Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan187
Which we do not, and did not whether before or after 9/11 and your so termed "American interventionism". A more direct approach with those countries who understand only power politics is necesarry.
|
Well, if they only understand power politics, perhaps we should try it.
The Bush Administration's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do not seem to be doing much for US interests or impressing our friends, enemies and competitors so I doubt more of the same is going to get us very far.
The state of affairs does seem to point to the need for more political maneuvering.
Quote:
|
Actually, Syria's natural gas has our European allies very interested, so while perhaps not direct US interests, this is part of a greater strategic interest.
|
Syrian gas reserves are not much of a contender.
The three largest reserves in the World are Russia, Iran and Qatar which account for a little over 50% of the total.
A stable, gas exporting Iran is a key interest of our European and Asian allies.
If we destroy Iran, Qatari capacity is going to go away with it as the resulting Gulf security climate is not going to be conducive to that type of economic activity.
Letting the Chinese "have" Iran or removing Iran from the picture and throwing the energy security of our European and Asian allies into Russia's hands is distinctly not in the U.S. interest.
Quote:
|
So Iran and Syria did not blatantly sponsor terrorism before our interventionism? They were just the nice guys on the block trying to make a decent buck, eh? Truly, you need to face reality.
|
I never said they did not.
I am facing reality: the terrorists and their sponsors have stepped up their activities significantly by taking advantage of the instability introduced by the Americans in Iraq which is exactly what was predicted by pretty much everybody who seemed to have a basic knowledge of the region.
How has the war in Iraq helped forward the US interests of counter terrorism and counter proliferation?
No spin reality: it has not.
Terrorism is on the rise in Iraq, the Jihadis are getting their training in for the next war and we let Iraqi scientists, weapons and materials get away.
If we turn Iran ass over tea kettle the Jihadis will end up with the fruits of the Iranian weapons program and armaments industry and then where will we be?
The CARs will likely fall under the sway of the well armed radicals and Turkey will be very pressed which is going to have consequences for the weak, partially Muslim young states of Southeastern Europe if the Turks cannot manage the regional instability that would result from more ill thought out American interventionism in the Middle East.
Quote:
|
Not till they're dicapitating your family I suppose.
|
And that is exactly what is probably going to happen if the current methods of managing the problem are continued.
If we keep doing things that the enemy wants and makes the terrorists stronger, my family is just as doomed as every other American family.
Quote:
|
Yup, the thing we really haven't tried is to negotiate with Iran. Iran is not willing to negotiate away anything of value to them. They have a president who is calling for a new Holocaust. While they sit at the negotiating tables, the militants that they sponsor are blowing up American and Israeli soldiers. What do you want to offer them? A withdrawal from Iraq so that their militia will gain control of it? What's next? Asking Israel to withdraw and move to Madagascar?
|
They have something we want and we have something they want. Sounds like a perfect recipie for a chit chat at some level or another.
Apparently, our inability to bomb our way to a suitable outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan has sent them a clear message that they have a pretty good hand in the works so they might be up for a game.
In case you have not noticed, withdrawl or staying in Iraq is not going to change the Iranian effort to gain more influence in that country because those points are moot: the Iranians already control the better part of the Iraqi economy, have extensive political influence and they have done it all while our military is deployed there. Kind of makes one wonder about the efficacy of a military solution to the problem.
Regarding the Iranians killing American soldiers, that is a result of how we chose to define our vulnerability, not the result of the enemy's machinations. We picked the fight, not them.
Israel picks its fights just the same and by actively thwarting a stable, peacful and prosperous Lebanon it is suffering more death rather than less and will continue to do so in the future.
Quote:
|
Stable enemy regimes with goals of destroying us and our allies are not the best bet for the United States to combat terror, not matter how you try to spin it.
|
There is no spin to it: stable enemy regimes are easier to manage than the anarchy and terrorism that go along with destabilizing them.
Stable enemy regimes have something to lose which means there are levers available to move them.
Anarchy and chaos with the Pan Islamisists having everything to gain and nothing to lose presents no levers to alter the course of events which effectively leaves us powerless.
If you want proof, you can study what has been going on in Iraq for the past several years. Saddam Hussein was no friend of ours but apparently the US and its allies could manage to keep him in his box and thwart his aims much more readily than they can control events in Iraq after introducing instability.
Afghanistan's bumper poppy crop should tell you something as well.
Anyway, I hope you are enjoying good cheer and festivities where you are,
William