Countdown to war with Iran (?)

[Achilles]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Like "sanctions" or "diplomacy"?

 

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

[mimartin]

Like "sanctions" or "diplomacy"? [/Quote]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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/