Iran's Big Threat

[gilliam]

America’s plans for a democracy across the border in Iraq are a stumbling block the Iranian regime will not tolerate.

Fresh insurgent ranks are pouring into Iraq from Iran and neighboring Syria. Our troops have the job of dealing with that threat right now. But as Iran develops nuclear facilities that may yield more than just electricity, we have to weigh what additional U.S. forces might be called on to stem that new danger.

I wish there were cause for optimism as we weigh diplomatic routes and the prospect of economic sanctions. While it is premature to load the troop planes for an Iranian invasion, it is the height of myopia to recoil at the possibility of a military solution.

realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_19_06_MD.html

 

[AndyF]

gilliam:

America’s plans for a democracy across the border in Iraq are a stumbling block the Iranian regime will not tolerate.

Fresh insurgent ranks are pouring into Iraq from Iran and neighboring Syria. Our troops have the job of dealing with that threat right now. But as Iran develops nuclear facilities that may yield more than just electricity, we have to weigh what additional U.S. forces might be called on to stem that new danger.

I wish there were cause for optimism as we weigh diplomatic routes and the prospect of economic sanctions. While it is premature to load the troop planes for an Iranian invasion, it is the height of myopia to recoil at the possibility of a military solution.

realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_19_06_MD.html

It is remarkable this zeal for war is not consistant in US policy when identical predicaments apply. By substitution of nation names, we can test the principles of US determination. While in Afganistan, the US said the same thing about Russia’s meddling, yet we did not see the US amassing troops for an invasion of it, nor advance recommendations the Russions destroy all nuclear weapons, except for domestic purposes. Hypocricy to the extreme.

You will note this self preservation policy sacrificing principle by the refusal to heed Westmoreland’s recommendation to attack North Vietnam, a very sensible and tactical manouver for the situation presented. China would not be amused.

We see many times in the past where principle is set aside, making the statement that there are cases where liberty and justice are just not worth it in the long run.

What we are witnessing is US policy and principles based on the platform of self preservation. It will “do something about” Iran because strategically it can, and it posses no threat to the continental US, and it has natural resourse interests as well, evidence the turn around and admittance recently by George bush that the US must “protect” the natural resources of Iraq, something the globe has been trying to get him to admit.

Let’s just call it what it is, empire building based on a US model. The jig is up, the US can no longer sell these intrusions masked as charity to the world.

They are on to it.

Andy

 

[2shelbys]

AndyF:

It is remarkable this zeal for war is not consistant in US policy when identical predicaments apply. By substitution of nation names, we can test the principles of US determination. While in Afganistan, the US said the same thing about Russia’s meddling, yet we did not see the US amassing troops for an invasion of it, nor advance recommendations the Russions destroy all nuclear weapons, except for domestic purposes. Hypocricy to the extreme.

Not hypocracy at all. Just being intelligent enough not to start a thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union that would most likely have incinerated both nations. We instead supplied the Afganis with the weaponry (like stinger missles) they needed to make the situation to costly for the soviets and it worked. The soviets left without a nuclear exchange.

We see many times in the past where principle is set aside, making the statement that there are cases where liberty and justice are just not worth it in the long run.

Things are no where near as simple as you seem to think. They must look at the big picture too.

What we are witnessing is US policy and principles based on the platform of self preservation. It will “do something about” Iran because strategically it can, and it posses no threat to the continental US, and it has natural resourse interests as well, evidence the turn around and admittance recently by George bush that the US must “protect” the natural resources of Iraq, something the globe has been trying to get him to admit.

No, people have been trying to get him to admit that we were stealing their resources. Turning them over to the Iraqis and helping them protect them is not even close to the same thing.

Let’s just call it what it is, empire building based on a US model. The jig is up, the US can no longer sell these intrusions masked as charity to the world.

They are on to it.

If the world is “on to it” why is there no outcry from anyone other then the leftists in our own country who have no problem supporting our enemies if it might get them power back, and others who directly support the terrorists?

 

[a_cermak]

gilliam:

Fresh insurgent ranks are pouring into Iraq from Iran and neighboring Syria. Our troops have the job of dealing with that threat right now. But as Iran develops nuclear facilities that may yield more than just electricity, we have to weigh what additional U.S. forces might be called on to stem that new danger.

I seriously doubt if that many insurgents are pouring in from Iran. The Iranians are Shia, most of the insurgents are Sunnis or ex-Baathists. Syria, being a Baathist nation, I can buy.

The US doesn’t have the troops to bring down Iran and keep any kind of order in Iraq and Afghanistan. We barely have the troop strength for them. That is why we are pursuing diplomacy and multilateralism. The Iraqi army was devastated by years of sanctions, the Iranian army is well equipped and well disciplined.

I live in Chicago where most of my electricity is produced by nuclear plants. They are less dirty and cheaper to run than oil or coal fired plants. So I can see why Tehran is interested in acquiring nuclear energy.

If they do get nukes why does it matter? Israel already has them in the area, India has them, Pakistan has them, France, UK and USA have them. North Korea probably has them for goodness sakes. China has them. Would Iran give them to terrorists? I have my doubts. The low-level mullahs frequently seem crazy, but the ones at the top are usually rational enough to be pragmatic.

Nukes are really not that good of an offensive weapon. Using them makes you a target for all the other nuclear nations in the world. They are VERY useful as a deterrent weapon. The axis of evil contained Iraq, Iran and North Korea. NK’s rhetoric was much more violent and threatening than Sadaam’s. NK’s location (right accross from our troops in SK) is far more threatening to us and our ally South Korea, not to mention Japan. Yet we did not invade it. Why? Because it had nukes.

Pax,
Amy

 

[MikeWM]

a_cermak:

NK’s rhetoric was much more violent and threatening than Sadaam’s. NK’s location (right accross from our troops in SK) is far more threatening to us and our ally South Korea, not to mention Japan. Yet we did not invade it. Why? Because it had nukes.

Indeed. If Iran is so keen to have nukes, it might just be something to do with the very different treatments that have been handed out to the other two ‘evil’ (!) countries, one with nukes, and one without.

Mike

 

[gilliam]

MikeWM:

Indeed. If Iran is so keen to have nukes, it might just be something to do with the very different treatments that have been handed out to the other two ‘evil’ (!) countries, one with nukes, and one without.

Mike

For whatever reason they want nukes, if they get them, expect other Arab states in the region to get them (out of self defense, remember they are exactly in love with Iran). Israel also has good reason to believe that Iran will use nukes on them to drive them into the sea.

 

[estesbob]

AndyF:

.

What we are witnessing is US policy and principles based on the platform of self preservation. It will “do something about” Iran because strategically it can, and it posses no threat to the continental US, and it has natural resourse interests as well, evidence the turn around and admittance recently by George bush that the US must “protect” the natural resources of Iraq, something the globe has been trying to get him to admit.

Andy

What we are witnessing is the United States transforming the Middle east from a region of brutal despots to a region where freedom and democracy are beginning to blossom. The libertaion of Iraq and Afghanistan are among the finest moments in our Country’s long History.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AndyF:

It is remarkable this zeal for war is not consistant in US policy when identical predicaments apply. By substitution of nation names, we can test the principles of US determination.

And testing the principles of US determination, I presume, is your aim?

AndyF:

While in Afganistan, the US said the same thing about Russia’s meddling, yet we did not see the US amassing troops for an invasion of it, nor advance recommendations the Russions destroy all nuclear weapons, except for domestic purposes. Hypocricy to the extreme.

Hypocricy is a bit harsh, Andy. What were the reasons for the USSR invading A-stan? What were the reasons for the Coalation invading A-stan? You are equating those two sets of reasons based on what evidence? For there to be hypocricy, the reasons would have had to be identical. Did planes fly into the side of St Peters Basillica? The Kremlin? Crash land on the steppes?

AndyF:

You will note this self preservation policy sacrificing principle by the refusal to heed Westmoreland’s recommendation to attack North Vietnam, a very sensible and tactical manouver for the situation presented. China would not be amused.

This relates to the topic of the thread in what way?

AndyF:

We see many times in the past where principle is set aside, making the statement that there are cases where liberty and justice are just not worth it in the long run.

At what specific times in the past were principles set aside and how does this relate to the topic of the thread?

Who is making the statement that liberty and justice are just not worth it in the long run? From here it looks like you are the only one making this statement? How do you justify making such a statement?

AndyF:

What we are witnessing is US policy and principles based on the platform of self preservation.

And you have a problem with the US seeking to preserve itself? D-oh! Of course! It all makes sense now.

AndyF:

It will “do something about” Iran because strategically it can

Strategically it can? What exactly does this mean?

AndyF:

and it posses no threat to the continental US

No threat to the continental US? Providing nuclear ordinance to terrorists and harbouring terrorists and providing moneylaundering to terrorists and sending unlawful combatants across the Iraqi border: all of these pose no threat to the contintental US?

On what planet?

AndyF:

and it has natural resourse interests as well, evidence the turn around and admittance recently by George bush that the US must “protect” the natural resources of Iraq, something the globe has been trying to get him to admit.

Oh, the globe is a bit much, Andy. The globe is a lot of people. I am sure we are only talking about those who would give comfort to our enemy. Those who would give comfort to our enemy have been trying to get Bush to admit he wants Iraqi oil.

Protecting the natural resources of Iraq is entirely distinct from the notion of pillaging those natural resources. Might I raise the spectre of Saddam Hussein torching the oil fields? What was that all about?

AndyF:

Let’s just call it what it is

OK. Let’s call it the War on Terror. Because that is what it is.

AndyF:

empire building based on a US model.

Empire-building based on OBLs Fatwa. Resource-grabbing by bloody dictators. Drugging and brainwashing of suicide bombers. Spoiled rich kids like OBL whose lust for adventure is equalled only by the ennui of their meaningless, guilt-driven lives and their addiction to money, power, and sadism.

AndyF:

The jig is up

Indeed the jig is up.

AndyF:

the US can no longer sell these intrusions masked as charity to the world.

Watch us.

AndyF:

They are on to it.

If so, then they – whoever they is – will see what stuff we are made of.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

estesbob:

What we are witnessing is the United States transforming the Middle east from a region of brutal despots to a region where freedom and democracy are beginning to blossom.

Hey! I’m for that!

estesbob:

The libertaion of Iraq and Afghanistan are among the finest moments in our Country’s long History.

Thinking… thinking… Yup! You’re right. Happy dance!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gilliam:

For whatever reason they want nukes, if they get them, expect other Arab states in the region to get them (out of self defense, remember they are exactly in love with Iran). Israel also has good reason to believe that Iran will use nukes on them to drive them into the sea.

If we are going to talk about nukes we have to also talk about delivery systems: missiles among nations and walk-in or float-in tube bombs by nationless combatants.

Either way, nukes in the hands of Ahmadinejad are unjustifiably dangerous.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

a_cermak:

I seriously doubt if that many insurgents are pouring in from Iran.

Based on what evidence?

a_cermak:

The US doesn’t have the troops to bring down Iran and keep any kind of order in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What exactly is the troop strength of the Coalition?

a_cermak:

the Iranian army is well equipped and well disciplined.

And Coalition forces are what?

a_cermak:

I live in Chicago where most of my electricity is produced by nuclear plants. They are less dirty and cheaper to run than oil or coal fired plants. So I can see why Tehran is interested in acquiring nuclear energy.

Does Chicago have 15 Breeder reactors?

a_cermak:

If they do get nukes why does it matter?

1. Their avowed aims to destroy Israel.
2. Their association with unlawful combatants.

a_cermak:

Israel already has them in the area, India has them, Pakistan has them, France, UK and USA have them.

Have any of these countries lied about them? Have any of these countries vowed to destroy Israel? Have any of these countries associated with unlawful combatants? Harboured them? Provided moneylaundering for them? Armed them and sent them across the Iraqi border?

a_cermak:

North Korea probably has them for goodness sakes.

The example of North Korea supports your case for Iran having the bomb in what way?

a_cermak:

Would Iran give them to terrorists? I have my doubts.

Based on what evidence?

a_cermak:

The low-level mullahs frequently seem crazy, but the ones at the top are usually rational enough to be pragmatic.

Examples?

a_cermak:

Nukes are really not that good of an offensive weapon.

Depends on the delivery system. To which delivery system are you referring?

a_cermak:

Using them makes you a target for all the other nuclear nations in the world.

If you are a nation. If you are a nationless unlawful combatant, you are still a target. Unfortunately you cannot suffer retaliation because you will have nuked yourself along with the innocent civilians among whom you have detonated your walk-in or float-in tube bomb.

a_cermak:

They are VERY useful as a deterrent weapon.

MAD depended on only nations having possession of nukes. MAD is partially compromised by nationless, unlawful combatants having possession of nukes.

a_cermak:

The axis of evil contained Iraq, Iran and North Korea. NK’s rhetoric was much more violent and threatening than Sadaam’s. NK’s location (right accross from our troops in SK) is far more threatening to us and our ally South Korea, not to mention Japan. Yet we did not invade it. Why? Because it had nukes.

The fact that we have not yet invaded it does not mean that we won’t. Is NK’s rhetoric more threatening than Iran’s?

 

[a_cermak]

Iran is not interested in fostering insecurity in Iraq. It wants a stable Iraq with the UIA ruling it. That gives it a friendly, Shia nation that it can do business with. The Supreme Ayotolla in Iraq (Ali Sistani) is Iranian for heaven’s sakes.

Yes, I believe NK has directly threatened the USA and SK with war if we impose sanctions. I can’t recall the last direct threat made against the US (not Israel–a sovereign nation with enough nukes to take care of itself) by Iran.

I’m not sure of the troop strength of the coalition but I doubt it is that high if you discount the soldiers already in Iraq. The USA will not have a draft, regardless of what else happens so it must get its soldiers via recruitment. Even if the matter is sent to the security council, I doubt Russia and China (both of whom have an interest in the well-being of the Iranian regime) will agree to go to war. The EU nations will not go to war without the security council. The USA cannot carry on a unilateral (or as close to it as may be) war with Iran. The UK public is somewhat disgruntled with the Iraqi mess, and I can’t see them being interested in an Iranian war. And Americans are growing tired of the war in Iraq, so I can’t see them supporting war in Iran either.

And we won’t invade NK because the US thinks they have nukes and the US doesn’t want them lobbing one off at Seoul. Plus again, Americans seem to be tiring of war.

Pakistan is known to support terrorists in Kashmir, Afghanistan and other places, so why is there no over-blown rhetoric about Pakistan’s bomb?

And yes, both India and Pakistan lied about working on these weapons and gamed the non-proliferation treaty. They were both soundly slapped on the wrist and went on with their nationhoods.

Pax,
Amy