|
Here we come, Iran.
|
Iran Plans
Military Realities of Iran Implications For the latter two links, I'm not sure how credible you could consider them, but they seem fairly credible. Top one by Seymour Hersh.
I never really knew what it felt like, that old saying about 'blood running cold'.
I wish I still didn't. =============================================== "Puripuri puripuri... Bang!"
Well, I've read the second one. What he says about the capabilities of the Sunburn missile is consistend with what I've heared of it so far. The article starts out good, but gets speculative and way to dramatic for my tastes at the end. Even if I can see that happen what he describes there.
As far as that bit about Russia teaching the USA the same lesson in Iran, that the USA taught the Soviet Union in Afghanistan is concerned, well... I really wish there was some other way, that didn't involve massive loss of lives, but the USA really needs to be taken down a peg. This doesn't go against you guys in any way. As far, as I can tell you are all great guys. But from what I hear over here on my side of the great pond the USA as a nation really has become way to arrogant for everyones good. It's a sad world that we live in.  What if: Chibi Usa, Veteran Speznas Ninja Commando From Hell(tm)?What if: Chibi Usa, Veteran Speznas Ninja Commando From Hell(tm)?
It's not that we're arrogant, we just got suckered by corrupt politicians who stole one election, then bought another.
I'm gonna stop there before I put any more lighter fluid on the topic. ''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.'' -- James Nicoll Quote:Dont be just as arogant as you are accusing us of being. Not everyone in the us support the current administration. All current polls show that Bush et all couldnt win another election at the moment to save their lives. If they allow a war, it will not be because they feel it is the right thing. It will be because they want to run as the war-time party. *again* Do you even realize that you just dismissed a global crisis and a possible world-war with platitudes about people "deserving it" ?
Ok, I should have thought more on that posting before pushing the "Add Reply" button. Looking back at it shows that it came out different then I meant it.
Quote:I'm honestly sorry. I had a weak moment. Quote:All right. That's a given. No government in the World that I ever heard of had 100% support from it's people. But from what I'm getting over here the US foreign policy of the last years has been mainly, to simplyfy it, "Lolz. We can p4wn ya all. Better do what we say." And I have heard less voices from the USA that challenge this style of policy than voices that support it or are indifferent. If you can point me at credible sources telling me otherwise I'd be very greatfull. Quote:I believe I've heard similar comments prior to the last election. So please bear with me when I tell you that this doesn't do mutch to raise my hopes about the possibilty of this war being prevented. Quote:Now here I think you misinterpreted me. That "taking the USA down a peg" comment was not about the conflict at large but at the USA/Russia role reversal and the USA being shown, that they are not an invincible power that can do as it pleases without having to fear any consequences. Because honestly, from what I'm hearing over here a great part of the average Americans still think the USA are such an invincible power. I certainly don't believe that the soilders and civillians who will die in this comming war "deserve it."What if: Chibi Usa, Veteran Speznas Ninja Commando From Hell(tm)?What if: Chibi Usa, Veteran Speznas Ninja Commando From Hell(tm)?
You are letting politics and hatred of a person and a nation cloud your judgement.
Iran is governed by a very militant form of the Moslem religion and they are actively exporting that hatred. The leaders openly admit to trying to turn themselves into a middle east religious superpower backed by atomic weapons. In speech after speech the leaders speak openly of using atomics on Israel, US and Europe the moment they get them. Why not develop warplans? Our government would be remiss if we didn't have our plans for invading Iran updated. We have contigency plans for invading nearly every nation on the planet some are decades old and most are only updated when the nation becomes a threat, makes threats or a major change in deployment of the US's military forces occurs. Iran is a significant threat and is getting worse. They have talked a big talk ever since the days of the Carter era Hostage crisis, but that talk has moved steadily from hot air to actual hardware. The leaders of Iran Idolize Hitler and with some major updates are using his methods. Hitler is often mentioned in speeches. Like Hitler they have been telling thier plans for the region and the world. I've been watching the Iranians since about 1989 or 1990 after a friend from Iran warned me about what the Iranian government and it's long term plans for the USA, Israel and Europe. Lately(last 10 years) they regularly spray paint the names of US cities and Israel cities on thier missiles as they parade them through the streets in communist russian style military parade. These missiles have been increasing in range with each generation and they are actively paying the Russians, Chinese and North Korean's for the technology and manufacturing base to increase thier range or build more advanced missiles with increased range. A large amount of the terrorism in Iraq is insurgents supplied and sent from Iran by the Iranian government. Much of the suicide bombing of holy places currently occuring in Iraq is occuring because of a difference of opinion between a major moslem sect in Iraq that doesn't agree with the Iranian religious leaders. In addition to the above Iran is working at full speed with Russian and Chinese engineers and scientist to build atomic reactors that will produce weapons grade material. Iran's leaders have promised in speech after speech to use the resulting weapons and share this weapons grade material with thier "friends" in the middle east and around the world. So I ask again why not update and develop war plans? howard melton God bless  Quote:Y'know, war plans are fine. That's the sort of thing the military is supposed to do, and they do it as a matter of course. Hell, somewhere in the dark recesses of the Pentagon there are plans for an invasion of Canada "just in case," and the Canadians have regular military exercises involving US invasions. So war plans are not a problem here. However, when the people in charge of those war plans start throwing around ideas like the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, I get nervous. Call me crazy. And hell, if we're so all hell-bent on keeping nukes out of the hands of the lesser nations, why aren't we rattling our sabres at North Korea, a country whose leadership is demonstrably crazier than Iran's, and positioned to do a hell of a lot more damage to our friends and allies? For that matter, why exactly are we going into a nuclear technology-exchange with India, a country that's steadfastly refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty? There seems to be a bit of hypocracy in the air here...--- Mr. Fnord Raving blogger http://www.jihad.net/ "when edison thinks down pipes into special Future Death Machine, in 21st Century another teenager on MySpace gets hit by a car." --Warren Ellis Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information "I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"
Actually, I was more worried about the second link (military realities one). Granted, that one depends on whether you consider it credible or not, but it's a scary scenario.
I don't necessarily find updating war plans bad but it's a pretty vicious cycle. On the one hand, it's important to be ready. On the other hand, updating the war plans IMO disrupts the diplomatic process and might actually be the cause of it failing. As in, the more we develop the war plans, the more Iran becomes convinced that we're out to get them and cause regime change. Note when I say Iran, I mean the Iranian leadership. Then they look at North Korea and go, hey, those guys have nuclear weapons and they're not being threatened with invasion. Iran although it has capabilities to cause major damage to US based on the second link can't really compete all that much on a conventional basis (tanks, planes etc), making nuclear weapons cost-effective. I'm sure their frantic grasp at upgrading and building a military comes from the fact that they think they're a target. I'm also sure some of their leadership is batshit crazy either cause they're just crazy, pissed over the Israel issue (who is not in any sense of the word innocent either), or pissed over American intervention in Iranian affairs (1953: America helps overthrow the democratically elected government, helps install the shah and later arm him). I do find it ironic that one of the major plans is that we're going to use nuclear weapons to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. (That'll send a good message; seriously, I think it will destroy the rationale for people to not proliferate; any two-bit dictator who wants to maintain his regime is going to look to nuclear weapons, which IMO is more destabilizing on the international field; one might argue that the destruction of Iranian facilities would show that it's not worth it. I think it'll show instead that if someone's eventually coming after you, you can either 1) be like Afghanistan and get conquered and overthrown or 2) be like NK and get negotiations - btw, run frantically after Russia and China for allies - even if 3) get bombed due to developing nuclear weapons happens, well you were going to get taken out as in 1 anyway. Might as well go for it.) I think it's particularly sad considering that Iran had succeeded in adopting a weak but functional constitutional system by World War I (as did the Ottoman Empire for that matter). The invasion of the region by Britain and France with their League of Nation mandate didn't have a good effect on stability and caused a lot of ultra-right nationalism to appear. Of course, the 1953 coup and the installment of the Shah didn't really help. I'm also worried about the effects of such a war with Iran in the region and on the international scene. The third link is interesting in its posit of a scenario. Regardless though, Iraq's shown the cause and effect pretty clearly I think. I've read that both Afghanistan and Iraq are pretty much now breeding grounds for terrorists and that more and more people are joining up esp. as the incidents mount with American troops. I don't want to unduly blame the troops; I'm sure it's a stressful situation and not one I'd personally want to be in. It however doesn't change the fact that there *are* incidents happening and people who might otherwise be inclined toward the US are instead turning anti-US. At the turn of the century (1900s), America was considered to be a benign power and in fact, a natural ally to the indigenous population due to its anti-colonialism tradition, a beacon of hope. Three of the best universities in the ME region were set up by American protestant missionaries and Muslims, Jews, and Christians sent their children there to be educated. The initial involvement of America into Saudi Arabia was seen in a good light; America was supporting the SA, as one of two quasi-independent states in the ME at that time, and decreasing its dependence on imperialist Britain. Regardless of actual intentions, the invasion of Iran IMO will also give ultra-nationalists more momentum and lend more weight to people who claim that Muslims are discriminated against. And they are already, see US and France. I think the figure of 1.2 billion Muslims is pretty scary already. Although majority Muslim Indonesia is a democracy, it does have an opposition party that's for sharia (the rule of Islam in government) which has established sharia in one of the provinces of Indonesia. What about Pakistan? Pakistan is also majority Muslim. This doesn't even consider the other nation-states in the Middle East. This would be the third country we've invaded. Even those that are neutral needs to be thinking about this. Couple this with our close ties to Israel (we send more money there than to anywhere else) and it doesn't look good for other states in the region. On an international level, I've already talked briefly about the NPT, but I'm fairly sure it would have an impact on the UN too. The concept of civil society is that riots, rebellions, terrorism happens because those members don't feel invested in the system; that for whatever reason, they're not being listened to. Apply this to the UN. We won't even have a coalition of the willing at this rate which means we'll be invading unilaterally. What does this say about the UN? If you can't trust the UN to solve your disputes or at least air it, you start pulling out and looking to other methods. Granted, the UN is not infallible, but people do look toward it and it provides a forum. The fact that a major member is acting against UN principles undermines it, and this is esp. problematic with regards to other Security Council members. A China that decides to follow the preemptive doctrine? That's not good at all. I think people have mentioned for awhile now that the US military is overreaching. We can't fight on so many fronts. Afghanistan and Iraq are both descending into civil war. We barely have control of either. Pulling more resources from elsewhere leads us to be weak in other places (let's say we pull from Japan; that leaves SK vulnerable as well as Taiwan, not to mention lends more credence to the ultra-nationalists in Japan who want to eliminate Article 9 from their constitution and re-militarize; without the protection we give and promised them, they're at risk; and how would you like a militarized Japan? For that matter, a China who has free reign in East Asia). Even if we bomb Iran to the stone ages, what then? That doesn't solve the problem (ie why people resort to terrorism in the first place). At the best, it only displaces it and delays the fire. Quote:Thanks. Free psychoanalysis to boot.
/QUOTE/
Quote: You are letting politics and hatred of a person and a nation cloud your judgement. Thanks. Free psychoanalysis to boot. /END QUOTE/ Your welcome I thought You might need it. I know I need to be psychoanalysised sometimes. For example politically I'm most closely associated with the conservative republican view and yet I find myself at odds with the current adminstrations on a mojority of it's domestic policies and many of it's foreign policies. Here in the US we seem to have large groups claiming to be right or left, conservative or liberal, democrat or republican and yet when you look at the actions of the groups they don't closely match the labels they are covering themselves with. Every so often we need to step back and do our own personal analysis based on our personal convictions to make sure were not being washed by a rapidly changing group in a direction we don't want to go. Now back to the war plan argument. From admittedly limited personal experience with Iranians I think the saber rattling about updating the war plan will actually improve the political attempts to deal with the leadership in Iran. NOTE about the source of my views below. It has been nearly 15 years since I've had contact with any of the middle eastern students I attended university with. I think the radicals in charge of Iran are moving away from any sort of political solution and taking a very hard stance. In the past few weeks they have been testing the world climate on the issue and rattling thier saber in the form of weapons test and other military demonstrations. The religious radicals in control of Iran would view any purely political responce as a sign of western weakness or uncertainty on the issue and increase thier determination to ignore the purely political moves by the US, UN and the rest of the western world. The few Iranians I've known personally had a view that seemed to only respect and understand military power and demonstration of that power. To them western style international political moves seemed so "toothless" and almost meaningless. One friend (Saudi or Iranian) even thought that the western style political moves such as sanctions and resolutions against arab nations were geared more to please the western masses and placate them than to actually achieve a goal within another nation. paraphrashing from the memory of a disscussion with several middle eastern students during a study session. "Sanctions and UN resolutions that are broken the instant they are passed by greedy businessmen and politicians world wide are taken as a sign of success and that the UN, US and other western nations lack the resolve to actually do anything and are falling back on political moves design placating the masses within thier own nations." I personally don't think America ever had a "good" or "nice" foreign policy period. You mention 1900, but just look up what was happening to Hawaii at that time. I'm aware of the abuses to the middle east by Europe and the US, but it doesn't change the main point that allowing a radical group like the one that is currently running Iran to get Atomics is a very dangerous thing to allow to happen. It will be just as dangerous or possibly even more dangerous than the huge mistake of allowing North Korea to gain atomic weapons. The same goes for the other reasons mentioned past mistakes and ongoing mistakes is no excuse for allowing a group as radical as the current Iranian rulers to get nukes. I'm not for an invasion of Iran, but if bombing Iranian atomic facilities will keep nukes out of radical hands for even another 5 years I'm for that. howard melton God bless Quote:That is something of a vast simplification of the sunni/shiite split. It is more like the difference between the schism of protestant/catholic. ( something several major wars have been fought over.) Your phrasing suggests something more along the lines of the branch davidians. Quote:If Iran actually gets something like a first-strike capability that can take out fleet carriers, then things start going to shit real quick. Right now, our whole over-reaching mlitary strategy relies on them as a means of force-projection. The jets are both the main defense AND offense of the fleet. Without a place to re-fuel/re-arm/land those are all neutralized. I DO think the current administration seems to like using "use a bigger hammer" as a cop-out for unpleasant realities. Quote:I'd think it's more like the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split in terms of the relative size/power of the factions involved. Protestantism dissolved into several dozen sects within a very short time, while the major Orthodox churches remained pretty monolithic. But otherwise you're on the ball. Carry on. ![[Image: smile.gif]](http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/smile.gif) ---Mr. Fnord Raving blogger http://www.jihad.net/ "when edison thinks down pipes into special Future Death Machine, in 21st Century another teenager on MySpace gets hit by a car." --Warren Ellis Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information "I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"
I too would not like to see Iran's mullahs have possession of nuclear weapons for five more years.
Fortunately, this is a goal already realised, because they cannot develop nuclear weapons in five years. The international intelligence community has said, over and over again, that Iran is a decade away from a working nuclear weapon at best. This should be known to anyone who follows international news from even halfways reputable sources, but reputable sources are harder to come by than they used to be. To help you out, here's an article from the Washington Post from six months ago: www.washingtonpost.com/wp...01453.html A casual Google search will bring you many, many other stories from a variety of sources pointing out the self-evident fact that Tehran, just like Iraq, is nowhere near a nuclear weapon. Bombing Iran is, not to put too fine a point on it, insane. There are many, many reasons why this is a bad idea. It will eradicate what little credibility the United States has left. It will lead to increased terrorism by an order of magnitude. It will lead to repurcussions from China and Russia, who both have a great deal of interest in Iran and much to lose if the United States took control of the government. Moreover, bombing them will almost certainly not topple the Iranian government, much like the decade-long bombing of Iraq did nothing to depose Saddam Hussein (except more so). If the United States wants to stop Iran from doing virtually anything, you will have to invade, and that is a war you are completely unprepared for. It's been said before that a war with Iran is one thing could actually finish off America as a superpower. It's very possibly true. And using nuclear weapons? Even more insane. Grotesquely so. Inexcusably so. Think. Think of the precedent that sets, for a first world nation to use nuclear weapons on a third-world one in an unprovoked preemptive strike. My god. What then will you say when Russia uses nukes on Chechnya? What then will you say when China destroys Taiwan? What stops North Korea from destroying Seoul? That is a pandora's box that can never be closed. Someone can hold different political views than you, and no matter how strenuously you disagree, you can respect and perhaps even understand why they do. But a unilateral, preemptive, unprovoked attack by the United States on Iran, using nuclear weapons, is madness. Sheer, unadulterated madness. The United States will already be paying for its folly in Iraq for a long, long time. You will be lucky if the worst thing that occurs from an attack on Iran is your great-grandchildren still paying the debts incurred because of it.
/QUOTE/
That is something of a vast simplification of the sunni/shiite split. It is more like the difference between the schism of protestant/catholic. ( something several major wars have been fought over.) Your phrasing suggests something more along the lines of the branch davidians. /ENDQUOTE/ I wasn't trying to simplify it or down play the hatred the two groups have for each other. Good example I wasn't thinking of the Catholic/protestant wars as an example when I typed that up. howard melton God bless Quote:Thank you. You've put it better than I've ever been able to manage. Ja, -n =========== =============================================== "V, did you do something foolish?" "Yes, and it was glorious."
It's not just Russia and China. India recently (i.e. last June) worked out The Deal with the US in which basically, 1) Indians will separate civil and military nuclear technology and allow the IAEA to inspect its civil nuclear technology and 2) US will provide civil nuclear technology and go to the NSG and get them also to sell civil nuclear technology to India.
India and Iran historically has a long tie w/ Iran. Second -only- to Iran, India has the second largest group of Shias in the world. India's government stays in power in a large part due to a combination of the Leftists and these Shias. At the same time that Bush was visiting India, India received an Iran warship in one of its major ports. India has military cooperative exercises with Iran and will continue to have them. This deal is a Good Thing. It would set limitations on Indian military nuclear tech. and it would balance out China. It also keeps a stable democratic India in Asia, which is yet another Good Thing. Bombing Iran will at the -very- least, incur a strong castigation from India. It will sour US-India relations, perhaps pushing India closer to both Iran -and- China. It may also kill the deal, which for reasons above will be a Bad Thing. You want India, esp. since India is one of the five great nations of the world and who -will- become a superpower - its considered to be on the same fast track as China -, to be inside the system, *not* outside the system. It would be the equivalent of China leaving the NPT system and continuing to build nuclear weapons without oversight, without inspection, basically as a rogue state. For that matter, -where- are we getting the troops to invade Iran? South Korea? Japan? North Korea -has- nuclear weapons. Well, I guess we can say goodbye to South Korea then. For Japan, it's is one of the few states in the world who could become a nuclear state in basically 15 minutes. The -only- reason they don't is based on the strength of the US-Japan relationship and the fact that US can defend them. Pulling from Japan leaves the entire East Asia circle weak. According to a former officer in the SK army, the response plan to NK invading depended heavily on Japan reinforcements. A re-militarized -nuclear state- Japan is not going to do anything for the stability of the region. NK will be freaking out. Japan and China go into an arms race. It also leaves Taiwan dangerously undefended. Pulling from Hawaii (which seems to be more air carrier based) isn't going to help much either and also leaves the region dangerously undefended. This doesn't even consider that West Point graduated officers are leaving at the first chance possible at a extremely high rate. The rate of Captain rank retention's basically at an all time low. The US army is hemorhagging and already strained.
US Army re-enlistments are 15% above target. It's easy to mislead by selective use of statistics, something both sides are guilty of.
North Korea is being heavily leaned on by China, which does not want to deal with the likely consequences of a second Korean War. India can be trusted not to do anything aggressive. Iran can't. Maybe, when its president talks about wiping Israel of the map, it's just empty rhetoric, but betting on that would be foolishly optimistic. Waiting until the last moment to take action, if it proves necessary to do so, would be equally unwise. If, and only if the western diplomats conclude that their Iranian counterparts are stalling, hoping to keep us talking until after they've got their own nukes, then we should take immediate action, with the minimum force necessary, not wait five years, then bet everything on a last minute strike. Quote:I'd agree completely, if I thought that there was the slightest connection between what the evidence suggests is being planned and the course of action the US' current administration decides to take. As it is? All I can really feel is horror, since it looks far to much like the most irresponsible and shameless President in living memory has just found another pretext. Ja, -n =============================================== "Puripuri puripuri... Bang!"
Eh... but it seems as if those figures are from after the army decreased its target goals. So overall, it would be a decrease in the army.
I disagree with your assessment of North Korea and India. Well -- actually, I agree that India probably wouldn't do anything military against US (the Indians are nothing if not pragmatic). I do think that the consequences I mentioned above regarding India are likely (strain in relations, push toward China, maybe cause to break off the deal). Although India is generally, cautiously pro-American now, there's still a strong undercurrent of anti-Americanism. I think in the scenario I've given above where we're pulling out troops from East Asia (no one seems to have mentioned where else we're getting troops from; I'll say it straight out that I'm not a huge military buff but it seems to me that most of our infantry deployments are in East Asia), it would be an opportunity too good to miss. The NK have the 4th largest army in the world right? Without reinforcements from Japan, the SK would have problems. This also would allow China to pressure Taiwan much more and again, if Japan feels threatened, it has the capability and willingness to become a nuclear state, which would -also- have a destabilizing effect on the region. China doesn't want a NK/SK war because it doesn't want the US to intervene. In a fight where the US can't intervene, because they're bogged down elsewhere, and where the NK has a very good chance of winning, I don't think China will have problems with it. Quote:And your source for that is? The US army has exceeded its re-enlistment target goal for the last five years, so if they have reduced that goal it's not because they were having difficulty meeting it. Conditions in Iraq are not deterring enough people from re-enlisting. Even if the US sat out a second Korean war, Japan wouldn't. It would, at a minimum, remilitarise, and arm itself with nukes, which China doesn't want and cannot prevent short of invading Japan - and that would be folly. It's also far from certain that North Korea would win. The South has a technological and organisational edge, being both richer, and a democracy. China doesn't want to risk North Korea losing. It will stick to the status quo for as long as it can. If China does start a war, it will be at a time of its choosing, not North Korea's. Since China has some of the same problems with waging war as North Korea - defeat would bring the government down but victory could give the generals too much power - it will be reluctant to start any war. They'd be even more reluctant if the US had used nukes in Iran. It might use them on Peking too, given half an excuse, and China isn't capable of launching a pre-emptive first strike. There isn't any need for the US east asian troops in these plans anyway. It doesn't need to occupy Iran anymore than it did Serbia; it would be enough to bomb the nuclear sites every year or two, stopping Iran from getting anywhere.
Ah... now I see where I'm getting confused.
First, the article I was talking about in the first post dealt with Captain rank officers/WP graduated officers. Your article seems to be generic to the army itself. When I meant figures, I misread. I confused up recruitment with re-enlistment. But I'd wager that even if 2/3 soldiers stay, that's still 1/3 leaving at a time when the US army isn't meeting its -recruitment- goal. This means overall that the US army is losing people in general no?
No. You're wrong.
For starters, it is far from certain that Iran would use nukes on Israel. Israel is a useful propoganda tool to Iran's mullahs and little more. Iranians are NOT Arabs. They do not give a crap about the plight of the Palestinians (even compared to the actual Arabs, whose actual caring for them is very suspect). Yes, they care about the Holy Land, but... it's not there. It's not next to them. Quite frankly, Iran is concerned primarily with its preservation of itself, especially as the foremost (and for a long time only) Shi'a regime. In that sense, nukes are an obvious goal towards self-preservation. The world isn't blind. They can see the difference between North Korea and Iraq just fine, and while there's many other reasons besides the fact North Korea could actually defend itself, that is one that weighs heavily in the minds of countries, especially Islamic countries, who look askance at the specter of a country that has invaded a terrifying number of Islamic nations in the last twenty-five years, now led by a president on a self-described "crusade". Iran is not a backwards desert. It's a very progressive and advanced country for the region. They have quite genially agreed to a cease-fire when at war before. The people of Iran are, in large part, educated, well-spoken, well-dressed. They have an enormous amount of pride in their ancient, sophisticated culture and the Persian language, which predates Christianity, let alone Islam. They listen to rock music and Freddie Mercury is so revered that the government officially licenses his albums. They are not desperate, starving people. Here's the thing that the world shows over and over and over and over again. Happy, well-fed people don't want to die for a cause. The fact that in the US, the majority of grunt soldiers are poor people is neither hidden nor considered unusual. Your President, a rich boy from Connecticut, never saw a moment of action; nor did the vice president, nor the president that preceded him. Iranians are not stupid. They are not ignorant. They are people. They know perfectly well that Israel has its own nuclear weapons. You ASSUME the moment they get them they'll attack Israel. Not threaten, not use as leverage in bargaining, but attack. And for what? To prove a point? To get themselves annihilated just so they can take out Israel for the benefit of a bunch of Arabs? Pfah. Perhaps you will shoot back with "religious fanatics". Pfah, again. Religious fanatics will die for a cause if they have to, yes. How the Iranians hurled the US-equipped Iraqi army back across their borders is an important lesson. But that was when their backs were against the wall. Iran didn't occupy Iraq, either. They agreed to a cease-fire. Or look at the Iranian hostage crisis, where the Ayatollah happily negotiated with Ronald Reagan for the release of the hostages during the election campaign of 1980, then did so, having already won the propoganda victory. Assuming these people are blind or stupid is, in and of itself, blind and stupid. I'll say it flat out: Iran will not attack Israel unless it is forced to do so. They want nuclear weapons, yes. They will use them to increase their power in the world, yes. They hate Israel, yes. But they want to survive, they want IRAN to survive, far more than they hate Israel. That's why there's not a war going on right now - because Iran couldn't win it, and they know it. They can't win a nuclear exchange, either, and they know it. Happy, educated, well-fed people don't want to die to prove a point. And they won't. But back them up against the wall with yet another insane, unprovoked, preemptive attack, and they will hit you back with a ferocity that will amaze you just like it amazed the Iraqis. To say nothing of the incredible amount of consequences that will accrue from such an attack. To say nothing of the profound implications of using nuclear weapons in an unprovoked attack against a weaker nation. To say nothing of the fact that preemptively declaring war against a weaker nation over something they MIGHT do is evil, is wrong, is insane, is stupid, is any number of other things and not a single one of them good. Nothing, not a single damn thing, good will come from attacking Iran. It will make everything worse, and it will be worse than most Americans can imagine. And to do it on the word of the current American government, against the views of virtually everyone else you can name, including the American intelligence community? Absurd. Insane. There is no other word to describe it. (As its beside the point, I'm not going to get too much into the Korean situation, but I will note several assertions there were similarly off-base. The South Koreans are in poor shape to defend themselves without American support, and even if they did, China would simply intervene again - and probably put a more tractable leader in Korea while they were at it.)
I think you are wrong in that regard.
The Muslum mentality is simple but powerful. First they say it then they try to do it. When one muslem country is threatening to 'wipe another country off the map' they are not saying it because it makes a good sound byte for the 6 o'clock news. Add that to their ambitions for a nuke and people should be scared. Also remember, the ruling party in Iran is not their by popular vote. They won't care if a few million of their people die as long as they surive. That scares me more to be honest.
The current Iranian leader thinks he is chosen by Allah to wipe the Western world out of existence. Thats the driving force behind him. He is a true Muslim. The creed of which is simple: Convert or Die.
Don't give me any BS about it being rhetoric. That is his life goal... to live the life he was given. That of a prophet. The head of the great jihad. End of story. Diplomacy with your enimies is a fun game... ever notice both options when dealing with Iran lead to them getting what they want? They are stalling for time. Time to develop their military. Time to get nukes. Time for their hated though respected enemy to leave office. He does silly things like respect election outcomes. (Note the Supreme court only ruled that the Florida courts can't apply new ballet counting methods to the current election. All changes effect the next election. 50 recounts and Gore never one a single count of them by any group. So Gore never one at all. Chads or not. Ever. New vote counting methods or not. Liberal counting: Bush won. Conservative counting: Bush won. Canibis smoking potatoes: Bush won. Chads by the way only appear when 2 or more cards are in the machine. Dimpled chads indicate the machine had around 17 vote cards in the machine at once. Chads are a security feature. Get over it.) Yes, most of his country would like him to shut up and stop poking the US with a stick. They don't like the US... but leave them alone. Most of the population is to young to remember the wars his venom comes from. Watch Iran they keep adding in little bits of Western culture to the society to keep the populous from revolting. The populous are more interested in living their lives rather than becoming martyrs. The truth is their opiniion matters little. They elected someone else anyway... the results indicated the current loony won. Investigations by his cronies into this have revealed he didn't cheat... just ask his cronies. North Korea is lead by a second generation nutball. One that runs a country in a manner that means join the military or starve. Thats why he has such a large military. 2 million people mostly interested in eating. The Chinese are seeing him as increasingly crazy... Much of the army would probably desert if offered food and logging away from their crazy leader. China is lead by a group of communists. If you believe anything out of their mouths your deluding yourself. The communist rulership recently discovered a new form of 'Communism with a Chinese twist' that will save their economy. It involves creating a new middle class the with use trade and cultural development to fix their economy. Everyone else just calls this capitalism. This is a country were a lawyer discovered a wide reaching corruption scheme and showed the press. He was charged with treason (3 years or so in jail) and the civilian (none government official the bribe officials seem to still be in office) who ran the construction and real-estate development company was also jailed. The treason in question was revealing state secrets. Basically my point is this... It doesn't matter what you think! What matters is what the crazy nutballs running other countries think. A lot of the things you said would get you jailed and disappeared. Same with me. It is illegal to point out things wrong with those countries. Oh yes... Stop picking on Israel. The poor Jews have been everyones scapegoats for millennia. Seriously people, they can't get be innocent. Their neighbors stop trying to kill them only after losing wars against them. Seriously. They tossed a load of crazies from Jordan a few decades back because they were crazy. These Jordanians have now convinced themselves they are a 3000 year old culture that predates the Jews. They call themselves Palestinians. Please remember it doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. Foreign policy is to be deal with by what the people with power think. Most of these countries mentioned are led by those needing straight jackets. Diplomacy is a fun, fun, silly, willy game to them. Diplomacy only works if both sides are interested and take it seriously. Quote:No they don't. They die in their jihad they get laid forever. Their own lives are expendable. They are getting post mortem nookie and stopping them with bullets won't stop them from getting it. In fact it will get them it.
There are two different assumptions here. Two 'models', if you prefer.
One: Realpolitik. We're assuming that states (or governments) are essentially rational. Regardless of religion or ideology, they are basically motivated by the same concerns - security, power, holding on to their autonomy...and so on. This assumes that culture and ideology doesn't matter - governments are all basically the same, and make decisions based on pure power considerations. Two: Alternatively, here we assume that governments can be irrational (at least from the perspective of realpolitik). That is, decisions are made based on culture, ideology, or religion...or even just the whims of a single absolute dictator. Which is correct? Both can be. To use classic World War II analogies, Hitler was an example of the second case. He seemed okay at first - before the war, he was considered someone the Allies "could do business with". Of course, now we know he was a crackpot, and steered his nation accordingly. Then there's Stalin. Bad as Hitler - or worse. But he worked with the Allies, and after WWII...the Soviet Union was mostly a realist government during the Cold War. They didn't want all-out nuclear war either. So, first case - the Soviets were rational. I don't know enough about Iran to really tell, but...an Egyptian guy I know insists they're totally controlled by Islamic extremists. Fine. That seems to be the assumption held by the US. But, of course, there's compelling arguments against that. And what is the US. itself? Sure, the US claims it's a rational, reasonable entity, but many other nations - certainly the Muslim ones - don't view it as such. To them, the US is either a Godless or Christian state (opinions vary) out to crush Islam. Or at the very least, out to gain power and security at the expense of Islamic states. So...what's the truth? Hell, I dunno. It's really not clear. Even when it comes to North Korea. From the US point of view, Kim and his government are a bunch of dangerous nutters - God knows who they're gonna point a missile at. But oddly enough, the South Koreans (and Japanese, and Chinese) seem far less alarmed about the situation than the US. Sure, they're worried, but not nearly as much. They don't seem to really think the North Koreans will use their nukes (and even if they nuke anyone, it'd be the US and not anyone in Asia). Also consider...the South Koreans are basic believers in reunification. The two Koreas will come together, it's only a matter of time. Is that an unrealistic hope? Not really - look at East and West Germany. Thus, for many in the South...North Korea isn't really the enemy, more like a crazy relative. Crazy. But still a relative. Some folks in the South don't see it as a North Korean nuclear bomb, but a Korean bomb. So their perspective is rather different. Interestingly, the situations with Iran and North Korea are pretty direct clashes between them and America. The surrounding countries which would presumably be under a more immediate threat from a nuclear neighbour...countries near Iran and North Korea, in the Middle East and Asia...aren't really being very vocal about this. Wonder why? (No, that's not sarcasm. Seriously, I really do wonder why) -- Acyl |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
