I was talking about America geographically (like 9/11) but this is what I found on those incidents, I don’t think I would call Hezbollah a bunch of good guys but this was all going on during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the civil war in Lebanon, etc 20 years ago:
I am no fan of Iran but what exsactly are you suggesting we do about it?
Should we bomb them?
Invade them?
Nuke them?
What?
I think this is the biggest problem I have. and I blame Bush for it. I was never political until Bush started making the case for invading Iraq and I realized shortly before the invasion that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Now this discovered deception colors everything (especially regarding foreign policy) that comes from this administration. I have found myself questioning the rationale for supporting an Israeli regime that responds to the kidnap of two soldiers with airstrikes on 7000 targets (many having nothing to do with Hezbollah) and a ground invasion and I had always been a staunch supporter of Israel. I have even found myself wondering if other countries had a point when they said they needed nukes for self defense (after all it does deter us from invading them). I can only hope that all this hatred (its more righteous indignation than hatred) evaporates when we elect a new President. I can only hope…
Certainly (and I understand about the board…I’m having the same kinds of problems), but I’m unsure what more you want me to repeat. I’ve never advocated the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, and in fact don’t advocate their use under just about ANY circumstances short of all out war between super powers (gods forbid). The US doesn’t NEED to use nuclear weapons against Iran in order to set back, if not completley halt, their nuclear development program. We also don’t need to invade. Simply attacking Iranian infrastructure would be sufficient to delay their nuclear program…if this was deemed necessary.
I don’t advocate this course btw…I’m merely pointing out that it IS an option for the US, if we choose to pursue it…i.e. if we deem the threat of Iran having a nuclear weapon sufficient threat to our interests in the ME to pursue such a course.
That cover things or did you have more questions about my position? Hopefully the board will be back up to snuff sometime in the near future.
I’ll just take the second part of your question here. What do we do WHEN Iran says no to the incentives? I’m unsure, because there is what we COULD do, what we SHOULD do, and what we most likely WILL do. Which do you want? 
What we COULD do is halt Iran’s nuclear program via force of arms. This would be simple enough from a purely military perspective. It would, however, have far reaching consequences, the primary one being that Iran ALSO is a major oil exporter. Couple this with Iran’s ability to attack shipping (while that ability lasts) in the gulf and you have some major economic impacts in attempting to halt Iran’s program through force.
What we SHOULD do is…well, I’m not sure myself. Part of me see’s the threat and see’s the need to nip this problem in the bud before Iran actually manages to aquire a nuclear weapon and figure out a way to bolt on ontop of one of their longer ranged missiles. Failing diplomatic pressure, failing the array of incentives coming from all sides, failing world wide censure…well, really the military option is the only way at that point unfortunately. In our own best interests we (or the Euro’s, for sure the Israeli’s) SHOULD probably excersize the military option and just deal with the short/medium term consequences of the disruption in the flow of oil this is likely to spark.
On the other hand though, part of me thinks we SHOULD just let Iran continue on, despite the threat this would pose. I think we (i.e. the US) should back away and let the Euro’s handle it…and when they dither and procrastinate long enough and Iran manages to get the things we should just point at them when the problems arrise. I don’t think this is a very smart play, or in our collective best interest…but I’m tired of the US always being the heavy or the bad guy on these things.
As to my guess of what we WILL do…I’d say the Euro’s will dither, the Russians and Chinese will block any attempts to do anything that will jeopardize their own oil and profits, and the US will most likely do nothing at all. We have our crank in stuck in the golf shoes of Iraq, and I doubt we have the political will to do what needs to be done in Iran once the Euro’s great effort at diplomacy and bribary fails. The wild card is Israel…and after their dust up in Lebanon I’m unsure of THEIR political will to undertake what would be a much more difficult (than the US) task of halting or at least delaying Iran’s nuclear program.
-XT
That seems to be something of a distinction without a difference…
There’s also the fact that the Hezbollah cells within America would certainly either be capable of launching attacks, or providing intel to later waves which would do so.
Well, what is the implication you see from that? Why, for instance, did American embassies and international flights become targets for Hezbollah?
Ideally we would have responded to their attacks quite a long time ago. But as it’s now and not then, I’d say that we do everything we can to stop them from getting nukes, and if they won’t negotiate and are close to having a working nuke, we take military action. I don’t know what form, exactly, that would take. But the increase in terrorism and instability that a nuclear Iran would bring is simply unacceptable as I see it.
Some might want to claim that making people in the ME angry will necessarily lead to more terrorism, but I would contend that without support, all you have are impotent angry people.
Folks like spoke may say that predictions of increasing terrorism are “fearmongering” if people make those predictions about not stopping Iran, but they’ll often turn around and make those same “fearmongering” predictions about what will happen if we do stop Iran.
As I see it, not stopping Iran leaves us with a rogue state which funds international terrorism, but is now virtually entirely beyond reprisals. Stopping Iran helps send a clear message to the state sponsors of terrorism, and will, in my estimation, significantly lower the effectiveness of those networks which already exist.
you don’t think there is a difference between killing U.S. soldiers in Lebanon during a civil war when Israel was occupying part of Lebanon and killing US civilians in NYC?
cite please.
I woulda thunk it had something to do with our support for Israel (which was occupying part of Lebanon. So maybe we shouldn’t support Israel on a hell or high water basis.
The first sentence is the best rationale I have heard people using and i fully support the use of all diplomatic and economic channels to prevent that.
I find the second sentence uncomfortably close to some of the current rationale behind the Iraq invasion.
The idea of pre-emptively using force as a deterrent has become anathema to me in the last 4 years.
Why is killing US peacekeepers okay if they happen to be in Lebanon?
And what about the embassies hit?
Or the planes hijacked?
Or the westerners kidnapped and killed?
The reason it is a distinction without a difference is that Iran via Hezbollah has shown that they will attack Americans within reach. The fact that most of those within reach were in the ME doesn’t mean that Hezbollah wouldn’t attack outside the ME again, or that we should give up having embassies in the ME.
Already provided. If I have excess free time I’ll look through old posts in the thread.
So if the United States supports Israel, then terrorists can attack us? Do terrorists get to decide who else we support in the future? If we support another one of Iran’s ideological enemies, we should expect more embassies to be hit? And the solution to this is not to stop Iran, but to appease them and let them get nukes?
And , we don’t support Israel on a 'hell or high water basis", but since you repeat the canard that the recent war was over ‘only two soldiers’, then perhaps you’re not going to admit that fact.
And if (and when) those channels don’t work?
What is wrong in one situation may be right in another. We should be at war with state sponsors of terrorism.
Much better to look at things on a case by case basis.
The only cite I found was a cite to a washington times editorial. Hezbollah in America - Washington Times
It seemed to say that these guys had a presence here but they are hardly “cells.” The editorial is referring to fundraising organization (does that mean that we provide monetary support to terrorists? are we going to have to sanction ourselves?) and then it speculates about other nefarious “behind enemy lines” surveillance activity it must be conducting in the U.S.
Just an FYI, the Washington Times is run my the moonies and their circulation is so bad that they pass it out for free here in DC. If that is your cite, I don’t know how many people you are going to convince that there are Hezbollah “cells” in America. It is a bit alaarmist, no?
Its what I read in the news. Its what is on wikipedia. Is there some sort of conspiracy to make Israel look like it overreacted when it was actually doing something else? Please cite.
I am not entirely literate on the US Israel relationship, why we have it and what US interests are being served. Can you illuminate?
I don’t think there is anything we can do but I am open to being convinced to use conventional bombing and artillery strikes. I am not entirely convinced that this is justifiable but I’m not convinced its not justifiable either.
This administration isn’t ever going to be able to convince me to go to war unless we get attacked. The rationale of pre-emptive invasion is too much like the reasons we went into Iraq and they have no credibility.
If they wanted Iran, they should have gone after Iran, they shot their load when they lied about Iraq. Its just my opinion, but it is going to take an attack by Iran (or credible people telling me we need to do something) for this administration to get anything done or at least some smoking gun that Iran was involved and if that smoking gun is a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv then blame it on the boy who cried wolf because I don’t think America is ready to spend another 300 billion dollars and thousands of American lives because there some regional bully is saying mean things about us and certainly not based on anything this administration says. When I say credible people, I mean people like McCain, Powell (now there’s a Republican ticket I could vote for if the Dems win back one of the chambers of congress, no way I’d vote for a Republican President if both houses are still republican in 2008), Murtha, Cleland, Kerry and a few others. If these guys lined up and said "we have to bomb Iran, I think I could support that and I think the rest of America could support that.
A presence, but not cells. Kind of like having six, but not half a dozen.
No, it refers to rings of Hezbollah operatives engaged in criminal activities such as smuggling.
Let’s not discuss the facts, but the organization presenting them. I wish there was a fallacy to describe that…
One of many on the 'net. I offered a rough and ready cite because I assumed that people who would discuss the issue would already know the facts.
I take it that the New Yorker is fine with you?
Nope. Having Hezbollah cells in the country who might be poised for suicide attacks and who’ve been scouting out DC isn’t a good thing.
Well, if it’s on Wikipedia…
But no, I’m not going to do any more legwork right now. Look up the history of Hezbollah attacks stretching back six years since Israel pulled out of Lebanon. Look up Hezbollah attacks on Israel a matter of weeks before they abducted IDF soldiers. Look up Hezbollah rocket attacks which were concurrent to the abduction of those soldiers.
Heck, read through some of the recent threads on the recent war, where this issue is done to death.
Among other things, an ally in the ME, a port our military could use at Haifa, help in intel matters from Mossad, etc…
Eh, if you can’t see beyond what happened in Iraq and look at other situations on a case by case basis I don’t know what to say.
I don’t follow the logic
The Saudis have a fair number of malcontents, partly because they have allowed Fundamentalists to ‘educate’ their under-employed young males.
The Saudi establishment is substantially more at risk from their own population, than the USA.
The presence of US troops in Saudi made no difference, those guys would have committed 9/11 regardless.
As I keep on saying, you can’t provoke a Fundamentalist, they are 100% provoked regardless of what the USA does.
You can attract them into hot spots like Bosnia, Iraq or Lebanon …
Bin Laden’s chief recruiting tool was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. From the 9/11 Commission Report:
And yet a country that we have a (quasi) alliance with invited us to be in their nation. If we let terrorists or rogue nations dictate our foreign policy and overrule our own interests, we’ve given them control and are in the position of only reacting to their agenda rather than having the inititiave.
America has valid interests in the ME. Allowing our national agenda to be dictated by our enemies is not only a show of weakness, it sets a very dangerous example. What other regions would we have our embassies, invited troops, foreign travelers, etc… driven out of?
What, too, about the ME people and regimes which want us there, or to have diplomatic relations with us? Say “screw 'em, Iran and Al Quaeda don’t want us there” or something?
Don’t change the subject. We are not talking about reacting to terrorists. We are talking about the risk of creating new terrorists.
Right now we are dealing with primarily a Sunni/Arab terrorist threat. If we bomb Iran, we open up a whole new can of worms, and will likely get reprisals from Shi’ite/Persian terrorist organizations. Bombing Iran will take what good will we have among the population of Iran and turn it right into hatred.
If our goal is to be safer from terrorism, bombing Iran is not the way to get there.
To get back to the question. I hate nuclear proliferation and think it dangerous for everybody. Do they have a right to nukes. Just as much as anyother nation.
No, you’re wrong, “cells” implies something very different than a mere presence.
Questioning the credibility of your source reference is more than valid and it is in no way a fallacy.
An important statement in that article is:There is no proof that the cells are capable of violent acts.
The rest seems either like speculation or mere criminal activity. I note that the most inflammatory (at least IMO) is a statement by an anonymous intelligence officer from some anonymous country saying that if we hit Iran, then there are “cells” in the USA that will exact retribution.
If these cells are here and there is some intent to do us harm even if do nothing to Iran, why haven’t we had more suicide bombings? These guys have apparently been here for quite some time. Is it at all possible that we will have suicide bombings if we start bombing Iran?
wikipedia, cnn, the newspaper, radio, etc. Everyone seems to think the reason for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (and pummeling the sh*t out of them, not just the Hezbollah controlled areas) but none of this is really relevant to the idea of Iran with Nukes.
I thought Kuwait was our ally (after Gulf War I, you’d think they’d at least be our friend and let us use their ports). aren’t Saudi Arabia and Iraq supposed to be allies as well?
You could start with “this adminstration deceived us to us to get us to go to war in Iraq by metaphorically digging up the corpses of the people who died on 9/11 and parading them around while pointing their finger at Saddam Hussein and saying that he was going to give nukes to terrorists so that they can nuke us”
then move on to “this administration has made a habit out of trying to decieving and misleading the American people, so when they tell us Iran is going to give nukes to terrorists so that they can nuke us, we’re not going to give them the benefit of the doubt and will require more proof than just their say so before we give them our approval to f^ck up another military campaign.”
Like I said, I could be convinced to bomb proven nuclear weapons making facilities in Iran but I just can’t see another ground war based on the “regime change” will teach everyone else not to f^ck with us rationale.
Right…'cause all countries are equal, with equal levels of stability and equal intent and responsibility to use or not use them wisely. :dubious:
To me its a contridiction to say you hate nuclear PROLIFERATION, and then say they have the right to nukes, just like any other nations (presumably without them as Iran currently is). Do you see the fundamental contridiction of your statement?
-XT
I disagree, they do not have the same rights to nukes as America for example.
Iran is devoted to changing the world order and that makes them far more dangerous nuclear power than America.
The dynamic is exactly the same; that we don’t let possible terrorist actions dictate our national policy.
There has been colaboration between Hezbollah and Al Queada. In addition, as I’ve argued, removing the backers of state sponsored terorism and cracking down on terrorists’ financing renders them much less potent.
Ayieeeee, stop fearmongering!
Ahem.
You totally ignored my point the last go-round, but I have to point out yet again that a stonger Iran that is immune to major responses will increase terorirsm as well. It will make it much more difficult for the US to exercise influence or take care of our interests in the region. It will enable Iran to be much more aggressive in its support and use of terrorist proxy forces. But I suppose that only you are allowed to talk about an increase of terrorism in response to certain actions, and if anybody else does it then the mongering begins.
Nope, I am right, and this is again a distinction without a difference. And in this case, a mere linguistic nitpick.
What is the difference between a group of Hezbollah agents who are acting out orders in the United States and are called a cell, and a group of Hezbollah agents who are acting out orders in the United States and are called a presence?
Nope. If a pathological liar tells you that the sky is blue, you can’t handwave it away based on his character. If a paper talks about well known and documented facts, you can’t handwave those away based on the ‘credibility’ of the source.
The cite I provided repeated information that is freely available and has been discussed for years.
You are cherrypicking. One group indicated that they might be close to being ordered to commit suicide attacks. Pictures were taken in front of DC landmarks. And as I stated, these cells could serve as an advance guard for other waves of Hezbollah agents. Even if they are ‘just’ involved in recon, that’s still a dangerous enemy force to have in your country.
In addition, the ability to commit violent acts is not exactly difficult. A teenager with a bat can commit violent acts. And a Hezbollah cell with a bunch of bleach and amonia can mix 'em up on a train. Or read on the internet how to make any number of explosives. The claim that they aren’t proven to be able to commit violent acts is rather absurd.
Hezbollah agents, taking orders from outside the country, engaging in various criminal activities, and well placed to either aid or commit acts of terrorism. Merely.
How many years were between the first and second bombing of the WTC? Maybe these cells haven’t been ordered to commit violence either because the retaliation would be crippling for Iran? Perhaps that retaliation would never come if Iran had nukes?
Is that really a chance you advise America to take with its security?
“A foreign and hostile power has infiltrated cells of a terrorist organization into your country, but it’s totally fine, because they haven’t started attacking you yet.”
Of course. Just as it’s possible that we will have suicide bombings if we frustrate Iran’s ambitions in any other sphere and they have nukes, denying us the chance of a significant military response.
You’re arguing a different position that the one I stated. I didn’t say we had only one ally in the region, for instance.
You could start with “The boy has cried wolf several times by saying that a wolf was going to eat the sheep. So I’m not going to check to make sure this time and I’ll just assume he’s lying again.”
Again, situations are different. If you refuse to look at a different situation as if it’s not the same exact situation as another, all you’ve done is decided to be wilfully ignorant.
Or one could look at the situation, the facts, and various claims, and then come up with a conclusion. Pretend that the administration hasn’t said anything about it, and analyze the position.
Reflexive opposition to what the administration says is no better than reflexive support.
What would it take to convince you that we should bomb Iran’s nuclear program back into the stone age?
The other angle, less mentioned, is that weapons are an apex technology. As our US dopers may testify, there is an entire economy of support industries that grow to sustain a military sector.
The fact is particularly true in the case of nuclear technologies. That technology is an alternative for a developing nation to pursuing the industrial and development route through manufacturing consumer goods for the West. An equally sensible approach is to use the cascading benefits of nuclear research to create a clean-energy economy.
Moreover in the case of Iran, that development strategy allows it to diversify its economic base as an energy provider. That is a field in which it has decades of expertise.
Considered in this light, Iran should act responsibly to develop its nuclear technologies and research.
I’m sure everyone will be thrilled to know the latest :
I can only shake my head in wonder over this not completely unexpected development. So, the EU wants more dialogue (guess there is more to say and lots more procrastination and dithering to be done before, er, well, before Iran finally manages to make the thing. But at least the EU will be able to look itself in the face and say they gave it the old college try! 
)…and Russia is already making noises about blocking things.
You guys who think that Iran has every right to a nuke, looks like you will win by default…
-XT