bradley wrote:
“What a surprise, more tough posturing with no action from Jeff.”
Well. I’m worried. If we invade, bantering words with a weakling will seem even more insignificant than it already is.
I hope I’m wrong about the direction this crisis is taking.
JeffR
DPH wrote:
“it seems as though you’re saying it’s inevitable that the US will have to invade Iran…”
I trully hope not. I am very worried.
“to go to war with Iran the US would have to start drafting…forces are spread WAY to thin as it is…support for such a measure would make any republican un-electable…”
You may not believe me, but this issue is far more important to me than party. If a democrat could stop the spread of wmd and nuclear materials from this rogue nation, I’d give them SERIOUS consideration.
“as soon as young kids who didn’t want to be drafted start dying support for the war effort will drop to near zero…”
I think you are right on.
“maybe they should find a way for diplomacy to work this time?”
How, my friend? I’ve watched this situation worsen over many years. I’ve seen W. apply many of the tactics that his critics suggested. I’m very afraid that the europeans (minus England and Poland) just don’t have the stomach for serious action. This dictator (like saddam before him) understands this with crystal clarity.
Where does that leave us? The dictators only listen to ultimatiums from countries that back it up with resolve.
It’s the oldest story in the book (sadly).
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’m sorry. I just cannot take you seriously.
[/quote]
LOL. Because we ALL take you seriously, jefferiifyy.
Brad,
You may be a bit over the edge, but you crack me up man.
I’m thinking some of your less enamored readers don’t get your brand of cough subtle humor.
pox wrote:
“LOL. Because we ALL take you seriously, jefferiifyy.”
You don’t get it!!!
I LOVE that you don’t like me.
It validates my opinions.
Thanks, pal.
JeffR
Ahahahaha. Consideration? Is that best you have? If they COULD stop it, you’d even CONSIDER voting for them. Bahahahaha!
Way to go Jerffy, you are the model of a unbiased behavior! Idiot.
By diplomatic means, I don’t mean just sitting down for tea with Mahmoud Ahmanijihad. I mean using anything from the full set of economic and diplomatic means at the world’s dispoal, including blockade (we occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to put more pressure on Pakistan and Russia anyways), world economic sanctions (the US has a trade embargo, but many other countries trade with Iran), UN pressure (for what its worth), and covert economic sabotage.
I’m not saying invasion or airstrikes won’t happen or won’t be needed, but Iran is said to be 3-5 years away from a nuke. If you starve them out, you extend that timeframe greatly, and maybe give the US time to put together an effective regime change plan, and cripple Iranian countermeasures, if you still need it.
Such a plan has risks too. You don’t want Iran to be able to plan ahead for an insurgency, which happened in Iraq, but at the same time, the measures Clinton and the UN used (airstrikes, economic sanctions) were effective in dismantling the WMD program as well as the Iraqi resistance infrastructure.
Also, Ahmanijihad might be a nut, but he holds no real power. The Supreme Leader , and the Council of Experts hold all the real power on these issues, and they were the real power when the last guy (Khatami) was president.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Where does that leave us? The dictators only listen to ultimatiums from countries that back it up with resolve.
[/quote]
between a rock and a hard place…
if diplomacy will not work (already been tried and failed according to you?)…
and covert military operations will not work (zap thinks I watch too many movies)…
and large scale invasion will not work (the US people will vote anyone for necessary drafting out of office)…
then we are left with an Iran that has nuclear weapons…that’s where it leaves us…
Let’s negotiate with the Iranians, kind of like Chamberlain did with Hitler at Munich. Hitler signed a piece of paper, guaranteeing peace in our time!
It’ll work this time for sure!
why is everybody having such a hard time understanding that this is an inevability? as we go into the future more and more countries are going to “catch up” on technology. it’s only a matter of time until nukes are in the hands of EVERYBODY. by that time something new and more deadly will be at the top of the list, and the same arguments will be heard regarding that.
does anybody out there truly believe that we can hold the entire world down? pass that shit my way, i have smoked allot but nothing that good.we should be focused on our needs to rise to the level that we once stood at. we need to develope something new, that way we can hold that over everybodies head. all i can say is get over it, they will have nuclear capabilities in the near future and there is nothing we can do to stop them.
if it’s not Iran, it’s gonna be S.Korea, or whoever the fuck has nuclear ambitions. do you believe that one country will go to war with the entire world alone? even if they have nuclear bombs, it’s more of an access card to play with the big boys. once they have the capabilities we(and the rest of the world) won’t be able to dismiss them so easily. everybody wants to be part of the nuke club, then they can have a permanent seat on the u.n. security council.
who wants to share the power with them? thats the problem. nobody wants to share the power of choice. certainly not with some crazy middle eastern’s. i mean fuck israel has nuke’s, and they still don’t get any respect. maybe it’s because they are an extension of the U.S. and they have to ask big daddy to do anything other than fart. that is a different subject all together.
[quote]ExNole wrote:
…
Everybody has been chasing nukes- But we’re certainly not going to convince them otherwise if it looks like we’re jumping at the bit to invade them. [/quote]
We are not going to convince them otherwise because their minds are already made up.
Their president is one of the embassy hostage takers.
I didn’t say negotiate, I very clearly outlined a bunch of options.
This is kind of like the false dichotomy between whether one should only do squats, or leg press (or curls/pull-ups, whatever). We can do both. We might have to.
We might be able to launch an effective attack, three years from now (a conservative estimate). The Army is mainly engaged in occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, and we would either have to redeploy or get some more soldiers from the inner crevices of our ass. The US military doctrine is based on being able to fight two wars simultaneously, which is what we would be doing.
Think about what would happen if the terrorists in Kosovo had nuclear weapons, and you would get an idea of how ineffectual the air-strike only option would be, even with tunnelling mini-nukes.
I feel like I’m repeating myself, but let me point out past successes of the kind of plan I’m outlining.
Cuban Missle Crisis. Blockade, trade embargo, international pressure, and the plan to bomb Cuba ready to go at a moment’s notice. Even though Russia was a somewhat reasonable negotiating partner (we ended up taking missle bases out of Turkey in exchange for the removal of the missles in Cuba), Cuba wasn’t. Cuban military commanders had a great amount of latitude to launch a nuclear attack.
World War I. Germany’s borders were never breached, but the government surrended and fell apart because of blockade and economic strangulation (and active exhaustion of their army, but the point being invasion wasn’t the solution). Germany might of had the most potent military and economy out of any of the powers involved in that conflict at the time.
I am NOT saying that we should not invade right now, I am saying that we CAN’T logistically invade right now. Even if we could, there is a minimum amount of build-up time to get carriers into position, to get international access to airspace, and to redeploy troops. Do you just sit on your hands in the meantime? Fuck, no, you make the job easier for your troops by softening the target, and that is what I am proposing. If you make the troops’ job unnecessary, that’s a bonus.
Here’s why the Hitler metaphor is a bad one. It’s not because the leadership of Iran isn’t as crazy or expansionist. It’s because the Allies per-WWII did more than just stand around (which, again, is NOT what I propose), they actually GAVE land to Hitler and actively enabled him. The Allies treatied Czechoslovakia to Germany. The Czech terrority had a large , skilled army, and advanced siege works that even if Germany could have defeated (and that is an rather large IF) would have taken a lot out of the German Army. Instead, The Allies ceded the whole country to Germany on behalf of Czechoslovakia (who had no say in the matter), both eliminating a threat for Germany (sound familiar?) and bolstering Germany with the Czechoslovakian army.
Another lesson from WWII: don’t put your troops in the field without your logistics in place. Germany was literally a work-order of several million winter clothes away from defeating Russia.
[quote]mazilla wrote:
if it’s not Iran, it’s gonna be S.Korea, or whoever the fuck has nuclear ambitions. [/quote]
get your shit straight, it’s North Korea. good try though.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
…
Better advice would be: “don’t let Bush blind you”. The boy is crying wolf again. The world is not impressed.[/quote]
How do you figure? The UN and Europe are the ones making the allegations Iran is trying to obtain the weapons and taking the lead in the diplomacy.
Your knowledge of the situation is not impressive. The world is very concerned.
[quote]zarathus wrote:
mazilla wrote:
if it’s not Iran, it’s gonna be S.Korea, or whoever the fuck has nuclear ambitions.
get your shit straight, it’s North Korea. good try though.
[/quote]
duh. i was just testing you. really;)
Our military industrial complex will engineer another “terror” attack and blame it on the iranians, then we’ll go in and “liberate” the iranian people.
So, you don’t believe the current trial proceedings or the tapes of the citizens trying to regain control of their plane, that were played during that trial?