Conservative Bastion
The only blog that can factually claim to shift the Bell Curve, along with the hearts & minds of America, to the right.
Monday, August 21, 2006
The Mid-East Powder Keg
It’s prediction time. Tomorrow, Iran will announce their intent regarding a UN resolution demanding that Iran stop its nuclear program. So what’s going to happen?

Iran will reject the resolution, putting the Bush administration in a precarious position. They were willing to invade Iraq because of their noncompliance regarding weapons of mass destruction, so there will be pressure for them to the same with Iran.

The problem for the Bush administration is that Iran and Iraq are different and yet the same. Iran is different in the sense that it is much larger in terms of population and land mass. The current Iranian regime also has more popular support than Saddam did in Iraq. In other words, it would take much more time and resources to invade a country like Iran. Not only are there more people, but there is a larger percentage of people there that would hate us from the start.

Iran and Iraq are similar in the sense that terrorist extremists live there and will fight us if we invade. If the US were to invade, the fighting would be similar to what we are seeing in Iraq. Iran also has a fragmented population, similar to that of Iraq. If we were to invade, there would be no guarantee of an easy plan for regime change.

These facts mean that only one course of action is possible: limited military incursions. This could mean limited air strikes, the use of special forces on specific targets, or funding local militants.

Whatever the administration decides to do, we can expect retaliation from Iran. Whether they hit us in Iraq, Afghanistan, or through some other means, it will happen and it could plunge the Middle East into a regional war.

This is a doomsday scenario may not happen in exactly as I predict, but it is hard to imagine the Bush administration allowing Iran to acquire weapons of mass destruction. That means military action will be necessary. If it does happen, let us hope that some of the Muslim countries restrain their populations. If not, we could see the Mid-East as the power keg it is.


This picture gives me some hope. This is a demonstration outside of the Iranian embassy in Indonesia. It is good to see some Muslims protest the warmongers within their own religion.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
8 Comments:
Blogger Democrat said...
They were willing to invade Iraq because of their noncompliance regarding weapons of mass destruction, so there will be pressure for them to the same with Iran.

When did Iraq not comply?

Democrat

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
That is a good question. The only reason I can think of was that Saddam was sick of being "pushed around". I think he figured if he acted tough, the world powers would back off and that he could resume WMD production once the sanctions were lifted.

Blogger Democrat said...
Well, whether or not he complied is irrelevant. Resolution 1441 still did not authorize military force. the US and UK went back to the UN to get the okay to use military force, then they withdrew the request once they realized Russia, China, and France would veto it. So, the question is really WHY IS THE US and UK in the UN when neither one of them goes along with anything the UN says?

This is a BS war. The American people allowed the Bushies to morph Iraq into the heart of all terrorist operations. The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq, but the Bushies seem to think so.

Capote

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
You overstate your case by saying it had nothing to do with the War on Terrorism. Saddam funded suicide bombers and there were terrorist camps in Iraq.

You ask why the US and UK are in the UN. I would ask why the UN exists if it is not willing to back up its own resolutions. How can the UN ever be taken seriously if they are unwilling to back up what they say? Also, the duelfer report said that Saddam's intention was to wait out UN sanctions and then restart his WMD program after the sanctions were lifted. To me, it seems that if we didn't invade iraq in 2003, we probably would have end up doing so in 2013.

Blogger Democrat said...
You overstate your case by saying it had nothing to do with the War on Terrorism. Saddam funded suicide bombers and there were terrorist camps in Iraq.

He didn't fund terrorist that attacked the United States, unlike Saudi Arabia. So, again, not a good reason to attack them.

You ask why the US and UK are in the UN. I would ask why the UN exists if it is not willing to back up its own resolutions. How can the UN ever be taken seriously if they are unwilling to back up what they say? Also, the duelfer report said that Saddam's intention was to wait out UN sanctions and then restart his WMD program after the sanctions were lifted. To me, it seems that if we didn't invade iraq in 2003, we probably would have end up doing so in 2013

The UN backs up what they say, it's the members that don't back up what they say. Also, the UN inspectors asked for more time and Bush wouldn't give it to them. Bush and Blair violated a UN resolution, plain and simple. This war is illegal. Everything Bush has said turned out to be untrue. They had no WMD's, nor were they involved with 9/11. Fear mongering... All it is...

Democrat

Blogger Democrat said...
Oh... I missed your "terrorist camps" statement the first time... Actually, those camps were in the northern part of Iraq which Sadaam didn't even control.

Democrat

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
i agree with at least some of what you are saying, although i wouldn't say it the way you do. however, there was at least one terrorist camp in Iraq that saddam did have control over.

Of course i can't agree that bush lied either. if bush knew there were no WMD, then he is probably the smartest man in the world, because no one else knew. Also, if he had known they weren't there, why would he use it as his main reason when he didn't have to? it doesn't add up. you don't have to demonize someone to disagree with them.

Blogger Democrat said...
Of course i can't agree that bush lied either. if bush knew there were no WMD, then he is probably the smartest man in the world, because no one else knew.

Media, he's the most powerful man in the world with the best intelligence agency willing to give him any information he desires at his behest. Trust me, he knew. Do you honestly believe it is by sheer happenstance that Bush invaded a country who's dereanged leader ordered the assaination of his father years before? Also, don't forget that the man in your avatar armed Sadaam.

i agree with at least some of what you are saying, although i wouldn't say it the way you do. however, there was at least one terrorist camp in Iraq that saddam did have control over.

It wasn't necessarily a terrorist camp, it was more or less a military training facility. Whatever it was, inspectors and military scientists haven't found any evidence of biological weapons. Here

Also, if he had known they weren't there, why would he use it as his main reason when he didn't have to? it doesn't add up. you don't have to demonize someone to disagree with them.

He invaded Iraq for three reasons: 1.)Sadaam tried to kill his daddy, 2.)Oil, 3.)Fear mongering.

Don't you think its odd that Gore won the popular vote, but Kerry didn't? What happened in those four years? 9/11 and Iraq... Every single day on the news you hear "terrorism, terrorism, terrorism"... The Bushies used 9/11 and other terrorist attacks for political gain. They made the Democrats look weak on terrorism... That's the only reason they won. The economy sucked and it still does; so that sure as hell wasn't the reason he was re-elected. See my blog for details on the economy.

Democrat

Links to this post:
Create a Link