Israel says Iran will be in a position to begin enriching uranium on a military scale this year.
According to The Jerusalem Post, the new assessment moves up Israel’s forecasts on Tehran’s nuclear program by almost a full year – from 2009 to the end of 2008. According to the new timeline, Iran could have a nuclear weapon by the middle of next year.
The Post, in an execlusive, quoted a senior Iranian defense official as saying the Islamic Republic was now on track to master the technology needed to enrich uranium within six months.
SO! Who’s gonna stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb (or as many as 40 a year), and most importantly how does one stop Iran from giving a nuke to one of their state-sponsored terrorists seeking martrdom (They give these terrorists bullets, rifles, bombs, and short range missiles…why not a nuke)?
Will President Obama take office and bomb Iran?
Will the Israelis bomb Iran before the US election and set off a regional war?
Will the US bomb Iran before the US election, and if so…how will President Obama end the regional war?
Will the US bomb Iran after the US election, and if so…how will President Obama deal with the thousands of suicide bombers already signed up to attack the US?
What happens to oil prices if Iran is bombed by anyone?
Is there a peaceful way to stop Iran from killing Americans in Iraq, from fueling the terrorist wars against Israel, and from pursuing nuclear weapons in the next 6-12 months?
And if 8 months into the Obama Administration a nuclear bomb goes off in an American city…who will President Obama hold responsible, what will he do, and will he get the “it happened on his watch” rantings from the left?”
LINK
So now we have a new report in the J.Post warning that the deadline for a nuclear bomb has been must be moved and we must stop Iran’s nuclear bomb before Bush leaves the WH — how convenient.
Perhaps this time before pushing for a preemptive strike and provoking additional Mid-East chaos we should prudently evaluate the evidence in a piecemeal and patient fashion with the assistance of those involved within the international community. Iran has not closed negotiations/discussions on the matter; they appear to be willing to discuss options.
Further, as the Administration has continued to charge Iran is supplying and training Iraqi militants we find senior Iraqi officials in the SIIC continue claiming otherwise:
and…
Therefore, moving on Iran may even open up a US confrontation with the SIIC, or at least elements in the SIIC.
Sounds like exactly what we did for 13 years with Saddam.
Worked wonders.
I just suggest bearing this in mind, if you stir the Iranian pot, be thoughtful of the Iraqi step-brothers of Iran. We already have Sadr’s Shia that see us as invaders, occupiers, and ‘foreigner-devils” …there will be a SIIC backlash of unknown degree if US-Israel unilateral action is taken against Iran without full SIIC cooperation. You can read this in their statements.
I’m suggesting getting all Shia and international ducks and in a row before us Western “thugs” engage in another “failed Iraq strategy” (McCain quote).
I’m looking at Iraq now and there is nothing “failed” about it. It’s been a remarkable success story. The early strategy did fail, as happens often in every war we have engaged in. But Bush adapted and sent in new leaders with new ideas who turned it around. Thats what good leaders do.
Willing to discuss? Iran’s been “willing to discuss” for three decades now. It’s a farce. So far, when Israel claims a country has a nuclear weapons program…they’re always right. Even in Saddam’s case post-war finds showed that his nuclear program was preparing to restart, and it had successfully hidden key illegal nuclear program components from UN inspectors.
Iraq in the 80′s, yep, had a program
Iraq in the 90′s, yep, had a successfully hidden program till 95
Iraq in 2003, yep, was preparing to restart it’s program and had done so without getting caught by UN IAEA inspectors (ie the inspectors that claimed they had completed their mission and left long before the invasion)
Libya, yep…had a program
Syria, yep…had a program
When it comes to nuclear weapons + state sponsored terrorist delivery capabilities…you can only wait for someone to be willing to discuss for so long.
I repeat [again] :
Is there a peaceful way to stop Iran from killing Americans in Iraq, from fueling the terrorist wars against Israel, and from pursuing nuclear weapons in the next 6-12 months?
And if 8 months into the Obama Administration a nuclear bomb goes off in an American city…who will President Obama hold responsible, what will he do, and will he get the “it happened on his watch” rantings from the left?”
It would be kind of stupid now for Iran to Israel since they would be late to the party. The big “secret” of Israel, is the Jewish population is not only fairly small, it’s getting smaller at least as a percentage. Iran would end up nuking a bunch of Muslims instead. There are about 5.4 million Jews in Israel. There are slightly over 6 million Jews in the U.S. In the world there are about 13.3 million Jews. Iran’s total population is nearly 66 million. Iran could sit back with its proxy war for a very long time.
Iran would most likely use it’s nuclear weapons as a means to ward off attacks and embargos. In short it’s ment to ward off attacks by the U.S.
Curt your looking at Iraq now and there is nothing “failed” about it?
What Iraq war are you looking at?
Currently Baghdad has a server water shortage.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080508/lf_nm/iraq_water_dc_2
For the past month Baghdad’s Green Zone is being fired on From Sadr City.
Last month we had a 7 month HIGH in American deaths. 50 or more.
Approximately half of those deaths were in Baghdad.
The following is a list of American Lives lost as of 5/7/08
Since the war began.. 4,073
Since Mission Accomplished. 3.934
Since the Election 1/31/05… 2,636
Curt,
The Iraq Study Group forced bush to be a “good” leader”; saying otherwise is historical redaction. Stating simply Bush “adapted and sent in new leaders with new ideas” ignores what goaded him to do more than “adapt”.
I remember clearly seeing him hold the report in his hands like a smelly diaper; I remember seeing him hating the first ISG news conference where he was asked 6 questions (Major Garret’s question really pissed him off).
As the words “grave and deteriorating” echoed throughout the public’s mindset like a poker stoking a fire Bush was forced to look for “New Way Forward”.
The ISG was a mechanism for a change of course: gone was “stay the course”; gone was Bush’s talk of Iraq as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East; and gone was any talk of victory:
While Bush didn’t like the ISG (as well as the 06 election), it goaded him to meet with the State Dept and Pentagon to plan a ‘New Way Forward For Iraq.’
IRAQ SURRENDER GROUP
“I remember clearly seeing him hold the report in his hands like a smelly diaper” — DOUGY
That is what it ended up being. Even the little good that was in it was purged by the
anti-American anti-Semitic turds who polished it up.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/01/isg_fix_more_on.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/01/manipulating_the_isgs_conclusi.html
So, it really is dreck, which is no doubt why doug and Sky#%$@# are so attracted to it.
EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG!
Rofl….I find it curious that you think a President taking suggestions from a “study group” is somehow a bad thing? Wasn’t the critisism of Bush was that he didn’t listen…he just cowboyed up? Typical BDS. He’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.
Listen, this is what good leaders do. They listen to suggestions, criticisms, and accolades and adapt when things don’t work.
Stay the course was not gone, we ARE staying the course. We haven’t cut n’ run as the Democrats wanted, we stayed the course and are winning because of it. Only the naive believe that strategies don’t change in war. There is an opponent we are fighting, an opponent who also changes strategies which we then have to adapt to.
As far as Bush being cool to the ISG…of course. They wanted concessions to Syria, talks with Iran, and getting Israel to give up land….silly ignorant suggestions. Bush said he liked some of the ideas, and disliked others. Hardly surprising with a list of 79 suggestions. He took some of the good and ditched the bad. As a good leader should.
Sky. To have invaded a country, taken a dictator out, propped up a democracy, beat back al-Qaeda and a strong insurgency and have trained a new Iraqi army with a little over 4,000 in US casualties….I would most definitely call that a success. An achievement of a magnitude never seen before.
As far as infrastructure goes there is a new poultry industry beginning, new markets opening up in areas people could barely move around in the past due to violence, a sewage treatment plant being build in Fallujah (an area which never has had one before), new police stations being opened, agriculture expos being put on for farmers, and new bridges being completed.
For anyone to expect that an infrastructure that has been neglected for decades to suddenly and immediately become 100% efficient is foolhardy. It’s a slow process but it most definitely is improving.
Major General Kevin Bergner:
Oh, yes, and the ISG excrement is just one example of how the misfits on the Left have hampered decent government by interfering with it, rather than participating in it. The fools see the Left opposing Bush, and think it is trying to keep him from doing the wrong thing, when most (if not all) of the time they are obstructing positive achievement. Just how much good can one do when he is bogged down with phony accusations and stalling tactics by those who could care less if America succeeded or failed? Idiots, all!
“For anyone to expect that an infrastructure that has been neglected for decades to suddenly and immediately become 100% efficient is foolhardy.” — Curt
Yes, but if we run away and avert our eyes, we can pretend that wasn’t true.
“The Iraqi public services infrastructure was on the verge of collapse after 20 years of neglect, with little to no investment in many key areas.
. . . .
The Iraqi education system indoctrinated a generation of children and did not provide them the skills needed to manage and grow an economy.”
Yep, it is all our fault -NOT!
EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG!
“For anyone to expect that an infrastructure that has been neglected for decades to suddenly and immediately become 100% efficient is foolhardy.” — Curt
Yes, but if we run away and aver our eyes, we can pretend that wasn’t true.
“The Iraqi public services infrastructure was on the verge of collapse after 20 years of neglect, with little to no investment in many key areas.
. . . .
The Iraqi education system indoctrinated a generation of children and did not provide them the skills needed to manage and grow an economy.”
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/60857.htm
Yep, it is all our fault -NOT!
EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG!
Doug, Doug… what do we do with you?
The suggestion to bomb Iran prior to Bush’s departure appears no where. Tho Curt did not provide the original JP link, it is easily searchable by pulling up the JP site. I cannot stress enough that reading source material over second hand reports is integral in forming opinions… hopefully prior to burning up the keyboard.
The excerpt INRE US response that is pertinent to your leaps to erroneous conclusion are:
No one expects the Bush WH to act militarily with an updated NIE report. The two strikes referred to are 1981 in Iraq and last September in Syria. Both were facilities about to become operational. The Israeli’s have superior intelligence. Perhaps because it is easier for their operatives to pass for Middle East denizens than westerners.
Those suggesting Bush would instigate military action on Iran are DNC Congress members (for election purposes and to install an unfounded fear of the GOP) and the press (doing their part to obtain a DNC victory). Yet from the lips of Bush himself, he is and has always, pursued a diplomatic action via int’l community.
Yet… in stark contrast.. the only one who did advocate bombing Iran is Hillary under conditions of an Iranian attack on Israel.
INRE your statement:
You are again the victim of revisionist history. The “stay the course” mantra is deceptive. Our military has always morphed with rules of engagement to adapt for the duration. However the most notable change in “stay the course” was the Surge. A “mechanism for a change of course” which the DNC fought, and still fights, tooth and nail.
Thus all your notions that the dated Iraq Study Group report (which, BTW, suggested an increase in forces by 10,000-20,000 in the “A Military Strategy for Iraq chapter, pg 71) AND perceived pressure by the newly installed DNC majority on the Bush WH, has shit to do with beans on progress made there. Your analysis, based on facts, can be safely tossed into the cyber dumpster.
Curt:
Doug is absolutely correct!!! We are not staying the course the coursed changed after Bush was forced to make changes. The ISG and 2006 elections forced his hand. Do you really think Rumsfeld could have screwed up the months and years after “Mission Accomplished” any worse. We are not “Staying the course.” If we were Rummy would still be running the damn war.
Rummy knew how to invade the country and take out Saddam’s army. However, he was totally lost and made error after error from that point on.. But your buddy Bush continued to say “STAY THE COURSE”. What an idiot!!!
The Iraq Study Group didn’t force anything.
If you take your time and read the report analytically, these are recommendations: (1) resolve the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, (2) a large drawdown of US forces in Iraq, (3) if a large drawdown cannot be done, let the Sunni-Shia militias resolve the issues and restrict US forces within their bases, (4) any remaining US forces would be authorized to provide logistical support … no force protection, no pursuit of AQI/ACM elements, self-defense ROE would be sharply limited, (5) engage Iran and Syria with regard to Iraqi border security and transit of foreign fighters.
The ISG report was simply, and still is, a recipe for complete disaster. First, the Israeli-Palestinian impasse has nothing to do with the Iraqi campaign. Second, early on, the Bush Administration, did talk with the Syrian government about stemming the flow of foreign fighters. Syria said they would look into it, but felt there was nothing to discuss. Contact with the Iranian government through the Swiss yielded the same “nothing to discuss” sentiment. A precipitious drawdown of US forces in Iraq, even now, would result in a huge free-for-all, bloodletting of genocidial proportions. A re-definition of the mission into a logistical support mission is complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps when security incidents are much fewer.
As to the notion of keeping “Saddam in his box,” it would have led us into a thornier predicament … a Saddam government developing nuclear weapons (openly or covertly, doesn’t matter) and the Iranian government also developing nuclear weapons. Certainly a nightmare scenario. Both hating each other enough to start a full exchange in the region, both agreeing in their desire to “off” Israel. Diplomacy has its limits, and this type of scenario, most likely, cannot be resolved diplomatically.
We disposed of two state sponsors of terrorism. The third and fourth sponsors are worried; the third giving up their nuclear-chemical-biological programs; the fourth having their nuclear program destroyed by the IAF. The fifth is waiting on election results … do they “get” a government that prefers talking and “measured response” or a government that keeps all of its weapons and options on the table. Which one do you want?
Read the last part of my post above, Flyboy Skye. You and Doug could not be more incorrect. The change in course is the Surge. A change fought to the death, unsuccessfully, by your beloved DNC held Congress of cowards.
“Bush was forced to make changes” — sky@#%!&
Only a concrete thinker would believe that “stay the course” meant to keep repeating the same mistakes, rather than pursue the same final desirable objective, changing tactics/strategy as needed. It’s the Dems who do that. As I’ve said above, if the d@#$% Dems had not been so obstructive, and actually provided useful suggestions, perhaps a lot of the mistakes could have been avoided.
And it was the nature of the conflict that dictated the “changes,” not the Dems. That sky%%!!)… could think the Dems were responsible for the surge, when they so obstinately opposed it, is absurdly typical of they way Liberals “think” (ie., not).
EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG!
David (#14)
Precisely!
Finally, for the weekend, . . .
Yes, lets talk to Iran.
Fools!
But, before we let Bush off the hook (which in NO WAY justifies the malicious Dems) there’s more sad news of his inaction following his misguided interference in Lebanon.
I wonder Sky.
Do you judge your entire life based only on your failures and the times that you fell short of where you would have liked to have been? Do you only consider those times when things went wrong or when you did something that didn’t turn out just right?
Or do you consider your life as a whole, in its entirety when deciding whether you have been a failure or not?
***
The rest of these folks have certainly addressed your comments as well as Doug’s so I belabor those points.
I do, however, want to address some of the things that you said.
You mention “Mission Accomplished” in your post. Can you tell me what you mean by that?
You also mentioned the number of soldier deaths last month. Do you have any idea why there was an uptick in deaths?
Also, please define for me exactly what “stay the course” means and how it is different now than prior to the ISG report that you and Doug are touting so strongly.
I just want to see if you are able to clearly enumerate for us what the differences, if any, are.
I already know what answers are. Do you?
“The Iraq Study Group didn’t force anything.”
Then tell me, when were the first public indications that Bush was formulating a new strategy that later came to be: ‘The New Way Forward in Iraq”?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-3.html
Some one feel game?
Puhlease.
You put WAY too much stock into the ISG. Not surprising coming from you Doug….but its put into the wrong place.
The ISG report certainly helped him see that the new ideas being brought to him were pretty good but that report in no way was responsible for the surge idea.
Curt,
I didn’t state the “report [] was responsible for the surge idea”. Why are you mentioning this???
Go back, read my post 8; it never mentions the surge.
My theme in post 8 was:
“The ISG [] goaded him…”
“The ISG was a mechanism for a change of course: gone was “stay the course”; gone was Bush’s talk of Iraq as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East; and gone was any talk of victory:”
“The ISG goaded him to meet with the State Dept and Pentagon to plan a ’New Way Forward For Iraq.’”
So I respectfully, ask again, what was (or were) the mechanism, the agent, the catalyst, the vehicle that goaded Bush to change course, whip up a new strategy in Jan 07 that he called ‘A New Way forward in Iraq’?
Note: Curt has said: “But Bush adapted and sent in new leaders with new ideas who turned it around. Thats what good leaders do.”
My thesis in post 8: “Stating simply Bush “adapted and sent in new leaders with new ideas” ignores what goaded him to do more than “adapt”.
What was it that goaded him to do more than ‘adapt’? as I believe he reacted to a political atmosphere that was toxic –hardly the traits of a good leader.
What were the circumstances that made him draw up new plans called the “New Way Forward in Iraq”?
Read the article I quoted above and you will get your answer
Yeah, found it; here’s the answer:
* (AP) Late 2006, “71 percent of Americans who disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, an “all-time high.”
* (MSNBC) A group of military publications: the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times — call on Rumsfeld to resign.
* 10.22.06 (NYT) “The White House said Monday that President Bush was no longer using the phrase “stay the course” when speaking about the Iraq war, in a new effort to emphasize flexibility in the face of some of the bloodiest violence there since the 2003 invasion.
“He stopped using it,” said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary.”
* After a Congressional election Bush loses congress.
* Donald Rumsfeld resigns as Secretary of Defense.
* ISG released in Dec. describing Iraq “grave and deteriorating”
Bush –”the good leader” reacts to politically toxic environment with a new Iraq strategy in January:
A New Way Forward in Iraq
Therefore, while Bush didn’t accept the recommendations of the ISG, the report did goad him into developing another plan.
Your retarded if you think Bush has listened to polls. If he was like a Clinton he would have withdrawn long ago.
So he changed his strategy.
Your partisan blinders are pretty thick aye?
That plan was under development before the report came out….you would know this if you have read the article. Figured you to be a partisan hack….was not disappointed.
While he may have had a “plan under development before the report came out”, it didn’t come out until after the ISG, did it?
While the ISG didn’t in the strict sense ’cause’ the change in strategy, it certainly helped promote it; it helped goad bush to meet with the DoD and Pentagon to devise a New Way Forward.
It’s that simple. That’s why you’ve resorted to name calling.
I guess, perhaps, one could say he ‘adapted’ to the politically toxic loss of congress, the politically/publicly significant ISG, terrible poll numbers, inept Rumsfeldian abilities, changed his rhetoric on Iraq and …finally, changed course with: a New Way Forward.
Doesn’t even the name ‘New Way Forward’ have an inkling of public-pandering about it that shouts out: ‘We are doing something different now; calm down, trust me; we can get Iraq stable and contain the problem.’?
You don’t think so?
Doug seems to have an infinite capactiy as a naysayer. No, we can’t do X, Y or Z is about all I ever get from his comments. He has yet to offer ONE practical, effective alternative that would WORK to SOLVE these PROBLEMS.
Sorry Doug, but talking to Iran is not a plan, nor is it a solution, nor does it work.
Time for you and your chosen one to come up with something more than negativity.
As i said last week, I’m simply being a counter balance to this blog.
If you gentlemen *truly* want to converse in a sea of respect with us, you need reconsider being objective, which is a really hard thing to do; if you can’t do that, then just try to not resort to name calling; if you can’t do that, then don’t reply.
If you want more than no, no, no from me …as it’s your blog, act like it.
If talking to Iran is a plan that will work, what is this claim based upon? There is no historical evidence in the entire history of the Islamic Republic that talking to them will convince them to stop killing Americans, stop pursuing a nuclear bomb (or 40yr), or to stop calling for the destruction of Israel. What is this idea based upon? Their policy is to promote the death cult of martyrdom as a means of propelling their international status and power, so threats won’t work. In fact, even economic threats (as mentioned by supporters of the talk-and-everything-will-be-fine idea show) will more likely increase and legitimize the Iranian pursuit of nukes.
btw, no one asks for counter-balancing efforts, but rather for solutions. Got nothing, then don’t whine and excuse it as “counter-balancing” or Devil’s advocate or ‘dissent.’
Iran love this kind of talk !!
Every time the war lovers start talking about bomb bomb Iran the price of oil goes up.
You should ask and see if any of the oil companies will advertise on this site.
John, opposition for opposition’s sake, and useless whining doesn’t solve the problem of Iran killing Americans, threatening to destroy Israel, and pursuing nuclear weapons. Let me say it plainly, a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable.
What’s your solution? Begging?
“Stay the course” was the slogan your beloved BUSH used wildly every time someone challenged him on the course the war was taking. He learned after years of using it that was a poor choice of words.
Doug answered this question very well.
As for the numbers of americans killed i mentioned.
In april 2008 the number of american deaths currently listed is 52
Oddly enough that is exactly the number of deaths april 2005….52
so the war there is nothing failed about this war????
give me a break
What Iran loves is people like you John Ryan, Doug and 55110.
Everytime we back down in the face of Iranian provocations or aggression they get the green light to do more and more.
As you know, I’m reading former Sec. of State George Schultz’s memoir “Turmoil and Triumph.” I’ve just concluded the section where he discusses how Lebanon collapsed in civil war. He rightly concludes that after the Israelis were pressured into withdrawing from Lebanon without a corresponding agreement that Syrian forces would be removed both Syria and Iran were emboldened to step up their campaign. That led to the murder of 243 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing by Iranian/Hezbollah suicide bombers.
Everytime you “withdraw now” people start your constant refrain of defeat and surrender, the enemy, which is Iran in case you didn’t know, is encouraged to do more and more.
It is the attitude of YOU PEOPLE that is encouraging Iran to build nuclear weapons and to make war using their proxies on the people of Lebanon, Israel and Iraq.
Again, you have nothing constructive to offer as an effective alternative. No ideas, nothing.
Perhaps you should just shut up and let the adults do the work you and your fellow Dems are so clearly incapable of doing.
Now now Scott.
We all know that Iran only wants that nuclear technology and the resulting nuclear energy for peaceful reasons. They only want to use it to make clean, efficient, kind to the planet electricity. They’re trying to do their part to fight teh Global Warmening and the Great Impending Disaster that Al Goracle has been warning us about.
Don’t you wingnuts know that?
Since they are experiencing such a major shortage of affordable, accessible fossil fuels in Iran they have no other alternative but to use nuclear since that is all they have to fall back on. Those hamsters walking on the little wire wheels get tired after a while and you can only put up so many solar panels on the palace rooftops.
Nuclear is the only way that they can provide teh Universal Satellite TV and AC Programs that they have been promising.
Achmadinawhatever is being proactive in fighting global climate change even though we just finished the coldest April in 30 years or so.
All that destroy Israel silliness… that’s just CrAzY talk. Uh huh. Yeah, that’s all that is. You didn’t really take all that seriously did you? Nah, Iran loves Israel. Yes sir. They wanna give all those Jooooos great big wet kisses. Yeah, it’ll be great.
Killing American soldiers? Nah, that’s no big deal. Those guys aren’t really that smart anyway. They’re probably better off dead. No need getting upset over people being killed who cannot even read. I mean that is the only reason they ended up on Irak after all. Didn’t you know that?
Why does everyone want to insist on giving Iran such a hard time?
/sarcasm
^^(Just in case anyone needs to see that to be sure.)
Sky,
You didn’t answer my questions.
I’m not surprised.
Care to try again or are they too difficult?
Mike,
I am sorry you republicans don’t understand diplomacy. The right wing version of that always seems to be USE a bigger stick… You have had 8 years of that type of diplomacy… (cowboy special) if you believe it has been working well you are blind as hell!!!
Aye,
The “mission accomplished” statement refers to the day BUSH said “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,”
what the hell do you call what is happening now???
To suggest the Iraq war is a success is ridiculous.
I noticed that you still haven’t answered the questions.
Imagine that.
“The “mission accomplished” statement refers to the day BUSH said “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,”
what the hell do you call what is happening now??? ”
I’ll give you a hint. It’s not major combat.
“To suggest the Iraq war is a success is ridiculous.”
Let’s see.
Oppressive thug regime defeated. Check.
Freedom for millions of people who have never experienced it before. Check.
Saddam finally at the end of his rope. Check.
Assurance once and for all that there are not stores of WMD ready to fall into the hands of terror groups. Check.
No more disappearances in the night. Check.
Mass graves no longer being filled. Check.
Torture chambers shut down. Check.
People no longer being bound and thrown off the roof of three story buildings. Check.
Libya disarmed. Check.
A democratic ally in the Middle East. Check.
Sounds pretty successful to me.
Let’s see americans still being killed by at the same level as 3 years ago.. Failure
Iraq civilians being killed by numbers beyond belief… Failure
we are not wanted there by more that 60% of Iraq’s people… Failure
There is a severe shortage of water in Baghdad… Failure
Baghdad still does not have electricity 24/7….
Before we invaded Al Qaeda was not in Iraq…. Failure
Before we invaded Saddam held Iran in check… Failure
to say we have a democratic ally in the middle east.. meaning IRAQ.. who the hell can they help??
billions of dollars spent thousands of american lives lost for what????? if you tell me it is to protect the american homeland you full crap…
sounds like a failure to me…
oh and i didn’t know I blogged here to answer your questions AYE
“Let’s see americans still being killed by at the same level as 3 years ago.. check”
Really? You have proof of that? Or is that another one of your wild exaggerations? Personally, I think you’re talking out of your rear.
“Iraq civilians being killed by numbers beyond belief… check”
Really? How many? (And don’t try to trot out the Lancet studies. They have been thoroughly debunked.) How do the current civilian death rates compare to death rates prior to the invasion?
“we are not wanted there by more that 60% of Iraq’s people… Check”
Really? Where is your source for that?
“There is a severe shortage of water in Baghdad… check”
Actually, no there is not.
“Baghdad still does not have electricity 24/7….”
What’s causing the shortage? What were the pre-war levels? Any idea?
“Before we invaded Al Qaeda was not in Iraq…. check”
You’ve certainly got the blinders strapped on tight don’t you? You really believe that one? Surely not. Ever heard of Abu Ayyub al-Masri? How about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or Ramzi Hashem Abed? Ansar Al-Islam? Those are some of the names that you need to make yourself familiar with.
“Before we invaded Saddam held Iran in check… check….”
Now, that’s funny.
“to say we have a democratic ally in the middle east.. meaning IRAQ.. who the hell can they help??”
You really don’t have a clue do you? Not a stinkin’ clue.
“billions of dollars spent thousands of american lives lost for what????? if you tell me it is to protect the american homeland you full crap…”
Actually it was intended to protect the American homeland and America is safer now than we were prior to our actions in Iraq.
***
Of course all of this is coming from the guy who says that the Obamessiah “will never forget growing up poor” even though he was never poor a day in his life.
The same guy who says that BO, Jr. never attended a madrassah when multiple sources have clearly shown that he did.
The same guy who adds/deletes/misinterprets words whenever convenient in an effort to bash our efforts in Iraq or make the Obamessiah look good.
It’s obvious that you are incapable of making an accurate statement.
***
“oh and i didn’t know I blogged here to answer your questions AYE”
Don’t worry. You still haven’t answered them and what you’re doing here is not blogging.
Yup Aye:
you are so correct… 100%… we have been successful in IRAQ….
So let’s declare victory and bring the troops HOME!!!
Let’s see here AYE just in case you can’t read…. APRIL 2005… 52 americans died…
April 2008… 52 Americans died…
sounds like the same rate to me…
now just who is talking out of their ass???
by the way Baghdad did have electricity 24/7 before we got invaded…
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/oct2006/a102306sj1.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0210/p01s03-woiq.html
current water shortages:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2715666120080508?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
Oh then McCain tells us the reason we are in Iraq..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9hwdB5P-o0
52 vs. 52 is the same total number but the breakdown of the numbers is what really matters.
How many were deaths from hostile actions vs. non-hostile (ie accidents, illness, etc.)?
“current water shortages:”
You really should read the sources you post to support your arguments because the link you provided doesn’t help you.
“now just who is talking out of their ass???”
That would be you.
“you are so correct… 100%”
I’m glad you see it my way.
55110 said: ” am sorry you republicans don’t understand diplomacy. ”
Sorry 55110: diplomacy doesn’t mean surrender. Try looking the word up in a dictionary if you have more trouble understanding.
You have yet to offer anything more than the usual withdrawal and defeat mantra that have made you people famous for decades.
The problems in the Middle East are directly tied to this idiotic nit wittery that you suppose substitutes for having a plan or a policy.
Please explain it then (55110 said: ” am sorry you republicans don’t understand diplomacy.”) In the original post I asked, “Is there a peaceful way to stop Iran from killing Americans in Iraq, from fueling the terrorist wars against Israel, and from pursuing nuclear weapons in the next 6-12 months?” What is it? All we’ve seen in response is rantings about the war in Iraq, no efforts to make anyone understand “diplomacy” as vaunted by the Dems.
Aye:
In your words:
“52 vs. 52 is the same total number but the breakdown of the numbers is
what really matters.”
Tell that to the fathers and mothers of the soldiers being buried.
I read the arguments I sent…
apparently you didn’t.
Is there a water shortage in Baghdad??? YES Is there power 24/7 in Iraq?? NO…
end of story.
Mike:
I never said diplomacy means surrender…
Is there a peaceful way to work with Iran??? When was the last time we sat down with them??
When was the last time Rice was there??
It appears you already have given up on diplomacy…. Kinda like cowboy Bush.
Sky whines about President Bush instead of answering the question:
“Is there a peaceful way to stop Iran from killing Americans in Iraq, from fueling the terrorist wars against Israel, and from pursuing nuclear weapons in the next 6-12 months?”
Diplomacy? What would sitting down with Iran accomplish? Please explain how sitting at a table with them (which is done often in Baghdad btw, and has been tried/failed by the international community for almost a decade now) will somehow magically work.
Scott:
Is there a peaceful way???? NOT without talking to them there isn’t… Diplomacy remember what that is??? Maybe you don’t.. it’s been awhile since Bush used it for more that a window dressing.
Is Iran pursuing nuclear weapons or nuclear energy? we don’t really know but Bush thinks he knows…
as Doug stated…
“So now we have a new report in the J.Post warning that the deadline for a nuclear bomb has been must be moved and we must stop Iran’s nuclear bomb before Bush leaves the WH — how convenient.”
well said Doug
Oh and what is the Iraq war really about??? See John McCains answer here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9hwdB5P-o0
Diplomacy…please explain further. I’m eager to learn your description of how “diplomacy” is a magic bullet for convincing Iran to stop killing Americans, to prove to the IAEA that their program is peaceful (no evidence of this) and not for mass production of nuclear bombs (plenty of supporting evidence of that-even the IAEA admits this), and how to convince them to stop calling for the destruction of our ally Israel.
Scott,
There really is no need to spend any more time on this pantywaist.
He has a real problem with words and their meanings. He lives in a deranged fantasy world where he thinks that he can define reality.
He thinks that a soldier who is killed in an accident or by illness is the same as a soldier killed by the enemy. Who knew?
We’ve already talked to Iran. We’ve made it clear that it is unacceptable for them to continue to develop nuclear technology.
We’ve told them. They haven’t listened.
End of story.
Oh, and Sky, there is no water shortage in Baghdad. The headline of your article says that efforts are being made to “avert” a water shortage. That means prevent.
**
a·vert (ə-vûrt’) pronunciation
tr.v., a·vert·ed, a·vert·ing, a·verts.
1. To turn away: avert one’s eyes.
2. To ward off (something about to happen); prevent: averted an accident by turning sharply. See synonyms at prevent.
**
Under your standards, there are regions in the US that you would label a failure as well since they had to take steps last summer to “avert” a water shortage.
Let me ask you a question, Mr. O’Brainiac. Why would Iran possibly need nuclear energy for peaceful means? Have they bought into the Goreacle’s warmening theories and they want to be kind to Mother Earth? Have they suddenly run out of cheap, readily accessible fossil fuels? I’m sure that must be what it is.
sky55110,
At the risk of arguing with a fool which you so clearly are, I will let another leftist rebuke you:
This is reguarding the Islreali-”Palistine” issue and why diplomacy will not work (the Arabs living in Palistine will accept nothing but Isreal’s destruction… kinda hard to negotiate against that).
http://www.newsweek.com/id/136085/page/1
BTW, we HAVE used diplomacy for 12 YEARS against Saddam. It failed and Saddam simply thumbed his nose at the world and did what he wanted. We diffused (or delayed) North Korea’s nuclear weapons program through diplomacy. Unlike the cherry treaty Kim the ILL got with Albright, this diplomatic action comes with sanctions and inspections. We are confronting Iran diplomatically in the UN and through the EU and nothing but attacks on Iraqis and our soldiers comes from it. We do engage Iranians militarily if they are in Iraq and even Iran’s “elite” units lose every time.
But you are so set in your insane hatred and blindness that you think we want war. Sorry, I AM a US soldier. I do not desire war, but I will not accept the American left’s definition of “peace” which is the USA surrenders and we accept giving appeasment and passive responses to our enemies who will seek our destruction no matter what.
You want peace at any cost Sky? I guarantee you will be charged FULL PRICE.
Flyboy Skye said:
As a matter of policy, the US has not had formal diplomatic relations with Iran since 1980. It’s rather absurd to blame that on Bush. What about every admin inbetween? Iran’s been the biggest state sponsor of terrorists for decades. Are you so uninformed as to believe they only became dangerous under the Bush admin??
And do spare me the “Saddam held Iran in check” nonsense. Allowing one despot to control the next door despotic govt is an abomination for the citizens that were denied free press, satellite, threated with death for the “wrong” vote, and had raids in the night for dissenters. Not to mention the mass graves. Saddam was no revered leader.
Fact is, Skye, US and Iranian officials meet quite often thru different venues and back rooms. Bonn Conference 2001, we met and worked together after toppling the Taliban with help on Afghanistan are only two recent examples that, apparently, you are unaware of.
Other than the upcoming meeting in Baghdad scheduled this weekend, the last two I can remember were May and June of last year.
Even this past March, US officials have made known their willingness for bilateral talks with Iran regarding Iraq stability. This is the upcoming meeting, I would assume, this weekend in Baghdad.
Just today, former Iran Pres Khatami laid out the problems… pride and legitimacy:
Khatami calls for talks, of course. However the big guns – aka Rice or a sitting President – are not sent to meetings until some ground rules and basic agreements of concessions are in place. Nor should they. The lack of the higher powers does not mean that the two nations have not engaged. They are not the ostracized wallflower at the prom.
Hillary actually understands this. Obama is too naive to figure it out. But he will when his advisors introduce him to reality if he wins the Oval Office.
But what he says now sure sounds good to the gullible… and that’s all that counts. He needs your vote to get into power. But I wouldn’t hold my breath that a President Obama saunters over to Tehran for lunch with Ahmadinejad anytime soon.
Aye: You’re funny…
Water shortages have been a huge problem in Iraq since at least 2005… maybe longer…
I was trying to give you the latest article I could find.
here are others:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUKCOL446586._CH_.242020080114
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/03/eveningnews/main3132093.shtml
do you need them from 2005 too??? if you do google is your friend…
C’mon Sky5110, explain to us how it to get Iran to stop killing Americans, to prove their nuclear program is peaceful (not military as it seems to even the IAEA), and to stop calling for the destruction of Israel. How’s it work? Say Bush and Ahmadinejad sit down at a table in Tehran, Bush says, “please,” and that’s it? I don’t buy it.
Oh lookie.. Sky is using articles from the masters of Photoshop and fake military documents!!!
Just looking at your article from al-reuters, it seems that the other Arabs and Turks are responsible for much of the woes Iraq faces power wise.
Now here is some history from someone who has been there Sky: People in Iraq who were not “in” with Saddam HAD NO POWER OR FRESH WATER until we got there. Now there is an air conditioner, sat TVs, and lights all over. So yes, Iraq is trying to BUILD (not rebuilt) an infrastructure to support a free population which was brutalized under Saddam and then attacked by AQ and the Shia Madhis.
Now for the water. Most of the river water in Iraq was polluted under Saddam. Marshes were drained as a form of punishment against local tribes, and of course, it is a desert. Oh, and the pollution? Much of it is residue which appears to be chemical weapons being dumped into the rivers. Though it is also difficult to tell with the poor sewage system Iraq had.
Then your article, though it does not try to, kills your point by stating that a Hell of a lot of work has been done and now that the groundwork and lessons learned are in place, water production will be expanding greatly. This is something Iraq NEVER had before. But your hate and stupidity blind you to it.
Logic and reason are your friends sky… you should try to meet them sometime.
Thank you ChrisG.
You saved me the trouble.
Typical leftist.
Lots of squawking, complaining, and lip flapping and not a single solution.
Not one.
Dems claim Obama isn’t seeking appeasement diplomacy w Iran, video of Dem debate shows he did say he’d meet w Iran, but the question isn’t did he vs didn’t he, the question is (again)
How’s this “talk” thing work; how to get Iran to stop killing Americans, to prove their nuclear program is peaceful (not military as it seems to even the IAEA), and to stop calling for the destruction of Israel. How’s it work? Say Bush and Ahmadinejad sit down at a table in Tehran, Bush says, “please,” and that’s it? I don’t buy it.
So if you don’t even try to talk what does that leave us with??? Oh yeah the republican version of diplomacy … WAR…
sorry not acceptable.
And the Brain Trust goes on parade once again.
It was mentioned in last night’s news that Iran is responsible for half of our casulties in Iraq. So, sky, you want to have a sit down with the animals that are supplying sophisticated weapons that directly threaten to your son’s life? What do you think you could ask/tell them?
Lots of claims that the US needs to “talk” to Iran, but no explanations of how it works. C’mon people, step up….tell us how it works. Tell us How this “talk” thing works; how to get Iran to stop killing Americans, to prove their nuclear program is peaceful (not military as it seems to even the IAEA), and to stop calling for the destruction of Israel. How’s it work? Say Bush and Ahmadinejad sit down at a table in Tehran, Bush says, “please,” and that’s it? I don’t buy it.
It’s not like no one in the world has tried.
The US has tried to talk to Iran in talks in Baghdad. Didn’t work.
The US has had Iran under sanctions since Pres Carter (D) imposed them
The US has tried to get the intl community to put Iran under sanction-hasn’t worked
The UN has tried to verify that their “peaceful” nuclear program is, but it hasn’t worked
The UN has threatened sanctions, but it hasn’t worked
Look, if Iran’s NOT killing Americans, NOT a threat to Israel, and NOT making nuclear bomb factories, then there’s no war.
But we all know that the claims are real. Iran’s nuclear program is not peaceful. Half the Americans killed in Iraq have been from Iranian weapons, terrorists, and bombs, and they openly, daily call for the destruction of Israel.
So please tell us…how does sitting down with them stop them from killing Americans, making nuclear bomb factories, and get them to stop threatening to destroy Israel? President Obama or his SecState sit down with Ahmadinejad, and then what?
Scott,
Half the Americans killed in Iraq are from Iranian weapons??? Really?? since when? can you prove this?? I don’t think so.
Do you realize you just called Obama president?? thank you… for the forecast. I appreciate it.
Sky, yeah half of the Americans killed in Iraq have been killed by EFP’s and other Iranian provided weapons (like 50cal sniper rifles etc). It was on the news last night-not sure if it was ABC or CBS though. Sorry. I did see it though, and that’s why I make the point. At the very least hundreds have been claimed killed by Iranian weapons per CENTCOM briefings as of mid 2007. I think I might still have that one. It’s back when the sniper rifle bit was breaking. You might remember it, Richard Miniter went to Iraq himself and had a briefing with an EOD team where they personally showed him during an interview some of the Iranian weapons they’d captured.
Oh, and I deliberately used “President Obama.” I think there’s a very good chance he’ll win.
Now, for the umpteenth time, I respectfully ask of you, Sky5510, or of anyone who opposes President Bush’s statement the other day about “talking” to Iran….PLEASE
PLEASEPLEASPLEASE
Describe to me how this “talking” thing will work? how does sitting down with them stop them from killing Americans, making nuclear bomb factories, and get them to stop threatening to destroy Israel? President Obama or his SecState sit down with Ahmadinejad, and then what?
Scott
I checked ABC and CBS and I cannot find anything that says 50% have been killed by Iranian weapons… However, in my view one is to many. In no way would I defend Iran’s actions but I do believe talks have to be exhausted before war is put on the table.
As far as talking to Iran. You are asking for me to draw a conclusion of what might happen during those talks. How would anyone know that without talking to them? I do find it interesting that while Bush was saying what he said about talking to Iran Gates proposed that we should talk to Iran.
Defense secretary Gates stated:
“We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them,” Gates said. “If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.”
Gates was a member of the 2006 Iraq Study group.
see the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/14/ST2008051404020.html
Sky, the half killed part was only mentioned in a story I saw. I couldn’t find it either, and no time to really search today. My apologies for that lack of linkage. It’s not my favorite, but anyone who reads my stuff probably sees that I don’t make references up. In any event, go back to 07 and look for reports from the MNF re the sniper rifles and EFP’s. It was something like 200 killed by the Austrian 50cal sniper rifles alone and hundreds more from the EFPs.
Anyway, we can pass the specific numbers and agree on the point that 1 is too many (let alone 200 or 2000).
There seems to be some confusion in the question I’m asking about “talks” w Iran. I’m not asking for a conclusion to them. That part should be obvious and I think we agree: exhausted talks=war, successful talks=peace [ie end of their nuclear program, end of killing Americans, and end of calling for destruction of Israel]. My question isn’t about the conclusion, but about the means to that end. How does sitting down with them make that happen? Other nations have tried, and failed. The UN has tried, and failed. Iraq has tried and failed. How/what means does one take to make Iran:
stop killing Americans
end their nuclear program
stop calling for the destruction of Israel
stop supporting terrorist groups
and so forth
?
Also, you mentioned “exhausted talks” What’s exhausted? What benchmark is there to say, welp, that’s it then…not gonna get anywhere talking to em
In my view exhausted talks means they give up not us. It means we keep on talking and trying for solutions unless they deliver a blow like attacking another country. IF Iran were to attack another country or one of our ships in the area.. then they started it… and we should strike back with MAJOR force.
However, we should NEVER make the mistake of starting another war. The US attacking IRAQ was a HUGE mistake. A mistake I will never forgive BUSH for doing. Spare me the bi-partisan war crap. We all know BUSH is responsible for the IRAQ war.
Sorry.
You amateur attempts at revisionism have failed you once again.
IRAQ (Saddam) is responsible for the IRAQ war.
We talked through how many years and how many UN resolutions?
Over and over and over and over.
How many times did Saddam’s forces shoot at our planes while they were enforcing the UN established No Fly Zones?
By your own standards we were justified by responding.
Aye:
we were NOT justified in starting this war…
The no-fly zones were unilaterally established by the U.S. government after the Persian Gulf War, supposedly to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. There was one big problem, however: The United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones to be established. U.S. officials have always claimed that the U.S. government, as a member of the United Nations, has the right to unilaterally enforce any resolution of the United Nations. Such a position, however, is patently fallacious. Enforcement of an organization’s rules and regulations belongs to the organization itself, not to each and every individual member of the organization.
nice try
“The no-fly zones were unilaterally established by the U.S. government after the Persian Gulf War”
Now you know that is not true and if you don’t know it, you should.
The decision was reached by the US, Great Britain, France, and others to establish the No Fly Zones in order to enforce multiple UN resolutions. Resolutions which would have not been worth the paper they were printed on without some sort of enforcement effort.
Iraq was repeatedly in violation of the cease fire agreement signed at the end of the Gulf War.
So, even without the continued violations of the UN resolutions, based just on the cease fire violations, we had every right to take the actions that we took.
Furthermore, the Clinton Administration established a policy calling for regime change in Iraq.
In regard to the enforcement of the resolutions, you really should read the UN Charter to get a better understanding.
Sky, the no-fly-zones bit is wrong (imo) despite many opinions to the contrary. They were authorized indirectly by UN 678 and 687 which authorized the use of force to make Iraq comply with other UN resolutions. However, they were justified morally by the fact that they were there to stop Saddam from killing more than the half a milliom he executed-people who at our urging rose up for democracy in Iraq, but were abandoned by a Republican President who cut and ran leaving Saddam in power and a casus belli for Bin Laden to start killing Americans (per 911 Commission rpt).
I’ll debate the fact that the invasion of Iraq was justified until someone gets bored and passes out, and I’ve got the sources to back it up. Same is true to prove that Saddam was indeed a WMD threat, a terrorist threat, that inspections couldn’t work, and that the entire gig is a bi-partisan one. However, I’d like to get back to the discussion about “exhausted talks.” I think it’s a good discussion, important, and more OT.
You said, “In my view exhausted talks means they give up not us. It means we keep on talking and trying for solutions unless they deliver a blow like attacking another country. IF Iran were to attack another country or one of our ships in the area.. then they started it… and we should strike back with MAJOR force.
However, we should NEVER make the mistake of starting another war. The US attacking IRAQ was a HUGE mistake. A mistake I will never forgive BUSH for doing. Spare me the bi-partisan war crap. We all know BUSH responsible for the IRAQ war.”
There’s a lot to be said about waiting to be attacked before going to war. The apparent advantage is that the casus belli is clear and support for continuing the effort until it succeeds seems automatic, but it’s not. Even after the US was attacked, there were protests against the US invasion of Afghanistan. Sen Kennedy led Democrats in calling Bush a warmonger and claimed we should give more time to talking to the Taliban. Tens of thousands of Americans took to the streets and protested against the invasion of Afghanistan. In Egypt, the US embassy was surrounded by rioters and burned. In Syria, the same. In Turkey, the same. In Pakistan, the same, AND hundreds of thousands were arrested by Musharaaf w/out trial etc. In Britain, the govt collapsed and needed a new vote to determine who would be in power after so many resignations. India mobilized and threatened to nuke Pakistan if it allowed US forces inside there. Anti-American riots in France (remember the “Today We’re All Americans” headline-it was a Le Monde article saying the US deserved to be attacked, and now Americans were brought to the level of the rest of the world. The list goes on.
In light of that, several things come to mind:
1) if the Taliban were still “talking” to the US, then Afghanistan would still be a massive terrorist haven w tens of thousands of AQ there (remember, UBL is not in Afghanistan. He’s in Pakistan)
2) the Japanese were still talking to us hours after the Pearl Harbor attack. Doesn’t that mean that the US ignored a threat because talks weren’t “exhausted” by the wait-till-THEY-stop-talking standard?
3) if there’s massive political opposition to even retaliatory force in the US and the world, then the only benefit of waiting to be attacked (the idea the being attacked first gives more support) is moot, and the wait-till-attacked standard doesn’t work anymore either (particularly when a nuke explodes w no trace of who drove the truck, or a bio/germ attack, or a chemical attack by untraceable state-sponsored terrorists)
So, if the wait-till-attacked idea doesn’t work, and the wait-till-THEY-stop talking idea is a proven a failure by history, then what other benchmark is there to determine that there’s no point in “talking” anymore.
Also, I agree with Sec Gates. To talk to Iran, the US needs leverage. What leverage do we have? What can we offer/appease them with or threaten them with? Lacking either? How can “talks” work.
Sitting down and talking things out is a great idea, but it doesn’t always work. It is not a magic bullet that never misses.
I was reading a magazine yesterday. It was a story from a reporter who was sent to Sudan to cover the war there. He was imprisoned at the border along with his aide. In the prison, he met women who had their breasts cut off. He saw children with no hands. He saw starvation, disease, and conditions that make Abu Ghraib or Gitmo sound like Disney. He tells a story of how a woman who was beaten and raped, was forced to watch her husband be tortured and dismembered alive, and had her babies boiled in front of her-yes, BOILED. She saw he was hungry and gave him her food. How could he thank her, he wondered? How could he comfort her? I dunno, but if anyone thinks that the Muslim extremists who did this to her family can be talked into peace…I think they’re wrong. Similarly, I think talking to Iran w nothing to offer and threats backed by incessant, partisan-motivated, misled dissent at home make the talks useless.
Oh, btw, the magazine was National Geographic. Cover has a pic of the Muslim horsemen spinning in the sand on their way to raid another village. The reporter was freed, but the woman who kept him alive by giving him her shitty excuse for food….still there.
Maybe if someone talked to em. Maybe not. Where is the line? Wait till they get tired? Wait till they attack? Where is the line between enough and waited too long to act?