PDA

View Full Version : Iran president wants Israel "wiped off the map"



ZFBoxcar
26 Oct 05,, 22:26
By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that Israel should be "wiped off the map", the official IRNA news agency reported.

Support for the Palestinian cause is a central pillar of the Islamic Republic which officially refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist.

"Israel must be wiped off the map," Ahmadinejad told a conference called "The World without Zionism", attended by some 3,000 conservative students who chanted "Death to Israel" and "Death to America".

Under reformist President Mohammad Khatami, whose eight-year tenure ended earlier this year, Iran had shown signs of easing its implacable hostility towards Israel. Officials said Tehran might not object to a two-state solution if that was what the Palestinians wanted.

But Ahmadinejad, a former member of the hardline Revolutionary Guards and traditional religious conservative, said there could be no let-up in its hostility to Israel.

"The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland," he said.

White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said Washington took such remarks seriously.

"It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions," he told reporters.

The United States accuses Iran of seeking nuclear arms, but Tehran says it needs atomic fuel only for power stations. Iran has developed ballistic missiles able to hit Israel.

Tehran denies accusations it trains and arms Palestinian militant groups, saying it offers only moral support.

French Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy said he had summoned Iran's ambassador to explain the comments. "If these (reported) comments are true, they are unacceptable. I condemn them with the greatest firmness," he said in a statement.

Iran's ambassador to Madrid will also be summoned to explain the remarks. "...Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos has expressed his rejection in the most emphatic terms and has decided to urgently call in the Iranian ambassador to ask him for an explanation," the ministry said in a statement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, even France and Spain are creeped out, the two most unlikely European nations.

Leader
27 Oct 05,, 04:26
Iran president wants Israel to "wipe Iran off the map"

Fixed that title for you. ;)

smilingassassin
27 Oct 05,, 06:50
Leader that was mighty white of you! ;)

bull
27 Oct 05,, 07:36
Ahmedinjad just got his D Day preponed!!!

Ray
27 Oct 05,, 07:41
Is he observing an atlas on the schoolroom blackboard?

In that case, he can wipe the whole atlas off the blackboard, if he wishes! ;)

bull
27 Oct 05,, 08:16
ha ha

SloMax
27 Oct 05,, 09:08
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that Israel should be "wiped off the map"
Nothing new. It was meant for home audience.

Bluesman
27 Oct 05,, 15:47
If he DOES act on it, he better bring his 'A' game. The Izzies tend to mop the floor with Allah's sons.

Monk
27 Oct 05,, 15:49
I have always believed that most of this rhetoric is for home consumption. But Iran is making it difficult for even their closest friends to defend them. To call for the destruction of a nation is just insane.

Dreadnought
27 Oct 05,, 16:09
His country would never survive nor would he. Only being in office for weeks and he wants to play bully on the playground?..LMAO it would be the last thing his country every did. This guy is just plain out a fool and he will get many of his fellow countrymen slaughtered by so many different sides that it wont be funny at all. Even to those that dislike him and his country. Iran had better start voteing in smarter people to represent them unless they like sanctions and war. Now what would happen if Israel suddenly attacked because of this? He would definately attempt to blame them but my guess is that it would fall upon deaf ears. And this guy is the leader of a large country? It might be half its normal size by the time hes done making threats..lol

Bluesman
27 Oct 05,, 16:20
I have always believed that most of this rhetoric is for home consumption. But Iran is making it difficult for even their closest friends to defend them. To call for the destruction of a nation is just insane.

'Insane' isn't the word you're looking for; 'fanatic' is more to the mark. A difference in degree, perhaps, but while both are mental illneses, insanity has one acting randomly, while fanaticism compels one to act with relentless dedication to a single goal.

Idealogues tend to do things that are against their own objectives while pursuing those same objectives. What we have in the President of Iran is a former terrorist leader that has clawed his way to control of an entire country, and now stands to be in control of a nuclear weapon at some point.

The object of his hatred - ISRAEL AND JEWS - will ALWAYS be his first priority, and he is blind to the fact that he has set himself back on his quest to be able to destroy them by saying in public exactly what he intends to do.

But maniacs like him have always been most obliging in laying out what they're all about. Hitler wrote 'Mein Kampf', and in it was very clear what he intended to do. Lenin was not shy about revealing his plan for re-shaping Russia and its conquests.

And now, we have THIS obsessed and hateful little pretender to greatness saying he'll burn down Israel and kill all the Jews.

Okay, Mr. President. Call us back and tell us how that worked out for you. :cool:

Bluesman
27 Oct 05,, 16:27
His country would never survive nor would he. Only being in office for weeks and he wants to play bully on the playground?..LMAO it would be the last thing his country every did. This guy is just plain out a fool and he will get many of his fellow countrymen slaughtered by so many different sides that it wont be funny at all. Even to those that dislike him and his country. Iran had better start voteing in smarter people to represent them unless they like sanctions and war. Now what would happen if Israel suddenly attacked because of this? He would definately attempt to blame them but my guess is that it would fall upon deaf ears. And this guy is the leader of a large country? It might be half its normal size by the time hes done making threats..lol

Personally, I think it would be GREAT if Israel took this guy at his word (or pretended to), and immediately and formally declared war against Iran.

After that, Israeli airstrikes at Iranian military, economic and leadership targets, relenting only after Iran sued for peace.

Stop their oil exports. Declare their ports closed. Destruction of oil production, refining, shipping and support facilities. Destruction of military bases and assets. Destruction of nuclear facilities. Destruction of civil infrastructure. And finally, destruction of this clown's HOUSE.

Maybe after it was all over, folks in leadership positions would be a bit more careful about who they claimed they wanted to pick a fight with.

Monk
27 Oct 05,, 16:52
'Insane' isn't the word you're looking for; 'fanatic' is more to the mark. A difference in degree, perhaps, but while both are mental illneses, insanity has one acting randomly, while fanaticism compels one to act with relentless dedication to a single goal.

Idealogues tend to do things that are against their own objectives while pursuing those same objectives. What we have in the President of Iran is a former terrorist leader that has clawed his way to control of an entire country, and now stands to be in control of a nuclear weapon at some point.

The object of his hatred - ISRAEL AND JEWS - will ALWAYS be his first priority, and he is blind to the fact that he has set himself back on his quest to be able to destroy them by saying in public exactly what he intends to do.

But maniacs like him have always been most obliging in laying out what they're all about. Hitler wrote 'Mein Kampf', and in it was very clear what he intended to do. Lenin was not shy about revealing his plan for re-shaping Russia and its conquests.

And now, we have THIS obsessed and hateful little pretender to greatness saying he'll burn down Israel and kill all the Jews.

Okay, Mr. President. Call us back and tell us how that worked out for you. :cool:

I have always thought that the Iranian leadership is to blame and not the people, therefore no war should be imposed upon Iran. I have argued to this very end with several boarders here.
Secondly, I expected Ahmedinejad to be a better Individual than his predecessors, now I know where that expectation should lie. (Right in the garbage can). He had the option to stop making this kind of statements slowly, until a normal situation could have been reached. But he has wasted that opportunity. If he is trying to gather up arab support thought Anti-Semitism he will not get anywhere, I know that to be a fact.
The Iranians have left me very frustrated and disillusioned, I don't want a war to be thrust upon Iran or its 66mill people. But if the Iranians don't rise against their leaders and put an end to this nonsense there wont be anyone around to save them.
Even the most ardent and loyal of Iranian supporters will have a tough time explaining these words.

BenRoethig
27 Oct 05,, 16:54
Remember Europe, these are the people you're trying to negotiate with.

Dreadnought
27 Oct 05,, 16:59
IMO if Israel was to strike first who could blame them after this clowns comments certainly not I. This guys sounds a bit too much like that of Hitler for my liking and everybody has the right to self preservation over life. So I certainly wouldnt blame Israel for which ever reply they decide to make good or bad. Is it anymore of a question why this man and Iran shouldnt have a nuclear arsonal to use?

Dreadnought
27 Oct 05,, 17:59
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, on a visit to Israel, criticized the Iranian leader. "I don't agree that anyone should challenge the right of any U.N. member to exist, this is indeed inadmissible," Lavrov said.

Thats it? Thats all you can say about a president calling for the destruction of another country? Oh I forgot you cant bad mouth your source of income since you are building nuclear reactors for them right now and it might upset them. :rolleyes:

But on Wednesday he brushed off Israel's calls for Security Council action, saying the matter is "too serious to be guided by politics."

Yeah, but you will continue to build this fool reactors that he can convert nuclear materials from to build weapons and aim at countries just like Israel and others though wont you! And gee that comes as a real surprise. I hope for your countries sake that it doesnt bring Russia into the fold with them for suppling the weapons of plutonium base because if it does we all may be looking at a major future conflict over this piece of trash and his followers.

He is no better then Saddam himself. Definately not someone who could be trusted to be fourthcoming about his nuclear intentions and programs. And certainly his country will become a major focus of all of the jewish settled countries that surround him as well as his suppliers of uranium with such threats.

I hold no grudge against Russia but they should think very clearly and cautiously reflect on a possible future with this man and his regime and what his aggenda is because it sounds like a war will be coming his peoples way in the very close future unless something is done about this volital sitiuation.

lwarmonger
27 Oct 05,, 19:10
Don't worry too much Dreadnought, Russia isn't exactly popular with the Muslim community. Nukes from Iran could just as easily end up in Russia as elsewhere (and if that wouldn't be poetic justice for Nikita Khrushchev, I don't know what would).

platinum786
27 Oct 05,, 19:12
I'd like Israel to reply with a stern response, diss him back, tell him how it is....

I'd like to see Ariel Sharon drop this line....

"You want to bring it, bring it, we ain't singing we bringing drama, f**k you and your motherf**king mama" (Tupac Shakur R.I.P).....

That would be sooo funny.

Dreadnought
27 Oct 05,, 19:23
Im am in no way an authority on Russian population but dont they have a significant amount of Jewish descended people living in Russia and the surrounding countries or cacuses? If im correct why would they build reactors for this fool that wants to whipe out Israel? I cant see any amount of money being worth a conflict on their own soil over ethnic origins and what this idiots evil dreams are for Israel.

ZFBoxcar
27 Oct 05,, 19:49
Uh...for the past several hundred years Russia has been doing its best to simultanously exploit and wipe out its Jewish population (since these goals contradict eachother, the Jews were not wiped out). For example, Jewish men were forced to join the Russian army but then Russia passed a law saying you could take a Jewish person's land if the man wasn't around to claim it (since they were in the army they weren't around) and that the man's women and children could be expelled from Russia. Under the Soviet Union Jews were slightly better off, but Stalin hated Jews and did not trust them. Jews were not allowed to leave the Soviet Union and were constantly being watched by the KGB and arrested for practicing their religion or for "Zionist activities". This became a big deal in the 80s when a huge campaign was launched to convince the Soviet government to let the Jews go. This finally worked in the final days of the Soviet Union, and 1 million Soviet Jews moved to Israel over the next few years. But modern Russia is no friend to the Jews, what with the half of Russia's parliament trying to get a bill passed banning the Jewish religion. Also, there are more Muslims than Jews living in Russia now, so the ethnic thing wouldn't really work in the Jews favour even if it were true.

Ray
27 Oct 05,, 20:59
Ira,

I read somewhere (maybe on this forum) that the Russian Jews are returning to Russia from Israel.

Why?

ZFBoxcar
27 Oct 05,, 21:10
Some are, partly cause many who left were not Jews and were just looking for an easy way out of Russia but decided to move back when Israel's economy crashed in 2001. Some who were actually Jews moved back for the same reason. However, Russian Jews have started coming again since Israel's economy started growing again in 2003 and its GDP growth hit 4.5% in 2004 and is expected to hit 5.5% in 2005 and unemployment has gone back down below 9% after reaching as high as 11% in 2003.

Dreadnought
27 Oct 05,, 21:38
Uh...for the past several hundred years Russia has been doing its best to simultanously exploit and wipe out its Jewish population (since these goals contradict eachother, the Jews were not wiped out). For example, Jewish men were forced to join the Russian army but then Russia passed a law saying you could take a Jewish person's land if the man wasn't around to claim it (since they were in the army they weren't around) and that the man's women and children could be expelled from Russia. Under the Soviet Union Jews were slightly better off, but Stalin hated Jews and did not trust them. Jews were not allowed to leave the Soviet Union and were constantly being watched by the KGB and arrested for practicing their religion or for "Zionist activities". This became a big deal in the 80s when a huge campaign was launched to convince the Soviet government to let the Jews go. This finally worked in the final days of the Soviet Union, and 1 million Soviet Jews moved to Israel over the next few years. But modern Russia is no friend to the Jews, what with the half of Russia's parliament trying to get a bill passed banning the Jewish religion. Also, there are more Muslims than Jews living in Russia now, so the ethnic thing wouldn't really work in the Jews favour even if it were true.


Thanks for clearing that up like i said im no expert.

Ray
27 Oct 05,, 21:38
Thanks.

But then it appears that these are "fairweather" Jews.

They should not be allowed in is my way of looking.

I wonder if they will be there when the chips are down!

BenRoethig
27 Oct 05,, 22:22
I'd like Israel to reply with a stern response, diss him back, tell him how it is....

I'd like to see Ariel Sharon drop this line....

"You want to bring it, bring it, we ain't singing we bringing drama, f**k you and your motherf**king mama" (Tupac Shakur R.I.P).....

That would be sooo funny.

As long as he's wearing black sweats, gold chains, and a sox hat when he says it. BTW, can anyone photoshop that?

JBodnar39
27 Oct 05,, 23:37
Iran is not a democracry and the people have no choice to elect who they want. The country is run by the council of Mullahs who have banned anyone from running for political office except those they approve of. The current president is just a mouthpiece of theirs. They act indepently through their own military/security forces to do things like fund Hezbollah, secret terrorists out of Afghanistan, and - as reveled in former FIB Director Louis Freeh's tell all book - they have been directly implicated in the Kobar Towars bombing. Now - on top of all of these actions to support terrorists killing both Israelis and American's and their declared desire to eliminate Israel - they are developing a nuclear bomb. This is the equivalent of a paroled murderer telling you that he is going to kill your family and then you watching him walk across the street to a gun store. What do you do?

Anybody with any sense would start by dropping a 2000lb JDAM on the roof of the Mosque that these Mullahs are at. Of course that won't happen for several reasons, and we wil have to wait until a nuke goes off in Tel Aviv or New York before our elected governments do something. Why? Everybody is afraid of making the other arab countries mad. Any of those contries are looking for any excuse to get mad at Israel and the US doesn't want to piss off its arab allies (and complicate the oil thing)

ZFBoxcar
28 Oct 05,, 00:13
Thanks for clearing that up like i said im no expert.

No problem.


Thanks.

But then it appears that these are "fairweather" Jews.

They should not be allowed in is my way of looking.

I wonder if they will be there when the chips are down!

The thing is, it is not easy to distinguish between normal immigrants and "fairweather" Jews. You can't just ban Russians from immigrating, especially since Russian immigration led to a huge economic boom in the 90s and greatly increased Israel's knowledge base. The longer they stay, the less likely they are to leave, and the IDF serves as a melting pot to teach them Israeli culture, make them fluent in Hebrew, and fill them with patriotism. And their children will be normal Israelis. Israel needs stability so that the "fairweather" Jews stay so that they transform from economic migrants/refugees into proud citizens. If Israel only took in immigrants who were ready to die immediately for a country they had never been to, there would be a shortage of immigrants.

lwarmonger
28 Oct 05,, 01:23
Anybody with any sense would start by dropping a 2000lb JDAM on the roof of the Mosque that these Mullahs are at. Of course that won't happen for several reasons, and we wil have to wait until a nuke goes off in Tel Aviv or New York before our elected governments do something. Why? Everybody is afraid of making the other arab countries mad. Any of those contries are looking for any excuse to get mad at Israel and the US doesn't want to piss off its arab allies (and complicate the oil thing)

War in Iraq. Direct Iranian intervention would make it much more problematic. And Iran is not an arab country. That plus the fact that it's primarily Shia muslim makes me doubt whether too many arab nations would so much as shed a tear.

Aussie Fire
28 Oct 05,, 06:34
No one should be wiped off the World Map. I think both countries look great on the atlas.
Iran should try to control it's offensive comments about any independent state. In case then, Irans needs to be wiped out. ;)

Ray
28 Oct 05,, 06:57
If Israel only took in immigrants who were ready to die immediately for a country they had never been to, there would be a shortage of immigrants.

That's one department you can bank upon the Indian Mizo Jews who are emigrating to Israel - die immediately for Israel.

They are the tribe that is also the backbone of our Assam Regiment.

Ray
28 Oct 05,, 07:03
Direct interevention into Iran is not feasible.

There is a shortage of troops as such.

Iraq and Afghanistan are still to be brought to their logical conclusion.

The US has to have adequate comabt troops in reserve since one does not know what can happen in any part of the world that is of strategic importance to the USA.

Therefore, diplomatic palaver and IAEA to ensure that the situation does not escalate is apparently the interim answer.

Ray
28 Oct 05,, 07:07
JBodnar39,

Forward he cried from the rear
And the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side.
Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who.
Up and down.
But in the end itís only round and round.

bull
28 Oct 05,, 13:10
Its rather painfull to see , country with vast resources as Iran,wasting its time speaking rheotoric,rather than doing something to give a better life to iranians.

lwarmonger
28 Oct 05,, 21:17
Its rather painfull to see , country with vast resources as Iran,wasting its time speaking rheotoric,rather than doing something to give a better life to iranians.

LOL! It's what politicians are good for. Empty rhetoric. You want to give people a better life, looking somewhere other than the government is a good idea!

Bulgaroctonus
28 Oct 05,, 22:57
Personally, I think it would be GREAT if Israel took this guy at his word (or pretended to), and immediately and formally declared war against Iran.
Bluesman, for once I am in agreement with you. Iran has been tolerated for too long. Israel must not allow Iran's nuclear threat to mature. Now that we have seen the full extent of Tehran's vision, we should not shy from decisive war.

Bulgaroctonus
28 Oct 05,, 23:05
I'd like Israel to reply with a stern response, diss him back, tell him how it is....

I'd like to see Ariel Sharon drop this line....

"You want to bring it, bring it, we ain't singing we bringing drama, f**k you and your motherf**king mama" (Tupac Shakur R.I.P).....

That would be sooo funny.

Platinum, you seem to have some knowledge of Rap music. I think there are several Wu Tang Clan lyrics that are in order here.

"And if you want beef, then bring the ruckus
Wu-Tang Clan ain't nuttin ta **** with
Straight from the mother****ing slums that's busted
Wu-Tang Clan ain't nuttin ta **** with"

There are many others where that comes from.

Bluesman
29 Oct 05,, 00:15
There are many others where that comes from.

Great. Super.

Sameer
29 Oct 05,, 04:42
"Originally Posted by platinum786
I'd like Israel to reply with a stern response, diss him back, tell him how it is....

I'd like to see Ariel Sharon drop this line....

"You want to bring it, bring it, we ain't singing we bringing drama, f**k you and your motherf**king mama" (Tupac Shakur R.I.P).....

That would be sooo funny."


Err Biggie's gang did bring it and they shot Tupac 10 times and unlike 50 cent, he "aint fxxxing breathin"

:)

I like rap its so funny, reminds me of the circus.

bull
29 Oct 05,, 06:49
Iran is no arab country,moreover they havebeef with all mahor Me countries bcoz of the naming of persian gulf.they have banned a lot of imports from Me countries due to this issue.
And also they have border dispute with UAE.

InfiniteDreams
29 Oct 05,, 10:42
This is the equivalent of a paroled murderer telling you that he is going to kill your family and then you watching him walk across the street to a gun store. What do you do?

Anybody with any sense would start by dropping a 2000lb JDAM on the roof of the Mosque that these Mullahs are at. Of course that won't happen for several reasons, and we wil have to wait until a nuke goes off in Tel Aviv or New York before our elected governments do something. Why? Everybody is afraid of making the other arab countries mad. Any of those contries are looking for any excuse to get mad at Israel and the US doesn't want to piss off its arab allies (and complicate the oil thing)

Good post. I agree with your analogy 100%. The term 'regime change' seems to apply IMNSHO. The US, Israel and the EU should go in and do what we are currently doing in Iraq. Any Arab states that intervene will share the same fate. Assurances and Guaruantees should be given to appease China and Russia so they stay on the sidelines during the confict.

There is the potential for a nuclear exchange or all out nuclear war if Iran is left alone to pursue WMD or mass build up of conventional weapons. I also wouldn't be suprised if there is a secret pact bewtween Iran and the DPRK in case either one is attacked which hopefully the US has contingency plans for.

This is like a train wreck waiting to happen and you can see it from a mile away. If nothing is done we're going to be in WWIII perhaps sooner than we think.

If history has taught us anything it's that when someone says they're going to kill you...they intend to do just that.

"Death to America" "Death to Israel" chants should not be taken lightly.

Swift Sword
29 Oct 05,, 13:15
Remember Europe, these are the people you're trying to negotiate with.

And Japan and China and India and the CIS and quite a few others.

Herein lies the rub: positive relations and/or economic ties with Iran are inceasingly becoming part of the security calculus of some other important players. The Bush Administration has consistently been so weak on diplomacy and foreign policy that they have essentially let the Iranians have the game at this point.

If we set aside nationalism, it's associated jingoism and the general ideologic trash that both the Bush Administration and the Mullahs pimp for internal consumption, it appears that a quick thaw and some sort of normalized relations with Iran are decidedly in the American self interest and would be of great benefit to the transformation of the Iranian economy and society as well.

Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the United States and Israel do not appear to have the intelligence resources or strike assets to make a credible threat of WMD pre-emption or decapitating strike against the Iranians.

Monk
29 Oct 05,, 15:59
If we set aside nationalism, it's associated jingoism and the general ideologic trash that both the Bush Administration and the Mullahs pimp for internal consumption, it appears that a quick thaw and some sort of normalized relations with Iran are decidedly in the American self interest and would be of great benefit to the transformation of the Iranian economy and society as well.

Correct Assessment.

Praxus
29 Oct 05,, 17:03
If we set aside nationalism, it's associated jingoism and the general ideologic trash that both the Bush Administration and the Mullahs pimp for internal consumption, it appears that a quick thaw and some sort of normalized relations with Iran are decidedly in the American self interest and would be of great benefit to the transformation of the Iranian economy and society as well.

While we're at it, let's release all the criminals from our prisons and make normalized relations with them. How dare we think ourselves better men for not murdering, raping, and looting! :rolleyes:

You can not negotiate with a tyrant, least of all a self-proclaimed pious one.

Bluesman
29 Oct 05,, 17:44
While we're at it, let's release all the criminals from our prisons and make normalized relations with them. How dare we think ourselves better men for not murdering, raping, and looting! :rolleyes:

You can not negotiate with a tyrant, least of all a self-proclaimed pious one.

Good post.

Bluesman
29 Oct 05,, 17:54
Herein lies the rub: positive relations and/or economic ties with Iran are inceasingly becoming part of the security calculus of some other important players.

Well, shame on them for letting themselves be bought by commecial concern ahead of the security of the entire region. If they've chosen to pimp themselves out to the Iranians, then clearly THEIR foreign policy is the short-sighted and impotent one, in marked contrast to the point you make below.


The Bush Administration has consistently been so weak on diplomacy and foreign policy that they have essentially let the Iranians have the game at this point.

And yet, the Bush administration is THE only entity that has or ever WILL have any real leverage over the Iranians. I think you have the situation completely upside down.


If we set aside nationalism, it's associated jingoism and the general ideologic trash that both the Bush Administration and the Mullahs pimp for internal consumption, it appears that a quick thaw and some sort of normalized relations with Iran are decidedly in the American self interest and would be of great benefit to the transformation of the Iranian economy and society as well.

Reward them for bad behavior, eh? NO. How do you suppose THAT would play in Tehran? As a sell-out of anti-government forces; as weakness on our part, and an unwillingness to back our interests, and as serving the interests of the ones bad-mouthing us.

TERRIBLE move. I would have thought, with all the historical evidence so abundant in the last century, that appeasement would be out of style.


Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the United States and Israel do not appear to have the intelligence resources or strike assets to make a credible threat of WMD pre-emption or decapitating strike against the Iranians.

And just how do you come to THAT completely erroneous conclusion? :tongue:

Bulgaroctonus
30 Oct 05,, 03:54
Herein lies the rub: positive relations and/or economic ties with Iran are inceasingly becoming part of the security calculus of some other important players. The Bush Administration has consistently been so weak on diplomacy and foreign policy that they have essentially let the Iranians have the game at this point.
I also think the Bush Administration has been weak diplomatically. I think that other nations are not calculating Iran in terms of security, but in terms of economics. Both Russia and China draw large amounts of petroleum from Iran. Hence, normalized relations with Iran would only beneficial if they gave the U.S. oil.

My fantasy is to exterminate the Iranians and take their oil. I feel the 'Supreme Dictator' thread flowing in my veins!


If we set aside nationalism, it's associated jingoism and the general ideologic trash that both the Bush Administration and the Mullahs pimp for internal consumption, it appears that a quick thaw and some sort of normalized relations with Iran are decidedly in the American self interest and would be of great benefit to the transformation of the Iranian economy and society as well.
Again, normalized relations are only valuable to the U.S. if Iran can offer something in return. The status quo is not helpful. Even if we establish peaceful relations with Iran, that nation will continue to feed oil to China and Russia. China is a serious strategic rival of the United States and should be deprived of Iranian assistance.


Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the United States and Israel do not appear to have the intelligence resources or strike assets to make a credible threat of WMD pre-emption or decapitating strike against the Iranians.
American intelligence is embarrassed after its failures in assessing Saddam Hussein. However, Israeli military and intelligence capabilities are always superb.

Officer of Engineers
30 Oct 05,, 04:18
American intelligence is embarrassed after its failures in assessing Saddam Hussein. However, Israeli military and intelligence capabilities are always superb.

You're crapping me! Who do you think was pushing the US into the Iraq War?

Bulgaroctonus
30 Oct 05,, 04:26
You're crapping me! Who do you think was pushing the US into the Iraq War?
The Bush Administration. Please clarify your point.

ZFBoxcar
30 Oct 05,, 04:29
Every intelligence agency in the world said Iraq was working on WMDs as far as I know.

Officer of Engineers
30 Oct 05,, 04:32
Please clarify your point.

Yes, the Israelis are really superb. BULL!


United Press International
March 28, 2004 Sunday
HEADLINE: Knesset committee criticizes intelligence
DATELINE: JERUSALEM, March 28 (UPI)

A Knesset intelligence subcommittee Sunday criticized the failure to assess Iraq's military capabilities and Libya's attempts to develop a nuclear bomb.

The subcommittee on intelligence affairs noted that the military intelligence had estimated Baghdad had chemical and biological weapons as well as dozens of missiles. The closer the war became, the higher the estimates of Iraq's arsenal, it noted.

Early estimates that Iraq had few long-range missiles changed on the eve of the war to reports that it had 50 to 100 missiles. Estimates were presented as facts, the committee said.

Israel's failure to learn, from its own sources, about Libya's nuclear plans was "intolerable," the committee added.

It suggested that assessments provided American and other agencies eventually made their way back to Israel as opinions of other intelligence services and thus strengthened the original Israeli notions.

The Israeli government's decisions to order citizens to open gas masks and inoculate 17,000 first responders was "reasonable" because weapons of mass destruction are easy to hide and the Iraqi air force's training showed it was preparing offensive options, the committee added.

Agence France Presse
March 28, 2004 Sunday
HEADLINE: Israeli intelligence criticised for wartime assessment of Iraq threat
BYLINE: HAZEL WARD
DATELINE: JERUSALEM, March 28

Israeli deputies criticised the intelligence services for exaggerating the risk of an Iraqi attack before and during last year's conflict, saying in a report released Sunday they had relied too much on speculation rather than facts.

An initial draft of the report drawn up by a defence subcommittee blamed the intelligence establishment for having both exaggerated the threat of Iraq having non-conventional weapons, while remaining ignorant of Libya's nuclear developments.

On the Iraq front, the report slammed the fact that Israeli intelligence assessments pointed to a "high probability" Baghdad had a long-range or non-conventional weapons capability, despite having no hard evidence to prove it.

"What really bothered us was why we and other agencies in the West didn't have signal and visual intelligence so we could rely on hard facts and not on estimates and speculation," said subcommitee chairman Yuval Steinitz, who also heads up the foreign affairs and defence committee.

Presenting the findings to reporters at the Israeli parliament, Steinitz said the problem of mistaken security assessments was compounded by information sharing between various international intelligence agencies.

"The Israeli intelligence services gave information to the foreign services and they used that, and in the next consultation it came back to us," Steinitz said, describing it as the 'what goes around, comes around' effect.

"There was a circle of feedback that was self-perpetuating without substantiation."

The report, which was presented to President Moshe Katzav Sunday, also slammed the fact that Libya developed its nuclear capabilities to the point it could have posed a very serious threat to Israel "without the intelligence services giving so much as a warning", Steinitz said.

However, the committee's findings cleared the intelligence establishment of any attempts to deceive the political echelon about Iraq.

"There was no sign of deliberate deception or distortion of intelligence data. If there were mistakes made, they were made innocently and in good will," Steinitz said.

Despite the shortcomings, the 80-page report stops short of pointing the finger at individuals or placing blame, and instead recommends far-reaching structural changes within the intelligence services.

In order to counter problems of information gathering and distribution between the various services, such as military intelligence and the Mossad spy agency, the committee recommended the appointment of an intelligence secretary and the establishment of a ministerial committee for intelligence.

Four months ago, Israeli analyst Shlomo Brom published a report accusing the Israeli intelligence community of overstating the risk of an Iraqi attack, saying they "greatly exaggerated the risk of a non-conventional attack without daring to say that it was little or nil."

In his report, Brom said the Israeli intelligence services had lost credibility with both their overseas counterparts and the public while also spending "a great deal of money on addressing threats that were either non-existent or highly unlikely."

Precautionary measures taken included the mobilisation of troops, the deployment of anti-missile defences and the distribution of millions of gas masks to the population.

Towards the end of the US-led campaign which ousted Saddam Hussein last April, Israel's military intelligence chief General Aharon Zeevi said there was "no doubt that Iraq has non-conventional weapons."

During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles armed with conventional warheads at Israel.

XINHUA GENERAL NEWS SERVICE
March 28, 2004, Sunday
HEADLINE: Writethru: Israeli Parliament report slams assessment of dangers posed by Libya, Iraq
DATELINE: JERUSALEM, March 28

A Knesset (Israeli parliament) report released Sunday criticized the Israel Defense Forces'(IDF) Military Intelligence branch and the Mossad for their lack of an accurate assessment of dangers posed by both Libya and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

The report, compiled by a special investigation panel of the Knesset subcommittee supervising Israel's secret services, slams the intelligence services for failing to discover whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to recognize Libya was in the advanced stages of developing its nuclear capability.

The committee, headed by Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman Yuval Steinitz, said this was a "serious intelligence failure that must lead to housecleaning and reorganization."

On the issue of Iraqi WMD, the report said, "It could be that these weapons could yet be uncovered, but it remains a significant gap between intelligence assessment that this weaponry existed and they are ready to be fired."

It recommended the structure of the intelligence community could be changed in such ways as removing intelligence-gathering unit " 8200" from Military Intelligence auspices and transforming it into an independent national intelligence agency.

Sources close to the panel claimed it has concluded that intelligence officials issued mistaken assessments of Iraqi WMD.

The panel, however, said Israel's intelligence officials did not make a fundamental error in assessments on Iraq, so it did not recommend that any official be censured or removed.

While an 80-page public report is to be released, the investigation committee's main findings and conclusions are to be relayed in a classified section of the document.

This classified section with graphs and tables will be finished in a few weeks, and submitted to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, and IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon.

The investigation committee held 50 meetings over an eight-month period, and heard testimony from 70 witnesses, including Sharon, Mofaz, Ya'alo and the heads of the Mossad, Military Intelligence as well as the Shin Bet security service (General Security Service).

The panel considered a number of issues, including what intelligence officials knew about Iraq's ability to fire conventional or non-conventional missiles at Israel, the nature of intelligence cooperation between Israel and friendly nations and whether the decision to order citizens to open gas masks was warranted.

The Jerusalem Post
March 28, 2004, Sunday
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 2
HEADLINE: Knesset report on Iraq War due today
BYLINE: Arieh O'Sullivan

A Knesset probe into intelligence assessments before and during the US war on Iraq is to be released Sunday.

According to a report on Army Radio, the inquiry did not find that the Israel Defense Forces purposely misled the political echelon about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - programs. However, the report does blame the IDF's intelligence branch for its assessments of Iraq's weapons capabilities.

Recommendations of the inquiry could have ramifications on the debate in the US concerning failures of the American intelligence community to accurately assess whether Iraq had WMD, a claim US President George W. Bush used to garner support for American action there.

Channel 1 reported that US officials have already received an advanced copy of the report and were examining it.

The inquiry was conducted by a classified subcommittee set up by Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman Yuval Steinitz (Likud). He is to hand the report to President Moshe Katzav at noon.

The subcommittee began its work last summer and immediately ran into huge opposition from the Israeli defense establishment. It wanted to investigate Israel's readiness and the intelligence community's activities in preparation for the Iraq war. At the time, the defense establishment exaggerated the assessments of the intelligence community.

Prior to the US invasion, the intelligence assessments had indicated the presence of weapons of mass destruction and ground-to-ground missiles in Iraq. That information led to the costly decision to have citizens here open gas mask kits and the enlistment of reservists.

This decision was based mainly on intention rather than capability, something the subcommittee questioned whether this should have been the basis for an assessment.

Aside from Steinitz, members of the panel include former Mossad chief Danny Yatom (Labor) and his brother Ehud (Likud), a former Shin Bet official. David Levy (Likud), Eli Yishai (Shas), Ilan Leibovitch (Shinui), and Haim Ramon (Labor) are also members of the panel.

Steinitz has said that the IDF was not especially cooperative with the probe, but more than 40 meetings have already been held.

"All of the IDF brass and, to my regret, the defense minister too were against this," Steinitz said. "But they understood their full subordination to the parliament."

Steinitz said the inquiry would be a sort of case study to develop a doctrine for dealing with enemies without borders with Israel. This included examining the overlap between the Mossad and Military Intelligence, and the use of technological versus human intelligence gathering.

Steinitz said he saw this as a case study to learn and develop Israel's intelligence doctrine regarding the second- and third-tier states, which are becoming more relevant as threats to Israel because of missiles and jets and non-conventional weaponry.

"The discussions were fascinating and I can tell you that today I am more convinced of the necessity of the committee," Steinitz said.

MK Matan Vilna'i (Labor), a former deputy chief of General Staff, on Friday called for the establishment of a commission which has the power to actualize the findings and recommendations of the report.

"Israelis are left unsatisfied over questions of how decisions are made in extremely sensitive matters. This is a weak point and requires a swift solution," Vilna'i told Army Radio on Friday.

In December, conflicting reports published by a respected Tel Aviv think tank indicated deep disagreement over the failure by Israeli intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein's threat to strike Israel.

One report, penned by veteran IDF intelligence officer Col. (res.) Ephraim Kam, the deputy head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, claimed Israeli intelligence was correct in assuming Iraq had the capability and intention of striking Israel during the recent US invasion - if only to play it safe following the previous conflict, in which Israel was hit by 39 Iraqi Scuds with conventional warheads.

The other report, by Brig.-Gen. (res.) Shlomo Brom, claimed Israeli intelligence not only was a "full partner" in the failure to correctly assess Saddam's capabilities and intentions, but had participated in an "exaggerated assessment" with the Americans and British. While not overtly political, this was mainly due to "excessive intelligence anxiety" to adopt the worst-case scenario in order to be heroes if validated, and forgiven if their bleak prophecies did not materialize, Brom said.

He warned that the good reputation enjoyed by Israeli intelligence could be jeopardized by this failure, and hinted there may have been subtle political influence on the intelligence assessment.

Knight Ridder Washington Bureau
March 29, 2004, Monday
HEADLINE: Israeli intelligence off the mark on Saddam's military, report says
BYLINE: By Michael Matza and Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson

JERUSALEM _ Israeli intelligence seriously overrated the military capacity of Saddam Hussein in the runup to the Iraq war because its secret services based their assessments on broad estimates and not hard data, a parliamentary committee said Sunday.

Israel had "insufficient founded intelligence and so we had to work with conjectures and estimates. ... There's a big difference between gambling and knowing," said Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset subcommittee that monitors Israel's security services.

The declassified portion of the report released Sunday asserted that Israel's Military Intelligence and Israel's equivalent of the CIA, the Mossad, had not deliberately misled Western allies in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The findings will be closely watched in the United States and Britain, where reassessments of pre-war intelligence are under way following the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair cited such weapons as the basic reason Saddam Hussein had to be forcefully disarmed, but the weapons stockpiles have not been found.

Among the issues considered by the panel were what Israeli intelligence officials knew about Iraq's ability to fire conventional or nonconventional missiles at Israel, the nature of intelligence sharing between Israel and other nations, and the decision to order Israeli citizens to carry gas masks and to vaccinate 17,000 medical "first responders" against smallpox at a cost of millions of dollars.

Part of the problem, said Steinitz, a ranking member of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's governing Likud Party, is the way intelligence was shared.

"What goes around comes around," he said, alluding to how Israeli assessments were shared with Western intelligence services and came back to Israel in repackaged form looking like confirmation of the original reports.

It was "a circle of feedback ... feeding itself without any substantiation in the field," he said.

Nevertheless, Israel played "a very minor role" in Washington's prewar planning, said Steinitz, because "the American and British intelligence services had much better access to Iraq by simply sitting in Kuwait" and flying reconnaissance missions "almost freely over Iraqi soil."

Committee member Haim Ramon, of the opposition Labor Party, said when he pressed Israeli intelligence officials to corroborate their "high probability" assessments that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, "they didn't have an answer."

The report recommended legislation to better define the roles of Israel's military and civil intelligence services and the appointment of a special intelligence adviser to the prime minister.

In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles carrying conventional explosive warheads at Israel, causing serious damage but few casualties.

Feeling the sting of that trauma, and the onus of having misjudged the pan-Arab threat before the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the intelligence services this time covered themselves with "exaggerated estimates ... not based on actual data," said Ramon.

Several intelligence analysts insisted the committee's report would not change the way intelligence is gathered in Israel, and that the military would retain the main control over it.

Gerald Steinberg, a consultant to Israel's National Security Council, predicted the impact of the report would be negligible.

"It was very hard not to go along with the American and British estimates when there was so much uncertainty," said Steinberg.

"And there was also such a residual impact from the 1991 Iraqi missile launches. Certainly there were chemical weapons available in 1991, so faulting any Israel decision maker for having adopted that position is mostly Monday morning quarterbacking," he said.

The committee also chided the secret services for failing to pick up on Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's weapons of mass destruction program until Libya abandoned it in December.

"There was a worrying failure when we woke up one clear morning to find out from foreign intelligence services about (Libya's) race to acquire nuclear weapons that could threaten the very existence of the state of Israel," the report said.

The investigative panel held hearings over eight months and heard testimony from more than 70 witnesses. The committee was supposed to complete its work four months ago, but it widened its probe after Libya's arms program appeared to take Israel by surprise.

The Times (London)
March 29, 2004, Monday
SECTION: Overseas news; 15
HEADLINE: 'Flawed circle' of intelligence
BYLINE: Stephen Farrell in Jerusalem

BRITISH, American and Israeli intelligence agencies passed information around in circles before the Iraq war, reinforcing each others' exaggerated analyses of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction capability, an Israeli parliamentary investigation concluded yesterday.

In a scathing indictment of its own intelligence services, including Mossad, it said that there was a general failure of intelligence based on mutually reinforcing evaluations based on "speculation" without any hard data.

"The uniform evaluation of the international intelligence bodies was implanted somewhat in a sort of 'magical circle' and in a way of reciprocal feedback, which for most cases was harmful rather than useful," an 81-page report by the Knesset's all-party Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee concluded.

"This created a structural failure, it led to exaggerated self-confidence and lack of scepticism among the international intelligence communities in the Western world."

The report is a severe blow to Israel's much-vaunted and highly secretive intelligence agencies. Yuval Steinitz, the committee chairman, called for changes in intelligence- gathering and analysis and demanded to know why officials had not relied on signals and intelligence technology instead of "speculation."

The problem, he said, arose after 1998, when the withdrawal of United Nations inspectors from Iraq removed the intelligence community's best source of hard information.

While other Western services focused on Saddam's nuclear capability, he said that Israeli intelligence began an "inexplicable escalation" in its estimates of Saddam's missile arsenal "without the committee finding any data to support this change in estimates".

Mr Steinitz refused to say what Israeli intelligence received from its Western counterparts before the war, but said that the United States and Britain had big advantages in intelligence-gathering capability because their jets were flying over Iraq, their troops were based in neighbouring Kuwait and they had satellite data.

He described what he called the circular "trap" that Western intelligence agencies appeared to have fallen into.

"The Israeli services give information to the foreign services, who use it for their own purposes and pass it on and it comes back to the Israeli intelligence services," he said. "That is a circle of feedback that feeds on itself without any substance in the field."

The Toronto Star
March 29, 2004 Monday Ontario Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A15
HEADLINE: Israel 'exaggerated' Iraq threat
BYLINE: Mitch Potter, Toronto Star
HIGHLIGHT:Report criticizes spy agencies over faulty intelligence But says mistakes 'made innocently' on weapons risk

Israeli intelligence failures are partly to blame for the mistaken belief that Saddam Hussein was poised to unleash weapons of mass destruction on his enemies, a government committee concluded yesterday in a rare and scathing report on its own secret service agencies.

In an 81-page report to the Knesset, or parliament, the foreign affairs and defence subcommittee criticized the culture of Israeli intelligence gathering, which allowed unsubstantiated speculation and conjecture to acquire the weight of fact in its dealings with British and U.S. intelligence agencies during the run-up to war.

But the committee concluded unanimously that although Israel may have had much to gain from the ouster of Saddam, the intelligence mistakes "were made innocently and in the spirit of goodwill" rather than as a campaign of deliberate misinformation.

The report is likely to reverberate loudest in Washington and London, where separate investigations are under way to probe the flawed intelligence assumptions that created an impetus for the March, 2003, invasion.

In summarizing the report, lawmaker Yuval Steinitz, who led the inquiry, outlined for reporters how a pattern of speculative assessments from both Israeli military intelligence and the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence agency, contributed to the growing consensus among overseas agencies that there was a "high probability" Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the will to use them.

"It was a circle in which what goes around comes around. Israel gave information. Foreign agencies used that information, added to it," said Steinitz.

"There was a circle of feedback that feeds itself without any substantiation from the field."

The committee was divided on whether, in light of the lack of hard facts and surfeit of speculation, intelligence officials erred in urging the Israeli government to order severe defence precautions, including the deployment and activation of gas masks to the public and the inoculation of an estimated 17,000 "first response" rescue officials against attack by biological weapons armed with smallpox.

A majority of the committee concluded the precautions were "reasonable." A minority opinion, voiced yesterday by committee member and Labour party lawmaker Haim Ramon, was far more critical.

"Nobody, not one single agency, not Israel, nor the British, nor the Americans, saw a single launcher or missile in Iraq," said Ramon. "This is after six years of United Nations inspections, and after every intelligence satellite in the world was watching.

"So what I said now, just as I said before the war, is this: If it doesn't look like a missile and it doesn't sound like a missile, then it isn't a missile," Ramon told reporters. "Just as British and U.S. intelligence failed, Israeli intelligence failed. Unfortunately, I think we exaggerated the threat."

Ramon said the root of the intelligence failures date back 30 years to the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, when Israel's intelligence community is widely seen to have let the nation down by drastically underestimating the likelihood of attack by its Arab neighbours.

Former Mossad director Shabtai Shavit, an adviser to the panel, defended Israel's pre-war precautions, noting that Israel sustained 39 Scud missile strikes from Iraq during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. He also pointed out Iraq's prior use of unconventional weapons against the Iraqi Kurdish enclave of Halabja in 1988 in which 5,000 people were killed.

"A lot of experts had to eat their hats in 1991. And Saddam used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds," said Shavit. "You cannot ignore these two factors."

Though the committee was careful not to single out one agency in its spoken comments, the report itself recommends an overhaul of Israeli intelligence services in such a way that would substantially curtail the responsibilities of the Military Intelligence Agency and empower the Mossad to take a leading role on the question of global weapons proliferation.

The report also calls for the appointment of an intelligence secretary and a committee to deal with long-term intelligence issues. And it calls for the Israel Defence Forces branch known as 8200, a service dedicated to electronic intelligence gathering, to be removed from the military chain of command to ensure its independence.

Chicago Tribune
March 29, 2004 Monday
Chicagoland Final Edition
SECTION: NEWS ; ZONE CN; Pg. 6
HEADLINE: Intelligence units overstated Iraq's arms, Israelis say;
But panel finds intent was not to promote war
BYLINE: By Joel Greenberg, Special to the Tribune.
DATELINE: JERUSALEM

Israeli intelligence estimates exaggerated Iraq's military capabilities and influenced assessments in the U.S. and other countries but were not deliberately distorted to support the case for war, an Israeli parliamentary inquiry said in a report issued on Sunday.

The 80-page report, a rare public review of the performance of the Israeli intelligence agencies, was published as the United States and Britain are conducting their own investigations into intelligence failures that preceded the war in Iraq.

Issued after eight months of work by a parliamentary inquiry committee, the Israeli report was based on closed-door testimony of dozens of witnesses, including the chiefs of army intelligence, the Shin Bet domestic security service and the Mossad overseas spy agency, as well as the prime minister, the defense minister and the army chief of staff.

Lacking solid indications of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Israeli military intelligence made erroneous assessments of Iraq's offensive capabilities, the report said.

Assertions by senior intelligence officers went significantly beyond the information gathered by Israeli agencies, which failed to either confirm or rule out the presence of long-range missiles and chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, according to the report.

Prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq a year ago, Israeli intelligence officers described Iraqi unconventional and missile capabilities "not at the level of low probability, but as a solid assessment, treating these capabilities as facts," the report says.

Intelligence assessments inflated the Iraqi threat as the war drew near, the report said. Estimates of the number of long-range missiles held by Iraq grew from several missiles to dozens, and in the weeks prior to the outbreak of hostilities reached between 50 and 100, the report said.

Raising the alarm

A few months before the war, a parliamentary subcommittee was told by military intelligence officers that there was a high probability of an Iraqi air strike on Israel at the outbreak of hostilities.

As for the presence of chemical and biological weapons, the chief of military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, told the foreign affairs and defense committee of parliament at the height of the fighting that he believed there was "a very high probability of unconventional weapons" in Iraq, the report said.

Israelis were ordered to put plastic sheeting on windows and unseal gas-mask kits and carry them during the war, moves that were later widely criticized as unwarranted and costly. In the 1991 Persian Gulf war, Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles with conventional warheads at Israel.

In the months before last year's campaign in Iraq, cooperation and information exchanges with American and other foreign intelligence agencies tended to reinforce threat assessments, the report said.

It suggested that a circular process was at work, in which Israeli estimates given to U.S. or other foreign intelligence agencies "played a central role in formulating the assessments" of those agencies, and later came back to Israel as a foreign estimates, and were "immediately perceived as reinforcement and corroboration of the original Israeli assessment by another authoritative source."

But Yuval Steinitz, a lawmaker from the right-wing Likud Party who chaired the panel, said the Israeli assessments played "a very minor role" in American planning for the war.

U.S. better informed

"The American and British intelligence services had much better access to Iraq by simply sitting in Kuwait and being able to fly almost freely over Iraqi soil," Steinitz said.

He added that the committee found no evidence suggesting that Israeli intelligence reports were tailored to support the case for war in Iraq.

Steinitz said "there were mistakes, but they were genuine, not purposeful distortion to serve the political echelon in Israel or elsewhere."

"They had to estimate too much," Steinitz said. "The question that bothered us is why they had to estimate so much and knew so little."

Given the intelligence assessments of Iraqi capabilities, the government acted reasonably when it ordered Israelis to carry gas masks and prepare for a possible chemical or biological attack, the panel found.

The committee also criticized the Israeli failure to detect Libya's nuclear weapons program until shortly before it was abandoned in December by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, calling it "a serious intelligence lapse" that requires a shakeup of the intelligence community.

The report recommends steps to revamp Israel's intelligence-gathering network that would put the Mossad in charge of political and strategic intelligence, while limiting the military intelligence branch to monitoring the armed forces of neighboring states.

Leader
30 Oct 05,, 05:08
Every intelligence agency in the world said Iraq was working on WMDs as far as I know.

That's because Saddam wanted everyone to believe that. He was playing chicken and got run over by the train.

ZFBoxcar
30 Oct 05,, 05:41
Exactly. That is what my poli sci professor said (although in his version of chicken, it's not waiting for the train, it's two cars driving at eachother...he even showed a clip from Footloose to demonstrate the point ;) ), he was an advisor in the Pentagon to the joint cheifs of staff during Bush's first term.

Swift Sword
30 Oct 05,, 13:11
You can not negotiate with a tyrant, least of all a self-proclaimed pious one.

The Bush Administration negotiates with dictators and other crumb bumbs Monday through Friday and sometimes on the weekend as well. Iran, unlike the some of the other despotic regimes the Bush Administration has chosen as friends and allies, actually has something substantial to offer so negotiantions are clearly indicated.

As the situation currently stands, the Bush Adminstration's failure to constructively engage Tehran has caused the US to isolate itself into a position of decreasing relevance viz the whole situation.

A tremendous amount of wealth and influence in the Middle East is about to change hands, probably by the end of the decade and the foreign policy lightweight in the White House are shooting the United States in the foot by not jockeying for position.

Swift Sword
30 Oct 05,, 13:45
Well, shame on them for letting themselves be bought by commecial concern ahead of the security of the entire region. If they've chosen to pimp themselves out to the Iranians, then clearly THEIR foreign policy is the short-sighted and impotent one, in marked contrast to the point you make below.

I've got a fiver that says what the PRC considers a policy relevant time frame is a window longer by a decade at least than what Washington considers a policy relevant time frame.




And yet, the Bush administration is THE only entity that has or ever WILL have any real leverage over the Iranians. I think you have the situation completely upside down.

The facts do not seem to support your conclusion, Sir. Leverage implies the abililty to influence and I am not seeing much headway from the Bush White House in the influence department with regards to Tehran.




Reward them for bad behavior, eh? NO. How do you suppose THAT would play in Tehran? As a sell-out of anti-government forces; as weakness on our part, and an unwillingness to back our interests, and as serving the interests of the ones bad-mouthing us.

Who said anything about rewarding bad behavoir? Encouraging them to change their behavoir to that which suits US interests while at the same time **** blocking competitors and potential threats is the gist of it. (Besides, reawarding bad behavoir seems to be the status quo in US foreign policy right now, but that really is not germain to my position)


TERRIBLE move. I would have thought, with all the historical evidence so abundant in the last century, that appeasement would be out of style.

I never by word or deed advocated appeasment. What I am advocating is trying to get a favorable quid pro quo in the quickest amount of time and the only way to do that is to start talking.

The window for American influence on the Iranian situation is starting to close and will most likely be closed by the next election cycle so the Bush Administration better do something productive whilst it has the chance.




And just how do you come to THAT completely erroneous conclusion? :tongue:

Late in the Twentieth Century, R.W. Chandler proved in theory that the United States did not have the intelligence or strike assets to mount a pre-emptive strike against WMD facilities. Read his "Tomorrow's War, Today's Decisions: Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Implications of Wmd-Adversaries for Future U.S. Military Strategy". I read it before Mr. Bush was elected; more people should have.

Early in the Twenty First Century, G.W. Bush proved in fact that the United States did not have the intelligence or strike assets to mount a pre-emptive strike against WMD facilities. You might study Operation Iraqi Freedom is you want some factual information.

Swift Sword
30 Oct 05,, 13:57
I also think the Bush Administration has been weak diplomatically. I think that other nations are not calculating Iran in terms of security, but in terms of economics. Both Russia and China draw large amounts of petroleum from Iran. Hence, normalized relations with Iran would only beneficial if they gave the U.S. oil.

Hi Bulgaroctonus,

Iran is not an oil play. Iran is a methane play with all the implications therein.



Again, normalized relations are only valuable to the U.S. if Iran can offer something in return. The status quo is not helpful. Even if we establish peaceful relations with Iran, that nation will continue to feed oil to China and Russia. China is a serious strategic rival of the United States and should be deprived of Iranian assistance.

I feel Iran has a tremendous amount to offer the United States in areas such as energy security, regional stability, WMD/BM counterproliferation, to name a few.

Too, in terms of Islamic jurisprudence, Iran appears to be the only potential source for a Muslim Reformation which I think we can all agree is something that could be supremely helpful to US interests.


American intelligence is embarrassed after its failures in assessing Saddam Hussein. However, Israeli military and intelligence capabilities are always superb.

But Israeli strike assets do not appear to be up to the job of a theoretical WMD pre-emptive strike against Iran...which is probably a bad idea anyway.

Bulgaroctonus
30 Oct 05,, 15:01
Yes, the Israelis are really superb. BULL!
That is the longest post I have ever read. It seems I may have been in error concerning Israel's intelligence estimates.

astralis
30 Oct 05,, 19:03
Yes, the Israelis are really superb. BULL!


gosh, i remember lcol yu repeatedly knocking down the people whom claimed that the israeli armed forces were the best in the world!! better be careful, colonel, the israelis might not like that you're popping the balloon of israeli armed superiority :biggrin: :biggrin:

Bulgaroctonus
30 Oct 05,, 19:22
Hi Bulgaroctonus,
Greetings.


Iran is not an oil play. Iran is a methane play with all the implications therein.
Iran produces large quantities of natural gas and petroleum. From the Energy Information Administration, a U.S. government body. The following excerpts are taken from their file on Iran.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iran.html


Iran is OPEC's second largest oil producer and holds 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. It also has the world's second largest natural gas reserves (after Russia).

Iran's economy relies heavily on oil export revenues - around 80-90 percent of total export earnings and 40-50 percent of the government budget. Strong oil prices the past few years have helped Iran's economic situation. For 2004, Iran's real GDP increased by around 5.8 percent; for 2005 and 2006, it is expected to grow around 5.4 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively.
I won't make you read the enourmous amount of information on that site. I advise you to take a look at it. It supports my point that Iran is very important in the geopolitical struggle for petroleum.


I feel Iran has a tremendous amount to offer the United States in areas such as energy security, regional stability, WMD/BM counterproliferation, to name a few.
I suppose that all of those options are theoretically possible. Of course, Iran could start exporting petroleum to the U.S (energy security), it could disavow its aggressive stance towards Israel (regional stability), and it could stop its nuclear program (WMD/BM counterproliferation).

However, I don't think any of those things will happen. Iran's ruling mullahs base their power on a perennial hatred of the West, especially America. I think it is extremely unlikely that Iran assists the U.S. anytime soon.


Too, in terms of Islamic jurisprudence, Iran appears to be the only potential source for a Muslim Reformation which I think we can all agree is something that could be supremely helpful to US interests.
Iran's government is probably the last place to look for Islamic reform. They expound a violent, fundamentalist form of Islam. There is a possibility that Iran's youth could stage a rebellion and install a moderate regime, but this has yet to happen.


But Israeli strike assets do not appear to be up to the job of a theoretical WMD pre-emptive strike against Iran...which is probably a bad idea anyway.
Although Officer of Engineers has pointed out that Israeli intelligence has failed recently, I still think Israeli military forces can do a lot of damage to Iran.

Swift Sword
30 Oct 05,, 23:28
Greetings.

Thank you, Sir.


Iran produces large quantities of natural gas and petroleum.

Yes, but Iranian gas reserves must be taken in combination with CIS and Qatari reserves to understand the true importance.



I won't make you read the enourmous amount of information on that site. I advise you to take a look at it. It supports my point that Iran is very important in the geopolitical struggle for petroleum.

You do not have to make me read that stuff: I have already read quite a bit of it and turned it to suitable financial advantage. If you have not already done so, take a look at their "Annual Energy Outlook 2005 with Projections to 2025". It is only a 250 some odd page PDF but it is a great place to start.


I suppose that all of those options are theoretically possible. Of course, Iran could start exporting petroleum to the U.S (energy security), it could disavow its aggressive stance towards Israel (regional stability), and it could stop its nuclear program (WMD/BM counterproliferation).

Not theoretically possible, just possible; only a matter of leadership.


Iran's ruling mullahs base their power on a perennial hatred of the West, especially America.

That might be construed as shallow.


Iran's government is probably the last place to look for Islamic reform. They expound a violent, fundamentalist form of Islam. There is a possibility that Iran's youth could stage a rebellion and install a moderate regime, but this has yet to happen.

Ok, lets start with Islam 101. Fundamentalist Islam seems to consider Iran to be an apostate state as near as I can tell. Too, in terms of Islamic jurisprudence, Iran is probably the first and only place to look for true Islamic reform. Survey the state of the subject and focus on the notion of "ijtihad". The law is the master science and to communicate we must look at it as they do.


Although Officer of Engineers has pointed out that Israeli intelligence has failed recently, I still think Israeli military forces can do a lot of damage to Iran.

It would be a dumb idea seeing as how the Israelis must pre-emptively strike from within the effective radius of Iranian retaliation with the very weapons the IDF would seek to be pre-empting; not smart. Stands to lack of suitable Israeli strike assets and a poor position to strike from.

Praxus
30 Oct 05,, 23:34
Not theoretically possible, just possible; only a matter of leadership.

Precisely the reason why what you say would never work. You can not negotiate with a person who has already dismissed reason.


It would be a dumb idea seeing as how the Israelis must pre-emptively strike from within the effective radius of Iranian retaliation with the very weapons the IDF would seek to be pre-empting; not smart.

The IDF would use an air-strike, not nuclear weapons.


Stands to lack of suitable Israeli strike assets and a poor position to strike from.

They can fly around the Arabian peninsula and refeul in the air over the ocean to make it all the way to Iran. Once they hit the targets they can come back the same way or land in Iraq (if the US is in on at as well). They are capable of doing this, it is just very risky.

Officer of Engineers
30 Oct 05,, 23:43
I've got a fiver that says what the PRC considers a policy relevant time frame is a window longer by a decade at least than what Washington considers a policy relevant time frame.

I'll take that bet. Show me one Chinese policy that lasted that time frame without being bastardized left, right, and centred, unrecognizeable from the original conception.

Bluesman
31 Oct 05,, 00:14
I've got a fiver that says what the PRC considers a policy relevant time frame is a window longer by a decade at least than what Washington considers a policy relevant time frame.

Ah. I didn't get that you were referring to the PRC. I thought we were talking about 'responsible' powers, ie, the Europeans. Obviously, my comment doesn't apply to the world's mischief-makers that care not one good goddam about regional security, and even work to undermine same.


The facts do not seem to support your conclusion, Sir. Leverage implies the abililty to influence and I am not seeing much headway from the Bush White House in the influence department with regards to Tehran.

Because we took a hands-off approach while the Europeans did their fruitless kibuki dance with the Iranioan regime, who, as could be predicted, played 'em like Stradivarii. And no, there hasn't been much 'influencing' done yet, but if we ever DO decide to exert some influence, you'll most likely see the results of what 'hard power' looks like on CNN breaking news.


Who said anything about rewarding bad behavoir? Encouraging them to change their behavoir to that which suits US interests while at the same time **** blocking competitors and potential threats is the gist of it. (Besides, reawarding bad behavoir seems to be the status quo in US foreign policy right now, but that really is not germain to my position)

WHO said anything about rewarding bad behavior? Well, I guess that was ME, because your suggestion that we thaw relations and make kissy-face while they're bad-mouthing us, threatening to burn down whole countries and generally making our lives miserable in Iraq seems like WEAKNESS. Actually, that's exactly what it is. So, until they move into something like a normal mode of existance in the community of nations, they can forget about dealing with the Americans in any way but kinetically. How do you suppose anything else would be perceived by THEM, internal opponents of their regime, their neighbors, our allies and most importantly - world-wide terror organizations? I already know thw answer, I think you do, too, but I also believe that you're never going to admit that you've mis-read the situation so grossly.


I never by word or deed advocated appeasment. What I am advocating is trying to get a favorable quid pro quo in the quickest amount of time and the only way to do that is to start talking.

Since you like Latin terms, here's one: status quo ante. The situation as it currently stands is, the Iranians have no nukes, and we've not made any concessions. President Sword's policy is to have an Iran with no nukes, but to offer something to make sure it stays that way.

President Bluesman's policy is to offer nothing but Iranian heartache if they continue the pursuit of nukes, or their policy of burning Jews in their state, or continuing interference in Iraq.


The window for American influence on the Iranian situation is starting to close and will most likely be closed by the next election cycle so the Bush Administration better do something productive whilst it has the chance.

Well, I like the way you talk, but I bet you mean something different than I mean when I say the same thing. :)




Late in the Twentieth Century, R.W. Chandler proved in theory that the United States did not have the intelligence or strike assets to mount a pre-emptive strike against WMD facilities. Read his "Tomorrow's War, Today's Decisions: Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Implications of Wmd-Adversaries for Future U.S. Military Strategy". I read it before Mr. Bush was elected; more people should have.

Early in the Twenty First Century, G.W. Bush proved in fact that the United States did not have the intelligence or strike assets to mount a pre-emptive strike against WMD facilities. You might study Operation Iraqi Freedom is you want some factual information.

astralis
31 Oct 05,, 01:45
bluesman,


WHO said anything about rewarding bad behavior? Well, I guess that was ME, because your suggestion that we thaw relations and make kissy-face while they're bad-mouthing us, threatening to burn down whole countries and generally making our lives miserable in Iraq seems like WEAKNESS. Actually, that's exactly what it is. So, until they move into something like a normal mode of existance in the community of nations, they can forget about dealing with the Americans in any way but kinetically.

we've tried this tactic with both north korea and iran, and it is not bringing the results that we want. (we also did it for cuba too, and it didn't get us very far either: castro's still there, 40 years later.) the problem is, while we can extinguish their existence, they can also make life miserable for us. we need to find a policy that works, and clearly intimidation is not working in either of the two countries.

i've put this up to shek before, and several other IR theorists actually have thought about it. instead of threatening or isolating or sanctioning or even invading them, there is a growing idea that we can kill 'em through economics. keep sanctions on weapon materials, but past that, give the iranians all the trade they want. help build up their middle-class. a growing middle-class inevitably forces a government to allow it more political power and democratize; furthermore, middle-class people are VERY loath to lose their economic status- something that would happen if iran rocked the boat by exporting weapons material or doing their stupid jihad call against israel. this will thus force something like the strings that tied down gulliver. it will also have the side benefit of not embittering the iranian people towards us, as well as make us richer. thus we kill two birds with one stone.

besides, we've done this before. and with the world's most populous nation, to boot; look at chinese foreign policy before and after 1972 and you'll see what i mean by the binds of trade.

an interesting idea, at least :biggrin:

lwarmonger
31 Oct 05,, 02:20
we've tried this tactic with both north korea and iran, and it is not bringing the results that we want. (we also did it for cuba too, and it didn't get us very far either: castro's still there, 40 years later.) the problem is, while we can extinguish their existence, they can also make life miserable for us. we need to find a policy that works, and clearly intimidation is not working in either of the two countries.

What these nations (Iran and North Korea) are doing is blackmail, and the message we are sending when we cave to their demands is that other nations can cash in on developing nuclear weapons. Do you have kids, Astralis? If you do, then you should know that rewarding bad behavior is not a good method of discipline. Same principle applies to nation states.



i've put this up to shek before, and several other IR theorists actually have thought about it. instead of threatening or isolating or sanctioning or even invading them, there is a growing idea that we can kill 'em through economics. keep sanctions on weapon materials, but past that, give the iranians all the trade they want. help build up their middle-class. a growing middle-class inevitably forces a government to allow it more political power and democratize; furthermore, middle-class people are VERY loath to lose their economic status- something that would happen if iran rocked the boat by exporting weapons material or doing their stupid jihad call against israel. this will thus force something like the strings that tied down gulliver. it will also have the side benefit of not embittering the iranian people towards us, as well as make us richer. thus we kill two birds with one stone.

Structural problems exist within these nations which tend to mitigate against the course of action you are recomending. We did that with Iran under the Shah... free trade, ect. and what happened? That dictatorship (an ally of ours) got replaced by another dictatatorship (an enemy). Because despite the wealth pouring into the country, most of these nations are simply not set up to accomidate a large middle class. This is especially true of oil producing nations.



besides, we've done this before. and with the world's most populous nation, to boot; look at chinese foreign policy before and after 1972 and you'll see what i mean by the binds of trade.

LOL. This argument looks familiar... but it seems to me that China and the US are more likely to be enemies than allies in the future.

Bluesman
31 Oct 05,, 02:33
bluesman,



we've tried this tactic with both north korea and iran, and it is not bringing the results that we want. (we also did it for cuba too, and it didn't get us very far either: castro's still there, 40 years later.) the problem is, while we can extinguish their existence, they can also make life miserable for us. we need to find a policy that works, and clearly intimidation is not working in either of the two countries.

i've put this up to shek before, and several other IR theorists actually have thought about it. instead of threatening or isolating or sanctioning or even invading them, there is a growing idea that we can kill 'em through economics. keep sanctions on weapon materials, but past that, give the iranians all the trade they want. help build up their middle-class. a growing middle-class inevitably forces a government to allow it more political power and democratize; furthermore, middle-class people are VERY loath to lose their economic status- something that would happen if iran rocked the boat by exporting weapons material or doing their stupid jihad call against israel. this will thus force something like the strings that tied down gulliver. it will also have the side benefit of not embittering the iranian people towards us, as well as make us richer. thus we kill two birds with one stone.

besides, we've done this before. and with the world's most populous nation, to boot; look at chinese foreign policy before and after 1972 and you'll see what i mean by the binds of trade.

an interesting idea, at least :biggrin:

As lwarmonger just answered, I can't agree that making our adversaries structurally stronger and wealthier is a good idea. I do not agree that trade necessarily leads to liberalism or accomodationist tendencies in a rogue nation's leadership, nor a desire on the part of its people for democracy that is irresistable to the organs of state security.

Furthermore, when you state that when the Iranians continue to do whatever it is that we object to, internal pressure will moderate it, maybe even prevent it. Well, we dam' well better HOPE so, because if it doesn't, we've got to turn on a dime and go backwards to an old policy that the enemy's leadership thought we had abandoned, leading them to this dangerous miscalculation in the first place.

No. Gunboat diplomacy is the only way diplomacy with an enemy works, and for even THAT to work, you'd better have gunboats and the will to use 'em, or the enemy calls your bluff.

If your method worked, we wouldn't be discussing this issue; the Europeans would've already solved it.

Officer of Engineers
31 Oct 05,, 02:59
besides, we've done this before. and with the world's most populous nation, to boot; look at chinese foreign policy before and after 1972 and you'll see what i mean by the binds of trade.

Think you remember wrong. The good will was fostered in a Cold War Coalition, not because of trade.

Leader
31 Oct 05,, 03:04
"Gunboat diplomacy is the only way diplomacy with an enemy works, and for even THAT to work, you'd better have gunboats and the will to use 'em, or the enemy calls your bluff."

The will is the important part. If we're going to threaten Iran with force, we need to be willing to use that force decisively. We need to be willing to accept the losses on our side and on the enemies civilian population that will be necessary to completely defeat our enemies in Iran. If we're not willing to pay that price, we should just shut up about it because every time we make a threat thatís not backed up or take some half measure we embolden our enemies with the belief that he can win.

astralis
31 Oct 05,, 03:05
lwarmonger,


If you do, then you should know that rewarding bad behavior is not a good method of discipline. Same principle applies to nation states.

but why view such a way as "rewarding" bad behavior? to put it another way, there is a reason why saddam banned satellite dishes, why the nazis didn't want to allow the BBC to come in, or why north korea refuses to allow south korean TV shows to be played. in other words, the leadership are afraid of empowering their own people. by opening up trade we are giving a potent weapon to the people of the various nations.


We did that with Iran under the Shah... free trade, ect. and what happened? That dictatorship (an ally of ours) got replaced by another dictatatorship (an enemy). Because despite the wealth pouring into the country, most of these nations are simply not set up to accomidate a large middle class. This is especially true of oil producing nations.

well, actually...we put that dictator into place. as the CIA has on its own website,
"It also transformed a turbulent constitutional monarchy into an absolutist kingship and induced a succession of unintended consequences at least as far ahead as the Islamic revolution of 1979".

http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no2/article10.html

so no, that example isn't quite what i envision. but taking it into account, the shah's iran was by all accounts a better place than the ayatollah's iran.


LOL. This argument looks familiar... but it seems to me that China and the US are more likely to be enemies than allies in the future.

you might forget this now, but prior to '72 it wasn't even a question of "more likely" or not, china was flat out the enemy of the US and vice versa.

astralis
31 Oct 05,, 03:08
col yu,



Think you remember wrong. The good will was fostered in a Cold War Coalition, not because of trade.

certainly so, but it was american trade and american ideas that led to such good will among the chinese populace in the 1980s. in 1989 the students put up a statue, "the goddess of democracy". americans mistook it for an outright copy of the statue of liberty (which it was not), but it cannot be denied that the students whom made it clearly were influenced by the statue of liberty. such goodwill is not founded upon realist coalitions of convenience.

Officer of Engineers
31 Oct 05,, 03:11
ut it was american trade and american ideas that led to such good will among the chinese populace in the 1980s. in 1989 the students put up a statue, "the goddess of democracy". americans mistook it for an outright copy of the statue of liberty (which it was not), but it cannot be denied that the students whom made it clearly were influenced by the statue of liberty. such goodwill is not founded upon realist coalitions of convenience.
I would argue more so because of the leadership than of the population. Tianamen Square is without a doubt the most serious damage the Chinese had received since the openning of China ... and yet, there was no march towards confrontation by anyone ... despite CCP propaganda about American desires to overthrow Beijing.

DXP did not need a foreign military distraction (ie, Taiwan) to stay in power.

astralis
31 Oct 05,, 03:12
As lwarmonger just answered, I can't agree that making our adversaries structurally stronger and wealthier is a good idea. I do not agree that trade necessarily leads to liberalism or accomodationist tendencies in a rogue nation's leadership, nor a desire on the part of its people for democracy that is irresistable to the organs of state security.

how many wealthy nations do you know in the world today that has not made reforms towards liberalism? even china, with its enormous state security organ, has been forced to move towards liberalism politically and in civil society.

Officer of Engineers
31 Oct 05,, 03:13
even china, with its enormous state security organ, has been forced to move towards liberalism politically and in civil society.

A LIBERAL CHINA?!?!?! WAB's nightmare!!!!!

astralis
31 Oct 05,, 03:14
I would argue more so because of the leadership than of the population. Tianamen Square is without a doubt the most serious damage the Chinese had received since the openning of China ... and yet, there was no march towards confrontation by anyone ... despite CCP propaganda about American desires to overthrow Beijing.

DXP did not need a foreign military distraction (ie, Taiwan) to stay in power.

but then how does one explain why china has not relapsed into its former vehement anti-US policies after the collapse of the USSR?

astralis
31 Oct 05,, 03:15
A LIBERAL CHINA?!?!?! WAB's nightmare!!!!!

ahahahha, such a sentiment is shared by quite a few circles other than the WAB :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
31 Oct 05,, 03:21
but then how does one explain why china has not relapsed into its former vehement anti-US policies after the collapse of the USSR?

You have to measure since the death of DXP. Diplomatically, the Chinese certainly have turned anti-US, opposing US moves in the UN (Kosovo, Iraq, and Sudan). The EP-3 Incident was certainly no handshaking affair.

astralis
31 Oct 05,, 03:27
You have to measure since the death of DXP. Diplomatically, the Chinese certainly have turned anti-US, opposing US moves in the UN (Kosovo, Iraq, and Sudan). The EP-3 Incident was certainly no handshaking affair.

actually, in terms of the UN china very sparingly uses the veto power. but in terms of anti-US, using the UN seems to me a weak example. so the US doesn't get the yes vote- that is hardly more anti-US than state-organized million-man marches denouncing the US, or sending weapons + advisors to the vietnamese, or heck, sending in the PVA into korea :biggrin:

i would interpret china's UN actions not so much done out of an organized anti-US policy but over china's obsession/fear about sending a message regarding what she thinks of people "interfering in a nation's domestic issues" (read: taiwan).

Officer of Engineers
31 Oct 05,, 04:01
In alot of ways, the China of today is alot weaker than the China of yesterday. Though in actual economic, diplomatic, and military strength, she is stronger, she no longers enjoy the fanatic devotion of her population that Mao enjoyed and Deng controlled.

The few marches since Tianamen (Belgrade Embassy and the recent anti-Japanese marches) are never allowed to get out of control.

The China of yesterday was not afraid of a kamakazie attack although it was the only kind of fight they can do. They're no longer willing to do that today.

Thus, the UN is about the only place they can exert a presence.

Bluesman
31 Oct 05,, 04:32
how many wealthy nations do you know in the world today that has not made reforms towards liberalism? even china, with its enormous state security organ, has been forced to move towards liberalism politically and in civil society.

But note what I'm saying: even if that's true, and it's not a given, does that fact make the regime more accomodationist and less an enemy? I say it doesn't necessarily. If it makes the common people less of an enemy of the regime, it might have the completely contrary effect of what we want: a populace less captive and with an actually greater allegiance to a regime that has removed the crushing weight of their boot from the People's collective neck. But even if that doesn't happen, either, we still have no guarantee this wealth translates into political liberalism, nor that the assumed liberalism translates into a reasonable and less-aggressive national leadership.

But we have, indeed, made them wealthier. And therefore, potentially more dangerous.

astralis
31 Oct 05,, 07:20
But even if that doesn't happen, either, we still have no guarantee this wealth translates into political liberalism, nor that the assumed liberalism translates into a reasonable and less-aggressive national leadership.


But we have, indeed, made them wealthier. And therefore, potentially more dangerous.



uh oh bluesman,

that means you're arguing against the "democratic peace" argument! something that president bush apparently deeply believes in ;) but it is true, the democratic peace argument has quite a few holes in it. (ancient greece, WWI) i do agree, there is a danger in taking the "economy triumphs over all" argument too far.

but the fact is, very few things in int'l relations is a guarantee. we can use previous historical examples as models, and from the example of asia and even elsewhere in the middle-east we can see that this model is not wholly faulty.

this last iranian election was badly manipulated by the ayatollahs, and was made worse by the apathy of the iranian populace due to the ayatollahs severely limiting the power of the last president. the last president was perhaps the first iranian leader to be elected in a fairly free way, and he was a moderate. looking at the palestinians right now, the fact that abbas replaced arafat is also encouraging. one also has to remember, the rise of islamic fundamentalism in the middle-east relied very heavily upon the fact that the dictators of the various nations crushed secular democratic parties at first!!

thus, there is some indication that democracies will generally elect people that are more reasonable and less aggressive. we are scared of the possible hitlers that will use democracy to destroy democracy and spread war, but then one remembers how much of an aberration hitler was.

i suppose in the end it boils down to, do you want your enemies impoverished and very likely filled with hatred; or do you want your enemies wealthy and potentially likely to be filled with hatred.

i think a keypoint in my argument is that by making a nation wealthier and more connected to the political-economic system of the world, one forces that nation to play by international norms (to keep the trade). a nation that plays by international norms is thus more predictable, and easier for the US to watch over using normal channels of diplomacy and deterrance. even the USSR, mighty as it was, feared getting turned into glass by the US :biggrin:

in any case, this is something that is very unlikely to occur. but i do think, as an example of "out-of-the-box" reasoning, it is not so very bad of an idea, is it?

astralis
31 Oct 05,, 07:25
col yu,


In alot of ways, the China of today is alot weaker than the China of yesterday. Though in actual economic, diplomatic, and military strength, she is stronger, she no longers enjoy the fanatic devotion of her population that Mao enjoyed and Deng controlled.

and in many ways, i do believe that part of the reason for this "weakness" of not being fanatically devoted is due to the US opening it up to the international global system of trade. when people have the opportunity to buy that new refrigerator or go study at john hopkins or go work at a newly developed homegrown computer company, there is less of an impetus to demand the destruction of the US (oh my god, where would my kids ever go for college? if they do that, i'll NEVER get the next edition of windows!! :biggrin: :biggrin: )

Swift Sword
31 Oct 05,, 14:01
Precisely the reason why what you say would never work. You can not negotiate with a person who has already dismissed reason.

I have not seen anything to indicate that the Iranians have dismissed reason. In fact, one could probably argue that it is the Bush Adiministration which has dismissed reason. The voluntary surrendering of the initiative in the Iranian situation by the Bush Admistration to competing and possibly threatening powers does not look like the product of sound thought processes.



The IDF would use an air-strike, not nuclear weapons.

A pre-emptive airstrike against WMD capability will require large numbers of targets over a broad geographical area be hit decisively and simultaneously which naturally indicates the use of airpower. Many of these targets will be heavily defended, many of them will be decoys and many of them will be small and/or well camouflaged such as TELs.

If the object of the pre-emption is WMD and delivery systems, failure against a single target can lead to mission failure if that target ends up used in a counterforce or counterstrike role.

The victim of a pre-emptive airstrike against WMD might decide to shoot back with WMDs in which case we still end up with mission failure. It is bad military planning to consider launching such a strike from airfields or countries that are within the effective radius of the very weapons you are seeking to preempt.

In the case of Israel, the Iranians might be able to use their proxies in Lebanon in a punitive or counterattack campaign, but I do not know the current status of those assets, only their historical role and the danger which that implies.

Historically, we can see that the notion of a military pre-emptive strike against WMD/BM production capability has been discredited. In World War II, massive use of airpower did not prevent the use of ballistic and cruise missles in the Blitz of 1944. The strike on the Osirak Reactor might be argued to have put a crimp in one aspect of the Saddam Hussein's WMD ambitions but did not do much to halt the overall program. Operation Desert Storm's WMD pre-emption component was pretty much a failure and the same component in Operation Iraqi Freedom appears to have been pretty much a failure as well since weapons, production capability and key personnel remain unaccounted for. In fact, it appears that OIF probably contributed more to the interanational proliferation in WMD than it prevented.

In theorey, military pre-emption of WMD/BM capability is a difficult propostion at best. In the real world, military pre-emption of WMD/BM capability has proven to be ineffective. This is why I am skeptical of using such a tactic with the Iranians.




They can fly around the Arabian peninsula and refeul in the air over the ocean to make it all the way to Iran. Once they hit the targets they can come back the same way or land in Iraq (if the US is in on at as well). They are capable of doing this, it is just very risky.

I disagree. I do not think that the IDF has the strike assets or tanker assets to mount such a campaign given the distances and number of targets involved. Maybe as part of a joint effort they could so, but their best potential partner usually spends a tremendous amount of political and financial capital trying to keep them out of the fight in the first place.

On the whole, we should let history be our guide on this matter. Huffery, puffery and attempts to blow the WMD/BM house down not appear to have a good track record.

While we are letting history be our guide, it should be noted that the soft power approach to WMD/BM counterproliferation in South America seems to have worked well enough. Too, countries can be convinced to unilaterally disarm, as in the case of South Africa.

Bluesman
31 Oct 05,, 14:43
Google 'Osirik'. :)

Swift Sword
31 Oct 05,, 15:43
Ah. I didn't get that you were referring to the PRC. I thought we were talking about 'responsible' powers, ie, the Europeans. Obviously, my comment doesn't apply to the world's mischief-makers that care not one good goddam about regional security, and even work to undermine same.

White people are responsible and brown people are mischief makers...next thing I know you will be telling me that little Japanese boys will not make good fighter pilots because they all wear glasses and are not allowed to play with toys.


Because we took a hands-off approach while the Europeans did their fruitless kibuki dance with the Iranioan regime, who, as could be predicted, played 'em like Stradivarii. And no, there hasn't been much 'influencing' done yet, but if we ever DO decide to exert some influence, you'll most likely see the results of what 'hard power' looks like on CNN breaking news.

The Kabuki troupe seems to include Russians, Indians, Chinese and Japanese, not just Europeans and their hands on approach seems to be yielding them plenty of fruit. The Bush Administration's do nothing and let the initiative slip away approach looks like a poor second in comparison.

I have been watching the results of American hard power in Iraq for fifteen years. Am I supposed to be impressed? Are the Mullahs in Tehran supposed to be impressed? Are the North Koreans supposed to impressed?


WHO said anything about rewarding bad behavior? Well, I guess that was ME, because your suggestion that we thaw relations and make kissy-face while they're bad-mouthing us, threatening to burn down whole countries and generally making our lives miserable in Iraq seems like WEAKNESS. Actually, that's exactly what it is. So, until they move into something like a normal mode of existance in the community of nations, they can forget about dealing with the Americans in any way but kinetically. How do you suppose anything else would be perceived by THEM, internal opponents of their regime, their neighbors, our allies and most importantly - world-wide terror organizations? I already know thw answer, I think you do, too, but I also believe that you're never going to admit that you've mis-read the situation so grossly.

Again, I am not advocating instant make kissy face.

There are is a range of potential out comes on the Iranian nuclear issue and several of them are certainly acceptable the United States and I suspect of those a couple to the Iranians as well. It is going to take a little work and some of the inevitable incentives and concessions that go into this sort of thing but it is a much better approach than the current US Administration's long standing policy of failing to act at all.

What is this fixation with weakness and the apperance of being weak? It is a little late for that do not you think? The Iranians, the North Koreans, the legions of violent transnational non-state actors and everybody else knows that the proof is in the pudding.

As far as misreading the situation goes, it might be just a tad early to say for certain and there is a possiblity that I am not correct in my assesment. However, given the returns and the dividend checks I have accrued as a result of employing my assesment, I think I might be closer to right than wrong.

Swift Sword
31 Oct 05,, 16:01
About those potential outcomes mentioned above:

For purposes of discussion, I have made a fairly comprehensive list but would like some of your input as well to make sure that all of the bases are covered. I submit the following and welcome additions, comments, critique, etc.:

a. A hostile regime with nuclear weapons;

b. A regime that is much less hostile with nuclear weapons;

c. A regime of x degree of hostility that has a nuclear reactor, control of the fuel cycle but no weapons at the ready;

d. An engaged regime that has a nuclear reactor but does not have control of the fuel cycle (i.e. fuel handling services via the U.S., Russia, a European entity or some combination of the three);

e. an engaged regime that has no nuclear reactor, no weapons and no fuel cycle ambitions;

f. OIF style regime change with attendent occupation and all associated costs and pitfalls.

Bluesman
31 Oct 05,, 17:54
White people are responsible and brown people are mischief makers...next thing I know you will be telling me that little Japanese boys will not make good fighter pilots because they all wear glasses and are not allowed to play with toys.

Don't you dare project that on me. Uncalled for; I never made this a race thang. My point was and is that the Iranian's conduct is outside the norms of the community of nations, and the PRC government is being unhelpful, as is their mode. If they can stick their thumb in our eye and make life difficult for us, they always will.

Retract that right now.


The Kabuki troupe seems to include Russians, Indians, Chinese and Japanese, not just Europeans and their hands on approach seems to be yielding them plenty of fruit. The Bush Administration's do nothing and let the initiative slip away approach looks like a poor second in comparison.

Ah. Well, then, I guess we're all set. Euros - not forgetting the Russians, Indians, Chinese and Japanese, of course - have it nicely wrapped up, and it just hasn't made the headlines yet...

You're a dupe if you think there is ANY result that anybody but the Iranians can point to with pride. The Iranians were and are stalling for time, as anybody can perceive. Anybody but YOU, that is. It's the same game as the North Koreans played with Clinton, but from a far stronger position, due to the fact that they're not flat on their backs like the DPRK, and are resource-rich, unlike the hapless and poverty-ridden North Koreans.


I have been watching the results of American hard power in Iraq for fifteen years. Am I supposed to be impressed? Are the Mullahs in Tehran supposed to be impressed? Are the North Koreans supposed to impressed?

Quite a bit more impressed than watching the position of the emasculated, ennervated impotence of the European 'powers' that have no ability to demand anything, because they have no ability to back said demands. American hard power DOES impress anybody that has something to lose to its effective application, and if that doesn't happen to be you, personally, well count yourself lucky, and remain blithely unimpressed.


Again, I am not advocating instant make kissy face.

I must have misinterpreted it when you seemed to suggest the unilateral thawing and approaching and gift-offering and prostrating and kowtowing, WHILE the Iranians are engaged in their horrible behavior, most of which is aimed squarely at US interests.


There are is a range of potential out comes on the Iranian nuclear issue and several of them are certainly acceptable the United States and I suspect of those a couple to the Iranians as well. It is going to take a little work and some of the inevitable incentives and concessions that go into this sort of thing but it is a much better approach than the current US Administration's long standing policy of failing to act at all.

Incentives. Concessions. Offered by US to THEM, with no expectation that they behave in a certain way BEFORE we write 'em a check. Okay, Bismarck, what are we willing to pay to secure a promise that can be broken at some future time more conducive to Iranian nuclear progress? All the while enduring the outrages and provocations of an enemy regime, whose nuclear ambitions may begin again at a time of their choosing...

THIS is true: the Iranians mean to secure their regime from American threat by possessing their own nuclear arms. They know that once they are so armed, we can no longer back them into a corner, and they can hold our power at arm's reach while they run riot over their sphere of influence, which also happens to vital to US.

They will not be dissuaded from this, EVER. No incentive that we could reasonably offer them is worth the price we're demanding. They may extract what they think they can get away with - as the DPRK did with the gullible Clinton administration - but their objective will ALWAYS be a nuclear arsenal, and its implicit guarantee of regime survival, and local hegemony.


What is this fixation with weakness and the apperance of being weak? It is a little late for that do not you think? The Iranians, the North Koreans, the legions of violent transnational non-state actors and everybody else knows that the proof is in the pudding.

And the pudding you're serving is foreswearing use of force, because if you back the Euro effort, there is NO muscle there. My 'fixation' with weakness and the appearance of being weak is exactly the point: IF the Iranians are hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, and I insist that they ARE, then there really is no possible positive incentive that will be good enough, only negative ones.

Think of it from the Iranian regime's point-of-view: "IF we can manage to get a workable, deliverable nuke BEFORE unbearable consequences are brought to bear on us, then we'll never have to worry about unbearable consequences again, no matter what we do, because they simply won't dare. However, if we accept some transitory and valueless trinket to dismantle what we've already spent so much treasure and talent and effort on, it does not have anything like the permanent effect of what we just gave up. It will not afford us freedom of action. It will not grant us security from attack. It will not allow us to treat with the regional hegemon on an equal basis. It will not confer upon this government a leadership role in our sphere of infulence. It will be a Potempkin village, a worthless bauble with no lasting meaning. In short, we will ALWAYS be inferior to our adversary, doomed to forever playing a subordinate role."

No. We could not reasonably offer them an equivalent incentive, and that you would try is naive in the extreme. They wish to maintain the engagement for as long as it takes to achieve their goal, and may even extract some concessions from people like yourself that believe that's what we should do. But this will end in one of two ways ONLY: Iranian nukes as a FACT, or Iranian nuclear facilities as smoking holes. Decide which is better. For their part, the Iranians already have.


As far as misreading the situation goes, it might be just a tad early to say for certain and there is a possiblity that I am not correct in my assesment. However, given the returns and the dividend checks I have accrued as a result of employing my assesment, I think I might be closer to right than wrong.

I thought I detected the touching but naive faith in signed pieces of paper and a fetish for bilateral arms control.

Bluesman
31 Oct 05,, 17:59
About those potential outcomes mentioned above:

For purposes of discussion, I have made a fairly comprehensive list but would like some of your input as well to make sure that all of the bases are covered. I submit the following and welcome additions, comments, critique, etc.:

a. A hostile regime with nuclear weapons;

b. A regime that is much less hostile with nuclear weapons;

c. A regime of x degree of hostility that has a nuclear reactor, control of the fuel cycle but no weapons at the ready;

d. An engaged regime that has a nuclear reactor but does not have control of the fuel cycle (i.e. fuel handling services via the U.S., Russia, a European entity or some combination of the three);

e. an engaged regime that has no nuclear reactor, no weapons and no fuel cycle ambitions;

f. OIF style regime change with attendent occupation and all associated costs and pitfalls.

If we're talking about Japan, anything is fine (as they are too far away to reasonably contemplate 'a' or even 'b'). If we're talking about Iran, only 'e' is really acceptable. It's also acheivable, with no need for 'f'.

Swift Sword
01 Nov 05,, 00:13
Don't you dare project that on me. Uncalled for; I never made this a race thang. My point was and is that the Iranian's conduct is outside the norms of the community of nations, and the PRC government is being unhelpful, as is their mode. If they can stick their thumb in our eye and make life difficult for us, they always will.

Retract that right now.

You use alot of in-group/out-group refrences and cheap propaganda phrases which often times have their roots in the percieved superiority of one race or culture over another.


Ah. Well, then, I guess we're all set. Euros - not forgetting the Russians, Indians, Chinese and Japanese, of course - have it nicely wrapped up, and it just hasn't made the headlines yet...

Actually, it is not in anway nearly wrapped up yet the wrapping proceeds apace and it has been extensively covered in the headlines. What these people are buying and selling between each other is quite illuminating. Check it out, I do not make this stuff up.


You're a dupe if you think there is ANY result that anybody but the Iranians can point to with pride. The Iranians were and are stalling for time, as anybody can perceive. Anybody but YOU, that is. It's the same game as the North Koreans played with Clinton, but from a far stronger position, due to the fact that they're not flat on their backs like the DPRK, and are resource-rich, unlike the hapless and poverty-ridden North Koreans.

It has been said "observation and perception are two different things; the observing eye is the stronger, the perceiving eye is the weaker".


Quite a bit more impressed than watching the position of the emasculated, ennervated impotence of the European 'powers' that have no ability to demand anything, because they have no ability to back said demands. American hard power DOES impress anybody that has something to lose to its effective application, and if that doesn't happen to be you, personally, well count yourself lucky, and remain blithely unimpressed.

Saddam never surrendered and the Iranians and North Koreans are not acting particularly dettered; all of them had something to lose. I do not think they are that impressed.


I must have misinterpreted it when you seemed to suggest the unilateral thawing and approaching and gift-offering and prostrating and kowtowing, WHILE the Iranians are engaged in their horrible behavior, most of which is aimed squarely at US interests.

It would be foolish to do anything unilaterally.


Incentives. Concessions. Offered by US to THEM, with no expectation that they behave in a certain way BEFORE we write 'em a check. Okay, Bismarck, what are we willing to pay to secure a promise that can be broken at some future time more conducive to Iranian nuclear progress? All the while enduring the outrages and provocations of an enemy regime, whose nuclear ambitions may begin again at a time of their choosing...

Never sign a treaty you are not prepared to break...its the American way.


THIS is true: the Iranians mean to secure their regime from American threat by possessing their own nuclear arms. They know that once they are so armed, we can no longer back them into a corner, and they can hold our power at arm's reach while they run riot over their sphere of influence, which also happens to vital to US.

In that case, continued US inaction will only egg the Iranians on. The Bush Administration's caving in to Pakistani and Indian proliferation does not exactly send a negative signal to powers seeking fission weapons.


They will not be dissuaded from this, EVER. No incentive that we could reasonably offer them is worth the price we're demanding. They may extract what they think they can get away with - as the DPRK did with the gullible Clinton administration - but their objective will ALWAYS be a nuclear arsenal, and its implicit guarantee of regime survival, and local hegemony.

Its not my fault the United States won't stir it up with nuclear states; talk to our fearless leader. Besides, we can always bomb them later if you insist.


And the pudding you're serving is foreswearing use of force, because if you back the Euro effort, there is NO muscle there. My 'fixation' with weakness and the appearance of being weak is exactly the point: IF the Iranians are hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, and I insist that they ARE, then there really is no possible positive incentive that will be good enough, only negative ones.

I have not foresworn use of force. A few words of caution to you, Sir: I have heard it said that "if you use a hammer often enough, every problem starts to look like a nail".


Think of it from the Iranian regime's point-of-view: "IF we can manage to get a workable, deliverable nuke BEFORE unbearable consequences are brought to bear on us, then we'll never have to worry about unbearable consequences again, no matter what we do, because they simply won't dare. However, if we accept some transitory and valueless trinket to dismantle what we've already spent so much treasure and talent and effort on, it does not have anything like the permanent effect of what we just gave up. It will not afford us freedom of action. It will not grant us security from attack. It will not allow us to treat with the regional hegemon on an equal basis. It will not confer upon this government a leadership role in our sphere of infulence. It will be a Potempkin village, a worthless bauble with no lasting meaning. In short, we will ALWAYS be inferior to our adversary, doomed to forever playing a subordinate role."

That could be construed to be presupmtuous.


No. We could not reasonably offer them an equivalent incentive, and that you would try is naive in the extreme. They wish to maintain the engagement for as long as it takes to achieve their goal, and may even extract some concessions from people like yourself that believe that's what we should do. But this will end in one of two ways ONLY: Iranian nukes as a FACT, or Iranian nuclear facilities as smoking holes. Decide which is better. For their part, the Iranians already have.

I have already decided what is the better: tis better to at least attempt to negotiate with Tehran now than grovel to Moscow or Beijing later.


I thought I detected the touching but naive faith in signed pieces of paper and a fetish for bilateral arms control.

I use paper for the same reason I have used any other weapon: influence over a given situation. I am not naive enough to think that a hammer can solve a paper problem and act accordingly. You should try it sometime.

With regards to bilateral arms control, you can call it a fetish if you like but you have not articulated any more practical idea.

Praxus
01 Nov 05,, 03:02
I have not seen anything to indicate that the Iranians have dismissed reason. In fact, one could probably argue that it is the Bush Adiministration which has dismissed reason. The voluntary surrendering of the initiative in the Iranian situation by the Bush Admistration to competing and possibly threatening powers does not look like the product of sound thought processes.

Instead of addressing the Iranians, all you have done in this post is rant against the President. Not only are you avoiding the issue, it is a complete non-sequitor.

Give me one example in the history of this Earth where a fundamentalist Islamic Government has listened to reason, without having their armies massacred or their cities razed (or a threat thereof).


If the object of the pre-emption is WMD and delivery systems, failure against a single target can lead to mission failure if that target ends up used in a counterforce or counterstrike role.

They don't have any nuclear weapons, so it therefore follows that they are incapable of hitting Israel with them. What they do have is the buildings required to create nuclear devices. Even if they aren't destroyed in a single mission, there is not an immediate threat of a counter-attack beyond highly inacurate and ineffective HE Ballistic Missiles.

Officer of Engineers
01 Nov 05,, 03:04
Even if they aren't destroyed in a single mission, there is not an immediate threat of a counter-attack beyond highly inacurate and ineffective HE Ballistic Missiles.

Bio-chems.

Bulgaroctonus
01 Nov 05,, 03:19
A LIBERAL CHINA?!?!?! WAB's nightmare!!!!!
China can follow the damn Green Party for all I care. I fear only their success and dominance.

Bulgaroctonus
01 Nov 05,, 03:35
About those potential outcomes mentioned above:

For purposes of discussion, I have made a fairly comprehensive list but would like some of your input as well to make sure that all of the bases are covered. I submit the following and welcome additions, comments, critique, etc.:


a. A hostile regime with nuclear weapons;
Use subtle and long-term methods to undermine the nuclear enemy. Also consider using biochemical weapons to wipe out his populace or cause mass panic that may paralyze his nuclear system. Also, cyber terrorism could disable a weakly engineered nuclear system.

If the nuclear system of the enemy can be disabled for only a number of hours, the enemy can be eliminated. If the nuclear capabilities cannot be eliminated, caution is in order. However, as horrific as nuclear war is, it is no longer believed to be unwinnable.


b. A regime that is much less hostile with nuclear weapons;
Try to ally with this friendly country, or at least enact a non-aggression pact. If they turn hostile, refer to point a.


c. A regime of x degree of hostility that has a nuclear reactor, control of the fuel cycle but no weapons at the ready;
Prevent this power from gaining nuclear weapons. If possible, strategically destroy their weapons production facilities. Or, if one is fortunate to have plentiful military strength, defeat and occupy the country in conventional warfare. Then set up a puppet state that does not make nuclear weapons.


d. An engaged regime that has a nuclear reactor but does not have control of the fuel cycle (i.e. fuel handling services via the U.S., Russia, a European entity or some combination of the three);
Keep them at this level, do not allow the production of nuclear weapons.


e. an engaged regime that has no nuclear reactor, no weapons and no fuel cycle ambitions;
Defeat them and shamelessly extract their resources for the benefit of thy nation.


f. OIF style regime change with attendent occupation and all associated costs and pitfalls.
Ninjas.

Bulgaroctonus
01 Nov 05,, 03:45
Iran should not be tolerated. If there was ever a enemy, Iran fits the bill. Sometimes tolerance and negotiation are beneficial. However, I don't think this is one of those times.

We can't make the error of giving Iran too much credit. They are an enemy and are constantly opposed to United States interests. I would like to see that country severely maimed. Imagine the new respect for American power then. Europe, the Middle East, and a whole host of other nations are able to mock us because ever since World War II, American foreign military ventures have often been unsuccessful or frustrating. America needs to silence Iran, and the world's critics. Never underestimate the power of unbridled terror and fury.

The thing I'm worried about is the U.S. army becoming overstretched physically and financially.

I will not buy into the Thomas Friedman notion that war is irrelevant today, or somehow old-fashioned.

Leader
01 Nov 05,, 03:59
What's Iran's status on Biochemical weapons?


Chemical Weapons

Iran is currently able to employ chemical weapons, and Iran is progressing in its development of a large self-supporting CW infrastructure. Iran ratified the new Chemical Weapons Convention , under which it will be obligated to eliminate its chemical program over a period of years. Nevertheless, it continues to upgrade and expand its chemical warfare production infrastructure and munitions arsenal. The magnitude of this effort suggests that the Iranian leadership intends to maintain a robust CW capability.

The Iranian chemical weapons production program dates to early in the Iran-Iraq war. Iran used chemical agents to respond to Iraqi chemical attacks on several occasions during that war. Since the early 1990s, it has put a high priority on its chemical weapons program because of its inability to respond in kind to Iraqís chemical attacks and the discovery of substantial Iraqi efforts with advanced agents, such as the highly persistent nerve agent VX.

Iran manufactures weapons for blister, blood, and choking agents; it is also believed to be conducting research on nerve agents. Iran's stockpile of chemical weapons is believed to include nerve and blister agents. Iran is estimated to have an inventory of several thousand tons of various agents, including sulfur mustard, phosgene, and cyanide agents. Its production capacity is estimated at as much as 1000 tons a year, with major production facilities located at Damghan, 300 kms east of Tehran. Iran is working on developing a self-sufficient CW production capacity that includes more effective nerve agents. Along with shell and bomb delivery systems, Iran may also be producing CW warheads for its Scud missile systems.

With extensive foreign assistance, Tehran is obtaining technology, chemical agent precursors, production equipment, and entire production plants. Although Iran is making a concerted effort to attain an independent production capability for all aspects of its chemical weapons program, it remains dependent on foreign sources for chemical warfare-related technologies. China is an important supplier of technologies and equipment for Iranís chemical warfare program. Therefore, Chinese supply policies will be key to whether Tehran attains its long-term goal of independent production for these weapons.

In the future, as Iran becomes more self-sufficient at producing chemical agents, there is a potential that it will become a supplier to other states trying to develop CW capabilities. Iran supplied Libya with chemical agents in 1987.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/cw/

Confed999
01 Nov 05,, 04:01
What's Iran's status on Biochemical weapons?
The ACDA (US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency) called it up to 2000 tons of chemical, including possible nerve and bio-toxin weapons. But... There should have been weapons in Iraq too, even old ones...

Confed999
01 Nov 05,, 04:06
They are an enemy and are constantly opposed to United States interests... Imagine the new respect for American power then.
Was with you up to there...

Bulgaroctonus
01 Nov 05,, 05:00
Was with you up to there...
Huh? ....Cannot understand syntax.....

bull
01 Nov 05,, 05:32
help build up their middle-class. a growing middle-class inevitably forces a government to allow it more political power and democratize; furthermore, middle-class people are VERY loath to lose their economic status- .

U r very right about the middle class,but these classes dont grow in countries like iran .What i have seen is that a middle class arises mainly when the services industry takes of in that country.And for the same reason it wotn happen in Iran.

Confed999
01 Nov 05,, 06:12
Huh? ....Cannot understand syntax.....
I was on your side, until it became nationalist.

Bulgaroctonus
01 Nov 05,, 06:25
I was on your side, until it became nationalist.
I see. So you are in favor of the general practice of military force, but not necessarily on behalf of America?

Confed999
01 Nov 05,, 06:36
I see. So you are in favor of the general practice of military force, but not necessarily on behalf of America?
Military force is, and should be, an option of last resort. I do not support the use of military force in general practice. And when I do support the use of military force, it certainly isn't going to be for the cause of making my country look cool. Also, there's nothing wrong with another country opposing your interests. That happens every day. It's called business.

astralis
01 Nov 05,, 06:36
U r very right about the middle class,but these classes dont grow in countries like iran .What i have seen is that a middle class arises mainly when the services industry takes of in that country.And for the same reason it wotn happen in Iran.

and why won't it? iran actually had a large middle-class under the shah (and prior to the shah). after the '79 revolution many of them fled to america; that is why there are such large persian communities in places like orange county and LA.

by the way, the middle-class is not necessarily based off the service industry. to take one example, japan's middle-class grew heavily in the 1960s, long before japan started to shift to the service industry area in the late 70s and early 80s. this is true for south korea and taiwan as well.

Confed999
01 Nov 05,, 06:39
and why won't it? iran actually had a large middle-class under the shah (and prior to the shah)
New government, new rules, new country. The current government has the ability to repress the people's economic growth. Best way to get ahead is to know someone, and be a loyal supporter.

astralis
01 Nov 05,, 07:28
the current government has the ability to repress the people's economic growth.

it has the ability, but it largely chooses not to do so. much like china's gov't, the student protests of the late 90s has shown the regime there that repressing the economy is not a good idea. yet it's in a bind: if it doesn't repress the economy, people will get more contact with such uncomfortable ideas as freedom and economic wealth; but if it does so, it risks pissing off the people.

the current iranian solution is to selectively repress some people (the most rowdy students) while giving everyone else some pretense at political power (the presidency) as well as some economic freedoms. the iranian people have found out, though, the limits to their political power (the president isn't all that important). this at first caused quite a few protests, but rising oil prices (mostly) and (a lot less so, but still there: you may even ask iranian EXILES, the opponents of the regime, what they think about iranian nuclear power, and they will support it) resentment to the pressure from the west has turned what was rage into a sullen apathy.

which is why i'm not a big fan of a confrontational approach with the iranians. it risks pushing the iranian populace unwillingly into the arms of a leadership that will use the siren song of nationalism. then we could very well stop reform in its tracks, and ironically give the ayatollahs exactly what they want.

Bulgaroctonus
01 Nov 05,, 08:39
Military force is, and should be, an option of last resort. I do not support the use of military force in general practice. And when I do support the use of military force, it certainly isn't going to be for the cause of making my country look cool. Also, there's nothing wrong with another country opposing your interests. That happens every day. It's called business.

I am not usually a nationalist or a warmonger. However, I think that Iran poses a serious threat that has moved beyond the negotiation level. I support military force if it serves the my interest. As an American, I think that a war against Iran could be to our advantage. I don't view this as an instance where we're trying to look cool.

There is something wrong with another country opposing my interests when that country is Iran.

Bulgaroctonus
01 Nov 05,, 08:42
which is why i'm not a big fan of a confrontational approach with the iranians. it risks pushing the iranian populace unwillingly into the arms of a leadership that will use the siren song of nationalism. then we could very well stop reform in its tracks, and ironically give the ayatollahs exactly what they want.

The situation in Iran is more complicated than many people recognize, that is true. There is a large, young population that has dubious loyalty to the theocracy. However, we can't wait forever for their second revolution. If Iran is about the go nuclear, we'll have to make a choice.

Swift Sword
01 Nov 05,, 12:33
Instead of addressing the Iranians, all you have done in this post is rant against the President. Not only are you avoiding the issue, it is a complete non-sequitor.

Ok, so I took a pot shot at Mr. Bush and you choose to call lit a non-sequitor. However, even though it did nothing to add to my argument as you have pointed out, it is still a legitimate observation.

When a leader lets someone he calls an enemy openly engage freely, profitably and rationally in dealings with competing powers and other potential enemies with no apparent counter move, I would question his rationality and reason as an actor.

Mr. Bush may indeed have a plan of some sort with which to pleasantly suprise us but he better deploy it soon as the window for decisive US action whether it be diplomatic, economic or military is fast closing.


Give me one example in the history of this Earth where a fundamentalist Islamic Government has listened to reason, without having their armies massacred or their cities razed (or a threat thereof).

Iran would fit the description, assuming you consider Iran a fundamentalist Islamic government. We could also add Saudi Arabia to that list if we are to assume that it is a fundamentalist Islamic government (powerful Wahibi influence internally combined with export and support of fundamentalist (neofundamentalist Pan-Islamic perhaps?) ideology).


They don't have any nuclear weapons, so it therefore follows that they are incapable of hitting Israel with them.

What makes you so sure?

Some of the same people that claim to speak with authority on the Iranian WMD program also said Iraq was improving its WMD capability and expanding its stockpiles of WMD. They also said North Korea had no bomb but now they say perhaps 2 or 3 with and option for six.

I will make not assummptions as to how advanced the Iranian program is, the quantitiy of fissile material at their command or whatnot. It appears to be fairly advanced and the facts support the conclusion that any country that has mounted a serious effort to acquire fission weapons has managed to do so.


What they do have is the buildings required to create nuclear devices.

Or empty shells yet to be filled or decoys. It is quite possible the buildings you refer to may be redundant production capacity and we have no clue where the rest of the factories are.

You might wish to examine the historical case studies of attempted military pre-emption of WMD assets and production capability.

If I had to bet today, I might be more inclined to bet on Iranian C3D2 and against US and allied BMC4ISR.


Even if they aren't destroyed in a single mission, there is not an immediate threat of a counter-attack beyond highly inacurate and ineffective HE Ballistic Missiles.

If you care to familiarize yourself with the facts surrounding combat deployment of larger ballistic missles, you will find that most of them ever fired were of the highly inaccurate and ineffective HE type but proved to tremensously effective weapons.

Furthermore, even a highly inaccurate and ineffective HE ballistic missle occassionally manages to hit a juicy target. I defer to Captain McBride "it is not the one with your name on it that gets you, it is the one adressed "to whom it may concern".

Furthermore, Iran has other assets at its disposal with which it has successfully struck at US and Israeli interests in the past. It could employ these again, perhaps even with a CW/BW or radiological weapon if you want to investigate contingencies for getting-worse case scenario.

Swift Sword
01 Nov 05,, 13:16
Iran should not be tolerated. If there was ever a enemy, Iran fits the bill. Sometimes tolerance and negotiation are beneficial. However, I don't think this is one of those times.

We can't make the error of giving Iran too much credit. They are an enemy and are constantly opposed to United States interests. I would like to see that country severely maimed. Imagine the new respect for American power then. Europe, the Middle East, and a whole host of other nations are able to mock us because ever since World War II, American foreign military ventures have often been unsuccessful or frustrating. America needs to silence Iran, and the world's critics. Never underestimate the power of unbridled terror and fury.

Sounds like what many people used to say when talking about Libya.


The thing I'm worried about is the U.S. army becoming overstretched physically and financially.

That will mostly likely come to pass and fairly soon.

A panel of four generals from both sides of the aisle (I want to say Franks, Meyers, Clark and some other guy) were on one of those Sunday morning political programs several months back. They all seemed to agree that current commitments will leave the USAR bent and the National Guard broken within a 15 to 20 month time frame, IIRC. Anybody else catch that interview?

However, look at the bright side: by smartly investing in a certain small shipyards and vendors of helicopter parts, you too can get a juicy piece of the pork from the Bush Administration's budget.


I will not buy into the Thomas Friedman notion that war is irrelevant today, or somehow old-fashioned.

I would not buy that argument either.

However, I might entertain the notion that war as we know it is getting much more expensive and much less profitable.

There is a point of diminishing returns out there somewhere and the strategy and tactics will no doubt evolve to meet the new reality but I do not think that war is irrelevant in the sense of Mr. Friedman's position.

Confed999
01 Nov 05,, 21:33
the current iranian solution is to selectively repress some people (the most rowdy students) while giving everyone else some pretense at political power (the presidency) as well as some economic freedoms.
Pretty much what I said: "The current government has the ability to repress the people's economic growth. Best way to get ahead is to know someone, and be a loyal supporter."

Confed999
01 Nov 05,, 21:35
Sounds like what many people used to say when talking about Libya
Libya was pretty quiet after the bombings...

Praxus
01 Nov 05,, 22:46
Iran would fit the description, assuming you consider Iran a fundamentalist Islamic government. We could also add Saudi Arabia to that list if we are to assume that it is a fundamentalist Islamic government (powerful Wahibi influence internally combined with export and support of fundamentalist (neofundamentalist Pan-Islamic perhaps?) ideology).

Saudia Arabia certainly has a fundamentalist islamist tilt to it.


What makes you so sure?

There is no evidence to suggest that they do have one. They certainly havn't tested any, so even if they had a nuclear weapon they wouldn't even know if the design would work properly.


Some of the same people that claim to speak with authority on the Iranian WMD program also said Iraq was improving its WMD capability and expanding its stockpiles of WMD. They also said North Korea had no bomb but now they say perhaps 2 or 3 with and option for six.

Sooooo...


I will make not assummptions as to how advanced the Iranian program is, the quantitiy of fissile material at their command or whatnot. It appears to be fairly advanced and the facts support the conclusion that any country that has mounted a serious effort to acquire fission weapons has managed to do so.

I'm for the elimination of the Iranian Government on top of the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranian Nuclear weapons program is no the primary reason for attacking them; their support for fundamentalist Islam, is.


Or empty shells yet to be filled or decoys. It is quite possible the buildings you refer to may be redundant production capacity and we have no clue where the rest of the factories are.

Shoot cruise missiles and and drop bombs (via. Stealths) at everything you think is related to their NBC and Ballistic Missile programs.


If you care to familiarize yourself with the facts surrounding combat deployment of larger ballistic missles, you will find that most of them ever fired were of the highly inaccurate and ineffective HE type but proved to tremensously effective weapons.

Really, name one war against the west where they shifted the course of the war. I'm not sure, but I bet you can't name one anywhere where it shifted the course of the war.


Furthermore, even a highly inaccurate and ineffective HE ballistic missle occassionally manages to hit a juicy target. I defer to Captain McBride "it is not the one with your name on it that gets you, it is the one adressed "to whom it may concern".

It's war, people will die, it is the nature of war. However the ammount that die, will be significantly less then the number of people that would die from terrorism because Iran has a nuclear deterent. They could openly aid the Islamist war against the west.


Furthermore, Iran has other assets at its disposal with which it has successfully struck at US and Israeli interests in the past. It could employ these again, perhaps even with a CW/BW or radiological weapon if you want to investigate contingencies for getting-worse case scenario.

Ok...

You mean people would die in a war against Iran?

I mean really, thanks for telling me that, I couldn't have figured it out on my own.

Swift Sword
02 Nov 05,, 11:56
Libya was pretty quiet after the bombings...

Libya was indeed quitet after the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq but not because of them.

If you go back ten years, you see something interesting happening in Libya: instead of of the usual suspects coming and going from Qaddafi's tent, you start seeing guys with business suits starting to come and go.

It would appear that a lengthy course of Clinton Administration backed European diplomacy is why Libya is where it is today. The revisionists cry from the rooftops that the display of US and British military power in Iraq deterred Libya and brought them to the table but like many other revisionists, they are wrong.

Swift Sword
02 Nov 05,, 12:53
Saudia Arabia certainly has a fundamentalist islamist tilt to it.

And Washington and Riyadh use their mutual powers of reasoning to cut deals all the time.



There is no evidence to suggest that they do have one. They certainly havn't tested any, so even if they had a nuclear weapon they wouldn't even know if the design would work properly.

It is not neccessary to test a fission weapon to see if it works properly. If you have studied the Manhattan Project, you will recall that the gun assembly weapon was not tested; combat deployment against Hiroshima was the first test.

If the Iranians are pursuing an implosion assembly design, they could still run a zero yield test on the core and skip a certain amount of testing.

Furthermore, we do not know how much technical assistance on bomb design and physics the Iranians have received from places like Pakistan or North Korea or private parties and how much it has accelerated the Iranian program ahead of any theoretical timeline.


Sooooo...

So, the people that supply the intelligence to COTUS and POTUS (and the Clinton Administration for that matter) have a slight credibility problem. In lieu of adequate intelligence on the Iranian WMD/BM program, I would think it prudent to overestimate Tehran's capability rather than underestimate it.


I'm for the elimination of the Iranian Government on top of the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranian Nuclear weapons program is no the primary reason for attacking them; their support for fundamentalist Islam, is.

Than why do we not go after our allies who have a lengthy history of sponsoring fundamentalist Islamic movements? I have heard it said "if you are standing on the porch and there is a wolf in the yard, it is better to go after the wolf inside of the fence than the wolf outside of the fence".


Shoot cruise missiles and and drop bombs (via. Stealths) at everything you think is related to their NBC and Ballistic Missile programs.

This approach has already been discredited in combat operations. The US tried that in Operation Desert Storm and post war intelligence found that the target list was shy about 9 to 1.

Too, US allies as well as US competitors/threats have supplied more than one turn key, dual usechemical plant to the extensive Iranian biochemical and agrichemical industry which complicates target selection...well, complicated in lieu of strong diplomacy and foreign policy.


Really, name one war against the west where they shifted the course of the war. I'm not sure, but I bet you can't name one anywhere where it shifted the course of the war.

I would not say that such missles altered the final outcome of a given war if that is what you mean. Your premise is a bit flawed becuase a single weapons system cannot reasonably be expected to do such a thing in and of itself in any war.

However, the facts show that the use of such weapons has caused large numbers of causalties and/or caused the reallocation of resources in such a manner as to cause one side to change its dispostions at a much greater cost than the missle chucker has incurred upon himself.

Military force is used for the purpose of causing the enemy to change his dispostions or induce him to actions he was not intending. The historical record of Western wars amply proves that inaccurate, ineffective HE missles have proven to be extremely effective in getting the target combatant to change his dispostions.

Less capable missle forces than those posessed by the Iranians have caused Western forces to engage in costly manuevers which is precisely why you should not underestimate them. If all other things are equal, they might just change the course of a war.


It's war, people will die, it is the nature of war. However the amount that die, will be significantly less then the number of people that would die from terrorism because Iran has a nuclear deterent. They could openly aid the Islamist war against the west.

So what do you propose to do? Follow President Bush's lead and do nothing while Iran secures that deterrent? Employ a historically discredited and historically ineffective form of military adventurism?

Reason dictates the exploration of options.


Ok...

You mean people would die in a war against Iran?

I mean really, thanks for telling me that, I couldn't have figured it out on my own.

You might do well to study the Romans. If you read Gibbon, there are some interesting comments on the hows and whys of getting into war.

Bluesman
02 Nov 05,, 17:44
Libya was indeed quitet after the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq but not because of them.

If you go back ten years, you see something interesting happening in Libya: instead of of the usual suspects coming and going from Qaddafi's tent, you start seeing guys with business suits starting to come and go.

It would appear that a lengthy course of Clinton Administration backed European diplomacy is why Libya is where it is today. The revisionists cry from the rooftops that the display of US and British military power in Iraq deterred Libya and brought them to the table but like many other revisionists, they are wrong.

That is perhaps the most unsupportable post you've made to date, and that's going pretty far.

You have no dam' idea what the hell you're talking about.

There is no sort of a doubt whatsoever what brought him 'to the table', and he has said as much himself.

Are we to believe you know more about his motives than he himself did?

It is PRECISELY US military power that achieved Libya's disarmament. HE SAID SO HIMSELF.

Good GOD, believe whatever wild notions you like, but a lie that is so easy to refute posted up in here with the seeming voice of certitude is really insulting.

Go peddle your wares on whatever campus will have you. On your bike, pal.

Bulgaroctonus
02 Nov 05,, 21:59
I have noticed a good amount of debate about the specifics of missile warfare, I can't comment well on this note because I am not an expert.

Swift Sword, you are essentially recommending negotiations with Iran. If I am incorrect in this distillation of you argument, please correct me.

However, I want to reinforce my point the Iran is not amenable to negotiations. Libya acceded to U.S. demands finally for several reason, but one of them is certainly that Libya is a much weaker country than Iran. Most of the country is worthless desert. They have less population and resources than Iran, and therefore feel more threatened by the West. Therefore, because of the differences between Libya and Iran, I don't think the two systems are comparable in any helpful way.

Iran, unlike North Korea, has not offered any criteria upon which it would disarm. North Korea has repeatedly said that it fears U.S. attack. The U.S. therefore has something to deal with in that scenario, we know what action (a non-aggression pact) we need to take.

Iran has shown itself to be unhinged. Its leaders and considerable parts of its population are openly hostile to U.S. interests. Their fundamental interpretation of Islam also makes them hard to deal with. Statements like "Israel should be wiped off the map," indicate a dangerous mentality guiding the Iranian state. I can list ever more reasons that Iran is not negotiable.

Bluesman
02 Nov 05,, 22:11
I have noticed a good amount of debate about the specifics of missile warfare, I can't comment well on this note because I am not an expert.

Swift Sword, you are essentially recommending negotiations with Iran. If I am incorrect in this distillation of you argument, please correct me.

However, I want to reinforce my point the Iran is not amenable to negotiations. Libya acceded to U.S. demands finally for several reason, but one of them is certainly that Libya is a much weaker country than Iran. Most of the country is worthless desert. They have less population and resources than Iran, and therefore feel more threatened by the West. Therefore, because of the differences between Libya and Iran, I don't think the two systems are comparable in any helpful way.

Iran, unlike North Korea, has not offered any criteria upon which it would disarm. North Korea has repeatedly said that it fears U.S. attack. The U.S. therefore has something to deal with in that scenario, we know what action (a non-aggression pact) we need to take.

Iran has shown itself to be unhinged. Its leaders and considerable parts of its population are openly hostile to U.S. interests. Their fundamental interpretation of Islam also makes them hard to deal with. Statements like "Israel should be wiped off the map," indicate a dangerous mentality guiding the Iranian state. I can list ever more reasons that Iran is not negotiable.


Just so. As I mentioned before, there is NOTHING that we could replace their nuke weapons program with that would match what that would give them. They WILL NOT negotiate it away.

Libya did because its leader perceived that he had no choice, that we were no longer bluffing, AND because he'd been busted red-handed. Iran is trying as hard as it can to keep the lid on just a little bit longer, admitting nothing, and seeming to negotiate in good faith so that the fake negotiations can dupe certain people into thinking that they're 'bearing fruit'. :rolleyes:

Iran is determined to do whatever it has to do to ensure it is a nuclear power SOON. I think we should be equally determined that they will NOT be.

ZFBoxcar
02 Nov 05,, 22:18
We should be. But let's say we aren't and we fail to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What do you think their next course of action will be, and what should our response be?

Leader
02 Nov 05,, 22:21
We should be. But let's say we aren't and we fail to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What do you think their next course of action will be, and what should our response be?
Getting nuclear weapons just means more innocent Iranians are going to die in a war. It won't change the out come. They still won't have the means to deliver it.

Bluesman
02 Nov 05,, 22:25
We should be. But let's say we aren't and we fail to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What do you think their next course of action will be, and what should our response be?

At that point, we HAVE to treat with 'em, and on a completely different basis. We no longer have the 'gunboat' card in our hand, and as we all know (okay, as MOST of us know), diplomacy that isn't backed by some kind of compulsion is nothing but an auction, with the prize in question going to the highest bidder.

In short, we are now on a far more equal footing with an enemy nation that is energetically working to defeat our policy and kill our troops. Intolerable...inconceivable that we'd allow it to happen.

But then again, that's the State Department's default position.

So, what do i think they'd do next? Amplify and intensify their current outrages against us and Israel, while pushing around a Europe that's at a growing comparative disadvantage. THEY - not US - would be the regional hegemon, and if that won't keep you awake at night, then your name is the incredibly ironic Swift Sword.

ZFBoxcar
02 Nov 05,, 22:26
Getting nuclear weapons just means more innocent Iranians are going to die in a war. It won't change the out come. They still won't have the means to deliver it.

They won't have the means of delivering to North America, but they can hit US bases in pretty much the entire Middle East, and they can hit Israel, and they can hit Europe. There is always the chance the PAC III and Arrow II will stop them, but we can't say for sure.

Bluesman
02 Nov 05,, 22:28
Getting nuclear weapons just means more innocent Iranians are going to die in a war. It won't change the out come. They still won't have the means to deliver it.

Disagree. They have been improving on the North Korean design, and the Shahab series is very likely to give them a theater capability BEFORE they have a warhead. Once the technical problem of mating the two is solved, it is an unstoppable weapon, dependent only upon its own reliability, as we can do NOTHING to prevent impact once its fired.

Leader
02 Nov 05,, 22:34
They won't have the means of delivering to the North America, but they can hit US bases in pretty much the entire Middle East,

How? Are they going to walk it up to the door? There's a big difference between a nuclear device and something that is small enough, light enough, and durable enough to be placed on the top of a missile and launched thousands of miles or even hundreds.

Leader
02 Nov 05,, 22:37
Disagree. They have been improving on the North Korean design, and the Shahab series is very likely to give them a theater capability BEFORE they have a warhead. Once the technical problem of mating the two is solved, it is an unstoppable weapon, dependent only upon its own reliability, as we can do NOTHING to prevent impact once its fired.

It's been my impression that the technical problem of mating the two is a rather significant and time consuming problem to solve. During that time we should certainly not be sitting around discussing how long it will take them to figure it out. We should be acting to eliminate the threat.

Bulgaroctonus
02 Nov 05,, 22:40
How? Are they going to walk it up to the door?
Yes, actually. A man named Sahib rings the doorbell, leaves the bomb on the doorstep, and then runs away laughing. It like thermo-nuclear 'ding-dong ditch.'

Bluesman
02 Nov 05,, 22:43
It's been my impression that the technical problem of mating the two is a rather significant and time consuming problem to solve. During that time we should certainly not be sitting around discussing how long it will take them to figure it out. We should be acting to eliminate the threat.

Absolutely correct. And by 'acting', it should be US that is making the decisions, and not relying on the good will of an enemy.

Negotiate? To secure WHAT? Their PROMISE?

Leader
02 Nov 05,, 23:10
Absolutely correct. And by 'acting', it should be US that is making the decisions, and not relying on the good will of an enemy.

Negotiate? To secure WHAT? Their PROMISE?

Don't ask me. I think we should be there now if we have the will to complete the mission and except the consequences. It's that later part that I'm concerned with. I don't think some half assed, half supported, half funded, "painless" war is going to cut it with Iran. We need a realistic assessment of what the consequences are doing to be and that information needs to be relayed to the American people so they know what to expect. The American people arenít weak. They have made great sacrifices in the past and are willing to make such sacrifices now in pursuit of a just cause. What they donít like is a war that stretches on for years while theyíre cut out of the loop as to whatís going on. If we go to Iran it needs to be with the intent to win. That is the first and only thing that matters. The war needs to be forceful and deceive. When we declare that the mission is accomplished, the enemy needs to know that his cause is hopeless.

Leader
02 Nov 05,, 23:13
Yes, actually. A man named Sahib rings the doorbell, leaves the bomb on the doorstep, and then runs away laughing. It like thermo-nuclear 'ding-dong ditch.'
Nuclear weapons are big. If they were going to use one it would most likely be placed on a boat of some sort and sent to a US city. I don't know why they'd waste one taking out a military base after all if your going to go down in a nuclear fire ball take as many of the infidels with you as possible.

lurker
03 Nov 05,, 03:41
Uh...for the past several hundred years Russia has been doing its best to simultanously exploit and wipe out its Jewish population (since these goals contradict eachother, the Jews were not wiped out). For example, Jewish men were forced to join the Russian army but then Russia passed a law saying you could take a Jewish person's land if the man wasn't around to claim it (since they were in the army they weren't around) and that the man's women and children could be expelled from Russia. Under the Soviet Union Jews were slightly better off, but Stalin hated Jews and did not trust them. Jews were not allowed to leave the Soviet Union and were constantly being watched by the KGB and arrested for practicing their religion or for "Zionist activities". This became a big deal in the 80s when a huge campaign was launched to convince the Soviet government to let the Jews go. This finally worked in the final days of the Soviet Union, and 1 million Soviet Jews moved to Israel over the next few years. But modern Russia is no friend to the Jews, what with the half of Russia's parliament trying to get a bill passed banning the Jewish religion. Also, there are more Muslims than Jews living in Russia now, so the ethnic thing wouldn't really work in the Jews favour even if it were true.

I just cannot pass by of this totally wrong and biased opinion. You got your facts wrong.

This is true that in Tsarist Russia jews were the opressed minority. But after the revolution they have been enjoyed everything as the full citizens of the union.
Many of the soviet leaders were jews, for example Trotsky. Stalin was one of the founders of the Israel as a state, and many of the jewish officers and soldiers were sent to Israel to help to build it's army.
After several years relationship between the two countries had gone bad, and USSR started to help enemies of the Israel.
All those stories about how bad jews were living in the USSR were made for one single purpose, - to squeeze more money, get refugee status and immigrate. Purely economical reasons.
A big portion of the richest Russia people now is jews (leaded by Abramovich and Berezovsky), many of them enjoying double Russian and Israeli citizenship. :rolleyes:

ZFBoxcar
03 Nov 05,, 03:56
Many of the soviet leaders were jews, for example Trotsky.

Yes, and we know what happened to him (I know it wasn't cause he was Jewish but still, using him as an example doesn't make a lot of sense).


Stalin was one of the founders of the Israel as a state

Please show some evidence. The Soviet Union was the second country to recognize Israel, but they broke off all diplomatic relations after the Six Day War, armed Israel's enemies to the teeth and threatened to nuke Israel when the Arabs failed (can't remember if it the threat was in 67 or 73).


and many of the jewish officers and soldiers were sent to Israel to help to build it's army.

The original IDF was structured entirely by the pre-state Jewish underground and by the British trained Jewish militias who fought in WWII. If there were Soviet officers and soldiers sent by the Soviet government, please elaborate with sources. I would be interested in learning about this.


All those stories about how bad jews were living in the USSR were made for one single purpose, - to squeeze more money, get refugee status and immigrate. Purely economical reasons.

Uh, wrong. My aunt and uncle went to the Soviet Union to secretly drop off banned prayer books and other religious objects so that the Jews there could practice in secret. I also know Soviet Jews who left, both before and after the fall. Jews were not massacred by the Soviet government for most of the existance of the Soviet Union (although my grandmother's family was killed in front of her by the Communists during the revolution for being Jewish), I am not saying they were. But they were forbidden to practice and many were arrested for "Zionist activities" and the secret police kept an extra close watch. Were there worse persecutions of Jews in history? Of course. But we are not talking about those persecutions right now.


A big portion of the richest Russia people now is jews (leaded by Abramovich and Berezovsky), many of them enjoying double Russian and Israeli citizenship.

Many of them using that Israeli citizenship to get the hell out of Russia when Putin decides he doesn't like companies making campaign donations that are not to him. And also, that bill in the Duma I mentioned was certainly real. It didn't pass, but it wasn't some lone nut campaigning for it.

lurker
03 Nov 05,, 04:08
Yes, and we know what happened to him (I know it wasn't cause he was Jewish but still, using him as an example doesn't make a lot of sense).

Many of them using that Israeli citizenship to get the hell out of Russia when Putin decides he doesn't like companies making campaign donations that are not to him. And also, that bill in the Duma I mentioned was certainly real. It didn't pass, but it wasn't some lone nut campaigning for it.

The example was just to show that in Soviet Union you you were able to be "a second in the state", and in the later Russia you were able to be "the richest in the country", even if you are a jew.

You got to put a lot of years and effort to do that. And those examples prove that you can reach those hights.

I got to dig trough my books to get the facts about Stalin's involvment in Israel. I will post it.

Samudra
03 Nov 05,, 07:25
Nuclear weapons are big.

How about Suitcase weapons ?

Leader
03 Nov 05,, 08:26
How about Suitcase weapons ?

Iran is decades from such a device. Nuclear weapons are complicated things. Making them small enough to carry around is very difficult. Even making them small enough to put on a warhead is difficult.

Swift Sword
03 Nov 05,, 13:31
That is perhaps the most unsupportable post you've made to date, and that's going pretty far.

You have no dam' idea what the hell you're talking about.

There is no sort of a doubt whatsoever what brought him 'to the table', and he has said as much himself.

Are we to believe you know more about his motives than he himself did?

It is PRECISELY US military power that achieved Libya's disarmament. HE SAID SO HIMSELF.

Good GOD, believe whatever wild notions you like, but a lie that is so easy to refute posted up in here with the seeming voice of certitude is really insulting.

Go peddle your wares on whatever campus will have you. On your bike, pal.

Since you seem claim such a good grasp of the situation, could you please explain to the Forum the nature and impetus of the transformation of Libya starting from the mid 1990s?

Swift Sword
03 Nov 05,, 14:42
I have noticed a good amount of debate about the specifics of missile warfare, I can't comment well on this note because I am not an expert.

I would not call myself a missle expert just a reasonably knowledgable individual. I was presented an opporunity for fiscal gain involving munitions but I had to study the subject for a couple of years to take advantage of that opportunity. It is really an interesting subject.


Swift Sword, you are essentially recommending negotiations with Iran. If I am incorrect in this distillation of you argument, please correct me.

What I am recommending that the United States try and gain some influence over the situation of Iranian proliferation.

This Republican feels that continued Bush Administration foot dragging or trying to scare the Iranians with the threat of a thrice failed strategy is not going to get that influence.

Full blown negotians with the Iranians are certainly not indicated at this point but feeling them out with a little chit chat could pay off handsomely. By letting Iran strengthen its position by negotiating with other powers is certainly not helping the US cause and the best counter to those negotians at this point might just be to talk to Tehran; the US cannot lose anymore than it already has, why not try it?

Giving up the initative to Moscow and Beijing did not strike me as particularly wise.

Moshe Dayan said it best: "if you want peace, you have to talk to your enemies, not your friends".

Besides, if we are to believe that American military might is all that it is cracked up to be, we can always bomb them later.


However, I want to reinforce my point the Iran is not amenable to negotiations.

People used to say the same thing about Libya. Besides, your premise appears to be flawed; the facts show that Iran is already negotiating with other parties.



Libya acceded to U.S. demands finally for several reason, but one of them is certainly that Libya is a much weaker country than Iran. Most of the country is worthless desert. They have less population and resources than Iran, and therefore feel more threatened by the West. Therefore, because of the differences between Libya and Iran, I don't think the two systems are comparable in any helpful way.

Libya and Iran do not appear to be that different. Here are a few paralells:

1. historically active in pursuit of WMD;
2. desire to secure itself in the face of hostile neighbors;
3. desire for economic liberalization;
4. keen interest in monetizing petroleum assets;
5. willingness to negotiate with foreign powers;
6. historically poor relations with the US.

There are no doubt more but that is a start


Iran, unlike North Korea, has not offered any criteria upon which it would disarm. North Korea has repeatedly said that it fears U.S. attack. The U.S. therefore has something to deal with in that scenario, we know what action (a non-aggression pact) we need to take.

The Iranians are under no obligation to offer any criteria. First, they are being allowed to hold all of the cards. Secondly, nobody has offered them any incentive to change their behavoir. One thing is for sure: continued US inaction is not going to change the situation.


Iran has shown itself to be unhinged. Its leaders and considerable parts of its population are openly hostile to U.S. interests. Their fundamental interpretation of Islam also makes them hard to deal with. Statements like "Israel should be wiped off the map," indicate a dangerous mentality guiding the Iranian state. I can list ever more reasons that Iran is not negotiable.

There is some combination of rallys, demonstrations, protests, sermons, editorials, etc., etc. all across the Arab world every day stressing anti-Americansim and anti-Zionism that are openly hostile to US interests, even amongst US allies. Just as the Bush Administration has its "war on terror", "Axis of Evil", "you are with us or against us" and all sorts of other nationalisitic, flag waving and jingoistic pap, so do the Iranians and other governments propagandize their own masses.

As far as Iran's leadership is concerned, they seem demonstrate the behavoir of rational actors, more so than the North Koreans, at any rate. As to their interpretation of Islam, that is their business under the principle of self determination but I think you will find that it would not interfere with the US doing business with them just as other powers have found.

It could probably be argued that the Iranian Revolution was a progressive Islamic revolution that has been subverted by fundamentalist reactionaries but you will have to defer to someone who knows something about it for a good answer.

Swift Sword
03 Nov 05,, 15:30
They won't have the means of delivering to North America, but they can hit US bases in pretty much the entire Middle East, and they can hit Israel, and they can hit Europe. There is always the chance the PAC III and Arrow II will stop them, but we can't say for sure.

The Iranians already have a proven capability to strike US interests in the Middle East and Europe without resorting to WMD or BM assets and being rational actors, I suspect that they would recognzie this fact and refrain from using WMD.

The following have been advocated as reasons for why the Iranians have refrained from using their existing CBW capability to date:

1. Fear of overwhelming reataliation by Israel and the US;
2. The tarnish to revolutionary legitmacy that massive and indiscriminate casualties tends to bring on;
3. Geostrategic impact such as turning World opinion against them at a time when they are seeking to monetize assets for export;
4. Waning regime popularity at home;
5. Technological constraints on weaponization.

I submit that the same points probably govern their nuclear ambitions as well but only time will tell.

As for the PACIII and Arrow II, they have a fundamental flaw that might render them ineffective: they are a counter to a threat of unknown dimensions.

The way I got the story: one of the reasons the Patriot had problems in Operation Desert Storm was that the software was written using data gained from tracking Eastern European SCUD launches (Polish if memory serves correctly).

Problem was, the Al-Husayn modification of the SCUD did not have the same trajectory, had a higher re-entry speed and a peculiar yawing due to air frame modification. This all lead to the Patriot having a tendancy to shoot behind the incoming threat.

This again stands to the lack of intelligence on Iranian programs. It is going to be hard to develop robust missle defenses without knowing what a hostile launch looks like or how it flies.

The US had an opportunity to place a radar trailer from the THADD program in Japan to track a North Korean extended range missle launch in 1998 which would have yielded some really useful data with which to counter the Iranian BM threat but nobody wanted to spend the $14M on something so extraordinarily useful.

Bluesman
03 Nov 05,, 15:38
Since you seem claim such a good grasp of the situation, could you please explain to the Forum the nature and impetus of the transformation of Libya starting from the mid 1990s?

Do NOT condescend to ME, you arrogant ass. You've got no room to do it.

I'm not some schoolboy that you can call to the front of the class for the purpose of humiliating me, and if there is ANYbody that needs taking down a peg, Hoss, it's YOU.

But as far as 'the nature and impetus of the transformation of Libya starting from the mid 1990s', I don't happen to be an expert of the narrow and completely esoteric and irrelevant topic you've dragged out of your butt, so NO, I think I will NOT explain any such thing.

And THAT does NOT refute or devalue my point one iota. YOUR point remains poorly-made and provably false.

Bluesman
03 Nov 05,, 15:58
a little chit chat

They'll trade away their nukes for 'a little chit chat'. Of course.


...the US cannot lose anymore than it already has, why not try it?

Because to treat with an illegitimate regime grants them that legitimacy, and puts them on an equal footing, at least in the moral sense. When one enters negotiations, one assumes the other party will abide by their agreements, and is there in good faith. To assume that of the Iranians is folly.

FURTHERMORE, the reason we don't 'try it', is because we can't very well use force WHILE we're engaged in negotiations, and buying time is what this little game is all about for the Iranians. THAT is what we have to lose: TIME.


Besides, if we are to believe that American military might is all that it is cracked up to be, we can always bomb them later.

Actually, maybe we CANNOT bomb them later, if we wait too long, and that's what they are hoping for. And that's what I'm afraid of.


The Iranians are under no obligation to offer any criteria. First, they are being allowed to hold all of the cards. Secondly, nobody has offered them any incentive to change their behavoir. One thing is for sure: continued US inaction is not going to change the situation.

I agree absolutely with everything in that para, but we're coming at it from completely opposite viewpoints. Your approach wouldn't change ANY of the above. Mine WOULD.


As far as Iran's leadership is concerned, they seem demonstrate the behavoir of rational actors, more so than the North Koreans, at any rate.

That qualifier clause is the only thing that keeps this sentence from being straight agitprop on behalf of the Iranians.


It could probably be argued that the Iranian Revolution was a progressive Islamic revolution that has been subverted by fundamentalist reactionaries but you will have to defer to someone who knows something about it for a good answer.

That position could also be argued by an apologist for the Iranian regime, as well. No need for an expert to rponounce on THAT.

Dreadnought
03 Nov 05,, 16:28
Question for you guys?
Whats to stop Russia from selling them the means to deliver a nuclear attack?
Since they are building Iran the reactors that produce the plutonium for the nuclear warheads is there anything already in place to prevent this from happening?

Swift Sword
03 Nov 05,, 16:42
But as far as 'the nature and impetus of the transformation of Libya starting from the mid 1990s', I don't happen to be an expert of the narrow and completely esoteric and irrelevant topic you've dragged out of your butt, so NO, I think I will NOT explain any such thing.

Estoteric and irrelevant? Your entitled to that opinion if you like. However, it is a point of fact that the World was not created on September 11'th, 2001.


And THAT does NOT refute or devalue my point one iota. YOUR point remains poorly-made and provably false.

You were offered a chance to do just that and chose not to.

Swift Sword
03 Nov 05,, 17:00
They'll trade away their nukes for 'a little chit chat'. Of course

I never said they would. However, saying or doing nothing or making hollow threats is not going to make the problem go away. "The journey of a thousand li begins with the first step", or so I have heard said.


Because to treat with an illegitimate regime grants them that legitimacy, and puts them on an equal footing, at least in the moral sense. When one enters negotiations, one assumes the other party will abide by their agreements, and is there in good faith. To assume that of the Iranians is folly.

Just out of curiosity, what makes one regime any more or less legitimate than another regime? Iranian sovereignty does not look any less real than US sovereignty. The only assumption I am making is that continued insistence on doing nothing is folly.


FURTHERMORE, the reason we don't 'try it', is because we can't very well use force WHILE we're engaged in negotiations, and buying time is what this little game is all about for the Iranians. THAT is what we have to lose: TIME.

One can still say "nice doggy" while reaching for the stick.


Actually, maybe we CANNOT bomb them later, if we wait too long, and that's what they are hoping for. And that's what I'm afraid of.

We will probably be in a better position to bomb them if the time was spent getting accurate intelligence and procuring the right types of weapons. As it sits, if we cannot get a satisfactory outcome in Iraq, there is not much reason to believe that hauling off and slugging Iran is going to be any better.




agree absolutely with everything in that para, but we're coming at it from completely opposite viewpoints. Your approach wouldn't change ANY of the above. Mine WOULD.

I do not share your optimism that continued pursuit of failed strategy will bring about a new and different conclusion.




That qualifier clause is the only thing that keeps this sentence from being straight agitprop on behalf of the Iranians.

Until they actually start acting irrational and not just spouting the same propaganda nonsense that I have heard for twenty five years, I am going to run with the assumption that Tehran has rational actors.


That position could also be argued by an apologist for the Iranian regime, as well. No need for an expert to rponounce on THAT.

It could be argued by someone intent on exploiting internal political friction within Iran to help bring about a suitable outcome. Reason dictates that realistic options should be on the table.

Regime popularity is decreasing in many quarters of Iranian society which creates opportunity which could be exploited; giving the regime some reason to start a nationalist crusade to rally swayable masses around the flag only helps the radical elements.

Swift Sword
03 Nov 05,, 17:06
Question for you guys?
Whats to stop Russia from selling them the means to deliver a nuclear attack?
Since they are building Iran the reactors that produce the plutonium for the nuclear warheads is there anything already in place to prevent this from happening?

If I recall correctly, the Russians recently conluded a deal to handle fuel cycle services for the Iranians. This gives them the ability to control the Iranian program, monitor and possibly deny them the ability to produce plutonium in quantitiy. This was another window that closed upon the US. Now we have to depend on Moscow instead of ourselves or a European government that we migh be able to deal with more easily.

EDIT: Googled to offset rusty memory: http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2005/0228/p06s01-woeu.html END EDIT

The Iranians already have a fairly complex and advanced missle program as well as a lot of aircraft in inventory, many of which might be nuclear strike capable but we would have to know what part of their fleet is particularly airworthy before we can truly speculate.

They might consider delivery by small boat or dieseil electric submarine but why bother.

Dreadnought
04 Nov 05,, 19:28
If I recall correctly, the Russians recently conluded a deal to handle fuel cycle services for the Iranians. This gives them the ability to control the Iranian program, monitor and possibly deny them the ability to produce plutonium in quantitiy. This was another window that closed upon the US. Now we have to depend on Moscow instead of ourselves or a European government that we migh be able to deal with more easily.

EDIT: Googled to offset rusty memory: http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2005/0228/p06s01-woeu.html END EDIT

The Iranians already have a fairly complex and advanced missle program as well as a lot of aircraft in inventory, many of which might be nuclear strike capable but we would have to know what part of their fleet is particularly airworthy before we can truly speculate.

They might consider delivery by small boat or dieseil electric submarine but why bother.

If your ideas are correct that they may deliver by small boat or sub then I think they would have alot more troubles then they bargain for. :biggrin:

Swift Sword
05 Nov 05,, 14:23
If your ideas are correct that they may deliver by small boat or sub then I think they would have alot more troubles then they bargain for. :biggrin:

Iran's submarine force of several ex-Russian KILO boats is certainly not that scary in the grand scheme of things. However, it does give them experience in submarine operations and the fact that numerous and sundry schemes for the submarine delivery of nuclear and other kinds of ordnance have been proposed for many decades means that the possibility should not be ruled out.

I would not think that a KILO class submarine could threaten CONUS but it might be used to threaten other interests. Clandestine use of mini submarines might enter into the calculations of people wanting to attack US interests but there are some technical hurdles here as well.

In retrospect, I think I might change my mind on the use of boats as a poor man's WMD delivery system. Small boats and cargo ships have been used by various parties in the past to successfully attack US assets and interests.

As a historical footnote to this line of reasoning, the British were so worried about clandestine delivery of nuclear weapons by ship that their first test, the Hurricane shot, consisted of a plutonium implosion assembly sitting three meters below sea level in the hull of an old destroyer.

Confed999
05 Nov 05,, 19:07
Libya was indeed quitet after the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq but not because of them.
Libya got hit long before then...

transformation of Libya starting from the mid 1990s?
You mean, after it was bombed?

Swift Sword
06 Nov 05,, 04:21
Libya got hit long before then...

And long before that.


You mean, after it was bombed?

Sure.

Still, you would have to make the case that extrinsic factors overrode the multitude of other motivations that have been historically proven to govern Libyan policy.

Furthermore, you would have to explain why, if military strikes were effective at causing bell weather shifts in Libyan policy, they were abandoned in favor of other courses of action.

Confed999
06 Nov 05,, 04:29
Still, you would have to make the case that extrinsic factors overrode the multitude of other motivations that have been historically proven to govern Libyan policy.
Not to defend my statement: "Libya was pretty quiet after the bombings..." ;)

Furthermore, you would have to explain why, if military strikes were effective at causing bell weather shifts in Libyan policy, they were abandoned in favor of other courses of action.
Simple, they quieted down...

Swift Sword
06 Nov 05,, 14:24
Not to defend my statement: "Libya was pretty quiet after the bombings..." ;)

Simple, they quieted down...

You might find that the idea of Libya quieting down after the 1986 US airstrikes is a hard sell to the passengers and air crews of PanAm 103 and UTA 772.

Also a hard sell to John Bolton and George Tenet ;)

Confed999
06 Nov 05,, 16:57
You might find that the idea of Libya quieting down after the 1986 US airstrikes is a hard sell to the passengers and air crews of PanAm 103 and UTA 772.
I didn't say they were silent, or sweeties...

BenRoethig
06 Nov 05,, 18:34
Yep, Clinton's diplomacy worked in Libya just like it did for North Korea.

Swift Sword
07 Nov 05,, 11:43
Yep, Clinton's diplomacy worked in Libya just like it did for North Korea.

Slight problem with your statement: Clinton Administration backed European diplomacy was part of the process by which Libya renounced WMD and was put on track towards normalized relations, a process which has been sensibly continued by the Bush Administration.

If you would like to learn more about the facts, you can study open source material.

With regards to North Korea, Clinton Administration diplomacy bought (literally) a few years of quiet but did not seem to be able to keep them from going ahead with the production of fissile material so in this regard we do not see any substantial progress unlike the Libyan situation which has come a long way towards ultimate resolution in a similar time frame (10 years).

In all fairness, it might be pointed out that Bush Administration diplomacy and sabre rattling has thus far not disuaded the North Koreans from pursuit of nuclear weapons. North Korea is going to be a tough nut to crack whether sticks or carrots are employed.

Ultimately, the North Korean situation might only find resolution along the lines of the the old maxim of one of Napoleon's staff officers that "the passage time is the ultimate cure for all bad passions and anarchical doctrines".

SirSydneySmith
14 Jan 09,, 13:58
Remember Europe, these are the people you're trying to negotiate with.

Not all of us, Great Britain is with you America! (at least some of us)

http://www.britishmidlands.org/images/british-american-flag2.jpg

Dreadnought
14 Jan 09,, 14:03
Iran's submarine force of several ex-Russian KILO boats is certainly not that scary in the grand scheme of things. However, it does give them experience in submarine operations and the fact that numerous and sundry schemes for the submarine delivery of nuclear and other kinds of ordnance have been proposed for many decades means that the possibility should not be ruled out.

I would not think that a KILO class submarine could threaten CONUS but it might be used to threaten other interests. Clandestine use of mini submarines might enter into the calculations of people wanting to attack US interests but there are some technical hurdles here as well.

In retrospect, I think I might change my mind on the use of boats as a poor man's WMD delivery system. Small boats and cargo ships have been used by various parties in the past to successfully attack US assets and interests.

As a historical footnote to this line of reasoning, the British were so worried about clandestine delivery of nuclear weapons by ship that their first test, the Hurricane shot, consisted of a plutonium implosion assembly sitting three meters below sea level in the hull of an old destroyer.

Agreeable, However they will be a newcomer to the old school way of submarine tactics that took WWI,WWII tactics and built upon them throughout the Cold war,Gulf War and into the WOT. Needless to say they will be the "school boys" who have been very tardy to class when compared to the "school masters" of other countries submarine forces. Especially the US & UK and Russians. And just think one of those "boomers" could easily bring about the end of Achmedinijads rants at any given point with zero warning and dam near zero time to react for his regime.

Gokul
04 Feb 09,, 05:05
Iran wants Israel wiped off the map

Oh sure !!! And, I want to have 4 hands, 3 legs and and 5 heads !!!

But, that isn't going to happen, we all know that....

Even despite the satellite launch et al, Iran is far away from perfecting a nuclear weapon, it would take him atleast 2 to 3 years before having enough weapons grade stuff to be able to do anything...

And, when he and the Arab world bombs Israel, he expects us to be sitting back with popcorn and watching the fun ???

Just me couple of paise on this topic...

Mercenary
04 Feb 09,, 18:48
Oh sure !!! And, I want to have 4 hands, 3 legs and and 5 heads !!!

But, that isn't going to happen, we all know that....

Even despite the satellite launch et al, Iran is far away from perfecting a nuclear weapon, it would take him atleast <b>2 to 3 years before having enough weapons grade stuff to be able to do anything</b>...

And, when he and the Arab world bombs Israel, he expects us to be sitting back with popcorn and watching the fun ???

Just me couple of paise on this topic...

Gokul.you seem to have more intel on Iran than the CIA..:biggrin:

Kommunist
04 Feb 09,, 18:56
Gokul.you seem to have more intel on Iran than the CIA..:biggrin:

And you seem to know everything that the CIA knows if you are making this comment. :))
I for one, dont know either Iran's nuclear progress or CIA's intel on it.

I think that if Iran was close to creating a nuke within a short time from now, the USA would have given Israel the go ahead to do a 'Babylon II'.

Mercenary
04 Feb 09,, 19:10
And you seem to know everything that the CIA knows if you are making this comment. :))
I for one, dont know either Iran's nuclear progress or CIA's intel on it.

I think that if Iran was close to creating a nuke within a short time from now, the USA would have given Israel the go ahead to do a 'Babylon II'.

the problem is that any Babylon-II will involved flying over Iraq(which has said that it will not allow its airspace to be used for any strike on Iran)...

I don't see any "will" to fight a war anytime soon... esp when US forces are still in Iraq... US will not allow itself to be dragged into an open conflict with Iran which will happen when Iran attacks Us interests in Iraq as an aftermath to an Israeli strike

Johnny W
04 Feb 09,, 22:15
the problem is that any Babylon-II will involved flying over Iraq(which has said that it will not allow its airspace to be used for any strike on Iran)...

I don't see any "will" to fight a war anytime soon... esp when US forces are still in Iraq... US will not allow itself to be dragged into an open conflict with Iran which will happen when Iran attacks Us interests in Iraq as an aftermath to an Israeli strike

Doesn't have to fly through Iraq. It could fly over Saudi Arabia. I do sometimes wonder if the Saudis might tacitly allow this all the while claiming that the Israelis tricked them. I don't really think they would, but deep down, I bet the Saudis are more worried about Iran than they are Israel.

Or maybe they could even go around the Saudi peninsula, if they have enough tanker support.

Gokul
05 Feb 09,, 02:54
Nope, I don't have any intel on Iran, I'm sure the CIA has more... but just looking at the timeline I'm not convinced that they have enough weapons grade stuff to make a credible bomb because he doesn't seem to have many reactors on it currently....

And, what about the drawings that were recovered from Iran supposedly given to him by Pakistan ??? Were the warhead designs for high-yield weapons or low-yield weapons ???

And, being the arrogant mouthy person that Ahmedinijad is, don't all of you think that he'd be the first to televise and broadcast the fact that he has a nuclear weapon if he did have it ??? He doesn't care about sanctions, remember, he has OIL, thats all he needs... and with the North Korea, Iran, Libya and Pakistan Network, he can get whatever underground technology he wants...

And, what about testing ??? You just cannot be sure that a bomb and its design will work unless and until you actually test it atleast once... which he hasn't done as far as I know, how can he be sure that his bomb is "working" ???


I think that if Iran was close to creating a nuke within a short time from now, the USA would have given Israel the go ahead to do a 'Babylon II'

Exactly my feeling, just the fact that US has not given a go-ahead means that Iran is nowhere close to perfecting a working nuclear device...

Of course, I may be wrong on all this, if I am, I want you guys to correct me...

Cheers...

classical1939
07 Feb 09,, 14:55
the problem is that any Babylon-II will involved flying over Iraq(which has said that it will not allow its airspace to be used for any strike on Iran)...

I don't see any "will" to fight a war anytime soon... esp when US forces are still in Iraq... US will not allow itself to be dragged into an open conflict with Iran which will happen when Iran attacks Us interests in Iraq as an aftermath to an Israeli strike

and if such a desperate situation does arise IMHO flying over iraq wont be a problem. i mean wat can they do about it except protest??

gabriel
07 Feb 09,, 15:17
flying over iraq wont be a problem. i mean what can they do about it except protest??


world wide arms sales embargo.

Mercenary
08 Feb 09,, 19:44
A question..

Is it possible for a country to forego the formal 'testing' of a nuclear device altogether and instead focus on miniaturization into a warhead first... ? ... That is if they aready have the blueprint for a nuclear device which was already tested as-is by the country that sold it to you...should you be bothered to test it and let the whole world know that you have reached the landmark..or would you rather just stay quiet till you can successfully mount a few warheads onto your missiles?

The way I see it... a nuclear test would make a pre-emptive strike inevitable..uness you think one-step ahead and have nuke-tipped missiles before announcing to the world

Gokul
09 Feb 09,, 02:16
A question..

Is it possible for a country to forego the formal 'testing' of a nuclear device altogether and instead focus on miniaturization into a warhead first... ? ... That is if they aready have the blueprint for a nuclear device which was already tested as-is by the country that sold it to you...should you be bothered to test it and let the whole world know that you have reached the landmark..or would you rather just stay quiet till you can successfully mount a few warheads onto your missiles?

The way I see it... a nuclear test would make a pre-emptive strike inevitable..uness you think one-step ahead and have nuke-tipped missiles before announcing to the world

Hmmm... it is always possible to do that...

Iran might just construct the warheads using the design that was sold to him by Pakistan illegally without testing because it is assumed that Pakistan tested the warheads and they were working....

But, IMHO, nuclear weapons are an area where there are many variables and though the warhead can be made, there is no guarantee that it would work without atleast one test.

The test, I think, is to confirm what exists in theory.

So, the answer would be YES and NO.

Officer of Engineers
09 Feb 09,, 03:43
The Israelis never tested.

However, the only blueprint that we know the Iranians have, the CICH-4 is too big for their needs. We don't know if they got the RAS-KOH 2 designs or not.

Gokul
09 Feb 09,, 05:22
The Israelis never tested.

Hmm... I wouldn't be quite so sure... Heard of the Vela Incident ???

Though nothing attributable has been de-classified yet so far, I wouldn't be quite so sure....

RoyB
09 Feb 09,, 08:36
^

With logistical support from South Africa.

Officer of Engineers
09 Feb 09,, 13:55
South Africa has openned their books on the matter. And without South African support, the Israelis would have been hard pressed to test in that area.

Gokul
09 Feb 09,, 15:14
The South Africans during that time were considered an apartheid government and did not get any support from any part of the world. So, the Israelis could have used that desperation to transfer a bit of technology covertly to them in exchange for their tacit / active support.

Either way, the entire Vela Incident seems very murky and interesting at the same time...

Officer of Engineers
09 Feb 09,, 15:18
The South Africans opennly admitted to Israeli involvement up to and including weapons design input but there is no evidence that the South Africans were involved in the Vella Incident, at least not with the documents they have released thus far.

Gokul
10 Feb 09,, 02:44
Yep, as I mentioned in the earlier post, the South Africans might not be DIRECTLY involved...

Maybe they were intimated just hours before the test and so they couldn't do anything to stop it. Or, alternately they had tacit knowledge and they didn't want to stop it because the Israelis would have threatened them with the technology transfer bargaining chip.

Officer of Engineers
10 Feb 09,, 10:17
I cannot prove a negative but the South Africans have openned their books and the Vella Incident is not in those books.

Gokul
10 Feb 09,, 10:28
I read your posts on other threads, sir, and I have a lot of respect of your opinions given the high positions in the military that you have held...

But, in this particular case, I beg to differ because of the simple reason that if the Vela Incident is true, the implications and repercussions could be devastating and profound even today....

So, I don't think covert operations of such a nature would even be on the books....

In fact, if I put myself in South Africa's shoes, I'd make sure that no evidence ever existed of such a collaboration, if indeed there were any...

Bluesman
26 Sep 09,, 00:35
I urge the posters that are engaged on this subject to re-read this thread (particularly MY very prescient posts from FOUR YEARS ago;)). It has played out exactly as I said it would, and the bankrupt and utterly busted arguments posed against mine have been destroyed by the passage of the four intervening years, particularly of the last few days.

So, weigh in, here: who had more on the ball, me or sweef sored?