So, Condi Rice has come out and said that Iran is not a US target...

Yet in Bush's SotU address he called Iran: "the world's primary state sponsor of terror."

How is Iran's gross violations of human rights and its escalating nuclear program any different than Iraq's supposed similar actions of the past?

How is that Bush could justify going into Iraq with lies but will ignore Iran who is most definately developing varied nuclear capabilities?

If Iran is "the world's primary state sponser of terror" why does Rice say that Iran is "not on the agenda"?

These questions are not meant to be inflammatory or to start arguments, I just can't quite figure out why Rice would say "Iran is not on the agenda" so definitely while at the same time her boss calls Iran the "primary state sponser of terror".

Aren't we in a "war on terror" and shouldn't all states sponsering terror, especially one named as the "primary" one, be the #1 target?

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Bush: "I drove my country so far into debt that I can't afford another front in the 'War on Terrorism.' But if I find a fucking nickel, Iran, I'm kicking your ass!"

well, see this is what I assume.

I also assume that Bush does not have the true integrity to really follow through with his "promises" about the "war on teror".

But that is my opinion, and it is not as informed as it could be...which is why I ask you guys...

Hi genxgirl,

I would very much like the US to side with the student/democratic movement in Iran and oust the existing theocracy. I am not naive enough to believe, however, that the same people directing the democratic movement would not also want a powerful military with weapons of mass destruction, but I think it may be a safer bet to have them in the hands of a decent democracy instead of ayatollahs.

That being said, it may be a lose-lose situation anyway, because neither side is particularly fond of US politics or of Israel (its primary adversary). The US may be biding its time for another revolution to take place in Iran, and certainly I'm sure we are working behind the scenes promoting one as well. This would not be the first time. Of the solutions, a revolution from within and without obvious outside support would be the best one of many "not-so-good" solutions.

So, on the one hand Iran looks like a prime candidate for "Iraqization". But upon closer inspection, the large population, the huge landmass, the relatively strong military, and the two seperate ideological/political groups involved make this a complex and difficult situation to attend to, especially with so much invested in Iraq at this point.

If something is going to happen, it is either nothing, a revolution from within, or intervention by the US with a HEAVY amount of help from other nations (which may or may not be procurable at this point).

I think the fact that the public is basically split on Iraq tells Mr. Bush that another war is not what the American people want. That and the fact that he has no money for it because he's an overspending idiot.

Oh he hasn't had money for a lot of the things he's done already--because he's an overspending idiot.

However, I agree with you on the grounds that we simply don't have enough troops to venture into a country like Iran. If any action happens there, I'd imagine it would be aerial strikes, coming from the new strategic centerpoint of the Middle East (dun dun DUUUUN), Iraq!

If you are looking for lucid political commentary from this board you are going to have to dive into a river of bullshit, dont open your mouth.

The truth of the matter is actually quite simple. We do have a plan to invade Iran right now, we have a plan to invade 90% of the world if the situation demands it. But we wont, at least not in the immediate future because logistically we cannot. Iran has, despite what many of you believed, learned a lesson from Iraq. The U.S. can be a bully, so do not pretend you have a nuclear or chemical weapons program. Also, if the U.S. refuses to intervene militarily in Iran if they develop nuclear capabiliies let me assure you Isreal will knock on their door, hard.

NDPJ.

Soooooo let me get this straight.

Bush promises to rein in spending, and talks up diplomacy over war, and you guys are still pissed?

What the FUCK do you want?

*ends feistiness, takes the high road, goes to a Mexican restaurant.

I'm just trying to find out what Bush means by saying he will "stay the course". To me, these words from Bush's mouth and Rice's subsequent "no iran invasion" seems contradictory.

If Bush were truly fighting a war on terror and trying to promote peace and liberty and humane treatment of all of humanity, Iran would be a primo target.

How is it that 2 years ago it was so important to stop saddam hussein and his maltreatment of his people with a war, but it is okay for diplomatic solutions to the Iran situation?

Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining, because another war would destroy what tenuous financial security America does have, not to mention the fact that Iran is huge and we cannot spare a single soldier (nor do I want any more men and women in harm's way) But the contradicction needs to be explained.

All of the war hungry bible thumpers of Bush's constituencey, how are they going to explain this away?

So I guess my question is directed at the Bush supporters...how do you explain this flagrant contradictin?

Take this with a grain of salt but read the paragraph beginning Enter Saddam at the bottom of the page:

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Dollar_Iraq.htm

Bush also promised to be a uniter, not a divider, and put us on Mars.


...yeah.

He already promised these things over the last 4 years. He's achieved none of them.
A promise doesn't mean a fucking thing.

Read Tsunamis post, it was an almost perfect explanation. There are reasons why we invade one country and not another. Look at North Korea for example where millions of people would probably die if we tried. The longistics of invading Iran are much more complicated then Iraq, plus it is a larger population, we have less ally support, less troops, and there is a potential for a revolution there without us having to take over the country. I guarantee you we are focused on the Iran problem, that doesn't mean we have to be planning a full out assault on them.

And it isn't a contradiction, unless you are trying really hard to make it one. We fought the Soviet Union without invading them. You can fight a war in other ways then actual armed conflict. We will try to perpetuate a revolution there if we can, or we will let Israel take care of their nucleur capabilities again. And enough with the bible thumping generalizations. Bush supporters or not, I think most logical people can agree that we can fight the war on terrorisim without destroying and rebuilding every country in the Middle East.

Yeah, but the actions of westerners are always going to propogate "terrorist" mindsets. When there is such a ridiculous difference in the way of life of the opposing cultures, a democratic election isn't going to solve anything. They're still going to be dirt poor and resentful of the western way of life. And you know what, I don't blame them.

I don't pretend to have the answers but I know that a democratic election isn't gonna stop someone who lives in a hut with a dirt floor from hating me and you because we have "disposable income" and 3 square meals a day. At least if I was there, I'd hate me. The me here that is...

But Iraq doesn't have to be dirt poor, the citizens should actually be among the richest people in the world because of the amount of money flowing through that place. Conflict after conflict, and dicator after dictator is the major cause of strife. I'm not saying that elections are going to solve anything, but they do have the potential to. IF all that oil money starts actually going towards the people, and not ass holes like Hussein, then they will become a lot happier in general, and a lot less likely to head down that fundamentalist road. And most Iraqi's were not exactly living in dirt huts, and Iran isn't exactly a super poor country either.

The simple explination is this:
Economics. Plain and simple.

Their Agenda: "Secure the Region".

We gave weapons to Iraq to beat on Iran when they pissed us off in the 1970's (Iran Hostage Situation between the end of Carter's presidency and the beginning of Regan's first term), Iran has been on our shit list ever since, Iraq is on our shit list as well (Saddam, Gulf War, yadda), and both have all the oil. "Secure the Region" is the key phrase and always the game plan, REGARDLESS OF or in spite of whatever they print in the press.

All other "issues" are secondary, and have been for the last 85 years, regardless of what they would like for you to believe.

c-

Somebody owns the oil fields and it is not the general population. So instilling a democratic gov't won't help in my eyes. Not that I'm for a Dictatorship because obviously it was harsh and brutal. But, democracy will change nothing for the general population whom are still not going to see a cent of oil revenues because of Free Enterprise. In fact, in my opinion, the people will have more of a reason to despise the west because after all the lip service and killing of innocent civilians, nothing will really change for the common person in Iraq from a prosperity point of view. Unless of course, we set up factories there to exploit the people for slave labour to lower the prices of electronics at WalMart.

Funny story... back in the 1970's Iraq was the premiere country in the Middle East in terms of how well built it was, its infrastructure, resources, power, etc. Iraq got bled almost dry by the Iran-Iraq war, just like Afghanistan was alright until it was bled dry by the Soviet invasion in the 80's.

I'll be shocked if US Armed Forces aren't in Iran by the year 2008.