While the Gitmo closure was openly opposed by the Republicans, it was killed by the Democrats. The problem was simply “Where do you put them put them on trial without Gitmo?” The first idea was New York, and everybody started cheering. Then 2 days after the announcement the Chief of Police dropped the security plans and estimate on the mayor’s desk and political hell broke loose. Billions of dollars in costs per year, 1000s of additional cops, major traffic disruption with a 2 block radius around the court house closed to vehicle traffic for the duration and up to a quarter of the Manhattan streets closed off twice a day as the prisoners were transported to and from the court. Marches, protests, riots, terrorist bombings, terrorist kidnappings and hostage taking, etc. would be regular affairs. The mayor called the governor, and the governor called in the Congressmen (26 Democrats and 5 Republicans) at gave them their marching orders – “Send them somewhere else.” Unfortunately, nowhere else would accept them (and the costs), but they all thought New York was a great idea, so the plan to close Gitmo was allowed to languish and quietly die.

 

Don’t blame the Republicans, it never had a chance once the consequences became clear to the Democrats.

Chris:  I don't know where your idea that the Bush administration wanted to attack Iran came from.  If this were true then we had plenty of provocations from Iran that would have justified a military response.

Another thing you should have been paying attention to was the Bush administration's support of the democracy movement inside Iran.  This was the primary Bush focus - that went away when Obama took office.

Besides - if you think that Iraq was a disaster, you need to take an unbiased look at what their economy is doing and at the generation of politicians who are currently rising into positions of power.

And how was getting OBL a risky call?  Most people would regard a decision like that as a 'no-brainer.'  Besides - if he didn't go after OBL then he would have been guranteed to lose the upcoming election.

Especially when the Bush haters have to rewrite history to justify their positions.

Wow, I think you struck a nerve with HeavyD. He went on quite a rant. It it will be interesting to see what Obama does or doesn't do if Israel does attack Iran.

 

If history is followed as a pattern with Israel, they will take the unexpected and indirect approach of attack when they do hit Iran. They have an imaginative ability of accomplishing their goals with lasting results when they do finally strike.

This is how I understand the event in a last couple of years.

 

First Gulf War was stopped before the final outcome was reached. It never ended, in fact. There were constant skirmishes since the end of the campaign, particularly about no-fly zone. Then the Second Gulf War took place, there were years of prolonged engagement, but, finally US and others were able to send their soldiers home. 

 

Iraq today is not in a perfect state, but not significantly better or worse than the rest of the region. It can be said that the things are as good as they can get.

 

Now, there is Iran. Saddam Hussein put a lot of fear into their political leaders. When he was gone, they felt that their hands are untied and that they can renew old Persian Empire, and take the place among world nations they believe they were supposed to have. Similar to the policies of late Saddam Hussein, the constant conflicts and confrontations are going to take place, until some final resolution. Hussein took power in 1979 and Iraq was in constant state of war until the fall in 2003. It is just not in the nature of political elites in the region to give up.....

 

It is not like old Soviet Union, whose leaders were determined to prevent uncontrolled escalation.  They were prepared to keep going without the final resolution within reach, waiting for something to happen that will shift the balance of powers.

 

It does not apply to Iran, and others in the region. They need that resolution at any cost. I think that possible massive loss of civilian lives is no a decision making factor for the leaders in the region, because it means less unemployed, dissatisfied, and potentially problematic individuals. All of them have deteriorating domestic situation, and keep going is not an option. If they had democracy, population could vote the administration out of office, and try something else. However, in this case the only option is to keep population at bay and show some success against external adversaries.  Perhaps the sanctions only make them more determined that final solution must be reached sooner rather than later.

 

Israel is just the step in their path to the final resolution. If they manage to hurt or destroy Israel, that will earn them a large following among general Muslims population.

 

Considering Mr. Obama, I don't know what he plans. I am not an American, and he is not my president. If I was an American, I don't think I would vote for him. Occasionally,  I am able to read some of his statements, and they are shifting from one side to the other all the time. Elimination of Bin Laden gave him a lot of much needed popularity. There was one statement about two months ago which was particularly threatening towards Iran. It is really hard to say what is US going to do about Iranian problem.

 

Iran and Syria are a kind of embarrassment for the current administration. They planned to rebuild the relations with both countries, but faced freezing cold reception. I remember a photo of Nancy Pelosi wearing head cover while visiting Syria (in 2007 or 2008), and Mr. Obama inviting Iranian diplomats to attend some US diplomatic events. Also, Mr. Obama failed to support Iranian protests, when the whole world did so. Later events that took place in both countries show that they had no intention to improve their relations with US, because it is not in their interest, and that they couldn't care less about Obama, Pelosi and their initiatives. They even made very little effort to play along in order to buy some time  for their plans. Looks like they perceive current administration as weak one.

 

DG

 

Well, concerning Iraq, their economy continues to improve year by year. It is not an ideal democracy or situation by our Western standards, and they are going and going to go through much growing pains specially politically and religiously, but their economy, I dare say, will only continue to flourish.

 

Their economy will continue in an upward trend because of........ O-I-L (sweet petrol). Watch and see.