I’ll debate the fact that the invasion of Iraq was justified until someone gets bored and passes out, and I’ve got the sources to back it up. Same is true to prove that Saddam was indeed a WMD threat, a terrorist threat, that inspections couldn’t work, and that the entire gig is a bi-partisan one. However, I’d like to get back to the discussion about “exhausted talks.” I think it’s a good discussion, important, and more OT.

You said, “In my view exhausted talks means they give up not us. It means we keep on talking and trying for solutions unless they deliver a blow like attacking another country. IF Iran were to attack another country or one of our ships in the area.. then they started it… and we should strike back with MAJOR force.
However, we should NEVER make the mistake of starting another war. The US attacking IRAQ was a HUGE mistake. A mistake I will never forgive BUSH for doing. Spare me the bi-partisan war crap. We all know BUSH responsible for the IRAQ war.”

There’s a lot to be said about waiting to be attacked before going to war. The apparent advantage is that the casus belli is clear and support for continuing the effort until it succeeds seems automatic, but it’s not. Even after the US was attacked, there were protests against the US invasion of Afghanistan. Sen Kennedy led Democrats in calling Bush a warmonger and claimed we should give more time to talking to the Taliban. Tens of thousands of Americans took to the streets and protested against the invasion of Afghanistan. In Egypt, the US embassy was surrounded by rioters and burned. In Syria, the same. In Turkey, the same. In Pakistan, the same, AND hundreds of thousands were arrested by Musharaaf w/out trial etc. In Britain, the govt collapsed and needed a new vote to determine who would be in power after so many resignations. India mobilized and threatened to nuke Pakistan if it allowed US forces inside there. Anti-American riots in France (remember the “Today We’re All Americans” headline-it was a Le Monde article saying the US deserved to be attacked, and now Americans were brought to the level of the rest of the world. The list goes on.

In light of that, several things come to mind:
1) if the Taliban were still “talking” to the US, then Afghanistan would still be a massive terrorist haven w tens of thousands of AQ there (remember, UBL is not in Afghanistan. He’s in Pakistan)
2) the Japanese were still talking to us hours after the Pearl Harbor attack. Doesn’t that mean that the US ignored a threat because talks weren’t “exhausted” by the wait-till-THEY-stop-talking standard?
3) if there’s massive political opposition to even retaliatory force in the US and the world, then the only benefit of waiting to be attacked (the idea the being attacked first gives more support) is moot, and the wait-till-attacked standard doesn’t work anymore either (particularly when a nuke explodes w no trace of who drove the truck, or a bio/germ attack, or a chemical attack by untraceable state-sponsored terrorists)

So, if the wait-till-attacked idea doesn’t work, and the wait-till-THEY-stop talking idea is a proven a failure by history, then what other benchmark is there to determine that there’s no point in “talking” anymore.

Also, I agree with Sec Gates. To talk to Iran, the US needs leverage. What leverage do we have? What can we offer/appease them with or threaten them with? Lacking either? How can “talks” work.

Sitting down and talking things out is a great idea, but it doesn’t always work. It is not a magic bullet that never misses.

I was reading a magazine yesterday. It was a story from a reporter who was sent to Sudan to cover the war there. He was imprisoned at the border along with his aide. In the prison, he met women who had their breasts cut off. He saw children with no hands. He saw starvation, disease, and conditions that make Abu Ghraib or Gitmo sound like Disney. He tells a story of how a woman who was beaten and raped, was forced to watch her husband be tortured and dismembered alive, and had her babies boiled in front of her-yes, BOILED. She saw he was hungry and gave him her food. How could he thank her, he wondered? How could he comfort her? I dunno, but if anyone thinks that the Muslim extremists who did this to her family can be talked into peace…I think they’re wrong. Similarly, I think talking to Iran w nothing to offer and threats backed by incessant, partisan-motivated, misled dissent at home make the talks useless.

Oh, btw, the magazine was National Geographic. Cover has a pic of the Muslim horsemen spinning in the sand on their way to raid another village. The reporter was freed, but the woman who kept him alive by giving him her shitty excuse for food….still there.

Maybe if someone talked to em. Maybe not. Where is the line? Wait till they get tired? Wait till they attack? Where is the line between enough and waited too long to act?

Now you know that is not true and if you don’t know it, you should.

The decision was reached by the US, Great Britain, France, and others to establish the No Fly Zones in order to enforce multiple UN resolutions. Resolutions which would have not been worth the paper they were printed on without some sort of enforcement effort.

Iraq was repeatedly in violation of the cease fire agreement signed at the end of the Gulf War.

So, even without the continued violations of the UN resolutions, based just on the cease fire violations, we had every right to take the actions that we took.

Furthermore, the Clinton Administration established a policy calling for regime change in Iraq.

In regard to the enforcement of the resolutions, you really should read the UN Charter to get a better understanding.

we were NOT justified in starting this war…

The no-fly zones were unilaterally established by the U.S. government after the Persian Gulf War, supposedly to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. There was one big problem, however: The United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones to be established. U.S. officials have always claimed that the U.S. government, as a member of the United Nations, has the right to unilaterally enforce any resolution of the United Nations. Such a position, however, is patently fallacious. Enforcement of an organization’s rules and regulations belongs to the organization itself, not to each and every individual member of the organization.

nice try

You amateur attempts at revisionism have failed you once again.

IRAQ (Saddam) is responsible for the IRAQ war.

We talked through how many years and how many UN resolutions?

Over and over and over and over.

How many times did Saddam’s forces shoot at our planes while they were enforcing the UN established No Fly Zones?

By your own standards we were justified by responding.

Anyway, we can pass the specific numbers and agree on the point that 1 is too many (let alone 200 or 2000).

There seems to be some confusion in the question I’m asking about “talks” w Iran. I’m not asking for a conclusion to them. That part should be obvious and I think we agree: exhausted talks=war, successful talks=peace [ie end of their nuclear program, end of killing Americans, and end of calling for destruction of Israel]. My question isn’t about the conclusion, but about the means to that end. How does sitting down with them make that happen? Other nations have tried, and failed. The UN has tried, and failed. Iraq has tried and failed. How/what means does one take to make Iran:
stop killing Americans
end their nuclear program
stop calling for the destruction of Israel
stop supporting terrorist groups
and so forth
?

Also, you mentioned “exhausted talks” What’s exhausted? What benchmark is there to say, welp, that’s it then…not gonna get anywhere talking to em

I checked ABC and CBS and I cannot find anything that says 50% have been killed by Iranian weapons… However, in my view one is to many. In no way would I defend Iran’s actions but I do believe talks have to be exhausted before war is put on the table.

As far as talking to Iran. You are asking for me to draw a conclusion of what might happen during those talks. How would anyone know that without talking to them? I do find it interesting that while Bush was saying what he said about talking to Iran Gates proposed that we should talk to Iran.

Defense secretary Gates stated:
“We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them,” Gates said. “If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.”

Gates was a member of the 2006 Iraq Study group.

see the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/14/ST2008051404020.html

Oh, and I deliberately used “President Obama.” I think there’s a very good chance he’ll win.

Now, for the umpteenth time, I respectfully ask of you, Sky5510, or of anyone who opposes President Bush’s statement the other day about “talking” to Iran….PLEASE
PLEASEPLEASPLEASE

Describe to me how this “talking” thing will work? how does sitting down with them stop them from killing Americans, making nuclear bomb factories, and get them to stop threatening to destroy Israel? President Obama or his SecState sit down with Ahmadinejad, and then what?

Half the Americans killed in Iraq are from Iranian weapons??? Really?? since when? can you prove this?? I don’t think so.

Do you realize you just called Obama president?? thank you… for the forecast. I appreciate it.

It’s not like no one in the world has tried.
The US has tried to talk to Iran in talks in Baghdad. Didn’t work.
The US has had Iran under sanctions since Pres Carter (D) imposed them
The US has tried to get the intl community to put Iran under sanction-hasn’t worked
The UN has tried to verify that their “peaceful” nuclear program is, but it hasn’t worked
The UN has threatened sanctions, but it hasn’t worked

Look, if Iran’s NOT killing Americans, NOT a threat to Israel, and NOT making nuclear bomb factories, then there’s no war.

But we all know that the claims are real. Iran’s nuclear program is not peaceful. Half the Americans killed in Iraq have been from Iranian weapons, terrorists, and bombs, and they openly, daily call for the destruction of Israel.

So please tell us…how does sitting down with them stop them from killing Americans, making nuclear bomb factories, and get them to stop threatening to destroy Israel? President Obama or his SecState sit down with Ahmadinejad, and then what?

sorry not acceptable.

How’s this “talk” thing work; how to get Iran to stop killing Americans, to prove their nuclear program is peaceful (not military as it seems to even the IAEA), and to stop calling for the destruction of Israel. How’s it work? Say Bush and Ahmadinejad sit down at a table in Tehran, Bush says, “please,” and that’s it? I don’t buy it.

Lots of squawking, complaining, and lip flapping and not a single solution.

Not one.