Iraq War Supporters: How is Iran Different?

[Gangster_Octopus]

Let’s go over the invasion checklist:

X Developing WMDS
X Virulently anti-American
XX Aiding and abetting terrorists
X Destablizing force in a vitally important region

Why is Iran getting off with some strong language and wagging fingers at this point? When do we actually threaten them with military action?

[PatriotX]

Could prob’ly check through old threads. IIRC, this was repeatedly brought up pre-war.

“Iraq was a unique case.”

[Sal_Ammoniac]

The main thing is that we’re still bogged down in Iraq, and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. Iran is a tougher nut to crack than Iraq, if for no other reason than it’s bigger. We probably couldn’t take it on militarily without either pulling out of Iraq completely, or imposing the draft. All that adds up to a different calculus. Or should, anyway. With the current clowns, one never knows.

[Captain_Amazing]

When and if we’re able to. Iran is a threat, and is dangerous, but we don’t have the available resources to respond right now. Our military is tied down in Iraq, and so is our prestige and international reputation.

[Gangster_Octopus]

So how has invading Iraq made us safer if it has rendered unable to react to what is probably a more dangerous adversary?

[John_Mace]

@Gangster Octopus

So how has invading Iraq made us safer if it has rendered unable to react to what is probably a more dangerous adversary?

I’ve never been an Iraq War supporter, but I don’t see what you’re getting at. Invading Iran would be a bad idea even if we hadn’t gone into Iraq. Iran is a much larger country with much more difficult terrain and is in an entirely different poiltical situation.

We are reacting to Iran-- through diplomatic means. It’s slow and frustrating, but that’s the nature of the beast. And even the most staunch supporter of the Iraq war is unlikely to say that war is the answer in all cases.

[ElvisL1ves]

@John Mace

I’ve never been an Iraq War supporter, but I don’t see what you’re getting at.

That tying down essentially the Army’s entire combat strength in Iraq makes it impossible to deploy it in force anywhere else.

The mullahs, and Kim, and anyone else Bush might be pissed at, have known that for quite a long time, and it in fact was one of the many reasons we anti-Iraq-war people put forward as to why it was a bad idea.

[John_Mace]

@ElvisL1ves

That tying down essentially the Army’s entire combat strength in Iraq makes it impossible to deploy it in force anywhere else.

The mullahs, and Kim, and anyone else Bush might be pissed at, have known that for quite a long time, and it in fact was one of the many reasons we anti-Iraq-war people put forward as to why it was a bad idea.

No. G.O. was engaging in a false dichotomy-- either we act militarily, or we are unable to “react”. There are other ways to react to Iran or NK, and in fact the military option is the wrong way to react.

[PatriotX]

@John Mace

Invading Iran would be a bad idea even if we hadn’t gone into Iraq.

But invading Iraq has given Iran immensely more influence in Iraq. The US is securely bound to a need for Iraq to go well. Iran could flex relatively few muscles and increase US’s troubles in Iraq dramatically. We can’t push them as far as perhaps we could have w/o the invasion.

[RyJae]

Not to OT this, but doesn’t Iran have a significant percentage of pro-Western youth? I thought I read that a while ago. And if that is the case, it could make it easier then the current Iraq quagmire.

*FTR I was for the war, based on the information provided, still back the war because retreat is not now an option. But totally and completely disagree with how the invasion was planned, and how the current occupation is handled. A piss poor job of leadership, allowing talking heads to decide military plans.

[Birdmonster]

Well, whenever you have a leader who starts censoring music & literature (as Iran has), you’re going to have sympathetic and revolutionary younger members of society. Not because of this necessarily, but, as I was told in a recent trip to Spain, when Franco did this there, it pushed some over the edge. Most people react pretty aversely to thought control.

[ElvisL1ves]

It would be more helpful to think of essentially all Iranians as pro-Iran. A desire for more religious and cultural freedom in one’s own country does not necessarily translate to “pro-Western” and especially not to “pro-Bush”, in fact it can be the opposite.

@John Mace

There are other ways to react to Iran or NK, and in fact the military option is the wrong way to react.

Sure, but that’s the only one that these unreconstructed Cold Warriors, who need an enemy in order to function the way the Manicheans needed Satan to exist for there to be a God, are going to consider.

[RyJae]

@ElvisL1ves

It would be more helpful to think of essentially all Iranians as pro-Iran. A desire for more religious and cultural freedom in one’s own country does not necessarily translate to “pro-Western” and especially not to “pro-Bush”, in fact it can be the opposite.

Sure, but that’s the only one that these unreconstructed Cold Warriors, who need an enemy in order to function the way the Manicheans needed Satan to exist for there to be a God, are going to consider.

Interesting things you type. Not so sure on the validity of this website that I found Googling around but I did come across this

The aftermath of the U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq provided remarkable evidence about how far the pro-American sentiment has gone.(7) On June 22, 2003, the Iranian newspaper Yas-e Now published a remarkable poll that had originally appeared on the “Feedback” web page of the Expediency Discernment Council, run by former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

 Those polled were given the question, "What are the actual demands of the Iranian people?" and a choice of four answers. They responded as follows:

 -- 13 percent chose the answer "solutions to the problems of people's livelihood, and the continuation of the present political policy"--in other words, the current hardline stance.

 -- 16 percent chose "political reforms and increases in the powers of the reformists."

 -- 26 percent chose "fundamental changes in management and in the performance of the system for an efficient growth"--a position often identified with Rafsanjani.

 -- 45 percent chose "change in the political system, even with foreign intervention." 

One indicator was the September 2002 poll commissioned by the Iranian Majlis’ National Security Committee which found that 74 percent of Iranians favored resumption of relations with the United States and 46 percent felt that U.S. policies on Iran were “to some extent correct,” despite the fact that Iranian media constantly harped on Bush’s “axis of evil” remark in his January 2002

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2004/issue1/jv8n1a2.html

Seem’s to be a pro-USA slant in those.

[David_God_of_Frogs]

@Abbie Normal

*FTR I was for the war, based on the information provided, still back the war because retreat is not now an option. But totally and completely disagree with how the invasion was planned, and how the current occupation is handled. A piss poor job of leadership, allowing talking heads to decide military plans.

This is a total hijack, but it seems to me that blaming the administration is a way of abdicating responsibility for your opinions.

Just out of curiosity, what is your diagnosis for the administration’s failure with Katrina? Too much or too little administration intereference?

[RyJae]

@David

This is a total hijack, but it seems to me that blaming the administration is a way of abdicating responsibility for your opinions.

Just out of curiosity, what is your diagnosis for the administration’s failure with Katrina? Too much or too little administration intereference?

No paradox here, I believe even if it was strictly for regime change Saddam needed to go. I supported the war, and would of without the WMD claims. I also thought we would use the Powell philosphy of overwhelming force, not just enough to get it done. With no good drawn out plan of stability after getting the regime change done. Call me naive, but I thought we learned our lesson in past conflicts, that allowing non-military to decide war plans was pretty stupid.

As for Katrina, I have no opinion one way or the other on where to point the finger. I think that enough people share the blame that it crosses every party line. (end hijack)

[John_Mace]

@PatriotX

But invading Iraq has given Iran immensely more influence in Iraq. The US is securely bound to a need for Iraq to go well. Iran could flex relatively few muscles and increase US’s troubles in Iraq dramatically. We can’t push them as far as perhaps we could have w/o the invasion.

You lost me. Since the invasion is the cause of Iran’s increased influence, we wouldn’t need to move to thwart that influence if we hadn’t invaded.

I just think the OP is beating a dead horse. Just because someone supported the Iraq War is no reason to expect that person to support an invasion of Iran. As I and other posters pointed out, Iran has many differences from Iraq that make the calculus of war a whole different affair.

[Gangster_Octopus]

@John Mace

You lost me. Since the invasion is the cause of Iran’s increased influence, we wouldn’t need to move to thwart that influence if we hadn’t invaded.

I just think the OP is beating a dead horse. Just because someone supported the Iraq War is no reason to expect that person to support an invasion of Iran. As I and other posters pointed out, Iran has many differences from Iraq that make the calculus of war a whole different affair.

How am I beating a dead horse? You are the only one who really gave some reasons apart from “being bogged down in Iraq”. And your reasons I would argue were hardly comprehensive or detailed.

Personally, I am not so interested in why we aren’t attacking Iran as much as what this really reveals about why we shouldn’t have attacked Iraq.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Gangster Octopus

So how has invading Iraq made us safer if it has rendered unable to react to what is probably a more dangerous adversary?

In the short term, obviously, it hasn’t. In the long term, assuming we win in Iraq, and a stable democratic government emerges, we’ll be safer.

[XT]

I have to admit that initially I supported the invasion so I suppose I can answer this.

Iraq War Supporters: How is Iran Different?

There are a few key differences, the main one being that of course prior to Iraq we weren’t fully engaged in an occupation of another country…and country that has a hot insurgency currently ongoing.

In addition there was the history of the relationship between Iraq and the US…and Iraq and its other neighbors. Iran has never (afaik) attempted to anex a neighboring nation through force of arms solely to increase its oil reserves. Though reasonably vile, the Iranian theocracy was never linked to the same kinds of atrocities as Saddam. They were never linked, as the Ba’athist were, to either the Nazi’s nor to Nationalistic Fascism (I got this little gem from a show on the history channel about Saddam, the Ba’ath party’s early history and the German Nazi movement). Iran has been mainly introverted isolationist, while Iraq and Saddam pretty obviously had a more expansionist agenda.

X Developing WMDS
X Virulently anti-American
XX Aiding and abetting terrorists
X Destablizing force in a vitally important region

Certainly there are parallels between the two, though again its the history I think thats the key. Iran has (thus far and with a few notable exceptions) been more isolationist in their hate and hot air towards the US. They don’t have quite the track record that Iraq has had as being a pain in the ass in the region, nor the history of being spanked by the UN…nor of course have they come directly to blows with the US and others militarily. And of course there is the propaganda aspect…Iraq and Saddam had already been firmly planted in the US collective consiousness long before 9/11, while Iran, while not below the US radar was not exactly fresh news (hell, there are probably folks on this board who were in diapers or perhaps grade school when the Iran hostage thing went down).

@Gangster Octopus

Personally, I am not so interested in why we aren’t attacking Iran as much as what this really reveals about why we shouldn’t have attacked Iraq.

Yes, that was fairly transparently what you were getting at. You should have started a thread on that subject (or better yet simply looked up the nearly uncountable OTHER threads on the subject over the past few years) instead of backing into the question in so round-about a way. JMHO of course.

-XT

[Sevastopol]

@John Mace

I just think the OP is beating a dead horse. Just because someone supported the Iraq War is no reason to expect that person to support an invasion of Iran. As I and other posters pointed out, Iran has many differences from Iraq that make the calculus of war a whole different affair.

My, calculus is such a big word to use for an Iraq war supporter. Fools, blackguards and reprobates will remain so, the mission of this board notwithstanding.

@Captain Amazing

In the short term, obviously, it hasn’t. In the long term, assuming we win in Iraq, and a stable democratic government emerges, we’ll be safer.

Preposterous nonsense. Safe - er? From what exactly? Think this through. Meanwhile Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Hamas democratically rush to become client states of the newly belligerent Iran.