This is no good

[bassjones]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007290279,00.html

... or maybe it is, since I firmly believe Iran's been the real target all along, and if they're sending troops into Iraq, it is a DeFacto declaration of war, hence Bush can go into Iran (where most of the "insurgents" are coming from anyway) to defend our allies w/o Congressional declaration of war.

[Garr]

since I firmly believe Iran's been the real target all along

I would prefer it if you flaccidly believe this. Firm belief is to be saved for the bedroom, not war.

[bassjones]

How about I strongly believe it...

[bwohlgemuth]

Bush doesn't have the political capital to do something like an Iranian war....

Now, to think our special ops have NOT been inside Iran for well over a year...

I'm guessing there's all sorts of gizmos and troops scurrying around Iranian nuclear sites and such.

[bassjones]

If Iranian troops are crossing into Iraq and attacking Coalition forces, he has no choice but to fight back. I figure it's going to be mass bedlam there for about a decade or more and we'll see who emerges victorious. Iran may well control the entire region, which would be disastrous for the West.

[Garr]

Ugh.

[WBOB]

This another example of the Tinderbox known
as the Middle East.

a very short brief series of events in no particular order.

Iran seizes British sailors, Iran sends Rev.Guard into Iraq
China supplies arms to Iran. Iran rebukes useless UN dictates,
Threatens to blow Israel off the map, aims missles @ Israel and ??
Syria beefs up military on Israel border, Palestine dissolves
further into chaos. Hezbollah slowly rebuilds it's forces in
Lebanon, Russia supplies fighter jets & arms to Syria.
Israel considers conceding more land to Arabs. Fanatical
Islamists burn effigies and threaten further violence over
cartoons, knighthoods, and the West's freedom in general.

Notice I didn't even talked about the internal problems of Iraq itself.

[bwohlgemuth]

I don't think that Iran has a leg to stand on. Its diminishing oil reserves, plus its obsession with very expensive nuclear weapons is putting itself into a economic depression, similar to the suicidal plunge the Soviets took back in the mid-1980's.

Couple that with a groundswell of outrage over stupid religious laws and you have all the makings for a quick downfall without firing a shot.

If Iran comes in line, the rest of the houses will fall pretty quickly. Radical Islam only has a voice because someone is financing it.

[Sankofa]

As if Iraq hasn't been enough of a disaster bleeding lives and money.

[bwohlgemuth]

Before or after we got there?

[Sankofa]

^US lives and US money after

so much for smaller government

[bwohlgemuth]

And what exactly was Saddam doing?

Or the Mullahs?

Or Assad?

Or the PLO, Hamas, Hezboallah?

This entire region is covered in the blood of those who want the world to submit to its twisted form of Islam, or those that at least use it to keep them in power. What I am amazed at is the number of people who use the following excuses for these genocidal dictators.

#1. The people voted/let these people come into power.
#2. They only make threats just to appease their people.
#3. What happens in those countries is their internal business.

The world has left the Middle East behind. Per capita, it is one of the poorest regions of the world, and has the largest division of wealth. It also has the lowest literacy rate, and even with its vast deposits of oil, is a net importer of food and other goods.

Want to improve the Middle East? Do what Israel is doing. Invest, open free enterprise, build, and drag the region out of this self-imposed depression. Egypt briefly caught on, but is too ingrained in its socialist past to do much. Lebanon has the right stuff, but Hezboallah is too scared to let someone else talk to the public at large.

As I said before, there are enough people who are tired of the stupid religious laws they live under, and one day will rise up against their dictators. They did it with limited success in Lebanon, and it's taking root in Afghanistan.

Abandoning these areas now is only going to make things worse twenty years from now.

[Sankofa]

There's a difference between abandoning an area and misguidedly going in to change it without a well thought out gameplan making for an all the more chaotic region.

[bwohlgemuth]

There's a difference between abandoning an area and misguidedly going in to change it without a well thought out gameplan making for an all the more chaotic region.

Task: Invade a country, remove it's leaders, and replace it with a thriving democracy.

Difficulty: No dissent or uprisings. No unforseen circumstances.

Timeframe: One Year.

Please lay out how you might have done things differently. No wait, let's take the "Best of Hindsight"....

a) Partner with the Shia (a'la Iraq 1992). In the end, you have a Shia majority government which eliminates the Sunnis in an act of genocide (or causes them to flee to Syria). The Syrians (Sunni Arabs as well) don't like that too much and invade or fund a Sunni uprising. Open civil war, which ends with one party in power, probably led by someone who isn't too keen on democracy. Big question mark on who would win.

b) Partner with the Kurds. Let's partner with the one side that everyone hates (Sunnis and Shia). Kurds in power. Sunnis don't like that, Shia revolt and run to Iran.

c). Partner with the Sunnis. Someone whacks Saddam and his kids. Power vacuum forms, infighting within the Baathist party. Shia smell blood, start uprising. Iran jumps in, funds their Shia brethren. Open civil war. See result "a" for more details.

d) Do nothing. Saddam still in power. No Americans dead from the war, but if you can live with the torture, the mass graves, etc....go for it.

[Sankofa]

There's a difference between abandoning an area and misguidedly going in to change it without a well thought out gameplan making for an all the more chaotic region.

Task: Invade a country, remove it's leaders, and replace it with a thriving democracy.

Leadership went through about three different rationales for going into Iraq and that which you listed was the last they settled upon. I'm all for true believers, but Rumsfeld's plan went ahead regardless of not having the amount of troops needed to do the task because he thought he was smarter than history.

Thriving democracy? More like manifest destiny, where the US believes it knows what is best and ignores the cultural history of a region.

The invasion of Iraq was unwarranted, poorly planned, disasterous (considering how many US soldiers have died) and has served to polarize factions who-until the invasion-could only rely on fairy tales about Great Satan.