North Korea's actions have been predicated on the knowledge that once we started banging the drums of war against Iraq they could jumpstart their own nuclear ambitions knowing we would be busy for years before we could really turn anything other than a nuclear strike or bombing campaign against them.

Question for the '06 election that needs to be asked by every Democrat running: Are you safer now than you were four years ago?

[Thomas Veil]

Bush & gang have managed to get the whole world stirred up on military weapons.This is, unfortunately, one of the major neocon delusions. They think that our arsenal of terrible weapons and our willingness to invade other countries will have our enemies cowering in fear, when in reality all it does is goad them to get their own terrible weapons and rattle their own sabres.

I'm not such a cockeyed optimist that I think total pacifism will solve the problem either. But the goal here is to de-escalate the hostilities, not increase them...a concept which escapes the Bush warhawks.

[mactastic]

It's called 'Speak softly and carry a big stick".

So far all Bush has managed to do is yell while holding his little ****. :p

[OldCorpse]

Oh, Iran will end up with nuclear weapons. Thanks, GWB. Maybe if we didn't lie to the world about Iraq we wouldn't have the boy who cried wolf situation. Maybe if we didn't invade Iraq based on lies and deception, we'd have the moral and diplomatic capital to assemble a truly broad coalition of nations to address the Iran problem. Maybe if we didn't invade Iraq, Iran would not have elected a nutjob nationalist, but instead Iran would have continued to liberalize. Maybe if we didn't invade Iraq based on vicious lies, and we didn't butcher the civilian population (100K dead), maybe then Iran would not feel that their only option is to develop nuclear weapons... hey, Iraq got invaded precisely BECAUSE Saddam didn't develop WMD (just look at N. Korea, lol)... Maybe if we didn't invade Iraq we would actually have the military force to at least have the option of looking Iran in the eye without being laughed at. Maybe if we didn't invade Iraq, the president would have an easier time to convince the U.S. public to sacrifice their sons and daughters in a war, but seeing as Iraq was basically a waste of human life on all sides, well, the public is a bit war-weary, thus limiting our strategic options. Maybe if we didn't invade Iraq, we would have had the money for a long-term campaign to contain Iran, instead, we are looking at fiscal disaster in not too distant a future.

Military option? Pretty funny. We've got our hands full in Iraq, and the U.S. military is strainined to the breaking point (look at recent reports). If we invade Iran, we'll face a far more formidable, populous and nationalistic population compared to Iraq. There will be no flowers to greet us. In fact, all polls show that even though Iranians don't like their new leader (or indeed the whole theocracy), they are very, very pro getting nuclear weapons and resent being lectured by the Western hypocrites. Iraq will be a cakewalk compared to Iran. Plus, upon the invasion of Iran, Iraq will instantly explode - the dominant Shias in Iraq are heavily indebted to Iran, and it would take very little for them to open up a full-scale rebellion in Iraq... how nice when the stretched U.S. military will have to deal with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously... with only Israel and Britain as allies. Oh, and should Israel take an active role, you'll soon have the rest of the Muslim world on Iran's side in every way... meanwhile, I suspect Britons may not let Blair take them on yet another trip up GWB's rear end, so they may not be allies in this either. Wait until the U.S. puppet in Pakistan meets an untimely end (they're gunning for him), and you'll have the Islamic bomb all right... and Pakistan is very, very anti-American indeed (majority of population). Thanks, GWB for arranging such a splendid strategic situation for the U.S. and the West in general.

And finally, what monumental hypocrisy. On what grounds is Israel permitted to have hundreds of nuclear weapons? Because they refuse to sign the NPT? Nice. Hey, maybe Iran should just withdraw from the NPT and they'll be on equal footing with Israel, no? So why the double standards toward Iran? And to begin with, who said that only the U.S. and Britain (who just ILLEGALLY invaded a country - Iraq - based on utter lies - and committed war crimes /Fallujah/), and a few other nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons? Who decides that? What if Iran said: we won't seek nuclear weapons as soon as you destroy YOUR WMDs, seeing as you are often vicious liars and aggressors. We have no MORAL right to demand Iran forego those weapons, given our crimes every single day in Iraq.

In the end, I don't think even the U.S. public would stand for another war in the ME. Oh, WMD... you don't say! You mean, like Saddam had? Yeaaa, right! See, liars lose all credibility and options for the future.

Woud I like to see Iran with nuclear weapons? No. But I recognize that we're doing everything we can to push Iran into becoming a nuclear power.

Iran WILL become a nuclear power. The question is not IF but WHEN. Thanks again, Chimpy and the neocons!

[toontra]

Spot-on analysis OldCorpse!! I feel your pain & share your anger ;)

Bush has achieved the exact opposite of his stated objective of bringing stability to the Middle East. That being the case, one has to wonder if his real motive wasn't a far more prosaic one - a short-term oil grab!

[Dont Hurt Me]

You lead by example, Bush again hasnt a clue on this one and so in the process has restarted the worlds arm race. edit -lets not forget the arrogant Saddam ignored UN resolution after resolution.

[skunk]

lets not forget the arrogant Saddam ignored UN resolution after resolution.Let's not forget that Saddam was planning to start an Oil Bourse priced in Euros, either, just like Iran is going to NEXT MONTH.

[OldCorpse]

You lead by example, Bush again hasnt a clue on this one and so in the process has restarted the worlds arm race. edit -lets not forget the arrogant Saddam ignored UN resolution after resolution.

True enough. Saddam was a vicious despot. And he played cat and mouse games, and did not fulfill his obligations spelled out for him at the end of the first Iraq war. He should have been called on it, right then.

That being true, it is also true that in the months leading up to the current invasion, Saddam DID in fact do everything the U.N. asked him to. Hans Blix even said plainly that they were getting full cooperation from Saddam, and that the U.S. was in such a rush to war, they didn't let the U.N. inspectors finish their job... in retrospect we can see that had Bilx had the chance to finish his job (and Saddam was cooperating fully at the time), we'd see plainly that there were no WMDs... which would have saved everyone a brutal war... but then, that's not what GWB and the neocons wanted, was it? The war criminals in this administration wanted a war, and got it, regardless of the fact that in the last few months before the invasion, Saddam cooperated 100% with the U.N.

Invading a country that poses no threat to you - as Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. and GB - is illegal under U.N. laws. The U.S. has committed war crimes in starting the war, and in the way they prosecuted the war (Fallujah, for one), they consistantly flouted the Geneva Convention, and deserve to stand trial for war crimes. We'll never see it, but they deserve it. GWB should have a fair trial followed by a trip to the gallows. And his clique of gangsters in the rest of the administration belong in prison at the very least.

But you know the story - the victor gets to write history, and we'll never see justice. Hey, Mao died an old man too.

[toontra]

That being true, it is also true that in the months leading up to the current invasion, Saddam DID in fact do everything the U.N. asked him to. Hans Blix even said plainly that they were getting full cooperation from Saddam, and that the U.S. was in such a rush to war, they didn't let the U.N. inspectors finish their job... in retrospect we can see that had Bilx had the chance to finish his job (and Saddam was cooperating fully at the time), we'd see plainly that there were no WMDs... which would have saved everyone a brutal war... but then, that's not what GWB and the neocons wanted, was it? The war criminals in this administration wanted a war, and got it, regardless of the fact that in the last few months before the invasion, Saddam cooperated 100% with the U.N.

Indeed! I've said it many times before but it's central to the whole war issue - the fact that they could have waited a further couple of months to categorically find out if Saddam had WMD's, but instead chose to pre-empt the final report & invade, tells me everything. They knew damn well that there may not be any WMDs, which would blow their excuse for war out of the water.

So the weather conditions may have been less favourable for prosecuting a war in June - is that really a justification for launching an aerial on bombardment on largely civilian targets?

I personally believed at the time, and still believe, that this will be remembered as the most shameful episode in US modern foreign policy, and that's saying something!

[pseudobrit]

You lead by example, Bush again hasnt a clue on this one and so in the process has restarted the worlds arm race. edit -lets not forget the arrogant Saddam ignored UN resolution after resolution.

Let's put that in perspective. Any number of nations are in open defiance of dozens of UN resolutions and aren't subject to invasion.

[OldCorpse]

Let's put that in perspective. Any number of nations are in open defiance of dozens of UN resolutions and aren't subject to invasion.

Israel, anyone? Oh, and the whole "resolutions" thing is a bunch of horsepucky too. Guess how many resolutions there would have been, legitimately, against the colonial, landgrabbing, ethnic cleansing, war-crimes power of Israel, had it not been for the indiscriminate and shameless use of the U.S. veto power... had there been a U.S. equivalent protecting the criminal regime of Iraq (the way the U.S. protects the criminal regime in Israel), Iraq too would have no real U.N. resolutions against it. Just a giant hypocrisy, the whole lot. One war-crimes regime (U.S.) protecting another (Israel)... hardly the moral high ground.

[solvs]

Thanks, GWB. Maybe if we didn't lie to the world about Iraq we wouldn't have the boy who cried wolf situation. Maybe if we didn't invade Iraq based on lies and deception, we'd have the moral and diplomatic capital to assemble a truly broad coalition of nations to address the Iran problem. Maybe if we didn't invade Iraq, Iran would not have elected a nutjob nationalist, but instead Iran would have continued to liberalize. Maybe if we didn't invade Iraq based on vicious lies, and we didn't butcher the civilian population (100K dead), maybe then Iran would not feel that their only option is to develop nuclear weapons... hey, Iraq got invaded precisely BECAUSE Saddam didn't develop WMD (just look at N. Korea, lol)... Maybe if we didn't invade Iraq we would actually have the military force to at least have the option of looking Iran in the eye without being laughed at. Maybe if we didn't invade Iraq, the president would have an easier time to convince the U.S. public to sacrifice their sons and daughters in a war, but seeing as Iraq was basically a waste of human life on all sides, well, the public is a bit war-weary, thus limiting our strategic options. Maybe if we didn't invade Iraq, we would have had the money for a long-term campaign to contain Iran, instead, we are looking at fiscal disaster in not too distant a future.
Welcome aboard. All good points, especially the "boy who cried wolf" thing that's been brought up before. Even if we had the resources to do something about Iran, which we don't, our own people wouldn't want to go. Not to mention the rest of the world. If Iran does try something, and I wouldn't blame them because we helped drive them to it, we couldn't do anything about it if we wanted to. And we don't.

As you said, Bush has actually made things worse.