Actually, no…I didn’t know that. I assumed that we were engaging them at a lower level in talks about all this stuff. In light of this I agree…we should be engaging them in direct talks WITH the Europeans…though again, I think the Euro’s should be doing the heavy lifting on this at least initially.
We are the only obstacle to the relationship with Iran? :dubious: And Iran’s ‘death the America’ stance (which isn’t shared by the majority of Iranians btw) and their support of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah has no impact?
And you really believe that a US administration could engage the Iranians without getting pretty much politically crucified by the other side? If you do think that then we’ll just have to agree to disagree I guess…I don’t believe in the current environment it would be politically possible. I assume that during the Clinton administration (i.e. prior to the second Gulf War, 9/11, increased awareness of Islamic terrorism in the US, etc etc) that there was no more dialog with Iran than now…correct? Or did Clinton et al reach out an olive branch to Iran that was subsequently withdrawn by Bush (this is a real question that I am asking…no idea here)?
Not only should we meet them half-way, we have good and solid reasons to extend a bit further. First off, we are the most powerful military force in human history. We can afford it. (By an odd coincidence, we are also the most afraid for less reason in history. Karma, I think, but YMMV.)
Even if Iran is developing The Bomb, its like we are locked down in a hardened concrete bunker surround by an armored division, and a guy ten miles away might be fashioning a cross bow.
Secondly, it is crucial that we begin to repair our international respect and reputation, we must convince people that we are quite sane, really, and aren’t really the sort of people who start wars for no good reason. Set aside the sheer pleasure of a good reputation, and gaze with the gimlet eye of realpolitik. Sooner or later, it is necessary to negotiate. If they cannot trust our sanity, how can they negotiate in good faith?
So, we demand they cease to support Hamas and Hezbollah? If they did, would those two organizations simply evaporate? Have we any reason to believe that they might? And have we any means to assure ourselves that Iran cannot slip them some support under the table? If no, what is the point of making the demand? We won’t know if they comply, and if they do, there may be no real difference.
There may be more light in the nuke weapon area. Thing is, it may not be about us, and it may not really be about Israel so much as a convenient scapegoat. It may be about Pakistan, which is allied to America that hates Iran, and is threatened by instability from that branch of Islamic fanatacism that is not allied with the US, but hates Iran anyway. You think the idea of the Taliban getting nukes worries you? There are no laxatives sold in Iran, they just sit on the commode, think about a nuclear Taliban, and the problem is solved.
If you were responsible for the lives of the Iranian people, would this strike you as an excellent opportunity for unilateral disarmament? If the lives of everyone you knew and loved were on the line, would you trust the Americans?
I said we are the only obstacle to starting a relationship-- ie, talking. You need to be talking to do that, and we don’t talk to Iran directly.
Only Nixon could got to China, so maybe it’s only a Republican who can go to Iran. But either party could do it. It’s called leadership. If the other side squawks, let 'em.
I disagree. I think Iran has much more reason for a normalization of relations with the US than the US does toward Iran. A meeting half way seems reasonable to me. The other side of that coin is…it may be no more possible for Iran (politically) to make the concessions necessary for normalization than it is for a US administration to do so.
In purely military terms…perhaps. I think nukes, even limited one’s, give some measure of parity…at least that seems to be the reason Iran (and other similar nations) want(ed) to develop them. However, AQ is like a stone age man throwing a rock at a modern soldier…yet they managed to hurt us pretty badly, especially in psychological terms. How much more damage could a nation state, with the resources of an Iran AND nuclear weapons hurt us. The potential is there and can’t be simply hand waved away.
Well, the other side of that coin, again, is…how can we trust Iran’s sanity either? Perhaps the world distrusts the US these days (I think The World™ is pretty hypocritical, personally)…but this doesn’t mean that they trust Iran either. In fact, I’d have to say that there seems to be a distinct level of distrust on both sides…and that this distrust seems to be far from groundless. On both sides.
Without the support of a nation state and all the resources that implies neither organization would have the capabilities they currently enjoy (in terms of money, weapons, intelligence, etc). Regardless of if this is true or not, it is, IMHO, a precursor to attempting to normalize relations with the US and to engage us. Like Libya has done.
Do we have the means to ensure they can’t cheat? Probably not completely, no. What of it? A first step by them would be to at least give the impression of cutting all ties to those groups. That would be a start, no?
Sure, I would trust the US…but then I’m biased obviously. I think the US is much more trustworthy than Iran is. Despite the invasion of Iraq, which IMHO was an anomaly wrt US foreign policy, I think the US IS more trusted than Iran (I do agree with you that we need to fix the mess Bush et al has made of things these last 7 years…I’m hopeful that the next administration will help in that as we shake the mud of Bush’s reign off our collective boots)…at least at the nation state level (obviously the mileage will vary depending on perspective).
I think the factors that allowed Nixon to go to China are very different than those of our relationship toward Iran. We saw China as a potential wedge in the communist bloc, and wanted to exploit that possibility and perhaps move China completely out of the Soviets sphere of influence…and maybe into our own. Additionally, China’s orientation has always been mainly internally focused. Also, China wasn’t as hostile toward the US (despite the Korean war)…and they don’t sit in a powder keg region that is strategically vital to US interests.
Maybe only a Republican COULD go to Iran though. I don’t think it’s possible even for a Republican (nor do I think that the Republicans will have the ability to do so in any case as I doubt they will have the power to do much of anything for a while to come)…but I concede that it’s possible for them in ways it isn’t for the Democrats atm.
Of course they’re different in important details. But Iran is emerging as a regional power in the M.E. (thanks to our bumbling), so we have vested interest in making sure they don’t turn large swathes of that area against us.
I expect that an Obama administration would begin direct talks with Iran, even if he isn’t able to normalize relations with them. I’m not sure how that process works, and it might require and act of Congress-- something that probably wouldn’t happen.
He COULD have gone. However, unless I’m mistaken he didn’t even attempt it. I don’t think Hillary would be able to do it…and I actually expect her to get elected. I guess we’ll see.
So I take that you don´t have a cite for the Afghan Taliban goverment being aware, or planning the 9/11 attacks.
To keep things in track the argument, spoke- said:
And you reply:
Implying that the Goverment of Afghanistan knew or promoted the actual 9/11 plot.
And recapping, when asked for a cite about that you say:
Which sounds a lot like backpeddaling to me.
Support and sponsoring does not equal control. For example the US supports and sponsors the US armed forces (doh!), military personel of those forces where responsible for the Mahmudiyah killings, therefore the US goverment was aware, planned and executed those killings*, no?
No? why not? By your own logic it has to be that way.
No military unit was detailed to secure and search any purported site of WMD during the conflict for for weeks, (sometimes months), after the surrender of Iraq.
If there was any intelligence source that actually believed we would find any WMD, why did we simply allow the Iraqi insurgents to plunder those sites for weeks? If you are correct that there was belief in the intelligence community that WMD existed, you should have been calling for Bush’s resignation or impeachment beginning in June, 2003, when it became clear that the military was told to ignore those sites during the invasion.
Interestingly, this whole scenario has been reported as the basis of the NIE report over which this thread is squabbling. The reports are that the intelligence community was tired of Bush drumming the war drum when using spun information and they decided to release their information so that when someone did something stupid regarding Iran and it turned out their was no ongoing nuclear weapons program, they would not have to put up with hearing “Well, Intelligence said Iran had one” when they had been making the diametrically opposed claim for months.
On review you will find that this is not true. I leave it to the gentle reader to ponder why tomndebb would err so.
I also note xtisme declines to answer my questions, although they are not defective in any way and serve to advance the discussion. The reasons for his position that can be discerned are:
Actually I have repeatedly stated that I am against such actions. I have stated that I am for a purely defensive stance. I have, for instance, stated that our government should have taken a faction of Iran’s leadership up on their 2003 offer, if for nothing else than to see how far negotiations could have gotten.
Or as a soundbyte, as I said in this thread in various permutations that are echoed in other threads I’ve posted in:
The Taliban was undoubtedly aware of Al Quaeda’s stated goals, targets, range of operations and history. That they didn’t specifically direct the 9/11 attacks doesn’t mean, in any way, shape or form, that they had a shred of plausible deniability that supporting Al Quaeda meant supporting attacks against America.
It looks more like an implication that there was a government that sponsored an organization with a history of attacking America/Americans including on American soil, with a stated ideology of attacking America/Americans without regard to civilian or military status as well as a stated ideology of attacking American military/civilian targets anywhere they could be found… and a stated goal of continuing such attacks in the future.
Obviously Afghanistan sponsored AQ, knowing all of that about them, and knowing that America might retaliate when AQ did what it had done in the past and said it might do in the future.
And since Iran had sponsored Al Quaeda as well, knowing that it carried the same risk as Afghanistan…
Now, there is certainly something to be said for the fact that as long as we have a credible deterrent, Iran is less likely to support groups like, say, Al Quaeda. What is not clear, at all, is that there is no likelihood (they still support Hezbollah) , nor that Iran would fail to support such an organization if they believed that America was too far weakened to respond with significant military force.
Further, it is also obvious that there are some, even among our own populace, who will indeed buy implausible deniability. And getting to the root of attacks does not happen overnight.
If, just as a hypothetical, Hezbollah set off bombs in the NYC subway tomorrow, how many people, in this country, would respond by saying “Bullshit, claims that it was Hezbollah or that Iran was involved are just neocon propaganda.” “That sounds like something Bush would say!” “No blood for Israel!”, etc…
The investigation into the Khobar bombing took five years. Even now, as is evident, people either forget that it happened or consider that several hundred thousand man-hours of FBI investigation are not sufficient to remove the ‘allegedly’ label.
If it took five years to clear up the facts on an Iranian directed and ordered attack, and today, some people seem to have forgotten about it or claim that it wasn’t backed by Iran… what’s to say that an Iranian backed/sponsored and/or directed attack against an American target would be viewed any differently tomorrow?
Claims are still made, today, about a lack of Iran’s projection of military force outside of the M.E. despite the FBI’s and Interpol’s investigation into Argentina and a highly credible defector’s testimony. Look at common talking points found on sites throughout the web and you will read repeated claims that Iran has never engaged in military aggression. That they have a civil society. Etc…
Might Iran be hoping for such a reaction by their useful apologists in the case of any other attacks? Would an American administration, especially after the damage Bush has done, have the political will or the clout to pursue leads if, even after a five year FBI investigation involving 250 agents, the results could be forgotten or denied?
Now, to head off any objections at the pass, it is not likely that Iran would direct any such attacks, or, say, sponsor Al Quaeda again. It is, I would argue, unlikely. Barring an upsurge in religious fundamentalism in Iran/the region and/or a belief that the US was too far overstretched to respond with boots on the ground.
However, nor it is implausible that groups like Hezbollah could attack American targets at home or, more likely, over seas… with or without explicit Iranian authorization but still utilizing Iranian backing, training, financial support and safe haven. And that, even without direct Iranian orders, Iran would still be complicit in such attacks. (Which is part of why Iranian support for Hezbollah is dangerous).
Handwaving away such potential situations without any real analysis, while simply denying that any country would support a group whose attacks could yield significant retribution… even though both Iran and Afghanistan supported Al Quaeda? It certainly isn’t a position that gets at the facts of the matter.
Doesn’t have to. It indicates complicity. Much like, if someone came to you and you knew that on numerous occasions he’d opened fire on the workers in a specific office building, that he still said that his goals included “death to the workers in that office building”… and then he asked you for a gun? It’s hard to argue that giving him that gun, knowing who he is and what he’s likely to do with it, somehow absolves you when he goes into the office and blows away Suzie McTypesalot, just because you didn’t order him or control him to shoot her.
I haven’t followed this case, so I don’t know if Wikipedia’s entry is correct. But on the off chance that it is: one of those believed to be guilty was charged by the FBI, another was also, as a civilian, served with criminal charges and the four others are being held by the US military and might face the death penalty.
A much better example would be, for instance, Abu Graib. An incident in which we had knowledge of what was going on, and not only didn’t stop it, helped it go on and cover it up.
If, for example, the US found a bunch of people who had murdered Iraqis in the past, who stated that ideology included “death to Iraq” and that, after we sent them over there, killed Iraqi civilians left and right, year after year? Well, if our response was to give them more weapons and money and to protect them when they came home to the US, then we’d definitely be complicit. Hell, putting someone with a history and clearly stated ideals like that (as long as we had full knowledge that such as the case) into Iraq would make us complicit, even if we punished him afterwards.
The fact, for instance, that Al Quaeda attacked us on 9/11 does not make Afghanistan complicit. The fact that Afghanistan supported Al Quaeda after they knew their history, and in the context of knowing their goals, does make them complicit. Especially since after Al Quaeda pulled off 9/11, Afghanistan didn’t begin opposing them but, in fact, kept on supporting them.
Now, I may be wrong in how I’m reading Shodan’s statements… but it certainly doesn’t look like an implication that Afghanistan directly ordered 9/11 to me.
You can’t really refute that it happened, can you? I’ve provided a perfectly fair cite stating that it happened. It is in keeping with your own cite that points out that Iran used children to clear mine fields. Can you cite anything to debunk these claims?
And buying keys that were given to young children in order to convince them that their suicide operations would lead them to paradise doesn’t demonstrate an intention to sacrifice children to clear mines? You are, perhaps, slightly correct in that the keys do not represent a desire to sacrifice children solely for mine removal. Perhaps there were other modes of sacrifice that Iran’s leaders had in mind. If you can field a plausible counter possibility to giving children keys that you tell them will get them into paradise once they die in combat, that’d be nice. Claims that a specifically used symbol was generic or that despite how they were used, buying the keys demonstrated nothing but a desire to buy the keys? Not plausible at all.
The keys, which were bought and given to young children in order to convince them to engage in suicide operations, do not evince an intention behind using their use. Maybe Iran simply happened to order 500,000 plastic keys when they really meant to order 500,000 hand grenades? Maybe they ordered them by accident, and then just figured that they might as well give them to their child soldiers?
As for ‘generic holy symbols’, what, are you alleging that the fundamentalist Islamic regime might have been importing ‘generic’ holy symbols that were… Buddhist in meaning? Shinto? Taoist?
Could it be, that when they ordered keys and used them to convince young children that they would open the gates of paradise after they were killed in suicide operations, that that was their intention? Or was their intention in buying the keys and using them to convince young children to walk on mines, simply evidence of an intention to buy plastic keys?
As always, readers can figure that out for themselves.
Go figure!
You haven’t found any references to the Iranian government’s use of 12 year old children for suicide operations that have come off as being anything other than negative. Those who discuss that often use it to make an emotional point or it somehow comes off as “anti-Iranian propaganda.” Strange.
Isn’t that just the weirdest thing? Obviously, the fact that pretty much everybody who mentions Iran using 12 year old children in suicide operations happens to take a negative view of such behavior? That’s evidence that they’re in on some anti-Iranian spin campaign. Why else might someone have a moral and/or emotional objection to 12 year olds being used to clear mines with their bodies?
It’s also interesting that you haven’t found anything about this issue… as the cite you yourself use specifically mentions Iran using children as young as 12 to clear mines. Interesting… that.
You keep using “just” in front of “clear mines”… do you think, for instance, the widespread use of children in the Iranian army, especially in human-wave assaults is somehow less indicative of their desire to sacrifice children? Perhaps it was okay to use children to charge pillboxes and across fields of artillery fire, as long as they were not “just” clearing mines with their bodies? Would you argue that using all those children in combat would evince a desire to sacrifice them?
And Iran kept sending wave after wave of troops against those positions, for years, even after Iraq had sued for peace twice. And after Iraq had already been driven out of Iranian territory.
Yes, it is very unfortunate for my argument that for almost eight years after Iraq first offered peace, and for about six years after Iraq had left Iran and again requested peace, Iran carried on the war.
If you think that proves no willingness to sacrifice massive amounts of life, including the lives of their soldiers, that’s your call.
Which, again, of course, ignores the crucial differences in WW II. The casualties sustained there were, of course, in the face of an implacable enemy that never made any peace offers, at all. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed or maimed after peace offers were made by Iraq. The Iranian people didn’t lose the stomach for Iran’s tactics for more than half a decade of such tactics. And then it was only the tactics that were changed, not a desire for war.
Moreover, instead of the mounting casualty count (why didn’t Iran stop when they’d reached 100,000 killed and maimed? Or 400,000? Or 800,000? ) Iran did stop when it was evident that they were beginning to lose the war, as Iraq had four separate and significant victories between April to August 1988. In fact. the last major battle of the Iran-Iraq war found Iraq, yet again, driving deep into Iranian territory and capturing significant quantities of ground and artillery pieces.
Ah, I see, you cite, what, 100+ pages of various PDF’s and not one quote? And you use it to attack a strawman? Can you point out anybody who said that Iranian attacks “just” consisted of human-wave attacks? Interesting too that you claim your strawman is “Western imagination”.
Let’s see, a few pulled quotes from the text, but before I do… it’s worth pointing out that you’ve just cited something that has something definitive to say about your contention that the use of children to detonate mines might not have happened. (Or were you only talking about plastic keys, while admitting that Iran deliberately used children as suicide troops and to clear mines?)
From the overview section of your cite:
Interesting…
Did you read the PDF’s before you linked them?
And, hrm… on strategy (spelling errors from the original PDF)
Your cite also says that it wasn’t until 1987 that Iran swore off human-wave attacks… but even then, did not sue for peace, they attempted to mobilize more forces. So even after Iran had determined that there was no longer the political support for human-wave attacks (after years of using them), they still hadn’t had enough of casualties or war, and were still willing to sacrifice more troops.
Would you like to clear up exactly why you provided this cite, other than to support the fact of Iran using 12 year olds to clear mines?
Lets not forget who invaded who here. An unprovoked invasion of Iran is launched by Iraq under Saddam Hussein but you chastise Iran for for not accepting Iraqi peace offers and wanting instead to win. This is of course an identical policy to that followed by most other major nations, including the US which in its major wars has sought victory and ‘unconditional surrender’ of aggressors. It is a fact of history that the Western Allies could have had peace with Nazi Germany at pretty much any time had they wanted it, as the Germans who were losing would have been only too happy for peace in the West. Nonetheless the Allies did not offer the Germans an easy way out and we do not blame them for this. We correctly sought the destruction of a dangerous regime, even though the practical consequence of this decision was the deaths of many thousands of people. Is there some particular reason why the Iranians are obliged to be more accomodating towards an evil aggressor then we were? Why are they just expected to say “Oh you invaded our country, bombed our cities, even dropped nerve gas on us, but now that you’re losing and decide you don’t want to play, we’re instantly expected to say oh sure no hard feelings at all, lets just let you off scot free”.
As for quotes from the PDF I linked and to which you want to imply I havent read, you might consider reading things fully and not just cherry picking as you might avoid the many problems you’re having with other posters that way.
I wrote:
For which supporting quotes from my cite are:
From Page 13:
or Page 19:
Page 21-23
Summing up, the Iranians were worried about casualties and in addition to human wave attacks also tried hit and run attacks, indirect approaches, and infiltration tactics. I will also add that in reference to the Karbala campaign, that Iran found unacceptably heavy, casualties which were about an eighth of what the British were prepared to accept on the Somme over a similar period.
I dont know why you even consider this to be controversial. All armies worry about casualties, its only in a fantasy that you imagine an enemy is oblivious to them.
I quite deliberately use ‘just’ in front of ‘clear mines’ because that’s your claim and I am specifically using your own phrasing from your earlier post. Of course its obscene to use any child soldiers at all, its obscene what the Iranians did with them. It’s obscene when various african nations use them today, just as it was obscene when Russia and Germany used them in WW2. But you come across as wanting to present the Iranians as somehow a species apart. That’s the propaganda purpose of the 500,000 keys meme (with the obligatory added reference “made in Taiwan” to magnify the evil), that they advanced this not unprecedented obscenity to a mass scale of systematic evil beyond any other nation. So in relation to the keys that you brought up, I looked for a substantive cite and couldn’t find one, only right wing blogs and op ed rehashings. If there is any substantive evidence for it by all means present it. Actions speak louder then words and as Iran bailed from the war it clearly was not prepared to sacrifice 500,000 children just to clear mines. 500,000 children weren’t lost, and since you’re the one presenting the claim that even though it didnt happen that they were prepared for it to happen then its incumbent upon you to provide at least some sort of original evidence for this. Otherwise we’re in meatchipper territory.
Just to clarify, by “young children” ( a phrase you use repeatedly) you in fact mean teenagers mostly (but some as young as twelve)?
As long as we’re being intellectually honest and all, we sure wouldn’t want to create a false mental image of toddlers being sent off into mine fields would we?
No, of course we wouldn’t.*
*Not to imply that sending teenagers into mine fields is acceptable. Assuming for the sake of argument that it happened, and isn’t an apocryphal bit of war propaganda no more true than WWI stories of Germans impaling Belgian babies on bayonets.
So after all of this sturm und drang, this is where we are. Maybe they will attack American targets, maybe they won’t. Well, I totally agree. If they blow up a bomb on the subway, my life may be threatened and my daily commute will definitely be threatened.
But somehow I think the Republic will go on without me.
No, actually stating directly that the Taliban in Afghanistan etc.
“Backpedalling” in the sense of “repeating”. Did you notice how I said “Taliban”?
That’s nice - could you please cut and paste where I said that it did? spoke- explicitly referred to Iran “sponsoring” a terrorist attack.
Nor was al-Queda the same as the Taliban or the Afghan government, yet the terrorist attacks of 9/11 occured. This was notwithstanding the chance of an overwhelming response by the US government.
In the same way, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Iran could sponsor terrorist attacks thru one of the terrorist groups they sponsor and support (such as Hizbollah).
You mean like sponsor and support terrorist groups that attack Americans? Already done - read FinnAgain’s many cites.
And this is not a nitpick, but a correction of an attempt at misstating my position (no doubt inadvertent) - I did not say that Iran would sponsor terrorist attacks on US soil - I presented a counterexample to show that it was not impossible.
Not a red herring - a counter example.
So, to recap -[ul][li]You claimed that the Iranian government would necessarily be deterred from launching an attack on US soil because of the likelihood of an overwhelming US response[]I pointed out that the Taliban was not deterred from sponsoring and supporting al-Queda, which did launch an attack on US soil, despite the likelihood of an overwhelming US response.[]The Iranian government has stated, loudly and repeatedly, that they wish for the destruction of America.[]The Iranian government has sponsored and supported terrorist groups that have attacked Americans.[]The Iranian government, it can be stated with a high degree of confidence, had an active nuclear weapons program thru 2003.[]The Iranian government, it can be stated with a lower level of confidence, has suspended most of that program []The Iranian government is likely to be pursuing that part of its nuclear weapons program most likely to allow them to immediately resume its attempt to actually produce a nuclear weapon on short notice[/ul]And your response, AFAICT, is to say, “nope, the Iranian government is different. They would never sponsor an attack on US soil.” [/li]
"They have said they want to. They have the motive to do so. They are working on the means to do so. They sponsor and support groups that have attacked Americans in the past. They seem to have been working on weapons to do so (up until the US invaded Iraq or thereabouts). Other groups with whom they share a common ideology have done so. "
“But none of that is anything to worry about. We are completely safe from Iran, because one of the less-strongly asserted conclusions in the NIE says they have suspended most of their nuclear weapons program.”
There - that should be long enough for the Usual Suspects to skip over and repeat one or another of the usual misrepresentations.