U.S. cuts Iraqi oil supply to Syria

The Koreans are "begging" for talks??? My understanding is that the US offered multilateral talks (including the other regional powers), and the North Koreans refused, demanding direct talks with Washington.

It also remains to be seen how Syria reacts to this threat. Will they suck up to the US to get some goodies (which would be beneficial for us), or will they take a more hostile path, building up their military force for fear of invasion? (which would be terrible for us)

It is far too early to say that "force works".

 

(which would be beneficial for us)? You're Scottish
FOOL!!! BTW - Jack Straw has or will visit or spoken to the Syrians to inform them that Great Britan desires to maintain "good" relations with the Syrians.

 

I feel that's a better option than systematically engendering hatred amongst all in that area.

Making Iraqis 'free' won't make them like the US etc.in the long run, the distrust and animosity is deep-seated - heck quite a few don't like the US 5 minutes after it's happened.

Sorting out potential squabbles all over the region is opening the door for all manner of future problems that can't be rectified and will only exacerbate Arab and Muslim ire.
It might actually call for diplomacy - what a wonderful new road that would be.

 

Anyone out there beleive that Assad/Baathist gang in Syria, the insular Ayatollahs in Iran, and the Mr. Kim "bad hair day" Jong Il, are going to simply go back to "business as usual?"

Anybody out there??

Anybody??

 

Exactly. Iran will now build more nuclear weapons.

 

...and every tin-pot wannabe dictator, or all those in or around that position will agree with Mr Bad Hair Day.
If you've got nuclear weapons, the US will put you to the bottom of the 'pending' file, if not avoid the file altogether if possible.
I wish he didn't have a point - but as we all know, he does.

 

So are you saying that if we HADN'T invaded Iraq, they WOULDN'T build nuclear weapons??

Because, even as we just began getting our combat boots dusty with the Iraqi sand, these Mullahs were STILL hellbent on getting nuclear weapons.

They've ALWAYS wanted to do it. They ARE doing it right now.

 

Maybe the neocons in the administration were right.
Could be the prospects for peace and stability in the Middle East have improved.

 

Other way around pal. It would be terrible for them. You think Syria wants a taste of what we've dished out in Iraq for the last month?

 

Do you seriously have the same disregard for future US foriegn relations as Dubya has?
It just seems that way.

Surely people can see that beating ten tons of ************ out of a region isn't going to stop those little groups detesting the US even more.
If there's a bully at school going round beating up those he doesn't like - more will dislike him, so he has to beat those guys up too, and so on and so on.
It's neverending.

Major regime changes work up to a point - past that you've got the little splinter groups that follow no-ones rules.

 

I'd like to think you can be realistic about other countries using force, or the threat thereof, to "protect themselves". If the territory of United States was truly being threatened by Iraq (which I persoanaly found preposterous), imagine how threatened Iran must feel. You don't have to be a "hellbent Mullah" to not want your country overrun by a foreign army.

And as silly as some may find this, Iran could with some legitimacy claim the right to a "preemptive strike." At this point they don't have the means to do so, of course.
These are the waters we find ourselves in.

 

Again, the logic of the left is this:

it's the USA that is being precipitous, it's the USA who is perceived as the real threat, it's the USA that is providing justification for certain countries to lash out...

But maybe, just maybe, it's the other way around. Maybe it's the OTHER countries who are precipitous and who are the real threat.

Who do your want in possession of nuclear weapons? The USA?? Or a theocratic, insular, fundamentalist regime which finds terrorist martyrdom appealing, and is resisting as much as it can the reformation of its society?

Here's the deal for Iran, and it's really simple:

--Don't produce nuclear weapons; and dismantle, in full view of the world, your nuclear weapons programs.

--Not only denounce terrorists, but rid your country of them.

--Allow true democratic reforms that the population, especially the young population of the country, want so desperately.

Do those three things, and nary an American soldier will set foot in Iran, and not a single American military aircraft will enter Iranian skies.

It's quite quite simple.

 

Actually, I wasn't the one that made the claim "Anyone out there beleive that Assad/Baathist gang in Syria, the insular Ayatollahs in Iran, and the Mr. Kim "bad hair day" Jong Il, are going to simply go back to "business as usual?" "

Iran will go back to business as usual, except at a faster pace. They'll also bs us enough to avoid an attack because, unlike Saddam and Kim, we don't usually get villians that act like they're written for a really bad b-movie.

 

This won't work at all. We have 60-90 days to take their nuclear capacity out. After that, it is too late. We either do it or we don't. The Iraq invasion has cost us a lot of time and policital capital.

 

Of course he is. I, otoh, would attack 15 minutes ago without any warning or negotiations. We can't allow Iran to be a nuclear power.

Edit: To be clear, I do not advocate an invasion or anything aside from taking out their nuclear sites. Hopefully, it could be done in a few hours or less and I wouldn't mind paying Iran for all expenses.

 

The stuff I didn't put in bold is up for argument. But what I put in bold is not. It is a FACT that the US is perceived that way.

Me as an American? Why, the US of course. But if you're from Japan? Iran? Syria? Colombia? Well, we're the only nation to have used them. We're the nation that has invoked the right to invade any nation that might be a threat at some undefined time in the future. So you tell me, Karl.

Why should they, when we don't.

Why should they, when we don't.

Why should they, when our Supreme Court does not recognize a right to have votes counted.

You're problem, Karl, is that you are wholly incapable of having the tiniest bit of insight into how the US looks to the rest of the world.

I know you'll come back with "superdave hates America" but then you'd again be missing the point. My point is that if your point of view presupposes that the rest of the world has a benign view toward the US, and that your presupposition is clearly wrong. Further, there's a strong whiff of "might makes right." OK, fine, be that way, but don't try to couch it as a moral argument. You can't have it both ways.

In particular, by what right does the US tell Iran to get rid of its nukes? Sad to say, every other member of the nuclear club, even China, has a stronger moral right to make that claim. And not just because of 1945. None of those other nations have invoked the right to invade whomever whenever.

One more thing...apparently, we had special ops forces in Iraq weeks ago, before the war started. Further, we used the inspections to force Iraq to get rid of missiles and such. Yet we were planning this war all along. I mean, it doesn't take a secular humanist to get vertigo from contemplating the moral gyrations needed to square all of those circles.

 

"...our Supreme Court does not recognize a right to have votes counted"

Isn't there some really super cool law against bringing up Bush's "lack of mandate"?

I mean, WWII references are so naugthy.

I propose Gore's Law. You know, the USA President living in exile, who got more votes, not only than George Bush, Jr. but more than Bill Clinton ever received! Gore's Law? Hahahaha, Clinton can't even practice law!

In fact, Clinton never got over 50% of the vote in either preidential election, thus had no mandate. Even BenReilly couldn't blame Bush/Nader for this fact.

I believe it was Gore/Bush who robbed Nader of his rightful place as the President of the USA! Those guys ran just to spite Ralph Nader!

Gore's Law is in full effect, brothers and sisters.

 

The thing is no country is any position to lash out against the US, nor has any country done so. 9/11 wasn't the work of a country. How is saying "do as we say or we'll bomb the shit out of your country" going to stop individuals hating the US? How can you scare suicide bombers into giving up terrorism? What are you going to do - threaten to execute them?

If a large chunk of hatred towards the US is because the US is seen as anti-muslim bully that threatens every country that won't let it do what it wants, then threatening to invade most of the middle-east is hardly the best way to stop that hatred.

If the US can rebuild Iraq and set it up as a well-run democratic country, and then leave, then all those in the middle-east who fuel their popularity by claiming themselves as protectors against American imperialism will lose a lot of their ammunition. Attack other countries and anti-US feeling will grow.
The basic fact is you can't win friends by punching them in the face until they like you.

And I'm not even a leftist. I was (just) pro-war.

 

C'mon, gimme SOME credit. Of course, much of the world, particularly the Arab world, perceives the USA as the bad guy. They did it before we invaded Iraq; they did it afterward; they do it now.

Invading, or not invading Iraq, frankly, doesn't mean a damn bit of difference to this ongoing and persistent perception.

And the argument that "well, we used them, and they haven't" is about as tired a bloated out-of-shape Clint Mathis after 90 minutes. What happened 60 years ago is irrelevant.

Meanwhile, you want some moral clarity? Here it is:

--A theocratic, fundamentalist state, a state mightily resisting the process of its society's democritization, and continues to fund terrorist activity, has NO business -- repeat -- NO business having nuclear weapons. Or ever nuclear facilities, given it has billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas.

--A dictatorial despotic state, with an economy in shambles, a million man army that drains its resources while its population starves, has NO business -- repeat -- NO business possessing nuclear weapons.

In either case, should these states acquire nuclear weapons, there is an ongoing probability that they will use them unwisely, or sell them to the highest bidder, or deliver them into the hand of people who will have ZERO compunction -- let me repeat -- ZERO compunction about using them.

I don't care a whit what the rest of the world thinks about us. This is not a PR exercise; in today's world, the minute we start driving our actions by how it will APPEAR, as opposed to what it means, is the minute we start sinking.

 

Garcia, I'm not sure I understand your post. I was NOT referring to the electoral college.

 

Superdave has articulated a favorite tactic of the liberals - argument from perceptions.

If Bush is perceived to be building an empire - well, that's just as bad as actually doing it. Even if those doing the perceiving are not being fair. That's of very high importance to superdave, but he isn't taking their side.........just recognizing their perceptions.

If a Republican has the appearance of impropriety - like Cheney being a former Halliburton guy - guilty until proven innocent.

If it's a Democrat, though, there's never any controlling authority to be found, everyone does it, etc.

And as far as the Supreme Court goes - the votes were counted, they stopped the Democrats from recounting and changing the rules and then recounting again until their guy won. Carping on it over and over only exposes you as a partisan unwilling to admit defeat and move on.