Shek

Fairthought,
Where are you getting your history from? Please provide sources because your account runs counter to most everything I've read. A few examples:

1. The US never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
2. Outside of Stinger missiles, which are now worthless due to battery life issues, US funding purchased Soviet bloc weapons for the Afghani mujahadeen.
3. The Taliban was supported by the ISI, but I have never seen a single link between the US and the Taliban, except for conspiracy websites that are laughable.
4. The opium trade has been recognized as a threat by the US and NATO, and there are effots to eliminate this. However, there are second and third order effects of every action, and pulling a major cash crop without a plan to replace it in a country where the central government hasn't consolidated its power, the economy isn't firmly solid, and caches of weapons from three decades of fighting are readily available is not a plan for success.

Bluesman

Purty bad analysis of why we stopped supporting Hussein, Kissinger. Do ya think it may have been for any other reason?

Oh yes, we do.

Oh yes, there can.

THIS one country does, and you'd do well to thank us for it, too, you ungrateful clown.

And once again...you're welcome.

Not to anything like the extent that it's needed, though. Now, STFU.

And perhaps you'd like to see the world descend into darkness and slavery forever. American military might is all that stands between you and a boot stamping in Mankind's face, forever. Don't forget that.

Since you can just forget your fantasy of the US unilaterally disarming, there needs to be a way to test the safety and expected performance of our nuclear arsenal (which is nowhere NEAR your lurid phantasm of 20,000). For it to BE as advanced as it is, it must be continuously tested, else all it would be good for would be city-busting, and that is something you would wish to avoid, humanitarian that you are. If we're to use our weapons effectively, God forbid, then it must be for the sole purpose of digging enemy weapons and C2 facilities out of their protection, and that requires that we know exactly what the weapons are capable of. Computer modeling will only yeild theortical performance; actual testing is required.

'Yeah right', indeed. When international agreements need to be enforced, who do you suppose is likely to do it? The United States of America is THE ONLY BODY ON THE PLANET that can and will enforce anything. Even if the UN decided to agree on anything - EVER - they would need the US's approval and help to take any but symbolic gestures.

If that is what is designed for, we were correct in not ratifying it. First, we need to test our arsenal for the reasons given above. Second, arms control is a stupid concept. IF the country you are competing with is likely to cheat you, a peice of paper won't prevent it. If they are NOT likely to cheat you, they're likely going to be an ally, or at worst a competitor.

The old wisdom applies: if you seek peace, prepare for war. Keep your powder dry, and have plenty of powder. It's dangerous world, and limiting ourselves to certain weapons or limiting their number when faced with real threats is self-defeating.

We should send 51 boxes of chocolates to the US Senators that defeated it, then. And while we're at it, we should send 48 blindfolds to the Senators that voted for it.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Fairthought

1. The US never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

I never said they did. I said they provided covert aid, just like they provided covert aid to the mujahadeen against the Soviets.

2. Outside of Stinger missiles, which are now worthless due to battery life issues, US funding purchased Soviet bloc weapons for the Afghani mujahadeen..

That's part true. But CIA operatives basically arranged the sale. The US only funded a portion, most of the money came from muslim donor nations like Saudi arabia. The weapons included Chinese weapons, Italian anti-personnel mines, British air-to surface missiles, and later, American Stinger missiles.

3. The Taliban was supported by the ISI, but I have never seen a single link between the US and the Taliban, except for conspiracy websites that are laughable.

If the truth strikes you as laughable, then no one can convince you otherwise.

The Taliban thrived because of covert support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. These countries were in turn lobbied for support by america against the threat of an iranian backed Hekmatryar or a Russian backed Masud taking over Kabul -just as the US had turned to them during the soviet threat. The Taliban first asserted itself in 1994, but in 1996 they granted Bin Laden asylum. This led to numerous requests from the US (33 requests) to turn him over. All requests failed. Relations would have gotten frosty fast if it were not for the lobbying of UNOCAL who tried in vain to argue for US recognition of the Taliban government in order to secure a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan, through Afghainistan to a major port in Pakistan. After major womens rights protests in 1998 UNOCAL finally abandoned the project. After the African embassy bombings, the US struck bin Laden's camps with cruise missiles. The US learned they could not trust the Taliban, but chose not to pressure Pakistan to withdraw support. After all, without the Taliban the Northern Alliance (backed by Russia) may take over Kabul. Or even worse, the Iranian backed Hekmatryar may have taken over.

If you don't mind a few laughs consider these sources:

In a Time Magazine article, entitled "Good News/Bad News in the Great Game: Afghanistan's new Islamic regime may prove both stabilizing and disruptive,"(October 14, 1996) Christopher Ogden reported:

BEGIN EXCERPT "Afghanistan's neighbors--and the West--are concerned less with the country's social and religious mores than with the strategic question, Will the Taliban be a stabilizing or a disruptive force in an area of expanding Islamic influence that now spreads from Turkey through Central Asia? "The answer is yes; most likely they will be both," says Barnett Rubin, the Afghanistan expert at the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations."

And why were they so concerned with "stability"? Ogden goes on to reveal the rub:

"Now, with a single entity controlling most of the country, the hope in Washington is that the devastation of war and the misery of millions of refugees, plus the arms and drug trade that helped foster the fighting and the Balkanization of Afghanistan, will ease dramatically, if not end. Pakistan hopes that stability will allow the opening of safe trade routes into Central Asia, offering an alternative to dealing with Iran. Western oil companies, like California's Unocal, are thrilled with the prospect that work may actually begin on a $10 billion-to-$15 billion project to develop Turkmenistan's natural-gas resources and build pipelines across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

That's the good news, and there is more. 'The Taliban do not have any links to Islam's international radicals. In fact, they hate them,' says Rubin. The Taliban are Sunni Muslims like those in Saudi Arabia, not Persian Shi'ites like the followers of Ayatullah Khomeini, and 'are not into exporting revolution. Nor are they hostile to the U.S.,' says Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-born senior analyst at Rand Corp., a Los Angeles-based research organization. If the regime is not led by international radicals, the U.S. cares little who governs Afghanistan as long as it is governed." END EXCERPT

Adittionally:

http://www.wapha.org/dana.pdf (this is a revealing government document)

http://www.rense.com/general14/rise.htm

http://icssa.org/tangled_in_American_web.htm

http://www.afghanmagazine.com/afghan...hanhistory.pdf

http://citypaper.net/articles/092001/news.afghan.shtml


4. The opium trade has been recognized as a threat by the US and NATO, and there are effots to eliminate this.
Not very accurate. There are efforts to formulate a plan to eliminate this. A far cry from the actual existence of efforts to eliminate this. Everyone knows the simple answer is to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into the afghan economy, but no one wants to foot the bill. The answer 'on the cheap' is to turn a blind eye to the drug trade.

Leader

They practically run Hezbollah

That's BS. Name them.

Fighting the Soviets in the mountains of Afghanistan is not "terrorism."

That's not supporting terrorism either.

You're right we should have taken him out 20 years ago.

That is false.

Just because individual Pakistanis and Saudis commit terrorism doesn't mean that the Government of Pak and SA support terrorism all the while less individuals from Iran commit terrorism but their government openly supports it.

Yes we do.

Why should we allow our enemies the means to destroy us?

Probably false but definitely irrelevant.

I think that was me, but I was joking.

Ok prove it.

Since we're the bad guys and the rest of the world is good, maybe you should give up your nukes and show the evil Americans how it's done.

How many nukes we have is not particularly important.

You would agree that not signing a treaty that you have no intention of following is better then signing it and then disregarding it.

__________________

Leader

How much you want to bet he's going to stand by it?

Bluesman

It'll be entertaining to watch the fool be foolish, I suppose.

Fairthought

I'd like to get back on thread here.

Recently Israeli defence minister called the prediction that Iran will have nukes in ten years completely wrong. His prediction is that Iran will have nukes in three years. Coincidentally that is also how long Bush has remaining in office. He felt that the ten year forecast was a deliberate misrepresentation on the part of doves in US intelligence community to reduce the urgency of a pre-emptive strike against Iran. He warns this is a dangerous mistake. (source: spacewar.com)

Alot of people in American intelligence and the pentagon are nervous about the growing prospect of attacking Iran. They are not at all sympathetic to Iran, what has them worried are current plans for a mass surgical strike include the use of several Nuclear bunkerbusters bombs. STRATCOM was specifically ordered to draw up these plans by Vice president Dick Cheney. The whole idea of using nukes on a country should not be taken without considering postwar consequences, something for which Dick Cheney has a history of poor planning.

Can you guys rationally discuss what those consequences will be? Give your best educated guesses.

Leader

"Can you guys rationally discuss what those consequences will be?"

Of using a nuclear bunkerbuster? Well I doubt it's going to happen. We don't need Bunkerbuster nukes to destroy what we need to destroy in Iran. We could always use SF if we had to. The consequence if we did use it would be a lot of whining, complaining and hand wringing.

Fairthought

SF won't work because we've already identified over 900 targets that need to struck simultaneously. Many of these targets are deep undergound, too deep for current conventional bunker busters.

Please consider the consequences (including retaliations) to the use of nuclear bunker buster bombs in a pre-emptive strike on Iran. So far we have 'hand ringing'.

Think this through. I am new here, and I'm looking for smart people.

Garry

Hi. CIA is deeply involved in terrorist training and support in Latin America, Africa, Asia and mostly in Afghanistan. I do this statement and don't want to spend much time searching for evidence. If you don't take this statement I will take my time and build a list of cases......

Many Taliban commanders were financed by CIA long before they became Taliban. Later they were fostered by Pakistan with silent agreement with US. I don't want to list a long history of CIA activity in Latin America... they can easily score around ten bloody coups, supporting contras, or other "rebels".... Noriega was one of them at a time. Both CIA and KGB were supporting a lot of terrorists in 1970-80es but called them different way..... No prove has been provided against Iran to call for international sanctions approved by UN like it was done with Libia.... And now not starting a trial against a guy who blown up a whole aircraft from Cuba is not giving much creatidibility to US for judging who are terrorists and who are just their SOB....

Fighting Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan montains is the same as killing young marines in Iraq. I have some relatives killed in 1988.... This is called resistance, partisans or terrorists.... depends from what side of the front you are looking at. And people who fought in both wars have quite simmilar goals - 1) leberating their home from occupation 2) building islamic utopia. While Soviets in Afghanistan and US in Iraq are having quite similar tasts - 1) building their own utopia (democracy in Iraq and coutry for socialistic state for workers and farmers in Afghanistan) in their lands, 2) creating themselves an aly and preventing enemy having harbor there.

US and European policy against Iran is quite dilluted since they swallowed Pakistan and India having a bomb despite all treaties..... no punishment. Pakistan is much more unstable than Iran and bomb there is great headache.

US policy actually pushes everybody who is not approved by US to create a bomb. Iraqi war and current US behavior gives a bad lesson - Saddam was attacked because he had no bomb.... N Korea will not be touched because they have one..... US threatens Iran for two decades.... They want to protect themselves. They will create a bomb.

Russia does not want Iran to have a bomb. It is its neighbour (no need for explaining) and without bomb it needs Russian support..... while having a bomb Iran may be less dependent on Russia and much more agressive in dividing Caspian Sea oil resources.... However Russians have also a short term benefits from opposing US. And those are strong.....

In long-term China does not want Iran to have a bomb, nor anybody to join nuclear club in its hemisphere.... However China is trying to get Iranian oil. US unofficially did not let Chinese buy US oil company despite a higher bid. Bad signal for China. They realized that market for oil resources is not that free and liberal as we all may want to think. So they go for resources where they can have them......

However Iran will get bomb. And it will get it because Israel, Pakistan and India have it..... Iran has many threats and they understand that only a bomb would make them safe from possible attacks of US and/or Israel.... They also understand that US can not support two land wars at a time now..... and they are not very afraid of air strikes as they could revenge to US in Iraq giving full scale support to resistance forces...... Seems like they are ready to play it to the end....

Russia is currently thinking to sell S-300PMU2 to Iran. Deal is ready. Iranians are ready to buy it without long negotiations, pay any price, and take any additional products which Russians would require them to buy (like cars, tractors, whatever other crap). However somebody on top of Russian olimp is not sure. The deal is on hold for few years. I would guess that something is demanded from Iran and it is related to oil in Caspean Sea.... I did not understand what Russia wants - Iran giving up its position in Caspian sea and lettign the seabed to be divided, or Iran to be destructive to the process of seabed division thus giving no chance to Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenstan to start commercial exploration anytime soon.....

Those are my thoughts on situation.
_________________________

What is really surprising is that I have read few forums on this topic and come to understandign that US is getting quite dangerous. To many US people are eager to pool the triger and see nice TV show of war raging somewhere far from their home..... They are quite arrogant about "ROW (rest of the world)" and have little knowledge of geography or some preduces instead of knowledge of history.....
like almost nobody could say why US were kicked out of Iran where they had so much influence before revolution. What was done wrong that made Iranians hate US?

But I am not writting this just to claim something I have observed. I want to draw conclusions further.... US society has overcome a Vietnam syndrome and is quite keen to see War Entertainment..... US movies which are created for ordinary people are full of topics where US guys are fighting somewhere abroad and win stupid enemies.... the auditorium is clearly keep for heroic stories. Peoples like Sinpe, Leader or many here would find it probably quite cool to see how all the hardware they like discussing would perform in a new campaign.....

Deaths in Iraq are quite small to terrify people. So they will demand another show.... and probably US will look for a good target..... Iran is good one and most of americans will support this direction as they have been brainwashed many years about how bad is Iran. Despite the threats such a campaign may involve for US in the region....

Adding now Iranians firm goal to get a nuclear weapons and US desire to have a new full scale show, I would expect a millitary conflict to start within 3-4 years.

What is interesting is will Russia and China support Iran and oppose US or prefer to step asside and get WTO and other candies...... Will Iran agree to give up its position in Caspian Sea but win security..... I have no idea


ps. the last point
Bush administration made all treaties cost not even a penny since it came to power..... unilatteral strickes...... unilateral termination of treaty against missile defense. Under this administration US left no doubt that it will terminate any treaty once they feel it not comfortable any more

Bluesman

Too many stupid assertions in that post to fisk it properly, especially since Garry isn't significant enough to take that much time over.

Perhaps somebody that likes to fisk the hell out of dumbass posts wants to take it on (lookin' right at ya, shek).

Leader

I'm not inclined to believe that without substantial evidence.

Bluesman

Same here. In any program like this, there are essential vital areas, centers of gravity that are vulnerable. One need not slam all 900 related facilities or assets to cripple the program.

However, that being said, SOF is very risky in denied territory. How much wore of would we be, should disaster befall one or more teams?

Leader

Another point here is that you're not going to be getting any work done in a bunker that's under going a sustained aerial bombardment. Developing nuclear weapons also takes a great deal of coordination. If we start taking out a lot of their command and control as well as government institutions, they're not going to be developing anything for a long time no matter how deep their bunkers are.

Fairthought

IT is hard for the US to argue Iran needs to be punished for violating the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty when US allies -Israel, Pakistan, and India- have all violated the same treaty and got little or no punishment at all. It is even harder for the US to argue Iran needs to be punished for violating a treaty when the US unilaterally dumped the ABM treaty, calling it a relic of the cold war. The Russians are still quite mad about that. And the Russians may get revenge in the matter of Iran. Is not the NNPT a relic of the cold war? A treaty that calls on all non-nuclear nations to grant the cold war nuclear powers exclusive right to nukes? It is a treaty that no longer reflects the reality of the word today. Not only is the cold war over, but there are already numerous violations.

The US will certainly initiate the need for war against Iran, arguing its case before the Europeans. The Europeans, particularly France and Germany, will not be so obstinate the second time around. France in particular suffered a lot from US diplomatic attacks, and they have learned to change their tune. They will be eager to be hard on Iran to show how valuable French support can be. The Russians are eager for entry into the WTO and European investment. In exchange for economic breakthroughs the Russians could very well turn their backs on Iran. They have already delayed the start of the Bushehr reactor several times and now are suspending the sales of military arms -tying them to European anti-nuclear initiatives.

I think if a UN veto is to come from anywhere it would be China. China has a $100 billion petroleum investment deal in Iran, worth potentially $200 billion in total trade. These aren't the types of investments that China is willing to lose. Iran also has a gas pipeline in the works with India, in addition to a $20 billion Indian investment in Iranian gas. But a UN veto will be irrelevant to the US anyway.

The US has actually identified over 900 potential nuclear targets in Iran. Iran already has enough nuclear material to make several 'dirty bombs'. An air strike needs to destroy all possibility of Iran retaining nuclear material inorder to prevent the threat of Iran passing them to terrorists. If Iran already has some nuclear warheads the danger of a surgical strike is much worse. If you only hit 99% of the facilities -using nuclear bunkerbusting bombs- and that last one percent held a nuclear bomb, the retaliation will ceratinly be nuclear and it will almost certainly be directed at either the US or Israel (whoever conducted the air strike).

Once nukes get dropped on the middle east five effects will occur:

1. The islamic world will see this a proof that America is on a crusade to kill muslims and reduce any rising muslim country into rubble. This will yield many thousands of terrorist cells to form spntaneously and without any recruitment effort by al-qaida. The number of terrorist incidents will skyrocket. The US will be losing the war on terror.

2. The panic of oil investors, recognizing 35% of the worlds oil is now in and around a war zone will cause the price of oil to skyrocket. $100 per barrel will be a conservative estimate. The price could reach as high as $150 per barrel. Any sudden rise in energy will be a shock to oil importing economic systems. The most vulnerable ecnomoy wil be the US. Attacks on oil pipelines and other facilities will in increase in Iraq and spread to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Algeria, Libya, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc. -wherever there is a muslim country with oil. Bombs and energy don't mix. Even the hint of war in the persian gulf would cause a speculation panic. Global economic recession.

3. The use of nukes for tactical purposes will encourage other nuclear powers to lower their inhibitions. China will be more likely to incorporate nukes into any invasion plan for Taiwan. Russia, France, Israel, Pakistan, India will be more inclined to use nukes in their various conflicts around the world. The use of tactical nukes along the Indo-pakistan border will inevitably lead to the application of stronger nukes. Nuclear war be far more likely, and every single country in the world will develop a nuclear program for their own safety.

4. Iran has already infiltrated Iraq with numerous scouts and snipers and organized shiite militias and established an underground network complete with weapon caches. The only reason the US hasn't suffered 500 dead per month in Iraq is because Iran has kept this powderkeg in check. It is being used as a deterrent against US aggression on Iran. The sunni triangle insurgency will be nothing in comparison to what Iran will unleash.

5. World opinion of the US will plummet. The US will no longer be seen as a stabilizing force in the world, but a loose canon out of control and throwing havoc across the world. The great powers -Europeans, Russia, India, China, Brazil, OPEC- will cement cooperation to check the world's lone superpower, at least long enough to groom China and India to eventually replace the US as more rational superpowers.



So if the reason for going to war with Iran was punish them for violating the NNPT, the action will be a miserable failure due to consequence number three above (everyone will develop nukes).

If the reason for going to war with Iran is Iran's involvement with insurgents in Iraq against US troops, then the action will be a failure due to consequence number four above.

If the reason for going to war with Iran is because Iran is a purported sponsor of terrorism, then the action will be a tremedous failure due to consequence number one above.

If the reason for going to war with Iran is to insure US and Israeli exclusive nuclear dominance in the middle east, one has to argue what additional benefit will this have? The US and Israel already have clear military superiority and that is not likely to change even with Iranian nukes. The Israeli peace process has already begun, even before any other middle-eastern nation has announced their nuclear abilities. It is simply in Israel's own interests to pursue the peace process.

Destroying Iran's nulcear facilities will not give you security because you already have security. Iran doesn't want a nuclear war, she would be decimated. America and Israel already have strong deterrents in place. Iran doesn't want to give nukes to terrorist because that puts themselves at risk. No country in the world would fail to safe guard their own nukes from falling into the hands of others.

The benefits of a war on Iran are all imaginary. But to those possessed by paranoia and propaganda the imaginary is all too real.