Gokul43201 said:Wait a minute: it wasn't Hillary?
Logically true. However, the goal of US leadership has been to get the country to a point of stability where it can maintain itself, a condition enabled by low levels of violence, the maturity of Iraqi forces and political structures. So infinitely improved security is not required, just something that's good enough; the 'good enough' being the tough call.mgb_phys said:But that statement can be used either way:
1, The troop surge was a massive success - so if we deploy even more troops in Iraq there will be even less violence.
2, Iraq is becoming more peacful - so we can remove troops.
So what response is now required following the upsurge in violence since January? Up 33% month on month. Another even bigger troop surge?mheslep said:Logically true. However, the goal of US leadership has been to get the country to a point of stability where it can maintain itself, a condition enabled by low levels of violence, the maturity of Iraqi forces and political structures. So infinitely improved security is not required, just something that's good enough; the 'good enough' being the tough call.
? Last year Feb violence was almost 6x worse.Art said:So what response is now required following the upsurge in violence since January? Up 33% month on month. Another even bigger troop surge?
The purpose of the original surge was to create a window to allow for reconciliation but as recently as today Sunni's and some Shias refused to attend a reconciliation meeting and the Kurds still will not agree on an oil revenue sharing deal with the rest of Iraq.
The whole situation seems as hopeless as ever.
Last year, the ethnic cleansing was far from complete. This year, many districts are controlled and populated predominantly by one sect or another, and many minority families driven from their homes are internally displaced or are refugees located in neighboring countries. In addition, al Sadr unilaterally ordered his militias to stand down over 6 months ago. That certainly helped scale back the violence, too. There are a lot of complications driving the dynamic of ethnic violence, and once ethnic violence ramps down, clashes between militant factions and US forces decrease, as well.mheslep said:? Last year Feb violence was almost 6x worse.
The fighters of the Sunni Awakening are nearly 80,000 strong, paid for by the Pentagon, and independent of the Iraqi government. The Awakening Councils started in Anbar Province more than a year ago but really took off after the surge, and now scores of groups have effectively taken responsibility for law and order in their neighborhoods.
For a time following an adjustment to US tactics the violence diminished month on month but as ever the insurgents are learning to adapt with the result that so far this year the level of violence has begun to escalate again.mheslep said:? Last year Feb violence was almost 6x worse.
There's been plenty of democracy since 2005 with millions turning out to vote. What's lacking is security and stability.edward said:..The one thing we can't seem to buy in Iraq is Democracy.
We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything.
...
[Iran's] president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.
Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel. Do not be confused.
(APPLAUSE)
Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation, but that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed and will have far greater support at home and abroad if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.
It may, it very well may not. What historical precedent leads you to believe that increased diplomacy, that fails, will then produce support in the US and the world? There's evidence from the Iraq war build up that diplomacy, with the leverage of sanctions as the Senator has declared he wants, can reduce support. Sanctions invariably have the side effect of harming common people inside the country, so one can count on a backlash.Evo said:Obama does say he wil try increased diplomacy first so that he will have the support of the US and the world if it comes to an attack.
If you start an unjustified war on false premises and promises and with poor planning, that can reduce support for the effort. The support for the Iraq War has little to do with any disingenuous and aborted attempt at diplomacy, nor does it have much to do with the ineffectiveness of sanctions.mheslep said:There's evidence from the Iraq war build up that diplomacy, with the leverage of sanctions as the Senator has declared he wants, can reduce support.
Gokul43201 said:If you start an unjustified war on false premises and promises and with poor planning, .
turbo-1 said:This is my biggest fear - that Israel will act unilaterally
According to the IAEA, they are in compliance and have been for years. They are not running a weapons program. Israel is running the same scam that Bush ran on Iraq. Accuse them of something (WMDs, whatever) and then threaten to attack unless they can PROVE they are not. As it turns out Iraq was telling the truth and our president and his cronies were lying. We should take no more human lives on the word of war-mongers.seycyrus said:Yes Iran has stated that it wants to wipe Israel off the map.
Israel has stated that it will not let Iran have the means to do so.
That it is why it is IMPERATIVE that we stop playing apologist for Iran, and demand that they fully comply with the IAEA.
turbo-1 said:BTW, our own NIE says that Iran stopped their military nuclear program 5 years ago in 2003.
turbo-1 said:According to the IAEA, they are in compliance and have been for years.
28. ... Substantive explanations are required from Iran to support its statements on the alleged studies and on other information with a possible military dimension...
29. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued the operation of PFEP and FEP and the installation of both new cascades and of new generation centrifuges for test purposes. Iran has also continued with the construction of the IR–40 reactor.
30. The Director General urges Iran to implement all measures required to build confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme, including the Additional Protocol, at the earliest possible date.
turbo-1 said:The IAEA was suggesting that allegations of planning for a weapons program could be on-going.
turbo-1 said:If the IAEA had demanded that level of transparency (or even a far, far lesser level) from our own government or Israels,
turbo-1 said:Nevertheless, the neo-cons...
Because it never happenedturbo-1 said:...Iran has offered to partner with foreign nuclear states to allow them to oversee commercial enrichment on Iranian soil, but you don't hear about that in the US press.
turbo-1 said:Enemies of Iran make allegations, and then the IAEA demands that Iran PROVE that their enrichment programs are for peaceful purposes. This cannot be done. You cannot prove a negative.
turbo-1 said:Our own NIE claims that Iran stopped their enrichment program in 2003.
turbo-1 said:According to the IAEA, they are in compliance and have been for years. ...
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-83.pdfIran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its [NPT] Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, its processing and its use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored
Iran has asked France to “create a consortium to produce enriched uranium” in a bid to break the deadlock over Tehran’s nuclear programme.
The deputy director of Iran’s atomic energy agency Mohammed Saedi told the France Info radio station that a deal was imminent with two French companies, Areva and Eurodif, to enrich uranium in Iran.
The companies would be given “tangible” control of Iran’s nuclear activities, Saedi told the radio station – which would also allow UN nuclear inspectors to restart their investigations.
Tehran has refused to give into US-led calls for an end to its nuclear programme – which Washington believes is about creating weapons, not energy – and still faces the threat of UN sanctions.
turbo-1 said:It is necessary to make the distinction, because true conservatives like myself would never act like these radical warmongers, starting wars at will and wasting US blood and treasure to profit their handlers.
turbo-1 said:But it did happen.
turbo-1 said:The fact that Iran offered to do this and was actively negotiating with one of our European partners to put the deal together is never mentioned in the US press.
Thomas Pickering said:We propose that Iran's efforts to produce enriched uranium and other related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, that is to say jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments. This proposal provides a realistic, workable solution to the US-Iranian nuclear standoff. Turning Iran's sensitive nuclear activities into a multinational program will reduce the risk of proliferation and create the basis for a broader discussion not only of our disagreements but of our common interests as well.
If you don't know who Tom Pickering is, let me assure you that he is no pinko appeaser. Nor is he visiting assistant lecturer in thumb-sucking at St. Martha's on the Swamp. Pickering was the Reagan Administration's Ambassador to El Salvador during the U.S.-sponsored "air war" in 1984-5. He was Reagan's Ambassador to Israel when Israel was crushing the first Intifada with "force, might, beatings." Now he's co-chair of the International Crisis Group, and Chairman of the American Academy of Diplomacy. You can't, if you have a shred of respect for experience or expertise in international relations, accuse Tom Pickering of being naïve.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031200275.htmlTEHRAN, March 12 -- Iran rejected an offer from Russia to enrich uranium on its behalf Sunday, closing the door on what had been the most promising diplomatic resolution to international concerns over its nuclear program...
turbo-1 said:Iran accepts the proposal of former US embassador Thomas Pickering to allow an internationally-owned consortium to run their enrichment program.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/iran-accepted-pickerings_b_104932.html