--- In [email protected], "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "peterklutz" <peterklutz@> > wrote: > > > > > > In case you missed it - Iran has been "taking it out" on the US and > > the world since 1979. > > > > The situation today is that the US and the World is damned if they > > attack Iran and damned if they don't. > > > > Let's just hope that whatever happens, it is the lesser of the evils > > at hand. > > > > > There is a lot of dissent in Iraq, right now, particularly with the > younger people there, and woman's rights and all of that. > It seems that a greater push should be given to support the dissent > within the country; in the same way we could have perhaps dealt with > Iraq, before we invaded it.
What makes you think that the Bush-administration in a few months in the spring of 2007 will excel in a type of military operation the US has failed in since the Vietnam war? The DNA strain required to understand counterinsurgency is apparently not part of the American gene pool. > Bombing Iran, would be the worse solution, according to many analysts; > And would only feed the hatred, and the apocalyptic visions of many > of the radicals; and would inflame Islam world-wide. What today counts is not the presence of intent (the hatred can't be any stronger than it already is), but the growing capabilities and aboundant opportunities of Radical Islam (led by Iran) to hurt the rest of the World. Take Iran out of the picture and three immediate accomplishments are reached: (1) the so-called palestinian question ceases to be an issue; (2) lebanon becomes a sovereign state; (3) the world's flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf is secured. Failing an MMY solution to this challenge, logic suggest that a world leader caught up in this malstroem of Evil, and which choses to do something about it, should play on it's strengths when dealing with this regime. In short, nuke Shiite Iran back to neolithicum. > As far as a war between the Sunnis and the Shiite, in Iraq, spreading > to other parts of the middle east, then at least some of the other > governments in the area, like Saudi Arabia, would at least be footing > some of the bill, and perhaps some of the soldiers... Instead of just > sitting back and watching our folly. > After we captured Saddam, I don't see, what has been accomplished > since then, in Iraq. He would have been put to death anyway... > This whole entrance into Iraq, that the decider, decided to do; is > like the opposite of Maharishi's saying: 'Well begun is half done'... > The reason why there is no answer now, to the Iraq question(s)- > So, it is no wonder that no one quite knows what to do, since the > beginning of this destructive adventure, to no where. > Just make sure that you understand where this destructive "adventure" started - it is not with the US, even though that country seems likely to be the one that ends it in a possibly very, very tragic sense.
