US troops arrest Iranian government delegation in Iraq

I think war with Iran would be a bad idea but there's no denying their contributions to the problems in Iraq. They've likely played a pretty big role in Iraq's instability, especially the last year or two, so nobody should doubt that they are a problem that needs to be handled. And for the record if we ever went to war with Iran we would smoke those assholes, though occupation would be out of the question. Sometimes I'd like to see us pound a mudhole in the muslim world's ass. You don't like us? Well guess what?! We don't like you either!! But alas, that's hate and we can't travel down that road. Endless destination for that one.

But getting into a war with Iran would draw us deeper into conflict with the muslim world (that's exactly what Bin Laden wanted). I think it also may be what Iran is wanting. These days, unlike World War II, we can't go around killing civilians. But if entire countries and their civilian populations hate us, like what's gaining momentum in the muslim world, then this will be a never-ending problem no matter how many governments and militaries we bring down. As it already is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaviani
If by "it's been obvious for quite a while the plan is to go to war with Iran too" you mean "it's been obvious for a significant period of time that Iran has had a material influence in intentionally worsening the situation in Iraq for their own regional political purposes, which are at violent opposition with the United States," then yes, I suppose your statement isn't absolutely ridiculous on its face. To say that somehow using force against Iran when Iran has PURPOSEFULLY attempted to incite violence and sow disorder in Iraq for its own strategic gain - again, to the detriment of both Iraqis and Americans - is immoral or "George Bush's plan all along" is to completely shift the burden of responsibility for IRAN'S actions to the United States. Do you even remotely fathom how absolutely ludicrous this is?

---

I certainly agree that Iran has been antagonizing the situation. I don't neccessarily believe that using force against Iran is immoral given what they seem to have been up to. They've been poking a hornet's nest, I'm not going to cry for them if they get stung.

My post was obviously totally one sided. For that, I apologize(to be fair though, I did categorize it as a whacko lefty rant). It's not a black and white situation at all. Despite the fact that Iran is provoking them, it seems to me like a pretty large part of the goverment(including Bush) is far too eager in general to go to war.

Quote:

---

I certainly agree that Iran has been antagonizing the situation.

---

Yes. They've given the United States a number of legitimate casus belli. Accordingly, if, for WHICHEVER of those reasons, the United States attacks Iran, surely the moral weight of "provoking" the war must rest upon Iran for, in your words, "antagonizing the situation."

Quote:

---

I don't neccessarily believe that using force against Iran is immoral given what they seem to have been up to.

---

That's good to hear. I'm glad you're back within the realm of reason, with the rest of us.

Quote:

---

They've been poking a hornet's nest, I'm not going to cry for them if they get stung.

---

I object to the characterization of the United States as a "hornet's nest," simply because the implication is that we will sting necessarily when we've been "poked." Allow me to give you a few examples of "pokings" that we haven't "stung" for:

- The U.S.S. Cole
- The Khobar Towers
- WTC Bombing #1
- Multiple U.S. Embassies
- The Millennium Bomb Plot

And so on, and so forth. These are a number of times we were "poked" by Osama bin Laden's faction (hereafter referred to as "jihadists," as they advocate jihad - sorry if this term is cause for offense), with ZERO significant response. We were finally not just poked, not jostled, but downright clubbed on 9/11, at which point we reared up and started responding to the jihadist faction which had been actively waging war against us for more than a decade prior. We're not hornets. We're a really, REALLY lethargic bear, at MOST aggressive. Iran, having known our already "provoked" and/or "active" state has elected to attempt to subvert our actions in Iraq. They have knowingly undertaken that risk, and bear the full brunt of responsibility, both moral and logistical, for knowingly provoking such a response. Let me throw out a statement that will even further startle you: if the United States attacks Iran, any Iranian civilians that die in collateral damage will be to the moral responsibility of the Iranian government for provoking the war. Morally, this isn't a very hard case to sustain - but do you really think "whacko lefty" groups or their "rants" will keep that in mind?

Hmm?

Quote:

---

My post was obviously totally one sided.

---

I don't mind totally one-sided posts. I mind patently unreasonable, irrational ones.

Quote:

---

For that, I apologize(to be fair though, I did categorize it as a whacko lefty rant).

---

Apology accepted. But if your central point - that the "United States 'planned' to attack Iran all along," and by implication, those evil, aggressive United States bastards are responsible for whatever bad happens thereafter is COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED by even CURSORY reply, doesn't that give you cause for concern? Doesn't that make you worry that the "whacko lefty" position on foreign policy is completely unrealistic and completely divorced from reality? Doesn't that make you want to not be a "whacko lefty?"

I have no problem with intelligent, reasonable leftists talking foreign policy. Peter Beinart is one of my favorites specifically for this purpose. The "whacko lefty" faction, though, as you've so named it, has a disgusting propensity to mindlessly blame the United States (and de facto support some of the most illiberal, oppressive worldwide regimes) at ALL TIMES, regardless of what even cursory examination would show. This impulse you expressed, the "whacko lefty" impulse, is bad for "your side" (because when it gets dismantled, the "leftist" side looks terrible for it - and unfairly so, as many intellectually honest leftists don't share the position you just did) and the United States is unjustly worse off (as there's one more "whacko lefty" defaming it unfairly, in this case, and anyone that otherwise would have listened to you loses esteem for the United States), weakening the entirety of the Western world in some immeasurably small way. You aren't doing "your side" any good, nor are you doing the greater American society any good. So...why the hell would anyone consciously, intentionally indulge their "whacko lefty" side - especially someone reasonable enough, as you ostensibly are, to KNOW better?

Quote:

---

It's not a black and white situation at all.

---

Foreign policy very, very rarely is. It's a complicated field which requires thoughtful consideration at almost every turn - which is why taking "whacko" views on any side is reckless.

Quote:

---

Despite the fact that Iran is provoking them,

---

Right. Provoking them. Let's remember that for my next statement...

Quote:

---

it seems to me like a pretty large part of the goverment(including Bush) is far too eager in general to go to war.

---

So this is the real issue you have: you feel the Bush administration is "too eager" to go to war - presumably e.g. Iraq. Okay. Great. Talk about Iraq, then. Don't say the Bush administration is "too eager" to go to war when Iran has provided significant enough justification to warrant reasonable people saying that using force against them. It doesn't matter HOW eager to "go to war" the Bush administration, or any administration, may internally be in the case of Iran - it matters how good the reason for the war itself is, and in this case, the reason is pretty excellent - rendering the administration's attitudes completely irrelevant.

With both governments completely lacking in credibility, I view any imminent nuclear threat from Iran with great skepticism.
Both sides want control of the area, therefor the propaganda wheels are once again in full motion. Both sides have lengthy histories of covert terrorist actions and false flag techniques.
I don't support either side in all of this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
With both governments completely lacking in credibility, I view any imminent nuclear threat from Iran with great skepticism.
Both sides want control of the area, therefor the propaganda wheels are once again in full motion. Both sides have lengthy histories of covert terrorist actions and false flag techniques.
I don't support either side in all of this.

---

I have to ask for clarification before I go out of my way to demolish this -

...are you comparing the Bush administration and the Iranian government?

This looks like a naked moral comparison, and I want to just make very sure that's what you're doing.

I think my previous post was pretty clear in saying both sides lack the credibility for me to believe what they're saying is the truth.

You are quite correct when you point out my post was irrational. It's definitely a low point for my political discussion here on this board, and I'm not particularly proud of it, which is why I haven't gone out of my way to defend the post. I had planned to delete it, but once I saw you had called me on it, I decided not to. I don't believe in deleting the evidence when I'm justifiably being called on saying something stupid.

You have read many things into my post that I never intended, which isn't surprising considering the quality of my post. As I said, I don't intend to defend the post. However, I would like to make it clear that I am absolutely not anti American. My comments were confined to the current administration. Though I have an incredibly low opinion of the Bush administration, that doesn't reflect my opinion of America and it's people in general.

I may reenter this discussion at a later date when I'm in a good enough mood to post rationally. Til then, I'll leave my irrational rant for you all to massacre.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I think my previous post was pretty clear in saying both sides lack the credibility for me to believe what they're saying is the truth.

---

Sides being Iran and the U.S. ?


If so, a few points -

*Iran has admitted to having a nuclear arms program. It was not some propaganda spun by the US.

*The US does not want control of the area they want stability in the middle east. The military is supporting the new Iraqi government as it is established. Believe me, if the US were taking control of the area, there'd be NO mistaking it.



*I must assume you refer to U.S. Military Black Ops as "covert terrorist action". I think that equating selective missions of the military to intentional and deliberate slaughter of civilians and civilian property is a little ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrent
*Iran has admitted to having a nuclear arms program. It was not some propaganda spun by the US.

---

Not to say I believe any of this, but Iran has been constantly claiming that the nuclear program is for civilian energy and not for arms.

I seem to remember a discussion years ago where some Threshers were questioning the wisdom of going to war in Iraq rather than Iran. That Iran was clearly instigating conflict and we know they have nukes and that Iraq's political stance was questionable at best and to this day we still don't know what Saddam had.

That said, it's not a question of right and wrong, but of strategy and politics. Yeah, we could have attacked Iran. We would have found a stronger opposition and the civilian populace would be clearly opposed to us. Not to mention the nuclear threat. In iran, we would have faced the same threats. IEDs, terrorism, outside influence. Had we attacked Iran instead, I guarantee Saddam would have helped Iran fight us and we'd be in a much worse situation.

Our problem is that we're stretched too thin at this time to do anything significant and any signifcant military act directed at Iran would be foolhardy. I don't see the Iraqi or the Afghan conflicts ending any time soon. Especially considering Iran is doing everything in their power to keep it going. Our Middle Eastern enemies are very intelligent and sophisticated, despite their lack of technology... or is it because of it? Iran is pulling strings behind the scenes. There is no question of that. We can't fight three wars, hell the two we have is almost too much. So what do we do? I have every bit of faith that if any of us had the solution, Pres. Bush would listen. Maybe he is a bit cavalier, but sticking your head in the sand isn't gonna make it go away. History proves that.

So the politics. I can certainly agree with helping stabilize Iraq. They are the most sympathetic country we have and that's saying a lot! If we can gain a political ally, we may not need to attack Iran. Iraq and Iran already hate each other. Iran's intentional sabotage of Iraq is proof of that. But if Iraq can grow strong enough for us to leave, we may be able to reduce our presence in the Middle East altogether. Iraq is a political powerhouse in the region. We know it, and our enemies know it. We're NOT at war with Iraq. I've said that MANY times. We're at war with extremist Middle East. We're at war with a multi-national force that is VERY good at political bullying and guerilla warfare. They don't care about people, but they pretend to. I only hope that the story of the insurgents attacking from a mosque got out. We lit their asses up... AFTER the civilians were clear. The worst thing about this is that it's not our war to win. If Iraqis would stand up and fight, this wouldn't be so hard. But most of them are too damn scared to fight. They know who isn't Iraqi. They know who the enemy is. They are too scared to do anything about it. They tell us and expect us to fix it for them. That said, I support a smaller influence in Iraq. Throw the gov't in the water and force them to swim. They're strong enough to do it. I've seen it. They can gain stability without us. We are their crutch.

But there is no way we can attack Iran, tactically, logistically, politically, strategically, and any other-ally you can think of, until we can reduce our presence in one or both of our current theaters of operations.

Now here comes the flame: someone guess which political stance I'm taking.... simply, I'm not, at least not blatantly. I won't say if Obama or Clinton or anyone will provide the magic pill. There is no magic pill. It doesn't matter if you're Democrat, Republican, Independent, Whig, or Communist. No one can come up with a solution that WE can do to fix this because it doesn't exist. This is our Kobayashi Maru. Where is Capt. Kirk? He isn't afraid to cheat! :)