uapconsole 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2007 Today I learned something interesting from CNN. If one follows the news, it is difficult not to hear about Pres. Bush's last major speech. He revealed serious intentions of possible military action against Iran. While this makes sense politically (opening another front in Iran would divert attention from the current situation in Iraq), many wondered if the Democratic party would utilize it's newfound power. This afternoon I saw a CNN segment that touched on this issue. There was redundant political analysis that I won't bore anyone with. However, the bottom line seems to be that Congress will almost certainly not finance military action against Iran. I suppose this causes many to sigh a sigh of relief. Who could blame a public already weary of two ongoing wars (Afghanistan/Iraq) for being apprehensive about opening an entirely new front. On the other hand, military action against Iran might influence the Iraqi front. Some argue that neutralizing Iran is the only way to achieve "victory" in Iraq. If this holds true, then Syria must also be tackled, considering that it's influence on Iraq is almost as heavy as the Iranian regime. If it all seems too confusing and crazy, one must tell themselves that this is simply history unfolding. - Demirelli Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
saneax 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2007 The question also arises, that How long the congress is to continue burdening the cach flow on Iraq ? Its a bad move now gone worse. Iraq is in a civil upheaval and Americans are voting to bring back there soldiers. The Big Brother role by US has costed it in vietnam, afghanistan and now its costing them in Iraq, with money and men. Even if the Bush Administration was right in toppling Saddam, there is a bitter irony attached to it, that Bush may loose the election because of Saddam, and God knows what psychological blows he may get from the event. Every Action has equal and opposite reaction (osama's pet ideaology ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unimatrix 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2007 What is happening in Iraq now is not a Civil war as it is a proxy war being fought by Iran and the Saudis with the US stuck in the middle. The Saudis are providing the cash and weapons to the Sunnis while Iran are doing the same to the Shiites. Iran is a state that is going to have to be dealt with and I don't think diplomacy is going to work. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist pushing the Doomsday clock up a couple minutes is not only warranted, but I'm surprised it's not even closer. I don't see any effective way of ensuring the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities short of using ground penetrating tactical nukes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
saneax 0 Report post Posted January 22, 2007 Hi Unimatrix, Iran is a state that is going to have to be dealt with and I don't think diplomacy is going to work. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist pushing the Doomsday clock up a couple minutes is not only warranted, but I'm surprised it's not even closer. I don't see any effective way of ensuring the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities short of using ground penetrating tactical nukes. I agree to your suggestion, its a trap which is being funded by the Saudi mullahs and Iranian terrorists. Its time the US forces should raise political awareness in the world against whats these two countries are doing. I would also like to add, that US, needs some more proactive media coverage. Some of the presses in europe are making out bad publicity for US on the path of IRAQ. Also, there is a rising pressure on Bush Administration to bring back our boys who are way too stressed in Iraq. It would definitely require a lot of political talk to convince the American people, Or there needs to be one more 9/11. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
