| Author | Message | ||
     GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 356 Registered: 5-2005  |
spot on cjc. if we had just talked to Iraq, we'd not have had the positive outcome there that all of us right-thinking Americans believe is right around the corner. it took not just the threat of force, but military force as well for us to accomplish our mission there. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4286 Registered: 12-2001  |
Things Bush would like to say: On liberals: “Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my Browning!” On defense: “Would you rather have butter or guns? Preparedness makes us powerful. Butter merely makes us fat.” On domestic security: “Shoot first and ask questions later, and don't worry, no matter what happens, I will protect you.” | ||
| drewdix Citizen Username: Drewdix Post Number: 1173 Registered: 7-2001 |
cjc, The error we continue to make in many cases is accepting "fight" as the only option. Talking/dialoguing, and listening, with those you disagree with, paired with hope, trumps "shock and awe" every time. Every time. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1253 Registered: 10-2004  |
unless you own enough Haliburton stock to make it worth your while. | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7134 Registered: 10-2001  |
"Talking/dialoguing, and listening, with those you disagree with, paired with hope, trumps "shock and awe" every time. Every time." Like Hiter during WWII? He seemed reasonable..":Kill the Jews, just don't invade Poland." Maybe we should have used this method with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Maybe Lincoln should have worked things out with the south. Heck, keep the slaves, who needs em up here anyway? Yes sir, a happy, shiney world where we all get along and hold hands like one big happy family. Simply idiotic. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1254 Registered: 10-2004 |
in your world Iran = Hitlers Germany. In my world that comparison is absurd. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1712 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw's still bitter that we never invaded the USSR. | ||
| drewdix Citizen Username: Drewdix Post Number: 1174 Registered: 7-2001 |
..and illustrates how very far we have to go. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4288 Registered: 12-2001 |
Prior to WW II, we were engaged in an appropriate dialogue with Japan. We explained in the clearest possible language and through our actions that continued Japanese military operations in China were unacceptable. Japan disagreed and attacked British and American interests in the Pacific and the rest is history. We handled the situation with Japan properly. The European powers engaged in a dialogue with Hitler up to a point. Obviously, two opportunities to stand up to Hitler were lost with tragic effects, but the move to appease Hitler has been somewhat overstated. In 1938, Chamberlain was under no illusions as to the trustworthiness of Hitler but felt that Britain needed more time to rearm. And he felt he couldn't lead the Commonwealth into war with Germany at that time. So, Chamberlain's failure at Munich was more one of leadership and of being fooled into thinking Germany was more prepared for war than was really the case. Germany was not handled properly. Hitler should have been stopped in 1936 while attempting the unnecessary remilitarization of the Rhineland. At this point with Iran, it is still appropriate to continue with a diplomatic approach. We have a decent amount of time before Iran actually has nuclear weapons, so this rush to closure and this rush to war is inappropriate. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2975 Registered: 5-2004  |
Straw, I'm curious... can you play out what would happen after we nuked Iran and took out their leadership? And, how would you suggest we do these things? It has been demonstrated that tactical nukes are not guaranteed to destroy the underground facilities that Iran has. That means moving to strategic nukes. That is upping the ante quite a bit. No longer are we talking about taking out a few square acres/miles of territory. Now we're talking about laying waste to an entire portion of a country. Plus, you're talking about US troops assassinating a foreign leader. While on a visceral level I'm all for doing both of those things, a realistic look at the way things would play out leads to a conflagration the likes of which the planet has not seen in human history. Israel would be attacked. I'd be surprised if the attack was limited from Iran. US resources around the world would be attacked. Embassies, economic interests, allies... IMO, it would ressult in a world war, with many countries sitting on the sidelines, waiting to smell blood in the water. We would be at war with a large part of the Muslim population until we killed them all. World opinion would turn even further away from the US. We could be the ones facing sanctions or worse. And we would still be the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against another country. So please, explain what you see happening after we attack Iran. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2976 Registered: 5-2004 |
For the record, I don't think we can convince Iran to change their policy with talk. I doubt any western nation will convince them to back down. It will take the intervention of a country like Saudi Arabia, Russia or China to diffuse this situation. And Russia and China are letting us make fools of ourselves for as long as possible until they decide to step in and save the world (or not). People just don't understand the political psyche in the Middle East. It is not about actual strength, but perceived strength. Some leaders believe it is better to be attacked (and either win or be martyred) than allow the infidels to dictate policy to them. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 442 Registered: 1-2006 |
Rastro: Where was it demonstrated that tactical nukes can't get the job done? The job will be done with special bunker buster bombs, lots of them, many sorties, after taking out electronic defense systems. Whether nukes have been tested is a question. The political psyche you note is already here, in the good old USA. Read judge Rooney's comments to professor and professional terrorist Sami Al Arian (in court yesterday in Florida.) jd | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2978 Registered: 5-2004 |
Joel, Several studies have shown that if a bunker is under 75 feet of reinforced earth (concrete and steel reinforced), that even an RNEP of 400 kilotons may not be able to penetrate it. Though not a multi-megaton hydrogen bomb, a 400 KT bomb is not considered tactical by most. And hte fallout would render very large portions of not just Iran, but other countries as well, wasteland for years. http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-11/p32.html http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep -animation.html http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/the-robust-nuclear-earth-p enetrator-rnep.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm Current bunker buster technology can only dig about 30 feet when deployed from 40,000 feet. That is not enough to contain a nuclear detonation of the size included in the current B61-11. The RNEP device described in the articles above does not even exist yet, and it's capabilities are not sufficient to destroy a bunker 75 feet below ground, under reinforced terrain. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002308.html I'm glad you know the strategy for how these sites will be destroyed. Perhaps you can share it with the administration. No one in the Pentagon supports using nuclear weapons in Iran. I am not cetain, but I don't believe I have even heard Rumsfeld suggest it as a plausible strategy. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1715 Registered: 5-2001 |
If "the job" joel describes is to set children on fire and prompt a worldwide backlash against the US, then nukes can do the job. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2979 Registered: 5-2004 |
Years in the military industry taught me to trust what the engineers and physicists say, rather than what the politicians do. | ||
| drewdix Citizen Username: Drewdix Post Number: 1175 Registered: 7-2001 |
tjohn, fair (and rational) reasoning regarding the endgame of extreme situations. I guess my feeling is then that we need to evolve to someday go absolutley gto the wall with dialogue, listening and hope -every time- which we fall woefully short of. It's just easier and it makes lots of money to fight. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2980 Registered: 5-2004 |
It does appear that the US is looking for ways to develop non-nuclear ground penetration weapons. Unfortunately, it is years from deployment. http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060403_2_n.shtml | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4845 Registered: 5-2001 |
The biggest cargo planes in existence carry less than a third of that weight, there's no possible way of delivering it. That test is a way to find out what a .7 kiloton nuke would do, not as a test of conventional explosives. Think of it as a surface nuclear test without the nuke. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3485 Registered: 3-2004  |
"Its ok for us to use nuclear weapons," If need be, yes it is. "straw" If "the job" joel describes is to set children on fire and prompt a worldwide backlash against the US, then nukes can do the job. "drewdix" drewdix: I think some people need to see children become the scapegoats for humanity's failures. | ||
| bettyd Citizen Username: Badjtdso Post Number: 205 Registered: 12-2005 |
Like Hitler and WWII??!! Pearl Harbor??!! The Civil War??!! Those are the worst analogies of all time. What a moron. But nuking Iran would be "pretty basic stuff", the same phrase he used to describe invading Iraq and setting up a unity government amongst factions that have hated each other for centuries. What a simpleton. If ignorance is bliss, this guy is the happiest clown in the world. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4846 Registered: 5-2001 |
And don't forget, it was conservatives who wanted to keep us out of WWII, and conservatives who wanted slavery to continue. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 204 Registered: 4-2006 |
Rastro- glad you are taking a world view instead of concentrating on the benefits of a re-val! The fact is that the US army has very sophisticated bunker-buster technology. Janes, I agree is a good source, but not totally authoritative on capacities, which most countries alternatively leak or conceal. The fact the capacity may be greater than known might be reflected by the purchase by Israel of U.S. bunker-buster bombs. I would agree that the U.S. does not have the human intel on the ground to ensure the Iranian leadership is taken out. More likely Israel does. Many posters here apparently are obsessed with the reaction of the muslim world to an attack on Iran don't understand the distinctions between the Iranians and Arabs, nor the strategic situations in this area of the world. For one, the Iranians are Persian not arab, and the major branch of islam is sunni, and they are sh'ia. To the sunnis the sh'ia are heretics. The sunni arab nations privately would like Iran to be taken down, they are concerned, especially the Saudis, that a nuclear capacity would allow Iran to dictate to the rest of the region. Egypt for example would feel the need to go nuclear if Iran had the bomb, and the Saudis have funded the Pakistani efforts in order to ensure a sunni bomb and transfer of that technology to them should Iran go nuclear. Sunni populations, which are the moslem majority, will not attack the US if Iran is dealt with. As for the other element here, I would say the region respects only strength and power. Americans are naive in assuming they think like western secular liberals. They simply don't. Taking down Iran would gain respect and maybe negative verbalization, not attacks. Iran however would respond with terrorism because they are the # 1 terrorist supporter state. We would however, be attacked by them whether or not we did this, based on their beliefs and core ideology. Intelligent people understand we are and have been at war. Those who say we can talk our way out of this are the Neville Chamberlin's of our time. I don't agree with Iraq, but this would be a just war. The forces of light vs the forces of darkness. Their values are not ours, and they DO want to subjegate us as part of their dreams of creating an islamic caliphate. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4289 Registered: 12-2001 |
I get the impression that too much of the posturing on Iran is for domestic political reasons. I hope that there are intensive back room discussions going on with the Russians and Chinese. This is one of those situations where you want to work out the details privately as much as possible. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1257 Registered: 10-2004 |
fvf - I do not share your ideology. You are wrong and your point of view is dangerous for the world. The US cannot 'win' a war where we are the aggressor. The US is not equipped to attack a nation the size and strength of Iran without great sacrifice. There is no way for nuclear weapons to be used in this conflict without murdering millions of innocents. There is no win here. Diplomacy is the only way. By the way, the ideology of the leaders of Iran may not be ideology of the people of Iran but the people will follow their leaders in the case of any direct attack. There is no win here. I will not sacrifice my children for your desire for war. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 207 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hoops- Your sort of opinion is what the Iranians are banking on. It is not a war it is a pre-emptive strike. These people are TOTAL religious fanatics who have no ability to compromise. They are true and total believers. Sanctity of life is irrelevant to them based on their religious teachings. Sorry, wrong, it is THEIR sanctity of life, or that of their fellow believers that matters, not yours. The same beliefs murdered 3,000 some people in the WTC. They LIKED that result, pal. You want your kids fighting this war? It's your sort of opinion that will insure that it is. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3486 Registered: 3-2004 |
Facts: Why do you lump Iranians in one bunch? Have you done a survey? When were you last there? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2981 Registered: 5-2004 |
FvF, I don't rely on Jane's. It is one of many sources of information. But Jane's is historically one of the best sources of current and future capacity of militaries around the world. I do not believe we have the capability to destroy a bunker under 50-75 feet of reinforced earth. You do. But I have given supporting documentation, while you have given opinion (sounds like the reval discussion all over again). The simple fact that the US is researching ways to do this implies that we do not currently have that capability. "Taking down Iran", as you put it, would not be the end, as you seem to think. It would energize the Muslim world against us. Unlike Iraq, which was essentially a secular state, Iran is a stalwart of Islam. Any radical faction of Islam would use that as an excuse to attack our assets and allies. And it would radicalize many who are on the fence. As tjohn implies, there is no such things as a localized nuclear strike. If we attacked with a nuclear device of any kind, it opens the door to the use of WMDs against us. I do agree that other Arab nations are unhappy with the idea of a nuclear Iran. Which is why we should be (and I'm sure we are) pressuring other Arab countries to intervene. BTW, Iranians are Arabs, even if they call themselves Persian. Though the only Iranians I've known to call themselves Persians are Jews and others who left and want to disassociate themselves from Iran. But again, I don't see us or any western nation being able to talk Iran out of this. It will take a broader group of unconventional intermediaries applying pressure to end this standoff. BTW, tom, it is against the law for us to develop a 0.7 kiloton nuclear device. I believe international treaty outlaws the development of devices under 5 kilotons, as it would blur the line between conventional and nuclear weapons. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 209 Registered: 4-2006 |
Ah, Rastro, perhaps if the Iranians do a re-val they will be too pre-occupied to create a nuke?  BTW, you better tell me your new assessed figure and taxes after all the grief you gave me in the SO thread ! Thanks. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 966 Registered: 2-2004 |
What matters to me is that the President is going to start bringing home the troops, his numbers will rise, and then the Repubs will maintain control. Then we can do whatever we want for another 2 years. I love politics, especially when the Dems keep getting whipped. I can't wait until Fitzmas morning! As for Iran, we'll deal with them once they nuke Manhattan. Then you libs will come aboard just like you did after 9/11. Or did you vote against it after you voted for it or vice versa. You guys confuse me. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1259 Registered: 9-2004 |
Well about time. Thanks to all for puting some thought into my "Endgame" questions. Rastro, thanks. Phenixrising, thanks. If we attack Iran, and somebody hits NYC again. Or we percipatate a nuclear exchange in the Middle East, we get to drive on Straw's lawn and do donuts, right? Straw, if we lose NYC, what are you going to tell your neighbors? What are you going to tell your neighbors kids? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 214 Registered: 4-2006 |
Rastro- Please read more. Iranians are NOT arabs. You would p*** them off to call them that. The US has not historically disclosed all the weaponry it has, and engages in disinformation as the libs and extreme libs correctly note. Consider the history of US spy plane disclosure. Again we are already at war with religious fanatics who may find death means entering paradise. You apply western, secular ways of thinking to people who are anything but. You do so at your, and our risk. If allowed to develop nuclear weapons we will be at their mercy and face far greater danger than a pre-emptive strike would bring. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5581 Registered: 8-2003 |
drewdix -- listening and hoping and dialoguing doesn't win every time. Chamberlain proved that point. And that's not to say dialogue and bargaining doesn't have a place, but you don't have to bargain with someone very much if you are certain they won't go to the wall in terms of a non-dialoguing position (economic sanctions, military force, etc.) If you're negotiating with someone and you know they don't have the courage of their convictions in the ultimate sense, you've got them dead to rights. You can say (and it's been said to us with Iran) "you don't like it? Tough." Or they can take a step down from that and do the pro-wrestling routine where the referee counts them down to "3" and they repeatedly stop the aberrant behavior only to immediately resume it again. And they do this because they know you'll do nothing about it. Dialoguing can win sometimes if the only criteria for success is your own well-being. In which case, there was no reason to take an assertive action to stop the genocide in Rwanda. It certainly was easier. Tough luck if you're a Hutu, but we're busy talking now. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1259 Registered: 10-2004 |
Fact your position paints a whole people into a very narrow space. I dont buy it. I find it hard to understand why your position is so hard-line and stereotyped. Were you or someone you knew a hostage? If not then I suggest to you that what you think you know is false. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2984 Registered: 5-2004 |
FvF, first, where exactly have I "appl[ied] western, secular ways of thinking to people who are anything but?" I understand the region better than many, including many in our government, it appears. Seriously, what is it that I said that you would say takes a western, secular view of the situation? I am saying we are in a no win situation. if we attack, we enrage a large part of the world. If we don't attack, we risk our resources and our allies. It might piss Iranians off, but it would be accurate to say Arab. I do see, however, that the CIA World Factbook does discern between Arabs and Persians, so I will concede that point. About 51% of Iran is listed as Persian. I am curious, however. No one seems to want to explain what would happen after the US launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran. Please, explain the issues with political, economic, and literal fallout. | ||
| Elgato Citizen Username: Elgato Post Number: 47 Registered: 2-2004 |
Factvsfiction is correct in that Iranians, although mainly Muslims, do not consider themselves Arabs and are insulted to be called such. Most speak Persian (Farsi) and not Arabic I believe. However, I would argue that the religious fanatics we are 'at war' with are in Saudi Arabia/Egypt and not Iraq/Iran. During the Shah's time Tehran was very 'westernized' and women had many rights as they did in Iraq under Saddam's rule (many of which have been removed since the USA invated). Apart from the obvious fundamentalists, the majority of people in Iran have historically been pro-USA and pro-France. I would guess that their main 'crime' would be to be selling oil to China and Russia and threatening (as did Saddam) to set up an oil bourse trading in Euros as opposed to $$s. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2985 Registered: 5-2004 |
cjc, I would be VERY surprised if Iran backs down. I'm not saying it cannot happen. I've been surprised by a few things lately. But the culture is not one where there is any advantage to backing down. We are not going to give them any opportunity to save face, and therefore no way out of the situation barring full disclosure and verified dismantling of their nuclear capabilities. Even then, does anyone think we'll believe them if they do grant us access? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5583 Registered: 8-2003 |
A government that sponsors Hezbollah and calls for wiping out the state of Israel isn't fanatic? Can we at least say "really enthusiastic?" | ||
| Elgato Citizen Username: Elgato Post Number: 48 Registered: 2-2004 |
CJC, unfortunately there are many governments in that part of the world that are 'fanatics' in those terms. However, as these countries are not 'democracies' as we know them, I refer to the general populations, not the governments. It wasn't so long ago that we saw on US TV, in the days before the Iraq 'war', when camera crews were allowed into the country more freely (under Saddam) the people were allowed to speak and be interviewed about the forthcoming USA 'liberation' and were obviously scared of speaking against Saddam on camera but we saw them go about their daily lives and in their shops and restaurants and on the streets. Now they live in what seems to be civil strife...journalists must be 'embedded' (or shot at) and we see nothing of the streets of Iraq on our TVs in the USA so we must assume all is not well. In fact, it seems to be going extremely badly. Their culture and museums and infrastructure is all but destroyed in many parts, they are without vital medicines, their children are suffering more than they suffered under our sanctions. Why would we wish this fate on another country's population without absolute proof, this time around, of an imminent threat to ourselves/Israel/anyone else? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 217 Registered: 4-2006 |
First I think many of you would benefit from reading the views held by the mullahs whose regime Ahmadinejad fronts. I think Memri has some good video and other info. It is quite eye-opening. As I stated at an earlier point in the thread Ahmadinejad is a believer in the messianic strain of shi'a islam that believes the 12th mahdi will come, essentially at the end of the world, to restore a benevolent islamic paradise. The conflict with the US is part of this religious view as is bringing about the return of the mahdi. These believers will do whatever is necessary to bring this about, including use of a nuke. They have also said they will use it on Israel, which is not rhetoric. As westerners we comprehend something as awful as that as such, but to the Iranians it is religiously justified and a statement coming from their beliefs. This regime controls the country. What some of you don't understand is that the Iranians are sh'ia muslims, who to the majority of muslims (sunni) are apostates. Without the existence of Israel there is little doubt that there would be conflict and war between the two, rather than with Israel. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are sunni countries, for example. Sunnis do not want shi'a Iran to be a nuclear power, and will develop their own nukes. They will not fight for Iran, and hope the US or Israel takes care of the problem. We can choose the likely Iranian response now or later. Later, with nuclear power they know we cannot hit back, and will use terrorism more strongly against us. By attacking them now and taking out the leadership, we may avoid Iranian terror strikes or reduce them. Their missles, with nuclear weapons, will be capable of hitting European cities. They are working on pulse weaponry to disable US defenses and defeat us even without being able to launch ICBMs for the near future. Their statements about destruction also include the US, not just Israel. For the fearful of you, that section of the world only understands strength. A pre-emptive strike gains respect and deters the fanatics. The dynamic of islamic radicalism is cycical, and fades with force being applied. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5355 Registered: 10-1999  |
Fvf - I think you've been reading on too many of those really anti-Muslim websites. They have an agenda, and as a result they present a distorted picture. Iran is a serious concern. Hopefully, we'll have a serious response from our government, that does not simply rely on bombing people. |
