We didn't go on our knees to the soviet union needing their help with a mess, WHILE the soviet union was working the crowd at the UN to be allowed a nuclear weapons program. We met the Soviet Union on the playing field of mutually assured destruction. That's what we are trying to avoid with Iran.

If we went to Iran now, we'd be inviting them to say "Okay, we'll make Iraq a garden paradise, but you lay off on the nukes." Then, we;d have to deal either with what they eventually did to Israel, or we'd have to deal with what Israel did pre-emptively. I don't believe anyone with half a brain could see any useful outcome from negotiating with the Freak-In-Chief of Iran.

As for Iraq, frankly... f*ck em. I'm done. They had an opportunity that few nations ever get, and like greedy, backwards primitives fought over power and influence and the best pickings. Let them decide this for themselves, no one else should lose their life trying to make a better life for a nation not willing to do it themselves. I've supported this effort for as long as I can, but how many strikes can you give ignorant, hateful people before they are out?

I am very surprised that you (apparently) don't think it's very clearly "demonstrably in our best interest" to have a stable, functional democratic state in Iraq.

Yes, our initial goal was to remove Saddam from power. But the immediate and obvious subsequent goal is to prevent some Saddam Junior from taking his place and having Iraq be just as nasty a country after our intervention as it was before.

Of course it is by no means an easy, simple task to bestow a democratic government on a country that has spent the last 2000 or so years under some form of dictatorship and whose culture is very strongly rooted in blood ties and justice by retribution.You cannot cast that sort of thing aside like a cheap cloak; it will probably take at least a generation for a real change to take root. But having a democracy in the middle east will be like a bullet to, if not the heart, then hopefully at least the gut, of Al Qaeda; inflicting a long, slow, and painful death upon it.

I am very surprised that you (apparently) don't think it's very clearly "demonstrably in our best interest" to have a stable, functional democratic state in Iraq.

Sure, it's in our best interest to have a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq. But only to a point. My threshold is 4.5 years. That's how long US troops will have been nation building come end of next year.

Sure it is in our interest, but the only way we will is if we deport everyone that lives there and move in a bunch of other people. They've made it quite plain by killing tens of thousands of people that they won't be satisfied with the result of any election. Why should we sacrifice any more of our soldiers for people who can't keep a sewage system running?

They don't deserve the effort at this point. The Kurds should be offered their own nation, and the rest should fend for themselves.

It also advocates talks with Iran and Syria.

The panel is so naive and ignorant that they failed to realize that Iran and Syria are to Iraq what The USSR was to Vietnam and China was to Korea.

When will these elitist pinheads (who admit they have "no expertise") wake up to the fact that we are at war with those supplying the weapons and funds to continue killing our troops?  As long as we treat Iran and Syria as mere bystanders, we encourage their support for our enemies.

 

It is a pay me now or pay me later issue.  We leave without finishing the job, and we have Afghanistan 5 years ago.  And then we will have to go in and take them out again.  It is better to invest while the assets are in place, than to start the whole schlemiel over again in 5 years.

Well part of finishing the job would have to be reorganizing Iraq's borders. The current national borders are largely arbitrary ones made up by the British and the League of Nations. These ignore the massive cultural, ethnic, and religious differences in the area now known ass Iraq. The nation as it stands will never stay stable unless it is ruled with an iron fist as it was under Saddam Hussein. The more logical solution is to break it up into smaller countries. Will there still be fighting at that point? Absolutely. But it would dramatically increase the odd of reaching an equilibrium.

 

I also agree that it is ignornat to focus our attentions only within Iraq's borders when a huge part of the destabilizing forces are poring in over the borders from Syria, Iran, and even Jordan.

They had an opportunity that few nations ever get

Opportunity? This must be the origin of the saying, "When opportunity knocks, I hide until it goes away."

The US should have a policy of knocking down regimes that support terrorism and represent threats to the United States.

I disagree. Should Iran have a policy of knocking down regimes that represent threats to Iran? I also think that it might increase the number of threats to the United States rather than decreasing them. Several different ways: each one weakens us, or other states follow our example and start more wars, or other states band together against us, or, it turns out that decentralized and stateless actors are more dangerous in the 21st century than organized regimes.

Should Iran have a policy of knocking down regimes that represent threats to Iran?

Clearly, Iran already has such a policy.

The panel is so naive and ignorant that they failed to realize that Iran and Syria are to Iraq what The USSR was to Vietnam and China was to Korea.

I would call them realist

Should Iran have a policy of knocking down regimes that represent threats to Iran? Clearly, Iran already has such a policy.

When was the last regime knock down by the Iranian army?

"When was the last regime knock down by the Iranian army?"

The Lebanese government is being unseated right now by Hezbollah. There is a constant, harrowing effort to destabilize Israel from Iran and Syria. They are both supporting terrorists trying to destabilize Iraq.

I think it is cute how selective people like Cikomyr are when it comes to stuff like this. They are "realists" when it comes to having to sit down with Iran in order to solve Iraq's problems, but when you imply that Iran is a problem, they demand to know why we'd ever think that.

If Iran wasn't involved, why would we need to talk to them? Why would it matter what Iran and Syria think? It's the influence you're denying that you're demanding we curry favor with.

If the commission is correct about the Iraqi Government, then this adventure is lost. If the new government we enabled to cone into being is as the Baker commission states, we have failed!

I would call them realist

You would.

If the commission is correct about the Iraqi Government, then this adventure is lost. If the new government we enabled to cone into being is as the Baker commission states, we have failed!

 

And you are so excited by these prospects!

I think it is cute how selective people like Cikomyr are when it comes to stuff like this. They are "realists" when it comes to having to sit down with Iran in order to solve Iraq's problems, but when you imply that Iran is a problem, they demand to know why we'd ever think that.

I should have used past tense when I asked the question..

Iran hasn't threw down any regime - yet. As opposed to USA, which has quite a few under it's belly, some of them even democraticly elected leader to replace them with military dictartorship.

And if Lebanon's government is overthrew, it would be a lot more Syria's fault than Iran. It's pro-Syrian opposition that calls for the change. Still, if it happens, if would be the work of Lebanon citizens (specially the million that came from Syria), and not of foreign armies/agents.

If Iran wasn't involved, why would we need to talk to them? Why would it matter what Iran and Syria think? It's the influence you're denying that you're demanding we curry favor with.

I haven't said that Iran isn't involved. You're quite intellectually dishonest to make me say things I haven't. But that's a trend I see quite often on this forum.