Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift Sword
Zraver,
At the risk of preaching to the choir, sanctions will not do it alone.
However, though military action in the forms articulated might set back their nuclear ambitions, it will not take away their abililty to threaten us, our alliances or their neighboors.
|
If we defeat her ability to threaten the worlds oil supply her abiltiy to decively influence world events is curtailed, plus we can knock her nuclear ambitions and modern infastructure into the stone age
Quote:
|
It will not, if we are to use Iraq as a case study, advance the interests of the United States in either a polilcy relevant or long term time frame.
|
lets not refight the last war, but (if indeed miltiary action is the only way)instead use our abilites to win strategically. Mission accomplished will be when the tankers sail free from fear and a nuclear Iran is nothing more than a novel idea for Tom Clancy.
Quote:
|
I may have slept through some of the last almost 40 years of my own reccollection, but, IIRC, managing nuclear weapons states has been a staple of U.S. foreign policy since the days of my father before me.
|
Well we sure succeeded with India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel, oh wait 40 years with the exception of Israel they were non-nuclear, quite a sucess rate
Quote:
|
An insustainable seige of foreign countries far from our borders was good enough for Ronald Reagan (though smart money knew the Sovs were going to collapse in ten years anyway regardless of what Reagan did).
|
Look at the US debt, the endless spending has to end sooner rather than later. This means the window for siege is limited.
Quote:
|
A failed Iran will do no more for the U.S. than will a failed Iraq.
|
Not quite sure I agree long term. Driving the oil prices into the realm of long term economic ruin could well be the death knell of the oil economy. if we get off oil, Arabia and Persia can go back to irrelevance.
Quote:
|
What evidence do you submit that the Middle East will be consumed by nuclear warfare if the United States does not bomb Iran?
|
see below
Quote:
|
This thing in Iran is much too important to leave to the Israelis, the Europeans or anybody else.
|
I agree, but Israel's survival may be on the line.
Quote:
|
Every major policy interest of the United States in the Middle East and Central Asia at this time and for the foresseable future is tied to the Iranians. We cannot have other Powers of any color, stripe or capability dictating the solution to our problem in this matter.
|
Thing is the Israelies and the EU are saying the same thing.
Quote:
|
If Israel launches the first nuclear strike in the Middle East then I fully endorse the United States mounting the second: airburst a B83 dialled towards maximum a few miles over Tel Aviv simultaneously with a B83 laid down at a low to medium yield on the Temple Mount accompanied by a B83 assembled at maximum yield several miles above Jerusalem. Simultaneous dismantling of Israeli assets outside of thier borders to be implemented as scheduling permits.
|
Ya right lets kill millsions when Israel a non-signatory to the NPT breaks zero international laws and launches tactical strikes on facilties (not cities) that wil be used one day to threaten the very survival of the Jewish State- thnaks no thanks.
Quote:
|
It is vital to the fate of this Republic that other Powers not **** this up for us; we can create a good God damned sheer distilled purple poisoned goat **** by an electric green donkey dick from outer space easily enough on our own throwing an uncalled for tantrum and smashing things without their help and they ought to be put on notice.
|
Twiddling our thumbs for years while the Iranians progress towards a bomb meets that description pretty accurately.
[/quote]The next President of the United States of needs to make it a plank that the White House, despite previous management, is not an outhouse for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, or HM's Foreign Office, for that matter.[/quote]
And that won't do sqaut to stop Iranian scientist from creatign a bomb.
[/quote]Yeah, I have been thinking about it for the last 20 years.[/quote]
You, me, and a lot of others, tobad no one is a posistion to act since Reagen has had the balls to do anything but think about it.
Quote:
|
Some years before OIF, after ODS, there was a pretty informed opinion that the United States did not possess the intelligence or strike assets to deliver the policy goals of WMD counter proliferation via the mechanism of military adventurism. Guy made a good case.
|
that was nearly 20 years and 2 miltiary generations ago.
No it didn't apples and oranges.
Quote:
|
As it stands, the proven odds of success of military action in a counter proliferation role seems to lag the proven track record of other offsets.
|
Really, its been tried once. In 1990 Iraq had WMD's, in 2003 they didn't hmmmm
Quote:
|
Why reinvent strategic failure when you may be able to manuever to strategic success?
|
Lets first define strategic success fro top to bottom and then revist this concept.
Quote:
|
I was reffering to Libya, not North Korea.
|
Ya, the Norks really scuttle the the lets talk concept.
Quote:
|
Contradicts the admonition of Jomini, methinks, and he was a pimpy cat.
|
Not really a contradiction. Jomini was never against the use of force, he was agaisnt the substatution of force for policy and the misuse of force. Both can be avoided, but the use of force might not be avoidable.
Quote:
|
Germany and Japan are partial exceptions to the rule and even then at significant expenditure of resources (though I fully approve).
|
No they are not excpetions they are the rule, to them we must add France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Italy etc all of Western Europe. What it shows is the level of commitment and timetable thats needed. This wily nilly aproach doesnt work.
Quote:
|
However, given the facts of the 20'th Century attempts at nation building, duplicating the same feat in Iraq is at best case a 4:1 proposition and those are not exactly the best odds.
|
see above
Quote:
|
He thought he could talk Wilson and act Johnson/Nixon. It sounded funny at the time so there was no incentive to buy it.
|
That might be the best description of Bush I have ever seen.
Quote:
How many members of the Pasadran and their families do you suppose, prior to the Revolution, so you think fell afoul of the U.S. backed Shah's SAVAK?
Don't you think that might affect their judgement, at least a little bit?
Why reinforce bad taste?
|
Ever heard of a concept called get over it? Iran refuses to, they declared war on US in 79 we need toa ccpet that declaration at face value. They don't want peace, to bad I might say. I'd rather deal with Persians than Arabs.
Quote:
I was under the impression that this had nothing to do with oil  .
|
You didn't get that impression from me, oil will always be just below the surface of any crisis in the Gulf.
Quote:
Those starving French peasants did pretty good with what interested, foreign parties supplied them.
Those parachutes carried mana from Hartford, et al., not mana from Heavan.
|
Wow, you were only off by about 150 years, hint: have fun eating cake
Quote:
To the East: a country whom has executed than one diplomat and been opposed. Has a new government that was elected with and maintains power with the help of a hostile Power.
To the Southeast: a country of questionable stability with nuclear arms, delivery systems and a hotbed of ideologically opposed radicals.
A short flight across the gulf to the Southwest, there is a power that is vehemently, ideologically opposed state who has actively worked on Iranian flanks and against Iranian interests.
To the West: Iran shares a border with a state who has made war on them in the past with the aid of another Power, the same Power who is threatening their interests there now and propping up the place.
To the North: Iran's neighboor has nuclear weapons and a proven track record of designs on their territory and welfare.
It is foolish and intellectually disingenous to think that the Iranians do not percieve a threat.
|
Then let them build/aquire defensive arms, entering the nuclear race now vs Israel doe snot give them a deterent capability it only invites attack thanks to thier goverments offical statements and actions towards Israel who must conclude that a nuclear armed Iran will use them.
Quote:
Bush 41's adults have spoken their piece to the children.
A much better crowd; I liked them then and I like them now.
|
I agree
Quote:
|
Yep, and they will probably get away with it.
|
It is up to us to make sure A never reaches B when it is all settled.
Quote:
|
They are open; why do you think I say what I say?
|
I dissagree, I think that even if open you have a far to optimistic view of the situation.
Quote:
|
The client and the contractor might consult on the kitchen remodeling plan.
|
To bad Iran is into hardcore DIY and isn't interested in settlign anything.
Quote:
Military juntas and other unelected idiots have not demonstrated much concern, either.
I have heard it said that "the first lord is never the first servant".
|
I tell you truly sir, NO is not a word to use with Princes. I agree excpet that sometimes you have to tell them NO and mean it on pain of war.
[/quote]Wrong.
You are failing to account for Jomini.[/quote]
Really, can you give me an example of a crisis diffused by somethign other than blood or gold either gain/ loss or fear of loss/ promise of gain of it? Just one example?
Quote:
|
The 42'nd President discredited the former and the 43'rd President thoroughly discredited the latter. Which do you favor?
|
I prefer action
Quote:
Of course Mr. Churchill was grandstanding!
Five or ten people in the hundred saw the Iron Curtain coming years before the Fulton speech.
Mr. Churchill had his own strategic concerns and wanted to have U.S. support to offset them.
Churchill needed to scare and agitate people because 90 to 95 scared and agitated people in a hundred are how you manipulate democracy, not five or ten calm, rational, educated people...that kind of turnout will get you nowhere and you should not even bother to court them; focus groups and polls are much more useful when articulating policy aims.
Regards,
William
|
Churchill identified a very real threat and moved to block it (action) histoy has proven him right.
my .02