PDA

View Full Version : Countdown to war with Iran (?)


Achilles
09-26-2007, 05:21 PM
Link (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/kyl-iran-fox/) Today, the Senate is expected to vote on an “extremely threatening” amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill introduced by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). The “sense of the Senate” amendment could “lead to a tit-for-tat escalation resulting in military confrontation between the US and Iran.”
Good news is that paragraphs 3 and 4 were stricken from the amendment. The bad news is that it passed anyway.

Here are the links for the TPMtv coverage mentioned at the end of the article:

Part 1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=y9d0cCnoUD4) (Posted yesterday before the vote was pushed back and the amendment was changed).
Part 2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=hQyXlGfuN9A) (Posted today after the amendment was voted though the Senate).
For those of you that are wondering, no, I didn't vote of Kyl.

So, war with Iran being voted on while the president of that country is addressing the U.N. on American soil. Nice. Anyone want to start the countdown? Thoughts?

Web Rider
09-26-2007, 07:39 PM
Well, to be honest I sent my thoughts to Lieberman. He's really the one who needs to hear them. No wonder the democrats kicked this guy out of the party. He's a republican in all but name. At least Jon Kyl is what he claims to be.

mimartin
09-26-2007, 08:27 PM
Well, to be honest I sent my thoughts to Lieberman. He's really the one who needs to hear them. No wonder the democrats kicked this guy out of the party. He's a republican in all but name. At least Jon Kyl is what he claims to be.Well the Republican did not believe Senator Joseph Lieberman was a Republican in 2000. If he were a Republican, he would be kicked out because of his views on Gay Rights, Gun Control, Health Car, Social Security, Consumer Protection, Flag Burning and Education. The only places he clearly agrees with the Republicans is in his membership in the “Gang of 14,” Iraq and Iran.

I believe the Democrats were idiots for kicking him out of the party. Someone votes his conscience and if it does not agree with the party line, you pick another for your party’s nomination. The Democrats are just lucky the Republican candidate had some problems. Lieberman and Lamont could have split the Democrats vote and handed the seat to the Republicans.

I do not know if this is fair to question, but I wonder how much Mr. Lieberman’s religious faith has to do with his introduction of this amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill and his support to the war in Iraq.

Achilles
09-26-2007, 09:45 PM
I do not know if this is fair to question, but I wonder how much Mr. Lieberman’s religious faith has to do with his introduction of this amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill and his support to the war in Iraq. *gasp*
I never took you for an anti-zionist! :xp:

SilentScope001
09-26-2007, 09:48 PM
I believe the Democrats were idiots for kicking him out of the party. Someone votes his conscience and if it does not agree with the party line, you pick another for your party’s nomination. The Democrats are just lucky the Republican candidate had some problems. Lieberman and Lamont could have split the Democrats vote and handed the seat to the Republicans.

Some problems is an understatement. The Republican candinate had about 6% of the Vote. Most Republicans decided to tactically voted for Lieberman rather than Lamont and abandoned their candinate.

Lieberman also considered himself a Democrat, and wanted to be seated as such in Congress. And since the main contest was between Lamont and Lieberman, the US Democratic Party wisely chosen not really intervene, as it was just an inner-party struggle.

As for Iran: Well, we're only onlookers after all. The only rhetroic I fear is the rhetoric claiming that the US can defeat Iran in a war...because if Iran wins the war, or at least bring a war to a stalemate...it can really be bad for American's interests in the long term.

mimartin
09-26-2007, 10:54 PM
*gasp*
I never took you for an anti-zionist! :xp:
Well believe me I’ve been called worst. It is your fault anyways you now have me questioning everyone’s motivation from a religious standpoint.

I also would not blame Lieberman if that were his motivation. If there was a Baptist State in the same predicament as Israel, and I was a Senator, I do not know if I would not be doing the exact same thing. Although I hope, my and his first priority would be to the men and women of this country. I don’t want to see any people destroyed over there including the Israelis, Iraqis, Iranians, Palestinians and especially the Americans.

Some problems is an understatement. I don’t believe in kicking a man when he is down. That and the fact I was about to question Lieberman motivation made me play if safe.

The only rhetroic I fear is the rhetoric claiming that the US can defeat Iran in a war...because if Iran wins the war, or at least bring a war to a stalemate...it can really be bad for American's interests in the long term. It will be bad for the American Soldier any way you look at it.

When the Republican had control of the House and Senate, I felt war with Iran was a forgone conclusion before Mr. Bush left office. Then when the Democrats took control, I felt this would be placed on the back burner. I just hope someone inside Washington can see what the rest of America and the world see. If we are going to tackle Iran, England’s military and our overstretched military will need real help (and not just one non-combatant soldier from 50 different nations.) We need to build a coalition and not act like three year olds when we do not get our way within the coalition. See if we can actually practice the democracy, we wish to bring to the rest of the world.

My hope is we have learned our lessons in Iraq and do not make the same stupid mistakes in Iran. I hope that we will exhaust diplomatic options first and we have learned that force is the last option.

Totenkopf
09-26-2007, 11:18 PM
Seems to me that if any action is taken in Iran, it will be a sort of decapitation strike. Occupying the country would call for more ground troops than can be accomodated by the military at this time. Seems like going after the military underpinning of the regime in power may allow for a revolution in Iran that's more conducive to the west. Afterall, we keep hearing that most Iranians actually are more partial to the west than to their own leaders. If true, then removing this regime won't necessitate a ground invasion, or at least on the scale of one like Iraq. The biggest problems I see really come from Russia and the PRC. If there is regime change, how will they be neutralized in that equation? What concessions, if any, might have to be given to either country in an effort to keep them on the sidelines from helping a client regime?

As a sidebar, it's nice to see some of the euros are waking up to the intractability of the current Iranian clowns in power. Talk/diplomacy is all nice and fine, but lacking if the other side doesn't see the teeth of those doing all the talking.

Qui-Gon Glenn
09-26-2007, 11:33 PM
I also would not blame Lieberman if that were his motivation. If there was a Baptist State in the same predicament as Israel, and I was a Senator, I do not know if I would not be doing the exact same thing. Although I hope, my and his first priority would be to the men and women of this country. I don’t want to see any people destroyed over there including the Israelis, Iraqis, Iranians, Palestinians and especially the Americans.
In America, I think that is an irresponsible position. A Nation made of immigrants, truly and now more than ever (illegal as some may be), with belief systems as diverse (or moreso) as their countries of origin. Freedom of religion needs to be a reflexive position, meaning in this specific case live and let live... stay out of business not your own. Building nations is not our business, and neither should be destroying them to rebuild them in our own (?!?) image.


It will be bad for the American Soldier any way you look at it.
Sadly.

I just hope someone inside Washington can see what the rest of America and the world see. If we are going to tackle Iran, England’s military and our overstretched military will need real help (and not just one non-combatant soldier from 50 different nations.) We need to build a coalition and not act like three year olds when we do not get our way within the coalition. See if we can actually practice the democracy, we wish to bring to the rest of the world.

My hope is we have learned our lessons in Iraq and do not make the same stupid mistakes in Iran. I hope that we will exhaust diplomatic options first and we have learned that force is the last option.

Very Good, Lord Vader.

This kind of thinking is scary broad in the US. Iran is not just another country to invade and conquer, it is the end of the world waiting to happen. Our position as bully on the block has never been more in doubt.

Achilles
09-27-2007, 12:36 AM
It is your fault anyways you now have me questioning everyone’s motivation from a religious standpoint. Awesome!

I also would not blame Lieberman if that were his motivation. If there was a Baptist State in the same predicament as Israel, and I was a Senator, I do not know if I would not be doing the exact same thing. Although I hope, my and his first priority would be to the men and women of this country. I don’t want to see any people destroyed over there including the Israelis, Iraqis, Iranians, Palestinians and especially the Americans. *shrugs* Unfortunately, I can't picture an end-game that looks pretty for anyone in the middle-east (specifically with regard to Israel).

I'm just wondering how much blowback we'll have to live through before we decide to leave well enough alone.

John Galt
09-27-2007, 12:51 AM
I'm just wondering how much blowback we'll have to live through before we decide to leave well enough alone.

With the frontrunner in the Republican primary not even believing in blowback (I'm referring to Giuliani's explosion against Ron Paul in one of the debates), it may be a while, especially considering that only one of the candidates at that debate said that he wouldn't go to war with Iran. Hillary will go whichever way the political winds blow, but I think Obama would be a safer bet to avoid intervening in Iran. We need a viable third party...

And I really don't think we could stretch our existing professional army far enough to invade Iran, so conflict(doubt they'd even formally declare war) would probably require a return to the draft.

Corinthian
09-27-2007, 01:07 AM
I can imagine an endgame that looks very nice for the Middle-East, especially for Israel. Around Israel, there's a little strip of sand and that's what's habitable of it's previously surrounding countries, and the rest is just black glass, and maybe a few support beams. They're all going to kill each other anyway eventually, might as well clear it up fast. Crazy Sunnis and Shiites.

Anyway. Totenkopf, decapitation strikes are pretty hard to pull off. We tried one in Iraq, but Saddam managed to get away from all of them. The only really reliable way to end a war quickly is liberal application of atomic weaponry. Lord knows a good old man-made apocalypse would do those guys some good, send 'em all straight to Allah. A good old demonstration out in the middle of the Iranian desert (What else is there, anyway?) would do them some good.

Anyway, aside from my half-deranged suggestions of a literal Scorched Earth strategy, Mimartin, we do have a coalition. The United States, Great Britain, Australia, and a couple others. The problem isn't that we're not cooperating with them, most of them aren't cooperating with us. Approximately 4145 dead in Iraq. 3800 of them are U.S. soldiers, 170 are UK, and the rest are spread across the rest of the coalition. I figure the way they see it, they see we can do it and they want it done, but they don't want to really help, they just want to be moral support.

Achilles
09-27-2007, 01:14 AM
And I really don't think we could stretch our existing professional army far enough to invade Iran, so conflict(doubt they'd even formally declare war) would probably require a return to the draft. Yep. Only 16 months until the new president is in office. Here's hoping for a democrat that isn't Hillary.

PoiuyWired
09-27-2007, 03:06 AM
Yep. Only 16 months until the new president is in office. Here's hoping for a democrat that isn't Hillary.

Seconded.

Rogue Warrior
09-27-2007, 05:05 AM
Believe me, John Howard would still be waging war even if Bush ordered him out.

I could jump on the bandwagon of nuking America because of how evil it is, but instead I thought this would be worth sharing.

"There is a Great Beast loose in the world of men. It awoke in dark times, to fight a terrible enemy. It stormed through Europe, across the far Pacific, and crushed the evil that it found there underfoot. But when it was victorious, when the crooked cross and the rising sun were done with, the Great Beast's keepers found that it would not go back to sleep.

The Beast has many heads, and on its heads are written names: Lockheed. Bell. Monsanto. Dow. Grumman. Colt. And many more. And they are very, very hungry. So the Great Beast must be fed: and every generation, our country goes to war to do just that. A war for war's sake, usually. And one that could have been avoided. But there must be blood, in extraordinary quantities, and whether it is foreign or American is of no consequence at all."

Darth InSidious
09-27-2007, 08:42 AM
Out of Iraq and Iran, time and again throughout history an unstoppable army has swept and created unparallelled dominion. Be it as the Assyrians, the Medes, the Persians...Granted, the current Iranians come from a different culture, but if you think of Iran in terms of its history, the current position becomes...interesting.

Certainly, Ahmadinejad fancies himself, I think, as a new Cyrus - hence his attempts at the crafty-crafty approach to politics.

As for war, it was coming anyway. Just don't act surprised when a stupendous PR campaign against you (and probably our spineless, genital-lacking government, too) causes you to be spat at in the street....

mimartin
09-27-2007, 10:51 AM
Mimartin, we do have a coalition. The United States, Great Britain, Australia, and a couple others.Yes, you are correct and I've heard Mr. Bush is planning a State visit to Easter Island next week in exchange for one of those Moai’s to join our “coalition.” :D

The problem isn't that we're not cooperating with them, most of them aren't cooperating with us.What is your definition of cooperating within a coalition? The President’s seems to believe it means do everything we say or you are not cooperating with us. In my opinion when dealing with any group there has to be give and take. As the leader the US should value the other members’ opinions and not have the attitude that we are always right.

Very Good, Lord Vader. This kind of thinking is scary broad in the US. Iran is not just another country to invade and conquer it is the end of the world waiting to happen. Our position as bully on the block has never been more in doubt.

I was not supporting the invasion of Iran. Oh and yes, the US is known throughout history as being an conquer of Nations (looking at my “folded globe” at the 51 state Japan). I was speaking to; if war with Iran is a foregone conclusion and that I hoped we learned something from our experience in Iraq.

Darth InSidious
09-27-2007, 11:02 AM
I'd just like to point out that most people in the UK seem to be against the 'war on terror'.

Achilles
09-27-2007, 11:57 AM
As for war, it was coming anyway. Just don't act surprised when a stupendous PR campaign against you (and probably our spineless, genital-lacking government, too) causes you to be spat at in the street....Yep, but that's what some of us were hoping to avoid. Despite your earlier insinuations, not all of us are Bush supporters or warmongers.

I'd just like to point out that most people in the UK seem to be against the 'war on terror'. Indeed. I would like to think that most rational people are. Unfortunately, while that sentiment has the majority here, the minority are still the ones calling the shots...for now.

SilentScope001
09-27-2007, 01:20 PM
When Obama called for the military invasion of Pakistan, I was a bit upset. So I wouldn't want him to run the USA. Then again, I'm anti-Obama.

I would be okay with a war with Iran, I'm just worried that we're going to lose that war. More likely than not, the USA will just bomb Iran, and that's it. After bombing Iran, well, that will take away their capacity for building nuclear power, so USA can rest in comfort while Iran scream, and the Iranian leader wins re-election and rebuild power. But at the least, you can punish Iran without having to occupy Iran. "Don't Occupy Iran! Bomb them! With Actual Bombs! No Nukes!" (Nukes=bad, if you nuke Iran, then everyone will scream you)

What I think might be a 'less bad' endgame is if moderate leaders who still support Iranians getting nulcear power oust Adhmenjan in elections (I think he's going to lose, yes, he will, the preists hate him, there were riots over oil prices, and he delivered on absolutely no promises), and thereby cause for an easing of tension between USA and Iran. No war, and there would be political compromise.

That being said, why not a war? I think a war is going to happen, since Iran will still want nuclear power, moderate leader or radical leader. The only thing I worry about is who's going to win: Iran or USA? And that's what I fear. Not the war itself.

Jae Onasi
09-27-2007, 04:59 PM
I don't think we'll have a war unless the Iranian leaders do something incredibly stupid, though Ahmadinejad sure seems to be giving it a good try. We don't have the world opinion on our side, we don't really have the manpower to open up a second front, and it would be unwise to attack a mountainous country in winter time. There would have to be a lot more failed diplomacy attempts, a clearly threatening action by Iran, and something to rally US opinion before we'd be able to do anything there. Hopefully Iran won't be stupid. The idea of Jimbo and others getting deployed again is about as appealing as open heart surgery without anesthesia.

John Galt
09-27-2007, 06:10 PM
I don't think we'll have a war unless the Iranian leaders do something incredibly stupid, though Ahmadinejad sure seems to be giving it a good try. We don't have the world opinion on our side, we don't really have the manpower to open up a second front, and it would be unwise to attack a mountainous country in winter time. There would have to be a lot more failed diplomacy attempts, a clearly threatening action by Iran, and something to rally US opinion before we'd be able to do anything there. Hopefully Iran won't be stupid. The idea of Jimbo and others getting deployed again is about as appealing as open heart surgery without anesthesia.

Basically it would take another attack like the ones on September 11, 2001, or an actual Iranian invasion of Iraq, considering how cynical the American people(with the notable exception of the NeoCons) have become towards the current administration.

edit: And wouldn't it technically be a third front?

Qui-Gon Glenn
09-28-2007, 03:17 AM
I would be okay with a war with Iran, I'm just worried that we're going to lose that war.
How will you feel about feeling okay with the war when it is lost?
More likely than not, the USA will just bomb Iran, and that's it. After bombing Iran, well, that will take away their capacity for building nuclear power, so USA can rest in comfort while Iran scream, and the Iranian leader wins re-election and rebuild power. But at the least, you can punish Iran without having to occupy Iran. "Don't Occupy Iran! Bomb them! With Actual Bombs! No Nukes!" (Nukes=bad, if you nuke Iran, then everyone will scream you)
This is all acceptable to you? Killing in massive numbers is just fine, as long as there isn't too much radiation left over?

I feel like we need to take a historical perspective for a moment. A student of history will tell you that the average life of a nation-state is 300 years. 2007-1776=231 years.

Public opinion, on the global scale, IS very important. The government of the United State's "manifest destiny" has resulted in some hard feelings around the world, and naturally some locales more than others. Can the people of the United States really afford to not have the support of the peoples around the world for our government, when the chips are down? If you cannot win a war alone, perhaps you should not enter into it. Bullies have never been the most popular kids in school.

I don't think we'll have a war unless the Iranian leaders do something incredibly stupid, though Ahmadinejad sure seems to be giving it a good try.
We Americans are so quick to assume we're the smart ones pointing at the stupid, giggling.
We don't have the world opinion on our side, we don't really have the manpower to open up a second front, and it would be unwise to attack a mountainous country in winter time. There would have to be a lot more failed diplomacy attempts, a clearly threatening action by Iran, and something to rally US opinion before we'd be able to do anything there. Hopefully Iran won't be stupid.
Aren't you really saying here we would be stupid, regardless of provocation, if we went in?
The idea of Jimbo and others getting deployed again is about as appealing as open heart surgery without anesthesia.
No joke there. It sucks, really.

That being said, why not a war? I think a war is going to happen, since Iran will still want nuclear power, moderate leader or radical leader. The only thing I worry about is who's going to win: Iran or USA? And that's what I fear. Not the war itself.
Will you be fighting in the war? I think you would be very scared of the war in that case. Fear the war! You can stop the war from happening, but you can't stop the aftermath. In the meantime, start studying a foreign language.

SilentScope001
09-29-2007, 11:43 AM
Since we are talking about the possiblity of war, I like listening to the Iran's side of the debate, in that they believe the US' threats are just bluster:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6999513.stm
****
This is all acceptable to you? Killing in massive numbers is just fine, as long as there isn't too much radiation left over?

The US would be bombing power plants. I think people won't die on that massive a scale, altough they will die.

I feel like we need to take a historical perspective for a moment. A student of history will tell you that the average life of a nation-state is 300 years. 2007-1776=231 years.

Not really. While I do believe the US is going to die, like all nations, really, I think counting us out right now is stupid. The Roman Empire could have easily fallen in 300 AD due to its civil wars, but it luckily found someone who saved them, and kept them alive until 1453 AD. Don't make a prediciton on when the US is going to lose, care about who will replace US.

Public opinion, on the global scale, IS very important. The government of the United State's "manifest destiny" has resulted in some hard feelings around the world, and naturally some locales more than others. Can the people of the United States really afford to not have the support of the peoples around the world for our government, when the chips are down? If you cannot win a war alone, perhaps you should not enter into it. Bullies have never been the most popular kids in school.

If the US follows whatever the world says though, then the world controls the US. What's the point of being a superpower if you just follow whatever other countries say? You need to stand firm, otherwise, some other superpower would be running the world...not the US.

And the world is run by bullies. From the Roman Empire, to the British Empire, to the Russian Empire, to the German Empire...we never had any real, what do you say, non-bully superpower?

Will you be fighting in the war?

Of course. I pay taxes, therefore, I am fighting the war, wheter I like it or not. So I might as well be okay with the war, since I have no control over what the leaders do anyway. The last time I voted against America interveing in other countries, I voted for George W. Bush.
****
Listen, I admit that I believe in a conspiracy theory that Iran is building nukes. I know there is no proof (hence why it is a conspiracy theory, about as sane as believing US did 9/11!), but I believe that. Once you accept the logic that Iran is building nukes, then you can see my justificatiton for war. That being said, I think Iran is a democracy, and that it is really competitive, that there is a debate between moderates and conservatives, and that they are well, a budding energy superpower, and that the US shouldn't really mess with Iran. But, seeing that many people in the US hate Iran, and many people also share my irrational conspiracy theory, I can understand the rationale for war, and would be okay with that war.

Darth InSidious
10-01-2007, 07:05 AM
Yep, but that's what some of us were hoping to avoid. Despite your earlier insinuations, not all of us are Bush supporters or warmongers.

Oh, I think we're all trying to avoid it, with the possible exception of people like Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. Unfortunately, its coming. Also, if the insinuation is the one I think it is, it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Nevertheless, a majority of your countrymen elected Bush, and things blur at distance.


Indeed. I would like to think that most rational people are. Unfortunately, while that sentiment has the majority here, the minority are still the ones calling the shots...for now.
Quite. Rationality, however is rarely a major factor in human events, and in any case, what would you do instead? Allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons? It's a sticky problem....

@qui_gon_glenn: Since when was America a template for the world? Pharaonic Egypt? A little under 4000 years. The SPQR? 700 years, give or take. Sparta? The Persian empire? The Assyrians? The Kingdom of England (c. 800-2007 and beyond)? The Holy Roman Empire? The Eastern Roman Empire? Czarist Russia? The Mughal Empire?

@SilentScope: First of all, in 300 AD, the Rome was already around a thousand years of age. Secondly, the Western Roman Empire did collapse in 450-ish, as I recall....

SilentScope001
10-01-2007, 12:12 PM
@SilentScope: First of all, in 300 AD, the Rome was already around a thousand years of age. Secondly, the Western Roman Empire did collapse in 450-ish, as I recall....

Well, I was referring to the Roman Empire as a whole, both the Western and the Eastern Roman Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire in Byzantine fell in the 1450's, the Western Roman Empire fell in 450), even so, admittingly, you are right, they are two seperate Roman Empires, and look so different that they probraly shouldn't be there. I was merely making an argument to back my point that Empires can last a very, very long time, even if it is just a former shell of itself.

Achilles
10-01-2007, 12:41 PM
Quite. Rationality, however is rarely a major factor in human events, and in any case, what would you do instead? Regarding the "war on terror"? The short answer would be to suspend American imperialism.

Allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons? I would like some evidence that they are in fact developing nuclear weapons. At the point that it was unequivocally evident that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, I would have to ask if our intervention was truly necessary. The problem with power is that once you start using it, you have to use it all the time.

Who knows. Maybe other parties in the region are perfectly capable of taking care of the issue without our help.

mimartin
10-01-2007, 01:58 PM
Regarding the "war on terror"? The short answer would be to suspend American imperialism.While I would tend to agree with this, would it really appease the radical Islamic element of that region. I am under the opinion that the war in Iraq has done more to permeate the beliefs of al-Qaeda and other extreme Islamic groups then bin Laden could have done with a hundred 9/11s. I mean I’m all for this live and let live world view some have put forth in this tread, but if we left them alone in the region would they really leave us alone? Personally I believe that these groups in general and Iran (If you believe what Ahmadinejad says) will not be happy without the complete annihilation of Israel. So if we back out of the region, devise alternative forms of power, will they leave us alone as long as Israel stands? Or do they have the same mentality as the current U.S. President and believe “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” do the terrorist and Iran have the same stance? Unless we actually help destroy Israel are we not standing against them? Isn’t it fair that they hold us to the same standard that we publicly hold the rest of the world?

I would like some evidence that they are in fact developing nuclear weapons. So would I, and preferably not from the same people that gave the world the evidence of Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction.”

Maybe other parties in the region are perfectly capable of taking care of the issue without our help. You know there are and we all know they will never allow Iraq to get that far. The only problem is the Arab world’s reactions to their involvement.

Achilles
10-01-2007, 02:42 PM
While I would tend to agree with this, would it really appease the radical Islamic element of that region. Honestly, I doubt it. We'll probably experience blowback for decades to come. However I also believe that the sooner we stop, the sooner we can anticipate the trickling off of blowback.

I am under the opinion that the war in Iraq has done more to permeate the beliefs of al-Qaeda and other extreme Islamic groups then bin Laden could have done with a hundred 9/11s. I'm of the opinion that we played directly into bin Laden's hands. He was unhappy about infidels in the holy land so he began orchestrating terrorist attacks against U.S. forces in the region in an effort to incite other muslims. Al qaeda makes a vow to kill forces of American imperialism wherever they can, and lo and behold we have al qaeda fighting in Iraq where almost all of our troops are. If they die killing infidels, they get to spend eternity in paradise, so of course they are lining up, praying for a chance to suicide bomb some infidels. And of course, this whole time, we're also fueling the circumstances which led to the creation of Madhi army, so we now have two fundamentalist Islamic sects out to kill Americans where we only had one before. Yay us!

I mean I’m all for this live and let live world view some have put forth in this tread, but if we left them alone in the region would they really leave us alone? Starting tomorrow? Probably not. Is the answer to keep on doing what we're doing now and expect a different result? Does our military really seem capable of sustaining our present course for another 5-10 years, let alone indefinitely. All of our allies have left. It's only us now and we're stretched to the brink as it is.

If a natural disaster strikes in the U.S. where are our National Guard? If North Korea decides to declare open war on the U.S. and begin attacking our bases in South Korea and Okinawa, where do we get the troops to sufficiently engage a second theater of war?

It seems that the islamic fundies are pretty consistently telling us that they want us out of the area. It also seems that the more of our troops we send, the more violence erupts. What do we have to loose by leaving? If we were spending the 2 billion dollars per day we're currently spending on Iraq on homeland security, what would we have to lose?

Personally I believe that these groups in general and Iran (If you believe what Ahmadinejad says) will not be happy without the complete annihilation of Israel. So if we back out of the region, devise alternative forms of power, will they leave us alone as long as Israel stands?So to what end do we continue to manipulate events in the region, knowing that doing so only makes us a target for islamic extremists? If Israel launches missiles into Syria but the U.S. threatens Syria if they launch missiles back, would that appear to some as though we're giving Israel the go-ahead to act with impunity?

Or do they have the same mentality as the current U.S. President and believe “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” do the terrorist and Iran have the same stance? Unless we actually help destroy Israel are we not standing against them? Isn’t it fair that they hold us to the same standard that we publicly hold the rest of the world? All good questions.

I will say this, understanding that it's slightly tangential: remember that many christians believe that the second coming of christ won't take place until the jews return to Israel and the temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem, at which time the jews will either convert to christianity or die. Might put a certain spin on U.S. involvement in the middle east, no?

So would I, and preferably not from the same people that gave the world the evidence of Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction.” I was hoping that would go without saying :)

You know there are and we all know they will never allow Iraq to get that far. The only problem is the Arab world’s reactions to their involvement. *shrugs*
I keep coming back to the fact that our involvement (directly or indirectly via the actions of our allies) led to this mess in the first place. It seems to me that the people of the middle east are probably quite capable of handling their own business without our intervention. My 2 cents.

As always, I enjoyed reading your post.

Totenkopf
10-01-2007, 04:18 PM
So......extremist Muslim hostility is only limited to blowback responses? None of the "messianic" urges you seem to fear from Christians? Given the smut and other cultural sewage that comes out of the west, It would only be a matter of time before they got around to us. Of course, you'd probably be dead by then (maybe), so it wouldn't really concern you. If you can't tell that Iran is working on a bomb (they've admitted to it themselves and try to keep the world at arms length about inspections and overall cooperation and even the Europeans are beginning to realize this), you're completly hopeless. It's not exactly like you can put the knowledge back in the bottle either. But, hey, you go on believing your Chalmer's Johnson diatribe and stick your head back in the sand. It'll make your backside a much easier target..... ;)

Darth InSidious
10-02-2007, 07:31 AM
Regarding the "war on terror"? The short answer would be to suspend American imperialism.
Through all means? Corporate and military? Russia would dominate Europe, and your economy would suffer.

I would like some evidence that they are in fact developing nuclear weapons. At the point that it was unequivocally evident that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, I would have to ask if our intervention was truly necessary. The problem with power is that once you start using it, you have to use it all the time.
I'd agree on both points. But Ahmadinejad will block any investigation into that, and I seem to recall that the plutonium refining method the Iranians are using for their nuclear power plants - which they are definitely, as I recall, building, - is much higher grade than is required for fission, but would be good for nuclear arms.

In any case, what does the country with the world's third largest supply of oil, gas and coal (not sure about the coal?) want with nuclear power?

Who knows. Maybe other parties in the region are perfectly capable of taking care of the issue without our help.
Heck, the Sudentenland is only Germany's back yard...

Achilles
10-02-2007, 09:50 AM
Through all means? Corporate and military? Russia would dominate Europe, and your economy would suffer. Military. Not sure how one could prevent economic strength in a global free market (whether it be ours or some other countries).

I'd agree on both points. But Ahmadinejad will block any investigation into that, and I seem to recall that the plutonium refining method the Iranians are using for their nuclear power plants - which they are definitely, as I recall, building, - is much higher grade than is required for fission, but would be good for nuclear arms.

In any case, what does the country with the world's third largest supply of oil, gas and coal (not sure about the coal?) want with nuclear power? Perhaps they saw An Inconvenient Truth.

But perhaps they really are putting together a nuclear weapons program. Then we come back to my earlier points. It seems that violation of the non-proliferation treaty should be handled transparently by the U.N., not using the exact same set of steps that got us into Iraq.

SilentScope001
10-02-2007, 12:29 PM
In any case, what does the country with the world's third largest supply of oil, gas and coal (not sure about the coal?) want with nuclear power?

Be able to power their cities so that they can sell more oil, gas, and coal, making more profit in the long term. After all, Iran can't refine their oil, so they have to buy back their oil from American companies...which is somewhat not that good.

Totenkopf
10-02-2007, 06:41 PM
...It seems that violation of the non-proliferation treaty should be handled transparently by the U.N., not using the exact same set of steps that got us into Iraq.

As if. The UN would need to be completly independent and a power unto itself to effectively accomplish anything. You can't even get transparency in "democratic" governments, nevermind the UN. There are at least 5 reasons the UN will rarely accomplish anything.....permanent veto power for the key members of the SC.

SilentScope001
10-02-2007, 06:45 PM
There are at least 5 reasons the UN will rarely accomplish anything.....permanent veto power for the key members of the SC.

The UN has lots of charities (UNCHEF, for instance) and peacebuilding arms (peacekeeping, holding elections, making treaties). They act as a pretty good symbol, and could easily act as a forum for where the 5 Veto Power Members can make their statements and push their agendas. The UN has a use, but it isn't as strong as some people want, which is exactly the point. "A stronger UN"=Superstate.

Jae Onasi
10-02-2007, 10:00 PM
Well, here's a semi-related question--what do you do when a country like Iraq or Iran willfully and repeatedly violate UN resolutions, and the UN won't enforce them? There has to be some other option besides just war and 'diplomatic sitting on hands and letting them get away with murder'.

Achilles
10-02-2007, 10:19 PM
Well, here's a semi-related question--what do you do when a country like Iraq or Iran willfully and repeatedly violate UN resolutions, and the UN won't enforce them? I'd feel much better answering that question if I knew why the UN appeared to not be enforcing them. I prefer to make decisions with all the information available, rather than just some of it (*cough*bushadministration*cough*)

There has to be some other option besides just war and 'diplomatic sitting on hands and letting them get away with murder'.Like "sanctions" or "diplomacy"? :)

SilentScope001
10-02-2007, 10:19 PM
Well, here's a semi-related question--what do you do when a country like Iraq or Iran willfully and repeatedly violate UN resolutions, and the UN won't enforce them? There has to be some other option besides just war and 'diplomatic sitting on hands and letting them get away with murder'.

Sure, there are many different options. Sad news is that I am not in political office, but I'm sure they are secretly being discussed.

Option 3: Talk to the allies of Iraq and Iran, get deals on the side of how best to constrain them. Get China and Russia angry at Iraq and Iran and then they'll act as a check.

Option 4: Sponsor "peaceful movements", "insurgencies", and "military coups" against the two governments. Wash your hands clean of the matter as the government collaspe and instablity rocks the Middle East.

Option 5: Goad Iran/Iraq into attacking first, and then use that as an excuse to retailate. You could pull off a "Remember the Maine!" incident, or just fly planes with the UN symbol over Iraq/Iran and watch them get blown up.

Option 7: Carrot and Stick approach. Grant Iraq/Iran what they want if they start following resolutions, and in return, you promise not to bomb them.

Option 8: Did I say Carrot and Stick apporach? I meant just Carrot. The North Korean method. Hey, it's currently working right now. Worth a shot.

Option 9: Spend millions on anti-Missle Defense Systems and hunker down.

Option 10: Make a huge appeal to the General Assembly and Security Council to enforce said UN resolutions to begin with. You might get a sympathetic ear if you don't act too violent, but just want something done. Maybe just donate lots of money to the UN? Or better yet, send in your own "Investigation Force" to enforce said UN resolutions? (So what if you get accused of violating UN Resolutions in the process?)

Totenkopf
10-02-2007, 10:32 PM
Like "sanctions" or "diplomacy"? :)

Ah, yes, the 2 pronged approach that gave us the Second World War. Very good....

mimartin
10-02-2007, 10:43 PM
Like "sanctions" or "diplomacy"? Ah, yes, the 2 pronged approach that gave us the Second World War. Very good....
Just how do we not know if this two-pronged approach has not prevented World War III?

Although in reality I believe, it is the threat of mutual annihilation that has prevented World War III.

Totenkopf
10-03-2007, 01:59 AM
Yes, give that man a cookie. I think the "controlled proliferation" of nukes kept the major power blocs from going to war. Question is, will greater proliferation lead to another war or perhaps force everyone to take more of a hands off approach to their neighbor?

mur'phon
10-03-2007, 05:56 AM
The problem with bombing Irans nuclear facilities, is that it's unlikely to prevent them from getting the bomb.
Many of the facilities they use was secret for a long time, for all we know there could be some we don't know about. Also, Iran claims it has mastered the technology needed. So even if every facility is bombed, it will only delay them. Another thing to consider is that if the U.S strikes Iran, they will retaliate in several painfull ways. Launching missiles into Iraq, sending troops to Iraq, blocking oil exports to the U.S, arming shia groups etc.

The only way I believe it is possible to prevent them from getting the bomb is trough sanctions aimed at damaging the economy. If the economy goes bad, Iran might find it to costly to keep up their nuclear programe. Of course, it isn't guaranteed to work, and very hard to pull of, but I think its the best we have.

Darth InSidious
10-03-2007, 08:56 AM
Military. Not sure how one could prevent economic strength in a global free market (whether it be ours or some other countries).
Economic strength is one thing; using your economy as part of a war for dominance of the West with Russia is another. Buying up your allies' defence manufacturers, now that's just playing dirty.

Perhaps they saw An Inconvenient Truth.
Hah.

But perhaps they really are putting together a nuclear weapons program. Then we come back to my earlier points. It seems that violation of the non-proliferation treaty should be handled transparently by the U.N., not using the exact same set of steps that got us into Iraq.
As I'm sure you recall, Bush did try the UN. France threatened to veto any resolution on Iraq. I fear that someone would veto sanctions on Iran, and in any case, sanctions are rarely, if ever, universally complied with.

Some would still trade with Iran. Some always will. And it would take some very wily diplomacy to get us out of a confrontation with Iran.

@SS: I somehow suspect that either cheaper refineries, or building their own would cost less than building nuclear power plants. And as I said, the plutonium method produces unnecessarily high-grade material, as I understand. Any nuclear physicists here?

Achilles
10-03-2007, 12:08 PM
Economic strength is one thing; using your economy as part of a war for dominance of the West with Russia is another. Buying up your allies' defence manufacturers, now that's just playing dirty. Are we talking about the Cold War or are we talking about Iran?

As I'm sure you recall, Bush did try the UN. France threatened to veto any resolution on Iraq. I fear that someone would veto sanctions on Iran, and in any case, sanctions are rarely, if ever, universally complied with. In hindsight it seems that France might have been on to something, don't you think?

Sanctions aren't perfect, but then again neither is warfare.

But here's a more practical question: If we do end up at war against Iran, who is going to do the actual fighting? The U.K.? Australia? Or is it going to be 95%* us again?

*Not an actual statistic.

SilentScope001
10-03-2007, 12:29 PM
As I'm sure you recall, Bush did try the UN. France threatened to veto any resolution on Iraq. I fear that someone would veto sanctions on Iran, and in any case, sanctions are rarely, if ever, universally complied with.

Not just France, but China and Russia threatened to veto, seeing the resolutions as merely providing an excuse to go to war, and wanting a peaceful solution rather than the Iraq War. Many believe the sanctions worked in stopping Iraq from actually gaining the Bomb.

China and Russia has agreed to some sanctions on Iran, but not all of the proposed sanctions. Both are helping the nuclear program and also believe the program is peaceful, altough they do have some misgivings.

Totenkopf
10-03-2007, 03:25 PM
In hindsight it seems that France might have been on to something, don't you think?


Yeah, worried about losing the sweet oil deals they had w/Saddam.

John Galt
10-22-2007, 11:57 PM
Sorry to resurrect, but it seems like most of the NeoConservatives in last night's Republican debate toned down the war rhetoric a bit. It went from discussing specific Iran invasion plans in the last debate to one of the candidates (Can't remember which one) referring to war with Iran as a last resort.

On another note, Hillary Clinton has received more donations from the military-industrial complex than any other candidate. Dr Paul, the only Republican who has completely discounted war with Iran, has gotten more donations from individuals in the military than any other candidate. I wonder what this means?

http://www.flickr.com/groups/35237092212@N01/discuss/72157602534324441/

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/10/15/ron-paul-receives-the-most-military-donations-among-republicans-again-in-q3/