Parokki said: As much as I respect national sovereignity, everyone would probably be better of if Iran, or any other country for that matter, wouldn't get nuclear weapons. Right now they're probably afraid of being bullied by Israel and the US, and think they need nukes to defend themselves. This is totally understandable, and might turn out to be right, but they'd probably be better off waiting to see if a sensible person (Obama or uh... just Obama I guess) gets elected into the White House. Playing the "we might have nukes..." card just gives the Bush/Cheney guys an excuse to get violent.

Eh Obama says he'd attack Iran so... I'd more trust McCain to keep us out of another war honestly... as he wouldn't send troops into the middle of tehran if he new there were terrorists there. While Obama has pledged to send troops into countries supporting terrorists without the countries approval.

ssj12 said: Rock_on_2008 said: War on Iran or war on Iraq. America will kill the terrorists. BTW: I always thought Iran and Iraq was the same thing. The bad part is how you look at it. In their culture terrorists are looked at as freedom fighters. Like my heros and villians thread says, there is no per se good and bad in this war. It is a war of beliefs. American thinks one way and the Islamic faith believes another. They are terrorists here as we are terrorists there.

The problem with that is.... Freedom Fighters have to be fighting an opressor. Sure you can call those fighting in Iraq freedom fighters... The people going to other countries and blowing up shit though?

Kasz216 said: hasanraza said: pray not NJ5 bcz America is already in trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan and attacking Iran would be something foolish especially when the european nations are not willing. If Israel attacks then i believe WW3 is near............ Europe is MORE willing at this point. UK and France talk about it a lot more then our government. Most likely they'll just go back to the Clinton doctrine of war. Screw about the people, just bomb the entire country and wait till they give up.

It seems to me that the reason UK and France talk more about it is that USA chose to not participate in the diplomatic efforts, until recently that is. USA is as interested in Iran's nuclear program, or more so than France and UK.

Regarding Iran, USA's administration had a very strange position until lately. They were saying "we'll only enter negotiations if Iran agrees to stop its nuclear program". That doesn't make any sense, what's the point of having negotiations after the other party has already agreed on kneeling down??

The fact that the USA suddenly sent a diplomat to Switzerland to participate in the discussions only tells me one thing - they want to look like they're exhausting diplomatic options, in order to better justify an impending attack / supporting Israel's attack.

 

NJ5 said: I don't get your point then... You admit that people feel rightfully duped about the WMD matter, yet you don't believe people should look for the real reasons for invading Iraq? The other two reasons you pointed out were: 1- Eliminating the evil dictator Saddam. 2- Increasing USA's influence. Regarding number 1, let it be said that USA never had a problem with evil dictators in general, in fact it has supported some. That leaves us with number 2 as the only valid reason you pointed out. Do you really think USA would spend hundreds of billions simply to increase influence?

I didnt say people shouldnt look for the real reason, but forcing a reason like "we went in for oil" isnt the answer.

And yes, the US would gladly spend billions to try and get their influence in the Middle East. If we are seen as "liberators" and "spreaders of Democracy", then business in the middle east could be improved to a great degree. But like I said, there are probably several reasons why we went to war, not just one single one.

Influence, personal motives, resources, etc are all reasons why we went there. Dont forget Bush had an agenda to stop terrorism, and Iraq was the easiest and most beneficial to take out of the three "Axis of evil."

The opportunity to have military bases in a country for a prolonged time in an area where previously we had difficulty in, having democracy introduced into the region, having the opportunity to have a future trading partner, and the real benefit of taking out a known threat. There are many reasons why we went to Iraq, and I am not saying that I support why we went for many of these reasons.

 

I have a question to Bursche what is the benefit of the war of Iraq to the whole humanity,to the people of Iraq.

NJ5 said: Kasz216 said: hasanraza said: pray not NJ5 bcz America is already in trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan and attacking Iran would be something foolish especially when the european nations are not willing. If Israel attacks then i believe WW3 is near............ Europe is MORE willing at this point. UK and France talk about it a lot more then our government. Most likely they'll just go back to the Clinton doctrine of war. Screw about the people, just bomb the entire country and wait till they give up. It seems to me that the reason UK and France talk more about it is that USA chose to not participate in the diplomatic efforts, until recently that is. USA is as interested in Iran's nuclear program, or more so than France and UK. Regarding Iran, USA's administration had a very strange position until lately. They were saying "we'll only enter negotiations if Iran agrees to stop its nuclear program". That doesn't make any sense, what's the point of having negotiations after the other party has already agreed on kneeling down?? The fact that the USA suddenly sent a diplomat to Switzerland to participate in the discussions only tells me one thing - they want to look like they're exhausting diplomatic options, in order to better justify an impending attack / supporting Israel's attack.

It's simple, they stop for the time being then we have goof faith negotiation efforts. Rather then just negotiations as they stall for time... which is what Iran has basically been doing. Nobody has even talked about attacking Iran for a long time in the US It's not something they'd just spring on it's people. They likely expect Europe or Israel to handle the matter... or both. Then just tag along if things go bad. I don't see the US making any actual move until Obama is president. They really don't want to start another war right before the election.

hasanraza said: I have a question to Bursche what is the benefit of the war of Iraq to the whole humanity,to the people of Iraq.

Iraqi's wanted the US to invade by and large. People forget this... but they did before the war. They saw America as cool... and only turned on America after they fucked up the invasion and subsequent rebuilding. Had America done it correctly the US would have no bigger fans. Saw a good documentry about this... it's kinda funny though since the point of the documentry is to show the invasion in a bad light, though even he himself admitted most people he knew wanted the US to invade before they did. Heck they were pissed at George Bush 1 for not kicking out Sadam when he had the chance... because the same group of cronies that told GB2 this was a good idea told GB1 it was a bad idea.

@Bursche:

I still think you were heavily downplaying the oil issue. You talked about improving business... Oil itself the single most important business in the world, and the only important one USA has an interest in the Middle East.

Iraq has about 10% of the world's oil.

 

hasanraza said: I have a question to Bursche what is the benefit of the war of Iraq to the whole humanity,to the people of Iraq.

 

 The threat of having Saddam kill you is gone. Whether or not he had WMD's, he has used gas to kill thousands of his own people. If that is not a benefit, then I dont know what is.

The opportunity to have a democracy is also a benefit. Whether or not it stays a democracy, or whether they reject it and go to another form of government is to be seen, but the mere opportunity to have them have a choice in how they live is a benefit instead of having the "democracy" that Saddam had, aka have him only on the ballot.

NJ5 said: @Bursche: I still think you were heavily downplaying the oil issue. You talked about improving business... Oil itself the single most important business in the world, and the only important one USA has an interest in the Middle East.

 

 Honestly, I didnt know that Iraq had that much in reserves. All I knew was how much they produce each year, which is miniscal compared to the price of a war. But the fact of maybe having Iraq in the US's pocket for the next few decades, and potentially helping our oil dependency for that long is probably a good motive, but that was not the major or a large point of the war.