Started to get Really Annoyed

[MasterAdnin]

Okay, I was watching CNN with my family and me and my father were talking about the War in Iraq, and all of a sudden, the topic of Iran comes about on CNN. So me and my father listen intently. We heard a politician (forgot his name) said that they were very concerned with Iran's Nuclear Program, and will most likely go to war about it. So he started talking about the possibilities, and the Pre-Emptive strike was mentioned.

Now I'm really getting annoyed with the USA. Do you guys agree with the politician or not?

Thanks,
Adnan

[Justinian]

If we keep wantonly invading countries we're going to run out of superpower status real fast.

[Ulyaoth]

This guy was some southern Republican I'm guessing?

[MasterAdnin]

This guy was some southern Republican I'm guessing?

I'm not sure he was from the south, but his views seem like it, but to be on CNN, you must hold a certain degree of power, and that's what frightens me about this guy.

Adnan

[oldglory76]

This guy was some southern Republican I'm guessing?

now is that really fair to lump all republicans as southern, or even that all republiacans as war mongers (this is where i think you are going with this)

[Sétanta]

I really hope we don't invade Iran. I really hope Iran doesn't give us a good reason too, as well.

Lets just figure this out nicely with an airstrike if they don't give em up. Which they really shoud do for their own good.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

now is that really fair to lump all republicans as southern, or even that all republiacans as war mongers (this is where i think you are going with this)

How many Democrats have you seen that have argued in favor of the strategy of pre-emption, let along arguing that we should balls-out invade Iran??

[Richard the Lionheart]

How many Democrats have you seen that have argued in favor of the strategy of pre-emption, let along arguing that we should balls-out invade Iran??

John Kerry.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

John Kerry.

Can I have a quote with that please?

[hellheaven1987]

Well, I don't know what US would do if Iran has nuclear weapon, but I have heard Israel announced before they would destory Iran nuclear weapon just like what they did before to Iraq.

[internationalist]

John Kerry.

John Kerry is a "democrat"
The quotes are becuase he is just a repub. in wolf's clothing.

[danzig]

This guy was some southern Republican I'm guessing?

Maybe pay attention to the news a bit, Democrats are pushing the Iranian issue as an example see Bush screwed up in Iraq and its Iran who is the REAL threat that needs to be dealt with. Alot of Dems are using Iran as a means to tough talk about terror (much like Iraq however Iran has no direct tie to terror but hey things like that never bother politicans on either side).

[Bwaho]

Its not just the US who does, did, or will do that.

so you admit USA invaded Iraq for oil?

And stop this liberal hippy war-for-oil crap. Most of y'all are too smart for that.

well I'm not too stupid to realize that a country doesn't spend billions of dollars on a war without expecting some kind of profit at the end.

[Hub'ite]

so you admit USA invaded Iraq for oil?

No, I was refering to when ThiudareiksGunthigg was talking about invading countries for resources. I never said that Iraq was invaded for just oil. Although it is a nice benefit.

well I'm not too stupid to realize that a country doesn't spend billions of dollars on a war without expecting some kind of profit at the end.

You are right, we will expect a reward when Iraq is stabilized and on their own.(oil) But with all the money we spent in this war and the money we make off the oil we'll be losing money. Plus soon oil will be a thing of the past.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

No, I was refering to when ThiudareiksGunthigg was talking about invading countries for resources. I never said that Iraq was invaded for just oil. Although it is a nice benefit.

I never said Iraq was invaded 'just for oil' either; there was a confluence of various motivations. But anyone who thinks that oil was not a factor or is simply 'a nice benefit' is cripplingly naive.

You are right, we will expect a reward when Iraq is stabilized and on their own.(oil) But with all the money we spent in this war and the money we make off the oil we'll be losing money.

That's how things have worked out. It's not what the neo-cons were predicting or expecting back in 2003. In January 2003 White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels told the NYT that the war may cost '$50-60 billion'. That sum caused some alarm and the White House moved quickly to 'downplay' it, saying it wasn't a hard estimate.

To date the war has cost $380 billion and is happily burning through $9.8 billion per month.

Back in 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the war could cost as much as '$100-200 billion'. This (actually very low) estimate was dismissed by Mitch Daniels on Sept 9th 2002 as 'very, very high'. In March 2003 the White House was still trumpeting the idea that Iraq's oil revenue would fund the reconstruction (they still assumed the war was over). Then Deputy Secretary of State Rich Armitage predicted Iraqi oil revenues could provide '$10, $15, even $18 billion' per annum. Paul Wolfowitz was even more wildly optimistic - 'the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years'. That, like the $50 billion price tag, proved yet another Bush Administration pipe dream.

So, yes, you are and will be losing money. But that's not how things looked to the rosy-eyed neo-cons who were planning this war back in 2001-2003.

Plus soon oil will be a thing of the past.

Not that soon. And whoever has control over or strong influence over easily-exploitable reserves, production levels and prices will be best off in the transition period as oil production peaks and then declines.

Anyone who can't see that this was a major consideration in recent US Gulf region policy and will continue to be so (as it has been for the last 50 years) needs to pull their heads out of the ideaological sand and have a clear-eyed look around.

[Rhah]

Maybe pay attention to the news a bit, Democrats are pushing the Iranian issue as an example see Bush screwed up in Iraq and its Iran who is the REAL threat that needs to be dealt with. Alot of Dems are using Iran as a means to tough talk about terror (much like Iraq however Iran has no direct tie to terror but hey things like that never bother politicans on either side).

I've noticed that as well, it seems the Democrats are trying to get "to the right" of the Republicans on Iran, obviously because they want to be seen as "tougher on terrorism" than Bush, before the forthcoming elections.
But, there are more democrats opposing this war posturing than Republicans (except a notable few), and the Democratic base wont stand for another war of aggression.

What worries me the most is that the US seem to be gearing up for the use of Tactical nukes against supposed Iranian Nuclear sites. That is not a good idea, as it will really let the genie out of the bottle. Ok, the US is the only country with the ability to use Tactical nukes at the moment (i'm not sure about Russia or China) but it sets a dangerous precedent, because other powers will eventually have access to Tactical nukes and wont hesitate to use them in conventional warfare.

[Bwaho]

whaaa? firing tactical nukes? great way to set an example...

[mongoose]

Now I'm really getting annoyed with the USA. Do you guys agree with the politician or not?

I suggest that we pre-empt their nuke sites with a missle strike. Only problem is that we're not quite sure where they are...

[bigfootedfred]

I suggest that we pre-empt their nuke sites with a missle strike. Only problem is that we're not quite sure where they are...

No.

We know where irans 'nuke sites' are.
But as far as we know, iran does not have a nuke warhead.
Even if they did full scale enrichment, estimates say it would take well over 10 years to develop one.
So it is far, far to early to begin thinking about strategys which are fundementally flawed to start with.
Such as "pre-emption", the US idea of pre-emption is any percived threat, is a target.
Which frankly, is completely insane.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

I suggest that we pre-empt their nuke sites with a missle strike. Only problem is that we're not quite sure where they are...

Yeah, Iran's probably moved them underground to keep them safe or 'safer'. Furthermore, with the installment of a Shia clerical government in Iraq, the last thing the US wants to do now is to go to war with a regime in Iran that's both Shia and run by the same clerics that have the support, moral and otherwise, of the Iraqi clerics. The mess in Iraq is bad enough.

I can't, however, see a comprehensive land-occupation of Iran because not only is it geagraphically a nightmare but the Iranis are currently rallied behind their government, they won't accept the invaders with open arms.