Captain Obvious to the Rescue

[Plane]

.

The pottery barn rule  certainly applies to Iraq. We broke it, now we own it. And it is self-destructing.

This coould be seen as success if destruction were our goal.

It is only a failure because we defined our goal as constructive.

If we attack Syria with no intention of rebuilding anything , success is pretty much assured.

Iran would be even easyer , they have very convieniently placed large dumps of radioactive materiel here and there throughout the country , blowing these up would force the entire country to become refugees and the land couldn't be resettled for two generations or more.

As a side benefit the oil would be unaffected.

[Lanya]

Our children don't deserve the kind of world we'd be giving them with that sort of mass destruction.

Our friends are fewer than at any time in my memory. Not that I'm 100 years old....

We've already shifted our wealthy people's taxes onto our kids' backs.  Now we have to raise taxes to pay for building up the Army. 
We have infrastructure problems here in the US. 
Poor health care availability for those w/o insurance. 
And on and on. Please, don't break anything else, Grandpa. Our children cannot bear the expense and neither can we.

[Plane]

"We've already shifted our wealthy people's taxes onto our kids' backs."

You are incorrect , with the exception of Social Security the lower half of the wage scale pays almost no taxes.


"Our children don't deserve the kind of world we'd be giving them with that sort of mass destruction."


The point is that it is our children that this radioactive stuff is intended to be dumped on , if we do nothing that is our fate. Let Iran think of its Nuclear Bomb program as a vulnerability , which it is , unless we are more scrupulous than they are.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If we attack Syria with no intention of rebuilding anything , success is pretty much assured.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If success is defined as the entire world seeing Americans as heartless bullies in thrall to Zionist racism.
If success is defined as causing several million people to utterly despise the US and Israel with all all-consuming  and well-deserved hatred.


Iran would be even easyer , they have very convieniently placed large dumps of radioactive materiel here and there throughout the country , blowing these up would force the entire country to become refugees and the land couldn't be resettled for two generations or more.
Amazing!
You may well know even less about nuclear weapons than you do about politics and world opinion. Radioactive materials are NOT explosives. They do NOT explode when bombed. There is surely not enough of this stuff in Iran to contaminate much of anything.

If there were 77 million refugees, where would they go...where?

Iraq?  Afghanistan?

I suppose you would be all for setting up Gatling guns and shooting them as they tried to flee across the border.




As a side benefit the oil would be unaffected.
American Oil, no doubt. Only Jeezus knows why He put it beneath their sand...
=============================================================================

[Amianthus]

Radioactive materials are NOT explosives. They do NOT explode when bombed.

Of course not. They will, however, get dispersed when bombed.

Similar to a "dirty nuclear bomb."

[Plane]

Radioactive materials are NOT explosives. They do NOT explode when bombed.

Of course not. They will, however, get dispersed when bombed.

Similar to a "dirty nuclear bomb."

Exactly!


  The powers that be in Iran have gathered a lot of uranium for the purpose of makeing themselves strong , but if they really were to make us desprate they would find that they have made themselves vunerable instead.


   This also works in North Korea , first to go would be the facilitys critical to A-bomb makeing , but for the purpose of causing exodous a waste dump would also work really well.


BTW the USA is pretty vunerable too  , we all live in glass houses.
 

[_JS]

So, your claiming EVERY defector, including General Sada, can't be trusted.  Sorry, I didn't see that claim made by us or the Brits.  Perhaps you can show me were American & British agencies classified his commentary as not trustworthy

You have no evidence. We've already established that. The word of an Iraqi defector, whose rank doesn't impress me at all, means little. What you have is hearsay.

So??  That's your answer??  another validation of the point, I've been making?

"So??" Is not an answer, it is a question. There are willing fighters in Iraq, naturally someone is going to supply them with weapons. Weapons in the Middle East, as in parts of Africa are a dime a dozen. Our problem isn't so much the supply, but the demand.

No, Bush is paramount in this, as it was his decision(s), prompted by the intel he had at the time, that have launched us into this

Of course this is taken out of context. Let me reprint the entire paragraph, which was a response to your assertion that I'm viewing Iraq through some anti-Bush prism - hence "Bush is irrelevant..."

Not at all. Bush is irrelevant in this. What concerns me Sirs, are the Iraqi people and the amount of human lives lost (no matter what nationality). What I care about are the people: American, Iraqi, Syrian, Iranian, Kurd, Shi'a, Sunni, Christian, Zoarastrian, whatever. I want a solution that will allow the people of all of those nations to live in peace and preferably worship freely without worrying about losing body parts and lives in the process. I want them to feel safe walking with their children to the market. That is what matters to me. The political desires of Bush, Ahmadinejad, Assad, the Saud family, Clinton, McCain, Blair, and others are miniscule in comparison in my humble view.

The point being that the political aspects of these two bit players are trivial from my point of view.

And what you continually ignore is how they all (outside of the Suuni who were the minority helping to run the dicatorship at the time), have been shown, via polls, and their actions, to have supported the taking out of Saddam & embracing democracy.  Somehow, you've developed this warped notion that those who support the war on Terror, along with bringing freedom & democracy to the people of Iraq somehow don't care about American, Iraqi, Syrian, Iranian, Kurd, Shi'a, Sunni, Christian, Zoarastrian, whatever.  Couldn't be further from the truth.  Our taking out of Saddam was necessary to enhance our long term security, but the side effect of helping to bring democracy to this ruthlessly oppressed nation can NOT be ignored, nor cast aside for partisan ideological differences, an Anti-war agenda, or simply hatred for Bush.

You are placing me into a camp with which I don't belong. I have not made generalisations about supporters of different causes, nor do I believe in partisan ideologies or hatred of Bush as being paramount to the lives of anyone. I do believe the first-strike war was unjust, but now that we are there we have dues to pay to the Iraqi people and therefore I don't believe in withdrawal. Perhaps you are the one with a partisan ideological problem?

We all want a solution Js.  But going to talk to messers Syria & Iran, would be like going to talk to messers Hitler & Mussolini, prior to the outbreak of WWII.  I seriously believe that this country is basically in 1941 mode, prior to Pearl Harbor.  Let's just keep our boys here, and let them folks fight it out amongst themselves, right?

Why? It costs nothing to talk to either leader? Neither Mussolini or Hitler bombed Pearl Harbor as you may recall from history. This is a war that is far different in nature. It resembles Northern Ireland far more than World War II. Germany didn't invade Poland Sirs, we did the invading this time. We have the sectarian violence to prevent. It falls on our shoulders to prevent the atrocities we saw in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the former Soviet Republics. We set this snowball in motion and we have to be the ones who make sure it does not become an avalanche. Villifying Iran is easy and let's face it they deserve some of it, but theya ren't to blame here. This is our mess and our burden, not fascism, Iran, Syria, or some other contrived enemy.

So in other words, you have an assertion, with no validation.  Gotcha

Nice try, but as I said the Saudis and Kuwaitis support for anti-Israeli groups is well-documented. As is the Saudi warning to Bush. Just because I didn't do your research for you doesn't mean it does not exist. Honestly, poor effort Sirs.

The majority of those that vote.  That is the cornerstone of democracy, last I checked.  Not polls, not focus groups, not PAC's, but voting

Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?

Regardless, what if the majority vote to deprive the Sunni of all their property?

And in the meantime, while Syrian & Iranian influence grows deeper and further within the Iraqi power vacuum.......that works for you, huh?

LOL - Iranian influence existed and was well in place long before our forces ever prepared for invasion. For some of the Shi'a it isn't a matter of "working for the Iranian government" in some sinister plot from a 1950's anti-Soviet movie. It is a matter of respect for a state that they believe keeps the proper Islamic laws.

And you don't think they've been trying to stop them at the borders?  Gads, alert the Pentagon

Hm. Well, when they cannot even safely escort the Secretary of State from the airport to the Iraqi Leader's office, and when she finally gets there she and the Iraqi Leader sit in absolute darkness for nearly an hour - do you really want my honest answer?

How do you make Iran & Syria cease the backing and supporting of terrorist & insurgent activity within Iraq?  Remember, that "talk", everyone keeps talking about?

You look beyond Iraq. Where else can you work with Syria or Iran? You build a base of support for those basic systems I was talking about for the Iraqi people. Perhaps you bring all of Iraq's neighbors into the talks. You can discuss water, oil revenue, pipelines, seaports, etc. Diplomacy is an arena for savvy minds and surely we have those at the State Department. It is a time to put away the blunt hammers and crude cowboy talk.

Iran & Syria will have vastly different "goals" that what Iraqis and we would like, I'm afraid

We don't know that until we talk.

[Plane]

Quote
Iran & Syria will have vastly different "goals" that what Iraqis and we would like, I'm afraid

We don't know that until we talk.

On the contrary , we know that Iraq and Syria are doing everything that they can to foster violence, are we to avoid the conclusion that they want what thay are causeing?

[sirs]

You have no evidence. We've already established that. The word of an Iraqi defector, whose rank doesn't impress me at all, means little. What you have is hearsay.

I have direct eye witness testimony, one that includes a former high ranking Iraqi general, in Saddam's Army.  Murder convictions have been made with just as much.     

"So??" Is not an answer, it is a question. There are willing fighters in Iraq, naturally someone is going to supply them with weapons. Weapons in the Middle East, as in parts of Africa are a dime a dozen. Our problem isn't so much the supply, but the demand.

"So", simply reinforces my point, that Iraq & Syria continue to facilitate Iraqi instability and fuel the insurgency with weapons and out-of-country terrorists.

The point being that the political aspects of these two bit players are trivial from my point of view.

Well, that is 1 opinion

You are placing me into a camp with which I don't belong. I have not made generalisations about supporters of different causes, nor do I believe in partisan ideologies or hatred of Bush as being paramount to the lives of anyone.

I don't really care what "camp" you feel you belong or don't belong.  The fact of the matter is how your rationalize and trivialize every overt act of terrorism and insurgent acts upon the Iraqi populace by messers Iran & Syria, and opine how we need to "talk" to these very same folks in order to "bring calm & normalcy" back to the Iraqi people.  Especially when it's been made patently obvious by these same folks, AS WELL AS YOURSELF, the power vacuum they'd wish to put themselves into, if Iraqi democracy fails.  as much as we BOTH want to bring an end to whatever sectarian violence is occuring, trying to make Iran & Syria "see the light" is a pipedream.  Chamberlain learned that the hardway.  Why you'd want to repeat that disastrous mistake is beyond me

I do believe the first-strike war was unjust, but now that we are there we have dues to pay to the Iraqi people and therefore I don't believe in withdrawal. Perhaps you are the one with a partisan ideological problem?

No, actually I'm the one with the need to achieve a victory over terrorists problem

It costs nothing to talk to either leader?

It costs us credibility in trying to "talk" to a leader who denies the Holocaust, who advocates for the destruction of Israel, who supports terrorist organizations.  It costs us the perception of having the upper hand.  It costs us more military lives, by virtue of emboldening terrorists & insurgents who'd see the act as a step backwards.  It costs us far more in intangibles than you'd dare wish to acknowledge

Nice try, but as I said the Saudis and Kuwaitis support for anti-Israeli groups is well-documented. As is the Saudi warning to Bush. Just because I didn't do your research for you doesn't mean it does not exist. Honestly, poor effort Sirs.

No, again the poor effort is in making some allegation, then expecting me to look up the particulars.  Sorry, too much Christmas stuff I have to do, than to look up your info.  But of course there are anti-Israeli groups, all over the Middle East.  Hell, the vast majority of them want to see Israel wiped off the face of the planet.  I've been on record as advocating we condem Saudi Arabia's support of terrorist groups, and pull our bases & $$$ from their country.   Now, what that has to do with this discussion is beyond me

Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?

In their entirety?, no.  Have you?  I am impressed if you have read every word

Regardless, what if the majority vote to deprive the Sunni of all their property?

Given the oppressive nature of the dictatorship they helped impose on "the majority", I'd almost find it justifiable.  But no, that wouldn't be a nice thing to do.  It is up to the Iraqis however, not us

Iranian influence existed and was well in place long before our forces ever prepared for invasion. For some of the Shi'a it isn't a matter of "working for the Iranian government" in some sinister plot from a 1950's anti-Soviet movie. It is a matter of respect for a state that they believe keeps the proper Islamic laws.

And yet again helping to validate my point of how Iran, as well as Syria look to the hope of ever increasing influence & power....accomplished ironically by the continued support of Iraqi insurgents & terrorists.

Well, when they cannot even safely escort the Secretary of State from the airport to the Iraqi Leader's office, and when she finally gets there she and the Iraqi Leader sit in absolute darkness for nearly an hour - do you really want my honest answer?

I think the question was you don't think we're TRYING to better protect the border?

How do you make Iran & Syria cease the backing and supporting of terrorist & insurgent activity within Iraq?  Remember, that "talk", everyone keeps talking about?

You look beyond Iraq. Where else can you work with Syria or Iran? You build a base of support for those basic systems I was talking about for the Iraqi people. Perhaps you bring all of Iraq's neighbors into the talks. You can discuss water, oil revenue, pipelines, seaports, etc. Diplomacy is an arena for savvy minds and surely we have those at the State Department. It is a time to put away the blunt hammers and crude cowboy talk.

Neville Chamberlain would be proud

Iran & Syria will have vastly different "goals" that what Iraqis and we would like, I'm afraid

We don't know that until we talk.

I'm almost afraid to say you actually believe that     

[_JS]

I have direct eye witness testimony, one that includes a former high ranking Iraqi general, in Saddam's Army.  Murder convictions have been made with just as much.

Hearsay. And again, the rank of an Iraqi officer doesn't impress me. Their army's performance wasn't spectacular and after achieving full-bird ranks generally carry political components (that's true in the states, imagine in a dictatorship where loyalty is essential?).

"So", simply reinforces my point, that Iraq & Syria continue to facilitate Iraqi instability and fuel the insurgency with weapons and out-of-country terrorists.

You've yet to answer the question by addressing the problem of demand. Anyone can supply weapons. If they don't get them from Iran or Syria, who's to say they won't get them from another source? You're suggesting gun control (a supply problem), I'm suggesting a political solution (a demand problem). Our answer is in the latter, not the former. The Iraqis have a high demand, economic theory suggests that they'll find a source of weapons. Look at Northern Ireland and the Palestinians - they are within two extremely tightly controlled borders, yet they have had weapons for decades.

I don't really care what "camp" you feel you belong or don't belong.  The fact of the matter is how your rationalize and trivialize every overt act of terrorism and insurgent acts upon the Iraqi populace by messers Iran & Syria, and opine how we need to "talk" to these very same folks in order to "bring calm & normalcy" back to the Iraqi people.  Especially when it's been made patently obvious by these same folks, AS WELL AS YOURSELF, the power vacuum they'd wish to put themselves into, if Iraqi democracy fails.  as much as we BOTH want to bring an end to whatever sectarian violence is occuring, trying to make Iran & Syria "see the light" is a pipedream.  Chamberlain learned that the hardway.  Why you'd want to repeat that disastrous mistake is beyond me.

1. You seem to care an awful lot about pigeonholing me.

2. I never trivialize death. Be it the life of the unborn, a criminal on death row, a storekeeper shot to death in a robbery, an Israeli blown apart by a bomb, a Palestinian child killed by a bomb, or the countless Iraqis and Americans losing their lives as we speak. You rationalize and trivialize collateral damage, justifications for war, the need to use violence as a measure for peace, or having people brutally murdered in Iraq to "protect us in America" - but do not pawn that off on me.
 
3. You have no idea what the situation was with Prime Minister Chamberlain and that it was vastly different from the one in Iraq. This is not World War II, not even close. We missed our chance to show that ethnic atrocities would not be tolerated when we followed the policies of Bush the elder. Moreover, nationalism like yours is one of the key elements in creating such problems.

4. Opening a dialogue with Iran and Syria does not mean that we have to immediately drop our weapons and surrender. Why do you believe that it does?
 

[Plane]

4. Opening a dialogue with Iran and Syria does not mean that we have to immediately drop our weapons and surrender. Why do you believe that it does?

Would it mean accepting everything that they have been doing and are presently doing to be legitimate?

[sirs]

I have direct eye witness testimony, one that includes a former high ranking Iraqi general, in Saddam's Army.  Murder convictions have been made with just as much.

Hearsay. And again, the rank of an Iraqi officer doesn't impress me.

Well of course......it has to be.  In order to maintain the preconceived notion of how Bush botched things, and how illconceived the war has been concluded to have been by you, such "hearsay" (translated direct eyewitness testimony from a high ranking general, intimate to Saddam's military plans, weapons, and activities) has to be labeled unimpressive.  Anything else would require one to rethink their original position.  And we can't be having that now

"So", simply reinforces my point, that Iraq & Syria continue to facilitate Iraqi instability and fuel the insurgency with weapons and out-of-country terrorists.

You've yet to answer the question by addressing the problem of demand. Anyone can supply weapons. If they don't get them from Iran or Syria, who's to say they won't get them from another source?

The current sources however have the greatest potential of reward reaping, and combined with their overt acts in sponsoring terrorist groups, makes me scratch my head in complete amazement how they just "happen to be" the ones currently reinforcing the terrorists & insurgents, as if they had nothing better to do.   

You're suggesting gun control (a supply problem), I'm suggesting a political solution (a demand problem).

As long as there's the chance that democracy won't take root in Iraq, there will be a continuous "demand problem".  The problem is specific to whether or not Iraq becomes a free democracy within the middle east region.  If it does, the Iraqi people win, as does the region.  If it doesn't, Iran, Syria, and the terrorists win

I never trivialize death. Be it the life of the unborn, a criminal on death row, a storekeeper shot to death in a robbery, an Israeli blown apart by a bomb, a Palestinian child killed by a bomb, or the countless Iraqis and Americans losing their lives as we speak.

Yet, you are quick to facilitate actions that would make such deaths so much easier at the hands of terrorists and insurgents, while making the lives lost to this date, all in vain

You rationalize and trivialize collateral damage, justifications for war, the need to use violence as a measure for peace, or having people brutally murdered in Iraq to "protect us in America" - but do not pawn that off on me.

Yea, war is hell.  I've conceded that since the beginning.  EVERY innocent death that was accidentally caused by us or the Iraqi forces is absolutely tragic.  EVERY death caused by targeted and purposeful efforts to kill innocent lives are the ones I'm trying to stop, as is our forces.  War is to be a last resort, but it is never to be completely taken off the table, as you seem to deem necessary.  Why this disconnect of yours I'll never truely understand
 

You have no idea what the situation was with Prime Minister Chamberlain and that it was vastly different from the one in Iraq. This is not World War II, not even close.

Yea, you're right....this is more closely related to our Civil War, how Lincoln was absolutely pillaried and loathed by so many, yet when all was said and done, the blacks can look to Lincoln the same way the Iraqis can look to Bush.  But more to the point, I know enough of Chamberlain to grasp the nearly identical rhetoric currently coming from the "Diplomacy camp".  It's practically nauseates me to actually have so many so willing to appease & placate terrorists, and Governments that both sponsor them and even publically deny the holocaust, when not pledging to rid the world of the state of Israel, hoping that "being nice to them" will get them to be nice back.  It's practically laughable, if it wasn't so sad

Opening a dialogue with Iran and Syria does not mean that we have to immediately drop our weapons and surrender. Why do you believe that it does?

Because that's the only way Syria & Iran will follow-up with any "talk".  That would be based on their actions & current "talk" to date

[sirs]