[justin85]

valinors_sorrow, I agree. I definitely think religion has a far greater role than oil and land. That is why the fighting existed in the Middle East before official boundaries and massive oil consumption existed, and why it continues to this day.

A large majority of wars throughout history were caused at least partially by religion. (All the more reason to be Atheist :P )

Even with our own presence in the Middle East, I cannot stand when I hear people say "Iraq is a war for oil," as it is totally unjustified and unwarranted. We obviously do have great interest in oil, but the war in Iraq gave / gives little, if any, benefit to our oil industry.

[Morganite]

Hello:

Is Bush going to attack Iran? Should he? I think he is. I'm not sure whether he should or not. I don't want them to have a bomb, but who am I? Their enemy's have 'em. Of course, they want one. If we attack them, they're gonna strike us back - and they CAN. Iran is NOT Iraq.

excon

Only a fool woul attack Iran now or in the near future, so Bush needs close watching.

Should he? Only mif he uis sure they can launch WMDs againt the US within 45 minutes. Oh, on second thoughts, perhaps we ought not to put our trust in that one again.

If I was Iranian I might want a bomb, but they say they want nuclear fuel for domestic use, so why not trust them?

Where are we now? Oh, yes: Facts: the US does not have massive foreign support, even from the UK, and other nations' support in Iraq is tokenal where it exists at all. If GWB were to take all the US troops out of Afghanistan ("Mission Not Accomplished") and all the US troops out of Eerack ("Mission NOT Accomplished") there are still insufficient, personnel, weapons, ordnance, and support equipment available to mount more than a pin prick against the vast land mass of Iran.

Besides which, every good general knows that patient enemies will waith until you are exhausted, undersupplied, and overextended before launching a massive attack on your positions, so Bush needs to stand down and let someone with some understanding of foreign policy, middle east affairs, military strategy, logistics, and diplomacy get his body into the White House and into the seat of decisions before he offers the US and its people as a sacrificial lamb to an increasingly bold global terrorist network who will stop at nothing to punish the US for what it considers to be its crimes against Islam and humanity.

There has been enough hot air from this man to fill the upper atmosphere, enough sabre rattling rhetoric to sicken seasoned soldeirs, and enough excuses to keep millions of failing schoolchildren going for centuries without repeating one of them.

How would Americans feel if someone said to them, "If you make the atomic bomb we will obliterate you"? How would Americans feel is domeone else dictated their foreign policy, or decided who should leave the White House, and who could go into it? How would Americans feel if other nations decided they did not like the American way of life and used tons and tons and megatons of high explosives to get them to change their minds?

Why does anyone think that America is always right and non-Americans always wrong? Why does America call itself the greatest democracy in the world, when it is but one democratic country among others, some of which enjoy at least equal if not greater freedoms. When will Americans stop playing the part of a global bully and quietly and humbly take its place among the nations, insteading of trying to lord it over other countries?

Just in case this ruffles any feathers, I will state that I do not hate or dislike America, although I hate what it has come to stand for through the faltering hands of this present WH incumbent. and I claim my Constitutional right to say so in tis great democracy. It is time the USA looked at itself critically in the mirror of the wider world.

It is certainly no secret that US military forces are already operating in Iran. You can Google articles going back two or three years outlining various covert, and not so covert, operations.

It is certainly no secret that the US will expand the war to other nations that are "on the top of the list" as Cheney puts it.

Should or shouldn't don't matter anymore... the US policy is to "stay the course" ...

Staying the course when the course is futile is lunacy. Sheer lunacy. No one knows what 'staying the course' means, no on eknows what 'victory in Iraq' means, or how we will know when the course is done and the victory sure. It is fine to echo mindless rhetoric but our forces are paying with their limbs, their minds, and their lives. When was in military service no one guaranteed that my efforts would be in vain or even purposeful. You win some, you lose some, and that's the way it is.

High school kids found with hit lists are tried as felons. How about George and 's list?

Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think invading Iran would be nearly that easy. Also, invading a country, destroying all of their defenses and leaving immediately would not be well supported by many countries imho, even if they are a threat.

Quite right. The suggestion he made is simplistic. Typical of Bush and his adoring fans. What is signaslly lacking is any notion that invading Iran on any level would be done without some backlash from anyone? To get away scot free you have to make sure that no one knows who done it!

We will fight the Iranians sooner or later. I advocate a first strike to take them down. A surprise first strike will minimize our casualties. However, I don't think we should occupy Iran, just take their leadership out, destroy their weapons and any WMD capability. Once this is accomplished, we should leave immediately to avoid an insurrection. Believe me, we have already drawn the plans. The question is will Bush press the button?

So, is your military plan a bunch of pre-emptive strikes against all who look askance at the US?

Does your attack list include Venezuela, Cuba, China, Indonesia, N Korea, and every other nation that holds a grudge against us? If so, then I conclude that you are either in the business of manufacturing or supplying military armaments and equipment. Those engaged in those and similar occupations ought not to influence a nations policies because they have too great a vested interest in death and destruction.

Winnie said, "Jaw-jaw is better than War-war!" How about talking, diplomacy, and peacemaking?





:eek:

[valinors_sorrow]

Just as an interesting sidebar, for those who think and speak of there being no world peace, I say wait a minute... I have world peace, my world is peaceful! The only war worth fighting is the one between me and me and I won that one a long time ago. If anyone doesn't get the power in that simple, ancient and immutable law, then I would suggest rereading whatever spiritual scriptures one is inclined to trust -- its all in there.

[Morganite]

Just as an interesting sidebar, for those who think and speak of there being no world peace, I say wait a minute.... I have world peace, my world is peaceful! The only war worth fighting is the one between me and me and I won that one a long time ago. If anyone doesn't get the power in that simple, ancient and immutable law, then I would suggest rereading whatever spiritual scriptures one is inclined to trust -- its all in there.

Perhaps so, but YOUR world is not the whole world. You do not live in Darfur, Iraq, Indonesia, Australia, England, USA, etc, etc, etc, where there are despots, murders, druggies, crime, torture, and persecution, etc, etc, etc.. A 'world' that is unaware of or fails to admit the awful lots endured by many of their their fellow human beings is a delusion and is not in accord with reality.

What did Jesus mean when he said, "Bear ye one another's burdens" and "Be In the world but not OF it"? As Donne wrote, "Each man's death diminishes me because I am involved in Humanity." Every Christian that folows Jesus is also involved in humanity. The peace a Christian knows is the assurance of his hopes even in the midst of the trumoils and troubles in the midst of which he or she lives.

There are other wars to be fought besides our own internal or spiritual struggles, and these are the wars that disturb the lives and peace of our fellow beings. We cannot withdraw from these conflict and pretend they do not exist. The example Jesus set for those who would follow him, is to be prepared to give their lives for their brothers and sisters if necessary.

Jesus said "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Jesus told his disciples that they were to "avoid the leaven of the Pharisees," but also that they were the leaven of the world. Leaven can do no good whether in the world or in dough unless it takes and active part in either. Having peace wihtin ourselves relative to our relationship to God and Jesus is something to be sought after, but we should remain enganed in the world and in the troubles of others that we might do all we can to secure peace for them, even against insurmountable odds.

If not me, who? If not now, when?

"I mhave a rendezvous with death at some disputed barricade."

As the world becomes smaller, it becomes easier to see the elements at work. I am one who is very impressed by Punk's explanation. Sounds like someone paying attention to me. I would add only this. I believe its far more than national interest fueling this. The three faiths of Abraham are equally as woven into this as well and that cannot be ignored without consequences.

In very simplistic terms, I trust that sooner or later the Muslims and Christians will really go at it with the Jews watching from the sides. Sheer numbers in terms resources of these respective faiths makes this possible. Oh it may be hidden behind national interest but nothing has fueled more fighting over all of mankind's history than religious differences and the vast cultural differences those always bring with them. Religion is the first real politics born to humankind.

The question is, if that fight is a given-- is now the time to have it? Or to use a model from the recovery industry, is there any way to attempt an "outside intervention" or does it have to hit bottom first for everyone to figure out that fighting like this is disappearing as a sane means of solving things due to almost unstoppable worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Those who's way of life is disappearing will always fight to the death and do anything they possible can since they virtually have nothing to lose. So the question to ask is how do we stop the encroaching of one culture on another? Stop the proliferation of those religions that claim a right to that. And its amazing to me that I see many many many people all over the world beginning to look at the amazing connections to religious arrogance this all has. Changes are occuring there as we speak!

You may tell yourself its about oil or land or even nations. I think its also about deeply entrenched religious prejudices. Even religious prejudices that would keep Iraq fractured can and are likely to be orchestrated by bigger more sophisticated versions of the same thing. It can pattern much like a fractal, really. But it takes a world view to see it. All we need is the majority of people on earth to learn to respect differences and we may have a fighting chance at the human race surviving ourselves. Otherwise the two that go at it ensure that we all hit bottom together and who knows who survives then. We conduct wars like an alkie promises never to drink again the next miserable morning -- "Oh this is the last time!" LOL

I don't think any of the politicians (either side) involved with this see beyond that which suits them, which is a really poor strategy in any fight.

Are you familiar with ":Infidels" by Ayeen Hirsi Ali, a Somali scholar now living in the USA? I believe you will find it a rewarding read.

[valinors_sorrow]

Perhaps so, but YOUR world is not the whole world......There are other wars to be fought besides our own internal or spiritual struggles, and these are the wars that disturb the lives and peace of our fellow beings.

I find it close to impossible to hold an ongoing discussion with people who demonstrate that they utterly missed the point I made. And for the record but not for any ongoing debate with you Morganite, I always found fighting for peace to be oxymoronic at best and certainly hypocritical.

"If not me, who? If not now, when?" LOL was EXACTLY my point, and not to be technical here but I made it first and you ignored it. Hmmm.

PS - I could have put some of these sentiments in a "rate this answer" little red box for you too, Morganite... except clearly I am not like you. I can express my disappointment without slapping any knuckles. It made me sad too in how much what you did resembled my dysfunctional family's way of operating. They would do something untrustworthy so I would retreat, they would express their disappointment at my retreat and then punish me! Now that's whacked. All good debaters know there must be both common ground and mutual respect. That is my explanation as to why you are no longer on my extended debate list which, by the way, is open to negotiations but not debate. I do hope you know the difference.

[valinors_sorrow]

Morganite disagrees: You miss the point I made by a mile. That seems to have developed into a habit with you. Each time I disagree with you you take it personally and hit the machine guns. Is that your notion of reasoned debate?

Uh, I guess so. :rolleyes: And more red boxes from you isn't going to win me back either.

[shawnboo18]

Hello:

Is Bush going to attack Iran? Should he? I think he is. I'm not sure whether he should or not. I don't want them to have a bomb, but who am I? Their enemy's have 'em. Of course, they want one. If we attack them, they're gonna strike us back - and they CAN. Iran is NOT Iraq.

excon

I do like your question but I have a question for you in 1917 russia opted out of the war and became what kind of country