The USA will win simply because no-one in the USA wants a repeat of Vietnam, and the solution here is obvious: to use Israel to initiate a proxy war with Iran, which will cause Iran to take some action that will serve as a pretext for the USA to invade and occupy Iran, just like the USA is currently occupying Iraq. To think this is just about oil is naive. It's also largely about ideology and values; not of Christianity versus Islam (since Christianity, for all practical purposes, died over a century ago), nor is it about Materialism versus Spirituality (since spirituality continues to play an important role in modern times for most people), but rather of the modern scientific, civilized world versus an antiquated religion that has a knack for producing suicide bombers and fanatics.

The USA is the sole remaining superpower. Many foreigners may not appreciate the vast resources of USA, and the fact that most of the world's intellectual community is in the USA. When you have the world's strongest and most sophisticated military and the world's most intelligent people, what conclusions should you draw in terms of who is coming out on top? Look at the big picture.

How about--the USA will never win the war in Iraq, because no one knows what the hell they are fighting for. If there is no objective, how can you possibly succeede? I do enjoy this litte bit of ethnocentric emperialism though.

Oh and as for the USA having the most sophisticated military, well I hope not--I mean my sister works for Lockheed and she is an absolute idiot~

She's also your sister...What does that say for you?

Our superpower status is quickly fading. For that, I am greatful...

Every military general is against Bushes plan and are actively trying to get it changed completly. If I had one word to describe the way Bush planned the war in Iraq it would be..

Stupid.

It says she is an idiot, and I am not my sister~ What does your comment say for you? That your mind clearly isn't working properly I am assuming--I mean clearly I am not my sister. Oh and btw she isn't really my sister, only on my dads half, and she moved out when she was 13 (when I was 6) so I mean obviously we can not have very much in common.

it's funny that I posted this comment at Al Jazeera, and the moderators edited my comment to replace:


with the following:



It's nice to see that Al Jazeera likes to completely distort user postings to serve their ulterior motives.

So much for free speech.

I just found this online:

U.S. might launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, Kuwait-based daily Arab Times released on Sunday said in a report.

The report, written by Arab Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al- Jarallah citing a reliable source, said that the attack would be launched from the sea, while Patriot missiles would guard all Arab countries in the Gulf.

Recent statements emanating from the United States indicated the Bush administration's new strategy for Iraq doesn't include any proposal to make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran, added the report.

The source told al-Jarallah that U.S. President George W. Bush recently had held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House, where they discussed the plan to attack Iran in minute detail.

Vice President Dick Cheney highlighted the threat posed by Iran to not only Saudi Arabia but also the whole Gulf region, according to the source.

"Tehran is not playing politics. Iranian leaders are using their country's religious influence to support the aggressive regime's ambition to expand," Dick Cheney was quoted by the source as saying.

Indicating participants of the meeting agreed to impose restrictions on the ambitions of Iranian regime before April 2007 without exposing other countries in the region to any danger, the source said "they have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him. The United States has to take action against Iran and Syria before April 2007."

Claiming the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any country in the region, he said "the U.S. and its allies will target the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran ensuring there is no environmental catastrophe or after effects."

The source added that the U.S. has started sending its warships to the Gulf and the build-up would continue until Washington has the required number by the end of this month.

"U.S. forces in Iraq and other countries in the region will be protected against any Iranian missile attack by an advanced Patriot missile system," the source noted.

The Bush administration believes that attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calming down the situation in Iraq and paving the way for their democratic project, which have to be suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq, according to the source.

Questions: Has any nation, in history, ever WON an agressive war? What does history tell us about this?

BTW, I am not an absolute passivist. That is, I believe that it it okay to defend oneself. But what is defense? What is offense?

It is a tough call, agreed?

Just checking to see if you were serious about her stupidity and if you really believed she has any affect on the United States as a military superpower.
Obviously Lockheed has been around long before your sister showed up, your sister isn't Lockheed, and they would seem to find more use for her than you do. You're thinking out loud but not with any real rationality.

Iraq: The Policy Dilemma "Iran has set a clever trap, and the United States has walked into it. "
George Friedman

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/dilemma.html


Anti-Shiism in Iraq and beyond "What America is facing in Iraq is not just a Qaeda operation against U.S. control, but the vanguard of a broad movement."
Vali Nasr

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/shiism.html