POL - Is attacking Iran in our best interests?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Note also your own willingness to put the reporter's spin in Bush's mouth. Perhaps it would have been easier to understand had I simply quoted the President?




I don't know how else you can read that other than "we are not going to attack Iran. The world won't let us."

And again, that is VERY different than what you said (and a whole new quote than the one you cited before).

I have no dog in this race. I don't know if we are pursuing a policy of strikes or invasion of Iran. I do see the parallels with the buildup to Iraq, but I also see a lot of extrinsic factors that make any large-scale attack highly unlikely.

With that being said, you made a bold assertion (as you commonly do), yabanci called you on it, and you are unable to substantiate your assertion. So, instead you complain others here are misconstruing your words. That's weak. Bush has not said attacking Iran would be a "bad idea." You can find some support for the idea that he says we aren't planning to do it. But you haven't found anything close to your "bad idea" assertion. And so I see the score as yabanci: 1, st. cronin: -1 (since you blamed others for your inability to find support for your assertion rather than just admitting you were wrong).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by John Galt

And again, that is VERY different than what you said (and a whole new quote than the one you cited before).

I have no dog in this race. I don't know if we are pursuing a policy of strikes or invasion of Iran. I do see the parallels with the buildup to Iraq, but I also see a lot of extrinsic factors that make any large-scale attack highly unlikely.

With that being said, you made a bold assertion (as you commonly do), yabanci called you on it, and you are unable to substantiate your assertion. So, instead you complain others here are misconstruing your words. That's weak. Bush has not said attacking Iran would be a "bad idea." You can find some support for the idea that he says we aren't planning to do it. But you haven't found anything close to your "bad idea" assertion. And so I see the score as yabanci: 1, st. cronin: -1 (since you blamed others for your inability to find support for your assertion rather than just admitting you were wrong).

lol ok ... I don't really care, anyway. It's a message board. I did not make anything up - those remarks were what I was referencing, I believe they amount to an admission that attacking Iran is out of the question. I think it's obvious that's what he's admitting: But some people are still going to insist something else, that's how this game is played.

[BrianD]

There was really no delcaration of the good/bad value of attacking Iran. What was declared was that the decision to attack Iran was clearly inferior to continuing diplomacy. An attack may or may not be a good idea, but it clearly isn't the best.

I think equating "not the best idea" to "a bad idea" is causing the issues.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Shoot, even Bush has said attacking Iran would be a bad idea.

Originally Posted by President George Bush

The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon. I know -- I know here in Washington prevention means force. It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy. And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you're reading is wild speculation, which is -- it's kind of a -- happens quite frequently here in the nation's capital.

Point out for me where Bush said "attacking Iran would be a bad idea".

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by BrianD

There was really no delcaration of the good/bad value of attacking Iran. What was declared was that the decision to attack Iran was clearly inferior to continuing diplomacy. An attack may or may not be a good idea, but it clearly isn't the best.

I think equating "not the best idea" to "a bad idea" is causing the issues.

That's a fair point. It's 'a bad idea' in comparison to multi-lateral diplomacy.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Note to self: do not take st. cronin at his word. He really means something else entirely.

Note to self: photocopy John Galt's note.

[Aardvark]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

And for the record, when I say "bleeding heart", I'm think of the same type of people who called Vietnam veterans "baby killers" when they came home, the same type of people who accuse our solders of mishandling women and of human rights violations in Iraq. The people who have NO CONCERN about our solders over there, they are only concerned about the lives of our enemies.
...
I damn sure would rather see Iraqis die than American soldiers.
...
So if that makes me a monster, than that's what I am. Ask someone who lost a family member in Iraq if they feel the same. Ask them if they're more concerned about the lives of Iraqis than the soldiers over there. Some of you need to re-evaluate your fucking priorities.

The problem is that we are unlikely to achieve any sort of a satisfactory conclusion in Iraq with the current body count of Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with killing 50 insurgents to prevent one US casualty, but with a death total of about 1000 civilians per month due to violence, and with the Iraqi Interior Ministry reduced to telling Iraqi's not to obey the orders given by Iraqi troops unless they are accompanied by Coalition forces (due to the large number of militia either in, or pretending to be, the IM police and the military), we have got to do something to lower the Iraqi body count.

[Aardvark]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

And I stand behind what I said. Personally, I don't care about the lives of Iraqis. When I see notes on TV about XX Iraqis died today, it doesn't affect me AT ALL. Much like when I watch TV about World War II I don't care about the Germans who died, or the Japanese who died. In a war, I'm only concerned about the lives of OUR soldiers.

What about the lives of British civilians?

[Aardvark]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well I think it would be irresponsible to NOT plan on striking targets in Iran, even if the effort goes wasted. It is better to have a plan, or rather several plans, ready, just in case it is necessary. Also I don't think it is necessarilly the Millitary's job to assess the ramifications of a millitary intervention. So I'm hopeful, dare I say, confident that someone else somewhere in the Government is acting as the voice of reason against attacking Iran.

They already have contingency plans ready. They have contingency plans ready for just about everything. Back in 1934, they had a contingency plan for war with Britain. I'm sure now they have contingency plans for war with Saudi Arabia, with Russia, etc. Some plans are more complete than others. When war looks more likely, they dust of the contingency plans, update them, and then start filling in which units will participate, how they will get to where they need to be and so forth. It is this later step that Hersh claimed (on NPR) is being started.

[Flasch186]

any change since today's announcement?

[MrBigglesworth]

Press conference:

Q Sir, after you've studied today the military capabilities of the United States and looking ahead to future threats, one thing that has to factor in is the growing number of U.S. allies, Russia, Germany, Bahrain, now Canada, who say that if you go to war with Iran, you're going to go alone. Does the American military have the capability to prosecute this war alone?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, if you're asking -- are you asking about Iran? The subject didn't come up in this meeting. But, having said that, we take all threats seriously and we will continue to consult with our friends and allies. I know there is this kind of intense speculation that seems to be going on, a kind of a -- I don't know how you would describe it. It's kind of a churning --

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Frenzy.

THE PRESIDENT: Frenzy is how the Secretary would describe it. But the subject didn't come up. We will obviously continue to consult with our friends and allies. Your question makes certain assumptions that may or may not be true. But we will continue to talk with our -- with the people concerned about peace and how to secure the peace, and those are needed consultations. Not only will we consult with friends and allies, we'll consult with members of Congress. Yes, Terry.

[...]

Q He has said that he is drawing up war plans to provide you with credible options. Now, should the American people conclude from that that you're reaching some critical point, that a decision is imminent?

THE PRESIDENT: ... one of the jobs that the Secretary of Defense has tasked to members of his general staff is to prepare for all contingencies, whether it be in the particular country that you seem to be riveted on, or any other country, for that matter. We face a -- the world is not stable. The world changes. There are -- this terrorist network is global in nature and they may strike anywhere. And, therefore, we've got to be prepared to use our military and all the other assets at our disposal in a way to keep the peace.

Would you like to comment on that?

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I would. As the President indicated, one of the things we discussed here today was the contingency planning guidance that he signed. I then meet with all of the combatant commanders for every area of responsibility across the globe. I do it on a regular basis. We go over all the conceivable contingencies that could occur. ... That's my job. That's their job, is to see that we have the ability to protect the American people and deal effectively on behalf of our friends and our allies and our deployed forces. So it is their task to work with me and ultimately with the President as the chain of command goes from the Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States, to me, to the combatant commanders. And they're doing exactly what I've asked them to do and what the President has asked me to do.

Sounds like they are planning an attack, what does everyone else think?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Press conference:

Sounds like they are planning an attack, what does everyone else think?

This has to be sarcasm....right?

[GrantDawg]

Sounds like they had a meeting.

[Dutch]

I love the way the journalists are asking questions like they are completely dumb-founded. That's a nice touch, but typical if you ever tune to C-SPAN and watch press conferences uncut.

[MrBigglesworth]

My mistake, that press conference was from August of 2002 and the country in question was Iraq. I don't understand how I got it confused, the situations are so different! At that time, we now know that Bush had already put his 'attack Iraq' plan into formulation. Notice his use of the word 'speculation'. What's today's buzzword in respect to Iran? 'Wild speculation'! Amazing the differences from then to now: now it's not only speculation that we have an attack planned against Iraq/Iran, it's WILD speculation!

The Bush administration is made of two key elements: neocons (Cheney et al) and people who care only about politics (Rove et al). An attack on Iran appeals to the first for crazy world-view reasons, and appeals to the latter for election reasons. So we are relying on a grown up to put the brakes on, and I ask, who is that grown up in the current administration?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

My mistake, that press conference was from August of 2002 and the country in question was Iraq. I don't understand how I got it confused, the situations are so different! At that time, we now know that Bush had already put his 'attack Iraq' plan into formulation. Notice his use of the word 'speculation'. What's today's buzzword in respect to Iran? 'Wild speculation'! Amazing the differences from then to now: now it's not only speculation that we have an attack planned against Iraq/Iran, it's WILD speculation!

The Bush administration is made of two key elements: neocons (Cheney et al) and people who care only about politics (Rove et al). An attack on Iran appeals to the first for crazy world-view reasons, and appeals to the latter for election reasons. So we are relying on a grown up to put the brakes on, and I ask, who is that grown up in the current administration?

What's your over/under on the invasion?

[law90026]

It's going to be interesting. One of the news channels (can't remember which) was saying that Iran has been given some time to open up their facilities and there is going to be an inspection soon. The UN Security Council is also meeting in the middle of this year to impose sanctions if Iran doesn't cooperate.

If the US attacks Iran now, that really smacks of it being another unilateral action. Wonder how it's going to play out.

[st.cronin]

Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/wo...rtner=homepage

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by law90026

It's going to be interesting. One of the news channels (can't remember which) was saying that Iran has been given some time to open up their facilities and there is going to be an inspection soon. The UN Security Council is also meeting in the middle of this year to impose sanctions if Iran doesn't cooperate.

If the US attacks Iran now, that really smacks of it being another unilateral action. Wonder how it's going to play out.

When is the US going to attack? In your estimation?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

The Atlantic Monthly has long been one of my favorite publications, and James Fallows one of their best authors. He has written an excellent column on attacking Iran. I highly recommend it.

[law90026]

Originally Posted by Dutch

When is the US going to attack? In your estimation?

Who knows? If the US was going to abide by the UN's policies, probably not anytime soon.

If the US decides that Iran is a major threat, probably sometime really soon. It's just a little scary that in the press conferences I've seen or heard about recently, the US absolutely refuses to give a definite answer about an attack. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to give such an answer, but it would definitely have reassured me if a statement was made that war with Iran is not an option at this time and/or the US would abide by the UN's decision.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

When is the US going to attack? In your estimation?

I think it all depends on the political situation. They are going to use Iran for the midterms like they used Iraq in 2002, the only question is to what extent. They can't afford to lose the House and the subpeona power that comes with it. After all, Bush is down below 40% approval and all they've been doing is saying, 'No comment' and sweeping every investigation under the rug. Who knows what will happen Iraq, Katrina, NSA, even the NH phone jamming scandal actually gets investigated. Even if the GOP wins the midterms, all the Iran talk is likely to create 'excess war demand' (I think that was discussed in the Farrow article that myself and mojo cited), meaning that Bush may paint himself into a corner where he must attack Iran or be seen as backing down.

So the earliest would be spring of next year, I think, depending on how things are going politically (that's the winning gameplan, politically, why change it?). It's already been reported in a major magazine and the biggest paper in DC that an aggressive nuclear first strike is still on the table, so who knows what these clowns are capable of.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Don't let the media bias blind you. Things aren't as bad over there as they make it seem, and the great majority of the Iraqi population is VERY happy that Saddam is gone, and that they have a chance to vote....

Not saying you're wrong, but how do you know this? Unless you have direct communication with the people of Iraq, then you too are relying on a 'biased media' to form your own views.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

You rather wait to be attacked first, or would you try to eliminate a potential threat that is trying to get nuclear weapons? I'm not saying go out and go to war (that should be the last resort), but I don't think you can ignore a situation that could be a serious problem down the line.

That's the spirit get your retaliation in first! Every other country in the entire world has the potential to attack everybody else - so does every country attack everyone else first 'to eliminate a potential threat'?

That would be apocalyptic anarchy.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

...That is why I...actually fervently believe that the US needs to act as the world's defacto police force. We need to be willing to do what is right, even when it is hard.

The problem with the logic applied to the Iran situation is that what is being proposed in effect is the following:

1. No countries who do not currently have nuclear technology shouldn't be allowed to develop it, because of the risk of a madman starting a catastrophic war

2. In order to maintain the status quo the biggest superpower in the world should attack any country which threatens or begins to develop nuclear technology to prevent them from doing so

So in effect you have got to make war to prevent war, which is counter-intuitive at best.

The other thing that cropped up earlier this thread is the protection against Israel and the suppression of terrorism (e.g. directly related to Israel, Palestine). This is semantics - if the US had originally supported Palestine, and events had turned out exactly as they had done despite the change in US alliance, the exact same argument could be amde in favour of Palestine against Israel. Both use and have used terrorism in order to try and achieve their aims.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Not saying you're wrong, but how do you know this? Unless you have direct communication with the people of Iraq, then you too are relying on a 'biased media' to form your own views.

No, I think Franklin's relying on reports from his brother who is over in Iraq (or at least was in Iraq). That said, I don't know if that makes the view anymore credible.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

No, I think Franklin's relying on reports from his brother who is over in Iraq (or at least was in Iraq). That said, I don't know if that makes the view anymore credible.

At least that is from a direct source, so holds a lot more credence. I was lucky enough to be in Asia for 6 months, unluckily it was the same time as the Allied Forces invaded Iraq (I landed 2 days before the first bombs fell).

For the first few days I was in decent(ish) hotels that had BBC World Service, CNN and local Asian English speaking news channels. Flicking between the three, it was as if there were three different wars - CNN obviously being the most positive outlook on events, and the Asian channel mixing coverage from the other two and non-English speaking Asian channels, providing the most balanced coverage.

Hopefully people realise that Al-Jazeerah (sp?) is only doing in reverse what the western news channels do, espcially the likes of CNN and Fox, providing a tunnel-visioned view of world and local events. Almost all, if not all, media reports have an angle and/or bias, and therefore are a form of propoganda.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

The other thing that cropped up earlier this thread is the protection against Israel and the suppression of terrorism (e.g. directly related to Israel, Palestine). This is semantics - if the US had originally supported Palestine, and events had turned out exactly as they had done despite the change in US alliance, the exact same argument could be amde in favour of Palestine against Israel. Both use and have used terrorism in order to try and achieve their aims.

I am continually shocked at how so many Europeans view the Palestinian conflict.

Just read the charter of groups like Hamas and tell me how this is an equal conflict, and how a few incidents cherry-picked from a century of unending violence is somehow morally equivalent to an unending stream of incidents from groups that wish to eliminate Israel entirely.

If the US had originally supported the Arabs (the entire region is called Palestine, and both groups had and still have a legitimate claim), I think Europe could rest easy, because the world would be free of Jews, most of the continent would be speaking German and this forum, while it might still exist, would have a different name.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

No, I think Franklin's relying on reports from his brother who is over in Iraq (or at least was in Iraq). That said, I don't know if that makes the view anymore credible.

Especially when my brother appears to have an experience diametrically opposed to Franklin's.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If the US had originally supported the Arabs (the entire region is called Palestine, and both groups had and still have a legitimate claim), I think Europe could rest easy, because the world would be free of Jews, most of the continent would be speaking German and this forum, while it might still exist, would have a different name.

I'm pretty sure WWII was over and the Nazis defeated before Israel was founded.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm pretty sure WWII was over and the Nazis defeated before Israel was founded.

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm pretty sure the Jews did not magically teleport to what is now Israel in 1948. The wave of migration that led to the choice of Palestine began in the 1890s when the Russians decided they wanted all the Jews dead. The Nazis were never original, they were merely more accomplished.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If the US had originally supported the Arabs (the entire region is called Palestine, and both groups had and still have a legitimate claim), I think Europe could rest easy, because the world would be free of Jews, most of the continent would be speaking German and this forum, while it might still exist, would have a different name.

Despite being painfully wrong, this view has the redeeming qualities of being novel, unique, and somewhat fascinating... I would very much like to hear the theory of causation underlying this idea (the scenario as it would play out). The Arabs were crypto-germanic Nazis then?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So the earliest would be spring of next year, I think, depending on how things are going politically (that's the winning gameplan, politically, why change it?).

So spring of next year. I'll give you a month extra. Let's see if the process of regime change by force for political gain begins by June of 07. That's about right for you based on the news media?

Also, do you think the Democrats will use this same political gameplan in their favor (provided Bush does not) once Hillary Clinton is in office or will they just deal with the 'unpopularity' by considering such options as diplomacy or using the United Nations? FWIW, I think the current admin is trying that, but I may be in the minority with that belief.

Also, provided Iran does acquire nuclear technology and then uses that against Americans, would you then support the use of force against Iran? What if Iran hands off a bomb to a 'militant' and he/she detonates themself and the weapon in Tel Aviv. Would that be enough to provoke concern from you?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So the earliest would be spring of next year, I think, depending on how things are going politically (that's the winning gameplan, politically, why change it?). It's already been reported in a major magazine and the biggest paper in DC that an aggressive nuclear first strike is still on the table, so who knows what these clowns are capable of.

Do you seriuosly believe the political climate is exactly the same as it was before the Iraq war? Remember, the vast majority of Americans were for attacking Iraq before war began, and the majority of Democrats in congress voted in favor of the war at the time. Do you think that could happen now? Bush's unfavorable rating is largely because of the war, do you really think he'll get a "war bump" when it is war the American people are tired of?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm pretty sure the Jews did not magically teleport to what is now Israel in 1948. The wave of migration that led to the choice of Palestine began in the 1890s when the Russians decided they wanted all the Jews dead. The Nazis were never original, they were merely more accomplished.

No, but their mandate in an Arab land was due to the West deciding to place Israel there, as oppose to the other considered locations in Europe (why not a chunk of Germany) or even South America. It was an imperialistic action.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

No, but their mandate in an Arab land was due to the West deciding to place Israel there, as oppose to the other considered locations in Europe (why not a chunk of Germany) or even South America. It was an imperialistic action.

You know, this again is one of those issues that are often colored in black and white when I don't think there was ever a clear-cut solution. Palestine made a lot of sense for the Jewish homeland at the time because there was a large population of Jews already there, and they have a historical background in the region. They could have given the part of Germany, but how is that any different than part of Palestine (moving them into an area surrounded by a group of people who wants them exterminated. Remember the Holocaust just happened). Moving them to South America means taking land from the people already there and having to move Jews into an area that they have no ties to.

Of course, maybe the best course of action would have been no "Jewish homeland."

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I am continually shocked at how so many Europeans view the Palestinian conflict.

Just read the charter of groups like Hamas and tell me how this is an equal conflict, and how a few incidents cherry-picked from a century of unending violence is somehow morally equivalent to an unending stream of incidents from groups that wish to eliminate Israel entirely.

If the US had originally supported the Arabs (the entire region is called Palestine, and both groups had and still have a legitimate claim), I think Europe could rest easy, because the world would be free of Jews, most of the continent would be speaking German and this forum, while it might still exist, would have a different name.

Don't get me wrong, I am a long way from supporting the Arabs on this one, I just don't think people can or should close their eyes to the facts that atrocities have been committed by both sides.

Ignoring the wholly wrong anti-semitic take on the British (note the differentiation - I don't know the European outlook on this) I think the most pertinent thing you said was that both sides have legitimate claims to the land, and therein the problems lie.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm pretty sure the Jews did not magically teleport to what is now Israel in 1948. The wave of migration that led to the choice of Palestine began in the 1890s when the Russians decided they wanted all the Jews dead. The Nazis were never original, they were merely more accomplished.

I may have misunderstood what you wrote. When you wrote "if the U.S. had supported the Arabs", I thought you meant in the context of the creation of Israel after WWII, not, say, from the late 19th-century.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Also, provided Iran does acquire nuclear technology and then uses that against Americans, would you then support the use of force against Iran? What if Iran hands off a bomb to a 'militant' and he/she detonates themself and the weapon in Tel Aviv. Would that be enough to provoke concern from you?

For "Iran" substitute "Pakistan", then "North Korea". In either case, should we pre-emptively intervene?

What if Iran performs a successful nuclear bomb test, and then Israel hands off a bomb to a "militant" and he/she detonates themself and the weapon in Tehran. What then?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

For "Iran" substitute "Pakistan", then "North Korea". In either case, should we pre-emptively intervene?

What if Iran performs a successful nuclear bomb test, and then Israel hands off a bomb to a "militant" and he/she detonates themself and the weapon in Tehran. What then?

Hold on a second, I'm waiting for answers to my questions.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Also, provided Iran does acquire nuclear technology and then uses that against Americans, would you then support the use of force against Iran? What if Iran hands off a bomb to a 'militant' and he/she detonates themself and the weapon in Tel Aviv. Would that be enough to provoke concern from you?

Those are easy questions. Of course and of course. What's your point?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I may have misunderstood what you wrote. When you wrote "if the U.S. had supported the Arabs", I thought you meant in the context of the creation of Israel after WWII, not, say, from the late 19th-century.

Right. The US (and especially Roosevelt) was instrumental in providing aid for the Jews as they tried to escape Europe during the '30s and early '40s. Many Jews today are still hard-core Democrats and adhere firmly to New Deal principles out of loyalty to Roosevelt. If FDR supported it, it must be a good plan.

For "Iran" substitute "Pakistan", then "North Korea". In either case, should we pre-emptively intervene?

What if Iran performs a successful nuclear bomb test, and then Israel hands off a bomb to a "militant" and he/she detonates themself and the weapon in Tehran. What then?

We should give Israel the benefit of the doubt for now, because they act in defense against bombings intended to kill their citizens. No one in Israel calls for the deaths of 60 million Iranians. No one in Israel says the Arabs must leave the Middle East, or every man, woman and child should be pursued, rooted out of hiding and slaughtered. The Israeli Constitution does not contain Old Testament verse describing this slaughter.

If Israel were to detonate a nuclear weapon in a Arab population center, that benefit of the doubt would disappear. If they were to sabotage the Iranian nuclear facilities in a way that minimized loss of life, they would still have that benefit of doubt. The same way I expect our armed forces to have the benefit of doubt when dealing with the overly-romanticized "insurgents" in Iraq.

Meanwhile, we can not give Iran the benefit of the doubt because of the rhetoric coming from its leader. We have about 60 years of non-stop threats and actions from the Arab world, which still refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

I agree, imperialistic actions led to the creation of Israel. It was not England's land to give. But it was mostly desert land, about the size of the state of New Jersey, there were already a lot of Jews living in the region legitimately and a lot of places have an imperialist history that can not be easily corrected, including our own country.

The Arabs have hundreds of times the land, the other countries in that region refuse to take in or aid the Arab Palestinians because they know to do so will remove pressure on the Israelis. Palestinian suffering is the fault of the Arab world.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Right. The US (and especially Roosevelt) was instrumental in providing aid for the Jews as they tried to escape Europe during the '30s and early '40s. Many Jews today are still hard-core Democrats and adhere firmly to New Deal principles out of loyalty to Roosevelt. If FDR supported it, it must be a good plan.



We should give Israel the benefit of the doubt for now, because they act in defense against bombings intended to kill their citizens. No one in Israel calls for the deaths of 60 million Iranians. No one in Israel says the Arabs must leave the Middle East, or every man, woman and child should be pursued, rooted out of hiding and slaughtered. The Israeli Constitution does not contain Old Testament verse describing this slaughter.

If Israel were to detonate a nuclear weapon in a Arab population center, that benefit of the doubt would disappear. If they were to sabotage the Iranian nuclear facilities in a way that minimized loss of life, they would still have that benefit of doubt. The same way I expect our armed forces to have the benefit of doubt when dealing with the overly-romanticized "insurgents" in Iraq.

Meanwhile, we can not give Iran the benefit of the doubt because of the rhetoric coming from its leader. We have about 60 years of non-stop threats and actions from the Arab world, which still refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

I agree, imperialistic actions led to the creation of Israel. It was not England's land to give. But it was mostly desert land, about the size of the state of New Jersey, there were already a lot of Jews living in the region legitimately and a lot of places have an imperialist history that can not be easily corrected, including our own country.

The Arabs have hundreds of times the land, the other countries in that region refuse to take in or aid the Arab Palestinians because they know to do so will remove pressure on the Israelis. Palestinian suffering is the fault of the Arab world.

That last paragraph is true, and often overlooked by Arab apologists. It's easier for an Egyptian citizen to get a job in Israel than for a Palestinian to get a job in Egypt. It sounds insane, but it's true.

[BishopMVP]

FWIW, we moved an aircraft carrier battle group to the Caribbean (ie off Venezuela) for 2 months of battle exercises. Take that as you may w/regards to our plans via Iran and the world oil market.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

The problem with the logic applied to the Iran situation is that what is being proposed in effect is the following:

1. No countries who do not currently have nuclear technology shouldn't be allowed to develop it, because of the risk of a madman starting a catastrophic war

2. In order to maintain the status quo the biggest superpower in the world should attack any country which threatens or begins to develop nuclear technology to prevent them from doing so

So in effect you have got to make war to prevent war, which is counter-intuitive at best.

The other thing that cropped up earlier this thread is the protection against Israel and the suppression of terrorism (e.g. directly related to Israel, Palestine). This is semantics - if the US had originally supported Palestine, and events had turned out exactly as they had done despite the change in US alliance, the exact same argument could be amde in favour of Palestine against Israel. Both use and have used terrorism in order to try and achieve their aims.

I haven't read past the first line of your post. That's right I'm quoting text I haven't read just because you have COMPLETELY misrepresented my position. I simply haven't come out in favor of acting against Iran. I do feel strongly that intervention in other coutries was and is called for.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I haven't read past the first line of your post. That's right I'm quoting text I haven't read just because you have COMPLETELY misrepresented my position. I simply haven't come out in favor of acting against Iran. I do feel strongly that intervention in other coutries was and is called for.

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I wasn't trying to pass judgement on your own position - just extrapolating the logic of 'the world's policeman' in this case. I deliberately didn't comment on, either pro or against, your post, specifically for this reason. Apologies if it wasn't clear - I was just pointing out the huge juxtaposition in this particular instance.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Those are easy questions. Of course and of course. What's your point?

I really need to hear that from Mr Bigglesworth.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So spring of next year. I'll give you a month extra. Let's see if the process of regime change by force for political gain begins by June of 07. That's about right for you based on the news media?

Also, do you think the Democrats will use this same political gameplan in their favor (provided Bush does not) once Hillary Clinton is in office or will they just deal with the 'unpopularity' by considering such options as diplomacy or using the United Nations? FWIW, I think the current admin is trying that, but I may be in the minority with that belief.

Also, provided Iran does acquire nuclear technology and then uses that against Americans, would you then support the use of force against Iran? What if Iran hands off a bomb to a 'militant' and he/she detonates themself and the weapon in Tel Aviv. Would that be enough to provoke concern from you?

Your doublespeak here is the stuff of legends. You're simultaneously arguing that the idea of Bush attacking Iran is ludicrously absurd and at the same time absolutely necessary to prevent a nuclear device from going off in America. This is a classic wingnut argument style. We saw it with Abu Ghraib (The United States does not torture...but it's absolutely necessary to get the information to keep another 9/11 from happening) and with the NSA scandal (There is no way that Bush is conducting warrantless searches...but they are absolutely necessary to keep the terrorists at bay).

Furthermore, experts say that attacking Iran with airstrikes will only delay their acquisition of nuclear weapons for a few years. You obviously think that they should be kept from getting the nuclear weapons at all and openly mock the diplomatic approach, which means that the only solution left is full scale invasion and regime change.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Your doublespeak here is the stuff of legends. You're simultaneously arguing that the idea of Bush attacking Iran is ludicrously absurd and at the same time absolutely necessary to prevent a nuclear device from going off in America. This is a classic wingnut argument style. We saw it with Abu Ghraib (The United States does not torture...but it's absolutely necessary to get the information to keep another 9/11 from happening) and with the NSA scandal (There is no way that Bush is conducting warrantless searches...but they are absolutely necessary to keep the terrorists at bay).

Furthermore, experts say that attacking Iran with airstrikes will only delay their acquisition of nuclear weapons for a few years. You obviously think that they should be kept from getting the nuclear weapons at all and openly mock the diplomatic approach, which means that the only solution left is full scale invasion and regime change.

Look, there's no need to be insulting, just answer the questions. If you can't answer all them, I understand, but at least tell me which one's you can answer. Why all this beating around the bush with non-answers? Practicing to be President?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Look, there's no need to be insulting, just answer the questions. If you can't answer all them, I understand, but at least tell me which one's you can answer. Why all this beating around the bush with non-answers? Practicing to be President?

Your questions are the dumbest questions ever, and they've already been answered by John Galt. "Would nuking of Americans be a bad thing?" WTF? Why even bother engaging in that kind of discussion with you? If you were 5 years old I might humor you, but I give you more credit.