Dear Bush loving neo-con friends,

Just out of curiosity who do you see as a bigger threat to world piece, the interests of our country, stability of the middle east, and more likely to possess WMDs. Pre-war Saddam leading iraq or current Iran.

Honestly i see present Iran as a bigger threat as they assertively announce their plans to acquire WMDs and have had nuclear weapons operations running within the last decade. I think Bush could have much easier have had a legitimate case to oust the Iran regime then that of Iraq.

6/8/2008 9:36:01 PM

I question the intel. Yes, all world intel points that way, but it's probably wrong.

6/8/2008 9:42:14 PM

War with Iran would've been more difficult, costly, and involved from a military perspective. the Bush-administration dream of a westernized Iraq would be a nice regional insurance policy against a militant Iran, and with such a society in place next door, more leverage could be applied against Iran, with their already large contingent of pro-western citizens, and make any sort of forceful action against the regime unnecessary.

I'm not saying we did everything right--I'm just trying to answer your question from how I imagine neoconservatives saw the situation.

6/8/2008 9:45:17 PM

Given pre-2003 intel, you could make the case that either were just as dangerous and that it was a push either way. However, Saddam had already showed an active and military ambivalence against the US (vis a vis ignoring the terms of the first war cease fire). You could make the case that although Iran was more dangerous and more advanced in their nuclear research, Saddam would be the one to pull the trigger first.

6/8/2008 9:48:40 PM

As a neo conservative of biblical proportions:

I believe Iran to be a greater threat yes. But I don't think we'll ever WIN another war according to liberals definitions simply because we don't allow the military to flex its full muscle power.

If we did, we would win outright and decimate our enemies with no problem. I'm not eventalking about the USA using nuclear warheads either.

Since I believe they[iran] are truly an enemy to the rest of the world, I believe the government of these people should be brought to its knees if they pose a threat with nuclear warheads.. A portion of the people who brought them into power should pay that price as well so our children won't have to.

Continue to negotiate for a couple more years, but if they keep ignoring, we attempt to take the warheads peacefully. If they attack us, we should unleash hell for stopping the Energy officials from inspecting and doing their job to protect the rest of the world.

6/8/2008 9:50:40 PM

Quote :

"with their already large contingent of pro-western citizens, and make any sort of forceful action against the regime unnecessary."

exactly.

Quote :

"Dear Bush loving neo-con friends,"

Now, you may not be implying this....but

Just because I am so adamant about how the Iraq war needs to play out, and against withdrawing so quickly DOES NOT mean I approve of how the war was started or how Bush has handled the country.

I would vote for Obama if he would just be realistic and rational with regards to Iraq.

6/8/2008 9:52:48 PM

Quote :

"Continue to negotiate for a couple more years, but if they keep ignoring, we attempt to take the warheads peacefully. If they attack us, we should unleash hell for stopping the Energy officials from inspecting and doing their job to protect the rest of the world."

mccain 08

6/8/2008 9:53:03 PM

^ is that a curse word or something?

6/8/2008 9:54:14 PM

Rat, I believe you are faking this to make Republicans look bad.(I am an independent)

But yes,

Iran is much scarier because of how insane their leaders are, and how much effort they put into destabilizing the entire reason, which they really do want.

6/8/2008 9:55:22 PM

i think it is more simple than that. Iran would be a tougher nut to crack militarily than a post-Desert Storm neutered Iraq, and if you were dead-set on regime change in Iran, the military option would be down the list of ways to try to do it. Iraq, no so much--the only way Saddam was getting out of there was on the end of a rope or on the business end of a TOW, like his fuckhead sons.

[Edited on June 8, 2008 at 9:56 PM. Reason : ^^^^^]

6/8/2008 9:55:52 PM

what do you think i'm faking. what's the matter with being realistic about getting rid of a nuclear threat that you absolutely know would go apeshit if it had nuclear capabilities.

6/8/2008 10:11:46 PM

this might sound odd, but Iran overtly attacking anyone would be then end of it.

The only way it could have done this without severe repercussions is if there was no counter weight (Iraq/US forces, Saddam) in the region.

6/8/2008 10:18:06 PM

Do you think once Iran has nuclear grade weapons it will attempt to give them to organizations with plans to use them against the United States?

I think that's the ultimate question you have to ask yourself. Are you willing to let a country thrive with that potential to sneak a bomb into the country and kill a lot of us.

6/8/2008 11:04:47 PM

Quote :

"with their already large contingent of pro-western citizens, and make any sort of forceful action against the regime unnecessary."

I'm not buying this. Iranians are proud to an extreme of their heritage/culture/nationality, and while they may be in favor of western concepts they are decidedly not in favor of western intervention in their affairs. In fact, I would label that the primary reason they haven't taken affairs into their own hands with regards to their leadership.

The current system, for all its faults, represents the system that gave the west the finger and let Persia/Iran stand on its own again.

Quote :

"I think Bush could have much easier have had a legitimate case to oust the Iran regime then that of Iraq."

He could have had a more legitimate case in terms of WMD, but I maintain there were perfectly legitimate reasons for smashing the Ba'athists outside of those. Further I think he would have had a harder time convincing people that his case was legitimate if he'd gone after Iran. We all already knew Saddam Hussein, we knew he was an asshole who did very bad things and had, from time to time, done those bad things with chemical weapons.

The Iranian leadership didn't become a going concern for most people until later, and even today I assure you far more people would recognize Hussein's name than Ahmadinejad's, which I probably didn't even spell correctly.

6/8/2008 11:11:27 PM

apples and oranges:

Iraq got that crude.

the current Iranian gubment stands in the way of potential new natural gas pipelines.

6/8/2008 11:17:14 PM

^yeh your old fashioned conspiracies about war for oil are exactly that. [old]

6/8/2008 11:27:40 PM

i don't believe in conspiracies mate.

wars are fought over resources and territory - that's it - no conspiracies.

6/9/2008 12:07:09 AM

http://tinyurl.com/4zjpld

6/9/2008 12:13:24 AM

Quote :

"world piece"

6/9/2008 3:04:12 AM

Quote :

"they assertively announce their plans to acquire WMDs "

WUT?

They have been saying the exact opposite of that publicly. I don't know what their real intent is, but they have always denied it was for weapons.

6/9/2008 6:14:31 AM

Quote :

"wars are fought over resources and territory - that's it - no conspiracies."

Yes, we're basking in an infinite flow of oil. Glad we went to Iraq to get that oil. that's it - no conspiracies.


sometimes you have to look at fact rather than rhetoric. If we went to war for oil, why in God's green earth are the IRAQI'S controlling their oil fields as opposed to us, who are just defending them? Why are we not selling their oil on the market? Why?

Oh yeah, because the war was not for oil.

6/9/2008 6:24:38 AM

therein lies the kicker. the execution didn't go according to plan. therefore NOONE is controlling that oil. there's so much chaos that we're behind schedule in getting it out of the ground. and yes, once we're able to bring relative stability to the region, "they" will be controlling it. but it will be hard to bring that stability if their neighbors to the east are constantly funding insurgency.

instability leads to supply constraints, which drives prices up. Iran needs to cash in on the higher price while they can because they dont have a lot of crude; and what ever value they can capture between now and when they move to nuclear energy and other sources is gravy. and they'll be damned if someone else comes in and bullies them around in their sphere of influence. we would be just as pissed in Russia came over and started running shit in Latin America.

look, hearing that we behave like imperialists is never a pleasant thing. its NO conspiracry. philosophically, there never are any real conspiracies. Einstein said that momentum is the most powerful force in the universe, and the powers that be will conserve as much momentum as nature allows. its just the story of man. we plebeians are led to believe that we are fighting for a just cause -- and its true that there are ancillary benenfits to unseating tyrants and brigning stability with a democratic flavor to a region -- i mean, that's why we went into Rwanda and are in Eastern Congo now. ...the reasons for going in with force are in obvious - there's no need to be naive. we plebeians are always the last to know and the first to bleed.

i'm not saying the commoners are powerless. we can accept it and support the cause and vote conserve the way things have always been done, or we can vote for the other guys. we can also try and profit by the way things are being done by trading UCR, DCR, UNG, and other energy plays -- that's what i'm attempting to do, albeit not enitirely successfully yet.

6/9/2008 11:06:24 AM

Stability is close at hand. OPEN THE FLOOD GATES!!1

DROWN US IN LIQUID GOLD!


...

6/9/2008 11:24:29 AM

Quote :

"I believe Iran to be a greater threat yes. But I don't think we'll ever WIN another war according to liberals definitions simply because we don't allow the military to flex its full muscle power. If we did, we would win outright and decimate our enemies with no problem. I'm not eventalking about the USA using nuclear warheads either. "

You've never read this book, I take it then:

The Counterinsurgency Field Manual by John Nagl

6/13/2008 9:50:00 AM

^ Apparently he never heard of a little operation in south east china called the Vietnam War either.

6/13/2008 1:22:07 PM

i completely called you becoming a neocon HUR...like a year ago...and bam i was right

6/13/2008 1:23:46 PM

i think what sucks the most about iran/iraq/whatever, is that ultimately if we weren't there now we'd have to be sometime soon. the middle east is going to be a battleground for a long time. I'm against the Iraq fiasco but it probably was going to happen sooner or later. I'd rather get it done and only lose 4 or 5000 troops than wait and see that number double or triple

6/13/2008 1:42:55 PM

Quote :

"Dear Bush loving neo-con friends"

this was sarcasm btw

6/13/2008 2:39:09 PM

but you've become a lot more conservative over the last year or so...thats the definition of neocon..."new conservative"

6/13/2008 2:43:44 PM