posted
I don't doubt that Bush is considering it, somewhere behind his beady little eyes, but there's almost certainly nothing to it, for several reasons.
One, Iraq was a push over in the initial invasion, Iran isn't. Second, the political situation in Iran is absolutely nothing like Iraq was, and we didn't even understand that before we went in. Three, Congress would never go for it, and I know Bush seems to think he has Constitutional carte blanche to do basically whatever the hell he wants, it won't fly. He can take us in, but you can be damn sure that Congress will not only tell him they'll cut off the funds, but they'll probably also try to stop him under the War Powers resolution, and will end up probably taking him to court over it. Four, we don't need to, not when a bombing campaign would probably achieve many of our goals just as easily, and might even spark the sort of uprising we thought would happen in Iraq.
It's just a silly prospect at the moment. It would be literally impossible to do without pulling troops from Iraq and/or Afghanistan, and Bush is presently making the case that we need MORE troops there, not less. Without pulling troops from every other station we have on the planet, we'd never have sufficient troops for a ground invasion (without forces in Iraq/Afghanistan I mean).
I have no doubt we have such a plan on the books somewhere. I also have no doubt it ain't going to happen any time soon.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm quite sure the military has plans (in varied degrees of detail) for invading not only Iran but a whole host of potential enemies. Strategically speaking, it's implausible at the moment, as Lyr pointed out. They've got bases all over the world and air strike capability over the region, but can't muster enough footsoldiers to occupy the country. And something tells me that the occupation of Iran will make Iraq look like a walk in the park.
I also believe that public opinion against the current wars is enough to clip such a proposal at its stem. But I was also convinced Bush wouldn't be re-elected, and he proved me wrong.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rumsfeld desired and had assuredly planned for it. Cheney has most likely but not assuredly planned for it. They have probably stopped gunning for the chance to do it, but they probably considered the plan feasable for a significant amount of time beyond when it was actually feasable.
The chances that they would go through with any of it now is slim.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't doubt that Bush is considering it, somewhere behind his beady little eyes [emphasis added]
Fascinating... I'm sure you had an interesting post with well thought out arguments, but I couldn't quite make it past that.
It makes sense that there would be plans for such an invasion (you'd want to have that contingency at least partially sketched out, just in case), but I agree that it is unlikely we will ever carry the plan out. Given that Saudia Arabia and Iran are the real gestators of terrorism, that may or may not be a good thing.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
David, While I agree with you that it may theoretically be in our best interests to intervene militarily in Iran, I am easy in my mind with saying with great certainty that it is a good thing that the current people in charge aren't going to be carrying it out. Would you agree with that?
I think it is important to note that someone may be supportive of a course of action while be very afraid of the current people in charge taking that action.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, yes, I would agree. I voted for Bush both times, but he has demonstrated an inability to quickly adapt to shifting military situations. I wouldn't say I was afraid of the Bush administration's being in charge, but I'm certainly concerned that they would use the wrong strategies in carrying the operation out.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iran would have to do something pretty bad to get the American people to support broadening the war beyond Iraq, not to mention procuring the allies we would HAVE to have to be effective.
Less we forget, this administration was also responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan, and it was brilliant in execution. The Iraq plan was equally as brilliant when we invaded, but unfortunately we are no invading anymore we are occupying and its a whole new ball game.
I would expect the same brilliancy if it came to invading Iran, hopefully we wouldn't try to occupy the country for any considerable length of time.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: Afghanistan was even more of a pushover than Iraq. While the military plan was very well-made, most of the success is due our opponent being a few members of a tenth-rate military that mostly were interested in surrendering or fleeing. When the world's best fighting force is going up against a tiny country with a horrible military, anything except complete and utter victory on the battlefield is abject failure.
Iran is at least an order of magnitude more formidable than Iraq when we invaded, and Iraq was a lot more formidable than Afghanistan.
And of course, our post-invasion record in Afghanistan is about as dismal as our post-invasion record in Iraq, though they're more circumspect about their infighting.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
1) They promote, arm, and sponsor much of the sectarian violence in Iraq, resulting in many deaths, including some US soldiers and workers.
2) They promote and back terrorist groups in Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and around the world.
3) They are researching and building nuclear weapons, with the promise of wiping out Isreal.
4) They are arming the straights of Hormuz with the prospect of blackmailing the world by threatening the world's largest oil route.
5) They are a theocracy who's apparent plans are not only the forced entrenchment of their most conservative beliefs on all of their own citizens, but the bloody spreading of that belief system through out the world.
6) While the US is The Superpower, Iran sees itself as The Regional Superpower, and wants to prove themselves by taking us down.
So these are good arguments for taking out Iran as we did the dangerous governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides, we now have them surrounded.
Why we should not invade Iran.
1) While the "They" listed above represents official governmental doctrine, the government is ruled by a minority of conservative religious leaders. There is enough internal debate, especially amongs the younger Iranians, that some form of peaceful change is a possibility.
2) The nuclear program is clearly a threat, but is years away from being an imminent danger.
3) The Straits of Hormuz can be shut down by an upset Iran, harming the world economy. Hence not many other countries want to jump on the bandwagon of invasion.
4) The Iraq/Iran war showed Iran was willing to spend millions of lives lost in a war. This does not bode well for a quick in and out victory.
5) There is no way to construe the post 9/11 authorization given President Bush to persue the War on Terror to authorize an invasion of Iran.
6) The US Military is stretched thin, and its budget is stretched thinner. While I have no doubts we could find the troops to go in and win, I do not know how long we could keep the winnings.
7) The majority of Afghans despised the Taliban, the majority of Iraqi's despised Hussein. The Majority of Iranian's do not despise their leaders. If anyone, they despise us. The odds of an insurgency are greatly increased.
8) In the last 6 years, the US has invaded 2 countries, both of them Islamic. If we invade a third it will look like a pattern, a dangerous pattern to every other Islamic country in the world.
We should next invade a nice, non-islamic country first. I suggest North Korea, though Lichtenstein may be easier.
9) Since WWII the goal of the US Military has been to be strong enough to conduct a war on two fronts unhindered. This would make a third.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: BB: Afghanistan was even more of a pushover than Iraq. While the military plan was very well-made, most of the success is due our opponent being a few members of a tenth-rate military that mostly were interested in surrendering or fleeing. When the world's best fighting force is going up against a tiny country with a horrible military, anything except complete and utter victory on the battlefield is abject failure.
Iran is at least an order of magnitude more formidable than Iraq when we invaded, and Iraq was a lot more formidable than Afghanistan.
And of course, our post-invasion record in Afghanistan is about as dismal as our post-invasion record in Iraq, though they're more circumspect about their infighting.
Your forget that America sent VERY few soldiers into Afghanistan during the invastion. In fact most of the generals criticized central command for using a mere few hundred special forces, and instead favored funding and arming the northern alliance and letting them do most of the fighting.
The gamble paid off as very few American casulties were sustained, but on the flip side there is the possibility that a warlord bailed Bin Ladin out as he fled to Pakistan.
We can't just use airstrikes on Iran, as the air strikes are designed to followed up by a ground war. I seriously doubt countries will just allow us to bomb the hell out of strategic targets in Iran and then call it a day.
Were we to do that *I* think Iran would be quite likely to start a full scale attack on Iraq, declaring themselves as Iraq's Muslim liberators. Shiite militias will join up with Iran against the US and the Sunni's and it will go from bad to worse.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't forget at all. It doesn't matter how many troops we sent, if we attacked such a militarily minor country and had anything but complete and utter victory, it would've been a huge failure. That we succeeded is certainly a good thing, but it is not, was not, and should never be surprising or particularly impressive.
Also, you exaggerate somewhat. We had nearly 20k US forces involved in the invasion of Afghanistan (plus a few thousand allies), and a good portion of those were landed troops. Plus, due to insufficient troops we messed up one of our biggest goals, Tora Bora, and after invasion ceded the country right back to the warlords, except the capital.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apologies for the "beady eye" comment. He squints too much.
If Iran is invaded, it will have to be a pan-Arabic/EU effort bolstered by American support. We can blanket the country with air power without much trouble, and we could probably detach an ACR or two to knock out whatever armor they have. But footsoldiers will have to be provided by some combination of Germany, France, Britain, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, most likely. The problem being, all of them would still only come up with a quarter million troops, if we got ALL of them to help.
We used a half million men to beat the crap out of Iraq in Gulf War I, and half that was Allied help. I think we'd need at least that if we planned to invade and hold the country.
If we're going to do anything to Iran, it's going to be targeted airstrikes, with is something we could probably get Europe, Egypt and Saudi Arabia on board with. Neither of those two Arab powers likes the idea of an Iran on the rise any more than we do. We can take out hardened targets, secure the Strait of Hormuz, take out their enrichment sites for nuclear research, and maybe even incite and support an uprising by the moderates and progressives in the nation (unlikely, but not out of the question).
Invading Iran might have been something to consider BEFORE we invaded Iraq, but it's too late for that now. If we're going to hurt them, we can do it from the air. American air power can cover their country, destroy their SAM sites, eradicate their air force, and then act with impunity on hardened targets.
I don't know what rammifications that would have for our image, but I'm willing to bet it'd probably make us as many friends as it lost us.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM has it right. Oh sure, lootin'&pillagin' is fun. But when ya get right down to where the metal meets the meat, the only reason to invade a foreign country is to steal their women. Since unmarried men are pretty much all barbarians, and China and India have an extreme surplus of males to females, the US should recruit those men into a mercenary army with the promise of "You can keep all the Iranian brides that you can carry off." If it was good enough for Genghis...
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I don't forget at all. It doesn't matter how many troops we sent, if we attacked such a militarily minor country and had anything but complete and utter victory, it would've been a huge failure. That we succeeded is certainly a good thing, but it is not, was not, and should never be surprising or particularly impressive.
Also, you exaggerate somewhat. We had nearly 20k US forces involved in the invasion of Afghanistan (plus a few thousand allies), and a good portion of those were landed troops. Plus, due to insufficient troops we messed up one of our biggest goals, Tora Bora, and after invasion ceded the country right back to the warlords, except the capital.
By the time Kabul fell and Bin Ladin escaped we did NOT have 20k troops there. Those thousands of troops came after the heavy fighting was effectively over in order to secure what had already been taken.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Illustrating the clear success of that strategy .
However, you're still wrong. Tora Bora did not happen until well over a month into the war, and at that point we had several thousand US forces in Afghanistan. Heck, a couple weeks before we had deployed a thousand marines all at once: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/26/lad.06.html
Of course, at Tora Bora we only had a handful of special forces.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
The US started bombing/invading Afghanistan on October 9th. You will find the US did almost nothing but use its airforce to bomb strategic targets thus paving the way for Northern Alliance forces. The only boots on the ground were almost 100 special forces agents sent to capture key al qaeda members, and procure the help of warlords. By Nov 2nd, the way to Kabul was for all practical purposes open for the Northern Alliance. On Nov 13th Northern Alliance forces entered Kabul and occupied it completely with little resistance. By Nov 16th Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were mostly massed in Tora Bora. The 1000 marines you speak of did not arrive until the 25th of Nov and a day later they aided the Northern Alliance in wiping out the last and final Taliban stronghold led by Hamid Karzai. From wikipedia,
"Nearly 1,000 Marines, ferried in by CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters, set up a Forward Operating Base in the desert south of Kandahar on November 25. The first significant combat involving U.S. ground forces occurred a day later when 15 armored vehicles approached the base and were attacked by helicopter gunships, destroying many of them."
You will find in the entry absolutely NO mention of troops until the 1000 marines on the 25th. The invasion was mostly a done deal and complete, with only a handful of tiny pockets of resistance left to mop up, most of the big fighting had already been taken care of by the Northern Alliance backed up by US fighters/bombers/special ops I mentioned previously.
I watched a national geographic documentary about all of this just a few days ago and they mentioned the fact that low troop numbers was a concern that many in the military had when we invaded afghanistan, but it was decided we needed to use forces already hostile to the taliban to topple them and thus minimize OUR casulties.
The CIA DID request 1000 army rangers to be deployed in the region of Tora Bora to prevent Bin Ladin from getting to Pakistan but the army ignored them, and there were only 3 special ops forces at tora bora, the responsibility of getting Bin Ladin was placed primarily on the Northern Alliance war lords, hence Bin Ladin getting away.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Talking in terms of practical details is great, but we would do well not to loose sight of the number one moral reason for not invading Iran: At this point in time, Iran, as a sovereign nation (regardless of whether its democratic like America), is none of the US' business.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is that I have heard we are postitiong troops and other military supplies on the border, in preparation for an attack, and as such, it is not matter of if, but when.
I am not stating this as fact, but once again, the talking heads.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Talking in terms of practical details is great, but we would do well not to loose sight of the number one moral reason for not invading Iran: At this point in time, Iran, as a sovereign nation (regardless of whether its democratic like America), is none of the US' business.
Perhaps not, but Iran is making the US operations in Iraq, *IT'S* business.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The U.S. can't invade Iran. It simply does not have that ability. Nor would this Congress or even Mr. Bush wish to invade Iran, if only becouse it would be a public relations fiasco.
It could, however, with help from other Nato powers, blockade Iran. The Persian Gulf makes Iran an easy target for Naval Blockade. However, to be effective, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan. That in itself would be difficult (getting the Turks and the Armenians, much less the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis to cooperate on anything is difficult, and don't forget that much), but the borders with Iraq and Afganistan would need to be better patroled. And don't forget that much of the Iran-Iraq border is Kurdish-controled. And the Kurds also have problems working with the Turks.
Still, blockade is clearly what the Western powers are aiming for, as evidenced by the bolstering of the U.S. Fifth Fleet.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Talking in terms of practical details is great, but we would do well not to loose sight of the number one moral reason for not invading Iran: At this point in time, Iran, as a sovereign nation (regardless of whether its democratic like America), is none of the US' business.
Perhaps not, but Iran is making the US operations in Iraq, *IT'S* business.
Iraq was never America's business either. There's a domino analogy somewhere in there.
If "We are already involved" is sufficient justification for considering military action, the US would have an excuse to invade a whole host of countries.
And what of North Korea? IMHO they are a bigger threat to the security of the US and its key economic allies.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Talking in terms of practical details is great, but we would do well not to loose sight of the number one moral reason for not invading Iran: At this point in time, Iran, as a sovereign nation (regardless of whether its democratic like America), is none of the US' business.
Perhaps not, but Iran is making the US operations in Iraq, *IT'S* business.
Iraq was never America's business either. There's a domino analogy somewhere in there.
If "We are already involved" is sufficient justification for considering military action, the US would have an excuse to invade a whole host of countries.
And what of North Korea? IMHO they are a bigger threat to the security of the US and its key economic allies.
Granted, assuming Iran is attempting to act in Iraq's best interests, or even if they BELIEVE they are acting in Iraq's best interests. They are supporting Sunni AND Shiite militia's, and their "Iraq Report" stipulates that a chaotic Iraq keeps the US too occupied to stop them in their nuclear ambitions.
Iran is prodding America in Iraq, I think we all agree they should not be doing it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to put words in your mouth. It appeared to me that you were arguing for a justification of the invasion. In retrospect you weren't, and the quip was uncalled for.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Talking in terms of practical details is great, but we would do well not to loose sight of the number one moral reason for not invading Iran: At this point in time, Iran, as a sovereign nation (regardless of whether its democratic like America), is none of the US' business.
Disagree.
Iranian aggression and threats void whatever moral shield they have that protects them from us violating their soverignty. It has nothing to do with their chosen form of government, it has to do with how they behave on the world stage. They've chosen to be threatening and provocative, and that might cost them, it's a calculation they should have made beforehand.
Invasion isn't necessary though. Airstrikes and naval blockade will be enough to punish them and make them think twice about taking such action again. Not EVERY action we take has to result in regime change. It never should have to begin with.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that a country should never initiate an act of violence except in self-defence. Iran poses a threat to the US is in the form of A) support to insurgents in Iraq and B) nuclear armament.
B is still a distance down the track. If there are solid indications that they will follow through with their threat against Israel, I would consider it sufficient justification to remove Iran's nuclear strike capability by force.
In terms of A, it's debatable who initiated the violence. The US is intruding in the Middle East, and is posing a greater threat to Iran's security than Iran ever did to America's. Also, Iran would not be in a situation to support militias fighting Americans if the US hadn't invaded Iraq based on erroneous judgement and flawed and/or fabricated intelligence. Expanding the war to Iran -by invading- would be extending the effects of the mistake; like smearing a stained tablecloth instead of dabbing the spot with bleach, if you'll forgive the analogy. And why should the US "punish" Iran for provocative behaviour? Bush has repeatedly made threats to Iran, and has about 147,000 Coalition troops across the border. If we go to the source of the Bush Administration's justification for these campaigns in the Middle East, it's the sponsorship of terrorism; the evidence for which is still sketchy. Why isn't there a blockade on Saudi Arabia?
And no, I don't know what the equivalent action of 'dabbing the spot with bleach' would be.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen any evidence that Iran is supporting either side of the insurgency, let alone both. I don't think it should be just taken for granted.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone know what evidence is available to indicate that Iran is supplying Iraqi insurgents with weapons? It's been a foregone conclusion in the media for quite a while.
Edit: Beat me to it!
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Iran poses a threat to the US is in the form of A) support to insurgents in Iraq
In terms of A, it's debatable who initiated the violence. The US is intruding in the Middle East, and is posing a greater threat to Iran's security than Iran ever did to America's. Also, Iran would not be in a situation to support militias fighting Americans if the US hadn't invaded Iraq based on erroneous judgement and flawed and/or fabricated intelligence. Expanding the war to Iran -by invading- would be extending the effects of the mistake; like smearing a stained tablecloth instead of dabbing the spot with bleach, if you'll forgive the analogy. And why should the US "punish" Iran for provocative behaviour? Bush has repeatedly made threats to Iran, and has about 147,000 Coalition troops across the border. If we go to the source of the Bush Administration's justification for these campaigns in the Middle East, it's the sponsorship of terrorism; the evidence for which is still sketchy. Why isn't there a blockade on Saudi Arabia?
Intruding on the Middle East means nothing. The "Middle East" has no governmental body. If the US were to attack Venezuela should Brazil feel threatened? If we attacked Cuba, should Jamaica feel threatened? There's no such thing as regional soverignty like that.
quote:Also, Iran would not be in a situation to support militias fighting Americans if the US hadn't invaded Iraq based on erroneous judgement and flawed and/or fabricated intelligence.
Surely you recognize the weakness of that sort of argument. You're trying to take the responsibilty off of Iran and to put it on America. It doesn't work like that. Say my cousin was killed by a police officer due to a misunderstanding, and I was put in the room with the murderer and a loaded gun. Given your line of thinking, if I were to kill the cop, it would be the police department's fault for putting us in a room together. They are still responsible for their own actions.
quote:And why should the US "punish" Iran for provocative behaviour? Bush has repeatedly made threats to Iran, and has about 147,000 Coalition troops across the border. If we go to the source of the Bush Administration's justification for these campaigns in the Middle East, it's the sponsorship of terrorism; the evidence for which is still sketchy.
We punish them to try and deter them from taking further aggressive action against us. The threats Bush has made to Iran are the equivilant of "Leave us alone, or else." If they don't leave us alone, they should consider themselves threatened, and I call it self-defense, don't you? And Iranian, Saudi Arabian, and Iraqi sponsorship of terror is not sketchy, it's proven. Hell, Saddam openly and proudly admitted it, and we know that Saudi Arabia funds wahhabbist schools of Islam, which is nothing more than a front for radical islamic teachings. Iranian connections to Hezbollah are proven as well.
quote:Why isn't there a blockade on Saudi Arabia?
Complicated situation. I don't approve at all of the kind of support that we've given Saudi Arabia in the past. But they've given us quite a bit. They usually allow us to stage military operations out of there, they helped us in Gulf War I, they've made some democratic reforms. They have a long way to go, and I don't think disengagement is the best policy. The difference between interdicting SA and going after Iran, is that Prince Abdullah doesn't spend his days vowing death to Israel publicly, and he doesn't say that pursuing uranium enrichment and a weapons program is necessary to achieve that, and whatever other aim they may see fit to pursue.
I don't like what they do, but talking to them is better than aggressive action, especially with the hardware we've sold them over the years. Talking to Iran hasn't done much of anything. They want what they want, and they aren't willing to listen to demands.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Intruding on the Middle East means nothing. The "Middle East" has no governmental body. If the US were to attack Venezuela should Brazil feel threatened? If we attacked Cuba, should Jamaica feel threatened? There's no such thing as regional soverignty like that.
Sure, there's no regional sovereignty. But if Iran invaded Canada, say, wouldn't the US feel threatened? My point is that the US is in Iran's backyard for all the wrong reasons. The animosity between the two powers is clear, so American presence in the Middle East does contribute to the antagonism. I'm not whitewashing Iran here:
quote:
quote:Also, Iran would not be in a situation to support militias fighting Americans if the US hadn't invaded Iraq based on erroneous judgement and flawed and/or fabricated intelligence.
Surely you recognize the weakness of that sort of argument. You're trying to take the responsibilty off of Iran and to put it on America.
That's really not what I'm trying to do, and I apologise if I gave that impression. I am saying that both parties, as is usually the case with war, share responsibility. Yes, if the Iranian government is in fact tacitly or actively condoning the activities of anti-US Iraqi militia by supplying them (or allowing them to be supplied) with weapons, responding with force would be an act of self-defence in that particular instance. But there is a bigger picture, in which America isn't completely clear of blame. The Iraq War was a mistake which is yet to be rectified, and the tributary effects of this mistake are partially the responsibility the instigators of the war. Iranian support for Iraqi militias is wrong, but the US presence is too.
quote:If they don't leave us alone, they should consider themselves threatened, and I call it self-defense, don't you?
I would, if indeed the intelligence is correct this time 'round, and American soldiers are being killed using Iranian weapons.
quote:And Iranian, Saudi Arabian, and Iraqi sponsorship of terror is not sketchy, it's proven. Hell, Saddam openly and proudly admitted it, and we know that Saudi Arabia funds wahhabbist schools of Islam, which is nothing more than a front for radical islamic teachings. Iranian connections to Hezbollah are proven as well.
You can find links to anti-American terrorist organisations in almost every third world country. To what extent is the government of Iran actually contributing to terrorism? Would a military strike dampen the level of terrorism, or inflame it? When does it become a sufficient justification for war? Because the evidence for Saudi Arabian involvement in terrorism (not limited to the wahhabist schools) seems stronger to me than the evidence against some of the other countries.
quote:
quote:Why isn't there a blockade on Saudi Arabia?
[...]
I don't like what they do, but talking to them is better than aggressive action, especially with the hardware we've sold them over the years. Talking to Iran hasn't done much of anything. They want what they want, and they aren't willing to listen to demands.
That was a rhetorical question; I'm advocating one.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
[[Edited to add on a more mature note]]: Saudi Arabia is one of only ten states in the world that does not even claim to be a democracy (the others are the Vatican, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Baharian, UAE, Qatar Bhutan, Burma, and Brunei, by the way.)
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, there's no regional sovereignty. But if Iran invaded Canada, say, wouldn't the US feel threatened? My point is that the US is in Iran's backyard for all the wrong reasons. The animosity between the two powers is clear, so American presence in the Middle East does contribute to the antagonism.
I guess threatened was the wrong word. I guess they SHOULD feel threatened, but the question is whether or not it's justified, sort of like the sign of a guilty conscience. Are they threatened because they know they've done us wrong, and therefore they know that we have a reason to threaten them? We generally don't attack without some provocation, they are being provocative. One wonders at what point they begin to understand that actions have consequences. We're certainly learning that one the hard way.
Eh, I was going to respond to the rest but I don't really disagree with you enough to warrant the effort. And I'm tired, so I'll get back to you later.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Never said how large or small, but then Iran has made some democratic reforms too. It SOUNDS funny when weighted against the overwhelmingly dictatorial nature of their governmental system, but that doesn't erase the fact that it's still there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Never said how large or small, but then Iran has made some democratic reforms too. It SOUNDS funny when weighted against the overwhelmingly dictatorial nature of their governmental system, but that doesn't erase the fact that it's still there.
posted
Their "Constitution" is the Quran. Their state is the King. The only government body other than the King is apointed by him, and it can be overruled by him. The motto of the House of Saud and thus Saudi Arabia is "L? il?h? ill?-ll?hu; muhammadun ras?lu-ll?hi" ("There is no GOD but Allah; Muhamed is the Prophet of GOD) and but it might as well be "L'état, c'est moi."
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
I guess threatened was the wrong word. I guess they SHOULD feel threatened, but the question is whether or not it's justified, sort of like the sign of a guilty conscience. Are they threatened because they know they've done us wrong, and therefore they know that we have a reason to threaten them? We generally don't attack without some provocation, they are being provocative. One wonders at what point they begin to understand that actions have consequences. We're certainly learning that one the hard way.
Eh, I was going to respond to the rest but I don't really disagree with you enough to warrant the effort. And I'm tired, so I'll get back to you later.
That's cool.
I also think it would be smarter for Iran to keep a lower profile. Perhaps it's a matter of appeasing extreme fundamentalist factions in government?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Their "Constitution" is the Quran. Their state is the King. The only government body other than the King is apointed by him, and it can be overruled by him. The motto of the House of Saud and thus Saudi Arabia is "L? il?h? ill?-ll?hu; muhammadun ras?lu-ll?hi" ("There is no GOD but Allah; Muhamed is the Prophet of GOD) and but it might as well be "L'état, c'est moi."
I'm not defending Saudi Arabia, but I do think there is something to being truthful. They, like Iran, have made strides in local elections. They can elect local judges and magistrates, which they couldn't before. Going from NO democracy to ANY democracy is an improvement. They have a long way to go.
quote:That's cool.
I also think it would be smarter for Iran to keep a lower profile. Perhaps it's a matter of appeasing extreme fundamentalist factions in government?
They're posturing, and I can't say I'm sure why. It's somewhat useful to keep in mind two things: 1. That Mahmoud Ahmenidijad doesn't make policy decision in Iran, regardless of being the president, he's really more of a mouthpiece. The power decisions are made by a combination of the council of clerics and Ayatollah Khamenei, and while I'm not any more comfortable with THEM being in charge, I think it's important to separate the extreme words of their president with the people who actually set policy. 2. Ahmenidijad's party lost a LOT of local elections in their last round (of elections). His over the top rhetoric isn't supported by everyone over there, and he replaced a much more mild talking president. I think it's a sign that the people aren't happy with the image he is portraying, and they are supporting their political alternatives.
I think the message that opponents of America have gotten from North Korea is that if you have the bomb, you get a lot different treatment from America than if you don't have it. They think that once they get it, they'll not only have a much better bargaining position, they'll be able to extract concessions from us, rather than the other way around. And from the looks of it, they probably aren't wrong. We've set a terrible precedent with North Korea.
From what I've seen of opinion polling of ordinary citizens in Iran, half of them think they should just give up the bomb and work with the West, the other half think they should redouble their efforts. There's no clear consensus there.
posted
Hmmm, I don't think it is possible to appease said fundamentalist powers.
Their single objective is to establish the global caliphate, through any means necessary, and that is a threat to every nation that is not a Muslim theocracy. We can work with nations that are willing to make terms, such as Saudi Arabia, but when a country is openly stating that it's purpose is overthrowing the democratic world and all non-muslim peoples then I think that could be interpreted as a threat.
The Iranian government needs to control its violent factions, and stop supporting extra-territorial factions if it wishes to work with the west.
P.S. My opinion is that if a unit tries to gain concessions by bluster or threat the best solution is to utterly blast said unit's weapon's with a sufficient punishment that they no longer are willing to take that risk again.
For instance, if a mugger is threatening a pedestrian at a standoff in order to extract some concession the best option is to put them out of the game right then and there.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think the message that opponents of America have gotten from North Korea is that if you have the bomb, you get a lot different treatment from America than if you don't have it. They think that once they get it, they'll not only have a much better bargaining position, they'll be able to extract concessions from us, rather than the other way around. And from the looks of it, they probably aren't wrong. We've set a terrible precedent with North Korea.
I agree. Though of course this brings us to the 'well, why does America get to keep its nukes?' argument.
In any case I would be much happier if North Korea didn't have nuclear strike capability over my home.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. NorthKorea was doing much better concession-wise before Dubya decided that they should go nuclear.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think they gained concessions from that action, and as such I do not have such a fierce suspicion, such as I do have with Iran.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that in invading Iraq we made an excellent case to Iran and North Korea that they should have nuclear weapons.
I hope, that, rhetoric aside, neither country would be stupid enough to actually launch a nuclear strike. Once you use a nuclear weapon, you pretty take all the rules off the table an authorize anyone and everyone to wipe you off the map.
Which is not to say that, in the presence of verifiable proof of Iran building a nuclear weapons capability, that military action should be ruled out.
But for sending agent provocateurs across the border? No. I would think you can easily justify the capture or killing of such agents, just under the laws of Iraq. They're saboteurs outside of their homelands, not some kind of recognized powers with diplomatic immunity.
Right now, if we were to attack Iran, it would increase the instability in the region, not decrease it. It would most likely increase regional support for groups attacking U.S. troops in Iraq, and possibly incite more attacks on forces outside of Iraq as well. It would stretch our already strained military capability. And it is unlikely that we would actually accomplish a decrease in aid to insurgent groups in Iraq.
Many of the countries of the Middle East are linked in ways that, say, countries of South America are not. Senses of racial identity, language, religious commonality, and common interest in petroleum, among them. If we for some bizzare reason were to attack Venezuela, it wouldn't be seen as an attack on Catholicism. If we attack Iran, having attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, it could very easily be seen as an attack on Islam. Or to control a segment of OPEC.
I feel we are very much at a point in Middle East policy where recognition of what we can do must trump notions of what we should do. Recognition of the most egregious crimes does not equate to the ability to halt or punish those crimes.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: I disagree. NorthKorea was doing much better concession-wise before Dubya decided that they should go nuclear.
This is quite disingenuous, Kim is the one who caused North Korea to go nuclear. Lets keep the blame where it lies, we can't condemn Bush for having nuclear weapons and chastising others for wanting them, and then chastise him again for failing to keep them out of the hands of others.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The speed and level of chaos in Iraq is picking up fast. An apocalyptic cult came uncomfortably close to taking Najaf, one of Shi'a Islam's most holy cities, and murdering Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Sistani is the neo-cons' favorite quietist Shi'a cleric, the man who was supposed to keep Iraq's Shi'a in line while we went about nation building. And then, on Sunday, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad told the New York Times that Iran is in Iraq to stay, whether the Bush Administration likes it or not.
Nevertheless, we should count on the IRGC gearing up for a fight. And we shouldn't underestimate its capacities. Aside from arming the opposition, the IRGC is capable of doing serious damage to our logistics lines. I called up an American contractor in Baghdad who runs convoys from Kuwait every day and asked him just how much damage."Let me put it this way,"he said."In Basra today the currency is the Iranian toman, not the Iraqi dinar."He said his convoys now are forced to pay a 40% surcharge to Shi'a militias and Iraqi police in the south, many of whom are affiliated with IRGC.
They don't seem very shy about it either.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Going from NO democracy to ANY democracy is an improvement."
But Saudi Arabia doesn't have ANY democracy. Allowing property-owning Muslim males to vote would be having some Democracy. Even allowing male members of the Royal Family to vote would be some Democracy. But they don't. The only "progress" they have made is that the King now has advisors, who are not elected, and whose advice he is not obligated to keep.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
