I know that this was reported yesterday, but it's getting even more press today and I guess my question is: what now?
What do we do now? Sanctions? Threats? Do we allow Israel to premptively attack Iran? Can we condemn Israel for a premptive strike when we essentially did the same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq? How do you handle a nation that has, or is close to having, nuclear capability and is advocating the complete destruction of another country, and potentially compromising a very fragile truce between Israel and Palestine?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Do we allow Israel to premptively attack Iran?
Methinks that this is not such a peachy idea at all. I have no options, but I do not think that Israel attacking Iran would do anything but get Israel, as threatened, blown off the map.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I personally don't think it's a good idea either, but I have heard some of the militants begin talk of a pre-emptive attack...and Israel is actually on record as saying they would strike if Iran appeared to be gaining nuclear technology.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It's not a question of what we'll allow... it's a question of whether we can dissuade them or not.
I also think you might underestimate Israel's military might... those are scary good soldiers.
It's not a good situation, that's for sure.
Posted by adam613 (Member # 5522) on :
Israel also has nuclear capability, and has has it for several years.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Israel has a history of pre-emptive strikes where nuclear power in the hands of its neighbors is concerned.
Frankly, I can't blame them. The combination of Arabic nations' rhetoric against Israel with the destructive capability of nuclear weapons along with willingness to inflict massive civilian casualties means Israel has to take a very long, hard look at continuing their policy of pre-emptive strike in this situation.
I mean, they'd be insane not to. At the worst of times, the governments of the USA and the USSR weren't saying to each other, "I'd just love to incinerate every single one of you."
It'll sound imperialist and racist, but I sometimes wonder if Iran having nuclear weapons isn't more a danger to Iran than Israel having nuclear weapons.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
It's an interesting conundrum. Regardless of what action is taken, this has the potential to go very badly.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Last time it happened, it was relatively painless, however... so there is some hope.
It's hard to beat the Israeli Defence forces for sheer competency.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
quote:Methinks that this is not such a peachy idea at all. I have no options, but I do not think that Israel attacking Iran would do anything but get Israel, as threatened, blown off the map.
Methinks that had the State of Israel existed in 1939, we might also have been spared WWII. Just speculation, but in the light of what happened then (the western powers standing by while Hitler openly prepared for a war of extermination) and what has happened since (most western powers standing by while Arab-Muslim autocrats and tyrants openly wage a war of extermination,) I think it's entirely probable.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If you're Iran, with huge numbers of American troops on either side of you and the Bush Administration consistently labelling you a threat to global security, what else can you do? North Korea's example suggests that if Iran can actually get nukes, America is much less likely to attack. I think the leadership of Iran would be crazy* not to be trying to not nuclear weapons at this point, and from this perspective their current rhetoric makes all kinds of sense.
Israel may attempt to stop Iran's nuclear program via sabotage, which strikes me as being considerably less risky than open war (let alone a nuclear attack). That's also something they've shown they can do in the past... but it would still significantly destabilize the region. On the other hand, I'm sure they're determined not to let any of the Arab nations obtain nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons. We'll see.
*Crazier than they are, that is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well unfortunately, the means to produce nuclear weapons continue to get smaller and smaller. It's my understanding that what once took a factory complex that was obvious to a satellite or a plane or a guy with a pair of binoculars now takes something the size of a machine shop.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Twinky, are you actually making apologies for someone who advocated wiping an entire people off the face of the earth? I wouldn't have thought it, not even from you.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Apologies? Perhaps you should re-read my post.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Don't underestimate the Iranian air defense systems. The rest of their military may be antiquated and mismatched, but they could inflict massive casualties on any air-based assault.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Twinky just seemed to be giving a different perspective to this situation...not making apologies.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
<blink>
"... and in other news, actor Bill Cosby has revealed that he is black."
Iran calling for the destruction of Israel is like Ellen Degeneris coming out. Only a surprise to people who weren't paying attention to begin with.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Looks like he's justifying the behaviour of North Korea and Iran, from the first paragraph of the post. I read it quite well, I assure you.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
quote:Only a surprise to people who weren't paying attention to begin with.
That is, everyone who was actually in a position to do something. Which is quite encouraging, actually, because the fact that this is news at all, and Tony Blair actually considering military action against Iran, means that finally people are paying attention.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: If you're Iran, with huge numbers of American troops on either side of you and the Bush Administration consistently labelling you a threat to global security, what else can you do?
I would think that they would have other courses of action other than declaring that they intend to wipe the Zionists off the face of the earth. Defusing the situation rather than escalating it might be a smarter response in this case. Proving Bush's statements right about being a threat to global security hardly seems the most prudent course.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
*sits back with a bag of popcorn*
*imagines digging_holes as leader of Israel, Twinky as leader of Iran. Waits to see what will happen*
FG
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Attempting to explain the perspective of a person or group is not "apologizing" for the same. The fact that you think it is, though, is completely unsurprising to me.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
I shudder at the very thought, Farmgirl. Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Twinky, you weren't just explaining their perspective. You were endorsing it. You explicitly stated that your own personal opinion was that they would be crazy not to be trying to get nuclear weapons.
There is a huge difference between understanding someone else's perspective and actively endorsing it. The fact you don't see it, though, is completely unsurprising to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
C'mon dh, just because Twink is on a slightly different ground of this particular disagreement is no reason to jump to the 'excusing talk of genocide'.
And the 'not even from you' was pretty crass.
----
Twink,
quote:If you're Iran, with huge numbers of American troops on either side of you and the Bush Administration consistently labelling you a threat to global security, what else can you do? North Korea's example suggests that if Iran can actually get nukes, America is much less likely to attack.
Well, if you're Iran you could conceivably go out of your way to make it harder for the Bush Administration to label you a threat to global security.
"Wow, calm down man, you're acting crazy!
I'll kill you!"
Is what this will be spun as by the Bush Administration and others.
Attempting to acquire nukes makes it more likely that Israel and America will attack. People get caught up in the fact that no WMD have been found in Iraq (and rightly caught up), but they forget that everyone believed Iraq had and was building them.
And Iran's lesson from that piece of history is to say, "We're going to get nuclear power."!!! And to say things like we want to destroy Israel.
That's just nuts, I think. It doesn't make a lick of sense, at all. It cannot be swept aside by geopolitical realities. Iran is forcing American invasion on themselves if they do things like this.
Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban refused to give up OBL. Iraq was invaded (on paper, whatever you think the 'real' reasons were) because it refused to comply with weapons inspectors and was felt to have WMD. Iran is setting itself up to be another Iraq. The only thing that would stop it would be to actually get nukes before an invasion.
And if that becomes likely, Israel attacks.
There is another, non-crazy option that involves this: if you know your enemy will destroy you but needs some pretext to do so, don't bend over and hike those pretexts to him like a bloody football.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Iran calling for the destruction of Israel is like Ellen Degeneris coming out. Only a surprise to people who weren't paying attention to begin with.
Lisa, When I started this topic, I envisioned a truly open discussion that wouldn't devolve into critical attacks on other people's posts without at least backing them up with some substance.
With that in mind, there is quite a big difference in how the international community can deal with something that is implied vs. something that is advocated in a speech by the president of another country.
Please don't denigrate people's posts based wholly on your well-known and unchangeable opinions.
Thanks, Target
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you would pay attention to what twinky has said rather than the electrons you're thrusting into his mouth, dh, you'll notice that he was talking about nukes. Not about killing Israel.
Which is what you said he said at first, and have yet to retract or apologize for.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
quote:And Iran's lesson from that piece of history is to say, "We're going to get nuclear power."!!! And to say things like we want to destroy Israel.
That's just nuts, I think.
Exactly. Not to mention hateful and despicable. Which is why I am particularly offended at Twinky's attempt to make it seem like a reasonable reaction.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't see that as a denigration, Target. Not of anyone here anyway.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
quote:you'll notice that he was talking about nukes. Not about killing Israel.
Which is what you said he said at first, and have yet to retract or apologize for.
Uh.... DUH! And what do you think Iran wants nukes for? Fourth of July fireworks?
On second thought, that's probably too close to the truth, and not funny at all.
Retract? Apologize? I will do that when I have said something wrong.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Twink , I gotta go with digging holes on this one... it sure sounded to me like you were endorsing Iran's attempts to obtain nukes as well as their threat to Israel, which, BTW, implies that their goal in obtaining nukes is *not* protecting themselves but destroying Israel.
Edit: I was typing that before this escalated... all I'm saying is that, like digging holes, I found Twinky's "they'd be crazy not to" as an endorsement of both the nuclear program and the threatening posture which he said made "all kinds of sense."
As for Iranian air defense, THT, Israel has shredded state-of-the-art air defense systems repeatedly in the past. What they did in the Bekaa Valley in 1982 was sheer genius and is totally repeatable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Iran wanting to get nuclear weapons is not in itself hateful or despicible. It is, from one perspective, quite understandable. Frankly if Iran does get nukes before Israel or America can destroy them, its policy will probably succeed.
Which was I think Twink's point all along.
You didn't read carefully. He didn't apologize for them, he did not say that Iran is right to say things like wipe out Israel, and he did not say, "I agree with this policy."
It's a nice, smooth two-step you're trying to do. First he was 'apologizing' and now he's 'endorsing'. He was doing neither. He was saying the policy of attempting to acquire nuclear weapons made sense, from one crazy perspective. You saw that part, right, where he called them crazy?
You owe him an apology. You're misrepresenting him.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
To be fair, dh could have spent the last half hour explaining why he felt Twinky was wrong instead of attacking his personal morals.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I didn't see that as a denigration, Target. Not of anyone here anyway.
Not specifically targeted at Lisa (apologies to Lisa if it was interpreted as such), just as a general plea that this topic not turn into a mud-slinging exchange or over-generalized statements.
The whole world knows that Israel is overtly threatened by Islamic countries on a daily basis. What makes this different is that it was spoken in a very public manner by the highest official of Iran.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Rakeesh wrote: Well, if you're Iran you could conceivably go out of your way to make it harder for the Bush Administration to label you a threat to global security.
Well, you are a rational human being, not a religious fanatic like the Iranian leadership. Given their beliefs and objectives, I'm completely unsurprised that they're pursuing this course.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you believe the first thing Iran would do with nuclear weapons is launch them at Israel, you're an idiot.
Nation-state governments do not committ suicide. They like their perks too much.
DH, this is the last time I'm going to say this, and then I'm bowing out of this discussion. You have said that Twinky is endorsing and apologizing for genocide. You are wrong. You are lying. You are putting words in his mouth and then saying, "This is what he meant!" because of implication.
Your words and opinions make me wish I didn't agree with you. Think about that.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: As for Iranian air defense, THT, Israel has shredded state-of-the-art air defense systems repeatedly in the past. What they did in the Bekaa Valley in 1982 was sheer genius and is totally repeatable
That was in 1982. As recently as 2002, the Center for Strategic and International Studies considered Iran's air-defense systems to be the only credible threat to any outside attack.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think the leadership of Iran would be crazy* not to be trying to not nuclear weapons at this point, and from this perspective their current rhetoric makes all kinds of sense.
*Crazier than they are, that is.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:You have said that Twinky is endorsing and apologizing for genocide.
Well, dh never did say that Twinky was aplogizing for genocide itself, just someone that happened to view genocide as an option, which to some extent he was doing. He never justified those actions, but was trying to rationalize them from the mind of a crazy person.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: If you're Iran, with huge numbers of American troops on either side of you and the Bush Administration consistently labelling you a threat to global security, what else can you do?
Ahem. Getting back on subject...
To answer the question, you back down. You be calm and you play nice. The fact that they are thrusting out their chest and beating it aggressively while in the process of developing nuclear weapons confirms much of what Bush has been saying about them. "I'm gonna take all you coppers with me" plays nice in a Cagney movie but has no place on the world satge... and when nukes are involved it means something needs to change yesterday, if not sooner.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Never assume that something that seems crazy came from the mind of a crazy person. There may be many layers to this that we're missing because we can't wrap our minds around the seeming irrationality of the situation.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Rakeesh, you're misunderstanding my use of the word "apologies." I was using it in the sense of "excuse, exonorate, justify, rationalize, whitewash." You know, like apologetics?
And Rakeesh, if you agree with me, then frankly, I would much rather you disagree with me. I am not putting words into anyone's mouth, you are simply not comprehending what I and others are saying.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Camus, to me the line between those two things is exceedingly thin. It was clear to me, at least, what digging_holes meant.
Do you disagree? Trying to explain why a lunatic thinks the way he does isn't apologizing for him. It's actually useful. It's important to have some measure of predictability where ordinary people are concerned, and even more important for lunatics.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:To answer the question, you back down. You be calm and you play nice. The fact that they are thrusting out their chest and beating it aggressively while in the process of developing nuclear weapons confirms much of what Bush has been saying about them. "I'm gonna take all you coppers with me" plays nice in a Cagney movie but has no place on the world satge... and when nukes are involved it means something needs to change yesterday, if not sooner.
From Iran's perspective, though, it looks like being belligerent worked out okay for North Korea. I think that's part of why they're going this way.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Instead of ascribing possible motives and meanings to people's posts, can we just agree that Twink didn't state he was apologizing for Iran's actions and that Dh understands that and is willing to move on?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...and then I'm bowing out of this discussion.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
quote:can we just agree that Twink didn't state he was apologizing for Iran's actions and that Dh understands that and is willing to move on
I will agree to no such thing.
However, I am quite willing to drop the subject and move on. Done.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Wonderful. Thanks.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
You're welcome. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Anyway...
But if you look at the case of Iraq, they did discontinue their WMD programs, and to a large extent they were willing to cooperate with the UN inspections (eventually), but U.S. still got involved because they were considered a threat. Likewise, it's possible to assume that Iran may feel that regardless of how much they cooperate, they will still be viewed as a threat, and so decide to go the N. Korean route of trying to be perceived as a big enough threat that the U.S. and other countries will have to take seriously instead of merely invading.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: That was in 1982. As recently as 2002, the Center for Strategic and International Studies considered Iran's air-defense systems to be the only credible threat to any outside attack.
My point was not that air defenses haven't changed in 20 years... my point was that the same things were said about the Syrian air defenses then...and that technology means nothing compared to how you use it.
Any defensive system has vulnerabilities and weak spots and if anyone knows those vulnerabilities and how to exploit them, it's the IAF. I wouldn't put the ability to accomplish another Osirak-like attack on say, Kuwait, Bahrain or some other nearby, US-guarded, location like Turkey out of their reach.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: ut if you look at the case of Iraq, they did discontinue their WMD programs, and to a large extent they were willing to cooperate with the UN inspections (eventually)
*coughs* nice qualifier... Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Edit: whoops, subject was dropped while I was writing this. Please move on. Nothing to see here.
Original post:
As a disinterested party, allow me to butt in where I don't belong to say:
digging_hoIes: twinky was trying to explain why what Iran is doing makes sense *based on a particular set of premises*. (One of which being that they're already crazy.)
He did not say he believed those premises were *true*.
When I first read his post, I found it useful and in no way construed it to be a defense of Iran's policies. Merely an explanation.
Your intial post missed this point, but it seemed an honest if ignorant mistake. But your continued assertion that he's defending Iran, despite his denial, and despite others interpreting the post differently (and correctly) is simply baffling.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: From Iran's perspective, though, it looks like being belligerent worked out okay for North Korea. I think that's part of why they're going this way.
Well, I *hope* they are capable of doing a little more analysis of what has happened with N Korea... but you may be right.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Jim-Me, Air-defense technology has changed by leaps-and-bounds in the last 20 years. Iran in particular has been modernizing their air defenses as rapidly as possible, especially with the deployment of the long-range SA-10 missile system.
I do agree with you that Israel has a very competent air force that would ultimately prevail. I just hope that we don't find out how this scenario would play out in real life.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I'm afraid we are going to either find out how the Israelis will do or find out for ourselves just how effective those SA-10 batteries are. I hope not, but it's looking ugly.
From a tactical standpoint, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses technology has changed, too... the use of RPVs and the continued improvement of the HARM missle are significant advances.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: Thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel protests across the country Friday and repeated calls by their ultraconservative president demanding the Jewish state's destruction.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- marching with the protesters -- signaled he stood by his remarks, even as Iranian officials tried to defuse the issue. [...] But on Friday, Iran's Moscow embassy -- often used by Tehran to issue statements on foreign policy --said Ahmadinejad did not mean to "speak up in such sharp terms."
I find it interesting that the rest of the Iranian government seems to be trying to downplay the comments, while their president is standing by them. I don't really know enough about power structure in the Iranian government to draw much from this, but I wonder if the president is saying this to stir up support from his anti-Israel base?
It'd be a bit of a relief if this was more about political posturing than an actual foreign policy. Not as much as if the hatred wasn't going on at all, of course, but yelling is preferable to invading.
--Enigmatic
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Why should the US do anything? Israel has enough nukes to glassify Iran.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
It does seem that in a way, Iran doesn't realize it is calling for its own suicide by doing this....
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
aspectre, that might not be the best idea while there are still more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iran. Anti-radiation meds are great and all, but we're talking long-term effects here.
I still think that Israel's most likely course of action, if they do something directly, will be to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
quote:Jim-Me wrote: Well, I *hope* they are capable of doing a little more analysis of what has happened with N Korea... but you may be right.
If they are, I'm sure they're wilfully ignoring what that analysis tells them. In addition to the religious fanatacism in this instance, in the general case a strong sense of pride is fairly ingrained in the Arab psyche. Being conciliatory looks like caving in. Remember the Iraqi Information Minister?
Also, I will stand by the words and phrasing of my original post, Jim. I'm sorry that you misinterpreted it, because that absolutely was not my meaning, but it did not say or imply what you and digging_holes took from it. Rakeesh and Seatarsprayan both did a good job of elaborating on what my post said.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I can see the US trying to keep Israel out of it because we've already threatened to attack Iran anyhow...and we already have a pretty firm set of Allies and enemies in the region that won't be drastically affected by US aggression against Iran.
However, Israel has, essentially two types of relationships in the region-- those who barely tolerate them and those waiting for an excuse to attack them. Any one or all of those relationships could cross the line to open warfare if Israel attacks Iran.
And I think the US would like to avoid that instance.
Edit: Twink, we're cool... you and others clarified enough where you were coming from... my comments were only intended to confirm that I, too, misinterpreted your first post. And you know I like you, so I wasn't looking for an excuse to read it that way.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think everyone would like to avoid that instance. It would result in a lot of dead people.
Added: Or rather, every rational person would like to avoid that instance. The leadership of Iran is obviously excluded.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Why should the US do anything? Israel has enough nukes to glassify Iran.
If Israel launches a nuclear missile at Iran, the U.S. would no longer be able to justify supporting Israel as an ally. The U.S. cannot be seen as endorcing the use of nuclear weapons as part of any conventional warfare.
Without U.S. intervention, Islamic countries would have free-reign to attack Israel. Regardless of Israel's military might, a middle-eastern coalition could inflict massive casualties on Israel.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It wouldn't be fun for the Islamic countries, either... and Israel wouldn't start nuclear, but against a major Arab coalition, they'd probably go there eventually. So yes, as Twinky said, a lot of people would die...
And the reason the US would care enough to go to war in place of Israel is that our ultimate goal of stabilizing the region would be pretty well done in by a major Arab-Israeli rematch. (I know there are some who think it's done in already, but I think that's a short-sighted view).
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: It wouldn't be fun for the Islamic countries, either...
That wasn't quite my point, but in a war of attrition, guess who has more bodies to throw into the grinder?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, it would be a war of attrition, but with incredibly lopsided firepower and competence. Whether Israel's firepower and training advantages would be enough remains to be seen... but I think it's possible, maybe even likely, [added: given the historical examples]. Nonetheless, I don't think it's a road Israel will go down [because I think] they see it as an absolute last resort. Similarly, I think they will be somewhat reluctant to sabotage Iran's nuclear program because that might spark just such a conflict.
I think that at the moment Israel is waiting to see what Russia and the EU (the main consumers of Iranian oil, and presently the main negotiators with Iran) can accomplish, if anything. I don't know how long they will be willing to wait but I think if their threshold is reached then they will take matters into their own hands and sabotage the Iranian nuclear program.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Considering Israel's perspective I imagine they are already involved in sabotage. The EU and Russia don't exactly have stellar track records when it comes to political support of Israel. Additionally, to put the lives of every one of your citizens, women and children included, in the hands of a foreign power half the world away that may or may not muster the political will to fight with you if needed is not a leap of faith most would be willing to take. The world's hunger for Middle Eastern oil makes nations inclined to appease those in possesion of it. I think that Israel may have concluded (probably correctly) that nothing substantial will happen and they had best take matters into their own hands.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Iran wants to obliterate Israel? You could knock me over with a feather!!!!!
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Will, please see the 1st page for this thread's obligatory sarcastic comment. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That could very well be, BQT.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Iran is banking on what an endgame scenario looks like. If Israel attacks Iran because it has nukes, all the Arabs in the region get fired up and Anti-Israeli sentiment explodes. As a result, Anti-US sentiment explodes right in a time when the US is trying desperately to brighten its image and get the heck out of Iraq.
It's in America's best interests to stop Iran from getting nukes, but sadly, it is overextended and has little influence left in the region. If Iran were to say, invade Iraq, the Shi'a Arabs in Iraq, which until now were the only friends to Americans, would become a whole new obstacle.
Further, America has no power to stop Iran from doing anything. Sanctions won't do a thing to dissuade them, and they know we can't militarily force them to do anything, so they know we are simply shouting at the wind, with no power to stop them. Iran has enemies to the north, east and west, and Israel across the region. It A. Feels it needs nukes to secure its long term protection and B. Sees how America reacts to N. Korea and its weapons, and to Chinese nukes, and knows that nuclear weapons are a major trump card when it comes to dealing with Americans.
It's a calculated risk, and I think it is a smart one from Iran's point of view. Assuming Iran DOES get nukes, America will try and do everything in its power to stop Israel from making overt aggressive movements. Israel inciting anger in the Muslim world incites anger against the US as well, and we really don't want that right now.
It's a bet that puts the entire region a little closer to total war, but there are a lot of forces working in Iran's favor.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Lyrhawn,
Your post seems to deal primarily with the advantages Iran gains by having nukes, and you make several good points that I agree with. However, to bring it back more to the topic, what advantages do you think Iran gains by announcing their intention to wipe out Israel to the world at large?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: America will try and do everything in its power to stop Israel from making overt aggressive movements.
I'm willing to bet this might include overt aggression on our part as well. And I think we are capable of military intervention... and with Bush's popularity already minimal, preventing all-out war in the middle east might be worth the political cost of American intervention to him, as I was saying earlier.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're assuming Congress would go along with any plans Bush might have to intervene. I believe they would not. There would be zero public support for such an endeavor, especially since Bush is threatening Syria. Imagine how that plays out to the public. Bush invades Afghanistan: Good stuff. Bush invades Iraq: Bad stuff. Bush threatens Syria: Nice gesture, but we aren't going to war over it. And then on top of all that he threatens Iran too? Just how many wars does he want to start over there? He'll never be able to sell a war to the public, and with no congressional support, he will be forced to abandon the endeavor.
BQT -
The advantage to annoucing now is to judge the reaction from the world. If Iran senses America condemning Iran while behind the scenes trying to calm Israel down, then they know they have a winning plan, and they should proceed as fast as possible. At the same time, it brings Iran together, and the President is getting in touch with his people. You'll notice the clergy, who more or less rule the country, haven't been saying much about the issue. Maybe the President is trying to make a power grab through popular support. Not a great sign for Israel, but power players will always try and gather more power to themselves.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The current Israeli government wouldn't have the cojones to destroy Iran's nuclear capability. Nor to attack pre-emptively.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The president can intervene militarily without congressional approval... or the nation's approval. Again, he is in the wringer alreay, he has nothing to lose...and if by doing so he can prevent all out war in the area, he should.
The question, if it comes to military intervention to stop Iran from developing nukes, is whether Israel should be allowed to do it themselves because of their sheer competence, or should we try to do it for political reasons.
If we wait long enough and are unsuccessful diplomatically, I have no doubt that Israel will intervene militarily, and little doubt that they will do so successfully. Whether that intervention is covert as Twinky suggests, or overt as the bombing of the Osirak reactor was, is still a question, but they will do something.
In short, I completely disagree with starLisa, but willingly admit to not being an expert on the area politics.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sure, legally he can do so, but doing so will cost the Republican party the Congress and the Presidency between the midterms and the next election. He has nothing to lose for himself, but his party will scream themselves dry trying to stop him. To say that he has nothing to lose at all though is misleading in the extreme.
He has a LOT to lose.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think you're wrong about that, starLisa. Taking in your opinion a weak and stupid policy in dealing with 'kill-us-by-inches' enemies such as suicide bombers is quite different from taking a weak and stupid policy in dealing with 'kill us all at once' enemy.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
i know a little about Iran, and a little less about Israel, but what i do know about both is that the US has a vested interest in keeping Iran quiet and Israel from doing anything that could start a new rash of suicide bombings. i don't think i should say anything else or i'll get in trouble. bottom line- domestic politics should be piddling next to a "suggestion" from an informed senior military official. at least i hope so.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I was shocked by it because this was the government speaking in open forums, not because the sentiment hadn't been expressed in the past. Personally, I think it is perhaps the stupidest thing that the Iranian government could have done. It places them squarely in the sights for the next round of regime change, IMHO. The jury is still out as to whether the US and Britain will commit long-term to a policy of continuous interference in the governments of this region.
From a Western perspective, the goal of stability is going to be far more important than the goal of democracy. Sad to say it, but if we need the oil from this region, a known commodity is better than any new regime.
UNLESS the current people become belligerent and unfriendly, like Saddam or the Taliban.
Threats against neighboring states, especially oil producing ones, but even threats against Israel, if they can't be ignored (and I submit this one CANNOT BE because of the way it was delivered) are just going to be used to ratchet up the pressure for the offending state to be the next one to benefit from a democratic overhaul.
I believe we've already got a plan for Iran's invasion sitting in a drawer somewhere at the Pentagon. Whether we activate it will depend on a LOT of factors, including the actions of that government over the next few days and weeks.
Now, why would they risk this? Perhaps because they feel they have little to lose. We don't know what negotiations have gone on between Iran and other Arab states for mutual protection. Maybe they're confident that Opec would shut off our oil, or that we would be barred from using other Arab nations as staging grounds should we decide to punish the Iranian leadership.
Or, they are crazy jihadists who feel like it's high time for the holy war to be ignited and hope that Israel (and a few others) are wiped out in the process.
Or, they are bluffing. One way to make people think you are more well-equipped than you are is to act like you can back up your statements, so you make outrageous ones. It's a technique many New Yorkers use when walking through dangerous neighborhoods. You act like you're completely insane and the local gangs leave you alone.
Honestly, I don't think we have enough information to figure out precisely what Iran's game is. But I can tell you that I expect in very short order some sort of statement from that regime offering to barter something like grudging acceptance of Israel in exchange for loosened restrictions on their nuclear program. Some such BS.
I suspect it's all posturing.
When you have nothing with which to bargain (and thus nothing left to lose), you offer the outrageous and hope someone nibbles.
But, really, this is just about the stupidest thing (short of launching an actual attack) that Iran's leaders could have done at this juncture.
As for pursuing nuclear weapons...I suspect they either already have them (unlikely) or they are so far from ever getting them that this posturing is a smoke screen to keep the rest of the world guessing.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Lyrhawn...
First off, let me say that this is wild conjecture... it may not need to come to that...
but if it comes to military intervention, *and* if the US can do it without causing a $h1tstorm where Israel can't, then I think there are ways the party could distance themselves from Bush after he intervenes...
But whether they can or not, I would much rather see Bush and the whole party go down in flames than see wholesale mayhem in the Middle East... and when it comes down to it, I think they would, too. I'd be very surprised if those men didn't take their responsibility that seriously. The power they have wouldn't mean anything, even to them, if they didn't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What would it take for that level of military intervention? Iran ISN'T Iraq. They aren't pushovers. Their military isn't going to run and disband at the site of American tanks. We aren't going to have free reign over the skies like we did before. The rest of the Middle East isn't going to sit idly by and watch us do it either.
How are we going to handle the pissed off Shi'a Muslims in Iraq? For that matter, how are we going to keep troop levels in Iraq constant? Hell, we'd have to ADD troops to Iraq for stability if this happened. How are we going to try and keep some semblence of order in Afghanistan? Either we empty North Korea, Okinawa, and Europe of US troops to make it happen, which even then isn't a dent of what we would need, or we empty the United States of troops, which leaves the cupboard dangerously bare.
I think everyone underestimates Iran. They aren't a worldclass power, but they also aren't pushovers. Iraq and Afghanistan were the two weakest military and political regimes in the region. Iran has a military that will fight, and while it isn't up to the standards of the US, it can and will cause massive amounts of damage, and I'm betting a few thousand US troops will die from major combat operations alone, to say nothing of the insurgency that WILL follow the take over.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Iraq was definitely not the weakest military regime in the region in the first Gulf War, but they were a pushover compared to the USA and the Coalition.
FYI, in a conventional war, we would have undenied air superiority over Iran. The rest of your conclusions, though, I agree with.
Which is why we wouldn't go in on the ground, in a big long-term way. No, we (or Israel) would find the nukes, and destroy them in a quick and surgical strike.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The Iranian President is standing by his words, but other parts of his government are retreating from them. Here is a Google News list of related stories:
I was mostly referring to talk of regime change in Iran, which would require a ground invasion.
And yeah we would probably attain air superiority fairly quickly. Does anyone have any information on the CURRENT state of Iran's air force and their air defense radar systems?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Why should the US do anything? Israel has enough nukes to glassify Iran.
"that might not be the best idea while there are still more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Ira[q]"
Yep, and they ain't likely to allow Iran free passage across their area of control. Turkey ain't likely to allow Iranian troops passage. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis funded Saddam's war against Iran, so transport across the ArabianSea isn't an option either. In other words, the threat is purely posturing to gain&strengthen support from the idiots. With any luck, the US will say "naughty, naughty", and the idiots will back Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad even more. Besides, "Iran...[is]...saying it stood by its U.N. commitments and Iran would not use violence against another country."
"If Israel launches a nuclear missile at Iran, the U.S. would no longer be able to justify supporting Israel as an ally."
Israel ain't gonna nuke Iran unless Iran attacks with a WeaponofMassDestruction first. If for no other reason, an Israeli first use would be admission that they possess nuclear arms. Then the US would be obligated under its own laws to cut off ~$3billion per year in aid, military cooperation, and probably another few billion dollars per year of private contributions to and trade with Israel. And if Iran did launch a first strike with WoMDs against Israel, there ain't nobody who's gonna be angry at Israel, at least nobody who isn't already angry. More to the point, an attack on Israel with WoMDs would justify Israel's possession of nukes. Therefore no embargo on foreign aid, private donations, military cooperation, business dealings, etc would be forthcoming after a retaliatory strike.
"You're assuming Congress would go along with any plans Bush might have to intervene"
With forces already in place in Iraq, the ArabianSea, and the IndianOcean, Dubya doesn't need funding authorization from Congress. In fact, Congress doesn't have to go along with anything: Dubya doesn't have to obtain Congressional approval for the use of military force until 90days after an intervention begins. It took the US 42days to overrun Iraq. Actually less than 27days, which is when the OccupationAuthority set up shop. It ain't as if the Congress is gonna be willing&able to remove the President from Office within 27days.
If the US learned anything from Iraq, any intervention in Iran wouldn't involve occupation. So it would take even less time. Just take out the military armories, artillery, aircraft, transport, tanks, command&control, bunkers etc, and any and all governmental facilities while the facilities were in use; including those being used for weapons development, by the Iranian Parliament, by the political parties backing the Iranian President, and especially those being used by the Supreme Council of Clerics. Then withdraw to Iraq, and let the Iranians reform their own government. And if the US doesn't like it, wipe out the government again.
Simple fact is, the IranianRevolution was protected by the USSR across the border. Or rather by the US's desire to keep Iran militarily strong enough to present at least a credible delaying force should the USSR have decided to invade. The USSR doesn't exist any more. There is no military reason to leave any portion of the Iranian military intact, let alone strong. Or to leave any portion of the Iranian government alive, let alone strong. If there is chaos, "Hey, it ain't our problem."
And no, it ain't gonna happen. Just pointing out that US -- or for that matter, Israeli -- military capability isn't the limiting factor.
[ October 29, 2005, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think you're wrong about that, starLisa. Taking in your opinion a weak and stupid policy in dealing with 'kill-us-by-inches' enemies such as suicide bombers is quite different from taking a weak and stupid policy in dealing with 'kill us all at once' enemy.
You don't get Israel, then. The training we received during the first Gulf War got us out of the habit of actually responding to massive acts of war from the outside. Short of an actual attack with a declaration of war on the part of the country or countries attacking, the Israeli government will sit on its hands. With thumbs pointed upwards, I might add.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Aspectre,
Why do they need to cross all that land to attack Israel with nukes? They could easily buy mid range missiles or long range missiles from China or especially from North Korea. Distance and access aren't issues.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And Israel could intercept those relatively low-speed missiles with their Patriot-derived Arrow anti-missiles. Then proceed to use their airpower to take out Iran's long-range offensive capability, as well as anything else they wanted.
If Iran launched a first strike against Israel, the US would cheer the Israelis on as they flew over Iraq. And I doubt that Iraq, SaudiArabia, or Turkey would do anything more than the lodge the standard diplomatic protest for violation of their airspace. Well after Iran was sufficiently punished, their public talk might be more hostile. But that's pretty much politically-mandatory in the MiddleEast. Privately, they'll be smirking at the Iranian leadership's stupidity.
Besides, any Iranian missile attack would travel through airspace controlled by either the US or the Saudis. Neither of which would find that violation to be a matter to just shrug off.
[ October 30, 2005, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
The danger to Isreal is not a missle attack it is a truck borne Nuke. I believe we have the look through capability to spot anything as dense as a nuke, but do we have the machinery in Isreal? I do not know.
It is clear that Iran hopes to inspire the rest of Islam with its fierce rhetoric, now that the US is looking more and more ambigious as an enemy that Islam can hate, and without such an enemy there is no point too Islam. The Koran is a call to unity in war against and enemy, can't not have and enemy can they?
I look forward to the day they give Isreal the provocation it needs to clobber them, notice how many of our actions lately are "near the Syrian border" ? Well you need to ask yourself which side of that border they are taking place on. We are a fingers breadth away from air strikes against Syria and having the finest fighter pilots in the world pounding Iran behind us would be a blessing. Hell in five years we might have Every nation from Afganistan to Lybia in a loose democratic federation under the Boots of the American Infantry! Yeah!
Pax Americana for the 21 Century. Islam holds that there is only peace in victory, what they forget is that the corallary is that the losers also get to enjoy peace too, and they are poised to lose as badly as ever any empire bent group ever has. The 1940's Nazi's would give us ten times the fight the Arab's can.
BC
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
One of the favorite ways for totalitarian/corrupt governments to stay in power is to distract the people with scapegoats.... Cuba has America and Iran has Israel. While giving lip service to something eventually makes it true (like eventually getting themselves so riled up they really do invade) I doubt Iran would actually do anything right away. They just want to rally angry people at something that is not their own government.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Wow BC. I think you're painting with a pretty broad brush there. I know many muslims personally. I think they'd be surprised by your summary of their beliefs.
And, speaking as a US citizen, the last thing I want for the world is a Pax Americana in this century or any other. I think it'd be bad for the world and bad for us as a country.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Here's another rationale, if you are the Iraqi government:
The current US government has shown that it will use past sins as a reason to attack you. And if those reasons turn out to be invalid, well, then its too late, isn't it?
So you are Iran, and have been known to (and probably are, to some extent) try and gain the necessary Stuff to become a nuclear power. You were recently elected as part of the religious extremists re-asserting their power in a nation that has shown a tendency to go secular if not clamped down. You know that even if you destroyed your weapons programs, there is a chance that you could be invaded anyway, because to the US, and especially the US govt, you've always been sneaky SOBs (a point that may or may not be freely admitted to by many in your govt). Not to mention that it weakens your status within your more local geopolitical stage. So, it would seem plausible, with that sort of perceived backdrop, that the only patriotic thing to do is to do your darnedest to get nukes, and generally saber-rattle so that your fellow extremists will be supportive, particularly in your own nation.
EDIT: That is, the only way to have a high certainty of keeping the US from invading you is to go N. Korea.
-Bok
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Which is why we wouldn't go in on the ground, in a big long-term way. No, we (or Israel) would find the nukes, and destroy them in a quick and surgical strike.
A full-scale invasion of Iran is impossible for several reasons.
Air defense issues are largely irrelevant. The Iranians have learned well the lesson from the Israeli raid on the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor: don't put all your eggs in one basket. Iran has dispersed it's nuclear weapon program into a network, it's not a point-source like Osirik.
And US and Israeli intelligence are not confident they can pinpoint the whole network.So a "quick and surgical strike" is also impossible. The US and Israel militaries have already dismissed this option.
Rakeesh isn't the only one here saying it's a viable option, just one of several. And they're wrong.
Which leaves...the UN, and diplomacy? Sanctions?
The larger point is this: sooner or later an Arab/Muslim nation (not counting Pakistan) WILL get nukes. And will probably use them, if things don't change.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Morbo,
What, you speak for the US and Israeli intelligence services, and their militaries?
You can tell what they're confident of and what they're not, and what they've dismissed and haven't?
Pretty much the only thing you can credibly post about is that the Iranians probably have not put all of their nuclear weapons development assets into one easily destroyed location.
But even if they've put them in twenty easily destroyed locations, it is still within our (definitely) and the Israelis (possibly) capabilities.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Morbo is probably more right than not. The Iranians aren't stupid. They'll have their bases all over the place. Underground, in elementary schools, in Mosques, everywhere, to make it either impossible to locate, or politically devastating for a foriegn power to attack them.
Furthermore, Bokonon is correct, the Iranians have no reason to stop researching nukes. America has already more or less said that if we think you have nukes, it doesn't really matter if you actually have them or not, and we don't care if you try and prove it one way or another, we'll still attack. Given that irrational force, I'd try twice as hard to get them as fast as humanly possible.
And aspectre, how is Israel going to shoot down a missile with a nuclear warhead? The missiles Iran could buy from N Korea ARENT Scuds. ICBMs travel at what? 27 THOUSAND miles per hour? No way in hell a patriot on its best day could hit a missile going even 75% that fast.
I highly doubt Iran would attack Israel with nukes. The more probable attack scenario, if there ever was one, would be sympathetic members of the Iranian defense apparatus "accidentally" letting a nuke fall into terrorists hands. The Iranians come clean to the world, yes, we've been developing nukes, and oops, one got away, would the UN please help us find it?
That gives them plausible deniability, regardless of what is going on in the backroom, now they are the ones trying to forestall a new world war. And even after a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, if Israel responds with its own nukes, they're in the same boat as Iran, only worse. They will both be powers that claimed not to have nukes, only both did, but Iran was the nice guy who tried to stop a war from happening, and Israel is the unhinged madman blowing the crap out of Tehran.
Iran comes off the victim, Israel comes off the aggressor, and loses billions in foreign aid in the process. It would devastate their economy and evaporate any moral high ground they had to begin with, which leaves them, not easy pickings, but vulnerable to the Arab states around them.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
That is Clinton era thinking, The answer is, if we need Intel we put enough boots on the ground to get it. If Iran proves itself with a nuclear attack, it will have NATO and US forces in Tehran in three weeks, then we can send the Space Balls out to comb the desert!
I am tired of these little sabre rattling villains and their agendas, they think the world will go on forever as it always has and they are simply wrong in perspective and wrong in ideology. The world is poised to change dramatically, in climate, in demographics and in economics over the next century. We cannot keep dealing with these idiots over and over when we need to face challenges that threaten us all.
America is poised to be the salvation of the Human Race in terms of long term survival beyond the next global upheaval that could set us back to the stone age. To threaten us, to drain our resources away, to attack us at all is an attack on the human race itself and should be treated as such. To join us is to be part of the next stage of social evolution, beyond one world economics and into economics based on universal rather then local scarcity.
That means that the rarest and most valuable things in the universe, life and human attention, will have the preeminent value, while oil will just be goo.
BC
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Sure, I'm an eminence grise for both the US and Israeli governments.
Seriously though, it's not 20 easily destroyed facilities-- it's N hardened targets, where N is unknown. The targets are hardened because the Iranians also learned the lesson of the Six Day War: unarmored assets are like tissue paper in an inferno to the Israeli AF, as the Egyptians learned by losing almost their entire AF.So even if we destroy 50% or 75% of their nuclear weapons network, we haven't done anything but set them back.
A commited US invasion is the only viable military option, and it's very unlikely politically if not impossible to occur, mainly due to our extensive troop commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This link demonstrates the near-impossiblity of Israel blowing up the Iranian nuclear program. With US support, the odds would change of course. But still, air power alone cannot counter the Iranian nuclear program. Besides, they could already have bought nukes from the North Koreans. the Pakistanis, or a former USSR nation.
quote: Ever since members of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, an Iranian opposition group labeled as a terrorist organization (some members are militant, most are now just attached to the opposition's efforts) disarmed in Iraq in late May, 2003 and gave intelligence to the US, the pressure on Iran has built up. The political branch of MEK reported on May 26th that Iran had two uranium-enrichment facilities west of Tehran, which operate as "satellite plants" to the larger facility centered at Natanz. The Iranians reportedly had already installed several centrifuges at one of the sites. The purpose of the sites, besides to assist in the nuclear program, is to take over the work of the Natanz site should it be bombed. The dissidents explained that there were small, dispersed sites around Iran to prepare for an Israeli or American air campaign, and they listed 8 businesses used as front companies to obtain components for the program.[7] They confirmed that the goal set by Iran was to become a nuclear power in 2005.[8] [omitted section] By the summer of 2004, the uranium enrichment program will be finished, and therefore, unstoppable by anything short of regime change. At the end of 2007, the infrastructure will be large enough and advanced enough to allow for the production of up to 15 nuclear weapons a year.[10] Eventually,no air raid would be able to destroy their plans. The facilities were large in number, were disguised, and dispersed. Some were even hardened to protect against explosions.[11]
Lyrhawn, thanks for agreeing. That is a scary and all-to-plausible scenario, sadly. Iran really would be insane to launch a first strike with missles on Israel. But a truck or ship delivered nuke detonated in Israel seems likely, with or without some "oops, we lost a nuke" cover story. In fact, I almost consider it inevitable in the next 20 years. If not the Iranians, some other group will get the bomb and do it. Israel's only hope is if their border security and technology can intercept such a device.
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: I am tired of these little sabre rattling villains and their agendas,
You and me both BC. Look in a mirror and you'll see why.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I suspect that Israel most likely has a 'Fail Safe' system that will automatically Nuke not just Iran but half the Middle East should they suffer such an attack, Tel Aviv is the obvious target, nobody wants to destroy Jerusalem. It matters little how Iran would look morally, after the counterstrike the reality will be a nation in ruins. People with leadership that short sighted deserve what they get. The US Government is not irrational, in fact the US is recognizably playing by local rules that these countries recognize, we are bigger, we are tougher and by God Almighty you will not attack us with impunity. Nothing irrational about that at all.
Also to my knowlege there are no ICBM's in Korean hands, they can reach Japan but not the US so that seems to be implied...
BC
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I am not to be cast as a villian, I of course am one of the Heroes. We look alot alike from the outside, the third type, the coward often cannot tell us apart.
BC
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Oh, no, BC, you're no villain, you just want the entire Islamic world under American boots.
Excuse me while I retch.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
BC -
You assume Israel has enough nukes to take out half the middle east, and the delivery systems to make it possible. That's pure conjecture.
As for Koreans and ICBMS, they have nukes capable of reaching almost anywhere in Asia, to Japan, and Alaska. Best guess is they will have missiles capable of reaching most of the continental US by 2008. Read that in Time Magazine a year ago.
Also, the US has a laughably low humint capability in Iran BC, getting boots on the ground to root out the truth sounds really cool in a Tom Clancy novel, but that takes LONG TERM planning and execution.
And what makes you think we could muster the power to invade Tehran? We're saber rattling against Syria, threatening Iran, trying to keep Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in line, bolstering democracy in Lebanon, and that's just ONE region of the world. That says nothing of what we are trying to do in North Korea, about relations with China, and for that matter, all of Africa and South America.
There comes a point where there is only so much America can do.
[ October 31, 2005, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
"There comes a point where there is only so much America can do." Exactly. And we are dangerously close to that point. Iraq has stretched us thin.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Part of the problem is that Bush and Rumsfeld are trying to fight a war while simultaneously retooling the US Armed Forces to make them lighter, and more mobile without losing lethality. We have the ability to do that, and it involves massive base closings, huge troop reshuffling, and armament retooling.
Starting another war, without finishing the first TWO wars we started, while in the midst of the most major retooling of the armed forces since before the Berlin Wall came down is irresponsible and stupid. Unless we institute the draft. That's the only way I see it becoming plausible, and even that is a prelude to a MAJOR increase in defense spending and major purchases of more military hardware. As if the tens of billions in funding increases to the military weren't enough recently.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The most impressive heroes aren't the ones that go around trumpeting, "I'm a hero!"
----
Morbo,
There are no sufficiently hardened targets that we cannot destroy with air power. With the exception of going hundreds of feet below the surface (and not even then), and for that situation...
...well, there are other options. Now, unlike you I cannot speak for certain, but I believe you underestimate the dedication of Israeli intelligence services to this particular threat, and their willingness to throw money and resources at investigating it.
-----
But that's neither here nor there. I will say one thing, though. If Israel launched a non-nuclear attack against Iran, without having one from Iran, they would not lose American foreign aid. You know why? Because the leadership of Iran is calling for Israel's destruction, and they are developing nukes. It's just that simple.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There comes a point where there is only so much America can do.
There also is a point where we are doing the opposite of what we intend to be doing. If Iraq has proven anything yet, it should be that using unilateral preemptive invasion to fight fundamentalism only has the opposite of the intended effect.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I don't think Iraq has proven anything yet. It will take years, perhaps decades to see the results. For example, postwar Germany was not a pretty picture either.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Also to my knowlege there are no ICBM's in Korean hands, they can reach Japan but not the US so that seems to be implied...
Post WWII Germans though were receptive to our rebuilding efforts. They weren't firing RPGs at our planes during the Berlin Airlift BQT.
And thank you for the link Noemon.
Rakeesh -
How do you know there are no hardened targets or bunkers or any hidden areas of strength in Iran? Can you cite evidence? Or is it just conjecture?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Morbo,
There are no sufficiently hardened targets that we cannot destroy with air power. With the exception of going hundreds of feet below the surface (and not even then), and for that situation...
...well, there are other options. Now, unlike you I cannot speak for certain, but I believe you underestimate the dedication of Israeli intelligence services to this particular threat, and their willingness to throw money and resources at investigating it.
-----
But that's neither here nor there. I will say one thing, though. If Israel launched a non-nuclear attack against Iran, without having one from Iran, they would not lose American foreign aid. You know why? Because the leadership of Iran is calling for Israel's destruction, and they are developing nukes. It's just that simple.
Did you read that link I posted on why there won't be another Osirik-like raid?
It spells out in detail why Israel can't do it alone.
Even with US support, it would be an extended bombing campaign, over days and weeks, with no confidence of 100% success-- hardly a "quick and surgical" raid.
And you do speak with certainty--you claim that US and Israeli intelligence could find all nukes and nuclear programs in Iran, and our AFs could destroy them all. This turns out not to be the case.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: I also think you might underestimate Israel's military might... those are scary good soldiers.
Top-notch quality, and the best in the world in times of need. Israel won in 1967, and won in 1973 despite all odds.
Israel is also aware of the dangers of trying to blow Iran up. This probably seems like a rather simple statement - but Israel, particularly the intelligence force (with which I have had the privileged honour of being acquainted with), is very careful about any foolish action.
Things at this magnitude are taken very seriously, and I assure you that I will not be blown off the map in the next month due to foolish Israeli moves. Also, remember that no religious fanatic from either Judaism, Christianity or Islam would be so stupid to blow up Jerusalem. The worst missile attacks Israel suffered were in 1991, where 37 (I think) landed in Tel Aviv.
quote: There also is a point where we are doing the opposite of what we intend to be doing. If Iraq has proven anything yet, it should be that using unilateral preemptive invasion to fight fundamentalism only has the opposite of the intended effect.
While I think, personally, that Bush invvaded Iraq for very personal reasons, and while I think that it was a wrong and grossly miscalculated move that did only harm - I am grateful for the soldiers. I am grateful that there are people who, even if they do something so accidentally terrible such as fluctuating the Middle-Eastern status quo, they do it for the benifit of peace. Right or wrong, at least it's an attempt for helping.
So thank you very much, all you soldiers in Iraq, but I wish that your lives could be spared and that you didn't have to be stuck in Iraq. I don't think that Israel needs your direct military assistance now.
quote: There comes a point where there is only so much America can do.
I think that the United States of America should stop feeling responsible and fully-credited for constructing Pax Americana. While I realised that this is a mixed act of pompous self-boasting and sincere goodwill, I think that it cn harm. Again, thanks for sticking your nose in and scaring the bad guys off, but sometimes the nose can get in the good guys' way.
Israel will deal with Iran as it sees fit; I can assure you that nothing foolish such as an airraid or war will happen without speaking to the US first - but please, just let us do our work our way, the way we're used to do it. We really do appreciate the goodwill and concern that's been present even since Golda Meir gathered $50M from you in 1948 to buy weapons for our survival, independence war.
We'll do our work, and consult you when needed. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Of course that consultation, regardless of the help we've offered in the past, will most likely be ignored unless it 100% agrees with what you wanted to do in the first place. Israel makes me laugh only because they don't listen to anyone, but throw the biggest hissy fit in the world whenever you talk about cutting support to Israel. All the benefit without any of the responsibility is incredibly hipocritial if you ask me.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: I believe you underestimate the dedication of Israeli intelligence services to this particular threat, and their willingness to throw money and resources at investigating it.
You probaly are; the Israeli intelligence is far more extensive than US intelligence or UK intelligence (relatively to population). The different branches collaborate efficiently, and I know what I'm talking about here; seriously, no boast. I may be oblivious to almost all things, but this thing I've actualy studied from professionals, and I can tell you for sure that the Israeli intelligence service is not to be underestimated.
It has proven itself in the past. Even in 1973. Trust it, Morbo; trust it to be able to manage the intelligence bit. Military is another matter.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Even if Iran had nukes, in my opinion they wouldn't be stupid enough to use them.
"Thanks" to the traitor spy, everyone knows that Israel has over 300 warheads, it will take the Iranians quite a while to produce a match for Israel's nuclear power.
Israel seems the only country in the middle east with a missle defense system that actually works...
Israel is surrounded by weak Arab countries that signed a peace deal with her, Iran is bordered by Iraq, Pakistan, Afgahistan - meaning the US - and by China and Russia. All three states have nuclear power. China has weapon deals with Israel(despite all the trouble it gave Israel with the US), and it does not want to lose its partner. And Russia - my guess is that they'd like to get involved and regain their power and influence that they used to have (of course now without all of the communist preaching and totalitarism...).
However, destroying the nukes in Iran will not be easy. This is not 1981. And these are not Arabs, but Persians. I'm sure that if they indeed have nukes, they've spread their supply and had it well hidden.
Hopefully, I will not have to face a war in my country...
[ November 01, 2005, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: Beanny ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Amen.
But Beanny's right - at the time being, no country in the Middle East is a match for Israel on its own. Iran hasn't had nuclear power since the 60s like Israel, and it just won't work for them yet.
Israel, in the meantime, is treating this matter very seriously.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Post WWII Germans though were receptive to our rebuilding efforts. They weren't firing RPGs at our planes during the Berlin Airlift BQT.
There are of course differences, no analogy is a perfect example. However, here's a little bit of what I was talking about here.
My purpose was not to dispute facts of the problems there, but merely to point out that a more realistic time frame might be needed before judgements are handed out about the success of beheading a dictatorship and establishing diplomacy through a military operation. History may show that such an operation was a complete failure, or that it was the quickest method for change with the lowest body count. We just don't know yet. I think that only reasons such for judgement calls right now are political in nature and thus suspect.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's still a horrible analogy. Those factors don't mean anything when we still don't have basic control over the area we're in. Where's the numbers on how many citizens and troops were dying two and a half years into the occupation from guerilla attacks?
Municipal councils? Seriously? Your priorities are skewed if you place municipal councils on the same level as security from insurgent attacks from a progress standpoint. And what does their 56,000 troops matter? They can't operate without US forces guiding them by the hand, and for all we know, half of them are spying for insurgents.
I think it's safe to say Iraq was a big mistake, and we would have been better off if we have never gone back there.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Israel, particularly the intelligence force (with which I have had the privileged honour of being acquainted with
What, the entire Mossad?
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
rivka, I suppose that JH is in "Gadna Mizrahanim", which is a pre-enlistment institute to promote the study of arabic and islam so that the participants will work for the military intelligence in the future.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I assure that while the average Iraqi, be he ING, IP or insurgent who is given a gun turns into a thug, however that said we are not done with them yet and to call this occupation a failure and a mistake is simply cowardly. Yes Cowardly! It is wanting to run because something is difficult. We killed half the able bodied men in Germany to secure the peace that followed, imagine if we had limited the scale of WWII and tried to occupy while they were still full of wind! This is a new situation, it is not Viet Nam, it is not Japan, it is not Germany. We have no training manuals, we are writing them. Every day I go out and we talk to people, what they are afraid of, what they need, who is stirring up trouble, our medics see to their kids, our bases give them jobs, and they give us cache after cache, insurgent after insurgent. You think we lose because 90 soldiers die in a month? What if some silly ass were to start recording teenage traffic deaths tomorrow as headline news? When they reach 2000 will you call for us to abandon the automobile? We are soldiers we signed up for this, we get paid for it, it is what we do. Just because you do not have the stomach for it, don't put your fear above our service to the most important Shaping Force for human good on the face of the Planet!
Yes I am Confident Israel can take care of itself, I still laugh when I think of them using hellfire missiles on that guy in the Wheel Chair, Hee Hee....
Still there are things that it is better for Uncle Sam to do, If we need to retool we could just open the bidding to the Chinese! (Joke)
well Duty calls, one of my friends just got us a pool table! War is Hell!
BC
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The deaths aren't what make it a failure. The fact that no matter the outcome there, it isn't worth the price. And judging from the lack of anything resembling promising news, I'd say it's not only not worth it, we're going to leave that country in worse shape than when we got there.
Success in Iraq has to be a fully functional, pro US democracy. That's what America was promised by the Bush administration, that is what I will use as my guide to success. Right now I see a hostile hellhole that has only steadily gotten worse. If we have to wait while the army kills off the insurgents one by one, then it WILL be a failure, we can't keep this up indefinetely unless we raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere.
I just don't see the point in spending billions upon billions of dollars to kill Syrian infiltrators and men who weren't terrorists before we got there. It's like wandering into a drunken barfight swinging a broken bottle, then complaining that while you are there you have to finish the fight. Afterall, can't leave the bar a mess, have to clean up after yourself.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
BC-
Your chest thumping, patriotic rigmarole is an embarrassment.
You speak of your "choice" to join the military as if it should serve as an example of your superior moral character, distinguishing you from the many men and women who serve without the self-aggrandizing propaganda that you spew forth, or from the men and women who, for whatever reason, choose not to serve at all.
Cowards, you call them, cowards for disagreeing with you; as if your role as a soldier gives you the right to judge them.
Well, as long as we’re passing judgment, I name you coward.
A coward, who is afraid to have their beliefs or ideas challenged; A coward, whose self-image is built up by tearing others down; A coward, who believes that bravado and bluster can compensate for true courage; A coward, who is too afraid to even admit that he’s afraid,
Falsehood is cowardice, the truth courage.
Coward.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Of course that consultation, regardless of the help we've offered in the past, will most likely be ignored unless it 100% agrees with what you wanted to do in the first place. Israel makes me laugh only because they don't listen to anyone, but throw the biggest hissy fit in the world whenever you talk about cutting support to Israel. All the benefit without any of the responsibility is incredibly hipocritial if you ask me.
Cut aid to Israel. All of it. Today. Cold turkey.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Cut aid to Israel. All of it. Today. Cold turkey.
Lisa, In your opinion, what point does this serve?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
An Iranian friend just forwarded me this link, and it seems to offer a third solution that the U.S. may be currently involved in...
How likely is it that that will ever come to pass though THT? Iran's government will never go for a decentralization of their power.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I find that the ethnic option is uitimately unfeasible and will only at best result in the slowing down of the programme. At worst some of those guns could fall into insurgant hands.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
THT, I think Lisa is daring you.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Blayne, I didn't make the original statement to cut funding, and daring me to do so would be woefully unimpressive as I have already cut off all financial aid to Israel, having never actually started Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The removal of ambassadors throughout Europe -- who had negotiated the prior deal to keep Iran's nuclear program in check -- is looking like a purge.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Bob, You beat me to this...
Times Online Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
NOT good....
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Even worse news for the region.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote: Cut aid to Israel. All of it. Today. Cold turkey.
Lisa, In your opinion, what point does this serve?
It's to Israel's benefit. It will enable Israel to make decisions on the basis of its own self-interest, without worrying about what Big Daddy America will say or do.
No junkie wants to go cold turkey. And certainly no pusher wants its customers to do so. But it's the right thing to do.
That's from an Israeli point of view. From an American point of view, foreign aid in the case of immediate emergencies is one thing. Having a welfare program for other countries is quite another. While it may feel good to be buying control of the policies of other countries, it's wrong to do so. Both because it's an egregious interference in those other countries, and because the Constitution most certainly does not grant the federal government the right to levy taxes on US citizens in order to give goodies to other countries.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: THT, I think Lisa is daring you.
Not at all. If it were up to me, I'd end foreign aid to Israel yesterday.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Calling me "Coward" is as laughable as calling two men "Married", good luck with that new dictionary inside the space between your ears, the only place it has relevance.
Those who cannot find good news out of Iraq are simply avoiding it, like the evidence of links between Al Quaida and Baghdad, like the presence of WMD components, like the checks Saddam paid to suicide bombers, they are embarrassing facts that a closed mind cannot accept without shifting worldview so they are easier to deny or ignore.
The only one who should be worried about my embarrassment is me, and I would only feel shame to not be where I am doing what I am doing when I could be.
"A warrior looks to his own impeccability and calls that Humility"
I am a Hero not because I am special, but because I am part of the greatest force for good ever assembled in the process of seeing to humanities future. If you are not then how on earth do you live with yourself?
BC
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I am a Hero not because I am special, but because I am part of the greatest force for good ever assembled in the process of seeing to humanities future. If you are not then how on earth do you live with yourself?
<edit: insert your own comments here>
quote: Those who cannot find good news out of Iraq are simply avoiding it, like the evidence of links between Al Quaida and Baghdad, like the presence of WMD components, like the checks Saddam paid to suicide bombers, they are embarrassing facts that a closed mind cannot accept without shifting worldview so they are easier to deny or ignore.
Those who cannot find bad news out of Iraq are simply avoiding it, like the links between Cheney's office and supposed evidence linking Al Quaida and Baghdad, like the suspected WMD components that could double as agricultural equipment , like the checks that were paid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, violating no international laws, embarrassing facts that a closed mind cannot accept without shifting worldview, so they are easier to deny or ignore.
Denying all opposition to your point of view based on solely on the fact that it disagrees with your position is foolish at best, dangerous at worst.
[ November 02, 2005, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: TheHumanTarget ]
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
THT, that's way over the line. Please edit it so I don't have to.
To those to whom it applies, please return to discussing the topic(s) rather than the forum members, or the thread will be locked.
--PJ
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Papa, I tried to keep this thread on topic as much as I possibly could, and have unfortunately derailed it by reacting in anger. I've edited out the personal attack while attempting to keep the substance of my response.
If this is unacceptable then please lock it, delete it, or do whatever you feel is necessary.
Thanks, THT
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: It's to Israel's benefit. It will enable Israel to make decisions on the basis of its own self-interest, without worrying about what Big Daddy America will say or do.
When has Israel ever NOT done something it wanted to do for worries about what America would say or do? Israel has taken American handouts for fifty years, and in part because of them has become a strong regional power. And now you say that we're the ones who are in the wrong and shouldn't be doing it?
This is one of those times I REALLY wish I had a time machine. I wonder how Israel would have faired without American aid for the last 50 years.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Doing good does not a hero make, Bean Counter.
Certainly not if you're as smug as you are about it.
--------
Lyrhawn,
If you'd had that time machine, then the land that the Arabs didn't give a damn about until Jews were on it would have belonged to them again, to marginalize and ignore, and many, many Jews would be dead.
Again.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and incidentally...
They aren't 'handouts'. Personally, I consider ongoing foreign aid to Israel to be a partial expiation of our (American) national shame for ignoring the Holocaust until some Japanese people bombed a base in the Pacific.
A big part of my contempt for the politics of European nations in the region stems from a similar belief that they owe even more.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If a few million KKK members took up residence in Alaska we'd probably care, even though right mow we don't pay a lot of attention to it.
NO I am not calling Jews the KKK, but Americans as a whole dislike the KKK, and Arabs as a whole dislike Israel, so choose whatever group you want that we'd have a dislike for to compare it to. They didn't care about the land as much before because it was theirs. And now they have millions of displaced peoples, and limited access to their holy places, so I don't deny them there anger, I'm surprised you do.
And alright Rakeesh, I accept that premise for foriegn aid. But if they all feel the way starLisa does, it's obvious they don't want us, and don't respect us. So I say let them figure it out themselves.
When the French go their own way, we call them cowards and change every joke in America to equate stupidity with French. When Israel goes their own way, while insulting America, we ignore it and give them tanks. I think there's something wrong with that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Let's not kid ourselves, Lyrhawn. The Arab nations in the region didn't then and don't now give a hoot in hell about the Palestinian people. They could have lived up to their charitable obligations as Muslims and given real sanctuary to those displaced peoples...but refugee camps are a more potent political tool.
It was the neighboring nations I was talking about (but didn't mention specifically, that's my bad), not the Palestinians themselves.
As for your comparison between France and Israel...not that I grant your premise or the things you stated, but if I did, there would be one big difference.
We don't owe France crap. That's different with Israel. We owe them a shameful debt.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Then what do we owe Darfur?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
National shame for ignoring the Holocaust? America was not even in the top five powers at that point in time, I can see where, as the sole Super Power we have certain Noblesse Oblige but then? Sorry I do not feel any shame at all for what Insane Germans did and six million people allowed to have happen to them. It is a good lesson on how far people will go, but that is a warning and a caution, not a chastisement.
Sorry I missed your next comment there HT must have been a doosie... Hee Hee.
Of course with people trying to kill me, the ones calling me names really don't fret me much.
In general Israel does what we wish we could do but can't because we are too big and would be perceived as bullies. The world can make allowances for the David fighting Goliath but not the other way.
I really love the way Israel lashes out with frightening ferocity when attacked. Sometimes I think the terrorist hit back again just to try and prove that they were not frightened by the last round of retribution when you can see the stains on the back of half the man dresses in Palestine.
The Jews and Arabs understand each other and are morally in the same place. Jesus gave the Christians a higher morality with Turn the Other Cheek and love those that do you Wrong. The Jews never got that note and the Koran takes it away in Sura 1 with "Your enemies I give you!" So they are in the same place as each other for different reasons. (Though the Jews in my experience are much more honest and less corrupt)
Essentially they live the same code of retribution that we ache to join but hold ourselves in check from trying to achieve a higher path. It makes it all the easier for us that Israel is not only able but eager to do the dirty work.
BC
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:They aren't 'handouts'. Personally, I consider ongoing foreign aid to Israel to be a partial expiation of our (American) national shame for ignoring the Holocaust until some Japanese people bombed a base in the Pacific.
So, wait a minute, we have to give them money because we, like the rest of the world, didn't come to their aid during the first half of WWII?
"Sorry another country tried to wipe you out, here's 50 years worth of unearned aid."
As much as it pains me to agree with BC, that doesn't make sense.
Although it doesn't change the fact that he has far too high an opinion of himself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:National shame for ignoring the Holocaust? America was not even in the top five powers at that point in time, I can see where, as the sole Super Power we have certain Noblesse Oblige but then?
You revel in revealing your ignorance, BC. At the time, we had by far the most robust economy and manufacturing capability. Within a matter of a couple of years, we had the largest military. We were definitely among the top five powers at the time.
It wasn't just Germans that did it. We turned away Jews fleeing the Holocaust, knowing full well what would happen to them. And we were willing to ignore what was going on in Europe until we were ourselves attacked. That is, to me, a national shame in living memory. It's a horrible shame because of how demonstratably hypocritical our behavior was, given our beliefs.
-----
Sprang,
"Sorry other nations tried and damn near succeeded to wipe you out, sorry for not stopping them, and sorry for sending boatloads of you away when you made it this far trying to escape."
I'll agree that one doesn't have to come to that conclusion, but it does make sense. It makes sense because we screwed them over egregiously, and it's still in living memory. Much like we owe-but will not stop such things-victims of massive genocides in Africa.
At least with Israel, we're paying our debt of shame.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I personally liked our non-interference policy a lot better than our current "global police" policy. Bad things happen, but the Germans aren't giving aid to Israel out of guilt and I don't see why we should.
That doesn't mean I approve of the holocaust, but I think our actions since then hurt more than help. Giveaways beget a sense of entitlement.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think losing alot of their finest Jewish scientific mines is something they German polticians take note of when noone is watching.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
" I do not feel any shame at all for what Insane Germans did and six million people allowed to have happen to them."
WHA-WHA-WHHHHAAAA-WHAAAA-WHHAAAAAAAAAT!!!!??
WHAT IN YOUR GODS NAME ARE YOU SMOKING?!
How did they "allow" it to happen? Explain to me where they had a choice in the matter when germans in Coal shuttle helmets pointed a mauser at them and told them to get on a train, pack them together tighter then sardines cart them off to a place whose welcome at the gates said "Work brings freedom"??!!.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So we give billions to Israel, where the people aren't starving or dying, because of national shame.
But we allow hundreds of thousands to die in Africa, where those billions could save them.
I really don't understand your thought process Rakeesh. You support paying a debt that I think most people don't believe we owe, over using that money to save the lives of those CURRENTLY suffering.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
They are dying, a few every week to bombings.
And if we didn't give them the money then all but a few lucky refugees would die because the Arab world would know its their moment to drive the Jews to the seas.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh please. Seriously.
A few billion in American aid is NOT what is stopping anyone from driving Israel into the sea. That's what those pretty tanks, fighter bombers, attack helicopters, and uzis are for.
The Israelis know more about their own security than we do, otherwise why would they continually incite the Palestinians to violence with their behavior? I don't know what their alternative is, but if you think American money is what's stopping the surrounding nations, you really don't understand the situation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
How did you think a nation of a few million people to have made/bought those guns?
"continually incite the Palestinians to violence with their behavior?"
Yeah right... The Israeli's unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and within a day they're being attacked FROM GAZA riiiiight.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
The attacks were predictable and inevitable, given the lack of central control of the Palestinians. Really all Israel did was cleverly pull potential hostages out of danger and make sure all the bad eggs were alone in the same basket.
Granted America tooled up damn fast in WW II building ships faster then the other side could build torpedoes, but that was not the way it was at the start.
There is always a choice when someone points a gun at you, it depends on what you think is more important, liberty or your life. It would have been a whole different story if the Germans had to fight the Jews instead of herding them like cattle.
BC
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They've had them for YEARS Blayne, continued financial support isn't keeping anyone at bay.
And you make a good point about Gaza. The problem there is in the fractured Palestinian leadership, part of which has to do with Israel. They assasinate leaders of Palestine's government, then get outraged when there are return attacks. They provoke Palestinian youth into throwing rocks at IDF soldiers then shoot them. They leave synagouges standing on land they just gave to Palestinians, then don't allow the Palestinian security forces to have adequate arms to protect themselves, then get outraged and retaliate when the synagouges are destroyed.
They aren't naive, they are provocative. Whether it is intentional or not is up for discussion, but they cause many of their own problems, and have yet to come up with a viable solution.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And for YEARS they've been getting money sheesh.
"Granted America tooled up damn fast in WW II building ships faster then the other side could build torpedoes, but that was not the way it was at the start.
There is always a choice when someone points a gun at you, it depends on what you think is more important, liberty or your life. It would have been a whole different story if the Germans had to fight the Jews instead of herding them like cattle."
America was a leading power in international trade in the very least, and they're immiedat entry into the war in 1939 would've ended the war years earlier and without eastern europe become a Russian protectorate.
America could have at the very least pressured Germany in the pre war years, or entered the war.
All they'ld have to do is declare their protection over say Poland and they can use it as an excuse to get in the war.
Then again thats how I get USA into the war earlier in Hoi2.... maybe games and rl don't mix...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think there is a certain amount of naivety in Israel expecting the PA to be able to rein in militant groups when they couldn't do it, despite superior weapons and training.
Of course, the PA is also just one step removed from being the political arm of a terrorist organization, considering the leadership they've had.
I'm pretty sure Israel is using that fact as a "point-to" issue whenever it's convenient for them to do so.
And I really can't fault them either.
Sadly, I do think there's a threat of violence hanging over the peacable people living in the Palestinian areas. If they are seen as anti-Hamas, it means they are pro-Israel, and that's a death sentence in those areas. People who inform to the Israelis risk having their entire family harmed.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Then they should ask Israel for free passage into Israel and protect their family in return for pertinant information and protection.
If an 18 year old can think of it anyone can.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes, because Israelis are JUMPING at the chance to allow Palestinians into their territory.
Drop the Knesset an email about that one Blayne, see how it goes over.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
send me a link then man. I can't read hebrew sites.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Go for it Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
[Whoa. I think this thread just nearly got Godwin'd.]
But on our original topic, I hope it's not time to dust off MAD. Forty years of that was enough for everyone, I gather.
--j_k
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"[Whoa. I think this thread just nearly got Godwin'd.]" ???
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Open Letter to the Knesset:
A suggestion by a humble person Blayne Bradley John Abbott College
quote: I'ld like to suggest to offer Palistians safe passage and protection within Isreal for the said Palistinian and his family or some varient of this privilege in exchnage for information on terrorist activities, I am not aware if this is already being done or not and I wish not to be patronizing in the least. I hope terrorist acts against Israel end as soon as possible and that Israeli citizens can live in peace.
-Blayne Bradley
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Spelling Israel correctly (as well as Palestinian) might be helpful . . .
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm sure the Knesset will ignore spelling mistakes in favor of the value of the suggestion....
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Demographic tracking suggests that an Islamic Majority of those Palestinians already legally in Israel will exist before the end of this century, I am sure that the Israelis will not want to accelerate the process.
I feel 90% certain that Isreal could "handle" the Palestinians in any way, to whatever degree they desired. It has been nearly two centuries since the machines of war were inadequet to deal with numbers. It is a question of the face put on actions and just how bad a group is willing to look while achieving its ends. Isreal has some remarkable tactics for looking victimized and justified, that said they still have a low enough tolerance for attrocity that they have not 'solved' the issue in any of several ways surely available to them. This at least sets them well above the Iranians and Iraq and I suspect most of the Muslims in that it seems they can restrain themselves once they have WMD's.
BC
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: We don't owe France crap. That's different with Israel. We owe them a shameful debt.
That's so wrong. America doesn't owe Israel one damned thing. It used to owe France for its very existence, but I think that's been paid back with interest.
The entire world was more than happy to watch the Germans exterminate the Jews. The State of Israel doesn't change that.
Israel doesn't need your pity payments, thanks very much. The only people who deserve to be paying the Jews for what happened during WWII are the Germans. And whoever else stole from us, like the Swiss and maybe the Poles.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Then what do we owe Darfur?
Good point. You have a frighteningly sick view of the Middle East, but in this case, you're dead right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sprang,
While the 'global police' policy is arguably foundering, the non-interference policy hardly led to good results either.
Your reference to Germany is irrelevant. Just because someone else does or doesn't do something has no bearing on what we do. And the fact that Germany does not do more for Israel and Jews worldwide after their nationwide systematic mass-murder of Jews-which was not stopped by a change of conscience, but stopped by force of arms-is more shame to them. It certainly is not an indicator that we should follow suit.
As for our actions having hurt more than help...you're joking, right? You are aware that without American aid to Israel, Israel would have been destroyed decades ago? Right now the situation is different-perhaps they could stand entirely on their own in the long-term against a host of enemies who don't give a damn about civilian casualties or the lives of their own people.
But it hasn't always been that way. "Giveaways" indeed.
--------
Lyrhawn,
We owe a lot to Darfur. We're not, shamefully, going to pay it. But our resources are limited. Because we cannot do good everywhere, we should do good nowhere?
Yes, I realize you disagree that it's a good thing. But your point about Darfur isn't very valid, because that's the angle you were mentioning it from.
-------
starLisa,
I partially agree with you. Israel owes us very much, I believe. But America owes Jews, I believe, a very great deal. And since Israel is home to a vast number of Jews and it is a place where Jews are killed for begin Jews (again), I feel it is part of the debt we Americans owe Jews to help Israel in any way we can.
'Pity payments' is one way to put it, but not the only way. Money in recompense of a wrongdoing is an idea that's been around probably just about as long as money. 'Blood-gold' does not mean that once the check is signed, the shame is forgotten or paid off. It's just that it's what we can do.
Oh, and who are you kidding about Israel not needing our help? I realize you're a zealot when it comes to the region, so I ask this hesitantly, but are you crazy? Maybe you could say, "Israel doesn't need our (seeing as how you are an American, remember?) help anymore."
And since I'm a sucker for a lost cause...there was no call to call Lyrhawn's beliefs 'frighteningly sick'. Doing so was needlessly insulting, counter-productive, and stupid.
Well, it was only stupid if you're interested in discussing things with people and possibly persuading them, not just thumping your chest.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:You are aware that without American aid to Israel, Israel would have been destroyed decades ago?
I don't happen to believe this, and since you certainly can't prove what might have happened I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I view these foreign aid handouts much like our welfare system: a good idea done badly, which breeds dependence on handouts and kills the development of a self-sufficient community.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why don't you believe it? It seems so obvious as to be nearly fact to me.
Without American military hardware in substantial quantities and American military-financial aid in which to sufficiently train its soldiers in the use of such, I believe that it's obvious Israel would not have been able to win its past wars against its Arab neighbors.
Which part of that do you disagree with?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The part where you predict what might have happened. No matter how obvious it may seem to you, the fact is there's no way of knowing what would've happened if we'd cut off our aid long ago. Israel may have folded like an accordion, or they may have pushed through and survived, or they may have gotten what they needed elsewhere.
The point being that as fun as it is to say that one outcome definitely would have happened, it's still just pure speculation. It's fun to talk about, and I love to read alternate histories, but as they say in sports, "There's a reason why they play the games."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Spelling Israel correctly (as well as Palestinian) might be helpful . . .
You're kidding, right? Is there an Israeli politician (except maybe for Bibi) who can spell?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, so then you're not going to offer a reason why they would've survived.
Your sports analogy is nice. Sure, the Yankees don't necessarily have to win every game. We can't be sure what would happen if, for instance, you shaved a few digits off their budget, trimmed their bullpen by their best players, and forced them to rely on third-stringers.
I can't actually say they would certainly lose more often if that happened. But c'mon man, gimme a break. You and I both know what would happen.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I partially agree with you. Israel owes us very much, I believe. But America owes Jews, I believe, a very great deal.
<blink> Huh? Why on earth? If anything, the opposite is true. The last place we lasted so long without getting pogrommed and massacred... well, it's been a long time. And I'll grant you, it was getting pretty hairy even in the US until the post-WWII newsreels showed up, but we're free citizens here. Well, as free as any Americans are these days.
You're not one of those "let's pay reparations for things that happened centuries ago" folks, are you?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And since Israel is home to a vast number of Jews and it is a place where Jews are killed for begin Jews (again), I feel it is part of the debt we Americans owe Jews to help Israel in any way we can.
Look, I'm happy for help, in the sense of friendship and backup. Loans, maybe. Sharing intelligence, maybe. But if you think you owe Jews anything, as Jews, well... for my part, I don't recognize any such debt.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: 'Pity payments' is one way to put it, but not the only way. Money in recompense of a wrongdoing is an idea that's been around probably just about as long as money. 'Blood-gold' does not mean that once the check is signed, the shame is forgotten or paid off. It's just that it's what we can do.
What wrongdoing? I'm just curious. Yes, the US should have bombed the tracks to Auschwitz. Fine. I wasn't even born then, though. And it's not as though the US actually owed that to us. A country needs to look to its own needs first, even if that doesn't help someone who needs it.
That's one reason, incidentally, why I would never, ever, ever vote for a Jew for the office of President of the US. I firmly believe that an American president has to put the welfare of the US above all other considerations, and I believe just as strongly that a Jew has to put the welfare of the Jews above all other considerations. The two rarely conflict, and with luck, that'll continue. But they can. In principle.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, and who are you kidding about Israel not needing our help? I realize you're a zealot when it comes to the region, so I ask this hesitantly, but are you crazy? Maybe you could say, "Israel doesn't need our (seeing as how you are an American, remember?) help anymore."
Zealousness for a right cause is a virtue. But in any case, when it comes down to it, Israel stands or falls based on what Jews do and what God decides. If God wants to trash us again, all the support in the world isn't going to help. And if God wants us to make it through this, not all the opposition in the world is going to prevent that.
It's passe at best, and more like seriously out of style to actually think such things, let alone say them, I realize. But it's really true.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And since I'm a sucker for a lost cause...there was no call to call Lyrhawn's beliefs 'frighteningly sick'. Doing so was needlessly insulting, counter-productive, and stupid.
As stupid as you calling what I said stupid? Just curious. <grin> Anyway, I stand by what I said about Lyrhawn's views. I actually censored myself severely before writing that.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, it was only stupid if you're interested in discussing things with people and possibly persuading them, not just thumping your chest.
Be honest... do you think Lyrhawn is persuadable on this issue?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: OK, so then you're not going to offer a reason why they would've survived.
Gimme a "G"! G! Gimme a "O"! O! Gimme a "D"! D!
What does that spell? God!
Or something like that...
Posted by Rusta-burger (Member # 8753) on :
How about you leave Iran and Israel to the UN. Just because you created it doesn't mean you can do their job for them whenever it suits you.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:OK, so then you're not going to offer a reason why they would've survived.
No, I'm not going to offer a reason. Because it doesn't matter, and I'm not gonna waste my time debating an issue that there is absolutely no way to determine the outcome of.
quote:Your sports analogy is nice. Sure, the Yankees don't necessarily have to win every game. We can't be sure what would happen if, for instance, you shaved a few digits off their budget, trimmed their bullpen by their best players, and forced them to rely on third-stringers.
The Yankees' this year had the number one payroll in baseball (again) and a lineup that included 7 (or maybe 8) current or former All-Stars. They got bounced in the first round of the playoffs.
The Vikings and the Cardinals were everyone's popular preseason picks for most improved/playoff contenders this year. Midway through the season they stand a combined 4-10.
Your argument does nothing but validate my point.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Rakeesh: And since I'm a sucker for a lost cause...there was no call to call Lyrhawn's beliefs 'frighteningly sick'. Doing so was needlessly insulting, counter-productive, and stupid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stupid as you calling what I said stupid? Just curious. <grin> Anyway, I stand by what I said about Lyrhawn's views. I actually censored myself severely before writing that.
I was going to stay away from this, as I don't think it's really worthy of justifying with a response, but I must say curiousity has gotten the better of me. First, why exactly are my views on the Middle East 'frighteningly sick'? I find this statement odd, since you only really know half of my view on one subject, that being Israel. So for you to make a blanket statement about my views on an incredibly diverse range of issues in a contentious area of the world, well, I won't say stupid, but careless certainly fits.
I'm also curious to hear the parts you left out.
I have to stop and remind myself, or at least hopefully tell myself, that you starLisa, do not represent a majority of the views of Israelis. If you did, I'd have a much lower opinion of Israel.
quote: Be honest... do you think Lyrhawn is persuadable on this issue?
Further, which specific issue? The original issue was Iran and Israel, which you haven't covered, in relation to my comments on it. And in general, I'm fairly open minded when anything close to looking like sense comes my way.
Rakeesh -
I understand why you think we owe a debt to Israel. I might even agree that a small debt was owed, but if it was, it has more than been paid back by our massive support to Israel in its infancy, which more or less made it possible for them to exist as a nation. Their existance from here on out is their own responsibility. The consequences of their mistakes, and the rewards of their successes should be their own to suffer and claim.
Saying we owe Israel a debt, is like saying we owe the descendents of slaves a debt, and hundreds of other peoples. I find it hard to accept that I personally owe money to people I've never met, for things that neither I nor my government did. Especially when a lot of these people are the descendents themselves of those who were maligned by a DIFFERENT nation, and they live in relative freedom compared to many places in the world.
You say you'd rather do something somewhere than nothing anywhere, I certainly agree with that. But you support helping people who don't honestly NEED our help to survive, it simply makes them MORE secure. Why not use that money to help people who die by the thousands, slowly, sickeningly, or who are butchered by machetes, just like the Jews, just because they happen to be a certain ethnic group? Pound for pound, I'd rather help the larger group with the same amount of money, rather than the smaller one that we've BEEN helping for DECADES.
As a nation I don't think we owe Israel anything. As a nation we might not even owe Darfur or others anything. But as human beings we owe it to everyone who is currently SUFFERING to do our damned best to help them out.
Make the case to me that Israelis are suffering like the Sudanese in Darfur, or the starving in Niger, and I'll willingly join your side with trumpets blaring.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote: You're not one of those "let's pay reparations for things that happened centuries ago" folks, are you?
I am still waiting for the government to pay my family the principle plus interest on the property they took through what amounted to an extension of eminent domain called the emancipation proclamation. Adjusted to current dollars the average slave was worth 300,000 so with interest that would set my whole family up very nicely! Hee Hee...
One could argue very effectively that the money we give to Israel is in our own interest, where as money going to the teeming needy is just going to end up in warlords pockets and help perpetuate the current intolerable state of things.
To each according to their need is Marxist thinking and it leads to bankruptcy, to thems that can pay you back with interest is as old as Israel itself and has worked for just as long.
BC
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Oy vey.
What you have made out of this thread! You people really don't know whats going on here, right?
*Hangs self.*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: I am not to be cast as a villian, I of course am one of the Heroes. We look alot alike from the outside, the third type, the coward often cannot tell us apart.
BC
*Sings* Troll, troll, troll your boat, gently down the stream, flamingly, flamingly, flamingly, flamingly, forum's but a dream.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: I am not to be cast as a villian
Frankly, after "I do not feel any shame at all for what Insane Germans did and six million people allowed to have happen to them" it's hard for me not to think of you as a stupid, self-centred, ignorant little piece of villous, sorry - villainous... You know what? Never mind. The noun I have to say is not going to be nice, and it will only be abrasive.
Let's just say you're not MY man of the hour. I'm sticking to KoM in his last offensive post.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*Sings* Troll, troll, troll your boat, gently down the stream, flamingly, flamingly, flamingly, flamingly, forum's but a dream.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)