"Nobody Leaves Until the Oil is Safe"

How long will we stay in Iraq? Until the oil is safe.

Now the third-longest conflict in US history, Iraq is not marked by a change in control of government, territory, or religion. We invaded in 2003, achieved military victory, and then we did not leave. Why?

The oil was not safe.

For nearly four years, we have shepherded Iraq along its inevitable descent into civil war. Why couldn’t we just let the power vacuum fill on its own?

The oil was not safe.

With 132,000 troops in Iraq, we stationed not even 4,000 in early 2006 in Baghdad. Why were the other 128,000 troops elsewhere?

The oil was not safe.

But their job is not done; we will “surge” some troops into Baghdad to quell that city as we quelled Fallujah. These “surging” troops will not come from a new draft, or from new conscripts; they will come from battle-weary troops who have already completed up to three tours of duty. Their time with their families will be cut short so that they can invade neighborhoods populated with fierce and armed anti-American Iraqis.

These Baghdad patriots are holding back America from our true goal: making the oil safe for American war profiteers.

Democrats, take up the call! Not one soldier comes home, until the oil is safe!

I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing - and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.

Patriot missiles in Iraq? Iran is next.

From all available evidence, Bush appears to be such a dim bulb that he actually believes his own drivel including this "new direction" in Iraq. I assume that all this stuff continues to be spoon fed to George Jr. by Dick Cheney who, unlike George Jr., is very intelligent and cunning and who, as others have suggested, is entirely in the pocket of Big Oil.

I believe that when he closes his eyes at night, George Jr. forsees an Iraqi constitutional democracy where Iraq is governed by the Iraqi equivalents of George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln (and probably William F. Buckley). Unfortunately, the reality in Iraq is that the government is (and will continue to be) dominated by psychotic bomb throwers and their religious fanatic sectarian supporters. I doubt that our country would exist today if George Washington and his supporters had car bombed (buggy bombed?)Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin on their way to the Constitutional Convention. If Lincoln had ordered the sadistic execution of Jefferson Davis after the civil war (complete with black ski masks and taunting the condemned on the gallows), do you think that the US would have survived the way it has? I don't.

Given the nominal powers granted the President in the Constitution, the only way out of this that I can see is for the Congress to do an "intervention" on George Jr. Congress should immediately cancel the authorizing legislation to invade Iraq, and deny funds for the continuation of the war. Anybody who will take immediate and direct action to support that agenda has my support regardless of party affiliation.

You can't kill for peace, but you can for oil. These guys don't care about peace or human suffering. They do care about $$. They all need to go ... now.

Did anyone else notice that Shakes forgot to say "God Bless You, God Bless America" at the end of his speech. He's been ending his speeches that way since his disastrous run for 5th grade class president in Midland.

Maybe Shakes has figured out there are TONS more Muslims than Christians on this Earth, which is why Iraqi teenagers with "Made in the USA" RBG's are kicking our @ss in Baghdad.

Maybe.

Bush is ironically throwing in his lot with Maliki and the Badr army and death squads of Dawa and SCIRI. The same guys backed by the Iranians. Now AlSadrs' mahdi army will be fair game. His guys pulled out of the government and won't come back unless there's a timetable for the end of the occupation and an end to Iranian influence. He's been negotiating with the non-AlQaida, Non-Salafi sunni resistance along with some Christian, Turkman and even Kurdish leaders to form an alternative unity government. I believe that the timing and manner of Sadams execution was an attempt to derail this. I fear that attacking Muqtqda and his followers in Sadr City could greatly increase the power and unity of the resistance.

Fail in Afghanistan - invade Iraq. Fail in Iraq - attack Iran.

This is the start of an escalation well beyond troops. We just attacked an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq and seized its diplomatic staff. They were told to surrender or die. The deployment of a carrier task force and patriot missiles, along with Bush's failure to mention diplomatic measures, all add up to some kind of military action against Iran. Probably by the Israeli's.

We got a gambler for a President who keeps playing double or nothing and coming up short.

I agree with Ross 100%.

I could not believe the news this morning when I saw that we had taken the Iranian consulate. The supposed "bipartisan" era is over. Bush has been asking Congress and the public to wait for him to unveil his new plan for 2 months. Now we find out that (1) the "surge" in Baghdad is already in progress by the time the plan is announced, (2) we're sending a carrier group to the Persian Gulf to "disrupt" Iran's "meddling", and (3) the helicopter gunships were already on their way to take out the Iranian consulate.

The level of bad faith from this President is a slap in the face to Congress and the people.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are calling for war to protect Iraqi Sunnis from the Shiites and Turkey is massing troops on it's border with Iraq to put down the Kurds.

Only 24 hours ago I would have said that cutting off funding was too drastic a move, but now I can't see any other way to prevent this maniac from making this into an even worse disaster than it already is.

John

"The secret to a long life is knowing when it's time to go."

That applies to nations and empires as much as it does to individuals.

It's time to go.

Much as what the US has been doing in western Asia to conrol petroleum reserves, as most here ralize. We shouldn't ignore, though, the importance of the currency used to trade for the petroleum. Hussein was switching to Euros when we discovered WMDs there. Iran, along with other nations, is diversifying out of the US dollar now.

This is a direct threat to the value of our overextended currency, a threat that can bring down our economy faster than expensive oil. There is really little that can be done at this point to rectify our f'd up monetary policy. Unfortunately, our Bully Elite is willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people and spend trillions of tax dollars in an effort to scare the world into letting the dollar charade go on a while longer.

Don't be surprised in the US or our proxy, Israel, attacks Iran soon. What they plan to do about India, China, and Russia, I have no idea.

I'm heartened so many of us seem to understand the diabolical plan gone awry that is the occupation. Depose a dictator, loan billions to an oil rich country, prop up (stabilize) its government, and collect on the debt. Use fear to gain public support. Best of all, feed the tycoon buddies with no-bid contracts. When reality rears it's ugly head and democratization doesn't work, then what? A surge, by god, that'll do it. So, when the surge fails, and more innocents are sacrificed then what. Write off the debt. The tycoons win and we taxpayers foot the bill. Misson accomplished. The architects are laughing all the way to their offshore accounts.

George Bush:

"Yet, it’s important for our fellow citizens to understand that failure in Iraq would be a disaster for our future."

He is, of course correct. So why didn't he think of that before he invaded?

This was exactly what many of the critics of the war warned about. No one doubted the US army would beat the Iraqi army, the question was what came next. And it has been just about as bad as anyone imagined. And the other shoes - Iraq's neighbors joining the fight - may be yet to drop. The plan to use Kurdish troops against the insurgents in Baghdad means that the one ethnic group that has stayed out of it is now going to brought into the civil war.

The plan to use Kurdish troops against the insurgents in Baghdad means that the one ethnic group that has stayed out of it is now going to brought into the civil war.

Didn't we try this in Vietnam with ethnic Cambodians and Hmong? I seem to recall the results for them weren't so good post-1975. The Kurdish leaders would be morons to commit to this, since they'll have to live in the neighborhood after leave.

Paul, If the neocons gave a damn about democracy why didn't they start someplace easier, like Kuwait? or Saudi Arabia? Or maybe even Pakistan? Why did they end the democracy in Haiti? Why did they try to end it in Venezuela?

I agree with you, Paul. The oil issue is not the motivating factor, because as we've seen, the oil conglomerates' profits go through the roof whether the supply goes up or down.

Anybody remember the Carter administration? Back then there was a windfall profits tax to prevent profiteering from the gas shortage. The same thing has been done to defense contractors in every war the US has ever been in. It used to be considered unpatriotic to benefit from a war effort. What a joke.

Regarding use of Kurdish troops, if it happens at all it will be a token effort to mollify the White House. A Shiite/Sunnite civil war is the best thing that could happen for Kurdish independence.

John

Twenty or thirty years ago, the Pentagon was bragging about their newest nuclear weapon which I think was called a "Neutron Bomb". As I recall, the clever advantage of a Neutron Bomb is that it kills all the people (and sheep) in a country but leaves all of the infrastructure intact. I wonder if George Jr. has considered using Neutron Bombs in Iraq, Iran and Syria. We could get rid of all those nasty Arabs but not destroy the oil fields or the oil infrastructure or the pleasant biblical tourist spots. Plus, without those darn Arabs, we could turn the Middle East over to some nice Eurocentric types who would not bomb each other, and who probably would create a democracy within a few years.

Those of you with political connections may want to pass this recommendation on to George, Jr. as I seem to have lost his phone number.

Well THAT'S a scary thought, seeing as Truman approved the incineration of the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I think its important to remember that incinerating civilians was pretty much SOP in World War II. And that wasn't the reason people questioned Truman at the time.

But what is scary is that I think Bush doesn't understand that. He sees himself as making "tough" decisions when, in fact, he's making stupid ones.

Truman's response to the threat of the Soviet Union was the Marshall Plan.It was Truman who made the United Nations the tool for an international responce to North Korea's aggression. It was Truman who approved something less than the "unconditional surrender" that had been demanded of Japan. As a result the Emperor was allowed to stay, creating the basis for Japan's peaceful transition to a democracy. Its hard to see what it is Bush is doing that will make him look like Truman. But he may very well see using nuclear weapons against Iran as achieving that purpose.

Our killer-in-chief seems not to care about the American lives he jeopardizes as troops keep getting redeployed over and over again. Most are so battle weary that they couldn't recognize an insurgent if they dressed up in a costume that said "INSURGENT" right across their chest. My son-in-law has been in Falluja for the past 14 months, was due to return to the states in March and just got orders extending his tour until December 31st. He's just in the National Guard. My nephew, regular army, has already done two tours in Iraq and has been home for about a year as an Army Drill Instructor at a camp in Kentucky. He just got his orders to return to Iraq for tour #3 in mid-February after some brief retraining. They are both incredibly cynical (big surprise) about this whole war, but adopt the attitude that Bush's motto must be: "Let no soldier return home unless in a body bag or maimed for life". I've always loathed Bush, but this latest attempt to wag his limp dick and testicles at the world has converted that to pure hatred. The man isn't a moron; that denigrates morons. He's a stark, raving lunatic with his finger on the button. How soon can we start impeachment hearings?

He's a stark, raving lunatic with his finger on the button.

I sincerely agree with you. The man is mad.

I think Congressional Democrats should sit Bush in the corner, put a dunce cap on him and ignore anything he has to say for the next two years. As much as I would like to see he and his cronies impeached and thrown out of office (so nobody ever destroys this country like this again), I would be willing to settle for seeing him effectively neutralized for the remainder of his presidency. The sooner we all quit listening to him or taking him seriously, the better chance we have of undoing the tremendous damage he's done to this country and the rest of the world.

John Mulvey:

There is no "Iranian Consulate" in Irbil, Iraq. The 6 detainees did not carry diplomatic passports.

Here's the official list of consulates from the Islamic Republic of Iran's Foreign Affairs Website.

You will find similar results from IranianVisa.Com

You will notice Irbil is not mentioned: Karbala and Baghdad are the only diplomatic missions staffed by the Iranians in Iraq. Guess why? Because the Iranians are currently destabilizing Iraq, and there is still distrust between the two countries.

The AP got it wrong: don't believe everything you read.

The sooner we all quit listening to him or taking him seriously, the better chance we have of undoing the tremendous damage he's done to this country and the rest of the world.

Nice idea, FSS, but W. still commands the military. Kind of hard to ignore him when he is in absolute control of the deployment of our soldiers. He needs impeaching. A close read of the Constitution says that the president (and vice) can be replaced, not just for crimes, but for the "inability" to perform their duties. I would say Bush's manifest incomptence at this point qualifies as inability. He needs to go before he engages with Iran; war with that nation will most likely not be confined to far-off battlefields we can all still tut-tut about from the safety of our TV couches.

Thanks Bruce. Henceforth I will no longer believe everything I read.

I'm not an expert in international law, as you are. If Iraq is a soveriegn state, doesn't that give it the authority to recognize the credentials of diplomats operating within its borders? Which international treaty gives the US government the authority to enforce the rules of diplomacy between Iraq and Iran?

Please educate me further.

John

The AP got it wrong: don't believe everything you read.

Apparently so did the Kurdish government. There is quite a long list of reports on their complaint all referring to the building as a consulate - you can find thelinks if you just Google it.

On the other hand, neither of the two links provided have a list of consulates - but I am not sure that is relevant anyway.

Ross/Mulvey: the Islamic Republic of Iran has a propaganda machine that is perpetrating a lie. The AP has subsequently corrected their initial reports, and I would expect Reuters, the BBC, AFP, and (possibly) NBC and ABC to correct the word "consulate" as well. Don't expect CNN or CBS to acknowledge the mistake.

If you click on the first link I provided, then go to the left hand bullet next to "Diplomatic Missions" and then click on "Iran's Embassies" it will give you a list of every Iranian Embassy and Consulate in the world. I wish I could list them all here, but it's a long list: where you see multiple listings for the same country, you can be sure the capital city of the host nation is the Embassy and the remaining branch locations are consulates. That's been international protocol for the last 300 years.

The "Kurdish Government" is a separatist movement which would like to secede from the multi-religion and multi-ethnic National Government of Iraq. They are direct beneficiaries of Iran's willingness to destabilize the National Government because (if the sh!t ever hits the fan), there will be a less formidable military response to the declaration of independence.

The second link, IranianVisa.Com was (as you so delicately noted) a stub, which was my error. It was corrected in the previous sentence. You'll have to click a few more times to get to the letter "I" for Iraq (look under the "please select" drop down) but you'll surely notice there is no listing for Erbil/Arbil/Irbil.

One of the alleged detained "diplomats", Dr. Hassam Abbasi has a detailed record of vitriol, terror, and leadership in the struggle to defeat the Great Satan (that would be us). I don't believe that either the White House or the Departments of Defense or State have yet admitted who they arrested, but the Iranian media have already done so. Those of you in Rio Linda and Boring will need to scroll down to the third story before you give up all hope of finding it.

Fairly ironic that George Bush has got your back while y'all are trying to BBQ his.

NPR's Morning Sedition called it the "Iranian Consulate"; while All Things Considered used the more conservative "Iranian Office". The NYT is using "Iranian government liaison office" which offers both ambiguity and precision: the office facilitated the liaison of Iranian Revolutionary Guard agents to the Iraqi "Resistance" movement (because no matter who I call them, it will offend somebody).

Here's a good opinion piece that will provide some background on Hassan Abbasi which ran in the WSJ, but please don't hold that against the author: he's an expert on the region. And who really cares if it was a consulate or not: if the DoD believes they helped to kill Americans, we should all delight in their capture.
Right, Speaker Pelosi?

Hassan Abbasi was quoted:

The Western powers, especially the United States, still wield immense military and economic power that “looks formidable on paper.” But they are unable to use that power because their populations have become “risk-averse.” “The Western man today has no stomach for a fight,” Abbasi says. “This phenomenon is not new: All empires produce this type of man, the self-centered, materialist, and risk-averse man."

He continued, "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."

Nothing to worry about, kids, nosireee. Probably just empty rhetoric.

A look at the latest issue of Harper's would be quite a good idea.

Harper's...They make the lists, right?

Here's one you may find compelling (you can only read the preview without subscription, but it's a generous preview), written by the former P.M. of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew.

I'll read you mine if you'll read me yours?

Here's a piece from LHJ.COM The Ladies Home Journal!

Granted, we may not have the same gravitas as Harper's Bazzar, but we've been publishing longer.

Link

Rice told reporters that the Iranian office was not a diplomatic consulate, which would be protected by international treaty...

But Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, contended the Iranians were working in a liaison office that had government approval and was in the process of being approved as a consulate.

"the Islamic Republic of Iran has a propaganda machine that is perpetrating a lie."

With the help of the elected Iraqi government apparently...

"Hassan Abbasi was quoted:"

Actually he wasn't quoted, a book by Efraim Karsh was quoted. Here is part of the entry on Karsh from wikipedia:

"Starting with an article in the magazine Middle East Quarterly [1], Karsh alleged that the new historians "systematically distort the archival evidence to invent an Israeli history in an image of their own making". Karsh also provided numerous examples where, he claimed, the new historians "truncated, twisted, and distorted" primary documents. Avi Shlaim's reply [2] defended his analysis of the Zionist-Hashemite negotiations prior to 1948, which Karsh had particularly attacked. Benny Morris declined immediate reply [3], accusing Karsh of a "mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies", but published a lengthy rebuttal in the Winter 1998 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies. Morris replied to many of Karsh's detailed accusations, but also returned Karsh's personal invective. Karsh also published an attack [4] on an article of Morris [5], charging him with "deep-rooted and pervasive distortions"."

Which is not to say Karsh is wrong. Just that he is a partisan in this debate who has his own motives for discrediting Iran. They have little or nothing to do with whatever real threat it may pose to the United States. But it certainly adds to the perception that we are about to embark on another adventure in diplomacy at gunpoint. We can only hope Bush wins one of these gambles. But gamblers don't usually quit until they have lost everything.

And then we have Dick Cheney that if we withdraw, "we’d simply go back and revalidate the strategy that Osama bin Laden has been following from Day 1 that if you kill enough Americans, you can force them to quit;"

The flip side of that, of course, is that the more Americans get killed, the more it disproves bin Laden's theory. Which makes sense only if you have no skin in the game.

Iraqi and Iranian officials initially said the Iranian office raided in Irbil was a diplomatic mission. But Mohammad Ali Hosseini, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, later changed the description to an "office of relations."

"The office was waiting for permission from the Iraqi authorities to operate as a consulate," Hosseini said, according to Iranian state television.

AlJazeera.net a well known NeoCon website, reports: The five men were arrested on Thursday in a US raid on an Iranian government office in the Iraqi city of Arbil.

[Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs] Hosseini told a news conference: "Americans should immediately release the five Iranians and pay compensation for the damages they caused to our office in Arbil.

"What they were doing was consular work. These were employees who were doing their job according to the rules.

It appears the rules have changed, Minister Hosseini.

If the Iranians are retreating from the word "Consulate", maybe Ross will too?

Perhaps I'm the only one who sees hypocrisy & irony in the Islamic Republic of Iran complaining about their sovereign immunity and protection under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Tell them they only have to wait another 442 days until we let the hostages go. Because turnabout is fair play.

"If the Iranians are retreating from the word "Consulate", maybe Ross will too?"

I couldn't care less what its called. The Iraqi foreign minister was pretty clear about what it was.

What kind of double standard is this? Iran has the audacity to say that we have to release 5 of their hostages? How long did they hold our hostages when Carter was president? Now I see the Iranians are forging friendly alliances with countries in our sphere of influence (central America). I say time to bring back the draft and take out Iran before they annihaliate us and Israel, too.

That's great Greg. You'll be volunteering to be included in the first unit across the Iranian border I assume? If not then how much is your "tough" talk worth?

If all your talk is about somebody else doing the fighting then you are a pathetic little man pretending to be worth a shit.

I would be happy to!! Where do I sign up? BTW, what is your plan to stop the Iranian nuclear missile threat? I don't see you offering any solutions.

--GREG--

I think Mulvey is a pathetic little man pretending to know something about which he knows nothing.

Truth be told, it actually 5 countries. Although Joe Stalin and the Assad Boys did their best to annihilate their Kurdish populations. At least they weren't Red States. Best of luck to Ross & Mulvey on their Anti-American Jihad on George Bush. Allahu Akbar.

Let's get creative here.... How many illegals are there currently in the country? 20MM? Maybe we could offer amnesty and citizenship to them in return for fighting for our country against the Iranian threat. BTW, this Islam vs. Christendom battle has been going on for centuries. The Muslims almost took Europe and the response by European Countries was the Crusades. Now the "progressives" just expect us to roll over, play dead and let them take over and be oversensitve to their feelings. And the Republicans haven't done any better. They sent in too few troops, didn't use enough fire power. I can't believe that we can win WW2 but we can't make the middle east behave. And we're the greatest superpower in the world? It doesn't seem like it!

Anti-American Jihad on George Bush. Allahu Akbar.

The only people who are anti-American here are the ones suggesting criticism of George Bush is anti-American.

BTW, this Islam vs. Christendom battle has been going on for centuries.

So this is a religious war? The right and bin Laden apparently are on the same side trying to draw reasonable people of all religions into their holy war.

can't believe that we can win WW2 but we can't make the middle east behave.

Maybe we should ask the Russians for help.

They sent in too few troops, didn't use enough fire power.

They didn't have enough troops to send. Maybe you have missed it, but the US military is all but exhausted. Bush is in a fantasy world where he wants to add more troops for future misadventures. But the reality is the military is having trouble meeting their recruiting goals now and only then by lowering their standards to the point that they have signed up people who are autistic.

Some people have a hard time accepting the fact that this has been a fiasco from conception. The only good thing to come out of it is Saddam is dead. And we even botched that to the point of making him a hero.

I don't think making Saddam a dead hero is worth over 3000 American lives and thousands more who have been permanently disabled.

what is your plan to stop the Iranian nuclear missile threat?

What Iranian nuclear missile threat? The Iranians have no missiles that can reach the United States much less nuclear warheads to go on them. If they manage to build a bomb, develop a warhead they can reliably deliver on a missile and continue to be controlled by people hostile to the United States, I suppose we will meet the threat the same way we did the threat from the Soviet Union. But that was a real threat with 10's of thousands of real warheads on real missiles actually targeted at American cities. That there is a comparable threat from Iran is entirely in Dick Cheney's and the right-wing blogger's fevered imaginations.

Whatever problems Iran's nuclear ambitions pose, they are a long way off and George Bush's reckless gambling is a more immediate threat to American security. Along with his un-American supporters who aren't willing to abide by the outcomes of elections and want to crush dissent in the United States.

It's not a religious war on our part, but theirs. They will not be appeased until their plan of worldwide Islamic Caliphate is in place, Israel is "wiped off the map", and the west ceases to exist as we know it. If there aren't enough people in the military, then they need to recruit illegal Mexicans or someone who actually wants to work in the military as their career. Maybe better pay? I really don't know the answer to increase the troop ranks. In case you haven't noticed Iran is now making trouble for us in Latin America. Even that rascal Hugo Chavez is chanting "Death to America". These countries would be great launchpads for Iranian nuclear missiles. I would say we should go Hiroshima or Nagasaki on Iran to stop them in their tracks but that would cost us too much diplomatically.

They will not be appeased until their plan of worldwide Islamic Caliphate is in place

And I won't be satisfied until I have more money than Bill Gates. I've got a better shot at that than bin Laden does at establishing his Caliphate. Even if the entire Muslim world shared his views, and almost none of it does, they lack the wherewithal to do anything about it.

These countries would be great launchpads for Iranian nuclear missiles.

Russia tried that in Cuba, it didn't work.

I'm not sure whose fantasies of bin Laden threat are more unrealistic, bin Laden's own, or Cheney and his right wing cabal in the United States. There have been more American's killed in Iraq than were killed on 911 and to about as much purpose.

The real question is whether Bush and Cheney are going to have us go from shooting ourselves in the foot to more vital organs before we take the gun away. We have two more years and the gamblers are getting more and more desperate to make good on their losses.

Ross,

I wasn't even talking about binladin, but the Iranians. I don't hear binladin talking about blowing Israel up, funding 20,000 people to go around the world and serve as suicide bombers. This is all coming from Mahmoud and the Mullahs in Iran. Only 3,000 killed? Not bad compared to other battles we've been in during the last 100 years. What do you expect, zero casualties in war? All you are doing is complaining about the situation yet offering no solutions of your own (except Bush and Cheney and his cabal, this and drivel of the like). How would YOU suggest we counter the Iranian threat? Carter did a fabulous job taking care of this problem over 20 years ago. NOT!

I wasn't even talking about binladin, but the Iranians

So why are you talking about a worldwide Islamic caliphate? That does not seem to be on the Iranian agenda. They are, afterall, a Shiite minority even in the Muslim world. I don't think they want to live under a Sunni caliph.

Only 3,000 killed? Not bad compared to other battles we've been in during the last 100 years.

Unless you or your loved ones were one of the 3000 that died for nothing, not to mention the 10's of thousands of soldiers crippled. Let be clear, if Bush finally "wins" one of his gambles in Iraq the result is a stable, democratically elected, shiite dominated government closely allied with those Iranians. 3000 lives seems like a lot to give up for that result.

How would YOU suggest we counter the Iranian threat?

What Iranian threat? There isn't any serious threat from Iran. It doesn't have, and never will have, the capacity to seriously threaten us. We have heard lots of bluster from the Iranians for the last 25 years. Their getting a nuclear weapon would create some problems, but nothing unmanageable. We faced down the Soviet Union with 10's of thousands of nuclear weapons. We can manage to handle the threat of Iran if diplomacy fails to stop them from building one.

We can get under the desk and put our hands over our heads if it will make people feel better. It worked against the Russians.

What I have learned from various sources is that the general population in Iran is the most pro-Western in the region--but invading or other military action would change that.

You are so right LT:

The Iranian People love the Israelis too (it's just the specific geography that Israel inhabits they object to).

That's why you see all those pro-Western and tolerant Iranians marching in the street in opposition to their President's holocaust denying wipe-Israel-from-the-map rhetoric.

They love Americans, they just hate American Policy. If we would simply renounce the State of Israel, and cut off their military aid, I'm sure there would be a tidal wave of Iranian tourists (sans suicide belts?) lined up at Disneyland soon thereafter.

They're just misunderstood. Like Pol-Pot, Stalin, and Hitler.

That's why you see all those pro-Western and tolerant Iranians marching in the street in opposition to their President's holocaust denying wipe-Israel-from-the-map rhetoric.

A media guru once told me if it isn't on TV, it didn't happen. Apparently she was right. Only now, if its not on Fox TV it didn't happen.

Ross:

You really are defending the indefensible. The Islamist domination theology leaves little to interpretation, you only have two options:

1. remain an enemy of Islam (and die) or
2. become a Muslim (and live).

To suggest that Iran doesn't pose a threat because they don't YET possess nuclear weapons is naive in the extreme. Iran doesn't require nukes to rain terror upon Israel (ironically, I didn't see any posts on Blue Oregon complaining about the collateral damage caused by Iranian Rockets fired by Hezbollah) or to threaten the Straits of Hormuz.

If Iran is bent on regional domination, there will be no alternative to war. The U.S. will INEVITABLY be drawn into the conflict, irrespective of who sits in the White House: if we fail to intervene promptly, the Israelis will have no alternative but a tactical nuclear attack.

Islamist domination theology leaves little to interpretation, you only have two options:

1. remain an enemy of Islam (and die) or
2. become a Muslim (and live).

Oh BS, there are several active religions in Iran itself, including jewish synagogues. This is just your basic anti-muslim bigotry. It has as about much substance as Germany's propaganda about the international jewish conspiracy.

Moreover bad intentions don't make anyone a threat. They have to have some reasonable capability of acting on them.

The whole Islamic Caliphate stuff is just plain nonsense. There is plenty of Roman Catholic theology to support the idea that the Pope belongs at the top of the world's hierarchy, but even the most rabid anti-Catholics have a hard time worrying he is going to launch a new inquisition with his Swiss Guards.

To suggest that Iran doesn't pose a threat because they don't YET possess nuclear weapons is naive in the extreme.

Iran doesn't pose a serious threat to the United States because they are a minor regional power with no industrial base. If they get nuclear weapons we can manage that problem. As I said above, it is a lot less serious than the Soviet Union or even China. We have done fine with both having significant nuclear arsenals.

If Iran is bent on regional domination

They have a long way to go to have any realistic hope of achieving it. The reality is they aren't militarily capable of defeating Israel now and aren't going to be in the future even with Iraq, Syria et.al. as allies.

Maybe we should have worried about Iran's potential for regional domination before we invaded Iraq. Remember, Iraq fought them to a standstill.

The U.S. will INEVITABLY be drawn into the conflict

Of course we will - especially if the Iranians start sinking ships in the straight. No one would argue Iran can't make trouble. Which is what makes Bush's apparent effort to draw them into a conflict so stupid and dangerous.

But gamblers don't stop until they lose everything. Lets hope Bush runs out of time before he has us down to our underwear.

The only difference between the other powers you mention, China and Russia, is that they are not guided by some maniacal armageddon theory. The Iranians think the little Medhi child is going to pop up out of the sewer and then the end of the world is coming. They want to hasten that, first with "wiping Israel off the map" and then probably us next. Nukes are easy enough to ship in containers and they aren't screening them very well. All of this combined with the Iranians making friendly alliances with that rascal Hugo Chavez and other Latin American countries worries me greatly. But the progressives just deride Bush and his "gambling", offering no real solutions, as usual, except whine and complain all the time. Even after Bush/Cheney and their "cabal" have all gone and there is a Democrat in power, do you really think things are going to change much? Probably not. We'll probably be in Iraq/Iran forever just like we are everywhere else around the world.

they are not guided by some maniacal armageddon theory

That wasn't the theory during the cold war. Then they were guided by a maniacal ideology, there was no hope of compromise, the only hope was unceasing vigilance.

The Iranians think the little Medhi child is going to pop up out of the sewer and then the end of the world is coming.

I think you are confusing Iranians with some of the wacked out believers in the United States.

They want to hasten that, first with "wiping Israel off the map" and then probably us next.

Where do you get this stuff. Its pure invention.

Nukes are easy enough to ship in containers

No, they aren't. They require a lot of care and feeding. They are extremely valuable. They aren't something you hand over to mentally unstable suicide bombers. And once you are successful, where does that leave you if you are Iran?

All of this combined with the Iranians making friendly alliances with that rascal Hugo Chavez and other Latin American countries worries me greatly.

Is Chavez a believer in the Islamic Caliphate too?

offering no real solutions

To what problems - the fevered imaginations of people who watch too much television?

I don't have any solution to the real problem, which is we have frightened nut cases like Cheney providing direction to the president. I just hope we survive the next two years.

We'll probably be in Iraq/Iran forever just like we are everywhere else around the world.

Or we won't. We got out of Vietnam. We got out of Lebanon. We even got out of Somalia. The problem with our leaving is that it is often after a lot more pain than was necessary or justified by whatever benefits we stood to gain. Kind of like Iraq.

The Iranians are much better armed than the Vatican, and they have already confronted the U.S. Navy during the 1987 Tanker War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Prime_Chance>and1988's Operation Prime Chance

As for your allegation that the Caliphate is a toothless dragon, ask the Somalians, the Afghanis (under the Taliban), or the former Soviet territories in Central Asia just how benign they are.

You should also read up on the Muslim Brotherhood

As for your allegation that the Caliphate is a toothless dragon

There is no world wide caliphate - it exists entirely in the fevered imaginations of Dick Cheney's friends and its small number of proponents in the Islamic world.

The Iranians are much better armed than the Vatican, and they have already confronted the U.S. Navy during the 1987 Tanker War

That was 20 years ago, our republic seems to have survived the threat. As I said, Iran can cause problems. Which is why provoking an unnecessary conflict with it because of bigoted views on both sides is dangerous. The fact is Iran does not pose a threat to us and if they decide to cause problems in the gulf our military is perfectly capable of dealing with them. We don't have to live in fear of imaginary threats.

<hr/>