Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift Sword
Zraver,
Question: in the grand scheme of things, does capability necessarily translate into threat?
Too, the idea of pre emption...or lets call it what it really is: naked aggression...would not naked U.S. aggression by any practical or international legal standard fully justify what ever retaliatory measures Iran and whatever allies it can muster see fit?
Also, what might the systemic effects of widening our war in the Middle East and Central Asia be?
If we operate on the widely held assumption that the numero uno Iranian offset will be to disrupt energy flows out of the region, than your proposed naked aggression against the Iranians is almost assuredly going to cause just that to happen. Wider war whether they initiate or we initiate is going to lead to just what you seek to prevent with that war in the first place: global recession.
Moving along, if you think that Iran in its current form is a threat to U.S. interests, what kind of threat to U.S. interests do you think Iran as a failed stated will pose?
Iran could fail as a result of widening war in the Middle East or a few years down the line as a result of financial collapse. What we would then have is a belt of instability extending from the beaches of Lebanon to the border of China broken only by shaky Syria.
How would such a situation forward stated U.S. interests in the region? Answer: it won't.
Regards,
William
|
Without a doubt capability equals threat, posture mated up with capability equals a credible threat. And if yo don't take a credible threat seriously and it come sback to haunt you you have lost your manuvering room. We recently re-discovered that in North Korea. Clinton changed our nuclear posture and kept the Korean regime afloat and now we have a nucelar power in direct confrontation with US troops and the urge for South Korea to go nuclea rnow in the next few years will be great as now they have a nuclear border and are sandwiched between the rising tensiosn between Japan and China.
Iran could fail without US intervention, but without US intervention Iran could get a nuclear capability that would allow it to export its violence without restraint. Iran has been engaged in nearly 30 years of anti-Amrican/Anti-western, Anti-Israeli violence. America is most definiately not the agressor. America is not the state threatening genocide, missile strikes agasinst the GCC, oil blockade, and exportign arms and terrorist to groups doing thier damnbest to keep the body count up, and the peace proccess dead.
Quote:
|
Manipulating the Iranians into doing what is in the interests of the United States is not appeasement, it is good strategy.
|
Letting them get a nuclear capability is not manipulation its appeasement and an abandonement of our allies.
Quote:
|
You may have been indoctrinated to believe that anything that is not blood and iron amounts to appeasement but that is not a logical or rational position.
|
History isn't indoctrination, your Barney like "why can't we all jsut get along" hippiesque is. You seme to think you can talk a madman sane. Lybia folded after years of sanctions at an early age prevented the dream from going forward. Iran has a much better technological base and sanctiosn alone will not stop thier progress. South Africa gave up its quest after a regiime change and a totally changed threat enviroment.
Quote:
|
Furthermore, the Wisdom of the Ages has admonitions regarding the knife as the best solution to knotty problems.
|
And convetional wisdom is usally wrong. History says those who fail to pay the piper today, only have a bigger bill to pay later.