Like many, i have noticed as of late that a number of problems in the international landscape. Some with the potential of escalating into widespread conflicts.

All the conflicts i listed in the poll have come up in the news recently and it will be interesting to see what the US and the world body will do to deal with it.

Questions for Debate:

1) Which conflict did you choose and why?
2) How should the US deal with the chosen conflict?
3) Which can be solved diplomatically and which may require a more aggressive threat of military action?

Which conflict did you choose and why?
Syria was my number one choice because for one the Prez says diplomacy has just begun with Iran indicating we’re going to wait to see who will support Iran. Syria is of concern to the US, Israel and France because it affects the Mid-East peace process. For the US it affects the US forces and stability in Iraq also. Where France gives blessings the majority of the EU will follow suit.
How should the US deal with the chosen conflict?
If totally sanctioned and all nations participate with unity no force should be necessary to affect internal policy shift within Syria. If force becomes necessary Syria may attempt to use WMD hidden by Iraq in Europe to persuade Europeans to not support the US in its objective to remain at status quo. Should WMD’s be used as weapon of choice my estimation would be Syria would pay a very high price and be sent back to the Stone Age.
Which can be solved diplomatically and which may require a more aggressive threat of military action?
Diplomacy: All with exceptions noted, Iran for about a year to 18 months, Syria if Europe backs us, South America (conflict between Venezuela and Columbia) Russia will back Venezuela and US using the CIA along with Columbia military and overwhelming support of Venezuelan people will cause Chavez to fall from power in Venezuela.

Questions for Debate:

1) Which conflict did you choose and why?North Korea, Syria, and Iran are the likely choices, but I would choose Iran because of the threat they pose to Iraq's sovereignty. Whether that threat is real or imagined is irrelevant. They are actively pursuing or already have a nuclear weapon. Their civil rights record is pathetic, the high rate of poverty creates the potential to produce terrorists. We could also have the CIA generate an Iran-Iraq conflict which would make war appear as if we are "defending" Iraq's sovereignty when really we are extending U.S. suzerainty.

2) How should the US deal with the chosen conflict?Dealing with any country based on their intent to proliferate nuclear weapons puts us at a moral disadvantage because of our nuclear arsenal, but if we can convince France, Great Britian, Russia, and China to support us, even if that support is only rhetorical, then we could garner enough support domestically to provide the President with the political capital (btw, I love that term) to forge ahead with plans to overthrow and assimilate Iran.

3) Which can be solved diplomatically and which may require a more aggressive threat of military action?This places us in another dilemma. Because another proactive war would be highly unpopular. The only thing that would make it popular is another attack on American soil, but that would make President Bush's policies look counterproductive to our national security and would make neo-isolationism the most attractive alternative. With that said, diplomacy will not get our initiatives accomplished; a free and democratic Iran, that focuses on civil rights, free trade, and all things capitalistic. Diplomatic international pressure from countries with leverage over Iran (i.e. - Russia) is unexpected. Even if we get that international pressure it will not be enough to cause the Iranians to forsake their nuclear ambitions. That is why it is imperative for the United States, specifically Condoleeza Rice to focus on the deplorable civil rights violations of Iran and prey on the sympathies of the US citizen to muster support for another preemptive war.

1) Which conflict did you choose and why?

I voted for ”Other,” which stands for Venezuela, but I would also have voted for Iran, had the poll let me do that...

Both of these considerable oil countries are currently debating switching from petro-dollars to petro-euros. Venezuela’s recent oil deal with China, which was done in euros rather than in dollars, as well as Iran’s decision to convert most of its currency reserves to euros are telling signs. Russia, Venezuela, China, Iran… OPEC? Any way one looks at it, this is bad news for the ailing dollar, indeed.

2) How should the US deal with the chosen conflict?

Duh, by actually doing something about the US economy and the disastrous deficit in particularly. Also, rethinking the energy policies might not hurt either.

3) Which can be solved diplomatically and which may require a more aggressive threat of military action?

All of them can be solved diplomatically. That, of course, requires hard work at the domestic front and will be none to popular amongst the *gasp* voters. Which party is willing to take the risk?

I'm a bit confused as to why switiching from petro-dollars to petro-Euros would hurt the US economy. It is hardly unreasonable of these countries not to wish to receive dollars for oil when the exchange rate of the dollar is falling. The US remains by far the best economy to then invest in.

Although I'm not an economist..so this whole thing makes my head hurt.

3) Which can be solved diplomatically and which may require a more aggressive threat of military action?

As The duet Ray Charles and Nora Jones recorded says, “here we go again.” Quite frankly, I don’t think there’s much of a military option left, that is, until we do some drawdown in Iraq. When the administration foolishly put all it’s eggs in the basket of Iraq, it limited our ability to get involved where it might really might count.

I like the way Mike Barnicle put it on Scarborough Country last night.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024368/

BTW: I voted for Iran in your poll, but I’m far from certain that this is correct. Who knows what this bunch in power will do next.

I voted "none". That is, assuming leder means- a significant number of U.S. troops, tanks, and planes attacking another country in the next 2-3 years. I'm just speculating (as we all are), but I think the administration (and the Republicans) will want to see Iraq shape up as best as it can before it starts pulling resources. This may take another year or two. Rightly or wrongly, having our military (in combat mode) in two muslim countries at the same time would be undesireable for reasons I need not explain ("ya bunch of dirty rotten crusaders...infidels"). I think we are in for a period of "diplomacy" (with all options on the table of course).

Syria looks inviting but I think Europe will begin pressuring them. Same with Iran. If Iran looks close to finishing a nuke, I would expect Israel to take it out like they did to Saddam in early 80's. I think North Korea is the only other place on your list that could provoke a military response by us, but I think China would step in before it got to that point.

Regarding Africa-nope! South America-nope!

By the time we start wrapping up in Iraq, "Campaign 2008" will be revving up. The Republicans will be celebrating success in Iraq and probably wouldn't want the uncertainty of a new conflict looming over the elections.

Or not! Who knows?

I voted none. The US military isn't anywhere near strong enough to open up another front. The instability of Iraq will continue for many years leaving the US somewhat hamstrtung unless it can get military support from other countries. Which it won't, not even from Britian. Any goverment (including Blairs) which jumps onboard with Bush in another war will be voted out by their next election, guarenteed.

1) Which conflict did you choose and why?

I chose Iran, on the basis that America in my opinion would assist Israel in attacking Iranian nuclear facilities in an AIR STRIKE and nothing more. US military, especially its ground forces are stretched to the limit and are apparently having problems recruiting more people to join up in the current conflict in Iraq.

2) How should the US deal with the chosen conflict?

As a British Citizen, i think it would be wise for America to have many allies on its side as possible, since last time their was a great wave of anti-American feelings because of the way it handled the Iraq war. Wether the UN is involved or not is a different matter, but getting RUSSIA involved is essential, since they have supplied Iran with a lot of nuclear facility material. A military strike will only worsen he situation and give a greater cause to "extremists" like Hezbollah.

3) Which can be solved diplomatically and which may require a more aggressive threat of military action?

All can be solved diplomatically as long as BOTH sides are willing to talk, hence, a pre emptive strike and similar doctrines must be abandoned if diplomacy are to be given a chance.

1) Which conflict did you choose and why?

I chose Iran. It seems to me that the prospects of Iran seriously setting up a functional "bourse" for oil that is Euro-based is the biggest threat to American security, economically. That's a pretty good indicator of what's really going on (IMO) Some folks have told me I made that up, but there's an aweful lot of information on it for me to have concocted the story. Anyone can search "Iran oil bourse" and see what you find. The nuclear issue is the smokescreen, not the real issue. Oil is America's number one security issue. It's already noted here that China's dealing in Euro, Russia, Venezuela. In 2000, Saddam decided that he was going to deal exclusively in Euro for oil.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0508

If Nukes were the real issue, N. Korea would be the top on the list, but...

2) How should the US deal with the chosen conflict?

Suck it up and play capitalist hardball? Competition is good, right? It drives the prices down for the consumer, right? Work hard to develop new energy sources, and shift our dependance from oil. Stop selling vehicles that get less than 25 mgp. Reform the Auto industry, along with petrolium based products, plastics, etc...

3) Which can be solved diplomatically and which may require a more aggressive threat of military action?

No diplomacy will change the situation in Iran. Their own youth may decide to, but I'm not holding my breath. I would not be in the least bit surprised for the US to attempt a covert regime change by propping up opposition forces in the region somehow...


Edited to add: If Syria is the first target, Iran has already stated in no uncertain terms that they would fight with Syria. They are connected in this. One source:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0217-02.htm

Currently the US is living way beyond its means. It has huge current account, trade, and fiscal deficits that have to be covered by printing money like mad. Were it not for the world demand for US dollars to cover oil payments, there would be no mechanism to keep the money printing presses feeding these massive triple deficits. These huge worldwide US dollar reserves, held by the oil producers, then get lent back via cheap bonds to fund America's deficits. Take the petrodollar away and there's no one buying these cheap bonds. There'd then be just two alternatives, keep printing money and end up in the Argentine death spiral of hyperinflation and $10,000.00 loaves of bread or very high interest rates, massive cutbacks in spending and a vicious recession. With either choice, American world dominance is done like dinner. China and the EU get to pick up the pieces. This is why the Bush regime is fighting hard in Iraq -- it has to stop the Euro haemorrhage by scaring the Middle East oil producers into believing that a switch to the Euro means a military confrontation with Uncle Sam.

So, it is essential for American world dominance to maintain the petrodollar against the threat of the peteroeuro. Saddam made out like the bandit he was with his Euro switch. Now the Euro dominos are falling elsewhere and the administration takes aim at every smaller country that goes the euro route -- first Iraq, now Iran, and Venezuela (where a CIA sponsored coup attempt failed a couple of years back).

While I still think Iran is the number one choice for the next major war, never overlook the possibility of a China-Taiwan misstep leading to the next world war. Venezuela will be left to the CIA to finish the job.

The fact that we are even seriously debating this is indicative of how imperialist our government has become.

I voted for Syria because I think it is regarded as an easy target. On the other hand, they may be able to achieve their purposes in Syria through pressure short of military incursions. The ultimate goal of the neocons has always been Iran. I think they are setting things up for the bombing of Iranian nuclear plants and support systems by first pretending to come around to the support of European negotiations but only on terms they know the Iranians will reject. The naive hope is that proving the regime weak will cause the opposition to rise up and overthrow the clerics. More likely is a nationalistic rallying against the "Great Satan" resulting in Iranian infiltration into Iraq and support of Shia insurgents there. The Iranians have many organized assets in the region and have strong ties to some of the Shia, some of the Kurds, and Hezbolla.

I feel it is more indicative of how fast political opponents can jump to the worst assumptions.

I voted none, the only case in which non-military means seem even close to exhaustion is North Korea and there the threat of South Korea and Japan is too high at the moment.

In addition to a meriad of articles on the internet the following are some of the books I have read to try to make sense of our current nightmare: Kevin Phillips, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush (Viking, 2004); Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties (Scribner, 2004); Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack (Simon and Schuster, 2004); Evan Wright, Generation Kill: Devil Dogs, Iceman, Captain America, and the New Face of American War (Putnam, 2004); Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies (Free Press, 2004); David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Interlink, 2004); James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet (Viking, 2004); Dana Priest, The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace with America's Military (Norton, 2003); Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (Metropolitan Books, 2004); Joel Bakan, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (Free Press, 2004); Catherine Lutz, Homefront: A Military City and the American Twentieth Century (Beacon, 2001); Robert McChesney, The Problem of the Media: US Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century (Monthly Review Press, 2004); Peter Dale Scott, Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Columbia, and Indochina (Rowman and Littlefield, 2003); Rahul Mahajan, Full Spectrum Dominance: US Power in Iraq and Beyond (Seven Stories Press, 2003); Anonymous [Michael Scheuer], Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror (Brassey's, 2004); Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power (Simon & Schuster, 1991); Michael T. Klare, Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum (Metropolitan Books, 2004); Ross Gelbspan, Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists and Activists Are Fueling the Climate Crisis -– and What We Can Do to Avert Disaster (Basic Books, 2004); Thom Hartmann, The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight: Waking Up to Personal and Global Transformation (Three Rivers Press, 1999); Richard Heinberg, The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (New Society, 2003); Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage (Princeton UP, 2001); Amory Lovins et al., Winning the Oil Endgame: Innovation for Profit, Jobs, and Security (Rocky Mountain Institute, 2005).

I don't think I jumped to a conclusion, rather I think it is the defenders of this horrible course of events that have the blinders on.

My vote went for none, as this is my true wish.

But I'm probably wrong. As long as military action is on the table, I'm afraid that negotiations toward diplomatic solutions to problems will be glossed over as necessary evils to get out of the way.

With that thought, I'll speculate that China does some of its own nation-building, with capitalistic communism as the focus next. Taiwan might be the first target, with N. Korea comming next -- probably a simple gathering of troops at the border leading to economic/political reform in NK.

I also think the US will be supporting such actions somehow, but only with the military to defend Taiwan, due to treaty obligations. Letting China annex NK would be a smart move all around, leading to better lives for the Koreans in general and a stabalizing of far Eastern politics.

Then the crystal ball gets cloudy.

Why fear something that has not of yet been demonstrated?

Say what you will about the Iraq war, but there were twelve years of using non-military means with something less than success.

Exactly what could we do anyways....on any of it.
We can't get out of Iraq anytime soon--it has to remain stable. Numbers on Iraq as a good thing are far from inspiring.

If we were to get involved miltarily anywhere--where would we get the troops?

Anyone seriously beleive there will be some major volunteering anytime in the near future now that everyone can see that once you sign up in the "volunteer" army--you aint never leaving.

Any type of war would cause problems economically--think Americans are ready or willing to have the economy which is finally getting somewhere near decent for people again have it all fall apart again?? doubt it very much.

Lets say China does indeed decide to step all over tiawan--what are we actually gonna do--Iraq was at least a small war--China's army may not meet our technology standards--but there are lots of them. Not to mention that they OWN a huge portion of our debt. A little jiggling with the numbers and our economy is in serious trouble---anyone want to take a shot at what happens to us if the world decides to not use the dollar but maybe the euro?


Besides the elections are coming and the GOP has to be able to point out just how "stable" the world is today or they're toast. They have to be able to present Bush as the second coming of christ.

Turnea,

Yeah, right. Twelve years of something less than failure too. I didn't specifically mention Iraq, but I guess the defensive stance means that the rationalizations are still going on two years from the liberation.

Yes, I don't fear something that has not yet been demonstrated. I fear what I said -- military options are still on the table and being considered by those who rationalized us into Iraq (since you brought it up).

I will say this about the Iraq war: The rationalizing leadership that got us there are still rationalizing two years later. That does not give me a warm fuzzy.

However, my crystal ball prediction takes into account that maybe something was learned, although not acknowledged, about the liberation of Iraq and the formation of democracy. That's a sincere hope as well. If I'm wrong on this, then we might see something very frightening indeed -- and deadly.

This leads to the fear of nuclear holocaust. The winds blow from west to east in the US. Nuking going on in the Far East will get here via fallout, if not by direct attack. Yep, and we also get dust from the Sahara Desert.

As far as I know, along with the military option being on the table all the time, so is the nuke option.

THe number of publications out regarding potential future military actions is hardly "indicative of how imperialist our government has become". Do you believe that the left is conspiring to take over the world? I could likely come up with a longer book list. The illuminati runs the world? I could come up with a booklist (or even start a poll here!), UFO kidnappings are "real" (same), ect.

I voted none. I don't think we will have any "major" conflicts with countries in the near future. We don't have the money or manpower, for starters. I am curious what would happen if CHina invaded Taiwan, though. The next major attack we see will come from tiny "governments" or terrorist organizations, not large countries. Power is devolving as smaller fanatical groups will likely obtain more powerful weapons.

Who's defensive? This is a debate sight, I would consider questioning your premise offensive.

Granted the option is on the table, but that is not what you implied in your post.

You implied that the non-military options would simply be bypassed without any good faith attempt to see if they work.

I point out that this has not been seen from the administration as of yet.

I suppose this is as good a place as any to explain this.

The inspections process was, in fact, a failure in its goal. No head inspector of either UNSCOM or UNMOVIC implied otherwise.

The point was for HUssein's regime to prove and document the destruction of the weapons they declared after the first Gulf War as well as any the inspectors found them hiding (and there were many).

This simply did not happen, so to say that non-military option were ignored is to deny documented history on the issue.


It's always been "on the table" that doesn't mean it's particularly likely.

1) Which conflict did you choose and why?

I went ahead and put China, mainly because I do not see how the US can afford or justify another Middle East skirmish. As China's economy continues to grow, it will become bolder and move on Taiwan. Probably not for another 10 years, but I can not see China backing from it's current position under the Communist Party. This will be especially true if China wins the upcoming competition for securing foreign oil trade.

2) How should the US deal with the chosen conflict?

The same way that the US should deal with potential future conflict in the Middle East and South America. Decrease our dependence on foriegn oil. If the US can get it's economic house in order, foriegn countries will not have the ability to gain enough power to start a new conflict.

3) Which can be solved diplomatically and which may require a more aggressive threat of military action?

If China invades Taiwan, I do not see any way to diplomatically force Taiwan's release without a very large economic carrot to dangle.

Iran because it is the head of the Islamist/terrorist beast. It has been for some time. Iraq was unfinished business and a first stage in confronting Iran.

How should we deal with it? By exerting military pressure via our new Iraqi military bases, economically, covertly (by building up the forces championing modernization within Iran), and by keeping the screws turned tight on them with respect to their nuclear ambitions.

I don't think you can separate diplomatic and military. Without credible and viable military pressure, diplomacy is a waste of time (see the UN's history if you doubt what I say).

Which conflict did you choose and why?
My personal hope is that there will be no other conflicts, but of course thats an idealist speaking. If there is going to be a conflict it will definitely be in Iran because of their suspicious nuclear program (although the IAEA has yet to cite a major violation) and their major wielding of influence over Iraq and the whole of the Middle East.

How should the US deal with the chosen conflict?
This of course is going to be a mystery, but I can tell you what the US shouldn't do...use any form of military aggression. Lets put this in retrospect...say either the United States (or Israel) were to bomb a few facilities here and there in Iran. Depending on who it was, in Iraq we would see a turn for the worse since the mullahs of Iran hold considerable influence with the new parties in Iraq (such as the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution of Iraq led by Hakim). We would see a major rise in violence across the whole country, Shia rebels and those that feel that they've been disfranchised by the problems set by the American occupation. If Israel was the nation that used the aggression, the Iranian regime could begin using Hizboallah in Lebanon, a group that has major ties to Iran and Syria. And of course, no matter who bombs those sites, the worst thing to happen would be the loss of a valuable ally, the Iranian people.

Which can be solved diplomatically and which may require a more aggressive threat of military action?
Well the Iran issue can only be solved with diplomacy. Now I'm not sure what the US must concede (or vice versa) but it certainly will help if talks between the two countries begins. So far, the United States and Iran hold no official representation with one another and the EU Three are struggling in talks since everything they promise the US can easily turn down (such as WTO membership for Iran). Although there are plenty of things diplomatically that can be done, militaries don't need to get involved, because you have the best militia inside of Iran already, the Iranian people. This brings me to what lordhelmet said:



Although what you say is true certain times, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the history of sanctions and no diplomatic communication has never worked either. Countries that the United States has had sanctions against such as Cuba, Iran, Iraq (of course before the war), and others...amazingly those regimes are still in place. They haven't budged. Freedom is second if you're unable to feed your family. Now on the other hand, we've seen many glorious victories by when the US opens up with other countries, look at the former Soviet Union...up until it opened up the Soviet Union was an enemy that we only perceived would disappear with military aggression. But with Glasnost and one by one of openings of freedoms the Soviet Union disappeared. Same goes with South Korea, Ukraine, and now maybe even China. Capitalism and trade beyond being profitable to everyone also has the ability to spread ideas...opening up between cultures. The agenda here is to get rid of the Mullahs, not to keep them there...this

1) Which conflict did you choose and why?

I chose "Other" because I believe that with the ability to "create" evidence to support a reason for going to war anywhere in the world, we could be drawn into a conflict ANYWHERE the current "War Hawks" think they can use their newest and most highly-developed "Smart Weapons". Of course, they will have to scoff at Pat Robertson again when he warns of possible casualties because THIS TIME, they'll be assured the leading edge technology WILL work with the utmost precision.

2) How should the US deal with the chosen conflict?

We should use the the sleuthy, aforementioned Smart Weapons since our military recruitment numbers are falling. Some of the mini-robot planes should do nicely. Killing 3 Billion Chinese would only cost $10 Million times 3,000,000,000, a figure that could be easily paid for by U.S. confiscation and privatization of the entire world's oil production and reserves.

3) Which can be solved diplomatically and which may require a more aggressive threat of military action?

By appointing John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador and letting him tongue-lash half the U.N. for six months and threaten the employment of the other half, the World Body will disintegrate, leaving the U.S. as the only reigning Super-Power and the modern-day equivalent of Marshal Dillon on Gunsmoke.

Chester and Festus, (Rove and Cheney) will watch gleefully as the U.S. subdues threat after threat (on a weekly basis AND with corporate sponsorship). Newly (Fleischer) will report on the action until HAL returns from 2001's Space Odyssey and begins to devour it's young (the smart weapons and the defense contractors who made them).

Even HAL will be unable to digest the massive population of China and as the screen goes black, the credits will appear in Chinese. Those of us left at the theater will be reading right to left.