BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran

Subject: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:11 PM

Looks like Bush is not as smart as he thinks he is. He wanted to go it alone and in doing so it looks as if he has played right into the hands of the Iranian cleric. What Iran could not accomplish in a war with Iraq, has become a reality thanks to the ignorance of the U.S. administration.

The only way the U.S. can stop Iran from creating a Muslim theocracy in Iraq is to wage war on Iran. Of course, they will need to use Iraq as a base of operation. To avoid another blood bath, the Iraqis had better kick out the U.S. troops ASAP.

This is my take on the current situation. What do you think the U.S. will do now that the democratically elected govt. of Iraq is taking orders from Al-Sistani who says that law of Sharia will govern Muslims and that the constitution must follow the laws of the Koran? Looks like the Muslims have won this war and that the new govt. in Iraq is far from secular.

What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:22 PM

to be honest couldn't give a shit. just wish all the troops were home and safe.

saddam is gone. its got to be better than when he's there, but its no good expecting they will turn their country round in five minutes.

You have to think maybe they wont be referring terrorists to social workers for a psychologigal breakdown of their sociopathic tendencies for a decade or two. A lot of unpleasant summary justice is about to be handed out in a way that no USA based authority would dare.

Its still going to be better for most people than when Saddam was killing the football coach if the team lost etc

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:28 PM

Whoever thought that a democratic government in Iraq would be likely to be secular? If our leaders want secular they'll need a Saddam clone.

Any attack on Iran, and the occupation in Iraq will be in real trouble, and will have to give up any suggestion they are just there to support the elected government.

Russia to the North has nuclear weapons, Pakistan to the East has nuclear weapons, Israel to the West has nuclear weapons; and the US and the UK based in Iraq have nuclear weapons. But that's no problem, at all, evidently.

If Iran really is trying to get nuclear weapons you can see why they might have got the idea. After all, if Saddam, had actually had them, it is hardly likely there'd have been an invasion of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:36 PM

This article, while not one hundred percent on the subject of your post, does, I think, give some indication of what the US government is thinking on the subject of Iran:

Kay Warns U.S. Not to Repeat Iraq Mistakes in Iran

Maybe the Bush administration thinks if it takes over and occupies Iran (can you say domino theory?), that will take care of everything.

On a somewhat tangentially related subject, the US budget that Bush is submitting to Congress includes cuts in medical care to Veterins and the poor. The average US taxpayers (including the working poor) are subsidizing the military adventurism of the Bush administration (enriching, in the process, the oil industry and other industries that benefit financially from war) at the cost of their own ability to maintain even the most basic standard of living.

Bush sends Congress $2.57-trillion US budget; record deficit despite steep cuts

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:41 PM

*Veterans*

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:59 PM

weelittledrummer - "Its still going to be better for most people than when Saddam was killing the football coach if the team lost etc"

Are you sure? I think the law of Sharia is pretty harsh - especially toward women.

Seems like one is not better than the other.

Sending U.S. troops in there has been a waste of life, time and money.

Nothing good has come of the Bush crusade.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 04:33 PM

The reality of the situation is that the US does not have the troops to do what it's doing now, much less invade anyone else. The Marines haven't even been able to meet their recruitment quota in the last couple months, and the Guard and Reserves and really hurting. Keeping military personnel beyond their enlistment (what we used to call "the duration plus six") used to be used ONLY for VERY critical skills or during declared war; now it's standard practice.

Short of a draft -- and that would be political suicide and possible impeachement -- the US military is going to be squeaking along for some time. An invasion of anybody is out of the question right now.

But think of this:

North Korea pulls the trigger and atom bombs Seoul and Tokyo (and don't for a minute think that I'm being either a war or fear monger here -- them folks in charge in NK are nuts), and North Korean troops cross the DMZ en masse, a la 1950. What then? W is pulling US troops from South Korea to shore up the Iraq thing, and South Korea would have its hands more than full. And don't forget that Japan is going to be EXTREMELY annoyed.... And to add to the mix, what will China do?

Iran isn't on the table. In my view, North Korea is.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 04:39 PM

Why would North Korea want to do that? The (possible) bomb is doing what it's there for - ensuring there won't be an invasion by the USA.

"them folks in charge in NK are nuts" is no truer than it is for many countries, including the USA. And the USA has never dreamed of invading any countries stronger than itself.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 05:07 PM

yeh definitely better - nothing in the Koran about the football team losing

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 06:30 PM

I gather Osama has said he's an Arsenal supporter. That figures...

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: gnu
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 06:57 PM

hehehehehe... good one McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 08:35 PM

Simply to keep power, Kevin. North Korea is and has been for a long time in the grip of famine -- WHO and other international agencies agree that hunger and malnutrition are tremendous problems there, THE country's problem, in fact. Yes, NK rattles the nuclear saber and other countries jump. But I would have no surprise if the US decided not to play any more and talked Japan and South Korea into going along. When people get hungry enough they don't care who is behind the machine guns they face -- survival is paramount. Should that point loom, I think that the NK rulers would jump the Z rather than abdicate.

Unless China took care of the matter first, and it very well might. The Chinese leadership aren't fools; they are very aware of the fire the atomic match would light in Asia. It would NOT be good for business, and China, in spite of the words, is now a capitalist country run by pragmatists.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 09:54 AM

So you're imagining a scenario in which the US gets the Japanese and the South Koreans to cooperate in trying to increase starvation in the North to the extent that the North Koreans launch a suicidal attack on South Korea? Doesn't sound too likely to me.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. does dirty work for Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 11:06 AM

Actually all the evidence from history seems to be that it isn't when things are at their worst that people revolt and "don't care who is behind the machine guns they face" - it's when they are getting better, but not fast enough.