Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
Giving guys witha history of agressive action better weapons has never made them peaceful.
|
Hi Zraver,
We should not be so concerned at them being peaceful as we should be concerned with them being manageable.
The United States has a proven track record of hemming in people armed with nuclear weapons, people whose rhetoric and actions were several orders of magnitude greater than that being demonstrated by Iran.
Quote:
|
I don't agree that war woud turn Iran intoa failed state. The country has a great deal of homogenity and a fucntioning democracy under neath the clerics. If anything the fall of the IIRGC and the clerics would allow Iran to flourish. That would help our allies our interests and the Iranian people.
|
War in and of itself will not turn Iran into a failed state I would agree.
However, Iran has some deep, systemic problems that war could very likely exasperate to the point of non recovery.
Quote:
|
Not really, they been clumsy and brazen, but no ones been willing to spank them. Acumen would have kept them from being isolated. They burned Russia and China and got slapped with an arms embargo.
|
Look at the forest, not the trees.
Quote:
|
It's clsoe enough Quadaffi needed trade to stay in power in an Arab world of rising islamist influence.
|
Either way, it was a change from within facillitated by much Clinton backed European diplomacy.
Might be a lesson therein.
Quote:
|
I dissagree. The Clerics power rests on the IIRGC and the the nuclear dream. Defeatign them undercuts the central supports giving the dmeocracy a chance.
|
Giving democracy a chance has never been a supreme interest of the United States in Iran or anywhere else.
The Bush Administration's foreign policy is no exception.
If you recall, the United States supported tyranny in Iran and aided in the suppression of democracy there in the past which is part of the reason we have to deal with these hostile elements in the Iranian polity in the first place.
Quote:
|
Only in the short term. They might be mad at us now, but eventually the Iranian people (who are overwhelingly pro western) will be mad at thier govement for not doign something about it. Its human nature.
|
Lets not be too hasty to judge in this area.
The Iranians may have a taste for many of the trappings of Western culture, but that does not mean they will support the policies of or puppet governments supported by Western nations, especially Western nations which have screwed them in the past.
Quote:
|
The US isn't the USSR and the GCC isn't Cuba so the threat envriment is not going to suddenly melt away. And the only way the clerics are going anyhwere is if the Pasadran is taken out. In a way the Pasadran resembles the Templars. They are as much industrialsit now as warriors. Take out their warfighting abilties and hit thier economic interests and they might dump the clerics to save their wallets and privlages.
|
The Pasadran know what generations of Iranian elites/patricians/powerbrokers/whatever have known: Washington is fickle, far away and many of its policies are ephermal. They also know that their enemies and strategic concerns are right next door, concrete and not going anywhere.
The Pasadran also know what Washington does not: how far along they are in their program and what they are going to do next.
Quote:
Uhmmm.....
Which on eof these nations was prosperous when regime change occured
Germany, Japan, Argentina, South Africa, Iraq, Serbia, China, PRC (Gang of five era), Greece (colonels era) Romania, East Germany, USSR, Peru etc. Regime change follows defeat and collapse not prosperity.
|
Sorry, I was thinking of the situation as it stands in Iran, not trying to put it into a broader historical context; my fault for not being clear.
My intent was simply to point out the general tendency of authoritarians to use hard times as an excuse for clampdown.
Quote:
|
empty bellies eat tyrants
|
Only if the caloric intake will support revolutionary activity.
Quote:
|
Iran can have what ever govemrent it wants so logn as it cannot threaten its neighbors.
|
...which brings us back to the threat environment: how can you expect any Iranian regime of any persuasion to not develop a deterrent capability when their neighbors pose a threat to them?
Quote:
|
We've drawn a line in the sand, if we don't back it up they will simply step across it jsut like last time. Until their actiosn have real consequences any unilaterla moves on our part look like weakness. Any disengagement has to be intiated by Iran. Who ever blinks loses, Kennedy understood this simple fact and Cuba stayed nuclear free.
|
My military education has been sadly neglected but it would appear a line in the sand is just like any other fortification: only as good as the people who man it.
If our line in the sand is fortified by people the enemy perceives as foolish and unwise, then it does not have much value as a fortification for our friends and foes both respect wisdom more than folly.
The Iranians and everybody else are evaluating and probing based on analysis of hard actions and policy choices extant in relation to their own interests and that is how they determine credibility.
As to "who blinks loses", if have heard it said that "oft times, the eyes only see correctly when they are closed".
Quote:
|
No, not sure if you meant the passage directly above (history isn't indoctrination) or the reply itself (without a doubr capabiltiy equals threat) but neithe rone of conventional wisdowm. 2+2=4 and if you point a loaded gun at me it is a threat. simple statements of fact.
|
Another simple statement of fact is that if you paint yourself far enough into a corner that you let the other guy define the threat and your own vulnerability, that is considered to be both a tactical and strategic failure.
I have heard it said that "the superior strategist does not put himself in a position where his superior skill is required" as well as "the acme of military skill is to achieve your aims without fighting". Might not be conventional wisdom but it has lead to many more than one victory.
Quote:
|
Life only accpets blood and gold. The longer we wait the more of one or both of them it will cost.
|
That is a pretty one dimensional view but if we take it at face value for the moment, the glaring corollary is that life always extracts the greatest cost from the fool, not the sage.
Quote:
|
Which is the sirens song? "Peace in our time" or "stike now before its too late"
|
It would appear that both of these slogans are discredited...one more than the other, at any rate.
Besides, those slogans are both generally used to sway large masses of people for short term, domestic political gain, not forwarding long term national agendas.
Regards,
William