posted
...And it would kill thousands of civilians, many of whom are far more progressive than their leadership...
...And it would lend creedence to the view that there is a war going on, not between democracy and terrorism, but the West and Islam...
...And it would give a fresh horror story for the recruitment of jihadists in a hundred countries, a story that no amount of PR could possibly refute...
...And it would quash any progressive, reform-minded elements in Iran for a century...
...And it would further destabilize a region that's already stuggling to put off rule by drug lords or the Taliban in one country and civil war in another...
It's not for nothing I said serious contemplation of "Nuking Iran" is vicious and stupid.
Oh, and just for good measure: Do we need to be pushing the idea that the reason the U.S. is the strong influence in the world that it is is not democracy or moral strength or even financial power, but the possession of nuclear weapons? I think we've seen exactly where that idea leads.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say that I am dismayed at the extemely violent responses that are coming from some people on this forum. It's extremist thinking, and that is what we are trying to stop. I have a unique viewpoint shared by at least a few others on this forum, and let me tell you, we will go and fight any war our commander-in-chief tells us to, but what some of you are suggesting takes it to a whole new scale. One no soldier wants to comtemplate.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh we aren't going to "nuke" Iran. I think even Iran knows that, they're just milking the press for all its worth.
It's a hypothetical discussion, and I don't think any of the likely outcomes are favorable.\
Bush seems to be sticking his nose into the whole affair with his most recent press conference. Ahmenidijad calls Britain arrogant for not admitting they were wrong (maybe that's Teshi's face saving exit?), but it seems they've already proven they weren't in internationall recognized Iranian waters. And either way, according to the news, the captured sailors are being tried under Iranian law, and the government admitting guilt certainly wouldn't help their "case."
Lots of different outcomes are possible at this point, but I still find it most likely that Iran will let them go and things will return to an uneasy peace.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why do nukes always get shrilly shilled like jingoistic snake-oil into any and all foreign policy debates anyway? It's the equivalent of Godwin's law--Shiva's Law: Any online foreign policy discussion will involve nuclear weapons in very short order, especially if said weapons are completely irrelevant to the topic."
I think the bulk of folks (obviously, with exceptions) are using "nuke" as short hand for "really big bombs". Given how stupidly powerful today's nukes can be, I don't think most posters have really meant that.
I like the idea of Britain giving Iran an out. I don't have much faith in the Security Coucil's ability to do anything beyond saying, "Gee, Iran, looks like you were wrong there. How bout you give Britain back its sailors?" If everything else fails, going Reagan on them and bombing the Ayatollah's house would be ok by me. I'm not into hurting the civilians for something they didn't do.
And Lyrhawn? Wonderful post. Muslims shouldn't have to prove to us how American they are, just like any other minority.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Goldenstar: Personally I think Tehran finally provoking someone into nuking them is exactly what we need. The backbone of the anti-US philosophy in the middle east is coming from Iran, not to mention that Iran is funding Syria, Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Quaeda. Without Iran most of these groups will shrivel up, along with a large portion of the Anti-Western sentiment in the middle east. Iran is the key, and IMHO decapitating Tehran would do us a lot of good.
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Neighboring nations are Iraq and Afganistan. Not that worried. Tell our boys to put on their nuke suits for a few days.
Frankly, I think a good nuking and the horrors that ensue is more than overdue. It would bring home a reality check to these idiot nations that think it's cool to push the US's buttons on these issues, and refresh people just how bad a nuke will screw them.
holey crap why does this thread even exist?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Faced with undeniable evidence of his involvement in the scandal, Reagan expressed regret regarding the situation at a nationally televised White House press conference on Ash Wednesday, March 4, 1987. Responding to questions, Reagan stated that his previous assertions that the U.S. did not trade arms for hostages were incorrect. He also stated that the Vice President knew of the plan.
posted
Lyrhawn, it is an "enemy of my enemy" method that was used in no small degree during the Cold War. The reasoning behind it is not just to be able to get intel and the obvious annoyance it causes enemy groups, but it is supposed to create a situation where that enemy's enemy is not convinced to join forces with the "wrong" (meaning other) side. We are currently facing the results of this in Iraq, where the Shia-majority government has many members who hold ties to militias our leaders assumed would help to depose the Baathist regime. They did, and then they didn't stop killing, and eventually al Qaeda found a way to get in and begin recruiting from that majority. Saddam's regime was the enemy of our enemy twenty years ago.
It's difficult to come up with examples where our "enemy of my enemy" relations actually proved helpful in the long run.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already pointed to this in another Iran thread, but it fits here as well. Sy Hersch claims we have gone so far as to support Al-Qaeda linked groups in Lebanon because they are anti-Hezbollah:
posted
That is a very interesting article, orlox. I hadn't seen that previously. The details within it show that the administration is engaged in far more Cold War like operations than may be public knowledge.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
My guess? The Republican Guard - possibly with Ahmadinejad's approval - took the Brits hostage. Iran then need a face-saving way to get out of the situation. So they act tough for a week then magnanimously hand them over to Britain as a "gift".
At least the Iranian President is not without a sense of humour: "So you came on a mandatory vacation".
My guess? The Republican Guard - possibly with Ahmadinejad's approval - took the Brits hostage. Iran then need a face-saving way to get out of the situation. So they act tough for a week then magnanimously hand them over to Britain as a "gift".
At least the Iranian President is not without a sense of humour: "So you came on a mandatory vacation".
posted
Dagonee is correct. I tend to get those mixed up as well, which is why I've taken to trying to refer to them as the IRGC instead, except when already brought up by others.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Lyrhawn, it is an "enemy of my enemy" method that was used in no small degree during the Cold War. The reasoning behind it is not just to be able to get intel and the obvious annoyance it causes enemy groups, but it is supposed to create a situation where that enemy's enemy is not convinced to join forces with the "wrong" (meaning other) side. We are currently facing the results of this in Iraq, where the Shia-majority government has many members who hold ties to militias our leaders assumed would help to depose the Baathist regime. They did, and then they didn't stop killing, and eventually al Qaeda found a way to get in and begin recruiting from that majority. Saddam's regime was the enemy of our enemy twenty years ago.
It's difficult to come up with examples where our "enemy of my enemy" relations actually proved helpful in the long run.
Did you miss the point of my post? I'm lamenting the fact that we never seem to learn our lesson, and that support for these kinds of groups always comes back to bite us in the butt, but we never change our behavior.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you were spot on with everything else. It wasn't that big a deal until NATO got involved.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Oh I see, you were just giving me an unnecessary history lesson then.
Nope, just tacking on my own thoughts at the end of your comments. Consider it the verbal equivalent of my pleasant nodding in agreement.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's recent reports of Ahmadenijad praising the bravery of the commander. I get the feeling that this was not a premeditated scenario.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahmadinejad awarded medals to all of the Iranian sailors involved in the abduction, in an extensive ceremony praising their bravery&etc which led the international reporters covering the story to fear that the Iranian government was hardening its position inregard to the captives. Then Ahmadinejad announced the release of the prisoners as a "gift of goodwill celebrating" a Muslim holy day and Easter "the Christian celebration of Jesus*."
Which means of course that the Iranians are and have been absolutely positive that the abduction occurred in clearly Iraqi waters under the universal military doctrine of: If you screw up badly enough, you'll either get courtmartialed then tossed outta the service and into the brig, or bemedaled and promoted to cover up the embarassment to the nation.
Which leads to the why the Iranian ship commander decided to create an Incident. From its reaction, his actions don't seem to have been performed under the auspices of the Iranian government. Hence the highest probability is that the Iranian captain had been bribed by blackmarketeers to protect smuggling operations, and was creating a MAJOR distraction to prevent a nearby smuggling ship from being intercepted&inspected by the HMS Cornwall.
Obviously blackmarketeers cuz any Iranian government-approved smuggling ship would have been plying in Iranian waters by that point. An unapproved smuggler would stay in Iraqi waters until the last minute, then cut into Iranian waters only when the smuggler knows that there is a relatively safe passage to shore. Hence a bribed Iranian RevolutionaryGuard ship captain.
Thing about accepting the first bribe is ya can't refuse following bribes, which means that the "Iranian hero" is now a major security hole within the RevolutionaryGuard. Not that the Iranians in positions of power will believe it: they need a hero, and so will rationalize away any doubts that their "hero" isn't a hero. Undoubtedly they are already deluding themselves with descriptions such as "an overly enthusiastic but understandably gung-ho patriot going above&beyond the call of duty."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Britain has the ability to cut off Iran's governmental head with a few well-placed nukes. Since the vast majority of the population hates the tyrannical and extremist ayatollahs and mullahs, it would not take much to depose them once their main power is gone.
Not particularily true, and frankly impossible to know. The Iranians ive spoken to were far more suspisious of western motives then the motives of their government.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Plausible scenario except we know we dont know everything.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Britain has the ability to cut off Iran's governmental head with a few well-placed nukes. Since the vast majority of the population hates the tyrannical and extremist ayatollahs and mullahs, it would not take much to depose them once their main power is gone.
Not particularily true, and frankly impossible to know. The Iranians ive spoken to were far more suspisious of western motives then the motives of their government.
I think you're right, Blayne. Are the Iranians you've spoken with expats, or do you have links to Iranians living inside of Iran through your internet reach?
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
holey crap why does this thread even exist?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
