Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!
Would the West repeat it's folly?
I haven't written on Iraq for months now, partly out of respect for my American friends who must be thinking hard and long.
With Iran looming on the horizan and the Whitehouse still rattling it's "options", part of my says "No! they couldn't be stupid enough to initiate military action against Iran.
But another part of my says "Rumsfield is still there, Bush and Cheney are still there" How do we know they understand better this time.
Make no mistake, Iran is vastly stronger militarily than Iraq was in 2002/3.
The Khaleej Times carries an article today by Max Hastings which concludes:
"Iraq has demonstrated what happens when governments are allowed to defy informed opinion and pursue ideologically driven adventures. There will come a time when the West has vital reasons to stage another armed intervention somewhere in the world. When it does, we need to feel confident that the chiefs of staff on both sides of the Atlantic will speak their minds if they are invited by government to execute a policy that they judge ill-conceived.
We ourselves, as citizens, must know enough to exploit our democratic institutions to prevent another such fiasco as Iraq. Any US soldier or civilian who read the Crane-Terrill report back in 2003 should have recognised that refusal to heed its wise strictures promised disaster, and indeed delivered it.
Max Hastings, a former editor of The Telegraph, is the author of Armageddon: the Battle for Germany 1944-1945. This column first appeared in The Guardian"
It is worth reading at
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2006/April/opinion_April14.xml§ionSpin
Comments
i would say.
AND china fervently hopes so too...so that they can become world's no.1 economy by taking all of america's markets while they lick their wounds.
Amazing.
However, this time we HAVE many of the countries you demanded be in on the process - aka France, Germany, etc and still it is all Pres. Bush, VP "Blast 'em" Cheney, Donald "Bloodlust" Rummy and , of course, Haliburton.
Of course you probably don't recall that the stated position of our Gov't is for diplomacy first and foremost on this particular issue.
It was as well on Iraq what with 17 UN Resolution violations but the complete dismissal of these by Iraq meant nothing.
The WORLD should focus on dealing with the warlike footing of Iran before turning their action against the combined voices of the concerned countries around the globe.
I think they way you should
you really did miss the point...seriously you did...not us.
the point is: fellas like the dinnerjacket (include that ga-daft-fy bloke) are in a way "stupid" than bush as they would say something really stuoopid like "wiping out israel" which people laughs at...and people within his organisation and usa really do not believe he would do but the usa likes to use this outburst to justify their threats to enrich the halburtons...well, if dinnerjacket did, he's as much a genius as bushey boy then as he would undoubtedly fail.
whereas your "genius" will say diplomacy is first and foremost his priority and he would bluff everyone as he did for iraq when he said diplomavy is the priority...then he went in to get burnt despite good friendly advice from people he deemed his enemies from within and without.
thats why, the point is this: people think bush is crying wolf again with the diplomacy thingy and that he would actually go into iran!
so in the end is not the "means" but rather the "ends" that makes bushey a genius!
:P:P:P:P
Absolutely.
As long as there are secular strongpoints within the Iranian political sphere, then the West (I'll keep that as a euphemism, as there are a number of co-conspirators), then it would seem to suit the hawks to consider any means of elevating them to control.
It doesn't matter how strong the Iranian military is. If it comes down to actual conflict, and the west applies apropriate resources, then the outcome is pre-determined. Not only that (and this, I think is pretty high in the planners' minds), taking out Iran, Syria, and a couple of others, denies insurgents the means to continue the Taliban-style destablising campaign that is active in Iraq.
It would be so much nicer if we could look at what is pissing these people off so much and started doing something 'positive' to deny the organisers of terrorists and unfriendly governments their troops through evidential counter-argumentation (if that makes any sense the way it's writ).
It is a terrible thing. It really is.
don't let "the west is evil" bother you too much as this is the propaganda war which is succeeding (even pentagon and the state department have admitted this) used by the really evil islamists as well as the far right in reverse propaganda to egg moderate westerners on.
don't go into iran, i would humbly advise in my insignificant way...the mullahs will be removed by their own people within a decade or so...and get on the right path.
but of course the genius/b-liar/blast-me tri-umphviate will...and the west will get stuck there and bleed like they did in vietnam and iraq.
I agree 100%