Iran: The Mental Path to Appeasement

Locked
Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Iran: The Mental Path to Appeasement

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:45 pm

June 14, 2006
The Mental Path to Appeasement
By Tony Blankley

The Western response to the threat of Iran gaining nuclear weapons is tracking dangerously toward appeasement and failure. It is not yet inevitable -- President Bush has insisted in two State of the Union addresses and currently that he will not permit it to happen. But most government officials in Europe and here, and of course the dominant media, are already deeply into resignation, rationalization and denial. Indeed, in the last couple of years, the absolute exclusion of a military option has become the only "respectable" posture amongst both European and American officials and senior media personages.

This rationalizing mentality was epitomized by the statement of Gen. Barry McCaffrey on "Meet the Press" last Sunday. The general is a usually levelheaded and deeply experienced senior statesman. He has criticized Bush's policies where he disagrees with them, but he is not anti-Bush. His statement is worth reading carefully.

"Mr. Russert: 'So it's inevitable they get the nuclear bomb, in your opinion?'

"Gen McCaffrey: 'I think so. I think they're going nuclear five, 10 years from now. We'll be confronted. And that's not a good outcome. That argues that perhaps Saudi money and Egyptian technology gets an Arab Sunni bomb to confront the Persian Shia bomb. None of us want to see proliferation in the Gulf. This is a time for serious diplomatic interventions.'"

The last sentence calling for diplomacy is such a feeble, mantra-like invocation of a hopeless solution when preceded by his confident statements that he thinks they want the bomb and will get it. Virtually no one believes Iran only wants peaceful nuclear generation. Neither do serious people believe that enactable economic and diplomatic sanctions will deflect the Iranians from their objective.

Thus, the offer on the table -- to give them peaceful nuclear technology or threaten them with non-military sanction -- suffers from providing a "carrot that is not tempting and a stick that is not threatening." (Ian Kershaw's "Making Friends with Hitler.")

This evolving mental path to appeasement mirrors in uncanny detail a similar path taken by the British government to Hitler in the 1930s.

Contrary to popular history, the British government was under little illusion concerning Hitler's nature and objectives in the early 1930s. Those illusions only emerged as mental rationalizations later in the 1930s.

In April 1933, just three months after Hitler became chancellor of Germany, the British government presciently assessed the man and his plans. The outgoing British ambassador to Germany, Sir Horace Rumbold, who had been closely observing Hitler for years, reported back to London in a special dispatch to the prime minister on April 26, 1933. He warned his government to take "Mein Kampf" seriously.

Rumbold assessed that Hitler would resort to periodic peaceful claims "to induce a sense of security abroad," and Hitler planned to expand into Russia and "would not abandon the cardinal points of his program," [but would seek to] lull adversaries into such a state of coma that they will allow themselves to be engaged one by one." Rumbold was sure that "a deliberate policy is now being pursued, whose aim was to prepare Germany militarily before her adversaries could interfere." He also warned that Hitler personally believed in his violent anti-Semitism and that it was central to his government policy.

Back in London, Maj. Gen. A.C. Temperley briefed the prime minister on the Rumbold dispatch that if Britain did not stop Hitler right away, the alternative was "to allow things to drift for another five years, by which time . . . war seems inevitable." In the event, general war in Europe came in six years, not five.

But because the British people, still under the sway of their memory of WWI, were against military action, and because the politicians wanted to spend precious tax revenues on domestic programs, they walked away from their own good judgment.

The unpleasantness of dealing with Hitler and the public's abhorrence of another war led the new British ambassador to Germany, Sir Eric Phipps, responding to the Rumbold dispatch, to argue in that fateful month of April 1933 that: "We cannot regard him solely as the author of "Mein Kampf," for in such a case we should logically be bound to adopt the policy of preventive war." So, he argued, "The best hope is to bind him, that is, by a [disarmament] agreement bearing his signature freely and proudly given. ... By some odd kink in his mental makeup he might even feel compelled to honor it."

Here we have the 1930s version of Gen. McCaffrey's statement. Ambassador Phipps first states the obvious: To wit, if Hitler is as the government believes him to be, logic requires a preventive war. But they don't want to do that, so he hopes Hitler isn't as they know him to be, and they seek a diplomatic agreement, which even Phipps recognized was unlikely to be honored.

Just so, Gen. McCaffrey, representing the overwhelming view of government officials and major media in the West, first states the obvious: Iran will get the bomb. Then he ends with: So let's just do diplomacy.

In fact, Western leaders are resigned to Iran getting the bomb. The diplomacy is understood to be as pointless as getting Hitler to honor a disarmament treaty. But "leaders" have to be seen to be doing something -- even if they know it is futile.

This defeatist attitude exists largely because with the Iraq war as bad precedent -- just as WWI was a bad precedent for another war in 1933 -- military action has been placed, as an emotional response to unpleasantness, out of the question by a weary Western elite.

That is where we are today: about four-fifths down the mental path to appeasement. As unpleasant as dealing with Iran today is, it will be incomparably nastier in a few years when they have the bomb operational. Where are the cold-eyed realists when we need them?

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... ement.html at June 14, 2006 - 03:44:32 PM CDT
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:56 pm

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Our World: Facing down our defeatist leaders
Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 12, 2006

Sunday Palestinian Hamas Authority Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar was in Teheran meeting with his boss, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad reportedly devoted the meeting to reminding Zahar that jihad is the only path for the Palestinians, and demanding that Hamas redouble its attacks against Israel.

This report tells us little we don't already know about Hamas and Iran.

Since last year, Hamas leaders Zahar and Khaled Mashaal have been traveling to Iran to meet with Ahmadinejad and commanders of Iranian intelligence and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards units on a monthly, twice-monthly and even weekly basis.

This meeting merely served to remind us what has been clear for months, namely, that Iran today is the leader of the global jihadist axis. More interesting than the meeting is how Iran and Hamas's chief enemies - the United States and Israel - have responded to the war the Iranian-led jihadist axis is waging against them.

Two words aptly describe the Bush administration and the Olmert government's responses to the escalating war. They are respectively: appeasement and capitulation.

The Bush administration's decision to negotiate directly with Iran over the genocidal mullocracy's race to achieve nuclear capabilities represents the White House's clearest renunciation of everything that President George W. Bush claims to have been fighting against since the September 11 attacks.

The Iranian regime, with its openly stated intention to annihilate Israel; its active participation in the war against US-led forces in Iraq; its support and sponsorship of other terror forces fighting US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; its active subversion of pro-Western regimes throughout the Middle East; its support for anti-US regimes and political forces throughout the world; and its race to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of attacking the continental US, represents everything that Bush pledged to bring down in the aftermath of the attacks on the US five years ago.

THERE HAVE been many attempts to rationalize, justify and excuse the move.

Some say it is a result of political distress. It is hard to see why Bush would think that attempting to appease America's worst enemy will placate his political support base. But more important than the reasons for his policy reversal are the content and consequences of his new position.

In providing an opening to Teheran, the Bush administration has adopted the policy that former president Jimmy Carter forced down the throat of the Clinton administration in its dealings with the North Korean Stalinists in 1994. Twelve years ago, Carter invited himself to North Korea to "defuse" the crisis the North Koreans had fomented by openly developing nuclear weapons. Since then-president Bill Clinton had no policy for dealing with North Korea, he allowed Carter to negotiate the deal that Bush is now offering Teheran.

As then, today in exchange for a "pledge" to stop enriching uranium, the US is willing to give Teheran nuclear fuel, airplanes, spare parts, light water reactors, World Trade Organization membership and US acceptance of the mullocracy as a legitimate regime.

There can be no doubt that Carter's deal effectively caused the US to facilitate North Korea's development of nuclear weapons. And now, after refusing for five years to adopt an Iran policy, Bush has been convinced by the likes of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to follow the Europeans' lead in appeasing the mullahs.

For all that the nuclearized Pyongyang threatens its neighbors, North Korea is still less dangerous than Iran. Unlike Pyongyang, Teheran sees itself as a contender for global supremacy. It has terror cells all over the globe capable of striking Western targets at a moment's notice. Aside from that, Iran has already committed itself to using the nuclear bombs it is now building to destroy Israel and bring America and Europe to their knees.

AFTER RICE announced Washington's adoption of the EU's appeasement policy, Iran wasted no time repeatedly humiliating America. Last Thursday Ahmadinejad bragged that the US offer showed America had been defeated. The IAEA revealed that since the US made the offer, Iran intensified its uranium enrichment operation. The Sunday Telegraph reported that Iran has yet another secret nuclear site which is dedicated to military grade uranium enrichment.

To all this President Bush has responded with more appeasement. He says that Iran has weeks to decide whether to accept the US offer. The administration is backing Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar's refusal to bring an Iran sanctions bill - already passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives and sponsored by 61 senators - to a vote. So rather than fighting Iran, the administration is fighting its most loyal supporters while advancing the policy of its most ardent detractors.

THE OLMERT government in Jerusalem similarly refuses to recognize that a war is being actively waged against Israel. Olmert's refusal to accept the reality of war is even more unjustifiable than the Bush administration's because while Americans haven't been attacked where they live since September 11, every day Israelis are attacked in their homes.

Against the backdrop of the intensification of the Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israel, Sderot's Mayor Eli Moyal showed the absurdity of the government's willful blindness when Sunday he presented Olmert with the only choice he has. As Moyal put it, Olmert can continue to ignore the war and so turn the bombarded town of Sderot into a ghost town, or he can fight the war and turn Beit Hanoun in Gaza - from which the rockets raining down on Sderot and surrounding communities are being launched - into a ghost town. That is, it is us or them, as simple as that.

To this the government responded with denial and surrender declarations.

Olmert and his equally inexperienced, weak-kneed, ideologically blinded Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni claim that they are sending Hamas a clear signal by doing nothing. And what are they signaling? That if Hamas doesn't shape up, Israel will give it Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem.

AS TO Iran, according to a report over the weekend in The Forward, in his recent meetings with the American Jewish leadership, Olmert urged them to lower their profile on Iran because his government doesn't want the issue to be perceived as an Israeli issue. And so, most Jewish groups, including AIPAC, have not publicly criticized the administration's adoption of Europe's appeasement policy. As Jess Hordes, the Anti-Defamation Leagues Washington affairs director, told the Forward, "Looking down the abyss at the choices, which, in their starkest terms, are either accepting Iran as a nuclear power or attacking militarily, I think people are looking to see whether or not a third way can be found to achieve the same purpose."

By the same token, Israeli diplomats in New York and Washington have admitted that their activities today are largely dedicated to convincing American Jewish leaders to support the Olmert plan to surrender Judea and Samaria to Hamas.

In 1943 when the evidence of the destruction of European Jewry became incontrovertible, some strident Zionists in the US - most notably Peter Bergson and Ben Hecht - launched a massive campaign to try to force the Roosevelt administration to do something to save the Jews of Europe. The organized Jewish leadership, led by Steven Wise, did everything it could to delegitimize their efforts. According to the copiously documented account of these events in Rafael Medoff's history, Militant Zionism in America, Wise, like the leaders of the Labor Zionist movement, didn't want the war to be seen as a Jewish issue and didn't want to alienate the White House by crying out too loudly for European Jews.

Today, as Iran moves closer to committing a second Holocaust, how are American Jewish organizations spending their time? Aside from supporting the administration and the Olmert government, leading American Jewish organizations including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federation of New York and the Joint Distribution Committee have joined forces with the far-left New Israel Fund and announced their intention to fund Israeli Arab organizations.

There is no doubt that as the leadership of Israel and the US lose their collective will to reconcile themselves to the reality of war, it falls on the shoulders of private citizens to tell them that they are wrong. Iran has been at war with the US and Israel since 1979 and today it has a leadership committed to advancing this war by destroying Israel and bringing America to its knees. In light of this danger, and in view of the clear lessons of the Holocaust, it is an act of cowardice and immorality for those who recognize the dangers to take a back seat to leaders who refuse to stand up for their countries.

As Moyal said, it is time to face the facts. There is no middle way. You cannot nuance genocidal foes bent on your destruction and defeat.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull

[ Back to the Article ]
Copyright 1995-2006 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:13 pm

June 13, 2006

You can't believe your lyin' eyes

The Islamoschmoozing has gone into full gear. What's the harm? This is how nations die

MARK STEYN

Within a few hours of those arrests from the -- what was the phrase? -- "broad strata" of Canadian society, I had a little flurry of emails from radio and TV producers inviting me to toss in my two bits. But my two bits on Toronto is pretty much the same as my two bits on London and Madrid and Bali, and that's quite a mound of quarters piled up over the past five years. What's to say? The best summation is a line I first quoted in 2002, when a French oil tanker was attacked off the coast of Yemen. Back then, you'll recall, the French foreign minister was deploring American "simplisme" on a daily basis, and M. Chirac was the principal obstructionist of the neo-con-Zionist-Halliburton plan to remake the Middle East. If you were to pick only one Western nation not to blow up the oil tankers of, France would surely be it.

But they got blown up anyway. And afterwards a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden said, "We would have preferred to hit a U.S. frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels."

No problem. They are all infidels. In the scheme of things, launching a plot to behead the Prime Minister of Canada would not seem to be an obvious priority. No doubt they would have preferred to behead the President of the United States. But no problem. We are all infidels.

The multicultural society posits that each of its citizens can hold a complementary portfolio of identities: one can simultaneously be Canadian and Jamaican and gay and Anglican and all these identities can exist within your corporeal form in perfect harmony. But, for most Western Muslims, Islam is their primary identity, and for a significant number thereof, it's a primary identity that exists in opposition to all others. That's merely stating the obvious. But, of course, to state the obvious is unacceptable these days, so our leaders prefer to state the absurd. I believe the old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between a New York traffic light changing to green and the first honk of a driver behind you. Today, the definition of a nanosecond is the gap between a Western terrorist incident and the press release of a Muslim lobby group warning of an impending outbreak of Islamophobia. After the London tube bombings, Angus Jung sent the Aussie pundit Tim Blair a note-perfect parody of the typical newspaper headline:

"British Muslims fear repercussions over tomorrow's train bombing."

An adjective here and there, and that would serve just as well for much of the coverage by the Toronto Star and the CBC, where a stone through a mosque window is a bigger threat to the social fabric than a bombing thrice the size of the Oklahoma City explosion. "Minority-rights doctrine," writes Melanie Phillips in her new book Londonistan, "has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a 'victim' group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the 'oppressive' majority." If you want to appreciate the forces at play among Western Muslims in societies enervated by multiculturalism, Londonistan is an indispensable read. "It is impossible to overstate the importance -- not just to Britain but to the global struggle against Islamist extremism -- of properly understanding and publicly challenging this moral, intellectual and philosophical inversion, which translates aggressor into victim and vice versa."

That's true -- although I wonder for how long even our decayed establishments can keep up the act. After the London bombings, the first reaction of Brian Paddick, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, was to declare that "Islam and terrorism don't go together." After the Toronto arrests, the CSIS assistant director of operations, Luc Portelance, announced that "it is important to know that this operation in no way reflects negatively on any specific community, or ethnocultural group in Canada." Who ya gonna believe? The RCMP diversity outreach press officer or your lyin' eyes? In the old days, these chaps would have been looking for the modus operandi, patterns of behaviour. But now every little incident on the planet is apparently strictly specific unto itself: all jihad is local.

The other day, listening to an interview on America's National Public Radio with the mayor of Toronto, I was laughing so much I drove off the road. David Miller warmed up with a bit of boilerplate Islamoschmoozing: "You know, in Islam, if you kill one person, you kill everybody. It's a very peaceful religion. And they're as shocked as Torontonians are. And . . ."

Renee Montagne, the anchorette, instantly spotted the ghastly breach of PC etiquette and leapt in: "Well, they sort of are Torontonians," she pointed out.

"Sorry," gulped the mayor, hastily re-smothering Muslims within the great diversity quilt. "They're shocked as every Torontonian is . . ."

Thereafter, Ms. Montagne expressed bafflement that these allegedly alleged fellows would have wanted to commit a terrorist atrocity in what was, compared to the Great Satan next door, "a very open society, very liberal immigration policy, very good social services."

Mayor Miller agreed: "More than half of the people who live in Toronto, including myself, were not born in Canada. And I think that's why Canada works."

"Although it didn't work in this case," Ms. Montagne pointed out, somewhat maliciously.

"Well, we don't expect these kinds of occurrences, exactly because of our public services, because of diversity," blah, blah. Insofar as there's any relation between jihadists and "good social services," the latter seem to attract the former -- at least in the sense that Ahmed Ressam, Zac Moussaoui, the shoe-bomber, the tube bombers, etc., were all products of the Euro-Canadian welfare system. But go ahead, pretend that these guys were upset about insufficient "social services," that they wanted to behead Stephen Harper to highlight the fact that wait times for the beheaded at the Toronto General are now up to 18 months, and they don't always reattach the right head. It's easy to scoff that a chap who can be bothered blowing up the Canadian Parliament must be insane, but, if you were a jihadist sitting in the cave back in the Hindu Kush listening to Renee Montagne and David Miller, wouldn't you conclude that they're the ones who are nuts? The Islamic Army of Aden PR guy seems by comparison to have a relatively clear-sighted grasp of reality.

Melanie Phillips makes a point that applies to Britain, Canada and beyond: "With few exceptions, politicians, Whitehall officials, senior police and intelligence officers and academic experts have failed to grasp that the problem to be confronted is not just the assembly of bombs and poison factories but what is going on inside people's heads that drives them to such acts." These are not Pushtun yak herders straight off the boat blowing up trains and buses. They're young men, most of whom were born and all of whom were bred in London, Toronto and other Western cities. And offered the nullity of a contemporary multicultural identity they looked elsewhere -- and found the jihad. If we try to fight it as isolated outbreaks -- a suicide attack here, a beheading there -- we will never win. You have to take on the ideology and the networks that sustain it and throttle them. Does David Miller sound like a man who's up to that challenge? A reader in Quebec, John Gross, emailed me to distill the mayor's approach as: "Don't get mad, get even . . . wimpier."

Well, if Hizzoner wants to make himself a laughingstock, what's the harm? Only this -- that the more rubbish spouted by officials in the wake of these events, the more the averagely well-informed person will resent the dissembling. In that sense, Mayor Miller, M. Portelance, commissioner Paddick et al. are colluding in the delegitimizing of the state's institutions. That doesn't seem like a smart move.

One final thought: Miss Phillips is one of Britain's best-known newspaper columnists. She appears constantly on national TV and radio. No publisher has lost money on her. Yet Londonistan wound up being published first in New York, and its subsequent appearance in Britain is thanks not to Little, Brown (who published her last big book) but to a small independent imprint called Gibson Square. I don't know Miss Phillips's agent, but it's hard not to suspect that glamorous literary London decided it would prefer to keep a safe distance from this incendiary subject.

That's how nations die -- not by war or conquest, but by a thousand trivial concessions, until one day you wake up and you don't need to sign a formal instrument of surrender because you did it piecemeal. How many Muslims in Toronto sympathize with the aims of those arrested last week? Maybe we could use a book on the subject. But which Canadian house would publish it? And would the faint-hearts at Indigo-Chapters carry it?

To comment, email letters@macleans.ca

Copyright by Rogers Media Inc.

This story can be found at:
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/ar ... 742_128742
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Cosima__J

Post by Cosima__J » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:18 pm

Corlyss, regretably, I've not been a regular here lately, so I don't know what your (and other people's) answer is to the Iran nuclear problem. It sure seems like a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" use the military option. The fact that your first article talks about "mental appeasement" and compares the current problem to the situation in the 1930's concerning dealing with Hitler, makes me think that you favor military action against Iran.

To initiate such action would require the support of the American people and that just ain't gonna happen. How could we possibly take military action against Iran with all that we've already got going on right now --- Iraq and Afghanistan for starters.

I hope I've incorrectly assumed that you favor the military option!!!

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:31 pm

Cosima__J wrote:Corlyss, regretably, I've not been a regular here lately, so I don't know what your (and other people's) answer is to the Iran nuclear problem. It sure seems like a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" use the military option. The fact that your first article talks about "mental appeasement" and compares the current problem to the situation in the 1930's concerning dealing with Hitler, makes me think that you favor military action against Iran.
You bet I do. You missed our discussion of Atlantic's Iran wargaming article last year. I can link you to it if you're interested. You won't be encouraged by what you read. I on the other hand, think we should have nuked the mullahs decades ago. They have these nice little low yield nukes that just take out things without spreading a lot of unpleasant radiation.
To initiate such action would require the support of the American people and that just ain't gonna happen. How could we possibly take military action against Iran with all that we've already got going on right now --- Iraq and Afghanistan for starters.
If you think it won't come to this eventually, you're whistlin' past the graveyard. It wouldn't take much to bring the regime to its knees. What it would take is not the approval of the American public but the cooperation - for about 3 weeks - of European client states of Iran and the inaction of Russia and China. No blood need be shed.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Cosima__J

Post by Cosima__J » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:40 pm

Corlyss, I wish I could share your optimism about a quick 3 week military action in Iran to "solve" the problem. But it seems to me that when the decision was made to go into Iraq, the planners never imagined that the situation there would be as messy as it is several years later.

As far as cooperation from the American public, I think you can forget that. It wouldn't just be Murtha, Kerry, Schumer, Kennedy etal going balistic. It would be 99% of the country.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:48 pm

Cosima__J wrote:Corlyss, I wish I could share your optimism about a quick 3 week military action in Iran to "solve" the problem. But it seems to me that when the decision was made to go into Iraq, the planners never imagined that the situation there would be as messy as it is several years later.
Probably. But one thing I can tell you for sure, they knew there would be troops stationed there for many years to come, and a staging ground from Iraq makes much more sense than just about any other state in the region. Check out Robert Kaplans article in Atlantic in November 02 about the strategic sense of a presence in Iraq. We didn't expect to be there just to take out Saddam. Wish we had those 500,000 troops we had there in 91. Sigh.
As far as cooperation from the American public, I think you can forget that. It wouldn't just be Murtha, Kerry, Schumer, Kennedy etal going balistic. It would be 99% of the country.
I don't agree with your take on the American public support. The public is well aware of the Iranian threat, much more so than they were about the Saddam threat. The national security opinons of the Mommy Party influence mostly people who already think poorly of the administration's ambitions, as you can tell from postings on this forum. Most Americans have already dismissed the Mommy party's take on national security.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Cosima__J

Post by Cosima__J » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:56 pm

I agree with you that the public is well aware of the Iranian threat, but, like myself, they feel that military action would create enormous problems that we just can't deal with. I guess I have no business speaking for "the American people" (that favorite phrase of all politicians), but my gut reaction is that you Corlyss would be one of the few people to support going in and taking out Irans nuclear assets.

Are there other posters here who agree with Corlyss?

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:13 pm

If I recall correctly, somewhere on these boards was posted a credible assessment by some knowledgeable military analysts that the matter could be resolved by strategic aerial bombing over a period of days, without the use of ground troops as part of the principal assault.

I'll see if I can search it out.

In any event, the Israelis won't sit still regardless of how they're posturing now. For them it's existential.

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:29 pm

And I believe I recall reading from several different analysts that it would be extremely difficult to take out Iran's nuclear program with a limited strike or even a series of them.

The general consensus seems to be that it's a horrible situation with nothing that even remotely resembles a good option for the west. But what is the least bad option?
I worry about a large military operation pushing the majority of Iranians who are progressive and generally pro-western into the arms of the hard-liners just as Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union enabled Stalin to turn off the Communist propoganda and turn on the Russian nationalism propoganda.

In other words, brother and sister Persians, our great civilization has been attacked and we must pull together to resist the invaders.
On the other hand, if we're not any closer to progressives ousting the mullahs today than we were five years ago and we don't have a good way of bringing such an overthrow about without invading, does it really matter if we lose a potential bond with them? And is the danger of Iran having nukes so great that even the risk of alienating Iranian progressives worth it?

I'm glad I don't have to make this decision.

One thing is for sure. Any western leader who openly announces that the use of force is not an option that's on the table should be booted from office for being unfit to lead a nation at such a crucial time.
Last edited by Barry on Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:29 pm

This is the article I referred to:

The Weekly Standard

Target: Iran

Yes, there is a feasible military option against the mullahs' nuclear program.
by Thomas McInerney
04/24/2006, Volume 011, Issue 30


A MILITARY OPTION AGAINST Iran's nuclear facilities is feasible. A diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis is preferable, but without a credible military option and the will to implement it, diplomacy will not succeed. The announcement of uranium enrichment last week by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows Iran will not bow easily to diplomatic pressure. The existence of a military option may be the only means of persuading Iran--the world's leading sponsor of terrorism--to back down from producing nuclear weapons.

A military option would be all the more credible if backed by a new coalition of the willing and if coupled with intense diplomacy during a specific time frame. The coalition could include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, Britain, France, and Germany. Solidarity is important and would surely contribute to potential diplomatic success. But should others decline the invitation, the United States must be prepared to act.

What would an effective military response look like? It would consist of a powerful air campaign led by 60 stealth aircraft (B-2s, F-117s, F-22s) and more than 400 nonstealth strike aircraft, including B-52s, B-1s, F-15s, F-16s, Tornados, and F-18s. Roughly 150 refueling tankers and other support aircraft would be deployed, along with 100 unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and 500 cruise missiles. In other words, overwhelming force would be used.

The objective would be, first and foremost, to destroy or severely damage Iran's nuclear development and production facilities and put them out of commission for at least five years. Another aim would be to destroy the Iranian air defense system, significantly damage its air force, naval forces, and Shahab-3 offensive missile forces. This would prevent Iran from projecting force outside the country and retaliating militarily. The air campaign would also wipe out or neutralize Iran's command and control capabilities.

This coalition air campaign would hit more than 1,500 aim points. Among the weapons would be the new 28,000-pound bunker busters, 5,000-pound bunker penetrators, 2,000-pound bunker busters, 1,000-pound general purpose bombs, and 500-pound GP bombs. A B-2 bomber, to give one example, can drop 80 of these 500-pound bombs independently targeted at 80 different aim points.

This force would give the coalition an enormous destructive capability, since all the bombs in the campaign feature precision guidance, ranging from Joint Direct Attack Munitions (the so-called JDAMS) to laser-guided, electro-optical, or electronically guided High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) for suppression of Iranian surface-to-air missiles. This array of precision weapons and support aircraft would allow the initial attacks to be completed in 36 to 48 hours.

The destruction of Iran's military force structure would create the opportunity for regime change as well, since it would eliminate some or all of Ahmadinejad's and the mullahs' ability to control the population. Simultaneously or prior to the attack, a major covert operation could be launched, utilizing Iranian exiles and dissident forces trained during the period of diplomacy. This effort would be based on the Afghan model that led to the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Not only would the overt and covert attacks weaken the ability of Iran's leaders to carry out offensive operations in retaliation, they would cripple the leaders' power to control their own people.

Iran's diverse population should be fertile ground for a covert operation. Iran is only 51 percent Persian. Azerbaijanis and Kurds comprise nearly 35 percent of the population. Seventy percent are under 30, and the jobless rate hovers near 20 percent.

Iran's leaders have threatened to unleash a firestorm of terrorism in the event military action is taken against them. Any country involved in the attack would be subject to retaliation by Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al Qaeda, the Iranians have claimed. If nothing else, this threat demonstrates how closely tied Iran is to terrorist groups. The United States and its allies would have to be prepared for stepped-up terrorist acts. Iran could also project forces into Iraq, but this is unlikely because they would encounter the full strength of the American military. However, Iran might encourage proxies among Iraq's militant Shiites. Coalition forces in Iraq would have to be ready to respond.

No doubt the Iranians would attempt to close the Gulf of Hormuz and block the extensive shipping that goes through it. American air and naval forces are quite capable of keeping the gulf open, though shipping might be slowed. The most adverse economic consequences of shipping delays would be felt in Iran itself.

President Bush is right when he says Iran cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapons. The prospect of leaders like Ahmadinejad, who advocates wiping Israel "off the map," with their hands on nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take. Diplomacy must be pursued vigorously, but the experience with Iraq suggests there's little reason for optimism. Thus, a viable military option is imperative.

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret.) served as assistant vice chief of staff of the United States Air Force.

© Copyright 2006, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 1dorxa.asp

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:22 pm

HO Ho Ho :lol: :lol: :lol:

The experts have spoken (just like they did in Vietnam & Iraq).

Just a surgical strike they say. IN and Out. Nothing to it! HO Ho HO :lol: :lol: :lol:

Werner
CMG's Elder Statesman
Posts: 4223
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: Irvington, NY

Post by Werner » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:36 pm

"A viable military option is imperative." It's always the essential alternative to diplomacy - if there is one.

I am not persuaded by Corlyss' cheerful forecast of three weeks' campaign - no blood need to be shed. It seems to me we've had recent experience with sinilarly optimistic predictions, which didn't pan out.
Werner Isler

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:11 pm

The Confederacy was sure to be beaten in a couple of battles too.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Brendan

Post by Brendan » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:24 pm

And even after Bull Run the will to ultimate victory despite the necessity of combat remained. Painless it wasn't, and neither will stopping Iran be, but necessary.

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:40 pm

Brendan wrote:... Painless it wasn't, and neither will stopping Iran be, but necessary.
Nice summation. It has the potential to be very painful if, as I fear based on some of what I've read, the progressives are pushed into a unified Persian resistance with the mullahs. But that doesn't mean it isn't or won't be necessary at some point, whether that be in the near or slightly more distant future.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

paulb
Posts: 1078
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 6:08 pm
Location: baton rouge

Post by paulb » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:00 pm

Anyone have proof that Iran to use uranium for bombs? And not for its stated purpose of nuclear energy. 'Oh come on man, you know these Iranian religious radicals, liars and always up to no good'. Sure I'll admit that pres guy is abit of a nut, denying the holacaust, but he is a REAL danger. Or are we projecting our own insecurities onto him and Iran?
I can assure you this country does not want us involved in another war, not even if we could prove Iran was up to no good. This Iraqi mess is quite enough. I guess the country is divided about 60% against the Iraqi war, which maens thats not even close for public acceptance, IOW we shouldn't be there. btw I'm in the 40% category, for reasons I cannot go into, and a few of my beliefs why we should be there, are beyond the perceived objectives. Oil supply stability/mideast stability/locate al queda and destory are the most obvious objectives,(yeah i know al queda did not operate in iraq before the war, but our presence did draw the enemey into the country where we can seek and destroy) but i have a few other reasons why its good we went to Iraqi, not care to discuss....back to Iran. So no proof of bomb plans, can't argue for any attack. Further we should not go too far in this and get on their nerves. Remember we need stability in the region and not strike anger into countries we are NOT at war with. .
The one real danger the world faces is North Korea. This is scary. But I do not know much of the details of the situation to take that subject further.
I say leave Iran alone with the condition that we can monitor the buiding of the nuc plant, to make sure no bombs are being developed.
Psalm 118:22 The Stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.
23 This is the Lord's doing , it is marvelous in our sight.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:34 pm

Barry Z wrote:And I believe I recall reading from several different analysts that it would be extremely difficult to take out Iran's nuclear program with a limited strike or even a series of them.
Maybe not to the last test tube or radiation detector, but it would discourage them mightily. He who does it once can do it again. I ain't buying that "the program is dispersed so there's no point in doing anything." That's just another version of "let's learn to live with the idea of a nuclear Iran."
The general consensus seems to be that it's a horrible situation with nothing that even remotely resembles a good option for the west. But what is the least bad option?
Yeah. Kaplan's "bad choices and worse choices."
And is the danger of Iran having nukes so great that even the risk of alienating Iranian progressives worth it?
Yes.

One thing is for sure. Any western leader who openly announces that the use of force is not an option that's on the table should be booted from office for being unfit to lead a nation at such a crucial time.
But handwringing and widely publicized reluctance to use force takes it off the table in Iran's perception. This is no time for ambiguity in my opinion. As Reb noted, Bush 41 gave hopelessly mixed signals to Saddam and we got Gulf 1 for it. Bush 43 should not do the same to Iran. Iran knows the Europeans have no stomach for a showdown no matter how many fatwahs Chriac publishes. They want the oil. They want to sell their goods to Iran. They want to be left alone against the hope that their passivity will buy the crocodile's temporary favor. They know it will all fall to the US. And if they can scare the US public opinion into passivity too, they win. I hope Batchelor was right when he opined a couple of weeks ago that "this president will not leave office with the issue of a nuclear Iran unsettled."
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:05 am

For those who have doubts about Iran's secret nuclear weapons program:

US Air Force AIM Points
Published on: June 12, 2006
NEWS

Iran accused of hiding secret nuclear weapons site
BY: Con Coughlin, London Daily Telegraph*
06/12/2006

Fresh evidence has emerged that Iran is working on a secret military project to develop nuclear weapons that has not been declared to United Nations inspectors responsible for monitoring Iran’s nuclear programme.

Nuclear experts working for the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna are pressing the Iranians to make a full disclosure about a network of research laboratories at a secret military base outside the capital Teheran.

The project is codenamed Zirzamin 27, and its purpose is to enable the Iranians to undertake uranium enrichment to military standard. Zirzamin means “basement” in Farsi, which suggests the laboratories are underground and 27 refers to the 27-year-old Iranian revolution.

Concerns over activity at Zirzamin 27 will be raised at this week’s meeting of the IAEA’s Board of Governors in Vienna, which starts today.

Suspicions have been growing that Iran has a secret military nuclear research programme since UN inspectors discovered particles of enriched uranium at a research complex at Lavizan, a military base on the outskirts of Teheran, in 2003.

The Iranians agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to visit the Lavizan complex but then razed it to the ground before the inspectors arrived.

Iranian nuclear officials have ignored repeated requests by IAEA officials for a detailed explanation of the Lavizan project. Now the IAEA officials are studying new intelligence indicating that the Lavizan research project has been moved to a secret military location outside Teheran.

Although IAEA officials do not know the precise location of Zirzamin 27, they have comprehensive details of its activities.

“This is a truly alarming development,” said a senior western diplomat working with the IAEA. “This evidence indicates that the Iranians remain committed to developing nuclear weapons, despite their claims to the contrary that their nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful.”

Teheran has consistently argued that its nuclear programme is aimed at developing an indigenous nuclear power industry. But Iran’s insistence on developing its own uranium enrichment facilities has raised concerns that it has a well-advanced programme to develop nuclear weapons.

The Zirzamin 27 operation is thought to be being supervised by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards under the direction of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the head of Iran’s Modern Defensive Readiness and Technology Centre, a top-secret military research site.

According to reports being studied by IAEA officials, scientists working at Zirzamin are required to wear standard military uniforms when entering and leaving the complex to give the impression they are involved in normal military activity. They are only allowed to change into protective clothing once inside the site.

Special attention has also been given to developing specialised ventilation systems to make sure no incriminating particles of radioactive material are allowed to escape.

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=11932

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:18 am

Of equal concern:



Iran's place at summit raises fears of anti-West alliance
By Richard Spencer in Beijing
(Filed: 15/06/2006)

Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, arrived in China last night for a summit of Asian states and Russia that Washington fears is forming a new anti-western alliance.

Mr Ahmadinejad will seek support for his country's nuclear programme, fuelling US concern that Iran is being protected by its growing friendship with Russia and China, who both sit on the UN Security Council.

He is also believed to be pushing to join the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, which is holding its annual summit in the city today and tomorrow.

The SCO, under the leadership of China and Russia, is playing an ever-greater role in the jostling for power in Central Asia. The dictatorial nature of some of its membership, which also includes the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, has provoked descriptions of it as an anti-American alliance of despots.

Both China and Russia deny this, and China's vice-foreign minister, Li Hui, this week ruled out early accession by Iran. But Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, said in a newspaper article: "The SCO is not a closed and exclusive club whose lines of demarcation have been clearly drawn."

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, has expressed concern about the summit, and the presence of President Ahmadinejad as an official observer.

"It strikes me as strange that one would want to bring into an organisation that says it's against terrorism. . . one of the leading terrorist nations in the world," he said.

Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, and Mr Putin are likely to assure the Iranians that they will oppose the use of strong UN sanctions or force against Iran if it refuses to stop enriching uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons. Mr Ahmadinejad, who in speeches at home has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction, will be given a rare opportunity to appear on an international stage.

The importance of the event to China, which is trying to extend its regional clout and exploit America's growing unpopularity, was underlined by an extraordinary security operation in the financial hub of 17 million people. Shanghai has been instrumental in the explosive economic growth of the world's largest country.

A force of 60,000 security officers has been deployed including armed police, soldiers and bomb-sniffing dogs. Dissidents have been placed under house arrest and many workers given time off.

The SCO comprises the four former Soviet republics plus Russia and China, with Pakistan, India, Iran and Mongolia holding observer status.

Its stated goal is economic co-operation and joint action against terrorism, particularly Islamist groups that have been active in all six countries. But while this provided common cause with the US in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, all have been accused of subordinating human rights to sometimes overblown claims of combating extremism.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... xnews.html

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:39 am

pizza wrote:This is the article I referred to:

The Weekly Standard

Target: Iran

Yes, there is a feasible military option against the mullahs' nuclear program.
by Thomas McInerney
04/24/2006, Volume 011, Issue 30
Yes, he was involved in the Korea Wargaming for Atlantic. He thought the same about Korea: the risk was too great no to use them.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:45 am

Werner wrote:"A viable military option is imperative." It's always the essential alternative to diplomacy - if there is one.

I am not persuaded by Corlyss' cheerful forecast of three weeks' campaign - no blood need to be shed. It seems to me we've had recent experience with sinilarly optimistic predictions, which didn't pan out.
American troops theoretically would not even need to set foot on Iranian soil for the 3 week blockade. It would be a joint operation by the Europeans, particularly the French and Germans, and the US Navy blocking the Straitts of Hormuz. The Iranians ain't stupid - that's why they have been practicing maneuvers in the Straits recently (the description of which must have had sailors laughing heartily) for all the good it would do them once we took out their command and control systems. The mullahs wouldn't last beyond 3 weeks before the Iranians took them out. For that to work, you wouldn't need nukes.

But if we can't get the Europeans to go along, then the direct campaign against Iran would have to result.
Last edited by Corlyss_D on Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:12 am

paulb wrote:Anyone have proof that Iran to use uranium for bombs?
What are you looking for? The fact that they have hundreds of centrifuges, and you don't need centrifuges for anything but making bombs? How about the fact that they signed the NPT and like the Koreans broke it unashamedly for something like 18 years? How about the reports that started all this 3 years ago, from the Iranian expats with deep ties into Iran, reports on the nuclear sites operated and under construction? Perhaps the repeated assertions that their "peaceful" nuclear program is not under the control of the military when it is completely controlled by the Revolutionary Guard? How about their refusal to turn off all the centrifuges? Why is that important? Because our satellites can pick up the sound of the centrifuges operating. It can't tell how many are operating, but even one can be detected. If they turn them all off, we will know immediately when they turn them back on and they can't get away with it undetected. If they turn off the centrifuges, they will have lost. So watch what they do with the centrifuges. Besides, everyone in the Intel community knows they have about half a dozen bombs already, not of their own making, but bombs nontheless. It's not a matter of if but when as far as Iran goes: when will they let us know they have them. They are tag-teaming with North Korea, who have mentored the Iranians in how to behave on the world scene to get attention first and concessions second.
Or are we projecting our own insecurities onto him and Iran?
Hardly. This fight has been brewing ever since the witless Carter failed to declare war on them for seizing the embassy and the workers, which was an act of war. They want us out of the middle east. They think we don't have the guts for a fight and they will win by scaring the American public.
I can assure you this country does not want us involved in another war, not even if we could prove Iran was up to no good. This Iraqi mess is quite enough. I guess the country is divided about 60% against the Iraqi war, which maens thats not even close for public acceptance, IOW we shouldn't be there.
I'm not so sure the public aren't up for it. The Dems haven't been able to capitalize on the warweariness with increased votes, which would be the case if the public were as fed up with the war as the Dems think they should be - there's not even a modest groundswell for getting out of Iraq immediately.
(yeah i know al queda did not operate in iraq before the war,
But they did, more extensively than even the 9/11 commission disclosed. They may not have had hands on in the 9/11 attacks, but they did form part of the support network for the operation, including Saddam's paying money to the families of the highjackers.
Further we should not go too far in this and get on their nerves. Remember we need stability in the region and not strike anger into countries we are NOT at war with. .
I'm sure the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Iraqis, not to mention the Israelis are just thrilled at the prospect of a nuclear Iran. If Russia had any brains, they'd be scared too, instead of selling the techonolgy to Iran. So far the military nuclear program has mostly Pakistani and Korean finger prints on it.

I say leave Iran alone with the condition that we can monitor the buiding of the nuc plant, to make sure no bombs are being developed.
That's what we've been doing for the last 3 years, ever since we found out that they have been making fools of the IAEA, just like the Koreans did. So we are pretty much now at the point that we know they have bombs and are on the verge of making their own, so it's gut check time.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:13 am

Now, lets get this straight.

Iran might have nuclear weapons or is on the way to nuclear weapons.
Naturally, they haven't used them yet.

The United States has nuclear weapons and already used them twice, on Japan.

Who is the threat here?

Oh, I forgot, we are always the good guys, aren't we?

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:10 am

You didn't forget. Like most looney-lefty America-hating twits, it sticks in your craw.

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:58 am

Sometimes, when you get away from the endless babble of the experts, and reduce the issue to a more simple form (so you can understand it, PizzaPie), its quite eye-opening.

We are right (all the time) and we have the bigger stick so we will hit you over the head with it. Maybe it is something we do have to consider, but really this is what its all about.

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:09 am

Borderline insanity defines the attempt to compare the legitimate objectives of the US during WW2 with those of Islamic-terrorist 21st Century Iran.

paulb
Posts: 1078
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 6:08 pm
Location: baton rouge

Post by paulb » Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:59 am

Lilith wrote:Now, lets get this straight.

Iran might have nuclear weapons or is on the way to nuclear weapons.
Naturally, they haven't used them yet.

The United States has nuclear weapons and already used them twice, on Japan.

Who is the threat here?

Oh, I forgot, we are always the good guys, aren't we?
Though I agree with you that it really should not be our utmost concern/or even the world's grave concern, if Iran develope's the weapon. There are too many countries that have them already ,, and god only knows how many we have and the maens to depploy, those expensive submarines for instance.
We can't say no, when we have more than anyone. Makes no sense.
But I do not agree with you that we are a country that has bloody pointed teeth, as does the president and many others running Iran. We only attacked Japan as a means of last resort. They oushed us to do so. In the collective unconscious, there's no pinning down the culprit, actually the Japenese idiologists/facists dropped the bomb on themselves.
I wish all countries would put away their dangerous toys, especially the USA. They are not necessary. Now as to North Korea, here's a very delicate situation. They have zero intentions of putting anything away, and I fear they may go all the way. At least thats how I reda their current talk. Which they say, "yes we have weapons and we plan to use them".
Iran does not say anything of the sort. Sure they want to attack Isarel, but would only attack us if we stand in their way. I say there must be other means to diplomacy than our bullying attitude. But we need China and Russia to stand with us.
For world stability, China, Russia and the USA must form a deep solidarity of friendship and trust.
Psalm 118:22 The Stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.
23 This is the Lord's doing , it is marvelous in our sight.

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:06 am

But in spite of ocassional posturing, China and Russia are more interested in diminishing our influence than standing with us, so there is no point in basing policy on an eventuality that isn't going to happen.

Pizza summed up well the comparison between our use of the bomb to defeat a Japan that refused to surrender and the potential use of it by an Islamic fundamentalist state whose stated goal is to wipe the Zionist Entity off the face of the Earth.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:45 am

I agree the use of the bomb was justified in Japan. But we have used it to wipe out human beings. And Iran has not.
Is that the criteria by which you (Pizza, Barry) justify our right to decide who else can posess it ... because we are the only ones experienced using it on people????
Or is it really just more of this 'big stick over the head' and we are always right routine.

Lets also remember the last 100 years of history in Iran and nearby.
The West hasn't exactly covered itself in glory has it? (Do you need the details ... the British, exploitation by Western companies, The Shah, etc)
If I was Iranian, I certainly wouldn't consider the USA (waging war to my east and west) a friendly nation.

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:10 pm

Lilith wrote: I agree the use of the bomb was justified in Japan. But we have used it to wipe out human beings. And Iran has not.
Is that the criteria by which you (Pizza, Barry) justify our right to decide who else can posess it ... because we are the only ones experienced using it on people????
Or is it really just more of this 'big stick over the head' and we are always right routine.

Lets also remember the last 100 years of history in Iran and nearby.
The West hasn't exactly covered itself in glory has it? (Do you need the details ... the British, exploitation by Western companies, The Shah, etc)
If I was Iranian, I certainly wouldn't consider the USA (waging war to my east and west) a friendly nation.
Yes. We have to use a big stick at times. It's not a question of always being right. And it's not a question of whether we have the "right" to decide who has the bomb and who doesn't have it. Like it or not, we're the world's superpower. If we don't accept that responsibility by deciding which nations are a danger to resources and stability and taking actions that we think our in our best interest in terms of remaining a superpower, other nations (Iran, China, Russia, etc.) would be more than happy to fill that power vacuum. Do you think it would be a better world if we "played fair" and fail to exercise power on the logic that "if we have and have used the bomb, we have no right to tell others not to have it?" Because if we start operating that way, I guarantee you that other nations will step in and attempt to fill the power vacuum we'd be leaving.

As far as how Iranians feel about us, based on everything I've read on the subject (and I also know a number of Iranians personally), a solid majority of them have a favorable view of the U.S. and an unfavorable view of the mullahs who run the show over there and who are pushing to get the bomb. That doesn't mean they want us bombing or invading their country. But we can't afford to not think about all options for preventing Iran from getting the bomb, especially when the people with their fingers on the buttons are jihadist fanatics.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:22 pm

Lilith wrote:If I was Iranian, I certainly wouldn't consider the USA (waging war to my east and west) a friendly nation.
No surprise there. Even as an American you haven't much use for anything the USA does.

If you were an Iranian you wouldn't have an opportunity to express your thoughts publicly without getting your head bashed in. See what happened to about six thousand Iranian women who had the temerity to demonstrate for their basic human rights a few days ago.

http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/1716/69/

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:25 pm

Lilith wrote:Now, lets get this straight.

Iran might have nuclear weapons or is on the way to nuclear weapons.
They got them from Korea. They have a deal with Korea: Korea supplies the bombs; Iran develops the delivery systems, i.e, missiles, which, if you have been following developments in Iran for the last 9-12 months you will know that is exactly what they are doing. They then supply the Koreans with the missile systems.
Naturally, they haven't used them yet.

The United States has nuclear weapons and already used them twice, on Japan.

Who is the threat here?

Oh, I forgot, we are always the good guys, aren't we?
All states are not equal. You know that. You planning to move to Tehran anytime soon? Who's brought prosperity, freedom, and democracy to more people than any other state in the history of the world? Certainly not Iran. Who's threatening to destroy its neighbors? Who funds terrorism all over the world?

Damn right we're the good guys.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:40 pm

paulb wrote:We can't say no, when we have more than anyone. Makes no sense.
Surely you jest! Why? Do you think this is an issue of "fairness" to nations who don't have them but would like to get them? To think we can't object because we have so many is extremely naive. The fact that Korea has disseminated the technology principally thru Pakistan's A.Q. Khan tells you something. If we don't object, who will? The IAEA is a joke, headed up by an Arab who wants to become the next head of the Arab League. Think seriously he's going to expose the activities of Arab/Muslim nations that have been trying to get the bomb since 1967?

[/quote]Sure they want to attack Isarel, but would only attack us if we stand in their way. I say there must be other means to diplomacy than our bullying attitude.[/quote]

So self preservation is okay as long as we don't bully anyone? What's bullying in the context? Defending ourselves by any means necessary?
But we need China and Russia to stand with us.
For world stability, China, Russia and the USA must form a deep solidarity of friendship and trust.
Lesseee, two totalitarian states, one of which is a serious competitor to the US (China), the other a regional hegemon competing with the US in the Great Game in Southwest Asia, and one democracy. Two nations which profit from international instability and one nation committed to international stability. That should work well, don't you think? In order for us to work together, we have to have the same goals. The Russians and the Chinese most certainly don't have the same goals as the US. Where's the opportunity for friendship and trust? We've been doing that drill for as long as I've been studying the international scene (almost 40 years) and it works only on the margins where we are not competitors.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:50 pm

"Who's threatening to destroy its neighbors? " Corlyss

I can't believe you even said this. Who is actually destroying its (Iran's) neighbors? The good ole US of A. How would you like a superpower's army in great strength on the California border and the Virginia border?
Try to walk 10 feet in someone else's shoes (Don't worry- I would never think of asking you to walk a mile) :wink:

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:03 pm

Lilith wrote:"Who's threatening to destroy its neighbors? " Corlyss

I can't believe you even said this. Who is actually destroying its (Iran's) neighbors? The good ole US of A. How would you like a superpower's army in great strength on the California border and the Virginia border?
Try to walk 10 feet in someone else's shoes (Don't worry- I would never think of asking you to walk a mile) :wink:
What tripe! The Iranian regime has been secretly developing nuclear weapons for the past 20 years, long before the US overthrew the Taliban and Saddam.

Better think of another reason why it's OK for the most repressive terrorist regime in the middle-East to have nuclear weapons.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:06 pm

Lilith wrote:"Who's threatening to destroy its neighbors? " Corlyss

I can't believe you even said this. Who is actually destroying its (Iran's) neighbors?
Our actions are reactions to their policies and the inherent instability of the region.
How would you like a superpower's army in great strength on the California border and the Virginia border?
You'll have to ask the Canadians. I'm not sure I can get my mind around the concept. :lol: If I were a peaceful democratic trade-loving nation and the superpower were America, it would give me great comfort . (See, Canada) If I were a bloody tyrant intent on restoring some bygone glory by subduing all my neighbors and bullying nearby states into acquiesing while I obliterated another neighbor with nukes, I'd be scared shitless. But this is the US on the borders, a state recently notorious for cutting and running when you bloody its nose, whose public opinion can compel the government to abandon strategic interests, in which one major party and the media are hell bent on destroying the legitimacy of its duly elected government, and which pays excessive attention to already compromised allied opinion. I'd look at the landscape and say to myself, its worth the gamble; the percentages are in my favor.
Try to walk 10 feet in someone else's shoes (Don't worry- I would never think of asking you to walk a mile) :wink:
How was that? How about you try the same? :wink:
Last edited by Corlyss_D on Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:24 pm

"What tripe! The Iranian regime has been secretly developing nuclear weapons for the past 20 years, long before the US overthrew the Taliban and Saddam. Pizza

Tripe.......Tripe............Is that like PIZZA RUBBISH ????

I Notice you didn't deny the obvious- that we have hundreds of thousands of troops near the western and eastern border of Iran

"The Iranian regime has been secretly developing nuclear weapons for the past 20 years, long before the US overthrew the Taliban and Saddam. Pizza

And how long has the USA been developing nuclear weapons??*&^%$&

(THat was a real effective argument Pizza!!!) :) :) :)

Cosima__J

Post by Cosima__J » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:28 pm

I think Corlyss is posting as "Lilith" in order to spice up the board. Nobody could possibly be as clueless as this mythical Lilith.

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:32 pm

Do you think so Cosima? I always found your reactionary posts pretty clueless. Maybe you should start another thread on APPEASEMENT.
I'm sure you could write a book.

Lovingly, Corlyss ... I mean Lilith

Werner
CMG's Elder Statesman
Posts: 4223
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: Irvington, NY

Post by Werner » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:36 pm

Lilith, before you go off sending the US on a guilt trip regarding nuclear weapons, you need to get some facts straight.

You may not have been around when the fateful decision was made to use the first two nuclear bombs in an effort to end the world's longest and costliest - in so many respects - war. And that effort was successful. We're all aware of the revisionist literature blaming that decision after the fact. It remains true that it hastened the end of a horrible war. How many lives were spared as a result depends, I suppose, on where you sit ideologically on this issue.

But it is also true that the same ol' US has been active - through administrations of either party - to reduce or eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons ever since. And no muclear bombs have been used since then. Agree or disagree with any policy or politician, that has been a record worth keeping intact.
Werner Isler

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:49 pm

Lilith wrote:"What tripe! The Iranian regime has been secretly developing nuclear weapons for the past 20 years, long before the US overthrew the Taliban and Saddam. Pizza

Tripe.......Tripe............Is that like PIZZA RUBBISH ????

I Notice you didn't deny the obvious- that we have hundreds of thousands of troops near the western and eastern border of Iran

"The Iranian regime has been secretly developing nuclear weapons for the past 20 years, long before the US overthrew the Taliban and Saddam. Pizza

And how long has the USA been developing nuclear weapons??*&^%$&

(THat was a real effective argument Pizza!!!) :) :) :)
Your so-called "argument" is nonsense and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that Iran is developing nuclear weapons in order to present a strategic threat that will enable them to control the energy sources of the middle-east and thereby squeeze the West economically and politically.

You may think it's funny now, but when oil hits $200 a barrel and you have to ride a bike, you won't be laughing, twit.

The Iranians don't claim the need to develop nuclear weapons because American troops are in the vicinity or because America has them. That's your anti-American argument. As I just mentioned, they were secretly developing these weapons for the past 20 years.
Last edited by pizza on Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:53 pm

Werner- You may want to read the thread before posting. Earlier in this thread, I said I have always supported the use of the bomb against Japan.

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:55 pm

"You may think it's funny now, but when oil hits $200 a barrel and you have to ride a bike, you won't be laughing, twit. "
----------------------------------------------------------

I'd love it PizzaPie. You know all left wingers are great bike riders, don't you?

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:00 pm

Lilith wrote:"You may think it's funny now, but when oil hits $200 a barrel and you have to ride a bike, you won't be laughing, twit. "
----------------------------------------------------------

I'd love it PizzaPie. You know all left wingers are great bike riders, don't you?
Of course I do. That's just about their speed. :P

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:04 pm

Actually, you can move along quite nicely on a bike. You ought to try it some time Pizza. You know it could save the country some gas - it would be a very patriotic thing to do Pizza. And I know you want to do all the patriotic things you can, right?

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:09 pm

Lilith wrote:Earlier in this thread, I said I have always supported the use of the bomb against Japan.
So you made your typical straw argument without any relevance whatsoever to the Iranian issue. What else is new?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests