War in the middle east, why oh why?

I agree. And this Israeli air campaign over Lebanon probably made the iranians wet their pants, metaphorically speaking. A US bombing campaign would thoroughly smash Iran as a working country. I think Ahmadinejad has already started whipping his scientists in order to double their nuclear research speed.

One thing I dont get is why the US hasnt targeted Al Sadr's militia leaving it to strengthen for 3 years. That's America's Hezbollah in Irak. Do you think they'll do something about it before going after Iran or they'll let them make their move first?

I agree. And this Israeli air campaign over Lebanon probably made the iranians wet their pants, metaphorically speaking. A US bombing campaign would thoroughly smash Iran as a working country. I think Ahmadinejad has already started whipping his scientists in order to double their nuclear research speed.

One thing I dont get is why the US hasnt targeted Al Sadr's militia leaving it to strengthen for 3 years. That's America's Hezbollah in Irak. Do you think they'll do something about it before going after Iran or they'll let them make their move first?

yeah right...like the bombs over bagdad scared the future insurgency...

Bomb Iran, bomb Syria blah blah blah this will solve NOTHING.

Depends what you think needs to be solved and what you think can be solved by other means.

edit - interesting articles: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBhM...WQ4OWMzNDhmMzk=

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTFlN...jEzNDMzZGI0NjU=

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 06, 2006 10:51 am

Underlining his support for Hizbullah, [Syrian Foreign Minister] Moallem said, "as Syria's foreign minister I hope to be a soldier in the resistance."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

How sweet. Another top leader wants to end up in a hole like Saddam. Go on Israel, fulfill the guy's wish!

man, when did you become such a israel fanboy?

Hi alexC,

We don't know that.

However, we do know that NOT bombing Syria and Iran definitely hasn't solved anything in the past.

Furthermore, if Syria and Iran get the impression they cannot ever be bombed (as some "anti-war" types in the West would have it) then we can be absolutely certain nothing will ever be solved until the Iranian and Syrian regimes get their own way.

Given the nature of these regimes, do we want that?

Cheers,

Sid.

p.S. This is not an advocacy of bombing Syria and Iran. It is an advocacy of not taking this particular option off the table in order to keep pressure on them.

Another major speech delivered by Blair:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page9948.asp

-----------------

Suparatu, I was never against Israel. I dont remember saying anything anti-Israel in the year and a half that I've been posting here, but since some of my other criticisms or statements were taken to be anti-something-isms, I would say I definetly was pro-Israel since Hazballah attacked it on July 12.

In the last 3 years the U.S. and allies could not curb the insurgency originating in Iraq from the 40% of population represented by the Sunni. 3 years after invasion, and America seems to lose the grasp of the ground.
Bomb Iran, and you'll have to fight with the Shia, while Iranian troops and weaponry will pour into Iraq. Bomb Syria, and you'll see the Syrians shoulder-to-shoulder with the other guys from the southern Liban, who cannot be defeated while fighting alone.
You have a point in not giving the impression that those regimes will not be punished whatever they do, but I don't think this is the right moment. Unless you want to be the Sith in Star Wars - Episode I: "Wipe them out... All of them!"
(...And in Star Wars - Episode I, it did not work as the Sith wanted.)


This post has been edited by Florin on August 07, 2006 06:19 pm

And how is waiting for the shia revolutionary base (Iran) to get a nuclear umbrella going to lead to a better moment than this one? I fail to see how a shia insurgency backed by a nuclear armed Iran is better than a shia insurgency backed by thoroughly bombed and non-nuclearised Iran.
Momentarily Iran has to be defeated in Lebanon. If I were Bush I'd go for Al Sadr next and when Iran jumps in out of solidarity, bomb its military forces, its infrastructure and its nuclear programme. If Syria has the audacity to intervene as a state, besides sending its over-weight foreign minister as volunteer, let Israel take care of it. Israel only has 15,000 soldiers and 20% of its airforce involved in Lebanon.

And how is waiting for the shia revolutionary base (Iran) to get a nuclear umbrella going to lead to a better moment than this one? I fail to see how a shia insurgency backed by a nuclear armed Iran is better than a shia insurgency backed by thoroughly bombed and non-nuclearised Iran.
Momentarily Iran has to be defeated in Lebanon. If I were Bush I'd go for Al Sadr next and when Iran jumps in out of solidarity, bomb its military forces, its infrastructure and its nuclear programme. If Syria has the audacity to intervene as a state, besides sending its over-weight foreign minister as volunteer, let Israel take care of it. Israel only has 15,000 soldiers and 20% of its airforce involved in Lebanon.

Bombing Iran from aircraft carriers, and from the other airfields of the Arab states, is the very easy part. Keeping the Ormuz Strait under control, to allow the flow of the oil tankers, will not be that easy. Just few days ago, an Iranian made missile proved able to damage an Israeli warship. It was not a big missile - thus easy to transport and hide. Iran is better prepared in 2006 than in 1980. And even with Ormuz under control, you still have the Iranian oil export interrupted - and 100 dollars per barrel as result. China, Japan, Western Europe and India will not be pleased with that. And don't forget - as long a conflict with Iran will last, Russia will supply them with weaponry. They owe us that much, since the days when we messed with them in Afghanistan.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, what can we do? Bad to bomb, bad to not bomb. Bad to wait, bad to not wait.
Well, this is a tough one, and I would not go into elections for the next turn. I fell somehow that Mr. Bush will pass the ball to the next one. This means for now we wait.

This post has been edited by Florin on August 07, 2006 06:26 pm

Arab quotes from their newspapers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5255578.stm

www.a-human-right.com

This post has been edited by Cristian on August 08, 2006 04:54 pm

I dont think it's bad to bomb. The gordian knot was not "solved" with patience or negotiation, it was cut.

----------

40,000 israeli soldiers will apparently advance up to the Litani.

Another link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5258240.stm