Will Iran Be Next?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Comrade I was hoping with my "gee I wonder what your response to that will be" statement that I wouldn't have to listen to that tripe again, I suppose us evil Republicans aren't as good at pre-empting as we claim to be.

So sorry you had to listen to that tripe. That's what you get when you respond to posts clearly not addressed to you.

The question isn't being answered because its not a question. I did tell you why we have them and why we deny them to others.

I tend to agree with that, but it STILL was a question and it was directed at rmnunez. I don't often agree with him but he actually ANSWERS questions, and without tiresome sloganeering as well.

[rmnunez]

I don't think US foreign policy is good because of some inherent quality of the values thereby promoted, it is good because in the matter at hand it is focused against a genuine threat, international terrorism. If the US had reacted to 911 in a different way, had they retrenched, withdrawn, isolated themselves, the Islamic fundamentalists would be at the gates today. Had they instead bargained with them, they'd be blackmailed now. It really does come down to that "either with us or against us" line, there is no middle ground here. Iraq is a bit of a detour, but its within the general target area.

[Comrade]

Quote by: Scribbler1 So sorry you had to listen to that tripe. That's what you get when you respond to posts clearly not addressed to you. I tend to agree with that, but it STILL was a question and it was directed at rmnunez. I don't often agree with him but he actually ANSWERS questions, and without tiresome sloganeering as well.

Ah, well, I thought it was free debate.

What question do you want answered, exactly? Why the US can have WMDs and why countries like Iran can't (if we have anything to say about it)?

The US can have WMDs because we have WMDs. We have decided that we can have WMDs, and we have decided that it opposes our goals and values for Iran to have WMDs. So we do our best to prevent Iran from getting WMDs.
We don't fear a nuclear France or Britain. We do fear a nuclear Iran.

We aren't disinterested third parties looking down from above. A nuclear Iran MEANS something to me, and if my government can stop it then it should.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez I don't think US foreign policy is good because of some inherent quality of the values thereby promoted, it is good because in the matter at hand it is focused against a genuine threat, international terrorism. If the US had reacted to 911 in a different way, had they retrenched, withdrawn, isolated themselves, the Islamic fundamentalists would be at the gates today. Had they instead bargained with them, they'd be blackmailed now. It really does come down to that "either with us or against us" line, there is no middle ground here. Iraq is a bit of a detour, but its within the general target area.

And here I am agreeing with you right after I said I usually didn't!
When you take politics out of this, I think you and I have the same goal, as do most people in the civilized world. One of the most pressing threats IS terrorism. Where we go seperate ways is that I think Bush has done a lousy job. Some on the far right see criticism of Bush's policies as being "soft" on terrorism but the fact is there is a difference of opinion as to whether he is doing a proper job. What I believe is NOT that there is no problem, but it is not being handled competantly and some of Bush's cheerleaders are just in the way when it comes to careful and effective handling of the terrorism issue (present company excepted).

[rmnunez]

There are international conventions subscribed to by all the governments of the world which exclude the US and others from their prohibitions against the possession, pursuit or distribution of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Various international organizations are charged with enforcing these international conventions. All sorts of other international organizations bring pressure to bear against those attempting to acquire or transfer proscribed weapons. There is nothing illogical or immoral in advocating the non-proliferation of WMDs while possessing or pursuing them yourself.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez If the US had reacted to 911 in a different way, had they retrenched, withdrawn, isolated themselves, the Islamic fundamentalists would be at the gates today. Had they instead bargained with them, they'd be blackmailed now. It really does come down to that "either with us or against us" line, there is no middle ground here. Iraq is a bit of a detour, but its within the general target area.

Your comment about the Iraqi detour is closer to the truth than I would expect from you, though your comment "within the general target area" seems to suggest one Arab is as good as the next.

In your larger comment, are you suggesting that if we hadn't pulled our best troops out of Afghanistan, our best CIA and NSA assets away from looking for Bin Laden so Bush could go off and invade other Islamic countries who never attacked us, we would be worse off? If the US hadn't pulled back the US Special Forces while Bin Laden was trapped and sent in the warlords who let him escape, we would have Islamists at our gates? If the quarter of a million tons of Saddam weapons that have gone missing weren't in the hands of those who would like to do us harm, we would be worse off? You seem to have mistaken up for down or have fallen through someone's looking glass.

[Comrade]

Quote by: RickSp In your larger comment, are you suggesting that if we hadn't pulled our best troops out of Afghanistan, our best CIA and NSA assets away from looking for Bin Laden so Bush could go off and invade other Islamic countries who never attacked us, we would be worse off? .

Yeah, at look at all the attacks we've suffered as a consequence of not finding bin Laden.

[rmnunez]

I don't think the US pulled its best CIA and NSA assets away from their tasks in Afghanistan for intervention in Iraq, but would understand if they did since they likely anticipated these would be helpful when they seized Baghdad. OBL got away because the warlords in Afghanistan didn't do the job, but should this have been expected? If the gringoes figured the terrorists were practically done for and OBL was in the bag, maybe they are guilty of overconfidence for giving their minions the job of finishing him off. But this was not what I suggested.

Had the US retrenched and isolated itself post 911, the Taliban would still rule over Afghanistan and Saddam would be in one of his palaces in Baghdad. The whole world would probably be wondering why the gringoes weren't doing anything about it and the UN inspectors would be delivering inconclusive reports on their findings while UN and EU diplmats lined their pockets in Iraqi trade. Naturally, nobody would be very concerned over the US cowardly hidding behind renewed isolationism, I'd expect the EUers then would be moaning over the lack of US efforts to help them do something about the terrorists in their midst.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Comrade Ah, well, I thought it was free debate.

It is, and you know it. Just don't jump in and whine about the "tripe" you HAD to listen to.

What question do you want answered, exactly? Why the US can have WMDs and why countries like Iran can't (if we have anything to say about it)? The US can have WMDs because we have WMDs. We have decided that we can have WMDs, and we have decided that it opposes our goals and values for Iran to have WMDs. So we do our best to prevent Iran from getting WMDs.

That wasn't my question either.
"Speaking of "rogue regimes", I wonder how the bulk of the rest of the world sees that explanation of yours in light of the fact that WE invaded a country which was no immediate or forseeable threat to us, and we must be in the top TWO countries possessing WMD!"
Specifically, since we invaded Iraq using the WMD as a reason to invade and came up empty, how do you think the world in general see us. We are loaded with WMD and not all the world likes or trusts us. I was asking for his (or yours) opinion as to what we must LOOK like to them. If you want to read it differently that's your call.

We don't fear a nuclear France or Britain. We do fear a nuclear Iran.

Which is because we don't trust them to keep to themselves, and with pretty good reason, too.

We aren't disinterested third parties looking down from above. A nuclear Iran MEANS something to me, and if my government can stop it then it should.

Which spawns another question. As for our reputation internationally, at what point does self-protection before the fact change FROM the U.S. protecting ourselves/the world from a dangerous regime TO us as a bullying superpower which pushes around those countries who don't play ball with us?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Comrade Yeah, at look at all the attacks we've suffered as a consequence of not finding bin Laden.

You do manage to stay uniformed don't you. When the US was not particularly looking for Bin Laden, Al Queda attacks were often years apart.

[marco_funk]

You keep sowing violence... all you will get is a harvest of hatred and terror.
just a thought...

[Comrade]

Just an empty cliche, you mean.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Comrade Yeah, at look at all the attacks we've suffered as a consequence of not finding bin Laden.

That will be an unanswered question for a long time, I think. Was it Bush's policies, a heightened awareness of terrorism in general globally, are terrorists going to attack again but are just still in the planning stage or did they just decide to go after different game. You don't know the answer and neither do I.
They are still out there and this country (and most of the West) is still full of security holes, so until OBL says he is scared shitless of George Bush and won't dare attack the U.S. again because of the president's actions, I think the answer remains open.

[marco_funk]

Quote by: Comrade Just an empty cliche, you mean.

Empty cliche... more like humble prophecy...

[Comrade]

Yeah, but so far its meant that we could divert resources away from Afghanistan without ill effect.

[G. Adams]

Perhaps the reason for no further attacks upon the US has been that the West has over-estimated the capability of Al-Quida to begin with. Al Quida is not a giant network of well organised guerillas, but a loose collection of people who share an idea and extreme drive to hurt the west. When Afghanistan was attacked, they lost the training ability too. I'm not saying the threat is gone, but it's not on the scale we imagine it to be.

[giuliano]

most of the training camps in afghanistan were for al qaeda soldiers, who formed the balance of power for the taliban. hell, many of them fought with the support of the US against russian forces there in the 80s.

only a select few were ever plucked for terrorist training. they don't need large-scale camps for that. it can be done more discreetly, and most likely is. in fact a large component of the training for sep.11 was done in the US, the FBI even knew of some of the participants.

i think right now they are focussing on iraq, and saudi arabia to some degree.

[rmnunez]

I don't think Al Qaeda's capabilities have been overestimated or exagerated, it sems more like they were underestimated. The reason for no attacks in the US since 911 may have something to do with enhanced security measures too.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez I don't think Al Qaeda's capabilities have been overestimated or exagerated, it sems more like they were underestimated. The reason for no attacks in the US since 911 may have something to do with enhanced security measures too.

If they were underestimated, then why haven't they attacked again? When people were analysing that OBL tape just before the election it seems to me his point would have been better made if an attack occurred at the time the tape was released.
Whatever it is, we do NOT know and giving Bush any credit for this at this time is simply partisan speculation.

[Comrade]

Ah crap, quoted something from Page 1, thought I was on the last page :(
ignore post