or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/International Relations
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| Future Bush’s policy vs. Iraq/Iran? |
curious98 |
01/31/05 |
Are we in Europe supposed to congratulate Mr. Bush (as France’s President has just done) for the victory of the Schia in Iraq?
Does Mr. Bush realize that 90% of the Iranians are Shiites, too?
In the New Yorker, this month, Mr. Seymour M. Harsh writes, under the title of The Coming Wars:
Quote:
“…The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran's ability to go nuclear. But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work,” writes Hersh. “The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership.”
See: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
Unquote:
Recently, Recently, the Democratic Party’s rising “progressive” star Barack Obama said he would favor “surgical” missile strikes against Iran.
As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, “[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?”
He added, “[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in” given the ongoing war in Iraq. “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.” Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.”
Is the Bush Administration actually trying to start WWIII?
In an area of 636,294 sq. mi. there live some 67 million people. Its' terrain is rugged, mountainous rim; high, central basin with deserts, mountains; small, discontinuous plains along both coasts
i.e., the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea.
In short, nothing like Iraq, to say the least.
An eventual invasion of Iran would now mean a definite attack against the Muslim world,
Furthermore, it would be foreseeable a hard reaction on the Russian side –who are waiting for an opportunity to recover some of its previous international importance.
In the opinion of many European sectors an eventual attack against Iran might justify having recourse to the use of nuclear weapons on the American side, bearing in mind the strength of Iran.
And the consequences of using weapons of massive destruction, even if it were against international terrorism, would be totally disastrous…
Any comments?
Curious98
|
Clarification/Follow-up by curious98 on 02/01/05 10:11 pm:
An excellent and very realistic article. Its authorship reveals a better knowledge than average of the Middle East and Europe. Many Americans still consider Europe as a conglomerate of different countries with different interests. But this is no longer quite so.
We are all striving –25 of us, right now- to achieve some sort of federation run by one Constitution (which is about to be voted soon) and one Parliament.
Unity in diversity: Europe is a continent with many different traditions and languages, but also with shared values. The EU defends these values. It fosters co-operation among the peoples of Europe, promoting unity while preserving diversity and ensuring that decisions are taken as close as possible to the citizens.
In the increasingly interdependent world of the 21st century, it will be even more necessary for every one of us, European citizens, to co-operate with people from other countries in a spirit of curiosity, tolerance and solidarity. But this must be reciprocal, particularly as far as the USA is concerned, for as the article concludes, our combined force should be unstoppable.
And in the case of the Middle East struggle, another thing Americans should not forget is that, in case of conflict, Europe is right in the first line of the trenches, so we must have a say in whatever action plans the USA may have regarding that part of the world.
This is probably why Mr. Bush and Ms. Condolezza Rice are planning to visit Europe, late this month.
Regards
Clarification/Follow-up by captainoutrageous on 02/02/05 1:29 pm:
Absolutely. America has for too long been moving blindly forward as though it were invulnerable and did not require cooperation of others. Clarification/Follow-up by curious98 on 02/02/05 10:36 pm:
Let's just hope it will turn out for the best!
As it was to be expected, Mr. Chirac seems to be ansiosuly looking forward to Mr. Bush's visit, and we all know (at least here in Europe) that Great Britain and France are the countries that normally have the last say.
So we shall see
Claude
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
