Ideas for a Middle East Plan

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, so I've been giving this a lot of thought since the thread was posted about Obama telling Israel to go back to the pre-1967 borders, and Nethanyahu's reaction to it. I stated with an off-the-cuff remark that Obama doesn't really have a plan for the ME.

Well of course, that got me thinking: What would my plan for the ME be? Well, it breaks down a few ways:

1. Israel: Okay, this was my first thought, obviously. I've referred to taking Israel off the leash, and that's pretty much my thought on it. If let to their own devices, Israel would take down Palestine, halting the violence in the area once and for all.This would actually increase the overall regional stability, and strengthen a nation that is actually our ally. and at the same time, reduce some of the power of the ME terror groups.

2. Saudi Arabia: We need, in all seriousness, to investigate this country, and their connection with 9/11. As Gabs posted a few days ago on another thread, 15 out of 19 of the terrorists were Saudis. That's not a coincidence, I can't help but feel.

3. Iraq: We need to finish shoring them up, and get the fuck out to let them finish building their country. Any continued involvement or alliance with them has to be contingent on their maintaining ideals that are basically in-line with our own.

Personally, which how much effort is really needed there, I would have just declared it a US Territory, and put our own people in charge at first, until we could work out a stable local government for them, and get people used to voting and such before handing over the reins. It would've been a hell of a lot easier, and more stable, with everyone knowing there was a direct chain of command in place.

4: Iran: This is the where we need to get tough, really tough. If Iran develops nukes, their first target is Israel, and that's their stated goal. We need to stop acting like we don't have the power to absolutely crush them. The basics of it boils down to informing them that, if they attack Israel, or give any support to those that do, we will consider it an act of war, as Israel is our ally. If they use nukes against Israel, we will make Shock & Awe look like we were just kicking sand in the Iraqis faces. If they are found to be supporting, aiding, or abetting terror groups threatening the US, we will consider it as an act of war. It's pretty simple: I have 90 days to take the whole thing over, and Iran is not that damn tough.


Basically, we need to stop being in-and-out over there. We have to start having a consistent message for what behavior we expect, and what we will not tolerate.

[fj1200]

Nice thread but first of all, you are dead wrong about BO and his ME peace plan; His plan is to speak in high-minded blather... because that always works. :laugh:

1. Israel. You presume we have them on a leash but I think they will do what is necessary. However they will not have peace with the Palestinians until the Palestinians have something to live for that is better than dying for against Israel; We should provide support to the Palestinians ON THE CONDITION THAT they institute policies that create economic freedom for its people.

2. Saudi Arabia. I don't think that they need to be investigated because I think we already know what we need to know. There are some that do not like the US but I don't see much that we can do to change their culture. I think this is more of a problem with our energy policy than it is with a Saudi policy. We like oil and they like our oil money.

3. Iraq. We need to stay and give them support as necessary. To do anything less would be to throw away the investment we have made in establishing a new democratic country in the ME.

4. Iran. Yikes. Nothing good can come out of this. We need to be ready to act decisively and be ready to work with the coming revolution.


Basically, we need to stop being in-and-out over there. We have to start having a consistent message for what behavior we expect, and what we will not tolerate.

I think you're dead on here. Bush IMO had a consistent message, or would have if things had gone better and wasn't being fought every step of the way by the opposing party, and would have meshed well with the recent uprisings. We could have put ourselves in a position to work with new governments and offer aid ON THE CONDITION THAT they were to institute policies that would create economic freedom for their peoples. Sensing a theme from me?

I hope that we're building up our intel on the region so we can make effective decisions when the time comes.

[DragonStryk72]

Nice thread but first of all, you are dead wrong about BO and his ME peace plan; His plan is to speak in high-minded blather... because that always works. :laugh:

1. Israel. You presume we have them on a leash but I think they will do what is necessary. However they will not have peace with the Palestinians until the Palestinians have something to live for that is better than dying for against Israel; We should provide support to the Palestinians ON THE CONDITION THAT they institute policies that create economic freedom for its people.

The problem is Palestine is absolutely dedicated to the destruction of Israel. They even have it written into their founding document. The only that's been slowing them down, really, is that they don't have the resources to wage war like Israel can. Doesn't seem to stop them from trying though.

We've made deals with Palestine before, and they've backed out on them when it suited them.

2. Saudi Arabia. I don't think that they need to be investigated because I think we already know what we need to know. There are some that do not like the US but I don't see much that we can do to change their culture. I think this is more of a problem with our energy policy than it is with a Saudi policy. We like oil and they like our oil money.

I want proof, and it is there if we look for it. As well, you said yourself fj, they like our oil money, so we need to take it away from them. I think they would notice more than a little if we started taking even just a significant portion of our money elsewhere.


3. Iraq. We need to stay and give them support as necessary. To do anything less would be to throw away the investment we have made in establishing a new democratic country in the ME.

Then we will never be out of there, because they will just lean on us as a crutch. We have to get it to where they can generally work things out for themselves and get out of the way. We weren't perfect at first,either, but France didn't stay in the country for years and years.

4. Iran. Yikes. Nothing good can come out of this. We need to be ready to act decisively and be ready to work with the coming revolution.

The problem with that is that unless we demonstrate some willingness to stop riding the fence, that revolution will not come, or it will start and fail.

I think you're dead on here. Bush IMO had a consistent message, or would have if things had gone better and wasn't being fought every step of the way by the opposing party, and would have meshed well with the recent uprisings. We could have put ourselves in a position to work with new governments and offer aid ON THE CONDITION THAT they were to institute policies that would create economic freedom for their peoples. Sensing a theme from me?

The problem is the way Bush put the message out there, as well as blowing the post-war.

I hope that we're building up our intel on the region so we can make effective decisions when the time comes.

Our intel is a lot better now than it used to be back when bush invaded Iraq, but he should have taken more time for recon before he dove in. This is where his message got garbled, because he skipped a lot of steps, and didn't do his due diligence, we ended up in an exploding cluster fuck, one that could have been seen with any degree of examination. It gave people the impression he was sort of ADD about the whole thing. He also suffered from point of never saying boo to the Saudis, who are in with his family's oil business.

[fj1200]

The problem is Palestine is absolutely dedicated to the destruction of Israel. They even have it written into their founding document. The only that's been slowing them down, really, is that they don't have the resources to wage war like Israel can. Doesn't seem to stop them from trying though.

We've made deals with Palestine before, and they've backed out on them when it suited them.

Granted to all of that which is why we need to incentivize them to offer better carrots to their people, jobs, progress, etc. instead of just a point of hatred. There are Arabs/Palestinians that live in Israel and have the privileges that come with living in a free society; that needs to be emphasized.


I want proof, and it is there if we look for it. As well, you said yourself fj, they like our oil money, so we need to take it away from them. I think they would notice more than a little if we started taking even just a significant portion of our money elsewhere.

Proof of what? I'm pretty sure they have the lowest cost of production, I don't see much benefit to going elsewhere just for the sake.


Then we will never be out of there, because they will just lean on us as a crutch. We have to get it to where they can generally work things out for themselves and get out of the way. We weren't perfect at first,either, but France didn't stay in the country for years and years.

We still have bases in Europe, Japan, the Phillipines, S. Korea... We apparently don't mind that so much. I don't see a problem with having a presence with an ally.


The problem with that is that unless we demonstrate some willingness to stop riding the fence, that revolution will not come, or it will start and fail.

Yup.


The problem is the way Bush put the message out there, as well as blowing the post-war.

Maybe.


Our intel is a lot better now than it used to be back when bush invaded Iraq, but he should have taken more time for recon before he dove in. This is where his message got garbled, because he skipped a lot of steps, and didn't do his due diligence, we ended up in an exploding cluster fuck, one that could have been seen with any degree of examination. It gave people the impression he was sort of ADD about the whole thing. He also suffered from point of never saying boo to the Saudis, who are in with his family's oil business.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Should he have foreseen that he would lose Democrat support in a matter of months?

[revelarts]

How can we be absolutely sure that if Iran gets a nuke they will use it against Israel?

Pakistan and Indian have nukes and they hate each others Guts but they have yet to use them.

Self preservation has a weird effect on people if Iran used Nukes on Israel they KNOW we would erase them with ours.


As far as the rest of the ME.

Out policy should be to get out and leave them the heck alone. who made us god to tell other countries what the heck to do.

we not doing crap about the ditators in Syria killing and jailing there own people. No one on this board has even mentioned it. We don't want it to happen but where are the crys for bombing and troops.
obama said this
The United States strongly condemns the Syrian government’s brutal repression of demonstrations, in particular the violence and killings of civilians at the hands of security forces. We reject the use of violence under any circumstances. We are also deeply troubled by blah blah blahh

Yeah right
But no NATO strikes? No spreadin democracy?

IMO
We need to support relief and use sanctions strategically, apply other humanitarian support and pressure on all these ME dictatorships. Not WAR.

the Suadis are crooks and AlQeada supporters they should be held accountable.

Our Ally Israel is to pushy and spies on us in ways that are unacceptable.
They need to be checked for it.

[revelarts]

Here somthing that comes to mind on questions like this.

China doesn't have bases all over the world and they get what they need.
the Russian don't either.

China doesn't seem like they are quaking in there boots about other people getting nukes either. Anybody going to attack them anytime soon? Or Russia?

Are they injecting troops or bombing anyone?

they don't need to neither do we.

Cold wars over folks no need to search for new dragons.

[fj1200]

IMO
We need to support relief and use sanctions strategically, apply other humanitarian support and pressure on all these ME dictatorships. Not WAR.

Why?


As far as the rest of the ME.

Out policy should be to get out and leave them the heck alone. who made us god to tell other countries what the heck to do.

[jimnyc]

2. Saudi Arabia: We need, in all seriousness, to investigate this country, and their connection with 9/11. As Gabs posted a few days ago on another thread, 15 out of 19 of the terrorists were Saudis. That's not a coincidence, I can't help but feel.

Agree here. While I think the problem emanated from more than just SA, there's little doubt in my mind as to whether or not there are terrorists in SA and being supported no less. Unfortunately, their money and oil are preventing us from beating the Muslim out of them. My stance is nuke the country and take everything, but some may see that as extreme.


4: Iran: This is the where we need to get tough, really tough. If Iran develops nukes, their first target is Israel, and that's their stated goal. We need to stop acting like we don't have the power to absolutely crush them. The basics of it boils down to informing them that, if they attack Israel, or give any support to those that do, we will consider it an act of war, as Israel is our ally. If they use nukes against Israel, we will make Shock & Awe look like we were just kicking sand in the Iraqis faces. If they are found to be supporting, aiding, or abetting terror groups threatening the US, we will consider it as an act of war. It's pretty simple: I have 90 days to take the whole thing over, and Iran is not that damn tough.

Agree here too. This country has been problematic and run by shitheads for far too long. They've been give far too long of a leash and many think they'll never cross that proverbial line - and it's going to be too late once they do. My stance is nuke the country and take everything, but some may see that as extreme.

[gabosaurus]

I don't see what the opposition to Israel pulling back to its 1967 borders is about. That has been the position stated by U.S. leaders (GOP and Dem) going back to the 70s. Most never stated it before Obama did.

If you still think Saudi Arabia is our friend and ally, you have had your head in the sand too long. The Saudis privately support terrorism. The House of Saud had words with the U.S. ambassador following the Sept. 11 attacks for not publicly condemning the attacks (many in the Saudi Royal family supported them).

When the original 9-11 commission came out, the Saudi government pressured the Bush administration to remove 200 pages that outlined the support (financial and otherwise) the 9-11 attackers got from the Saudi government. There were serious threats included serious cuts in oil productions and attacks on U.S. citizens living in the Saudi kingdom.

Israel is not our friend. They spy on us, support anti-American causes and are just as harsh as any terrorist group.

[jimnyc]

I don't see what the opposition to Israel pulling back to its 1967 borders is about. That has been the position stated by U.S. leaders (GOP and Dem) going back to the 70s.

Can you cite these leaders with proof to backup their positions as you state?

[DragonStryk72]

Granted to all of that which is why we need to incentivize them to offer better carrots to their people, jobs, progress, etc. instead of just a point of hatred. There are Arabs/Palestinians that live in Israel and have the privileges that come with living in a free society; that needs to be emphasized.

The problem is the assumption that there is a carrot that they'll accept. We've given incentives, and every time they start to do better, they jump on Israel again, Israel pounds them into the dirt, and get labeled as bullies.

Proof of what? I'm pretty sure they have the lowest cost of production, I don't see much benefit to going elsewhere just for the sake.

I wanna know how 15 out of the 19 people who hijacked planes on 9/11 were all from the same country. Think about it, if there was an arson, and more than 75% of the suspects live in the same apartment building, wouldn't you do a thourough search of the whole apartment?


We still have bases in Europe, Japan, the Phillipines, S. Korea... We apparently don't mind that so much. I don't see a problem with having a presence with an ally.

What I mean is, we will still be propping them up. We're not running S. Korea, nor are they expecting us to, and the Phillipines are a US Territory, so it's fine that we would have a base there, just like we have a base in Puerto Rico.

Maybe.
No real maybe here. He even admitted himself that he was a divider, not a uniter.


I'm not sure I agree with that. Should he have foreseen that he would lose Democrat support in a matter of months?

The Dems had nothing to do with him not securing anything in Iraq until we were in Baghdad, at the center of the forming cluster fuck. That was a tactical choice, and a clearly poor one at that. We should have secured as we went, making certain we could control any ground we took, not leaving it all open.

[DragonStryk72]

I don't see what the opposition to Israel pulling back to its 1967 borders is about. That has been the position stated by U.S. leaders (GOP and Dem) going back to the 70s. Most never stated it before Obama did.

So, wait... you know the secret, unstated positions or all our presidents since 1967? Even the ones you weren't alive for? Because if they never stated it, there's no evidence of the position, then.

However, to conquer the logical fallacy of the 1967 borders problem, it's pretty simple: because pre-1967, Palestine was trying to wipe out Israel in earnest, and the only way to stop them was to claim the territory that now make up the Israeli border. Giving it back just puts us back to needing to take it.

If you still think Saudi Arabia is our friend and ally, you have had your head in the sand too long. The Saudis privately support terrorism. The House of Saud had words with the U.S. ambassador following the Sept. 11 attacks for not publicly condemning the attacks (many in the Saudi Royal family supported them).

When the original 9-11 commission came out, the Saudi government pressured the Bush administration to remove 200 pages that outlined the support (financial and otherwise) the 9-11 attackers got from the Saudi government. There were serious threats included serious cuts in oil productions and attacks on U.S. citizens living in the Saudi kingdom.

Not that I doubt you here actually, but where you'd get that one? that would actually be proof of something more sinister.


Israel is not our friend. They spy on us, support anti-American causes and are just as harsh as any terrorist group.

Great, so where's the video of them cutting the head off of an innocent man? Gabs, you have no idea what the situation is over there. And really, they're not the happiest with us? Could it be because we stop them from defending themselves after having trained their troops to do just that?

And what anti-American causes, btw?

[fj1200]

The problem is the assumption that there is a carrot that they'll accept. We've given incentives, and every time they start to do better, they jump on Israel again, Israel pounds them into the dirt, and get labeled as bullies.

That's why the aid is tied to direct achievements of goals. If they don't accept it they don't have the option of accepting aid.


I wanna know how 15 out of the 19 people who hijacked planes on 9/11 were all from the same country. Think about it, if there was an arson, and more than 75% of the suspects live in the same apartment building, wouldn't you do a thourough search of the whole apartment?

Are you expecting to invade another sovereign nation to get the answers you want? And are you prepared to take action based on the answers you get?


What I mean is, we will still be propping them up. We're not running S. Korea, nor are they expecting us to, and the Phillipines are a US Territory, so it's fine that we would have a base there, just like we have a base in Puerto Rico.

The Phillipines are not a US territory and we've been after Abu Sayyaf there for quite some time. If we don't have reason to be in the ME then we don't have reason to have all the bases we do around the world.


No real maybe here. He even admitted himself that he was a divider, not a uniter.

I thought he was a uniter, not a divider. :doesGWBhandthing:


The Dems had nothing to do with him not securing anything in Iraq until we were in Baghdad, at the center of the forming cluster fuck. That was a tactical choice, and a clearly poor one at that. We should have secured as we went, making certain we could control any ground we took, not leaving it all open.

No question things could have been done differently but the Dems left the support for the invasion behind for political gain.

[DragonStryk72]

How can we be absolutely sure that if Iran gets a nuke they will use it against Israel?

Um, the fact that Iran has said they want to eradicate Israel? it's pretty straight forward

Pakistan and Indian have nukes and they hate each others Guts but they have yet to use them.

That's the point, they both have nukes. It's fall under the term MAD, which you have to admit is a damned fitting acronym. If one had nukes, and the other didn't? Whole different story.

Self preservation has a weird effect on people if Iran used Nukes on Israel they KNOW we would erase them with ours.

No we wouldn't, and certainly not under this president. Oh we'd be pissed off, but in general, we simply wouldn't nuke them. Fight a war to take control of the country yes, but nuke them, no.

As far as the rest of the ME.

Out policy should be to get out and leave them the heck alone. who made us god to tell other countries what the heck to do.

we not doing crap about the ditators in Syria killing and jailing there own people. No one on this board has even mentioned it. We don't want it to happen but where are the crys for bombing and troops.
obama said this

Yeah right
But no NATO strikes? No spreadin democracy?

Unfortunately, we're stuck in the ME, at least till we find either another way to fuel our cars, or find other more stable sources of oil at a reasonable price.

I hate to say it, but yeah, oil does matter in this instance. We simply can't afford to have an unstable region there. But even with that, Most of my plan is basically getting the hell out.

IMO
We need to support relief and use sanctions strategically, apply other humanitarian support and pressure on all these ME dictatorships. Not WAR.

Actually, that's most of what we do now. The problem there is that it doesn't seem to have changed anything. They simmer down for a little bit, and then they just jump up again later

the Suadis are crooks and AlQeada supporters they should be held accountable.

Not gettin any argument from me, here.

Our Ally Israel is to pushy and spies on us in ways that are unacceptable.
They need to be checked for it.

you know, if I were Israel, I'd spy on us too, god damn it. How many of our news networks talk about how bad Israel is? Wouldn't you be a little worried on that front? That they'll just get abandoned with multiple countries in the area that flat out hate them and want them dead?

[revelarts]

Why?

Why should we send troops either? Or try to control them in the imperialist ways you suggest.

the reason I'd like to see sanctions and asylum etc is
We have principals (shining light on a hill and all that) and can support efforts toward civility and punish tyranny without troops or bases IMHO.

Cold wars over folks.

[revelarts]

How can we be absolutely sure that if Iran gets a nuke they will use it against Israel?

Um, the fact that Iran has said they want to eradicate Israel? it's pretty straight forward
that 1 disputed quote is dragged out as an old dog of an excuse. It's not the whole of any Iranian policy or overall statements. there are very few ME countries that like having Israel there. BUt as you mention below MAD is an deterrent. and the Iranians won 't count on the U.S. to be wise and restrained. Unlike some in the U.S. most Iranian leaders believe the U.S. Invaded Iraq, that we're bombing Pakistan and now Libya for no dang good reason in there opinion. They don't have the high noble view of the U.S. Gov'ts that some here have.



Pakistan and Indian have nukes and they hate each others Guts but they have yet to use them.

That's the point, they both have nukes. It's fall under the term MAD, which you have to admit is a damned fitting acronym. If one had nukes, and the other didn't? Whole different story. Same story we are allies with Israel, all the treaties say an attack on one is and an attack on all. MAD. Iran knows it. they be crazy but not THAT crazy.


As far as the rest of the ME.

Out policy should be to get out and leave them the heck alone. who made us god to tell other countries what the heck to do.

we not doing crap about the dictators in Syria killing and jailing there own people. No one on this board has even mentioned it. We don't want it to happen but where are the crys for bombing and troops.
obama said this

Yeah right
But no NATO strikes? No spreadin democracy?

Unfortunately, we're stuck in the ME, at least till we find either another way to fuel our cars, or find other more stable sources of oil at a reasonable price.

I hate to say it, but yeah, oil does matter in this instance. We simply can't afford to have an unstable region there. But even with that, Most of my plan is basically getting the hell out.


Were not stuck, If the economy bottoms out well see how fast were out of there. As far as oil goes, even our ME enemies want to sell us oil. we're to big a customer not to sell. the KAlif is not in control it's white slave prostitute using pig eating dictators who run the oil and the spigot will not cut off. Plus as has been said in many other threads we have oil.


IMO
We need to support relief and use sanctions strategically, apply other humanitarian support and pressure on all these ME dictatorships. Not WAR.

Actually, that's most of what we do now. The problem there is that it doesn't seem to have changed anything. They simmer down for a little bit, and then they just jump up again later We don't do it with any consistency. Again look at Syria at this very moment. We support stability consistently not civility, democracy or human rights.


the Suadis are crooks and AlQeada supporters they should be held accountable.

Not gettin any argument from me, here.


Our Ally Israel is to pushy and spies on us in ways that are unacceptable.
They need to be checked for it.
you know, if I were Israel, I'd spy on us too, god damn it. How many of our news networks talk about how bad Israel is? Wouldn't you be a little worried on that front? That they'll just get abandoned with multiple countries in the area that flat out hate them and want them dead?


And that would just give the media another item to complain about.

Both the Israels and Palestinians and thier supporters are liars. Both sides have been caught in fabrications, cover ups and atrocities.
they play ultra hard ball but our ally need to know they need to play nice with us or they stand to lose something, simply as that. It's not much a a relationship if your girlfriend is reading all your e-mails, mail, phone calls and taking money out of your wallet and bank account then crying you hate me if you say stop stealing my freaking money.

[Gaffer]

MAD only works when both sides fear the consequences. Our present administration has proven themselves to be hesitant and afraid to take real action or responsibility. While they dither and talk iran is working with N. Korea to develop long range missiles. And they are rushing toward having nuclear warheads.

They, meaning the ones in charge, with all the control and power, believe a cataclysmic war will bring back their 12th imam, the mahdi to establish paradise on earth. The destruction of Israel is of paramount importance to them. And they have stated that the destruction of iran and most of the middle east is of little concern to their goals.

So explain to me how, under these circumstance MAD is a deterrent.

[revelarts]

MAD only works when both sides fear the consequences. Our present administration has proven themselves to be hesitant and afraid to take real action or responsibility. While they dither and talk iran is working with N. Korea to develop long range missiles. And they are rushing toward having nuclear warheads.

They, meaning the ones in charge, with all the control and power, believe a cataclysmic war will bring back their 12th imam, the mahdi to establish paradise on earth. The destruction of Israel is of paramount importance to them. And they have stated that the destruction of iran and most of the middle east is of little concern to their goals.

So explain to me how, under these circumstance MAD is a deterrent.

Gaffer, Dragon anyone.
I may be wrong here. please show me where Iran has stated that it's paramount goal to remove Israel. Please don't show me right wing opinions, Israeli commentary about a 1 sentence 10 years ago. But actual quotes of various Iranian leader saying they plan on destroying Israel. maybe a whole speech to that effect. In context please. Since it's Paramount, and a sure thing , the 1st thing they will do if they get a nuke It shouldn't be hard. Maybe a U.N speech, Or something. maybe some documents. there should be PLENTY with the level of assurance you guys seems to have.


I could be wrong but i need convincing cause I haven't seen it.

[Gaffer]

Gaffer, Dragon anyone.
I may be wrong here. please show me where Iran has stated that it's paramount goal to remove Israel. Please don't show me right wing opinions, Israeli commentary about a 1 sentence 10 years ago. But actual quotes of various Iranian leader saying they plan on destroying Israel. maybe a whole speech to that effect. In context please. Since it's Paramount, and a sure thing , the 1st thing they will do if they get a nuke It shouldn't be hard. Maybe a U.N speech, Or something. maybe some documents. there should be PLENTY with the level of assurance you guys seems to have.

I could be wrong but i need convincing cause I haven't seen it.


How many do you want?
http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/iran-threatens-israel-destruction-in-11-days/
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/iran/UN--North-Korea-Iran-Share-Ballistic-Missile-Technology---121856789.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3642984/Will-the-12th-Imam-cause-war-with-Iran.html
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/12th-imam.htm
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/05/vonheyking/twelfthimam.html

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/16/ahmadinejad-claims-egyptian-riots-work-of-12th-imam-muslim-messiah/

[fj1200]

Why should we send troops either? Or try to control them in the imperialist ways you suggest.

I was just exploring the seeming dichotomy of your position. What was imperialist about my position?


the reason I'd like to see sanctions and asylum etc is
We have principals (shining light on a hill and all that) and can support efforts toward civility and punish tyranny without troops or bases IMHO.

Cold wars over folks.

Sanctions don't work. Asylum? We do have principals and sitting on our hands may be detrimental in the long run.

You're right the cold war is over, our foreign policy shouldn't be based on opposition to another superpower as it has in the past which is why it needs to be brought into the 21st century. I think Bush was trying to do that.

[DragonStryk72]

that 1 disputed quote is dragged out as an old dog of an excuse. It's not the whole of any Iranian policy or overall statements. there are very few ME countries that like having Israel there. BUt as you mention below MAD is an deterrent. and the Iranians won 't count on the U.S. to be wise and restrained. Unlike some in the U.S. most Iranian leaders believe the U.S. Invaded Iraq, that we're bombing Pakistan and now Libya for no dang good reason in there opinion. They don't have the high noble view of the U.S. Gov'ts that some here have.

It doesn't have to be the whole of it. No regime has a pure "kill Israel" policy. What they will count on is exactly how we dealt with Afghanistan, when we were provoked by the deaths of our own people, and had more than enough excuse, and an aggresive President in the White House. Then there was Shock & Awe, where we did a massive, highly targeted strike.

Same story we are allies with Israel, all the treaties say an attack on one is and an attack on all. MAD. Iran knows it. they be crazy but not THAT crazy.

Yeah, except that we allow a lot of weedling on it. They're free somehow to support the groups that will and do go after Israel.

Were not stuck, If the economy bottoms out well see how fast were out of there. As far as oil goes, even our ME enemies want to sell us oil. we're to big a customer not to sell. the KAlif is not in control it's white slave prostitute using pig eating dictators who run the oil and the spigot will not cut off. Plus as has been said in many other threads we have oil.

Yeah, see, if the economy bottoms out, why would we suddenly not need any oil? Our own oil fields, even with potential ones, isn't enough to meet our needs, and they know this, which is why they so easily get away with upping the prices on us.

We don't do it with any consistency. Again look at Syria at this very moment. We support stability consistently not civility, democracy or human rights.


The problem is the Saddam run, that punk game he played for decades. He would abide by the sanctions for a while, bide his time, and then suddenly start opposing them until we absolutely force the issue. They can simply "agree" to the sanctions, let us get comfortable, then make a move. In this case, the UN is a serious problem, because they tend to get in the way when this crap happens.


And that would just give the media another item to complain about.

Both the Israels and Palestinians and thier supporters are liars. Both sides have been caught in fabrications, cover ups and atrocities.
they play ultra hard ball but our ally need to know they need to play nice with us or they stand to lose something, simply as that. It's not much a a relationship if your girlfriend is reading all your e-mails, mail, phone calls and taking money out of your wallet and bank account then crying you hate me if you say stop stealing my freaking money.

Yeah, but if you're actually cheating, she might just have a point in that paranoia, wouldn't she? And since when have they needed to steal our money? Seems we just voted to cover their entire budget deficit while we slip deeper into debt ourselves.

Yes, Israel is hard, and frankly, they have to be. We thought of Saddam as being this truly horrific person, but the fact is that, for that area, he was pretty damned tame. Why? Because he would just kill you. Israel's been on the precipice of war for more than four decades, it's enough to make anyone get a might techy. You can't expect them to be hounded constantly without hardening up.

[revelarts]

How many do you want?
http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/iran-threatens-israel-destruction-in-11-days/
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/iran/UN--North-Korea-Iran-Share-Ballistic-Missile-Technology---121856789.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3642984/Will-the-12th-Imam-cause-war-with-Iran.html
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/12th-imam.htm
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/05/vonheyking/twelfthimam.html

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/16/ahmadinejad-claims-egyptian-riots-work-of-12th-imam-muslim-messiah/

I read it all and I still don't see a written or spoken threat of nuclear war against Israel as a paramount goal.

the 1st one it seems that the statement was taken out of context the 11 days statement was preceded by the idea of a reaction against a Israeli attack that Iran could retaliate and "destroy Israel in 11 days".
from the same site
http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/latest-developments-on-11-days-to-israels-destruction/
Iranian Chief-of-Staff General Hassan Firouzabadi: “We are fully prepared to confront any attack that would threaten the interests of Iran. We have sufficient means and the necessary force to defend our territory.”

General Ataollah Salehi, general commander of the Iranian army: “The truth is that Israel does not have the courage to attack us. If we are subjected to any attack by Israel, I do not think we will need more than 11 days to wipe Israel out of existence.”

Voiceover: “Tehran denies that its military preparations are aimed at attacking any neighboring country. Iran justifies its military preparedness as a means to defend Iran and the region, which may alleviate the fears and concerns of countries in the region.”

“Our Military Capabilities Are Not Meant to Threaten the Neighboring Countries – But Only to Defend Iran” “Our military capabilities are not meant to threaten the neighboring countries, but only to defend Iran. Iran strives for peace, security, and stability with the countries in the region.”

the rest of of the info talks about the 12 iman and few of the Iranians leaderships possible adherence to the ideas of his return.
"Choas" "against the west" at one point it says that even Iran needs to be in chaos to for guy to show up. If that's the case then they might blow themselves up as well.
None of that talk was specific to Israel. Many -MOST- of the Iranian leadership doesn't even buy into the whole 12 Iman scenario it seems.
So even Chaos In the West doesn't seem paramount for them.
Or the 1st thing they'll do if they get nukes.
Aminajab is a religious guy, the glowing U.N. members bit is interesting. But doesn't translate into "I'm going to blow you up when i get a chance." I'll have to get a translation of what he said in the speech to help find out what significance the "glow" and "unblinking" may have meant to him.
And While I don't completely discount the whole 12th iman Choas all over the world idea Gaffer i do think that in geneeral it is overblown to take it as the end all and main focus of Irainian policy concerning the west. We need to be clear where that idea has influence but I don't think it's honest to assume that it is the PRIMARY moving force in Iranian politics. Some of what I read reminds me of things I read about Bush from the liberals. The ones who tried to say that Bush wanted to attack the middle east because he is a Born again Christian. and wanted to bring in the Apocalypse and the return of Jesus. They were convinced that was his REAL motivation and sited his relationship and support from some apocalyptic type preachers, some of his comments and "see BUSH mentioned God again He's CRAZY". I debated some of them in another forum. I had as much success convincing them that that wasn't Bush's main motivation as I expect I'll have convincing you that the 12th Iman is not the Iranian Leaderships PRIMARY motivation. And Shouldn't dictate our posture when dealing with them. But the complete context of ALL of their words and actions Over the Years. Since they've been a nation thet haven't attacked any country militarily. that defended an attack from Iraq in a full on war and that's it. They have sent materials to Hezbollah and other radical groups in the region but SO HAVE WE. Those actions don't constitute the level of choas talked about by the 12th iman stories but show us other political aims that we need to be clear about and deal with as needed IMO.

[revelarts]

I was just exploring the seeming dichotomy of your position. What was imperialist about my position?

.

I admit there was some Dichotomy there. that's true.

And rereading your post What you mention is a milder form of World influence. But the Coupling it with Bush's program of preemptive war etc turns it imperialist.


Sanctions don't work. Asylum? We do have principals and sitting on our hands may be detrimental in the long run.
Sanctions Aren't the best tool but they have worked from time to time. Targeting the right issues or items is the most important thing. Asylum yes for folks running from jail torture and death. Usually Bombing people is detrimental in the short and long run.



You're right the cold war is over, our foreign policy shouldn't be based on opposition to another superpower as it has in the past which is why it needs to be brought into the 21st century. I think Bush was trying to do that.
Yes he was,
In all the wrong ways

[fj1200]

I admit there was some Dichotomy there. that's true.

And rereading your post What you mention is a milder form of World influence. But the Coupling it with Bush's program of preemptive war etc turns it imperialist.

Imperialism nonexistent. Not to mention that would require my acceptance of your premise from other threads.
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imperialist)

My world influence only supports the ideals that we believe in. Democracy, economic freedom...


Sanctions Aren't the best tool but they have worked from time to time. Targeting the right issues or items is the most important thing. Asylum yes for folks running from jail torture and death. Usually Bombing people is detrimental in the short and long run.

Sanctions don't work, they hurt the people and not the leaders. And asylum is not a foreign policy. You're targeting of issues and items is no different than mine.


Yes he was,
In all the wrong ways

Disagree, that premise thing again.