Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 115
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You would have to move out of Iraq first, because an attack on Iran would make the Shiite majority in Iraq close ranks with Iran immediately. Full-blown civil war in Iraq would be a certainty.
    Maybe, maybe not. Allowing Isreal to stage large-scale attacks would also be likely to have this same result, no?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    He was elected in a democratic election, remember? There were more moderate candidates, but Ahmadinejad got the majority.
    That's an odd definition of democracy. In Iran, only those who meet certain ideological standards are allowed to stand for election.
    I don't think Iran should get the possibilty of building a bomb, but the military options seem highly limited when considering what would follow afterwards in the Middle East.
    Agreed. There are no good options. The question is which bad option do we choose.
    Without the occupation of Iraq, the military threat would have been much more credible. Everybody knows US troops are already spread thin in Iraq, and that they are very vulnerable there.
    That's highly debatable, and beside the point in any case. The US has less that 150,000 troops in Iraq. In 1991, we sent 500,000. Obviously there's been a drawdown in the US military since 1991, but there's no logistical reason we couldn't respond militarily to a threat from Iran.
    Plus, the occupation and things like the torture scandals, Guantanamo, etc. have increased radicalisation in the Middle East a lot, so another attack on a Muslim country would create an even worse reaction in countries like Pakistan, Syria, Jordania, etc.
    That's the same (unfulfilled) argument we heard before the 1991 and 2003 wars against Iraq. Islamic leaders do far worse to their own people than we could even dream up. The thought that the "torture" scandals (BTW, we're still waiting for some actual verifiable claim of actual torture) would "make them mad at us" is laughable. It's also beside the point. Our top priority is the US national interest and security. Preventing a nuclear Iran is clearly more important than the possibility we might **** some people off.
    Pakistan's Musharraf would probably lose power, and Islamistic powers could take over there, too - and Pakistan already has nuclear weapons...
    This is an ongoing danger whether we attack Iran or not.
    Military strikes are an option if everything else fails. Iran is a poor country which e.g. cannot even produce enough gasoline for its own needs. There is a chance that external pressure (economic embargoes etc.) will lead to the removal of Achmadinejad and the return to power of more moderate Iranian politicians.
    Obviously, the military option is a last resort. Up until now, however, diplomacy has accomplished nothing and shows few signs of progress. Iran is one of the top oil producers in the world and has tremendous leverage over Europe. Iran is already embargoed by the largest economy in the world (the US). Iraq, which was fundamentally less sound ethnically and had sustained years of infrastructure damage from coalition bombing still would not crack under pressure from sanctions. In fact Europe (and Russia) also was cracking under that sanctions regime. Given that there is much more trade between Europe, Russia and Iran, I would expect the results to be the same.
    Besides, I doubt Russia or China have an interest in Iran becoming a nuclear power.
    I wish that were true. Russia, in fact is making a nuclear Iran possible by supplying materiel and expertise.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Maybe, maybe not.
    Maybe not a civil war of Iraqi Shiites against the US occupants/agressors in case of an attack against their Iranian brothers?
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Allowing Isreal to stage large-scale attacks would also be likely to have this same result, no?
    I would not count on Israel waiting for the US to "allow" an attack, but yes, it would have the same effect.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    That's an odd definition of democracy. In Iran, only those who meet certain ideological standards are allowed to stand for election.
    Still, the Iranians had a choice, and they voted not for the moderate candidate, but for the ideological extremist, even if was mostly for his Robin Hood attitude.
    It's also beside the point. Our top priority is the US national interest and security. Preventing a nuclear Iran is clearly more important than the possibility we might **** some people off.
    Yeah, you are so cool you don't have to care about pissing people off. That's why you got rid of the elected PM in Iran and supported the corrupt Shah so long, without realizing his people were so pissed off about him/you that they installed an Islamitic regime instead of the Shah, which was followed by the kidnappings in the US embassy, Irangate, the Iran-Iraq Gulf Wars, etc.
    This is an ongoing danger whether we attack Iran or not.
    Musharraf losing power in Pakistan is an ongoing danger greatly increased by an attack on Iran, whether you like it or not. It's also increased by killing a dozen or two innocent woman and children though US airstrikes on Pakistani villages, btw.
    Iran is one of the top oil producers in the world
    Iran has about 5% of world oil production, so it is not all-important. It imports e.g. 30% of its gasoline, an embargo would certainly hurt.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5.    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Maybe not a civil war of Iraqi Shiites against the US occupants/agressors in case of an attack against their Iranian brothers?
    Iraqis are arabs. Iranians are not. There is much that they do not have in common. I'm not saying that this wouldn't lead to a civil war - just that it's not automatic.

    Imagine a scenario where the US gets the cooperation of Europe and at least a couple of Middle East nations to act against Iran. In that scenario, Iraqi civil war would be less likely.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  6. #26  
    Victor Davis Hansen weighs in...


    January 13, 2006, 8:37 a.m.
    The Multilateral Moment?
    Our bad and worse choices about Iran.



    "Multilateralism good; preemption and unilateralism bad.”

    For four years we have heard these Orwellian commandments as if they were inscribed above the door of Farmer Jones’s big barn. Now we will learn their real currency, since the Americans are doing everything imaginable — drawing in the Europeans, coaxing the Russians and Chinese to be helpful at the U.N., working with international monitoring agencies, restraining Israel, talking to the Arabs, keeping our jets in their hangars — to avoid precipitous steps against Iran.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson...0601130837.asp
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Victor Davis Hansen weighs in...


    January 13, 2006, 8:37 a.m.
    The Multilateral Moment?
    Our bad and worse choices about Iran.



    "Multilateralism good; preemption and unilateralism bad.”

    For four years we have heard these Orwellian commandments as if they were inscribed above the door of Farmer Jones’s big barn. Now we will learn their real currency, since the Americans are doing everything imaginable — drawing in the Europeans, coaxing the Russians and Chinese to be helpful at the U.N., working with international monitoring agencies, restraining Israel, talking to the Arabs, keeping our jets in their hangars — to avoid precipitous steps against Iran.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson...0601130837.asp
    I largely agree with the article, with the exception of the possible reaction to air strikes against Iraq in Europe. Destroying the nuclear potential of Iran (as a last resort) would certainly not be like the present Gulf war in Iraq. It would be like the previous one (Kuwait) or Afghanistan, where the US had the support of Europe and even many Middle East countries.

    The situation in Iran is certainly not comparable to the one in pre-war Iraq. In fact, wouldn't it be great if the US hadn't spent so much credibility by "knowing" about Saddam's WMDs (as Mr. Rumsfeld put it: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.")?
    Last edited by clulup; 01/16/2006 at 11:10 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #28  
    Even without considering global warming (despite the ever increasing scientific evidence): isn't it high time to decrease oil consumption and really do something about dependency on Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.? Don't hope for the meagre amounts in Alaska, they will not make a difference anyway...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    In fact, wouldn't it be great if the US hadn't spent so much credibility by "knowing" about Saddam's WMDs (as Mr. Rumsfeld put it: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.")?
    Do you also hold the rest of the world's intel credibility to the same standard that said the exact same thing? Or was that just a slip an only crititized Bush's Admin's intel?
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Even without considering global warming (despite the ever increasing scientific evidence): isn't it high time to decrease oil consumption and really do something about dependency on Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.? Don't hope for the meagre amounts in Alaska, they will not make a difference anyway...
    Sure it will help, but it is only part of the solution to give time to develop the real solutions. I have read estimates ranging from it will keep us at the same level of dependence with it's increase in domestic oil supply vs growth of oil needs.....to actually decreasing our dependency by as much as 10-15%
  11. #31  
    The Origins of the Great War of 2007

    http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opini.../15/do1502.xml
  12.    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Do you also hold the rest of the world's intel credibility to the same standard that said the exact same thing? Or was that just a slip an only crititized Bush's Admin's intel?
    It was an obvious slap. No matter what Clulup thinks about the Iraq war and the intel that lead us to it, it is as I keep saying here, beside the point.

    Iran is what it is without regard to its neighbor Iraq. I'd like folks, including Clulup, to go on record now, before any action is taken, with what they think we (the world, not just the US) should do about it.

    I don't want this thread to degenerate into another Iraq thread.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  13.    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Even without considering global warming (despite the ever increasing scientific evidence): isn't it high time to decrease oil consumption and really do something about dependency on Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.? Don't hope for the meagre amounts in Alaska, they will not make a difference anyway...
    Sure. As soon as someone invents a realistic alternative.

    It would also be cool if I could invent a way to turn dirty snow (which Wisconsin has an abundance of in January) into gold. Then I could quit my job and live quite comfortably. Until then, I guess I'll have to continue to work.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    The Origins of the Great War of 2007

    http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opini.../15/do1502.xml
    Just because most of Europe did not follow Bush junior on his quest against Saddam's inexistent terrorism and his inexistent WMDs does not mean they will not act for good reasons, as they did in the case of e.g. Kuwait and Afghanistan.
    Last edited by clulup; 01/16/2006 at 04:09 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Sure. As soon as someone invents a realistic alternative.
    Since Europeans use about half as much oil per capita when compared to Americans, with the same or better quality of life (just less waste), it is more than obvious that there are realistic alternatives. Look at the sharp drop of US cars sold in the US, to get just one example.

    Without the dependency on oil (the US twice as much as Euorpe), the CIA would not have removed the elected Iranian Prime Minister from power, the US would not have supported the Shah regime against his people, Saddam Hussein's attack on Iran, his use of nerve gas against Iranians, etc. I am not saying we should let Achmadinejad have nuclear bombs because of that, I am just mentioning part of the story how we got here.

    A lot of bad comes from the dependency on Middle Eastern oil. High time to do something about it, seriously, for all of us, like it or not, better late than never.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16.    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Since Europeans use about half as much oil per capita when compared to Americans, with the same or better quality of life (just less waste), it is more than obvious that there are realistic alternatives. Look at the sharp drop of US cars sold in the US, to get just one example.

    Without the dependency on oil (the US twice as much as Euorpe), the CIA would not have removed the elected Iranian Prime Minister from power, the US would not have supported the Shah regime against his people, Saddam Hussein's attack on Iran, his use of nerve gas against Iranians, etc. I am not saying we should let Achmadinejad have nuclear bombs because of that, I am just mentioning part of the story how we got here.

    A lot of bad comes from the dependency on Middle Eastern oil. High time to do something about it, seriously, for all of us, like it or not, better late than never.
    Do you care to support your assertion of "half as much oil per capita" with a source?

    Your constant bashing of America is getting tiresome. Addiction to fossil fuels is hardly a purely American phenomenon - the largest growing consumer of worldwide petroleum products is China. It is common to all dynamic industrial economies. True, the US hasn't always looked after its national interests wisely, but it's a bit simple-minded (to be kind) to blame the litany of events you list on American policy.

    We (and you) are dependant upon fossil fuels. My point remains valid.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  17.    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Just because most of Europe did not follow Bush junior on his quest against Saddam's inexistent terrorism and his inexistent WMDs does not mean they will not act for good reasons, as they did in the case of e.g. Kuwait and Afghanistan.
    Europe does not have the capacity to "act" in any militarily significant way. It would be nice if this time around it didn't cut our tires, at least.

    If you want evidence of "inexistent terrorism and his inexistent WMDs", please check out other threads here on TC where evidence has been presented for terrorist ties and the nearly universal view that Saddam possessed WMD's. Please don't use this thread to bait people into replaying that debate yet again.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Iran is what it is without regard to its neighbor Iraq. I'd like folks, including Clulup, to go on record now, before any action is taken, with what they think we (the world, not just the US) should do about it.
    When working towards a solution regarding Iranian nuclear bombs, one cannot pretend the occupation of Iraq by the US (and about 10% others) didn't happen. How it happened, for what alledged reasons, how it was handled, all of this sets the stage for the present situation, and it is not a good stage Bush and his team have set up, in no respect.

    In my view, the prime goal is that Iraq does not achieve it's target to produce nuclear bombs (I guess we can safely assume this is the target). If everything else fails, I think it would be better to destroy the facilities instead of waiting until they have the bombs ready.

    However, those strikes should be done by the international community, not the US (as in Iraq), not NATO (as in Kosovo), not Israel, which leaves UN (as in the case of Kuwait). Ideally, it would be something close to "we, the world, have decided that Iran should not continue developing nuclear bombs".

    Of course this would mean establishing a broad consensus with as many nations as possible. Unfortunately, the present US administration has been exceptionally bad at this so far, so let's hope they can learn.

    Hopefully, a broad diplomatic consensus (including China and Russia) can be reached which helps put pressure on Iran and convince them via diplomatic means, international isolation, threats of embargoes, real embargoes, etc., that their path leads in a bad direction (meaning e.g. poverty), and that ultimately, their plan will not work out.

    If that doesn't work out, then the use of force (as described above) is better than Iran having the bomb, in my view.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Since Europeans use about half as much oil per capita when compared to Americans, with the same or better quality of life (just less waste), it is more than obvious that there are realistic alternatives. Look at the sharp drop of US cars sold in the US, to get just one example.

    Without the dependency on oil (the US twice as much as Euorpe), the CIA would not have removed the elected Iranian Prime Minister from power, the US would not have supported the Shah regime against his people, Saddam Hussein's attack on Iran, his use of nerve gas against Iranians, etc. I am not saying we should let Achmadinejad have nuclear bombs because of that, I am just mentioning part of the story how we got here.

    A lot of bad comes from the dependency on Middle Eastern oil. High time to do something about it, seriously, for all of us, like it or not, better late than never.

    I think your earlier dealings in Iran were more aimed at containing the Russians and their brand of communism.

    And you're right, it is high time to do something about it. We need to dust off the design for the neutron bomb and make a coupla dozen of those bad boys. They need to fit in the bomb bays of the B-2 and F-117
  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    When working towards a solution regarding Iranian nuclear bombs, one cannot pretend the occupation of Iraq by the US (and about 10% others) didn't happen. How it happened, for what alledged reasons, how it was handled, all of this sets the stage for the present situation, and it is not a good stage Bush and his team have set up, in no respect.
    Iran was working towards building a nuclear device before George Bush was even elected president. Iran is a different circumstance. Using it to take cheap shots at Bush doesn't help your credibility.
    In my view, the prime goal is that Iraq does not achieve it's target to produce nuclear bombs (I guess we can safely assume this is the target). If everything else fails, I think it would be better to destroy the facilities instead of waiting until they have the bombs ready.

    However, those strikes should be done by the international community, not the US (as in Iraq), not NATO (as in Kosovo), not Israel, which leaves UN (as in the case of Kuwait). Ideally, it would be something close to "we, the world, have decided that Iran should not continue developing nuclear bombs".
    That's a nice sentiment, and I look forward to U.N. sanction for whatever action becomes necessary. But let's not kid ourselves - it will be mostly Americans doing everything from planning and logistics to flying the bombers if it comes to that.
    Of course this would mean establishing a broad consensus with as many nations as possible. Unfortunately, the present US administration has been exceptionally bad at this so far, so let's hope they can learn.
    If you want an international stamp of approval and a U.N. effort, why is it Bush's job to create this consensus? Bush has thus far allowed the Europeans to take the lead on Iran. Time will tell whether this was wise - but since the EU is leading the way, should it not be their job to sell the world on the need for military action if (when) the time comes? Geneva, Rome, and Munich are all very close to being within Iran's ballistic missile range after all...
    Hopefully, a broad diplomatic consensus (including China and Russia) can be reached which helps put pressure on Iran and convince them via diplomatic means, international isolation, threats of embargoes, real embargoes, etc., that their path leads in a bad direction (meaning e.g. poverty), and that ultimately, their plan will not work out.

    If that doesn't work out, then the use of force (as described above) is better than Iran having the bomb, in my view.
    As I stated in my orignal post, I don't think we will get cooperation from Russia or China. In fact they are just as likely to end up on the other side of this. I hope that you are right, though.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions