http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/18834.html

Why does this not suprise me? guess they cant help themselves from going for the trifecta.

The tone of that article has "damned if we do and damned if we don't" feel about it...

Bush said:"One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for . . . people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices), that kill Americans in Iraq," he said.Remember how once upon a time the Iraqis were an imminent danger to the US, possessing a dangerously sophisticated WMD program and the will to use it against us? Now they can't build a roadside bomb without the Iranian's help. As I recall, however, examination of a cache of IEDs revealed parts with origins from all over the Middle East.
"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential.""Full economic potential?" Asked about that, Bush said he hadn't been briefed on the meeting. "Now if the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart-to-heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive. I don't think he in his heart of hearts thinks they're constructive either," he said.This reminds me of Bush looking into Putin's soul and seeing a good man (to which Powell reportedly replied, "Sir, I looked into Mr. Putin's soul and saw the KGB."). But then, it's no surprise that the Shiite majority would receive support from Iran. I wonder if and how much of the alleged Quds involvement comes with Maliki's knowledge.

There is indeed a "damned if you do/don't" quality to all this, but without political progress the military situation is at best a costly stalemate. Since the beginning, we've heard that "the next X months (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/08/timeline.html/)" are crucial from pundits, politicians and military brass. Four years later, the situation only continues to degenerate.

"Full economic potential?"

I read that US oil and mining interests in full control of your assets.

Sigh.... Looks like I am going to have to start paying more attention to Politics :(

"Full economic potential?"

I think its time for another Operation Ajax! :p

Sigh.... Looks like I am going to have to start paying more attention to Politics :(

What Bush and Cheney engage in has nothing to do with politics. You would do better reading up on some of the other nations that have been taken over and had a police state imposed, and look at the parallels to the machinations of Bush/Cheney, and the varied actions they have taken and/or endorsed up to now.

That was my reaction - we've become that country that keeps invading other countries now. And as I recall, it usually doesn't end well for the agressor in these stories.

What's worst case? President and VP order strikes against Iran right before they leave office? I'm thinking today that all I want in a presidential candidate is someone who will get us the hell out of the region.

You just know Cheney is applying constant pressure for this.

Classic "Dig yourself out of that hole" tactic.

But honestly... what do we really have to lose?
Sure, more American soliders, but these fuckers have already shown they dont give a damn about them. Walter Reed? Up-Armored Hummvies? Body Armor?
Money? Might as well spend it on something useful like a war before those evil libs wind up spending on Health Care or some other foolishness.
International Standing? >guffaw< After Gitmo, Abu Ghirab, Hadifa, ect.. Invading Iran might actually IMPROVE relations to the point where we they would let us tear down 15 levels of the United Nations.
Driving up oil prices? Excellent, maybe thatll put enough pressure on the Environment Wackos to let the oil companies start slant drilling under Redwoods using baby seals as augers.

Its all connected!

Kudos for to Tom Delay for making the strong case that the reason for Illegal Immigration is legal abortions, now if we can just connect those to Terrorism --> Iraq --> Iran, we win a Medal of Freedom!

That was my reaction - we've become that country that keeps invading other countries now. And as I recall, it usually doesn't end well for the agressor in these stories.
Like those crazy Protestants that invaded the American Indians and started their own colonies. Oh, wait! Har har.

Medal of Freedom!

LOL

Like those crazy Protestants that invaded the American Indians and started their own colonies. Oh, wait! Har har.Har har indeed. I was thinking a bit more recent than that, but fair enough. I would hope that in the evolution of a civilization we might eventually move past this level of stupidity.

Cheney scares the crap out of me.

Like those crazy Protestants that invaded the American Indians and started their own colonies. Oh, wait! Har har.

Oh? Is this what this is? Manifest Destiny: Act 3?

The unfortunate problem with this is, someone (or some group) is aiding the insurgency here in Iraq from Iran. Whether or not it is state sponsored is the question. If it is, well then somethign should be done about it. Preferably diplomatic, but from the looks of it, that will not be the option chosen.

Iranians are in Iraq. Along with Saudis, Jordanians, Syrians and who knows who else. Many Saudis, though. Our Shiite allies in Iraq are on friendly terms with the Iranians, and we have sympathies with would be reformers in that nation. Sunnis in Iraq have been killing us, but some are now taking an allied stance. And we have another 190,000 unaccounted for weapons in Iraq. And the bloke that started this all is sheltered somewhere in Pakistan.

Whole thing is a bloody mess, and just who our allies are is consistently unclear.

But I think pulling out completely and not being involved in anything that happens is the Middle East is almost as bad, or worse, than being there.
I think what we really need is a map of the religious factions' geographical occupation over there, rather than using the national borders as a method to determine who we are fighting.
Perhaps that is the reason why we can't figure out who our enemies are over there...

Iranians are in Iraq. Along with Saudis, Jordanians, Syrians and who knows who else. Many Saudis, though. Our Shiite allies in Iraq are on friendly terms with the Iranians, and we have sympathies with would be reformers in that nation. Sunnis in Iraq have been killing us, but some are now taking an allied stance. And we have another 190,000 unaccounted for weapons in Iraq. And the bloke that started this all is sheltered somewhere in Pakistan.

Whole thing is a bloody mess, and just who our allies are is consistently unclear.
And somewhere in there you could add to that list Russia, North Korea, China and a handfull of others.

And somewhere in there you could add to that list Russia, North Korea, China and a handfull of others.

Aahhh, yes. We really have to look at who the target's trading partners are, in this day and age. Trading partners too often become armed allies, when trade is disrupted; and, oil being the primary commodity here (along with the weapons trade with all three of the named countries) we would most likely have a very hostile body of nations lined up against us, should we do a Cheney on Iran.

I think what we really need is a map of the religious factions' geographical occupation over there, rather than using the national borders as a method to determine who we are fighting.This should have been done before the fighting started (as you seem to recognize). Our foray into the political process has demonstrated that we don't know who our friends are and, very likely, we don't have any at all except those who would leverage our power against their own foes.

No one has said we shouldn't be involved over there. We should, in some capacity. But our military mission is a dead ender without political progress, and the political situation -- ever tenuous -- seems only to be deteriorating daily. The escalation was supposed to provide stable footing for the political situation to right itself. Thus far, it doesn't seem to be working.

We're already stretched thin and sinking an ungodly amount of resources into Iraq, could we even handle a sustained conflict in both countries, let alone their trading partners? Or should I start learning Chinese and Russian now?

It will take years to undo the damage Bush/Cheney have done to this country politically and in the eyes of the world.

It will take years to undo the damage Bush/Cheney have done to this country politically and in the eyes of the world.


Decades!!!!!

should I start learning Chinese and Russian now?


OH HELL NO!!!!!!
We may be divided,bitchy,bitter,argumentative and seemingly in complete disarray at the moment.
it's the price and the line that comes with bieng a democratic people. we will live in internal strife and disagreement most of the time. Butt.....
I dare you China I F'ing dare you to put your troops on american soil. go ahead give us a reason to stand shoulder to shoulder. let us look each other in the eye and instead of pointing fingers and saying with vehemence democrat/liberal, republican/conservitive, give us a reason to look at each other and say brother!
*moment of patriotic ferverance off*

OH HELL NO!!!!!!
We may be divided,bitchy,bitter,argumentative and seemingly in complete disarray at the moment.
it's the price and the line that comes with bieng a democratic people. we will live in internal strife and disagreement most of the time. Butt.....
I dare you China I F'ing dare you to put your troops on american soil. go ahead give us a reason to stand shoulder to shoulder. let us look each other in the eye and instead of pointing fingers and saying with vehemence democrat/liberal, republican/conservitive, give us a reason to look at each other and say brother!
*moment of patriotic ferverance off*

Yes, invading America would bring folks together. Just look at the last time, when Iranian militants invaded the American Embassy in Tehran, which is technically American soil, and killed and kidnapped American citizens. That really rallied the nation, and brought out the patriotism of folks; we even went so far as a global community to impose sanctions against doing business with that country.

Of course, all except Cheney and his money grubbing big business buddies who set up dummy offices off-shore and lined their pockets with Iranian money. Interesting he now advocates attacking them; did they default on some payments?

(Bold in quote is mine)

You don't have to think as far back as the Irainian incident. I am fairly certain 911 pushed a few buttons with in people of this country. I know it did mine.

That's funny, there was a pro-American demonstration after 9/11 in Tehran, too.

Decades!!!!!Centuries!!!!!!!

You don't have to think as far back as the Irainian incident. I am fairly certain 911 pushed a few buttons with in people of this country. I know it did mine.This is true, but realistically if our troops are spread thin already (saw a snippit on the AP that one of Bush's ad visors said the word 'draft' - at least Bush is against that), and financing for Iraq has become a real challenge. Couple that with infrastructure problems in this country, then let your imagination run wild. Really wild, but we are running around with our pants down.

I think the bigger hit is how we're viewed in the rest of the world. What will we lose in terms of opportunities when no one takes us seriously, especially with countries like Russia starting to play Cold War games?

You don't have to think as far back as the Irainian incident. I am fairly certain 911 pushed a few buttons with in people of this country. I know it did mine.

While I agree with the effects this attack produced, it was not a country invading us, but a group of criminals. Hence, why I cited the last incident of a country attacking.

Kanyli:(saw a snippit on the AP that one of Bush's ad visors said the word 'draft' - at least Bush is against that)This was Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, Bush's "war czar." Since his taking up the post, Lute had been entirely out of sight and gone unmentioned by the administration. Not sure if he's lying low while acclimating to his rather jury-rigged position or what. Anyway, this is what he said:"I think it makes sense to certainly consider [the draft]," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a "major policy shift" and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.

Kanyli wrote:I think the bigger hit is how we're viewed in the rest of the world. What will we lose in terms of opportunities when no one takes us seriously, especially with countries like Russia starting to play Cold War games?It's difficult to forward an international agenda when your name and offered support prompt a surge against you and your allies. Opposition to Bush's foreign policy has resulted in a number of political defeats (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/world/middleeast/10arab.html?ex=1344398400&en=4ff922743903a681&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) to would be allies. “It’s the kiss of death,” said Turki al-Rasheed, a Saudi reformer who watched last Sunday’s elections closely. “The minute you are counted on or backed by the Americans, kiss it goodbye, you will never win.”
The paradox of American policy in the Middle East — promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the West — is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose.

The only way I can concieve of us ever having any hope of regime change in the Middle East is to make it look like we aren't having any influence over there at all.
Maybe we can convince the people that are Anti-American that the ultra-conservative Mullahs are in fact backed by the Americans....
Political Judo, if you will....

Who replaced Sixee with this inexplicably shrewd doppelganger?

There's a time for using a hammer, and a time for using a feather...
And thanks for the compliment....I think?

Who replaced Sixee with this inexplicably shrewd doppelganger?

Maybe it was a switch to decaf?

How easy we forget the hostage situation in Iran during the Jimmy Carter years.

The USS Cole and a mirage of other attacks verse the US in the last 20-30 years. So it takes a 9/11 to make people go shit lets kick there ass. Until the media tells them that is isnt worth it anymore. This country was based on beliefs of freedom, maybe those freedoms aren't always the most popular they stand upon a tradition and belief that all men are equal. We can blame Halo and the Brits for messing Irag up when they pulled out in the late 40s and 50s and they wonder why there still there. The Russians for Afganistan. The Saudias for just not doing the right thing.

We need more war its great for ratings and the stock market, So Iran is next or So, Korea.

More War????

Easy to say when your sitting at your desk in your cushy computer chair typing with one hand while eating a burger with the other...

We can blame Halo and the Brits for messing Irag up when they pulled out in the late 40s and 50s and they wonder why there still there.

Yeah, damn them for ending their imperialist ways, damn them!!:rolleyes:

The Russians for Afganistan.

Damn them for installing that terrorist Taliban Government, damn them!!

...what's that? they didn't? The Taliban took over after the Russians left? Oh, okay...nevermind.

The Saudias for just not doing the right thing.

Our wonderful allies in Mid-East, yeah Saudis!!

....what? oh he said "not" doing the right thing. Okay, nevermind.

We need more war its great for ratings and the stock market, So Iran is next or So, Korea.

I think I can sum this satement up in three letters:

d-d-d (think, Carlos Mencia)

Im a vet. I was there for desert storm, Should of finished the job then. But in reality it would of cost alot more lives without the sanctions imposed for 10 years to us finally going in and no 9/11 to put a candle in the cake.

WMD he had a program it wasnt running at the development level and bombs werent sitting on kitchen tables when the soldiers walked in but the plans and components to build them again were.

Do I want my friends kids and my nephews running off to fight in a war hell no. but I want there kids and mine to grow up in a world were we arent all marked with an internal id card to move and be scanned to step on a bus.

To sit and look back and say oh yeah we got duped or this war is abotu shit is what pisses me off. Plenty of posts above show what there patriotic fevor was at for sometime. Now to complain it costs to much and isnt worth it, peserverance is a bitch. Society has changed dramatically what we pay for and under go on a daily basis is completly different.

These terrorists arent going to stop, each milestone they make to remove a liberty or democratic right be it illegal aliens to boarding a plane is shaping our world. To walk away is pointless to the entire effort and everyone who has sweated and bleed for the cause.

There was about as many terrorists coming out of Iraq pre 911 as was coming out of California. To say fighting the war in Iraq is a good thing just shows exactly what you know. WMD?!!!!! LOL.

These terrorists arent going to stop, each milestone they make to remove a liberty or democratic right be it illegal aliens to boarding a plane is shaping our world. To walk away is pointless to the entire effort and everyone who has sweated and bleed for the cause.The terrorists might not stop, but that's no reason to encourage their recruitment. Terrorists cannot remove our liberties or democratic rights -- only our rulers can do so, and only we can prevent it. No one is calling to walk away, only to shift to a productive battleground (just as we shifted from Afghanistan to the unproductive mess in Iraq).

Im a vet. I was there for desert storm, Should of finished the job then. But in reality it would of cost alot more lives without the sanctions imposed for 10 years to us finally going in and no 9/11 to put a candle in the cake.

Cheney agrees with you! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I) It is interesting watching that video from '94, when the Repubs just didn't have the political capital or global justification to wage a long war in Iraq, and then taking a good, hard, long look around us today.

I'm not sure that we can judge exactly how many more lives it would have cost at the time. Yes, certainly an extended military action would have cost more lives, but we were there, we were steamrolling through the country and the standing army was routing.

Iraq was caught on their heels- we surprised the /hell/ out of them. There might not have been time for insurgents to organize- most certainly not to the levels they have today. All things considered, it might have been the better plan. It certainly would have saved thousands of Kurds, who were slaughtered en masse after we encouraged them to rebel then split without giving them any support.

We can play "what if" all day long, and it won't change a damn thing happening now, though.

Im a vet. I was there for desert storm, Should of finished the job then. But in reality it would of cost alot more lives without the sanctions imposed for 10 years to us finally going in and no 9/11 to put a candle in the cake.

WMD he had a program it wasnt running at the development level and bombs werent sitting on kitchen tables when the soldiers walked in but the plans and components to build them again were.

Do I want my friends kids and my nephews running off to fight in a war hell no. but I want there kids and mine to grow up in a world were we arent all marked with an internal id card to move and be scanned to step on a bus.

To sit and look back and say oh yeah we got duped or this war is abotu shit is what pisses me off. Plenty of posts above show what there patriotic fevor was at for sometime. Now to complain it costs to much and isnt worth it, peserverance is a bitch. Society has changed dramatically what we pay for and under go on a daily basis is completly different.

These terrorists arent going to stop, each milestone they make to remove a liberty or democratic right be it illegal aliens to boarding a plane is shaping our world. To walk away is pointless to the entire effort and everyone who has sweated and bleed for the cause.

Ignorant people seem to think that attacking a country that has not attacked you stops terrorism, when in fact, every bomb we drop should be considered a Terrorist seed that grows new terrorists to deal with.

Terrorism doesnt have a location, it doesnt pick a country and stay there... Terrorism is born and spread through the radio, Television, and Word of mouth.

How is it so easily spread? It is spread so easily because injustice causes patriotism. Just like 9/11 caused so many Americans to band together with anger, So does a bomb being dropped on Iraq, cause more people to fight back against the people responsible.

As backward as this sounds, We have more in common with the terrorists then we think. There are some prime differences, which would be that we cannot purposely kill civilians and let people find out about it, or we lose our credibility. However, the terrorists do not feel bound to the same morals.

In the end, we both will fight untill we win, and sadly it will never end if we continue the killing. Revenge has as steep a price as does heartless murder.

So we should educate the people trying to kill us?
This brings me back to the covert operations suggestion I made, earlier.
Perhaps we should use our own "Arab-American" resources to help spread change in the Middle East.
Or do an Middle Eastern Exchange program where we have them come live in America for a year, then go back home to "Spread the word".
I'd suggest having Americans do the same in reverse, but you know how well that would go over....

So we should educate the people trying to kill us?Those who most want to kill us are getting their education in the Iraq and Afghanistan training grounds.
Or do an Middle Eastern Exchange program where we have them come live in America for a year, then go back home to "Spread the word".So we should educate the people trying to kill us? ;)

America leads best when it leads by example. While historically the US has had its share of Bad Ideas, we've maintained enough global political capital to continue as credible leaders of the free world. Unfortunately, the current administration didn't understand that or didn't care, and our credibility is at low ebb.

In the Middle East, and elsewhere, the Word isn't best spread by those who have lived here, I think, since they're only "corrupted by the great Satan" or whatever. Rather, it's best projected outward, so that those who have only heard of the country see what we stand for, identify with those principles, and seed them in their own lands.

Rather, it's best projected outward, so that those who have only heard of the country see what we stand for, identify with those principles, and seed them in their own lands.

While I think that's a noble way of doing things, there are too many different ways to interpert the same actions.

Americans see themselves as trying to help the Iraqi people out, and cannot understand why they are acting the way they are. We are sending our sons and daughters to Iraq, isn't that proof of how much we care?

Iraqi militants see us as "Invading Crusaders". They are being told they need to drive out the invaders.
Isn't the presence of the "American Infidels" proof of that?

2 Different conclusions, drawn on the same actions of sending American Armed forces into the Middle East.

There will always be people who will oppose what the United States does, no matter what.

The Iraq War was a bad idea, badly planned and badly executed, so it's not a terribly effective counter to my point. Also, nothing I said suggested that we need to please all the people all the time. We don't -- our lessons need to be the lessons of freedom, progress, opportunity, etc. for all Americans (generalized to all the world). We certainly don't need to be role models for this guy (http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/Zimbabwe/2007-08-03-voa58.cfm).

Ahh, but he's just emulating GW....
At least he signed a bill, and his people are aware of it.
How many others in the world just eavesdrop anyways, without signing anything at all?
Also, what we percieve as freedom, progress, opportunity, ect., others see as wickedness, perversion, and blasphemy.

There is an Islamic saying: "By the will of Allah."
It means if Allah favors something, it will happen.
The scary part is a lot of these people see themselves as the will of Allah.
If thier god is all powerful, he will stop something from happening.

Case in point, United flight 93. It crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, instead of the original target in Washington DC.
Some Americans speculate that it was the passengers who decided to stop the terrorists with the rallying cry "Let's Roll".
If you asked someone of a fundamental Islamic sect, they would tell you, it was not Allah's will that the airplane reach it's intended target. Allah's will is beyond our comprehension, ect, ect.

You are right, we can't please all of the people, all of the time. the question is, who is it we should be pleasing, or appeasing?

That's a matter for the government to decide, but at its best, it flows from the core principles of our nation's founding documents.

That's a matter for the government to decide, but at its best, it flows from the core principles of our nation's founding documents.

Our goverment and majority decided to go into this war, Bush could only with presidential power keep it going for 6 months max, it took congress to let it go further.

The goverement and people spoke now they speak differently because things are never what they seem. But to pull out and abandon people to genocide and other cruelties isnt really an option either.

The war on terror has many fronts but when bombs from Iran are killing people shouldnt we be concerned where they come from and how to stop the flow ?

Our goverment and majority decided to go into this war, Bush could only with presidential power keep it going for 6 months max, it took congress to let it go further. Not exactly in accord with what I've said, however.

The goverement and people spoke now they speak differently because things are never what they seem. But to pull out and abandon people to genocide and other cruelties isnt really an option either. As opposed to getting in between the various factions and their genocide and cruelties. Our presence isn't terribly helpful and may even be hurtful.

The war on terror has many fronts but when bombs from Iran are killing people shouldnt we be concerned where they come from and how to stop the flow ?Iraq had nothing to do with our "war on terror;" I think actual terrorist involvement now has quite a bit to do with our presence. We've already discovered a cache of IEDs and found that the parts came from all over the Middle East. I'd be careful of accepting at face value the charges regarding Iran -- we've been down this path before, and war hawks want to take us down again, and further.

Perhaps Prime Minister Maliki could tell us more about Iranian involvement; he's been in Tehran recently enough conferring with his allies.

nekko, stay off the lieberman koolaid =(

Cheney agrees with you! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I) It is interesting watching that video from '94, when the Repubs just didn't have the political capital or global justification to wage a long war in Iraq, and then taking a good, hard, long look around us today.Likewise, in 1998, Halliburton CEO Cheney had different ideas about engaging and confronting Iran (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/08/16/invasion-of-the-cheney-snatchers/) than he holds today. [The video is that which Esbat posted -- see the transcript below it]