War with the US & Israel

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Frank]
Apparently: yes, we do need to go through all this again, if I could be bothered, which I can’t, being in a state where I can’t even answer a thoughtful disagreement, let alone a disagreement from someone whose arguments were blown out of the water years ago. Enjoy your fantasies.

Does anyone want to take one for the team, or should this be accepted as another “landing on the moon was faked” or “Karl Rove was on the grassy knoll” post?
[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry, I just don’t recall the outcry from anti-invasionists prior to the war waving around sheaths of documents proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was in full cooperation with inspectors and that there was absolute certainty that no WMD’s existed.

And, there’s no need for the contempt, really. I certainly don’t appreciate it, but I’m sure you don’t care.

62

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
And, there’s no need for the contempt, really.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, frankly, there is a need for the contempt. Your argument for the Iraq invasion have been so provenly wrong that even Bush doesn’t support it anymore.

63

[QUOTE=Frank]
Yes, frankly, there is a need for the contempt. Your argument for the Iraq invasion have been so provenly wrong that even Bush doesn’t support it anymore.
[/QUOTE]

Wait a minute, I am not arguing for the invasion of Iraq. I believe that Bush and Co had hatched this little plan long before the invasion began. But I also believe that if they had encountered enough factual and political resistance prior to the invasion, that they wouldn’t have been able to pull it off. That’s all I’ve been saying.

In the wake of 9/11 and Afghanistan, the lies we were told were pretty believable at the time, given Saddam’s history.

My only undying support for this war is and has been the plight and honor of the soldier.

Edit: Paul, sorry for the hijack.

Back on topic, then.

64

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Yes, because it would back down the biggest source of instability, the US. Despite all the raving about the fanatical evil Iranians, THEY aren’t the ones invading and occupying other countries.
[/quote]

Iran is considered the leading state sponsor of terrorists in the world. They may not be sending conventional armies to do their dirty work (because they simply can’t) but they are most certainly attacking and doing their level best to cause trouble.

And while they may not have “occupied” another country I think it is obvious they are working to convert Iraq into a client state. Inter-faction violence in Iraq is killing more people than the US by far these days.

This is over the top. The US has had nukes since 1945. We have not used them since WWII. Nor has the US, barring Iraq, been tooling around the world invading people. I think given Iraq the American people will not be up for any more nation building adventures for decades just because a foreign leader threatened someone’s dad.

IIRC the Iranians held US embassy workers captive for years. Even today international law and convention views embassies as sacrosanct. Iranians did not care and violated it.

Further, as mentioned above, as the #1 state sponsor of terrorists I would say they have been attacking us or our allies for years.

It is Iran who has blathered on about wiping Israel from the map. Israel is our ally so naturally we back them up.

65

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Nor has the US, barring Iraq, been tooling around the world invading people.
[/QUOTE]

Since WWII? Were you born just yesterday?

I’ll stop with Grenada and Panama. Just for the low-hanging fruit.

66

[QUOTE=xtisme]
First off, you ASSUME Israel already has nukes. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t.
[/QUOTE]

While Israel has not outright declared they have nukes I think it is accepted wisdom they do. Certainly if any country could pull off a clandestine nuclear program it’d be the Israelis. They have the smart, the money and the will.

Even so I asked that very question two years ago. I figured you might be interested in reading it.

Does Israel have Nuclear Weapons?

67

[QUOTE=Frank]
Since WWII? Were you born just yesterday?

I’ll stop with Grenada and Panama. Just for the low-hanging fruit.
[/QUOTE]

heh…I was going to mention those two but we were in and out so fast they are barely a blip. And doesn’t the US maintain some legal justification for protecting its interests in the Panama Canal? Thin perhaps but the US does have a long standing presence in Panama (hell…McCain was born there).

Korea and Vietnam I would not call an invasion. Presumably we were there supporting one side against another.

Somalia and such (Kosovo) were international peace keeping missions. Not outright invasions.

Semantics…maybe a little but I do not really think so.

68

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Iran is considered the leading state sponsor of terrorists in the world. They may not be sending conventional armies to do their dirty work (because they simply can’t) but they are most certainly attacking and doing their level best to cause trouble.
[/quote]
And so are we, and have been for decades.

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
And while they may not have “occupied” another country I think it is obvious they are working to convert Iraq into a client state.
[/quote]
:rolleyes: And we INVADED Iraq.

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Nor has the US, barring Iraq, been tooling around the world invading people.
[/quote]
And Grenada, and Vietnam, and so on. And that’s not counting all the various proxies we’ve used for invasions or coups.

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
IIRC the Iranians held US embassy workers captive for years. Even today international law and convention views embassies as sacrosanct. Iranians did not care and violated it.
[/quote]
And we kidnap and torture people.

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Further, as mentioned above, as the #1 state sponsor of terrorists I would say they have been attacking us or our allies for years.
[/quote]
And we’ve been attacking them for decades. And I fail to see the moral superiority of American backed death squads, terrorists and torturers over Iranian terrorists.

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
It is Iran who has blathered on about wiping Israel from the map.
[/QUOTE]
And we’ve “blathered” about them being part of an Axis of Evil, devastated their neighbor, helped fund an invasion of Iran, hinted at nuclear attack, threatened air strikes, funded terrorism on their soil, imposed a coup led by an American puppet on them, and on and on.

69

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And so are we, and have been for decades.
[/quote]

We could do a whole GD thread on this alone. Yes the US (and indeed many if not most countries) have used violence for political ends via a variety of means.

That said I have never seen the US labeled a state sponsor of terrorism akin to Iran or North Korea.

Semantics…maybe.

That and the rest of it can mostly be laid at our current government’s feet. I am as appalled as you are and I do NOT believe that is what our country is about or should be about.

On the whole I believe the US is much better than that and generally is. Certainly better than the likes of North Korea or Iran. It is shameful we have this deeply black mark on our record for all time but it is not business as usual for us and I expect that to change once the prick in office is gone.

70

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
That said I have never seen the US labeled a state sponsor of terrorism akin to Iran or North Korea.
[/QUOTE]

How odd that the U.S. government has never labeled itself as a state sponsor of terrorism. Go figure.

71

[QUOTE=Frank]
xtisme, your post deserves a more thoughtful response, but I’m not able to do that right now. Sorry. Later.
[/QUOTE]

No worries…I look forward to it.

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
While Israel has not outright declared they have nukes I think it is accepted wisdom they do. Certainly if any country could pull off a clandestine nuclear program it’d be the Israelis. They have the smart, the money and the will.
[/QUOTE]

Were I to bet, I would probably say that Israel has at least some nuclear weapons. But remember…conventional wisdom said Saddam had WMD too. Israel could be bluffing…or their nuclear capability could be vastly over rated (for instance, they could have a few older single stage nukes that are set up for air craft launch only).

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No more so than America. We’re just stronger is all.
[/QUOTE]

Yes we are…which means we have to be even more restrained in what we do.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And if we decide to nuke Iran, I’m sure that the fact that is was done by this government and not another will be a BIG consolation.
[/QUOTE]

Well sure. And if wishes were fishes we’d all cast nets, ehe? We aren’t going to nuke Iran…certainly not unilaterally without provocation. That’s YOUR fantasy.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And we are bogged down in Iraq, which we expected to fall on it’s face and grovel like a good slave. If they had we’d have invaded Iran years ago.
[/QUOTE]

So sez you. Leaving aside your standard over the top hyperbole, the fact is, we DIDN’T invade Iran nor did we have even a fig leaf reason to do so. Invading Iran was never in the cards.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Plenty. Remember the Shah ? Our puppet Saddam ? I’m sure they do.
[/QUOTE]

You are actually counting Jimmy’s big rescue attempt as an attack?? Seriously? And while we tossed Saddam funds for the war between Iran and Iraq (enemy of my enemy and all that), do you seriously contend that this conflict wouldn’t have happened anyway? Saddam certainly wasn’t our puppet…all we did was clear the way by giving tacit approval and some funding…he would have done it anyway, regardless, because he wanted those oil fields.

What else have you got? These two ‘cites’ were, to put it mildly, lame. You said decades of attacks and you haven’t produced any yet…unless you want to concede that Iran has been attacking Israel (and the US) for decades since they use proxies as cats paws. DO you want to concede that?

-XT

72

[QUOTE=Frank]
How odd that the U.S. government has never labeled itself as a state sponsor of terrorism. Go figure.
[/QUOTE]

Doubtless Iran calls the US a terrorist state. But then we are also the “Great Satan” to them as well. I do not think the US has a greater and lesser satan list for other countries. :rolleyes:

Does Europe label the US as state sponsor of terror? Russia? China? India? Brazil? South Africa? Australia? Mexico? Japan? Azerbaijan?

Again this is a difficult one to pin down because what is the definition of a terrorist? To one side they are freedom fighters, to the other vile scum.

Anyway this is a sidetrack. My point when I first mentioned it was to Der Trihs’ implication that Iran is not attacking anyone. They most definitely are via terrorist groups and in a substantial way. The US is not innocent but suggesting Iran is the aggrieved party who has done nothing to deserve this trouble is patently wrong.

73

An article in the Huffington Post entitled Is Iran Rational? quotes a “former National Security Council official” as saying:

We had a golden opportunity to avoid war with Iran and we showed it the door. This rivals invading Iraq as Bush’s greatest blunder, and yet almost no one knows about it.

74

Funny that they waited until 2003 to present such a document, ehe? They would have gotten a better reception, perhaps, during the Clinton administration I should think.

Do you have an independent cite for that? Not that I doubt it, but would like to see some independent conformation.

-XT

75

Good morning.

I have another thread on this subject on a lesser board. There it was pointed out that time is (from one way to look at it) on the Iranian’s side. Why attack when:

  1. The US is getting weaker.
  2. The price of oil is soaring

I am not sure this is enough, but it is something.

76

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
Why attack when:

  1. The US is getting weaker.
  2. The price of oil is soaring

I am not sure this is enough, but it is something.
[/QUOTE]

Weaker? Perhaps but it is a looong road before the US is so weak that Iran can ignore the US (and there is no guarantee the US will continue its slide). Even if the US went bankrupt tomorrow it still has an amazingly well equipped army and massive fuel reserves to keep it going for a good while.

As for oil sure, and if Iran is smart they would play nice and collect all the cash they can. However that is not an endless pot and there is no guarantee prices will remain high. In the oil crisis in the 70’s OPEC kinda screwed itself. There was some pain in the US but the US adjusted to more fuel efficient cars and so on and eventually prices collapsed and stayed that way for years. We are again seeing Americans taking that seriously and driving less and opting for more fuel efficient cars not to mention seriously looking into alternate fuels aside from oil (finally).

In short I am not sure Iran can count on those two points to substantially turn things in favor for them.

77

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]

  1. The US is getting weaker.
    [/QUOTE]

Not appreciably…IMHO anyway. Our economy is slowing, but I don’t think in terms of comparison between the US and Iran there is any noticeable change in relative positions. And the slow down doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a perminent trend…not like the economy has never dipped before. On the military side, while it’s true we are mired in Iraq, I don’t think over all our military is impaired enough to make a difference. Certainly not the branches of our military that we would actually use in Iran…i.e. the Air Force and Navy. An invasion of Iran was never in the cards except in the fevered mind of some left wingers.

Also…I disagree that time is necessarily on Iran’s side. I think trouble, it is a brewing in the walls of fortress Iran…and I think the folks in power sense this.

Not to say I think Iran is likely to attack Israel first, mind…I rate the chances of that as pretty slim. Much more likely that Israel will attack Iran with conventional air strikes if anything happens. Even more likely is that things go on pretty much as they have been until Iran either folds, changes or gets their nuke.

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
2. The price of oil is soaring
[/QUOTE]

I think John Mace made this point earlier in the thread (to lazy to go look atm). Certainly I think the Iranian leadership is manipulating the situation somewhat to keep speculation shaky about the oil supply and consequently keep the price of oil high. It is, after all, in their best interest to get the maximum price per barrel that they can.

-XT

78

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Funny that they waited until 2003 to present such a document, ehe?
[/QUOTE]

Not really if they really had no intention of wanting it to work (not to mention the timing is suggestive).

Bush is a fucker. We know it. They know it. Then and now. They had to guess Bush & Co. would ignore it.

If Obama becomes president I will have more faith in the Iranians if they try that again with him since he has stated he would entertain serious diplomacy.

79

As to sponsoring terror…the question is not so much has the US sponsored terror, but when did it stop? You can go back to the turn of the previous century, when Mark Twain railed against the terror the US visited upon the Filipino nationalists, having conveniently forgotten a promise of freedom and sovereignty. We have just recently seen revealed accounts of the massacre of thousands of S Korean leftists, with the tacit complicity of the US.

These names are largely forgotten…Trujillo, Batista, Pinochet, Uguarte. They waded in the blood of the innocent, with our consent. But, of course, they were anti-Communist, so perhaps the charge of terror is misplaced for men so nobly motivated. Yes, that must be it, terror is only when it upsets an agreeable status quo. Insurgents and rebels use terrorism, it doesn’t apply to men who seek…law and order.

The Iranians see the terrorist they support as freedom fighters, and they have a point, they have the same point we had when we supported the Contras against the Sandanistas. One mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. These things are never so cut and dried as we would like to pretend, but we pretend anyway. And we are stunned that others will not pretend with us, how can it be that we are not seen to be as noble as we know that we are? Have we not always stood for freedom and justice, have we not always stood for the fearful and the oppressed against tyranny?

Perhaps the simpler question is: have we ever?

80

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Yes we are…which means we have to be even more restrained in what we do.
[/quote]
Oh, please. We’ve always acted like none-too-bright bullies.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well sure. And if wishes were fishes we’d all cast nets, ehe? We aren’t going to nuke Iran…certainly not unilaterally without provocation. That’s YOUR fantasy.
[/quote]
Ah, yes, just like we wouldn’t attack Iraq unless we had real evidence for WMDs.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
So sez you. Leaving aside your standard over the top hyperbole, the fact is, we DIDN’T invade Iran nor did we have even a fig leaf reason to do so. Invading Iran was never in the cards.
[/quote]
Don’t be silly. Bush was follwing the plans of his PNAC neocons, and the conquest of Iran was part of those plans. Nor do we need a reason, any more than we needed a reason to invade Iraq.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
You are actually counting Jimmy’s big rescue attempt as an attack?? Seriously?
[/quote]
No, but imposing the Shah on them was.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
And while we tossed Saddam funds for the war between Iran and Iraq (enemy of my enemy and all that), do you seriously contend that this conflict wouldn’t have happened anyway? Saddam certainly wasn’t our puppet…all we did was clear the way by giving tacit approval and some funding…he would have done it anyway, regardless, because he wanted those oil fields.
[/quote]
My, I’m sure all the people he killed with our money and our poison gas would find it comforting that he didn’t officially do it for us.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
You said decades of attacks and you haven’t produced any yet…unless you want to concede that Iran has been attacking Israel (and the US) for decades since they use proxies as cats paws. DO you want to concede that?
[/QUOTE]
Of course they are attacking us. We are their enemies, and have relentlessly persecuted them, and will continue to do so until they get nukes they can use to get us to back down. Do you expect them to just sit there and take it ?

As for Israel, that’s not our problem.