Yea, but isn’t Khamenei is a huge power struggle with Ahmadinejad and basically hates him?
So, if I’m reading this right, the 12 people on the Guardian Council are calling all the shots as far as nukes in Iran go?
The government of Iran is very complicated and my understanding is that it’s very factionalized. But no, Ahmadinejad doesn’t have the power to make decisions about the nuclear program.
Forget that I don’t think it would work in the short term, what sense is there is doing it for the long term? What is the end game here?
We bomb them with such force that they decide not make self defense a priority? The only time that has ever worked we needed to use nuclear weapons…
That they decide it’s not worth the trouble to pursue nuclear weapons.
Would there be a red line as to the attrition level the US is willing to provoke? A 100,000 deaths, at a bare minimum, in Iraq don’t seem to have produced the results you wanted. Quite the contrary actually, you have a failed state with close ties to Iran and a burning hatred of Americans.
So, are we talking in the millions here?
In the short term your plan is to bomb them and delay a credible self defense capability without using land forces to keep it delayed.
In the long term you’re plan is to attack a nation so badly that they won’t attempt to develop a self defense capability since at some point you will no longer be able to delay it.
It is dangerously naive to believe we can hurt someone so badly that they won’t strive to defend themselves and they won’t be able to cultivate the support of the rest of the world.
I can see your point, except what would happen to gas prices if the Middle East erupts into conflict? Without oil from Saudi Arabia, it would not surpise me to see $8 or more for a gallon of gas in the US. That would put a screeching halt to any economic stimulus, although it might pick up sales of hybrid vehicles. In the long term, if we can wean ourselves off the dependence on foreign oil, we would probably be fine, but in the short term it would pose a problem. I would also tend to think that Iran would be more willing to give dirty bombs to terrorists than Pakistan, although I can see Pakistan doing that as well.
Why are you asking me what “you” want in regard to wars I oppose?
This about increased regional power, not self defense.
Sure, they want to sit at the big boy table too, but attacking them surely will change that dynamic.
They have been for quite some time. Iran is a regional power to such a degree that many Arab nations are far, far more concerned about Iran than Israel, and for good reason. Iran tried to dominate and still has forces in place which exercise incredible influence in Lebanon. They orchestrated a relatively massive, deadly attack on Saudi soil. They’ve formed an alliance of sorts with Syria. Their support from Hamas and Hezbollah has served to destabilize the Middle East time and again and has led to war.
The idea that Iran needs nukes for self defense is gainsaid by basic logic. The idea that they need nukes to be a regional power is gainsaid by the fact that they already are. Nukes would be used for an attempt to become a regional hegemon as well as to allow them to ramp up the activities of their proxy military forces with nuclear retaliation threatened against anybody who responded with military force.
It’s very implausible that it isn’t about self defense at least as much if not more than regional power. America has them surrounded with military bases, has been their enemy since decades before the present regime existed, and history shows that getting nuclear weapons is the one guaranteed method of making America stop using its military to bully you. And nuclear weapons simply aren’t very useful in terms of “regional power”.
Oh, I don’t know. Something to do with the fact that you’re posting about the amount of damage that needs to be inflicted until:
Crazy, innit?
I know all this and agree. But short of full ground warfare and occupation for over a decade what can we do to change the situation in our favor? Simple bombing will not work. It will not work. So. What other options are on the table? How about dialogue? WHEN Iran attains nuclear capability they will no longer fear direct assault, their neighbors will be more amiable to Western support, and we will draw lines of influence. Proxy wars will be fought, as they already have been for centuries, but they will be contained because they know we won’t invade them and with self defense assured they will have no reason to develop ICBM’s to threaten us directly. Iranian deaths exacerbate this issue, not resolve it.
I didn’t speculate on any amount of damage. Sitnam suggested the point of a war would be stopping Iran from trying to pursue “self-defense,” which is a silly claim to make since the issue is the nuclear program specifically, not “self-defense.” I said the point of a war (which I oppose) would be convincing Iran that their nuclear ambitions aren’t worth the trouble. Whether you oppose it or not, it makes a lot more sense than “We bomb them with such force that they decide not make self defense a priority?”
I’m not convinced of that at all. If there were no nuclear program, how many people would be talking about a war with Iran right now?
Well, at a minimum one person would be. I mean, DT himself would be bringing up our imminent invasion of Iran periodically even if Iran scrapped it’s nuclear program tomorrow. 
It’s hard to argue with the claim that they need to defend themselves from the US. Not that anyone believes they want nukes for defense, but that’s not the point.
No, it’s quite easy. Iran has attacked US military forces on multiple occasions causing hundreds of casualties and was allied with Al Queda before 9/11. None of these actions were seen by the US as a casus belli. The idea that Iran would need to defend themselves from us if they dropped their nuke program/instituted the Additional Protocols, to say nothing of if they completely severed their relationships with Hezbollah and Hamas? Well, it just doesn’t make any sense. If they can attack us and we won’t strike their nation directly, then if they disarm we’d have even less provocation.
Imagine I go punch a dog. Repeatedly. The dog doesn’t bite me. Then I buy a gun. You ask me why. I say “I need protection from that damned dog!”
http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/262971.html
New resolution on Iran voted 90 to 1 in favor.
“Red line” marked as ordered.
Couldn’t they make it a little less obvious? They used to have votes like this only in Soviet Union. Plus, that Rand Paul, the troublemaker who wont take money… what a loser :mad:
But, it gets better - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/20/netanyahu-star-new-election-ad-airing-in-florida/
However, it’s all “normal” because having a foreign PM urging voters to vote for war happens all the time.
Can’t wait for “explanation” how wrong of me to suggest meddling of a foreign leader is anything to be worried about :o
Plus, Newspeak patrol has an update on code words used by anti-Semities.
New word is “neocon puppet master”
http://gawker.com/5943737/maureen-dowd-may-or-may-not-be-anti+semitic-depending-on-whom-you-ask
How do you say - רפובליקת בננות in English?
Just so we’re all on the same page here, you’re claiming that the resolution was a result of “orders” (whose orders, specifically) and not because those who voted for it believed that it was the best course for American politics? What, specifically, do you claim is “obvious” about it and what exactly are you saying is analogous to the Soviet Union? Is this similar to your argument that the Mossad was somehow connected to 9/11?
What bearing does the regularity of an event have on its acceptability? And while it’s clear that many have reached for emotionally charged rhetoric, please provide a logical analysis of why presenting political opinions during a political election during which voters will vote based on their politics is somehow “meddling”.
Just to clarify, it is your claim that America is a Banana Republic? Under the control of whom, specifically?
Of course, people were using “neocon” as code for Jew and often when talking about the “neocons”, somehow they’d rattle off a list of names which were excessively Jewish while ignoring the gentiles in the ranks. But let’s stick with your idea that the US is a Banana Republic.