U.S.: Iran halted nuclear weapons program in 2003

OutOfBreath wrote:

Have you ever considered that the main reason Ahmadinejad spouts all that shit, is meant as a deterrent, and by obscuring their (lack of) nuclear capabilities try to look tougher and bigger than they are, so the US won't attack? Not saying that that is the smart way to play it, but it seems to be their strategy. Talk tough and look big and scary, and you wont be attacked by the US as they may view the whole thing as too risky and costly.

Cosmo, I think 810 meant Iran, not Iraq.

Peace
Dan

...
Oh... okay.
Then, in that case... I agree with you. The message we seem to be sending out with our Iraq policy is, "If you don't have nuclear weapons... we will attack you".
So, get nuclear weapons so we won't attack.

Cosmo wrote:

...
I don't know about Non-partisan minds... but, for a politician to go against a War after September 11th (at that time) looked like political suicide. There was no certainty that we would rout the Iraqi military... and we were "Not in the business of Nation building". We we sold a bill of goods (that we pass on to our kids and their kids) based upon the glory of war and visions of Paris, 1944. No one questioned. To question... you were labled Un-Patriotic, a Terroist Sympathiser and told to go live in Iraq by, what turned out to be, some of the stupidest minds in the country.
And yeah... a peaceful Democratic Iraq "looks" like a good thing... only if they vote in people who like us. They voted in people loyal to Muqtada al Sadr... people who hate us. They voted in people who align themselves (religiously) with Iran. Under that later of sugar we call 'Democracy' is a steaming pile of shit for us to eat. and no matter how much sugar you sprinkle on shit... it's still shit.
All anyone had to do was question the reasoning and the timing. Afghanistan was half-baked and needed to be completed. There was a looming election in 2004 that the neo-conservatives wanted to win. all we had to do was step back... look at what we were getting into and come up with a worst case scenarios instead of relying only best case. Had we done that... we would have forseen the problems with the ensuing occupation.

No, a democratic Iraq is a great thing regardless of who they vote into power. The biggest and hardest step is to establish democratic institutions in a country. This allows for the possibility that the population will vote in a more liberal, tolerant and cooperative government in the future. Without this system in place, that would be virtually impossible.

Furthermore, it's a lot better to read in the paper about a lame Iraqi parlament that is having trouble governing, than reading about an ego-maniac dictator who is oppressing, starving and killing dissidents and using his countries oil money to build hundreds of lavish palaces.

OutOfBreath wrote:

Have you ever considered that the main reason Ahmadinejad spouts all that shit, is meant as a deterrent, and by obscuring their (lack of) nuclear capabilities try to look tougher and bigger than they are, so the US won't attack? Not saying that that is the smart way to play it, but it seems to be their strategy. Talk tough and look big and scary, and you wont be attacked by the US as they may view the whole thing as too risky and costly.

Cosmo, I think 810 meant Iran, not Iraq.

Peace
Dan

Just becuase this appears to be the Iranian strategy does not mean the US should step down and allow them to obtain nuclear weapons. We have established a policy towards Iran's nuclear proliferation that we cannot walk away from, and Iran needs to understand that.

Iran's bluster is founded in the belief that the US is bluffing. But this isn't a game of poker where the US can just fold its hand. We really cannot allow Iran to obtain a bomb, and our leaders know it. Whether they be liberal democrats or conservative republicans. If inteligence suggests that Iran obtaining a bomb is iminent, you can bet your ass there will be sufficient support in the congress and the general public to let the bombs fall to take out that capability. We will act unilaterally if we have to, and so will Israel.

I'm glad that the recent US report shows that Iran has abandonded their nuclear weapons program. I still don't trust them, but at least this delays any serious confrontation for awhile. I don't want to fight Iran, or bomb their country. Hopefully Amadinijad will get voted out soon and a more liberal government will emerge that can be negotiated with.

mammasan wrote:

I understand what you are saying and agree that a democracy is far greater than an oppressive dictator. My concern is look what democracy has brought to the Middle East, Ahmedinajad and Hamas. How can we be sure that someone like Muqtada Al Sadar will not control the Iraqi parlament through influence. So many people in that region have been indoctrinated in this hate filled extremist form of Islam that they will probably vote for the most fundamental candidate out there. Now this is just an assumption but it is a possibility. The last thing I would want to see is all the lives of the soldier we lost, and will loose, plus the billions of dollars spent just so Iraqies can elect a government founded in extremism. We would have freed a nation just so they could elect our next enemy. I deeply hope that this will not be the case but the possibility exists and that is why the whole venture could blow up in our face. There where other ways to go about this which probably would have netted better results.

Yeah, I think that is a legitimate point you bring up. But in my view that is a risk that we have to take, and will have to take in the future. The wonderful thing about Democracy is that even though it may bring in the likes of Hamas and Amadenijad or even Hizbollah in Lebanon - that it can also take them out. That is unless these leaders try to pull a Hugo Chavez or Putin and try to manipulate the system to solidify their power.

If you think about it, I doubt there would have ever been a situation where Iraq turned toward democracy on its own. Not becuase the people wouldn't want it, but becuase over the past 3 decades the power of the people has just been sucked away. If Saddam was in power until he died, then some warlord would have taken over, and the country would have plunged into a civil war that would have lasted God knows how long.

I think we all agree here that you can't "force" democracy on people, and despite popular belief, the US did not do this in Iraq. Yes, we acted as an interim government and set up elections. But the Iraqi people did not have to participate in them if they did not want to. They could have just as easily rallied behind "Mohamad the warlord" and waged an all out civil war.

Anyways, sorry for rambling. But here is the reason I think we should bet on democracy working over the long term. It's becuase the human spirit will ultimately prevail. People naturally gravitate towards freedom and opportunity. With globalization at break-neck speed, people all around the world are getting a glimpse of societies that offer hope, choices and tolerance to their citizens. I think over time, people will naturally turn away from fanatical ideologies.

NCfan wrote:

Yeah, I think that is a legitimate point you bring up. But in my view that is a risk that we have to take, and will have to take in the future. The wonderful thing about Democracy is that even though it may bring in the likes of Hamas and Amadenijad or even Hizbollah in Lebanon - that it can also take them out. That is unless these leaders try to pull a Hugo Chavez or Putin and try to manipulate the system to solidify their power.

If you think about it, I doubt there would have ever been a situation where Iraq turned toward democracy on its own. Not becuase the people wouldn't want it, but becuase over the past 3 decades the power of the people has just been sucked away. If Saddam was in power until he died, then some warlord would have taken over, and the country would have plunged into a civil war that would have lasted God knows how long.

I think we all agree here that you can't "force" democracy on people, and despite popular belief, the US did not do this in Iraq. Yes, we acted as an interim government and set up elections. But the Iraqi people did not have to participate in them if they did not want to. They could have just as easily rallied behind "Mohamad the warlord" and waged an all out civil war.

Anyways, sorry for rambling. But here is the reason I think we should bet on democracy working over the long term. It's becuase the human spirit will ultimately prevail. People naturally gravitate towards freedom and opportunity. With globalization at break-neck speed, people all around the world are getting a glimpse of societies that offer hope, choices and tolerance to their citizens. I think over time, people will naturally turn away from fanatical ideologies.

I believe that in time all people will gravitate towards a peacefull democratic society, my concern is what happens in the interm. I agree that change on it's own would not have happened in Iraq because of the decades long oppression, as you mentioned, but we could have supported change in other countries. Afghanistan is a country that we left half built, for a second time. Had we finished what we started and support the Karzai government there with more troops in order to secure the country we could have created one of the first true democractic societies in that region. Follow this with democratic reform in Pakistan, continued support of the Lebonese government, and maybe a few years down the road started flexing a little influence in the Arab Sheikdoms. It would have been a much slower process but little by little the oppressive regimes of the Middle East would have started collapsing like dominoes till all that was left was countries like Iraq and Iran who in time would of had no choice but to follow suit. I know that sounds like some utopian dream but I honestly feel that it would have been the better road to follow.

polaris wrote:

dude ... who's making the money on that oil ... it isn't about getting cheap oil for you and me ... it's about the companies that make the money off that oil ... it's your haliburtons and blackwaters of the world that are doing the looting ...

again - democracy is a tag line akin to Fat Free ... it's complete BS ... there is no democracy there ... the iraqi people have no say in anything ... if things were bad under Saddam - it's worse now ... how can a place that used to be the jewel of the middle east get sent back a century - where water and electricy are rationed? ... Saddam's fault? ... convenient i say ...

Actually Iraq recently reinstated a huge oil deal that they had with China to develope oil fields. If the US was really interested in stealing Iraq's oil why would they allow the government to let China, of all countries, develope a huge swath of oil fields. While I agree that democracy was not the primary, or even one of the primary, reasons why we invaded Iraq I don't believe we did it to "loot" their oil. I am more inclined to believe that we did so to a) sure up the US dollar's hold as petro currency b) to help ween us off Saudi oil so we can begin to distance ourselves from that fucked up regime and c) to have a permenant base of operation to soldify our influence in the Middle East.

my2hands wrote:

adj rag head huh?

racist? or just trying to be funny? i bet the first

you bet whatever you want

NCfan wrote:

I don't really disagree. That probably would have been a better road to follow honestly. The monkey wrench in the hole thing though is Saddam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was the last "true" dictator in the Middle East, and certainly the most brutal towards his neighbors and especially his own citizens.

I agree all day long that BushCo cooked the intel and manipulated our country into war. Truce on that. But I can't see where I was wrong to support the war becuase Saddam was one twisted fuck who hated the US and everything about Western democracy - save the money he got from us to subjigate his people and pamper himself. There is not doubt in my mind that any plans a terrorist group had against the US, would recieve Saddams blessing - regardless if he liked them or had ties to them.

It sucks that it all went down like it did, it has certainly hurt our nation. And I'm glad Bush is leaving. I don't like the guy - but I'm taking him out of the equation. Plain and simple the shit storm we've witnessed in Iraq has been brewing for 30 years. I can only believe that it would have been much, much worst and lasted much, much longer and had a much, much better chance of not turning out as good as it seems to be had the US not gone in.

So in hindsight, in my view, we were wrong for going in. But now that we are there, it's probably better than what would have happened had we not got involved in Iraq. I beleive Iraq as a country has progressed 30 years ahead of where it would be had we not gone in.

I agree with everything you said, but how is the world or even Iraqies for that fact going to take us on our word when we simultaniously support a corrupt oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia. If our government where truely intent on establishing a democratic society in the Middle East, which I fully support, why not start will our allies. By supporting the Al Sa'ud it just taints any honest attempt we may undertake to bring democracy to that region. It leaves on us a stench of hypocracy and I understand the delicate nature of our relationship with Saudi Arabia, but we allowed corporate interests to place us in the eye of this shit storm. We knew back in the 1970's that our relationship with the Saudies and our dependence on them for cheap oil was going to be a very dangerious relationship but for some unknown and unexplained reason we just brushed it aside. It has always, and will always, be my belief that it is this relationship that is at the core of all that ails us in that region.

I agree that the only way to have brought democracy to Iraq would probably have to be by force, but had we waited, planted the seeds in some of the surrounding nations, and waited for a democratic society to take shape in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Lebanon, etc..., bringing down saddam and establishing a safe free society in Iraq, and hopefully followed by Iran, would not have been such a bloody and costly venture.