Well sure. If you read the next line I said as much, ehe? 
The point is that ‘international incident’ SOUNDS fairly ominous…but Iran has provoked one itself by its nuclear program. Hell, ‘international incident’ could mean ‘hey, stop stealing our fish you rat bastards!’.
I don’t think that limited air strikes on Iran’s nuclear weapons program (even if they happened :dubious: ) would cause a WAR…which was the point I was sort of getting too there.
-XT
Followed by:
IOW, it wasn’t a real question.
You folks are so transparent you should rent yourselves out as Saran Wrap.
Regards,
Shodan
Everyone else is playing relatively nicely, (considering the topic and the players). Back off with the personal remarks.
[ /Moderating ]
:dubious: How about this:
Bush: Hey, instead of pussyfooting about with Iran’s nuclear program and doing all that soogical strike non-sense why don’t we go for the whole enchilada and drop cluster munitions on their towns and such?
Chaney: How much would it cost?
…
I seriously doubt that bombing the crap out of Iran’s nuclear facilities (assuming we don’t screw the pooch and miss, causing a bunch of civilian causalities) is going to rile up anti-American sentiment in the ME any more than it already is. And certainly simply moving air craft carriers into the region is a non-starter…they gots LOTS more to hate us for. This is well down the list…
Like the Brits, French, Romans, etc before us, being beloved was never in the cards for us. Moving carriers however tends to focus the attention of nations who are at odds with us. We can debate if thats a good thing or a bad one, but it IS an effective POLITICAL tool for the US to use. And nothing else seems to be working very well with Iran atm…
-XT
They would. Iran borders on Iraq and Afghanistan and already is suspected of stirring up trouble in both. Bombing their nuke plants would not make them behave themselves. Quite the reverse. Wouldn’t be surprised if Pakistan got dragged into it, too, considering how much internal trouble they’ve got with Taliban rebels in the northwest and restive Balochis in the southwest (and in Iran’s southeast). Meanwhile the U.S has been encouraging Kurdish guerillas in northwest Iran . . . and that is bound to make the Turks mad sooner or later . . .
It’s like sticking our collective national . . . fist . . . into a hornet’s nest just to see what will happen.
I disagree…but thus far its a moot point. I think you are throwing entirely too much gloom and doom into an air strike on Iran’s nuke program, but regardless I don’t think its going to happen anyway.
Do you really think its a good idea to let Iran have its own way with this simply because of what they might do if we don’t let them? If the answer is ‘yes’ then the US might as well go back to being an isolationist power and let the world hang…
Iraq aside, you know sometimes its necessary for a world power to BE a world power and do distasteful things. Perhaps if our Euro buddies would GET an, er, ‘fist’, then we wouldn’t always have to be the bad guys on the world stage. Its in THEIR best interests as well to ensure Iran doesn’t have a viable nuclear weapons program…and the best time to stop one is BEFORE they manage to get the nukes.
-XT
XT, why should anybody trust our judgement and good sense? In case you missed it, we launched an entirely needless war that is roiling the world in general, and the ME in particular, and now you want the guys who didn’t to share some of the blame? Huh?
I am thinking more of a US ship wandering into Iranian waters “by mistake” resulting in shots being fired by the Iranians, or the vessel being boarded and prisoners being taken.
You know; something like this.
They don’t. The point though is…they never did. Especially the Iran’s and North Korea’s of the world (but certainly not limited to them). However, trust really isn’t in it. What they KNOW however is that if a carrier battle group is off their coast, it might be a good idea to play nice. I think Iran gets THAT message loud and clear. Whether or not they act on it is another matter…
Nope, I didn’t fail to catch it. It was in all the headlines after all. However, what superpower HASN’T fucked up by the numbers in history? I can’t for the life of me think of any. Yet, they still had to take their lumps and keep acting like a superpower. So do we. The events in Iran are separate from those in Iraq. Or to put it another way, because we fucked up in Iraq doesn’t mean we should do nothing about whats going on in Iran.
Again, trust really isn’t in it, and never has been. You think nations trusted the Brits or French…or the Romans?!? At this point between Iran and the US it has nothing to do with trust…and really, little to do with our invasion of Iraq. Our mutual soap opera history goes back a lot further than that.
:dubious: Not a bloody chance in hell. There is more of a chance that Bush will be made king of the world next year than that Iran will attack a US warship operating in the gulf AND take prisoners. Hell, it wouldn’t have happened to the Brits if their ROE were better crafted…they weren’t captured because the RN was incapable. That won’t be a problem with the US Navy…anything getting close to a US Naval vessel in the Gulf will be warned off…and then sunk.
Not that I think the Iranians are crazy enough to attack a US vessel…even if it does stray into their territorial waters (or the Iranians pretend it did). Taking on the RN with one hand tied behind its back is a bit of a different kettle of fish from taking on the US Navy in the current climate. YMMV but my bets would be on ‘they aren’t that stupid and/or crazy’…
-XT
So if you concede that they’re not stupid and/or crazy, then why should we be panicked at the thought of Iran getting nuclear weapons?
My own sense is that they want a nuke of their own so as to deter US attacks, and not as a first-strike weapon.
Why not? You are assuming that cooler, pragmatic, and secular heads will prevail, while we do our level best to undermine the position of the pragmatic and secular. You know, the guys who* don’t* believe that Allah will protect them. You act as though “rattling their cage” is a harmless exercise in psychological pressure, but you ignore the fact that this strengthens the hand of our sworn enemies as they condemn the “defeatists” in their midst, the Iranian version of the dirty fucking hippies and namby-pamby liberals.
Something less than brilliant. Peace is harder to make than war, because war only requires one dumb damn move, whereas peace requires a whole series of smart ones.
Because its not in our national interest for a nation state like Iran to have nuclear weapons in that particular region. And its too late to do anything about it once they get them. Basically the same problem with North Korea…now that they have them they can use them to blackmail the region and provide themselves with a certain level of immunity from attack…thus enabling them to do pretty much whatever they want.
And thats not in the US’s (or Europe’s or pretty much any other industrialized nation reliant on oil) best interests.
Oh, I’m sure thats part of the equation. They want to have the same kind of protection that North Korea enjoys from attack by the US or any other power. But it goes a bit beyond that (IMHO anyway). It would make Iran the dominant force in the region, gain them a huge measure of influence and prestige by gaining nuclear weapons. I think THAT is their primary goal…with the benefit of relative immunity from the US/EU being much sought after as well.
I’m not afraid of Iran getting a nuke because they will give one to a terrorist or decide to pop one off at Israel (though the latter is a possibility if a conflict between Israel and Iran ever happens…a not exactly unlikely event). I’m worried about all that influence and power in the region flowing into Iran’s hands…and what they will do with it.
At a guess, thats what the Euro’s are worried about too…
-XT
Or like Israel enjoys?
Well, in Israel’s case its more a matter of ‘keep em guessing’. Sort of the Saddam strategy. Didn’t work out so well for him…and may or may not work out so well for Israel either. The problem with being a democracy is that its a bit more difficult to look scary and wild eyed, with a bit of lip curl and some foam about launching random nukes than it is for a quasi-democracy thats actually a theocracy in disguise. They might not actually BE crazy…but then again, you never know…
(Also, its not like Israel is going to gain a lot of prestige in the region, ehe? )
-XT
Is this going to be another case where the people that now say, “You’d have to be crazy to believe he’d do such a thing!” will be the same ones that later say, “You’d have to be crazy for not supporting his obviously necessary actions!”?
What’s all this talk about Iran having a nuclear weapons program? They certainly have an enrichment program, but I’ve not seen any hard evidence that they’re shooting for the highly enriched stuff you need to make bombs. Sure, John Bolton was publicly wetting his pants a couple years ago, telling us we were all about to dissolve in a sea of Iranian nuclear fire, but what with gas rationing in Iran I think we can all now see that Iran has a legitimate interest in atomic power.
No, but we might. Consider, if you will, the benefits of a peaceful detente with Iran. We would advance the day when Iran would become a secular western type democracy, undermine the sectarian divisions which threaten peace (a broad Shia-Sunni conflict which used to be pretty much unthinkable is no more unthinkable, we need to stuff that Cheney back in its bottle…).
It already over in regard to nuclear proliferation, if a half-assed piece of crap like NK or Pakistan can do it, we can forget stopping any one. Mr Khans nuclear Amway sale made that starkly clear. The escalation scale still favors us, they have a nuke or two we have thousands upon thousands of thermonukes, and we can deliver. If having a nuke will make them feel safer, I daresay that’s good. It is the threatened and paranoid who are most likely to make the dumb move. Like we did.
Compare to the Cuba crisis, which was resolved peacefully in good part because the Russians knew that Kennedy did not want war and would work towards peace, if given any chance to do so.
If we bargain sensibly and respectfully with the Iranians, we encourage precisely the kind of leadership we most desire. We rattle their cage, we make them nervous (and given our recent track history, who wouldn’t be…) we empower the wrongest of the wrong.
Everybody can see the big stick, we don’t have to brandish it, it makes us look weak and belligerent. The speak softly part, thats whats lacking. It is important that our friends can trust us, it is even more important that our enemies can trust us as well.
My opinion on an attack on Iran : More likely than not. Air strikes at the least. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush used nukes on Iraq’s nuclear facilities. And I also wouldn’t be surprised if he ordered a land attack from Iraq in the closing few months of his presidency, in order to lock in a conflict with Iran.
If you want to negotiate with people, or have allies, trust matters. If you want to use anything other than sheer force, you want trust.
We already sent the message when we attacked Iraq. The mesage is, it doesn’t matter if you ‘play nice’ or not. Saddam tried negotiation, he tried to give us what we want; we showed the world that we are homicidal maniacs who do not respond to either of those things. Or to anything at all besides force.
No, they aren’t. They demonstrate that we are neither trustworthy, honest nor amenable to reason. And that we destroy what we touch.
Enough to negotiate and sign the occasional treaty with them.
More likely we’ll lie and claim an attack. Or they could attack and claim we fired first, and be believed; no one will believe us. And the threat of retaliation by us isn’t much of a threat because they most likely expect to be attacked no matter what they do.
You don’t think he’d say, like our friend XT does, that such an attack would teach them a lesson and not escalate? I have no idea whether he actually believes that or is actually looking for an invasion. I think it is perfectly plausible he’s sure they’ll back down. After all, miscalculations have happened before.
How odd that a claim that no one is directly proposing an invasion gets so much discussion - but not a lot of evidence. I’d ask you for some, but I have no idea if you are saying they’re in favor of it or against it. As for airstrikes, we’ve got plenty of evidence in that regard, and you’re obstinate denial of it doesn’t count as evidence against.
In any case, how can an airstrike lead to anything more, since we’ve got sane, rational, and moderate leaders in both Iran and the US.
Oh, shit.
Did I say that? Wow…
We negotiate with people…and we have allies. Allies that still trust us in fact.
Saddam never tried to negotiate in good faith…that was part of the problem. Agreed that the message we sent in Iraq wasn’t the correct one (this might be the first time in GD that you’ve actually said something I think is at least quasi-correct…enjoy the moment. ).
I think that you are going over the top with the rest of your assessment of how the world thinks of us (i.e. as ‘homicidal maniacs’, etc)…but then it wouldn’t be one of your posts if you didn’t fly off the handle.
While you’ve probably missed it in your blind hatred of the US, even under Bush The Evil we STILL are able to both negotiate AND sign the occasional treaty. We still have allies too, though you probably should keep that quiet…wouldn’t want the faithful to find out…
(BTW, one day look up how the Brits or French treated ‘allies’…and what they did when said ‘allies’ refused to move in lock step. IMHO we have the BEST kind of allies…ones who won’t blindly follow us if we do something stupid, but are still with us even when we DO something stupid. YMMV…)
:rolleyes: I wonder if people who’s side you are nominally on ever cringe…
-XT