Town Square

Post a New Topic

Historic Anniversary - March 19th a Day of Infamy

Original post made by Pearl on Mar 19, 2012

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it - George Santayana, 1906

March 19, the invasion of Iraq, a country that did not attack the United States.

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof---the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." ---George W. Bush (10/7/02)
-
My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." ---Colin Powell, United Nations Speech (2/5/03)
-
"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." ---Dick Cheney (3/16/03)
-
"[T]he area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." ---Donald Rumsfeld (3/30/03)
-
Who said war never solved anything? ---Brendan Miniter, Assistant Editor, Wall St. Journal (4/8/03)
-
"Each morning, we sat reading our copy of The New York Times, The Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times and ruminated on their prophecies of doom and quagmire. Then we looked up to see, on television, correspondents actually embedded with our troops reporting quick advances, one-sided firefights, melting opposition and, finally, welcoming crowds." ---Dick Morris (4/15/03)
-
"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals." ---Charles Krauthammer (4/19/03)
-

TED KOPPEL: [Y]ou're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for $1.7 billion?
ANDREW NATSIOS [Agency for International Development]: Well, in terms of the American taxpayer's contribution, I do. This is it for the US. ---Nightline (4/23/03)

-
[Liberals] can't deny that President Bush has won his two wars, and won them resoundingly. ---Paul Mirengoff, Powerline (4/26/03)

With the exception of General Powell - CHICKENHAWKS, one and all.

Never forget these crimes against our veterans, the brave men and women of the United States military. Today's current crop of politicians owe to our service men and women an explanation of their positions on war and the correct use of military power.

Comments (39)

Posted by Handy Fact, a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 19, 2012 at 10:50 am

Those statements prove they were/are incompetent morons.

Or war criminals.

It's 6to5 or pick 'em.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 19, 2012 at 2:51 pm

The Liberation of Iraq was, and is, the most existential event, thus far, in the 21st century. Saddam is GONE!!! That means DEAD! Saddam had WMD, and he used them on his own people. Germany was liberated from Hitler, and Japan from the Imperial militarists, and Iraq is liberated from Saddam, and the Soviet Union is now liberated from the socialist yoke of Marx and Lenin and Stalin. Thanks go to a variety of U.S. presidents, for all of the above, especially Roosevelt, Truman, Ike, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

Very good job.

The question is: Will Obama hold the line?


Posted by Pearl, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 19, 2012 at 3:27 pm

Gary:

Did Saddam have the WMD Bush/Cheney claimed he had? No. If you disagree, post your evidence. Not gassing the Kurds a decade before, but evidence that he possessed WMD in 2002.

All the rest of your drivel about Stalin, Hitler, etc.. doesn't apply, but nice try in deflecting from the central mistake in going to Iraq.

We spent over a trillion dollars on a country that was not a threat to America. 5,000 American families lost a child because of the lies about WMD.


Posted by Pearl, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 19, 2012 at 3:28 pm

"The question is: Will Obama hold the line? "

Ask Bin Ladin.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 19, 2012 at 3:56 pm

I'm not going to re-argue the case for war against Iraq. It was fully justified, and it was a substantial success and, if Obama holds the line, it will be seen as an existential change in course, at the beginning of the 21st century.

A dead bin laden is a good thing, but it is not enough. Obama agrees with me...he surged in Afghanistan...gotta keep the sand box away from those who want to play in it to kill the West.

Iraq is an even more important issue: It was the beginning of the end of the Mid-East tough guys. American leaders, like Obama, need to step up to the plate, and take lessons from presidents like FDR, Truman, Ike, Reagan, Bush (I & II).


Posted by wrong country, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 19, 2012 at 4:06 pm

Give the mentally challenged guy a break. He didn't realize the Iran and Iraq were separate countries, then he invaded the wrong one. Ask Condi. She knows the truth.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 19, 2012 at 4:17 pm

One has to wonder how Obama became so quiet, when the Green revolution was going on in Iran. This revolution would never have started, but for the defeat of Saddam in Iraq. When Obama had a magnificent chance to step into leadership, he decided to bow down to the mullahs in Iran. I doubt that Obama will be included in the pantheon of great U.S. Presidents, like Reagan and FDR. The previous President that he reminds me of is Carter.


Posted by Cedrick, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 19, 2012 at 5:01 pm

Gary - answer Pearl's question and prove your claim from your first post instead of going off on another wild tangent. There was no WMD when we invaded - every inspector told the world there was no WMD.

Try doing so without boring us again about how you used to be a socialist or a commie or whatever.

Iran? as Pearl quoted: those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Every one of those quotes was parroted by all the wacko righites - Rush, Hanity, Beck, etc.. They were all wrong. Why would anyone ever consider anything from a person who was so demonstrably WRONG?

Iraq was an unmitigated disaster for our great country.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 19, 2012 at 6:43 pm

"Gary - answer Pearl's question and prove your claim from your first post instead of going off on another wild tangent. There was no WMD when we invaded - every inspector told the world there was no WMD."

Hans Blix also said that there was no nuclear program in Iraq. He was wrong, despite all the inspections. Saddam's own son-in-law defected, and told the truth. I think the Swedish inspector's own words were "I have eggs on my face" .

Saddam had WMD. He used them on his own people. The best intelligence, among the Western powers, and even Saddam's own generals was that he still had them, and intended to use them. There is little doubt that he still had his WMD program, and intended to ramp it up.

The world is immensely better off, now that Saddam is dead. Good job GWB!

The essential question is: Can Obama hold the line? Truman did. Ike did. Reagan did (and much more!...he won the cold war). Bush I& II did (and somewhat more).

Saddam is dead, and that is a great thing! The major domo thugs in that region were put on notice. Now, the dominoes are falling. Except for Iran and Syria, as Obama equivocates. He just does not understand the arc of history, like Reagan and FDR did.

Obama may not understand the future, but he is charged with holding the line of the history already accomplished.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 19, 2012 at 7:10 pm



The invasion of Iraq was based upon forged documents from "Curve ball"

and others--the question is who paid them?

The same agencies are now beating the drums of war to invade Iran--which would be a disaster, ruin the world economy, kill innocent Iranians and potentially trigger a regional war involving China and Russia--a disaster.

The lobbyists beating the drums of war with Iran should be put in a box--and ignored.

Bush acted upon forged intelligence-

-he was conned and snowed by people who do not have fundamental American interests as their first priority

These lobbyists are trying the same con game again

American fundamental interests must come first

We share fundamental interests with Iran regarding the future of Afghanistan--Jaw, Jaw ,Jaw is better than War-War-War.

We need to curb alien nations lobbying in America until the conform to FARA

"The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938.

FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.

Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons in light of their function as foreign agents.

The FARA Registration Unit of the Counterespionage Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act.

Web Link

Enough is enough


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 19, 2012 at 7:27 pm


"The invasion of Iraq was based upon forged documents from "Curve ball""

No. It was based on the existense of Saddam. He needed to go.

WMD, while very important was not the central point. Saddam was the point. Now he is dead. That is a very good thing.

To argue that WMD was the big thing, is to argue that the V2 rocket was the big thing against Hitler. Of course the V2 was a big deal, and it made its point, but the major deal was Hitler, not his weapon systems. Saddam had to go. He did. Thanks to GWB.

We, and the world, are much better off for the Liberation of Iraq. President Obama needs to hold the line, there. No backsliding. No snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Great job by the American military and GWB.



Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 19, 2012 at 8:13 pm



Gary you are wrong on this

Germany declared war on America--Saddam did not.

AQ declared war on America and it took us 10 years to defeat a tiny group because foreign countries conned America into fighting their wars for their interests

Never again will we spend American blood and treasure to fight other nations war-

-American fundamental interests will come first moving forward.

We can deal with Iran as we deal with Russia and China-

-we need to talk with Iran about our common interests


Posted by Pearl, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 20, 2012 at 9:59 am

Gary:

Cedrick requested you back up your claim and prove it. You did not, just by making more unsubstantiated claims. Fabrications without proof, like you Hans Blix egg on face quote.

Then you changed your tune from WMD to Saddam for the justification. "The invasion of Iraq was based upon forged documents .... No. It was based on the existence of Saddam. He needed to go."

No, that wasn't the reason offered to the American people. Read the original post quotes above - smoking gun, etc...

However, since you think so highly of the inspector, Hans Blix did say, in 2008:
"They could not succeed in eliminating WMDs because they did not exist. Nor could they succeed in the declared aim to eliminate al-Qaida operators, because they were not in Iraq. They came later, attracted by the occupants. A third declared aim was to bring democracy to Iraq, hopefully becoming an example for the region. Let us hope for the future; but five years of occupation has clearly brought more anarchy than democracy."


Posted by No more wars, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2012 at 10:14 am

To correct history Germany did not declare war on the U.S. Japan attacted Pearl Harbor and dragged the U.S. into WWII

However, history never taught Dick Cheney anything but he got a lot of government contracts for his friends at Halliburton. Viet Nam should have taught the Bush Administration something but it didn't.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan will end up like Viet Nam and the U.S. will be demonized by the rest of the world, including many of their NATO allies.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has said he will bomb Iran if he's President, that's why I won't vote for him. What is so special about Iran having nuclear weapons when Pakistan,India has them and many other countries will within the next 20 years. Bombing Iran is a very short sighted answer to a long and worldwide problem.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 21, 2012 at 11:51 am

"What is so special about Iran having nuclear weapons when Pakistan,India has them and many other countries will within the next 20 years"

To ask that question suggests little understanding of context and history. The question could be asked: "What is wrong with Hitler having the A-Bomb? Or Al Qaeda?"

Iran is currently being run by mullahs who are willing and eager to accept martyrdom for themselves and their flock. Dangerous stuff.

There is also the geopolitical situation. If Iran (Persia) gets a bomb, the rest of the region will get theirs, too. Nice little arms race in the MidEast. If N. Korea gets its bomb perfected, Japan will follow in kind, overnight.

Maybe we are headed to a new arms race with atomic weapons. It would not surprise me. One way to stop it would be to prevent Iran and N. Korea from moving forward on their systems. Carrots don't seem to work with them, so that leaves sticks. I don't see the political leadership in the U.S., at this time, to use sticks....


Posted by Pearl, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 21, 2012 at 12:18 pm

"Gary: Cedrick requested you back up your claim and prove it. You did not, just by making more unsubstantiated claims. Fabrications without proof, like you Hans Blix egg on face quote.

Then you changed your tune from WMD to Saddam for the justification. "The invasion of Iraq was based upon forged documents .... No. It was based on the existence of Saddam. He needed to go."

No, that wasn't the reason offered to the American people. Read the original post quotes above - smoking gun, etc..."

So Gary: since you haven't offered proof for your statements and have ignored requests since, only to change subjects, we can only gather that having read the facts, you have finally understood.

Good boy.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 21, 2012 at 8:29 pm



Attacking Iran is not in Americas fundamental interest-

-in fact it would be against American fundamental interests.

After 911 Iran provided us valuable intelligence to capture/kill AQ.

We have many common interests with Iran in the future of Afghanistan and curbing the establishment of a narco-terrorist state.

Saudi Arabia and Israel are beating the drums of war because they want the US to fight a war in their interests--not ours.

They fooled us once on Iraq through faked intelligence-

-never again.

The heads of US intelligence all agree that Iran is a very long way from building a nuclear weapon-

-and that Iran is a rational actor.

Iran will not attack the US because they know the consequences



We should have direct negotiations with Iran to further fundamental American interests.

As Churchill stated " Jaw,jaw,jaw is better than war, war, war."


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 21, 2012 at 9:15 pm

"Attacking Iran is not in Americas fundamental interest-in fact it would be against American fundamental interests."

Is a nuclear Iran in America's fundmental interest?

Mutually Assured Destruction is not a scheme that works with religious fanatics. A nuclear MidEast does not inpire confidence, especially when a couple of them are shipped into New York Harbor.

If your argument is that we should wait until we get hit, then attack back, thus fulfilling the most ecstatic religious fantasies of the mullahs, then your argument is consistent, at least. I prefer to eliminate the threat, preemptively.

Obama is not a preemptive guy, so you need not be concerned, even if you are not safe, while he is in office.

However, we can, in the meantime, celebrate the Liberation of Iraq. Great, historical event...as long as Obama does not blow it.


Posted by Pearl, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 21, 2012 at 9:26 pm

Two things:

1. "Obama is not a preemptive guy," Ask Bin Ladin about that.

2. "the Liberation of Iraq. Great, historical event" Bull. Use all the flowery language you want - there was no WMD, your claims otherwise are false. It cost us a trillion dollars and 5,000 American lives. It also enabled Iran to be much stronger in the region than before.


Posted by No more war, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2012 at 11:31 am

Like most Americans Gary has been sucked in by all the media and government led hipe about Iran and the Middle-East.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2012 at 11:47 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

No more war, are you willing to accept the alternatives to war?


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 22, 2012 at 12:38 pm

The raid on bin laden was not preemptive. It was the end of a very long humt to kill him. I am very glad that Obama pulled the trigger on bin laden, however it is anything but preemptive. Bad example. Bill Clinton had a chance to do a preemptive raid on bin laden, but he blinked.

Saddam is dead! Time for a celebration! Thanks to GWB and the American Military.


Posted by Pearl, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 22, 2012 at 12:52 pm

"It was the end of a very long humt to kill him." No. Bush quit the hunt for Bin Ladin by 2002. Candidate Obama promised to restart the hunt in 2008.

A hunt that Bush gave up on within a year of 9/11 - would you like the quote or the youtube link of Bush saying "I don't know and I don't care"?

A hunt that Mitt Romney would not have restarted: "Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican front-runners, said U.S. troops "shouldn't be sent all over the world." He called Obama's comments "ill-timed" and "ill-considered."

Romney also said about going into Pakistan to get Bin Ladin: "I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort,"

Gary wants desperately to shift this thread away from the disastrous decision to invade Iraq and his lies about WMD that he refuses to address:

"Gary: Cedrick requested you back up your claim and prove it. You did not, just by making more unsubstantiated claims. Fabrications without proof, like you Hans Blix egg on face quote. Then you changed your tune from WMD to Saddam for the justification. "The invasion of Iraq was based upon forged documents .... No. It was based on the existence of Saddam. He needed to go."

Quit running Gary, fess up to your false claims, or offer proof with links.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 22, 2012 at 1:44 pm

"A hunt that Bush gave up on within a year of 9/11 "

GWB allowed water boarding. Leon Panetta, head of the CIA, said that WB was part of the solution to kill bin laden. GWB was not going to chase every rumor; if he knew where obl was, he would have killed him, period. GWB was on to more important things, like the Liberation of Iraq, a truly existential change in that part of the world.

Saddam not only had WMD, he USED them! Get a grip. The question in the run-up to the Iraq invasion was not only whether he had stores of them, but did he have the capability and intention to have them. The answer to the latter is yes; the answer to the former, thus far, is no...but there are many places to hide such stores, including Syria. Hitler was not allowed to have an air force in 1933, but he had the initenion to have one, and he built it very quickly.

Regarding Hans Blix, I remember him in an interview saying that he/we had egg on his/our face (regarding the defection of Saddam's son-in-law,and the information gleaned from that defection). Blix is a reflexive disarmament guy, no matter the risks. He is consistent in his beliefs, but why should anybody base a foreign policy on his information and bias?

Preemptive war is the war of the future...before one-sided peace breaks out, and kills us all!


Posted by Pearl, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 22, 2012 at 2:10 pm

Nice try, Gary. Do you lie to everyone, or mostly just to yourself?

You have yet to document a single claim.

Bush gave up on Bin Ladin - March 2002, less than a year after 9/11 "And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." It's in the white House transcripts Web Link

And then Bush disbanded the CIA unit tasked with hunting Bin Ladin.

Iraq did NOT have WMD and hadn't used any for years before our invasion. You have no facts to support your claim of WMD in Iraq, you admit you only have vague memories that you can't substantiate.

Memories without factual basis like those you describe as your WMD and Blix 'memories' are often referred to, by normal people, as 'fantasies'.

Beware facts. Keep your blinders on, Gary. They hide the reality that you apparently can't handle. You should talk with a professional.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 22, 2012 at 2:54 pm

Facts are stubborn things. They can be ignored or accepted. They always need to be put in context.

Saddam was a mass murderer of his own people. Fact. So was Hitler and Stalin. Both facts. Agree or disagree?

Saddam had WMD and used them against his enemies, as well as his own people. Fact. Agree or disagree?

Leon Panetta credits waterboarding for having contributed to obl's killing. Fact. GWB gave the go-ahead to WB. Fact. obl is dead. Fact. Connect the dots. If you want the links, look them up yourself.

The main issue is that we should be celebrating the Liberation of Iraq. Saddam is DEAD!!!! If he was still alive, this world would be in a bigger hurt than it curently is.

We owe a big "thanks" to GWB. He is a world changer, for the good.


Posted by Pearl, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 22, 2012 at 4:00 pm

"Saddam had WMD"

He did NOT have WMD when we invaded. Evade that all you want, you can NOT prove otherwise, so you must fluster and blubber about.

We wasted the lives of 5,000 American heroes and a trillion dollars to have at least 100,000 Iraqis killed (lots more according to estimates), have a secular Islamic government replace a non-secular government, and strengthen Iraq's ties to Iran where none previously existed.

5,000 Americans + $1 Trillion + a stronger Iran = a dead Saddam (who didn't attack us and didn't have WMD)


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 22, 2012 at 4:27 pm

"We wasted the lives of 5,000 American heroes..."

Absurdly wrong, and disrespectful to those dead American soldiers. 100k (plus) Iraquis dead, mostly by their own hand. Iraq now has a chance at freedom. The U.S. spent over 500k dead in the Civil War, to unify the country, not to mention the freeing of the slaves.

Iraq was a relatively low cost war, in terms of blood and treasure. Yet, so much was accomplished. GWB will be seen as among the great U.S. presidents. Not Reagan, not FDR, but pretty close. As long as Obama holds the line, and does not blow it.

Can we at least agree to celebrate Iraqui freedom from Saddam?


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2012 at 4:41 pm



The Iraq war is a sunk cost-all be it $1 trillion and 5000 US troops lives sunk cost--the lessons learned

1/ US troops did a great job in executing their mission.

2/ The mission was based upon forged intelligence fed to the US by KSA, Israel--who got the US to fight their war-- and expatriate Iraqis who hooped to gain money and power

3/ The actions of Paul Bremmer and Wolfowitz were incompetent disasters

4/ KSA and Israel are trying to manipulate the USA into a war with Iran--this war would be against fundamental American interests

Iran does not want war with the US

NATO does not want war with Iran

India, China and Russia do not want a war between America and Iran

American taxpayers and voters do not want war with Iran

The US Military and Intelligence Communities do not want war with Iran

Still KSA and Israel continue to beat the drums of war and are trying to manipulate the US into a war with Iran-

-they are trying to create a culture of fear and hysteria-

They fooled us once over Iraq - Never again!

What is it about NO that KSA and Israel do not understand?


In AfPak US troops have done a great job in executing their mission--but we do not have an ally in the Afghan or Pakistan goverments

It is time to cut our loses and get out of AfPak ASAP.


Western/Christian Civilization developed the "Just War Theory" over 1000s of years
Web Link

That is what we aspire to and that is what we will follow moving forward.


Posted by not surprised, a resident of Stanford
on Mar 22, 2012 at 7:39 pm

Nice to see that the weekly continues to provide a forum for ShaRon and her anti-israel screeds. I would not have expected anything else.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 22, 2012 at 7:55 pm

"Nice to see that the weekly continues to provide a forum for ShaRon and her anti-israel screeds."

I think that various "anti" screeds are allowed, is a good thing. It is called freedom of speech. Anti-Israel screeds provide the room for an anti-Islam screed; an anti-capitalist screed provides the room for an anti-socialist screed, etc.

Let freedom ring!


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2012 at 9:11 pm

Gary

I believe we agree that we should put American interests first-

-not those of Saudi Arabia and Israel


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 22, 2012 at 9:22 pm

"I believe we agree that we should put American interests first"

Agreed.

The overthrow of Saddam is in our interest. It is also in the interest of Israel and Saudi Arabia...and the entire world.

What is your point?


Posted by Pearl, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 23, 2012 at 8:57 am

"The overthrow of Saddam is in our interest. "

How so? Did not have WMD. Did not attack us. No AQ presence prior to invasion. Saddam was on Bin Ladin's hit list (UBL detested the secular leader.) Removing Saddam played into Iran's hand, enhancing their power within the region.

5,000 Americans + $1 Trillion + a stronger Iran = a dead Saddam (who didn't attack us and didn't have WMD)


Posted by Criag Laughtin, a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 23, 2012 at 10:32 am

Gary and Sharon repeat the same thing over and over again on this and other threads. When asked for proof or substantiation of their claims, they ignore those requests and continue with their spewing of factoids and misinformation. They should be put in a box and ignored.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 23, 2012 at 2:45 pm

"How so?"

Hitler and al qaeda did not have various weapons, until they had them. What they had was intention, all along.

You seem to be saying that the world would be better off, if Saddam could come back to rule Iraq. If so, I can only disagree. He was an especially bad ass guy. Think Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

We should be celebrating his demise. Thank you, GWB.


Posted by Pearl, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 23, 2012 at 3:01 pm

"did not have various weapons, until they had them"

There you go. Justification for invading any country. They may have WMD.

Someday.

5,000 lives wasted to get a man who never attacked us, did not have WMD. But maybe someday might possibly have WMD.

5,000 lives wasted Gary, not memories or service dishonored, but needlessly killed.

Craig - correct. Gary never substantiates the wild claims.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 23, 2012 at 8:05 pm


The Financial Times reports that the threat of war with Iran is causing soaring oil prices and an imminent risk of global recession that seriously threaten whole global economy.

Attacking Iran is not in American best interests-

-we need to talk with them instead.

We have common interests with Iran in the future of AfPak.

India, Russia and China share the same interests.

The current regime in Iran will not last long because the vast majority of young, smart Iranians want change.

Threats of war just keep the Iranian gerontocracy in power.

In December there will be a conference in Finland to rid the whole ME of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons-

-both Iran and Israel have agreed to attend.

Such agreements will be difficult and will take time -but America can squeeze the countries to reach more rapid agreement.

American foreign policy must further fundamental American interests--war with Iran is counter to those American interests.

If Saudi Arabia and Israel want to attack Iran they need to know that they are on their own-

-we will not waste American blood and treasure on such a crazy action.

We need to put American fundamental interests first in our foreign policy.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 24, 2012 at 9:52 pm


Gary has not responded to the question

Whose interest must comes first?

1/ American fundamental interests

2/ Saudi Arabian interests

3/ Israeli interests

American interests are clearly to negotiate with Iran about our common interests

1/ The oil supply

2/ The future of Afpak

It is not in American interests to have a war with Iran and we must resist the current alien nations attempts to manipulate the US in that direction

We need to take control of our own foreign policy

Enough is enough


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Handmade truffle shop now open in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 2,469 views

Why is doing nothing so difficult?
By Sally Torbey | 7 comments | 1,123 views

Breastfeeding Tips
By Jessica T | 6 comments | 1,024 views

Who Says Kids Donít Eat Vegetables?
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 813 views

Call it a novel: Dirty Love by Andre Dubus III
By Nick Taylor | 1 comment | 268 views