81 replies to this topic

[tennyson]

Iran has been the enemy in war games and exercises and actual combat in 1987-88 for a long time. As I mentioned I have a book of wargames that were run and one of them was a 1995 excercise where Iran sealed the Straight of Hormuz and the US had to reopen them.
While I see force as an option after we've run through everything I see diplomacy and covert action including support to opposition groups as better than war and should be applied until completely exhausted. But I don't want anything resembling the current Iranian government to gain access to nuclear weapons. and yes I am willing to expend American lives including my own if the Navy will have me to protect Isreal from annhilation.

[Spectacles]

http://news.yahoo.co...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Quote

Asked if options included planning for a nuclear strike, Bush replied: "All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so."

[Ogami]

Rhea wrote:

Do you possess evidence to the contrary? Because based on past performance, he IS the bigger threat.

Truman was getting low marks for his foreign policy in rebuilding Japan and Germany, at the time. It took a decade for results to start showing in those countries. Bush is in the same position now with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush won't invade Iran, and time will show we focused on the right countries, militarily and diplomatically.

But that takes years. Until then, we'll have to put up with liberals dips like Hersh shrieking "Bush is gonna nuke us all!"

Oh please.

-Ogami

[Denny]

tennyson, on Apr 16 2006, 10:50 PM, said:

But I don't want anything resembling the current Iranian government to gain access to nuclear weapons. and yes I am willing to expend American lives including my own if the Navy will have me to protect Isreal from annhilation.

Speak for yourself.  I'm way past draft age anyway, but I wouldn't risk a fingernail to protect Israel, and if we jump into that fight more than we already have, we'll deserve whatever the Muslim world can send our way.

[tennyson]

I thought by defintion I was speaking for myself since I tasked my own life to this goal.

[Denny]

tennyson, on Apr 29 2006, 07:04 PM, said:

I thought by defintion I was speaking for myself since I tasked my own life to this goal.

When you say "expend American lives including my own", I want to withdraw myself from the bargain.  Neither you nor the Jesus lunatics in Washington have a right to involve those of us who don't want to be involved.

[tennyson]

So?  don't join the military. Then you'll have nothing to do with anything related to it at all. I have just as much right to express my desire that the Jewish people don't experience a second Holocaust  and my willingness to put my own life and those who volunteered to serve to prevent that as you do to express your opinion to not be involved.

Edited by tennyson, 29 April 2006 - 10:22 PM.

[MuseZack]

tennyson, on Apr 30 2006, 03:16 AM, said:

So?  don't join the military. Then you'll have nothing to do with anything related to it at all. I have just as much right to express my desire that the Jewish people don't experience a second Holocaust  and my willingness to put my own life and those who volunteered to serve to prevent that as you do to express your opinion to not be involved.

Given that Israel could flatten every population center from Casablanca to Karachi with nuclear weapons if it so chose and has more divisions than the active-duty US Army at its disposal, I'm not sure why it particularly needs US help at this point in history.  Is there any actual evidence that the Iranian leadership has a collective death wish beyond their deliberately nasty and provocative rhetoric?

[tennyson]

I can make the comment how Isreali divisions are organized more on the Eurpean pattern and have roughly half the soldiers of thier American counterpart at between 5000-6000 people rather than the more than 12,000 of an American division and Isreali missiles don't have the range to reach either of those cities and they are the only reliable way way Isreal could do so with near certainty in the face of prepared defences.  
Now that that's out of my system I will answer the actual question presented. The question hinges on wether the people making the choices in Iran are people who are rational actors acording to traditional deterence theory. If they are rational actors then this rhetoric is all just bluster and prevarcation and they can be counted on to not follow through if they aren't attacked or at least only if they can be sure of an annhilating first strike. But if they aren't and for whatever reason(national or personal pride, true belief in this being what needs to be done to fulfil the things needed to happen for the last judgement, or simple belief that God will protect his own or other ideas in this range) believe that they won't be affected by the Isrealis in return or that thier sacrifice achieves a greater good then the danger becomes truly enormous.
The problem is that us in Europe, the Americas and Isreal are left to wonder about thier intentions when thier leadership says in the open that they want to erase another nation from existance. We aren't party to whatever internal deliberations so we are left to judge based on past experience, what is said in the open and any  other models taken from cultural and psychological studies.
That all being said my catagotical comment was based on a whole lot of hypothetical things happening that haven't yet. The first in the chain being the complete failure of diplomacy and only eventually leading on to war, at least on the nonIranian side.
One particular thing that the US can do for Isreal is bring to bear more missile defenses in addition to the jointly developed Arrow, adding in the Airborne Laser and the upgraded Standard if tensions increase not to mention more Patriots of the PAC-3 version.
We could also give the Isrealis if we so chose the bases and refueling needed to give thier own airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities a better chance of sucess, but that's preemption not dealing with a fully nuclear armed Iran.

[Delvo]

Israel's army doesn't matter if its cities get nuked, and Iran completely lacks any other reason for developing the nukes other than to nuke Israel just for being Israel.

[WildChildCait]

Denny, on Apr 9 2006, 05:32 PM, said:

The out of context quotations from the Quran mean nothing, for they were written (recited, actually) at a time when the Muslims were surrounded by hostile pagan tribes.  It is not a license to go out and attack anyone a Muslim feels like attacking, and call it a "jihad".

*raises eyebrow*..hostile...pagan...tribes...
OK< where pray tell do I find a tribe consisting entirely out of 'pagans'?

Most pagans are no where near that organised!

Cheers
Chaddee
Pagan and Proud of it!

[offworlder]

Now this is an opinion piece, but there are facts in it; I sure didn't know about the $700m Russian Tor antiair missile sale to Iran this week (why the heck wasnt Haaretz sqwacking on that when I read them two days ago?), though I did read about this week's Russian launch of Israel's spysat to watch Iran ........... this lady's talking about Russia's double game, and how it could precip a war, and she has some interesting points to make.

And it's not just Russia (why do they DO things like this?), or just 'that man' the prez: that ayatolah guy behind him seems to be really behind him, sabre rattling too; we could just be watching the beginnings of something that makes a huge problem for half the world; points to ponder, things to think on ......... I bet the Tel Aviv SitRoom is cranking every morning

http://www.latimes.c...l=la-home-local

[MuseZack]

Delvo, on Apr 30 2006, 05:47 AM, said:

Israel's army doesn't matter if its cities get nuked, and Iran completely lacks any other reason for developing the nukes other than to nuke Israel just for being Israel.

Can you read a map?  Iran is a Shiite Persian country with an Arab neighbor to the west that invaded it back in 1980 at a cost of a million lives, Sunni Arab Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies across the Gulf, an unstable (and mostly Sunni) Afghanistan to the east with nuclear-armed Sunni Pakistan behind it, nuclear armed Russia to the north, a nuclear-armed Israel that's shown itself willing to pre-emptively attack its neighbors nearby, and a hostile global superpower with bases on either side of it.

Oh, and the contrasting cases of North Korea and Iraq proved definitively that if you're thought to be developing nukes, you're in big trouble, but once you actually get them, everyone leaves you alone.  So from a strictly realpolitik perspective, Iran has numerous incentives to develop nukes and few not to.

[Godeskian]

Delvo, on Apr 30 2006, 06:47 AM, said:

Israel's army doesn't matter if its cities get nuked, and Iran completely lacks any other reason for developing the nukes other than to nuke Israel just for being Israel.

Civilian nuclear power generation to avoid total dependance on dwindling oil reserves seems like a perfectly good reason to develop nuclear technology.

[rponiarski]

Delvo, on Apr 30 2006, 01:47 AM, said:

Israel's army doesn't matter if its cities get nuked, and Iran completely lacks any other reason for developing the nukes other than to nuke Israel just for being Israel.

That is exactly the reason, plus perhaps a return to the "Persian Empire" days of the past. A people who are rooted in the 7th Century can't make decisions that make sense in the 21rst...

[CJ AEGIS]

Quote

Zack: Is there any actual evidence that the Iranian leadership has a collective death wish beyond their deliberately nasty and provocative rhetoric?

When the alternative is a nuke going off over Tel Aviv I tend to think it is better error on the side of being a little paranoid.  Along with what Tennyson said at least with the Soviets even in their rhetoric there was a rational motive behind it.  There was a reasoning behind that rhetoric and some goal they wanted in to achieve.  I haven’t seen the Iranians display the characteristics of a rational actor on the world stage yet.  

tennyson, on Apr 30 2006, 12:28 AM, said:

One particular thing that the US can do for Isreal is bring to bear more missile defenses in addition to the jointly developed Arrow, adding in the Airborne Laser and the upgraded Standard if tensions increase not to mention more Patriots of the PAC-3 version.

The SM-3 is what I could really see us adding to the defense of Israel that would be the most help to them.  Being such a narrow country seaborne units would be able to cover a good chunk of Israel.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 02 May 2006 - 01:19 PM.

[offworlder]

I hate to fan the flames, but there's new news on this stuff everyday, and new rhetoric from 'that man' almost everyday - today 'than man' says that Israel is the target, if U.S. does any aggressive are warmaking act then Iran targets Israel in retaliation; of course that is the motive with the new longer range missiles and the new antiair defense system too; they know how far U.S. is, they know how close Israel is, they know the military strategies of distance and geography and topography and every other kind of -y, including envy; power-envy; influence-envy; weild-a-bigStick envy. They've always known. And they're getting into position not only to make oil prices go up to hit pocketbooks (I must wonder how their price affects what we buy from Saud/Kuwait/Bahrain/Africa/et al), but also to stretch two thousand miles to endanger enemies and allies of enemies; all for weilding sticks; all for influence and power; all to be a player, to get more what you want.

And now today there are EU diplomats saying U.S. is stupid trying to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club because it's a fait acomplait.

Pick yer fave online news and read , this stuff is basically everyday, but these two are out today. my news today was from Reuters online. (and here in the edit is the ap one I momentarily lost)

http://news.yahoo.co...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
(sorry, link insert thingy doesn't work right in rtfedit-on-mode)

Edited by offworlder, 02 May 2006 - 02:11 PM.

[BklnScott]

So, to sum up:  

• if we target them, they go after Israel
  
• if we don't target them, they go after Israel

At least, according to them.  I've always thought they were full of sh*t.  Not that they wouldn't love to annhilate Israel, but the cost -- their own existence -- is a bit high, no?

Edited by _ph, 02 May 2006 - 02:31 PM.

[Call Me Robin]

Speaking of Iran, guess what Valerie Plame was working on at the time she was outed?

[Denny]

tennyson, on Apr 30 2006, 03:16 AM, said:

So?  don't join the military. Then you'll have nothing to do with anything related to it at all. I have just as much right to express my desire that the Jewish people don't experience a second Holocaust  and my willingness to put my own life and those who volunteered to serve to prevent that as you do to express your opinion to not be involved.

We are all involved, however, as 9/11 proved.  If you want to defend Israel at the expense of America's interest, the decent thing to do is to go to Israel and sign up in their military so the rest of us can live our own lives without having a bunch of loonies trying to kill us beacuse of some Middle East grudge that is never going to be settled.