They continue to pursue nukes, and yet by what has been discussed as regards their rocketry, they don't ahve the means to get the things far enough away to prevent harm to ther own people, or to themseles. I'd say that to be one indication of heir being suicidal, wouldn't you?

Wait now, this is really good. So the Iranians are going to get nuclear weapons, but they don't have much in the way of delivery systems. So they are going to do what, detonate them within their own country? Because they are, you know, suicidal.

Really bit, you give new meaning to the expression, "prattle" Are you taking drugs or something?

Actually, it's been this way long before they had nukes. N. Korea can obliterate Seoul with their massive conventional artillery. Now they can use conventional weapons and nukes thanks to the fantastic foresight of the Bush administration.

They continue to pursue nukes, and yet by what has been discussed as regards their rocketry, they don't ahve the means to get the things far enough away to prevent harm to ther own people, or to themseles. I'd say that to be one indication of heir being suicidal, wouldn't you?

Lets say for the sake of argument that they are after nukes. Intel says otherwise, but let forget that for now. We pursued nukes, and we got them. Are we suicidal? As for them "not having the means to get them away" Dude, is this really what goes on in your head? Please tell me you are kidding...

Given the fact that we have unchallenged military superiority, and a demonstrated willingness to use it, I would say that pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran is a reasonable policy from their point of view. Simply possessing a single nuke, regardless of delivery systems on call, would be a powerful deterrent. You don't see Bush doing spit about N Korea do you? Wonder why...

To say that we were ever "peacefully engaged" with Iraq is a joke. We are peacefully engaged with Sweden. Iraq was a country we used to an end. Saddam was obviously a butcher. You don't practice peaceful engagement with people like that. We are paying a very high price now for doing something that seemed expedient at the time

Upon reflection, this isn’t strictly true with, for example, the various Indian Wars the most obvious counter-example. But these weren’t fought in the public sphere in the way more recent wars have been and are therefore in a different category.

The rest of your post is good, but I'm not sure what supports that last statement. Perhaps you mean that the Indian Wars weren't debated on blogs, but they were certainly well-covered by the press and many of the tactics America engaged in were either lauded or denounced.

Haven't the manpower to do what? You speak in sentences that are semantic zeros.

If you're really having that much trouble with the flowing context of a conversation I doubt you can be helped. Come on now, this is not all that complicated.

Saddam was a proxy to be used against Iran

They were an ally in the region.

We made a deal with the devil to gain a temporary advantage against Iran. Your boy Rumsfeld was very excited by this deal The problem with dealing with the devil is that you can end up paying for a very, very long time.

Yep. That IS the price of peaceful engagement, I'm afraid, when those you're trying to engage are less than optimal. But so often now the left has complained when we've not done exactly what we tried with Saddam, incuding, ironically, in Iraq... when we had in fact engaged them for what, 20 years? The point of this subthread is to answer your question about how we didn't give Iraq every chance to avoid war. THe bottom line is, we did. They were given every chance to avoid war, and decided aginst that path, your claims to the contrary not withstanding.

Please show me something in recent history besides statements by politicians which shows Iran to be "suicidal". Something concrete, not hyperbole

They continue to pursue nukes, and yet by what has been discussed as regards their rocketry, they don't ahve the means to get the things far enough away to prevent harm to ther own people, or to themseles. I'd say that to be one indication of heir being suicidal, wouldn't you?

Bush bit off more than he could chew in Iraq. His eagerness to mix it up with Iran, a more formidable adversary, is a clear indicator of his failure as President.

I would call it correct identification of the problem and the solution. It's a trick that for all his peaceful negotiation, or perhaps because of it, Carter never managed...

But, apparently, were still insufficient to win the war. And so again, I ask; why would Saddam in the pocket have been a requirement for the US?

Please show me where I said it was a requirement.

Saddam was a proxy to be used against Iran. Not necessary, but useful. Next door to Iran. Hostile to Iran. Possessing enough power to do serious harm to Iran. In other words, useful. Come on now, this is not all that complicated.

We made a deal with the devil to gain a temporary advantage against Iran. Your boy Rumsfeld was very excited by this deal The problem with dealing with the devil is that you can end up paying for a very, very long time.

Right enough.. but they haven't got the manpower.

Haven't the manpower to do what? You speak in sentences that are semantic zeros. Iran is a nation of roughly 70 million people. Counting regular forces, Islamic guards and reserves, they have about 900,000 trained troops. Sounds like a fair amount of manpower to me.

While I think Iran's government is dangerous, misguided and despotic, I do not think the people of Iran are our enemies. In fact, I think that they ought to be, if not our friends, at least folks we can work and deal with.

Please show me something in recent history besides statements by politicians which shows Iran to be "suicidal". Something concrete, not hyperbole.

Is Iran a nation we need to keep on eye on? Of course. Should we keep our powder dry? Of course. There is an old saying, "speak softly and carry a big stick". Sounds smart to me. Bush bit off more than he could chew in Iraq. His eagerness to mix it up with Iran, a more formidable adversary, is a clear indicator of his failure as President.

In the 80's as opposed to Iran's forces, they certainly had the ability to do great harm to Iran, which in fact, they did

But, apparently, were still insufficient to win the war. And so again, I ask; why would Saddam in the poket have been a requirement for the US?

Iraq's military was pitiful, in 2003, as opposed to our forces

And they've never been much better. So the question again, why would Rummy need Saddam, other than to establish a relationship, so as to keep a claming hand in the region?

Are you saying we never had the resources to secure Iraq?

More correctly asked, are YOU saying we had more in reserve to call up? And how many of these by your lights would have gotten the job done to your satisfaction?

The left is at the moment complaining we're over-committed. Would not that added manpower, assuming we had it, have raised the same complaint, louder?

Wait... if they were so pitiful, why would we need them as regards Iraq? Being so bad, they'd not have helped us much. Clearly, something a bit deeper going on there.

I assume you meant Iran, not Iraq above...

Iraq's military was pitiful, in 2003, as opposed to our forces. In the 80's as opposed to Iran's forces, they certainly had the ability to do great harm to Iran, which in fact, they did. Different decades, different contexts. Put you thinking cap on.

and where would those levels of manpower have come from?

Are you saying we never had the resources to secure Iraq?

At the time of the handshake, we saw Saddam as a useful tool to wield against Iran. We were arming him. It had nothing to do with attempting to avoid war with Iraq, something that was not even in the wind at the time. Your point is nonsensical.

Actually, it did, if you consider that even to do what you say was going on, would ahve required our establishing a peaceful working relationship with him.

Sure we went in with enough force to defeat Saddam's rather pitiful military.

Wait... if they were so pitiful, why would we need them as regards Iraq? Being so bad, they'd not have helped us much. Clearly, somehting a bit deeper going on there.

Did we go in with enough force to secure the country? No

Hindsight, but I may as well ask; What kind of levels would have been reqired, and where would those levels of manpower have come from?

You keep telling us that Iran is suicidal, and that they will happily sacrifice 100 of their own to kill one of ours.

If this is the case, WTF do they care about our displays of military power in Iraq? If they are indeed suicidal, they really do not give a crap

.

Right enough.. but they haven't got the manpower. Which of course is why they want nukes. Guess that idea hadn't occurred to you.

The left likes to snicker at the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. What do you suppose was HAPPENING, there, anyway, but trying other, more peaceful methods, than war?

At the time of the handshake, we saw Saddam as a useful tool to wield against Iran. We were arming him. It had nothing to do with attempting to avoid war with Iraq, something that was not even in the wind at the time. Your point is nonsensical.

Had it occurred to you we did just that, which is why Saddam was eating Spam in a hole in the ground, and why we've not been attacked again. No, I suppose not.

Sure we went in with enough force to defeat Saddam's rather pitiful military. Did we go in with enough force to secure the country? No. Was securing the country a necessary step on the road to converting it into a democracy, which is supposedly a main reason we went? Yes. Ergo, we went in with insufficient force. Don't spend too much energy crowing about Saddam's spider hole. He is dead, yet Bush tells us Iraq is a grave threat to our security. Mission accomplished? I think not.

So we have not suffered another terrorist attack on US soil because we showed our steel in Iraq? Is this really your point? You keep telling us that Iran is suicidal, and that they will happily sacrifice 100 of their own to kill one of ours.

If this is the case, WTF do they care about our displays of military power in Iraq? If they are indeed suicidal, they really do not give a crap. In fact, our power and willingness to use it will actually aid them in making their dreams of suicide a reality...

Are you seriously suggesting that Bush exhausted all options short of war with Iraq, and entered into it reluctant, only after all else had failed?

I'm not suggesting it. I'm stating it flatly.
Well, Bush, and Clinton, and his Father, and Reagan, too.

The left likes to snicker at the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. What do you suppose was HAPPENING, there, anyway, but trying other, more peaceful methods, than war?

Tell me Bit, what is your reaction to the "boundary being crossed"? If America's vital security interests are at stake in Iraq, if indeed our very future could be on the line there at Bush has said, why are we dinking around? If war cannot be avoided, and we reluctantly take that awful step, we should go in so strong that the only thing the other guy is thinking about is which direction he should run in.

Had it occurred to you we did just that, which is why Saddam was eating Spam in a hole in the ground, and why we've not been attacked again. No, I suppsoe not.

No, I wonsider it a last resort as well. The difference is our respective reactions to that boundry being crossed.

Are you seriously suggesting that Bush exhausted all options short of war with Iraq, and entered into it reluctant, only after all else had failed?

The Bush admin's stance regarding war with Iraq is and has always been bogus in so many ways that one hardly knows where to start.

GHW Bush may have had his shortcomings, but he handled Saddam/Kuwait brilliantly. He gathered overwhelming diplomatic support and military power. He quickly removed Saddam's forces from Kuwait and ended his ability to threaten his neighbors. Saddam's WMD were destroyed. All with a minimum of US casualties and in a manner that greatly enhanced our stature around the world.

Pres. Bush wisely decided not to attempt to reshape Iraq's political landscape, fearing that the cure might be worse than the disease. (Cheney was very vocal in his support of this decision, BTW). The situation in Iraq was far from good, but it was, from the standpoint of regional stability in the middle east and American national security, under control.

Tell me Bit, what is your reaction to the "boundary being crossed"? If America's vital security interests are at stake in Iraq, if indeed our very future could be on the line there at Bush has said, why are we dinking around? If war cannot be avoided, and we reluctantly take that awful step, we should go in so strong that the only thing the other guy is thinking about is which direction he should run in.

"Hitting an ant with a sledge hammer" is a phrase I have heard American generals use. Damn straight.

We went in unprepared, with insufficient resources to secure the country once Saddam's forces had been defeated. Bush was warned about this from many quarters, but heard only what he wanted to hear. By his own standard, Bush's incompetence has jeopardized our national security.

Sorry for the error.