@pat - I was just quoting readily available numbers. Total Iraqi losses, including soldiers and other enemy combatants is from 100k to 150k and civilians losses of 60k to 70k. When you enemy hides among the civilians and uses them as shields, there are bound to be civilian losses.

Of course, I'm not saying I agree with invading Iraq any how. I don't. I also don't think we should invade Iran. I don't see where we (or even the UN) has a right to tell another sovereign nation what they can and can't develop. Once they use it against us or an ally, *then* (and only then) should we step in. But that is just my opinion.

@pat ... how possible is revolt in Iran? It's the only theocracy in the world. What can be done without ridding it of the Council of Elders, which would require military intervention of more than just the people...?

@bo - Iran isn't the only theocracy. Vatican City is a theocracy as well.

Turning Syria into another Libya would be a disaster. The chaos in Libya and breaking open of the arms supplies led directly to the civil war in Mali this year. Syria has chemical weapons. Do you want to see them seized by Hezbollah?

True. Same question, though... how do you overthrow a theocracy that has no system of elections by more than a select group? Unless that select group gives in, which is much tougher to accomplish than a single despot whose life is likely at risk.

Here's a thought for you ..... what about if we completely switched our policy towards Iran and treated them like Saudi Arabia, don't you think if we treated like that after a while they would start to act like that.
They could carry on treating women like 3rd class citizens and pay no heed to humans rights abuses, etc, etc.
Would the West be any worse off, probably not ..... just another ally to sell arms to and buy oil from.

Okay, how to respond.
@Nigee/Krellin
Freedom Fries

@Draug
I'm not really trying to argue with you, just not totally sure of the numbers. Regardless, too many lives in my opinion whether it's 60k or 150k. I agree that civilians will be killed when enemies are using them as shields, but my oppisition is more directly against the way modern warfare is waged today, with civilians being part of the economic cog in the military machine, and thus, literally and figuratively losing their humanity.

I see your point about not telling another nation to stop developing whatever they want, but the reality is that the US is the world power and feels the need to flex her muscles and lead the world in every possible way, so I merely want the best outcome in the situation we are placed.\

@Hellenic Riot
Libya, in my opinion, was a victory. For who is a good question. I think the US profits from victory in Libya because it further ignited the Arab Spring. It specifically set off Syria in my opinion. Libya had an effect on the Civil War in Mali, but I don't believe it caused it. Syria is a completely different story. Chemical Weapons are going to be at danger regardless of whether we interfere or not. Bashar al Assad is done. We can either march with the armies currently surrounding Damascus, or we can try to keep our eyes on the chemical weapons and then realize they were stolen while we were watching the wrong thing.

Drop special forces in ASAP and remove the chemical weapons. Even if that means a major military operation involving tanks, navy, and airforce (in a surprise blitzkreig style attack with no interest in occupying Syria, but merely taking the territory needed to safely remove those weapons and then relinquishing it with a tactical retreat), I support removing those weapons immediately.

@BO
A revolt in Iran is definitely possible. Likely? I don't think so because Ahmadinijad will not be running again, and he is easily the most contreversial figure in Iran. However, some signs that point to the possibility:

1. The Arab Spring
Obviously, the Arab Spring is the most easy event to point to and relate it to Iranian revolution. The Arab Spring has been a largely economic revolution fueled by unemployed young men (and women to some extent) who hit out at the dictatorial governments for limiting them in numerous ways, but the primary and most easily felt is economically. Of course, these rebellions have turned violent and the economic perogrative has been buried under years of frustration and hatred towards the dictator, but the economic point is still the catalyst. If sanctions are effective enough, Iran's highly educated mass of young people could easily be led down the same road and find themselves with a choice of surrendering to the tanks that will be brought against them or continuing the fight and actually launching a full scale rebellion.

2. 2009
2009 saw Ahmadinijad reelected with large numbers of irregular votes and concern from Western nations as well as other candidates in the election. People poured into the streets to protest the election results, but for the first time, we saw people slander members of the Supreme Council, who had previously been off limits. It was similar to the French Revolution, in which Louis XVI was seen as off limits for a time, but then they beheaded him! Should the next election set off another large protest, I can't see the Ayatollahs just allowing it to happen considering the preceding events in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. I also can't see the Iranian people backing down like they did in 2009, before the Arab Spring had occurred.

3. Iran will stand alone
This is under the assumption that Bashar al Assad falls before a catalyst such as the election that could set off a revolution. Iran has become increasingly isolated over the past few years. American success (to an extent) in Iraq and Afghanistan pincered the regime between American forces for a time. This led to more hostility from Iran who began developing nuclear weapons. This threat of a nuclear Iran irked Israel, obviously, but also frightened a number of other leaders who fear a regional war during a time when they've been somewhat stable (just like the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait). Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and, of course, Turkey have no interest in a nuclear Iran. At the same time, regimes that would have been either neutral or positive towards a nuclear Iran (Egypt nuetral, Libya and Syria positive) have either fallen or stand on their last leg. Iran's educated youth want the same thing any other group of educated young people want- acceptance and the ability to succeed. Iran's isolation increasingly prohibits that possibility and continues to set back the people of Iran.

4. It's the final, and most dramatic, front of the Arab Spring
Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria have (within a few months) fallen. Yemen and Somlia seem to be hopeless because the lack of government doesn't allow the Arab Spring to replace something with democracy (In my opinion, democracy can't immediately replace anarchy). Other countries that have seen protest such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iraq, and Kurwait have stabalized. Iran is the last country in my opinion that will be effected by the Arab Spring. This will, obviously, draw attention of Western powers who are eager to see a regime change. It will also draw the attention of those in Egypt, Libya, and Syria who have been more invested in toppling dictators than in liberating people. It will be like a new mujahideen, with a hopefully better outcome. The mujahideen this time will not be strong enough to run rampant through the country and set up their own government. This time, they will only have the option of continuing their wars against dictators elsewhere or finally alleviating themselves of the violence and actually trying to set up a government.

In short, I think that Syria will fall regardless of US intervention. However, I also believe that US intervention will bolster the chances of an Iranian revolution. The US has too much stock in a regime change in Iran not to get behind a revolution, especially considering the fact that the US is out of Iraq and drawing down in Afghanistan. There is no need to throw those troops into Iran, as the people are willing to fight. However, these drawdowns allow the Iranians to ask for and receive help without the black eyes of Iraq and Afghanistan tarnishing and discrediting any help the US gives them.

Maybe I'm dead wrong. Maybe the Arab Spring leads to nothing but pain, misery, and destruction for all those involved. However, I think it is a sweeping, world changing event that compares only to 1848 and 1989-91 (the fall of the USSR) in the freedom people will gain. I think the US stands only to gain from this, if politicians can stop trying to score political points with every death and instead get on the God damned right side of history.

@Nigee
Political suicide... I said stop trying to score political points on every single death- a radical change in policy like that would lead to an immediate attack on whoever took that route and probably the victory and quick reversal in policy of their opponent. Israel has a lot to do with it. If Israel's stance changed, then maybe that's a possibility.

@OP, imagine the "i told you so's..."

...including this one....

"It was similar to the French Revolution, in which Louis XVI was seen as off limits for a time, but then they beheaded him!"

Sounds nice, doesn't it? I wish we could behead Ahmadinijad ;)

"At the same time, regimes that would have been either neutral or positive towards a nuclear Iran (Egypt nuetral, Libya and Syria positive) have either fallen or stand on their last leg."

Egypt, Libya, and Syria all fell, but all were replaced (or will be in Syria's case) by highly radical systems and are showing the early signs of a state that Al Qaeda or another similar organization could jump all over. In short, these three will stay right alongside Iran if the conditions stay the same for no reason other than unreasonably huge hatred of Israel and the United States.

"It will be like a new mujahideen, with a hopefully better outcome."

That's what I thought at the beginning of the Arab Spring - a better outcome. In the end, the Arab Spring has brought in governments that are nothing short of radical and have no more intentions of being friendly toward the USA than any other. This is how Iran was after its last revolution; this is how it will probably stay in the mean time.

The only way I see a fullscale revolution occurring within Iran is if the United States pushes it forward with all the strength it's got over there. That means arming the revolutionaries, putting troops on the ground, and engaging other nations in the same goal. In the end, that war - like Iraq - would be fought for the purpose of oil, but if it deposes the Iranian government that we have now and replaces it with something reasonable (but not a USA puppet like the Shah was) and effective. Islamist nation does not count there. I find that entire sequence incredibly unlikely.

"The US has too much stock in a regime change in Iran not to get behind a revolution, especially considering the fact that the US is out of Iraq and drawing down in Afghanistan."

That's the problem... the isolationist movement is back in the USA, and, if it comes down to reelection of whoever our next President will be (that's how our politics work, unfortunately), I'm sure (s)he'd be happy to avoid involvement.

"Maybe the Arab Spring leads to nothing but pain, misery, and destruction for all those involved. However, I think it is a sweeping, world changing event that compares only to 1848 and 1989-91 (the fall of the USSR) in the freedom people will gain."

In that sense, yeah, it's even with the fall of the USSR (and the revolutions of 1848 in central Europe but I don't know much about them), but it does not necessarily help the United States if those in power are as anti-Israel as Hamas is among others.

"I think the US stands only to gain from this, if politicians can stop trying to score political points with every death and instead get on the God damned right side of history."

Of all the things I find unlikely, this is certainly the most unlikely. May never happen.

@patizcool -- your answer to Nigee and I is "Freedom Fries" First, this shows your understanding of he and I; we are mostly diametrically opposed on these issues.

That being said, you are a fool if you deny that the US and European powers have a *nasty* habit of setting up *very* unsavory people in positions of power to fight our dirty little proxy wars...who then have a *very* nasty habit of turning on us once the war is over, and we withdraw support...

I'm not saying that our dirty little proxy wars are always a bad idea; lesser of evils and all that crap....but we created Saddam Hussein, and we created the Taliban to fight the Soviets, who later became out enemies as Al Queda. Just two current examples.

But...your feel free to put on your rose colored glasses and pretend the the US's shit don't stink...

I kinda feel we all want to end up in the same place but sometimes the 'might is right' approach doesn't work, nor does the constant bullying, if you want to mentally and physically disarm someone give them a hug.
I want to hug North Korea and Iran and Somalia and Palestine and the Lebanon, how long have our current policies been failing for, if you do what you always did you'll get what you always got.

If there's one thing our history with the Nazis taught us it was that appeasing the bad guys just leads to a lot of pain and death. If there's one thing that Afganistan and Iraq have taught us is that taking a pro-active approach and fighting the bad guys leads to a lot of pain and death. If there's one thing Syria and Rwanda have taught us is that sitting back and watching leads to a lot of pain and death.

Guess what? This international politics lark is quite tricky. Some of us would do well to remember it.

Oct - yes, reality dawns on the wide - life is full of pain and death. Humans seem driven to that end. The question is - would there have been more pain in death if we did ___, or didn't do ____, or _____.

Would it have been better to letter the Nazi's thrive? You say there was pain and death in appeasing them. there was pain and death in fighting them, too.

Afghanistan - would there have been more pain and death if we hadn't helped the Taliban against the Soviets? Or less? It's all what if's...what is missing from most political discussions is what you actually do here - refer to history as a suggestion of future possibilties.

Why did we go to Iraq? Some jolly blunderfuck for the hell of it? Or was there a history that compelled us? I'm not answering the question...but most people look at the statements of politicians that ignore the history of the past and pretend they understand the war or rationale for a war, when all they are doing is listening to a campaign speech.

"Why did we go to Iraq? Some jolly blunderfuck for the hell of it? Or was there a history that compelled us? I'm not answering the question...but most people look at the statements of politicians that ignore the history of the past and pretend they understand the war or rationale for a war, when all they are doing is listening to a campaign speech. " - QFT! Best statement of the thread!

Politicians are real clever people who go to good schools and universities, a bit like our bankers, so maybe they are the smart guys who know must better than us.
So is it right to question really intelligent people with good educations, maybe they have inside information that helps them make all of the really smart decisions, I think Tony Blair must be one of those people, he's real smart.

"Politicians are real clever people who go to good schools and universities"

Really? There are actually very few qualifications to become a legislator, or even hold executive office. Least of all is the requirement of a "good education"...

I think you vastly overestimate your politicians.

"Bankers", generally speaking, have an economics background and experience in the business of banking. No so with politicians...

Let's see, to be a politician in the UK, you either win a popularity contest (much like the US) or have some fucking title (Lord Smalldick, Duke of Nothingthere).

Oh, titles work in the US...or at least family names do. Kennedy and Bush seem to a a good name to get you elected on something other than merit.

No, Nigs. Politicians are people without proper jobs and thus have the time to look in great detail at issues we only learn about briefly via news summaries. We know they are wise, honest and true because when they came to us for their job interview on election day we carefully evaluated their suitability before selecting them. Or at least, that's what we were meant to do. The people get the government they deserve.

Are you saying that Tony Blair isn't smart, by the way? The man is many things, but he's no fool.

Octavius is absolutely right - a good many of my fellow Americans diligently watch Comedy Central and create their pros & cons lists for each candidates based upon the wise words of Jon Stewart...And for validation, their is always the opening sketch and the Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live...if you get all three in agreement on your given issue, you *know* it's gotta be a lock...

Of course politicians have proper jobs, there are 650 paid MPs but there are thousands of local and unpaid politicians up and down the country. What do you think the MPs did before they got elected? What about all of the losing candidates and local govt candidates, are they all the idle rich as well, you talk nonsense.
Is it the truth that you know a lot of politicians that are independently wealthy and do not need to work, I'm sure there are a few of them, mostly Tories.

Professional politicians are lobbied from dawn-to-dusk on issues from their own supporters and various 'groups' of vested interests.
Isn't that why the Democrats can't take action on guns in the States, because of lobby groups like the NRA. Also in the UK Cameron fighting the corner of the UK press and brewery industry and actually lobbying against progressive legislation.
If only politicians were doing what they thought was truly the best, we wouldn't need political parties if that were the case and everyone could have a free vote on every subject.
Politics is a lot more seedy that that, sometimes candidates get selected because they are not so smart ..... reality bites my friend.

In the US, even local candidates get paid. Hell, the school board for the city I live in all make more than minimum wage and they are only part time.

In the UK we call it an allowance if you are elected, but that can be up to £30,000 for elected Council Leaders but the rank and file politicians do it for free. Last time I got elected it about £4,300 a year plus other payments if you were on certain committees or in the Cabinet.

I *knew* you had to be a politician! Only thing that could explain your two faced views and anti-US rhetoric.

Yep, all English politicians are like that ..... you so clever :-)

@ NigeeBaby

To be fair, Iraq *did* have (and *used*) chemical weapons, which are technically WMDs. Was the American public mislead to believe that Saddam had nukes? Yes. Did he have WMDs? Using a broad definition of "WMDs", yes.

See, you are proving it again, I didn't imply all politicians were like that. What I, in fact, implied was that only politicians were like that. One is an inclusion and one is an exclusion, but as a politician, these concepts of clarity in grammar and set logic elude you.

"To be fair, Iraq *did* have (and *used*) chemical weapons, which are technically WMDs. Was the American public mislead to believe that Saddam had nukes? Yes. Did he have WMDs? Using a broad definition of "WMDs", yes."

Anybody remember these spy satellites we are always hearing about that can see the face on a postage stamp from outer space, they didn't seem to spot anything in Iraq over a period of years, it was Western Govts supplying arms technology to the Iraqi govt. What about the constant UN monitoring and spy planes, they didn't spot anything either..
They did use chemical weapons and who supplied those chemical weapons to Saddam and for what purpose. We knew he didn't have nuclear capability, it's absolute nonsense to suggest it or believe it. The invading forces were well aware of what weaponry Saddam had, he had been their ally for over 20 years..... I'm sure there was not much they didn't know.