Hatred is not a SEED. It is NO LONGER a seed, because it grew into a TREE one day, and is now a frigging FOREST! The Middle East has been a hotbed of hatred for so long, that it has eaten, consumed, and passed it through their bowels - fertilized the soils of their nation with it - and internalized their religious, political, and personal dogmas with it - HATRED. The religious side alone has festered for over 2,000 years, and now us Westerners have come over, jumped in the middle of the "hate train" like we have ownership and understanding of the dispute. NOW, we are the target of hate - so much so, that the posture of Iraq and Iran being mortal enemies has change to an alignment of two brothers fighting against one sworn enemy. We need to wake up, back up, wise up, and move the Frick out of this dispute - letting them resolve those issues. Then when the vast desert of smoke clears, sit down, talk, and otherwise negotiate with men that have a more solvent perspective about life, war, and their religious and political preferences - with a settled mind to looking forward. What we're doing now makes no sense to any of the intelligent species on this planet. And if you take away the political aspirations and affiliations of our best political pundits and political geniuses, it is just a tool for discussing a host of associated ills - more important that the central discussion...AND~~

It makes even less sense to members of the smartest, best trained, and most dedicated military in the world. I keep hearing the troops on the ground saying "Bullshit" to most of these situations... I believe the correct term for this is "BUSH-SHIT"...

Yeah, I said it...

Jazz

Posted by: Jazz at June 3, 2007 11:13 AM

You're confused.
Mining the Persian Gulf is an act of war, not terrorism.
If that was terrorism, the US assaults on lybian force in the Gulf of Syrte would be terrorism, too. By the way; do you remember what the US Navy did in WW2 against japanese shipping? The larget naval mining campaign ever. Were they terrorists?

Not to forget airstrikes on Lybia, a civilian goods factory in Sudan and a lot of other dubious actions as well. The USA and its citizens should be the last to draw the line between terrorism and no terrorism so far away from the core of terrorism.

It's no terrorism if you try to strangle the economy of your enemy.
It's terrorism if you commit acts of unjustified violence to instill fear to achieve a purpose without waging a regular war.

However, positions should be clarified so far and the other readers should have a firm opinion on who's an idiot and who's not.
I bet they're divided.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at June 2, 2007 06:22 PM

Sven, you said-
"OMG. You really believe that the USA are so important in the world that the French base their election decision on whether a candidate dislikes US policy strongly or not? Unbelievably big-headed.
Imagine; the USA are really, really unimportant to other people in comparison to their domestic interests.
What a challenging idea, isn't it?"

OH MY LORD SVEN! I have one word for you - DUH!
I argued that the US doesn't care what Europe thinks! It's obvious that the Europe feels the same way-however they did just elect someone in France that (so far) agrees with the US more than the last French administration! When I argue that the US doesn't care what Europe thinks-it's implicit that the Europeans can ignore American opinion.

You're funny dude.

Sven, You've argued-

That the typists in the US Embassy in Tehran are the same as the men who took up arms to kill Westerners and are now at that country club called Gitmo.

That Iran didn't support terrorism. I guess, mining the Gulf, threatening it's neighbors and funding the killing of Israelis by the bushel is OKAY!

That the US should look to neutrals-that we should emulate neutrals.

WOW-The US should emulate people who don't think radical Islam is problem. I guess forcing women to wear burquas, forcing people to worship Islam, misogyny and hanging gays is okay by Sven! He'd be neutral to it!

I can't understand how anyone can be neutral to that. You're basically arguing that the slaugher or Gays and Israelis is fine in your book.

Sven, which do you hate more?!?

Posted by: Max at June 2, 2007 06:01 PM

Hey, people--gotta book for you to read. BECAUSE THEY HATE by Brigitte Gabriel. Read this and your illusions about peaceful Islam will vanish, as will any notions that we in the west can sit down and negotiate with these people. Brigitte is a Lebonese-American who went through the 1970's to 1980's Lebonese Civil War; is a highly respected journalist and former major TV news anchor. Check out her web site: americancongressfortruth.org. Well worth your time.

Posted by: Richard Hutton at June 2, 2007 03:21 PM

Guys, don't waste your posts on Max. All he does is come in and throw around the same circular arguments, regardless of the topic. He is in his own personal shame spiral cause he knows what he is shoveling is bullshit. Pity him, do not poke at him thru the bars.

Posted by: Grandjester at June 2, 2007 02:08 PM

Max - well, let's hope so...

I just think once we're out of the cities the whole dynamic changes - and they will be forced to pull together/take sides, and let this thing play out. Our presence in the cities is only delaying the inevideable... As you know, their tribal alliances trump all of our artificial power structures.

I'd keep a rapid reaction force that could move in - IN FORCE - in case of any bad outcomes. at least then they'd be more easily engaged.

and I sill think Afghanistan would have made a better 'central front' for many reasons... including the open terrain that our favors our weaponry and tactics... lack of major built up cities (less civie casualties, places to hide/blend into the population, etc) Not to mention we had the 'political high ground' being in Afghanistan too... less media coverage... and on and on.

But we're there, I know... and unless some politician is gonna have the balls to reinstate the draft, we won't be able to sustain our current presence in Iraq for too terribly much longer. we're breaking our Army and our Treaury a little more every month we stay deployed as we are now.

gotta jet.

Posted by: ME at June 2, 2007 02:05 PM

OMG. You really believe that the USA are so important in the world that the French base their election decision on whether a candidate dislikes US policy strongly or not? Unbelievably big-headed.

The Germans elected a female chancellor despite she was pro-Iraq war. About 90% of the Germans are contra-Iraq-war, yet they still elected her party enough to make her chancellor.

Imagine; the USA are really, really unimportant to other people in comparison to their domestic interests.
What a challenging idea, isn't it?

I won't provide links. Links don't convince anyone, as long as the other side throws other links in the discussion. Furthermore, I'm too lazy to search for even a minor fraction of what links I could provide if I wasn't.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at June 2, 2007 01:17 PM

ME you said,

"Pull out of the cities and re-deploy to the border areas.

Let them fight it out (because they're going to anyway - whether it's one year or ten years from now.) "

I don't know if I agree-I think we need to be downtown a bit-definately seal the borders though.

Check out the reports from Amariyah lately-I was there on Screaming Lady Road in 2004 and 2005 quite a bit-South of Cardinals-it appears we are growing a Sunni-Shiite coalition. Will it hold-who knows.

Posted by: max at June 2, 2007 01:07 PM

Sven, you said-

"You misunderstand defense with offense.

Europe doesn't waste its ressources on huge offensive capabilities to enable itself to have such blunders like Vietnam and Iraq. That's why Europe hasn't got a balance deficit of the same size as its "defense" spending."

No Sven, Europe doesn't waste it's money on defense spending-It wastes AMERICA's or rather we waste ours to defend fools in Europe. Don't worry the USA is bloating up with social spending my friend-eventually Europe will be forced to defend itself. Noone need to invade Europe to impose their will on it anymore either.

Sven you said,

"But there's certainly no power on earth that could successfully invade Europe against the power of Europe. The USA are utterly incapable, the Chinese would even be incapable if they were neighbours and the Russians are no match either."

Actually Sven, the Middle East and North Africa are slowly invading Europe rather well. Try to park a nice car outside Paris this summer-you'll see how the first wave of invaders are torching Citreons left and right.

Sven you added-

"And your link tells only that there's at least sone source refuting what thousands of other sources tell.

You're fatuous."

Sven-you haven't LINKED ANYTHING! You've just said everyone outside North America and the UK disagrees with the US-then you accuse me of being fatuous!

Kettle this is Sven calling-you're black!!!!

Dude-I picked an outspoken critic of US Middle East Policies in the US-to point out that your argument didn't hold water. Thousands of sources agree with me-thousands agree with you-the difference is I'm correct-you're not!

Apparently most of France agrees with the US-they're voting pro American now!

Sven-please give your brain a chance!

Posted by: Max at June 2, 2007 01:02 PM

JW - I've stated my ideas in this very thread.

Pull out of the cities and re-deploy to the border areas.

Let them fight it out (because they're going to anyway - whether it's one year or ten years from now.)

If we don;t like who wins, go back in and F them up again.

There are no magic button solutions at this point, but at least this way, we don't have to be the Iraqi's police force anymore.

MAX -

Ok, Touche. But you are wrong about the Black and White thing. I'm a vet too, and would rather we stop sniping at each other and get my friends out of this never-ending loop of re-deployment. Shit, my boys are on their 3rd and 4th tours by now - and can't just keep re-deploying indefinitely.

Posted by: ME at June 2, 2007 12:55 PM

"Hell they can't defend themselves anymore."

You misunderstand defense with offense.

Europe doesn't waste its ressources on huge offensive capabilities to enable itself to have such blunders like Vietnam and Iraq. That's why Europe hasn't got a balance deficit of the same size as its "defense" spending.

But there's certainly no power on earth that could successfully invade Europe against the power of Europe. The USA are utterly incapable, the Chinese would even be incapable if they were neighbours and the Russians are no match either.

And your link tells only that there's at least sone source refuting what thousands of other sources tell.

You're fatuous.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at June 2, 2007 12:30 PM

Sven, You said this-

"That you, Max, mix so many events together and connect them to Iran while it's widely acknowledged that Iran had for example nothing to do with the 1996 bombings (they're attributed to AQ which is sunni and strongly dislikes Iran) tells alot about how serious one should take oyour arguments."

WRONG AGAIN.

Sorry Sven, I went to the Council on Foreign Website.

http://www.cfr.org/index.html

They are no fan of the Bush Administration and an organization that is certainly not a propaganda machine-except for perhaps themselves. They are often critical of Bush.

As for the "rest of the world" allegedly disagreeing with American views on terrorism-well a huge chunk of the world supported Hitler. Some still support thugs like Chavez and Castro.

Do you think Americans care?!?

Sven you added this-

"People should rather listen to news from neutral countries to inform themselves - it's possible today after all."

Neutral countries-you mean the socialist fools in Europe right?!? No because they aren't neutral, they're cowed. Hell they can't defend themselves anymore.

Posted by: Max at June 2, 2007 11:43 AM

It's interesting that the rest of the world (I mean outside of US and at most UK) considers Iran as supporter of Hezbollah and practically no other terrorists. And Hezbollah is only partially terrorist (95% media coverage) and much more state-emulation and guerilla (5% media coverage).

That you, Max, mix so many events together and connect them to Iran while it's widely acknowledged that Iran had for example nothing to do with the 1996 bombings (they're attributed to AQ which is sunni and strongly dislikes Iran) tells alot about how serious one should take oyour arguments.
The embassy hostage thing wasn't even an act of terrorism (if it was, the USA would be in even bigger trouble over all those unguilty people that were released after years in Guantanamo Bay).

Well, despite the utter failure of the Bush administration and all its foreign policy activities this world still seems to have too many people who still believe the Bush administration propaganda and even the propaganda that grew of such seeds.

Wartime propaganda is always a nasty thing and far from reality, in every country and at every time. People should rather listen to news from neutral countries to inform themselves - it's possible today after all.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at June 2, 2007 10:48 AM

Hey ME,you wrote this-

"You stole MY Party, Max.

You - and the deluded Neo Cons… and the 'Religious Right' extremist charlatans and their Corporate colluders - who are all cashing-in on your loyal, zombie follower asses, by the way."

AMAZING, I'M NOT A MEMBER OF YOUR PARTY! Yet! ME-you're a still an idiot who's prone to overgeneralizations. As a veteran of the war in Iraq and a guy who was at ground zero, all I can do is laugh at the irony here. How you charge people with delusions when you paint the issue with a broad brush and in such a black and white world! It's obvious their are grays here, but you're too filled with hate to see them.

Sven, you wrote this-

"Iraq hasn't sponsored any major terrorism activities, in fact it was outside of the USA less supected to do so than the USA itself."

WRONG!

Uhhhh, you're joking right!??

The tanker war against Kuwait?
Sacking the US embassy?
The Marine barracks bombing?

Here Sven-from the Council on Foreign Relations website;

"Yes. The U.S. State Department has called Iran the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Iran continues to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere. In March 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq.”

WAIT THEIR'S MORE-

"What terrorist activities have been linked with Iran?

The U.S. government first listed Iran as a terrorist sponsor in 1984. Among its activities have been the following:

In November 1979, Iranian student revolutionaries widely thought to be linked to the Khomeini government occupied the American Embassy in Tehran. Iran held fifty-two Americans hostage for 444 days.

Observers say Iran had prior knowledge of Hezbollah attacks, such as the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine involved in a U.N. observer mission in Lebanon, and the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish cultural institutions in Argentina.

Iran still has a price on the head of the Indian-born British novelist Salman Rushdie for what Iranian leaders call blasphemous writings about Islam in his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses.

U.S. officials say Iran supported the group behind the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed nineteen U.S. servicemen.

As for Iraq Sven-

Does, The Kurdistan Worker's Party, funding suicide bombers in Israel, Abu Nidal, supporting assasination attempts on George H Bush or gassing his own people ring a bell? How about letting terrorists use Iraq to funnel money around??!

As if funding Hezbollah wasn't enough.

WOW Sven-guess you're misinformed.

Guys-the conflict in Iraq has been full of errors, but at this point the anti-war crowd has gone overboard. Using politics to demagoge when troops are at risk in the field is disgusting, not going all out to win is sick too. You guys are just funny.

The best is Bruce!

Iran would never, ever support "Sunni Insurgents" Bruce? Do we know that the EFPs are used exclusively by Sunni insurgents?! No, we don't.

Also, I guess Sunni, Shiite, organized crime or corrupt Iraqi officials could ever work together! Tha'd be like Hitler and Stalin working together......... oh wait!

My experience from being in Baghdad and chatting witht the locals-thru interpreters was that depending on the day of the week and the $$$$$ involved Sunnis and Shiites could definately work together-if only temporarily.

JW-you're absolutely correct. I suck too man, I can only suggest we fight harder and be ready to slug it out outside the Middle East.

Posted by: Max at June 2, 2007 09:13 AM

All you folks are a bunch of complainers. How about some real thoughts or soulutions to real problems. You all bitch about everyone else and have no real answers either. What would you do if you are all so wise as it appears by your comments?

Posted by: JW at June 2, 2007 07:55 AM

I've seen Hamas on tv with M-16's. They must be supported by the USA. lol

EFP factories are found from time to time in Iraq, but this does not make it to the mainstream press. As Iran borders Iraq, it seems to me they have a much greater interest in Iraq than America.

As for Shiite Iran collaborating with the Sunni insurgency, thats thats the funniest thing I've heard. Serching for smoking guns with cheery pickers.

Posted by: Bruce at June 2, 2007 05:52 AM

You stole MY Party, Max.

You - and the deluded Neo Cons… and the 'Religious Right' extremist charlatans and their Corporate colluders - who are all cashing-in on your loyal, zombie follower asses, by the way.

Do you even remember we were supposed to be for LESS Government, not more? (hmmmm, guess we won't talk about illegal domestic spying... or the "Patriot" act, or even Habeas Corpus for that matter - because after all, it is a Republican President, right? And the evil doers want to steal our liberties! so we better give them to Abu Gonzalez right away! Yeah.)

And fiscal conservatism? remember that? I mean Max, come on man... have you been paying attention?

Guess we shouldn’t talk about our subsidizing the oil industry with our tax dollars so they can keep all of their record 49 billion/year profits instead of spending a little on building new refineries to get the cost back down….

What about selling our ports to the UAE, man? Great idea, huh? For WHO exactly?

And I should not even mention "No Nation Building", should I???

nahhhh, that so pre-9/11, aint it… when the world all changed FOR YOU (because you had NO IDEA what was going on before that, I guess). Cheney knows better, he’ll tell you everything you need to know… (just don’t listen to any Gulf war 1-era Cheney whatever you do)

How about winning a damn war with intelligence and forethought and actually LISTENING to your commanders - and your CIA Agents - instead of retiring and smearing them? That’s what Bush 1 did in Gulf 1, man. I was there. Think Colin Powell… or Joe Wilson - who got our guys back from Saddam in Gulf 1, by the way – risking his own damn neck in the process… But hey, they told you to hate him, so I’m betting you hate him.

Or hell, even Syria – who fought at our side in Gulf 1 you know… But, guess it’s better to have ENEMIES than it is to have allies though, huh… all post 9/11 and all…

No, the only thing you neo-con/charlatan followers believe in is your absolute loyalty to the grand web of delusion... constantly spun and re-spun for you on a daily basis - to keep up with all the new hypocrisies and lies... and complete with TV action shows too! (24) - Hell, you even have your own TV News channel... and most of talk radio too. Big part of the print media… all playing along…

Maybe immigration finally woke your asses up… but I sure aint holding my breath on that one.

You're a fool Max. You only want to see the facts that fit your spoon-fed, ever-changing ideological charade - and to hell with all fact and reason. It’s kind of ridiculous actually. We let these goons take over the Republican Party with their BS and lies.

How is it anything BUT conservative to say that I don’t think it was the wisest move to bankrupt our damn country pissing away all our cash and heroic American lives driving around in circles in Iraq forever - instead keeping our attention on Osama and Afghanistan? We had Saddam in a box. We kept him there for a reason. Hell, we created him for a reason. To keep Iran in check. Remember? No, that was pre-9/11 again, right? I bet Bush 1 does though, huh?

Who’s gonna pay for all of this anyway? Any ideas of how long it takes to pay down a trillion or two? To CHINA? How about rebuilding our military? Before we break it completely maybe? Can't we even give our guys a damn 3 percent raise? enough armour? a PLAN to get them home?

What about the Norks? ...and what did we hand Iran?

To morph this whole mission into a giant, never-ending, on-the-fly, ally-free, national-building experiment in a Muslim country that has never had anything resembling democracy - is just too rich for my blood, have to tell ya. It’s not realistic, man.

“We’re not supposed to be the world police-men”, remember???????????

Oh no, that’s right... that was our line when Clinton was in office. So Pre-9/11…. We’re back on to abortion now… much better fodder for the masses.

Yeah. Whatever. Just don’t call me a liberal. And spare me the revisionist history bit too please. You’re only deluding yourself...

I’m out.

Posted by: ME at June 1, 2007 10:31 PM

but,,, but, Max, I AM a Republican!

Shit, I was probably voting Repubican while you were still scratching your daddy's ass.

Oh, and I'm also a combat veteran too.. But as we've seen, that doesn't mean to much to you Neo-con zombies, if I don't go along with your grand-delusion, right?

and just the mere fact, that old Max AUTOMATICALLY assumed that I was a 'Liberal/Democrat/etc', just illustrates quite perfectly that you have been so brainwashed that you only see in black and white, now doesn't it?

And Max, if you really think that we would have still went into Iraq if they had NO oil? then you my friend, are absolutely fucking clueless.

Right or wrong, without Oil, Iraq is irrelevant.

But hey man, at least we agree on one thing! (immigration).

By the way man, YOU my friend, are in the extreme minority... the vast majority of American people, Generals, military experts, etc - all agree with me. If Iraq wasn't a mistake.. a diversion from the real fight with Al Qaeda (funny how you guys never mention Osama and the gang anymore, unless of course, it's about their small contingent in Iraq) - then the way it was handled by this Administration, was UNFORGIVEABLY NEGLIGENT in all categories.

c ya bro.. and remember, your hatred for liberals is all that matters... and when you realize it's not just liberals that think you guys are brainwashed, mentally challenged FOOLS, then well, just pretend they're all liberals too!

later!

Posted by: ME at June 1, 2007 06:37 PM

"...-ignoring the fact that for years Iran and Iraq have been at war with us-in our neighborhood-by funding and supporting terrorism."

Wrong.
Iran primarily supports Hezbollah which primarily (well, only) fights Israel and occasionally some lebanese factions.

Iraq hasn't sponsored any major terrorism activities, in fact it was outside of the USA less supected to do so than the USA itself.

Even the Bush administration with its tunnel vision towards searching for justifications didn't come up with useful evidence concerning Saddam + terror.
The only terrorists in Iraq 2002 was a splinter group affiliated with AQ that resided in a camp of US-friendly Kurdish minority outside of Saddam's region of influence, protected by US air power against Saddam.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at June 1, 2007 06:09 PM

Wow "ME" has stolen the "overgeneralizingand idiotic rant" award from Grandjester!

Sorry Jester-you've only won the "OJ Simpson" jury award today!

The best ME was your streetfight analogy-a fight on a city street-ignoring the fact that for years Iran and Iraq have been at war with us-in our neighborhood-by funding and supporting terrorism. So guess what?

"… The only damn reason you went down there in the first place was to secure the grocery store (OIL), so you can feed your fat fucking wife 10 gallons of Ben and Jerry's every damn day "

Is complete horseshit and we all know it.

Idiots like you are why I do so want to donate to the Republican party!

But I can't because of the immigration bill.

Go back to your fantasy world ME.

Jester don't worry-you won't be satisfied, because Iran has already shot at several of our border patrols and eventually we'll settle their hash. It might be Pres Richardson or Obama that does it-but it'll happen!

Posted by: Max at June 1, 2007 06:00 PM

OH and bill,

All of those Generals and Soliders/Marines... you know, the ones who actually led their troops in combat in Iraq and all, they're just a bunch of traitors and liberals too, man! Eaton, Batiste - oh and can't forget that little surrender monkey, former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shineki! How dare he tell our Dear Administration that we'd need on the order of 500,00 troops to secure Iraq after the intial conflict! Traitor! He should have just clapped louder and none of this would have happened!

See, it's all about being a tough guy, bill... as you know, of course. And NEVER EVER deal with facts or reality man, especially if it isn't back and white and something that we can nail the liberals with!

So rock on man! Everyone who doesn't talk as tough as you behind your keyboard is a panzy liberal traitor! Who cares if it's the vast majority of Americans.. and Generals ...and Soldiers and Marines - who say this is a mess. If our dear leader (and his mouthpieces) tell us differently, then we know better, don't we?

Keep the faith man. God will deliver us from the liberals and crush all who oppose us. as long as we have un-questioning faith in our King and always remember - it's all about the propaganda, man!

Posted by: ME at June 1, 2007 04:36 PM

Oh bill, I'm so sorry if my F-bomb or two offended you.. especially such a tough-talker like yourself... gee, how horrible that must have been for you. so sorry.

And yeah, that's it! It's all Clinton's fault! LOL!

and man, spot on: it had nothing at all to do with oil! Man, if that country had NO oil, we would have still gone in there! Yeah, that's it!

And finally, man, all those neighbors of Iran we invaded during Reagan and Eisenhower.. but they would have NEVER thought about getting involved then. NEVER! And let's just forget about that hasty little al-qaeda emboldening cowardly retreat from Beirut for now, eh? :)

Let's instead stick to half-century old allusions about noble wars that we once were in, eh!

Yeah, it's like WW2! that's it! just like Japan (minus the singular culture - and of course the Emperor who controlled all his people's loyalty who told them to lay down their arms)

OH - and well, might want to leave out the Russians when using any Germany references... that just complicates things too much.

Instead, stick to blaming it all on Clinton and the Liberals! That way, you'll not only get Bush off the hook, but you can tear apart your own country while you're at it! Brilliant!

Posted by: ME at June 1, 2007 04:15 PM

Well, I have to entirely disregard a lot of the garbage posted in this section, as the profanity shows the level of thought involved in the posts.

First off, we are there NOT because of oil, but because it keeps the terrorists cash and manpower scattered, but mostly going there instead of here. We also had to unseat Hussein because he violated the armstice he signed with us from last time, thereby throwing down at us. If we turned away, it would mean no peace treaty signed with the US would mean diddly again. We had no choice, but we should have done it sooner with that alone as the reason, it is plenty enough.

As far as munitions of mass destruction goes, that has been proven repeatedly, but those of less than open minds refuse to believe it. Oh well, you cannot please every liberal out there. Even the ones who saw the same intel our President did and voted for it.

As far as Iran goes, they are interfering, and are committing acts of war against our troops. This means that if we are to keep our reputation for strength we must act (the recent lack of strength and loss of reputation thereof which I lay squarely on the Clinton doorstep, with the unbelievable appeasement to the liberals (whom should have been tried as seditious traitors) by the current president as icing on that cake) as a world power (and if such strength was recognized as it was in Roosevelt's, Truman's, or Eisenhower's, or even Reagan's day, you think Iran would have been able to send in this much hate and discontent into a country we unseated back then? Yeah right...).

In the face of a treaty violation and even more, in the face of aggression against our citizens, we are REQUIRED to go in, clean up house, and when the enemy COMPLETELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY surrenders, leave a force behind to facilitate withdrawal and a reformation of the government we removed (see WW2 Japan and Germany), then kill any whom are trying to reinstate said government, or trying to cause mayhem to the new one. THAT is how you win a war, insomuch as one CAN be anyway.. Of course, as nobody learns history in school anymore, and can barely read, let alone get along without the Communist News Network, we are probably doomed to be fighting terrorists in our local streets before decades end, just like in France.

Posted by: Bill at June 1, 2007 03:43 PM

Let's say the PR China invades Venezuela to unseat Hugo Chavez. They care most for the ministry of oil and install a puppet regime that's supported by a couple PLA divisions in a counter insurgency campaign.
Now the USA didn't interfere witht he invasion (big surprise) and doesn't interdict Chinese shipping to Venezuela.
It merely sends to CIA to cause the Chinese trouble.

Would that make the USA a bad country?
Or do you think neutral people would have better reason to dislike the Chinese more?
Would it sound ridiculous when the Chinese complain about CIA interference?

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at June 1, 2007 03:05 PM

Christian -

It's like walking into the 'hood', and starting a fight with one big guy on the street.... then crying like a naive little girl when the dude next to him punches you on the back of the head in the middle of the fight.

What did you expect man? Them to all stand around and watch you fuck up the dude next to them without getting involved at all? And the worst part about it is, that guy you just took out was their ENEMY - and the only thing that kept the rest of the block in order. YOU changed the balance of power by taking the guy out, and changed the whole dynamic of the block, as the rest of the dudes are now all fighting to fill the void...

This hood is not YOUR home, it's theirs. They freaking hate you whether you took out their enemy or not. And all the while you are in hostile territory - with enemies, neutral parties, and not too many friends... all standing around watching.

Now, do you charge in and start fighting the guy that punched you in the back of the head too? To what ends? You can't kill the guy. The guy is a freaking gorilla - with all kinds of guns and boys standing around. You can fuck him up bad, sure... but you can't kill him... without taking out the whole damn City in the process. And all you'll end up doing is starting yet another battle you can't finish... and potentially uniting the rest of the block against YOU - with no objective other than to fuck the guy up for punching you in the back of the head. Until of course, the next guy punches you in the back of the head - and you go charging after him.

Cripes, doesn't exactly sound like sound military strategy to me, man. Just jumping from one fight to the next, all the while creating new enemies and more hostility and fighting on the entire block.

And to even further complicate the issue… The only damn reason you went down there in the first place was to secure the grocery store (OIL), so you can feed your fat fucking wife 10 gallons of Ben and Jerry's every damn day - but now the prices have shot through the roof because the whole damn block is a freaking mess with people killing each other on the streets like it was going out of style - and now you spent all your damn time and energy and money chasing some elusive pipe dream that you could create OZ out of the fucking hood, just cause you're so great and everybody wants to be like you.

Brilliant man, brilliant. Keep chasing your tail around biting at it like a rabid dog - hoping you'll finally catch up with it - and see where it gets you…. Where it get us ALL.

Posted by: ME at June 1, 2007 02:28 PM

A. Should this really come as a surprise? Should we not have expected Iran to get involved in Iraq from the beginning? (and perhaps taken some steps to mitigate this in the beginning?) After all, we did take down their biggest threat and enemy in Saddam – and empower them greatly in the region by making their brother Shia the government in Iraq. (Quite the opposite of our previous 30-year policy set up by George Bush Sr, as Director of the CIA, where we used Saddam to counter Iran)

B. Should we not have a better border-control operation in effect in Iraq, to help stifle the supply of arms and fighters? (hint: maybe we shouldn’t be acting as Iraq’s police, but perhaps their border guard instead?)

C. Since “EFP’s” are – quite contrary to the hysterical hype – nothing new… and pretty easily manufactured regardless of Iran’s interference – is there really anything we can do to put that 60 year old Genie back in the bottle?

D. And finally, what are our realistic options here? Attack Iran??? Does that really sound like a good idea? What would be the attainable objectives in that mission? Is that going to make things better for our Military forces in Iraq? Or anywhere, for that matter?

I have no illusions about Iran’s involvement in Iraq. But I equally have no illusions about our options to counter this influence. The reality of the situation sucks any way you cut it.

I say we pull out of the cities (gradually), set up on the borders…and let the Iraqi’s fight it out. If we don’t like who wins, then we go back in and fuck ‘em up again. At least that way the opposition (whoever that may be at the time) will have metastasized and would at least be easier to engage. Because the reality of the situation is: It’s not how long we stay in Iraq, it’s what happens (and what we do) AFTER we leave. Whether it’s one year from now or ten years from now, they’re gonna fight it out. You know it. I know it. The little green man knows it.

But it sure doesn’t seem that the politicians do.

It’s time to get Tsung Tsu on this shit, man… and stop chasing our tails around that shit country – reacting to every new development like it’s a big surprise, changing our mission with the wind and relying solely on propaganda and rhetoric to resolve the situation.

Posted by: JAFO at June 1, 2007 01:28 PM

Easy there people. I do not see the need to use swear language in a discussion of this nature. Nor do i find it okay to lash out at someone who is just reporting what he see's.

Yes, Iran has a vested interest in Iraqi affairs as does Syria. So is it really all that far fetched that they may want to help "facilitate" the insurgency? Remove the USA and attain one of the world's richest oil barring countries. Sounds like a pretty sound plan to me.

"Yesterdays enemy becomes today's friend," there is so much truth to that saying and for good reason. Iran and Syria will help because they want Iraq's resources. Isn't that what it always comes down to?

I think that is exactly what they want/are doing. Help AQ hurt the Americans enough so that they retreat and leave a massive power void for "Our Friends" and thus the Iraqi people will suffer even more atrocities.

Sounds to me like common sense, but then again no one knows the whole story.

-Avid Reader

P.S. Keep up the good work Christian and the rest of you guys at DT. This is some really great stuff and i enjoy the site.

Posted by: Random at June 1, 2007 01:17 PM

"So, basically what you all are saying is: "so what" and "we deserve it anyway"...?"

I'll put it in terms that even you can understand, Christian: Look at a map of the world. You *can* read maps, can't you?

For your next assignment, maybe you can look into reasons why warnings from American officials about the Iranian juggernaut might be greeted with a little scepticism. It's easy, you don't have to go much farther back than 2002-03.

Sheesh. Why did they put *you* in a position of authority in this site?

Posted by: sglover at June 1, 2007 12:31 PM

So, basically what you all are saying is: "so what" and "we deserve it anyway"...?

Sounds like sound judgement to me guys.

Posted by: Christian at June 1, 2007 12:09 PM

It's always surprising how one-sided looks at problems yield funny results.

So; hello people, I have news for you!

IRAN IS NEIGHBOUR OF IRAQ AND WAS (other than the USA) ALREADY ONCE INVADED BY IRAQ.

They have about thousand more and better reasons to influence Iraqi affairs than the USA.
Of course are they actively influencing what happens in Iraq. It's so much more relevant for their own national security than for the USA that it's ridiculous to claim they should not be there.

The nation that's active in Iraq and has little stake in such affairs and is by almost the whole world being considered as being active in a place where it simple shouldn't be is - surprise - the USA!

It's quite the same funny stuff like the old accusations that Iraq had WMD's while the USA itself is still one of two countries with enough nukes to kill mankind some dozen times (and denies frequent Russian attempts to scale the nuclear arsenals down).

It's really astonishing. Remember the bible story about the splinter in the eye of the other, but the board in front of your own eyes?

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at June 1, 2007 10:33 AM

Even if these assertions are true (and I am EXTREMELY sceptical of both the intentions and judgement of Christian), I still don't understand why anyone should be surprised, outraged, anything. I refer you to a map of the region. Unless the tectonic plates have realigned overnight, I'm pretty sure that Iraq is adjacent to Iran, and several thousand miles away from the U.S. Unless Billy Graham just had the most successful revival tour in history, Iraqis mostly practice Shi'a Islam -- just like Iran, and not much like Virginia.

It's their neighborhood, not ours. Maybe we should tend to our own knitting before we take on others'. In case you haven't noticed, ours has got pretty frazzled lately, and our friends are wondering why we let ourselves go, and always look so damn frumpy whenever we step outside.

Posted by: sglover at June 1, 2007 10:20 AM

Lot of ambiguity, actually...

"...believed to be ... secret ... facilitating the transport ... bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training."

Believed? By whom? Secret? Not really then. Taking people OUT of country for training, NOT importing them.

"...reports indicate ....suspected of providing facilitation and logistic support for trafficking weapons ..."

NOT actuall importing weapons mind you but "facilitation"

"...suspected liaison ... who assists in the movement of information and documents ..."

Again, iffy and only "assists" moving info OUT of the country.

So if they are being this wishy washy, where it the hard emprical eveidence that the Iranian Govt is supplying material assitance to AQ? There is none, so the parse and suggest and reports indicate... Bullshit.

Posted by: Grandjester at June 1, 2007 09:33 AM