Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Ahmedinejad was elected for many domestic policy reasons and it just so happens he's a nut puppet who will do the bidding of the real power brokers in Iran - the Ayatollah, Mullahs and Imams.
Ahmedinejad was elected on a wave of anti-western sentiment created by the Iraq war. The reformers were making steady but slow progress before then.
And the whole "democracy must come from within" garbage routine has been a big massive reason to let the whole BS in the mid-east simmer on medium for decades, only to produce worse and better armed foes.
And you think creating choas actually helps the situation? Iraq will be a violant breeding ground for terrorists for the next 10-15 years at least and won't likely be a democracy for a generation after that. You cannot impose democracy by force - waiting for change to come from within is not a choice - it is the _only_ option available.
or in 10 years with a Nuclear Iran and a well armed force of Islamic jew and west haters?
Iran is seeking nukes because of the threat posed by the US. If the US had not invaded Iraq we would not be talking about the Iranian nuke issue today.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted
Ahmedinejad was elected for many domestic policy reasons and it just so happens he's a nut puppet who will do the bidding of the real power brokers in Iran - the Ayatollah, Mullahs and Imams.
Ahmedinejad was elected on a wave of anti-western sentiment created by the Iraq war. The reformers were making steady but slow progress before then.
And the whole "democracy must come from within" garbage routine has been a big massive reason to let the whole BS in the mid-east simmer on medium for decades, only to produce worse and better armed foes.
And you think creating choas actually helps the situation? Iraq will be a violant breeding ground for terrorists for the next 10-15 years at least and won't likely be a democracy for a generation after that. You cannot impose democracy by force - waiting for change to come from within is not a choice - it is the _only_ option available.
or in 10 years with a Nuclear Iran and a well armed force of Islamic jew and west haters?
Iran is seeking nukes because of the threat posed by the US. If the US had not invaded Iraq we would not be talking about the Iranian nuke issue today.

You are deluded buddy.

Iran is pursuing nukes for the sole purpose of wipin Israel off the map. It has absolutely, postiviely NOTHING to do with the USA in Iraq.

Posted

It's hard to believe there's anyone left who actually bought the shit the Bush administration and its propagandists were selling who hasn't returned it to customer service.

Women's rights, democracy.

Can you offer any examples of functioning democracies that have come about as a result of Bush's intervention? Thanks.

Libya and Egypt giving up their weapons programs,

There's little evidence beyond a temporal correlation to indicate Libya's ending its WMD programs had anything to do with Bush's GWOT. As for Egypt, given they ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1981, but allegedly maintain a chemical weapons stockpile, it's hard to see how Bush has impacted them at all

Afghanistan freeing women's oppression

That's right. Women are oppressed freely throughout Afghanistan to this day.

And that doesn't even begin to cover the fact that we're taking it to the terrorists on THEIR turf. We had a choice, fight over there now or fight over here in 10 years or less.

Tha's assuming it's an either/or thing. As London, Madrid, and other attacks have shown, it is not. Certainly, Al Qaeda's capabilities have been diminished since 2001, but there's little evidence the invasion of Iraq has anything to do with that. If anything, Iraq is a boon to Al Qadea and those like them by giving them a environemnt where the lack of a central authority and the ongoing conflict provide training and recruitment opportunities.

if toppling Saddam has pissed off a whole slew of people who'd rather not see democracy in the middle east, isn't that a good thing?

Not neccesarily.

If the US presence has pissed off and subsequently attracted ADDITIONAL thugs into the country from yria and Iran, then de facto we're fighting the terrorists on THEIR turf, not ours. That is a good thing.

Already dealt with, but the Iran reference makes it worthy of comment, as no one has benfitted as much from the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq than Iran.

Also, with nutjobs like Ahmedinejad talking tough on nukes and annihalating Israel, it's a damn good thing the US already has a foothold in the region. This is another example of GW Bush's longer term vision on things you just didn't see.

Even if one assumes Ahmedinejad is a threat (and really, only the uninformed or delusional would believe that to be so), the U.S.'s "foothold" is tenuous, at best. They can't secure Iraq: how would they secure Iran or Syria?

What we need is to ramp up the troop and presence in the region.

First: where would these troops come from? The one's already there are streteched as it is and the commitment of reserves would leave the U.S. with nothing to fall back on. Second: what evidence is there more troops wil make a difference? The redeployment of several thousand more troops to Baghdad was folowed by a dramatic increase in violence. The short term addition of several thousand more would most certainly lead to an unprecedented slaughter and not stability. In short, there's F.A. to gain but to make a bad situation worse.

Posted
Ahmedinejad was elected on a wave of anti-western sentiment created by the Iraq war. The reformers were making steady but slow progress before then.

From Al Jazeera:

The 48-year-old Ahmadinejad's humble lifestyle and pledges to tackle corruption and redistribute the country's oil wealth have appealed to the urban and rural religious poor, analysts say.

and from a voter:

"I vote for Ahmadinejad because he wants to cut the hands of those who are stealing the national wealth and he wants to fight poverty ... and discrimination," said Rahmatollah Izadpanah, 41.

Sure the tough talk on the west helped - but it wasn't the whole story so don't try saying that this kook only exists because of the US invasion of Iraq.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,900
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Ana Silva
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ana Silva earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Political Smash went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Politics1990 earned a badge
      Very Popular
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...