Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israel has 'eight days' to hit Iran nuclear site: US envoy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Hey, I just conceded that I don't know anything about this subject; why can't you just take your rhetorical victory?

    Oh, wait; I was being sarcastic. You do realize, I hope, that I do not, have not, and will not concede to you that the only thing we can possibly do to stop Iran's weapons program to be an invasion of their territory, and a seizing of their capital. Because if THAT is what you think, then 1) you're not equipped to even offer an opinion on this question, and 2) you're not really equipped to use the keyboard you typed it out on.

    C'mon, fellas. The whole point, ALWAYS, has been that Iran need not be destroyed, invaded, nor paid off. None of those three 'plans' is workable. But is there anything in between those to maximalist positions? All-out general war with the object of compelling unconditional surrender of the Iranians, OR a granting that they're just the exact same as us, viz, the right to acquire nucelar weapons?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Bluesman View Post

      C'mon, fellas. The whole point, ALWAYS, has been that Iran need not be destroyed, invaded, nor paid off. None of those three 'plans' is workable. But is there anything in between those to maximalist positions? All-out general war with the object of compelling unconditional surrender of the Iranians, OR a granting that they're just the exact same as us, viz, the right to acquire nucelar weapons?
      Are you suggesting sanctions?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
        Lets see, to use force to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons program, you'd have to make sure that its gone, rather than just launch a few air strikes and hope it gets the job done so they don't start it up again, which at the least would require a very sustained bombing campaign.

        During which the Iranians would use their Shia militia proxies in Iraq to launch attacks on American and allied armed forces. To deal with a Shia Insurgency, you'd have to march into Iran itself unless you think duking it out with Shia insurgents and the Pasdaran like its 1969 is acceptable.

        So what's the other options for dealing with Iran besides military action?

        And yes, the Republicans are at fault here too, certainly to the point that we liberals can hardly presume to take credit for the whole mess.
        Do you HAVE to bomb the nuke facilities? USE YOUR DAM' HEAD for something more than a hat rack.

        And if you'd even bother to read what I posted above I ALREADY TOLD YOU how we COULD have achieved a total, sweeping change in the entire region, without spilling a single drop of American blood, and dam' little Iranian blood, too. But you and the other mooks on this Board are just FIXATED on the idea that I'm FIXATED on the idea of an overland march into Tehran, a seizing of territory, and a surrender signed on the deck of a US warship.

        IT DID NOT NEED TO BE LIKE THAT, but for the utter and complete incompetence of DEMOCRATS, particularly the President. And judging by your lack of perception, I know WHY it is that your one of 'em.

        Comment


        • #64
          No; they never work. They empower the powerful, punish the powerless, and are ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE a total failure.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Bluesman View Post


            Liberals, YOU did this. This is a direct result of your cowardice and fecklessness. All the hand-wringing, bed-wetting, nuanced thinkers that took all those complicated factors into account have made it impossible to do anything but watch what could have been stopped ten years ago occur.
            Oh, supporting the Iranian opposition?

            If that's what you're saying I apologize I was reading a George Friedman piece and another one on the distributed nature of the nuclear weapons programs in other windows. It that's what you're saying, I apologize again

            It's a bit early to wait for the results, look at how long it took the Islamic Revolution to topple the Shah. And the sort of CIA help to the Opposition isn't the sort of thing we can just read about the NYT or watch on Fox News.

            Comment


            • #66
              Thinking more about the Iranian political situation, I think that the ayatollahs are probably going to be dumped before 2015.

              Let's see, to continue economic growth Tehran will have to introduce reforms (which the IRG business elite will demand and get) that will literally cut the throats of the bazaari merchants, an act that will dissipate whatever leftover support the bazaaris had for Khomeneism. If they don't make the reforms, the IRG's business cronies will get mad and the general Iranian population will get even more vocal due to economic hardship. Tehran can't win either way.

              Khameini's obsession with making his unqualified nitwit son the next Supreme Ayatollah, along with Khameinei's abysmal academic credentials means that support for him along most clergy, rank and file as well as the elite, is at best indifferent and more than likely passively hostile.

              Sooner or later something will set the Iranian people off and they'll have the regular Army, and probably elements of the IRG, to join the festivities. Any operational Iranian nuclear weapons (a very BIG if) by 2015 is unlikely to deter people, since those few weapons at best can possibly only blow up some city blocks, not destroy Iran completely. And by using nukes, the zealots lose because that will be the complete end of Khomeneism in Iran (without using nukes, they can at least cling to delusions of seizing power again one day) and the plutocrats know that the next Iranian government is going to send out hit squads to kill them and all their families and friends.

              The reason I choose 2015 is that eventually some crisis is going to come along and the incompetence of the Iranian government means that more likely than not they will mismanage it and wind up with a revolution.

              Comment


              • #67
                Nice theory but the Sepāh-e Pāsdārān are already the de-facto rulers of Iran. With the willing help of the Basij in suppressing the populace I suspect any 'peoples revolution' is going to have a much harder time than you think
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                  Nice theory but the Sepāh-e Pāsdārān are already the de-facto rulers of Iran. With the willing help of the Basij in suppressing the populace I suspect any 'peoples revolution' is going to have a much harder time than you think
                  It has zero chance at this point. The leaders are locked up, dead, or exiled. It has been smashed. We had a window of opportunity, but Obama helped the ayatollahs slam it shut.

                  We'll all pay for that.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    That is assuming that the Pasdaran and their Basiji minions can maintain that level of control over Iranian society in the long run (from my cursory research, the Pasdaran's position in Iran looks like that of the Shah in the late 1970s, ruling from the gun barrel with a very narrow support base).

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
                      That is assuming that the Pasdaran and their Basiji minions can maintain that level of control over Iranian society in the long run (from my cursory research, the Pasdaran's position in Iran looks like that of the Shah in the late 1970s, ruling from the gun barrel with a very narrow support base).
                      That's what I'm assuming. I've seen nothing since the last street protest was brutally put down that tells me there is anything happening on that front.

                      They won. The rest of the world lost. Shouldn't have happened. Democrats assured the outcome, for who knows what reason.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        I don't suppose any of the board's Iranian members could chip in on the stability of Padasran control?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
                          I don't suppose any of the board's Iranian members could chip in on the stability of Padasran control?
                          Now, whatever would be gained by THAT? We have two types of Iranian poster here: 1) an apologist for the government, usually madder than a rat in a coffee can, and 2) an apologist for all things Persian, possibly a member of the first cohort, possibly not, but an undying belief that if it's Persian, it's better, and feircely nationalistic, and absolutely chauvanistic and anti-Semitic. (Oh, and that applies to the first cohort, as well.)

                          But what you will NOT get is dispassionate analysis, an objective seeking-out of The Truth. They, like most any Muslim, will seek to make themselves the victims of some powerful but occult force, OR the conquering champion, simply by membership in the triumphalist group (Iran, Persian, Islam, whatever).

                          So, you're welcome to ask 'em, but may I respectfully recommend a big healthy dose of Don't-Buy-What-They-Sell-You?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            connected to this...the vast majority of those supposed heroic protesters want an iranian bomb too, and are anti-semitic as well. a democratic government certainly doesn't preclude nukes or anti-israeli feeling.

                            plainly put, how much more comfortable would we be with an nuclear-armed iran had the protesters overrun the IRGC? also, considering how the protesters didn't want to be associated with the US, it's hard for me to believe that US support would have toppled the IRGC-military clique. in fact, the biggest piece of propaganda the regime used was to call the protesters US or UK lackeys.
                            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                              Now, whatever would be gained by THAT? We have two types of Iranian poster here: 1) an apologist for the government, usually madder than a rat in a coffee can, and 2) an apologist for all things Persian, possibly a member of the first cohort, possibly not, but an undying belief that if it's Persian, it's better, and feircely nationalistic, and absolutely chauvanistic and anti-Semitic. (Oh, and that applies to the first cohort, as well.)

                              But what you will NOT get is dispassionate analysis, an objective seeking-out of The Truth. They, like most any Muslim, will seek to make themselves the victims of some powerful but occult force, OR the conquering champion, simply by membership in the triumphalist group (Iran, Persian, Islam, whatever).

                              So, you're welcome to ask 'em, but may I respectfully recommend a big healthy dose of Don't-Buy-What-They-Sell-You?
                              Actually you'd be surprised, we've got some pretty damn rational ones about the place, though most IIRC are now American resident.
                              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                              Leibniz

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                connected to this...the vast majority of those supposed heroic protesters want an iranian bomb too, and are anti-semitic as well. a democratic government certainly doesn't preclude nukes or anti-israeli feeling.

                                plainly put, how much more comfortable would we be with an nuclear-armed iran had the protesters overrun the IRGC? also, considering how the protesters didn't want to be associated with the US, it's hard for me to believe that US support would have toppled the IRGC-military clique. in fact, the biggest piece of propaganda the regime used was to call the protesters US or UK lackeys.
                                I disagree with a lot of that post, but only one comment, for now:

                                I don't care that Iran isn't our bestest buddy. I want regime change to ANYthing but the suicide cult that they've built NOW. Having China in the Nuke Club is hardly desirable, but it is orders of magnitude more dangerous to have THIS crew of nutters so armed. My position is that whatever outcome that saw the current regime replaced is an improvement. It need not be GREAT to be BETTER.

                                Frankly, we could have bought ourselves any amount of goodwill with the people taking the risks and doing the dieing if we'd weighed in on their side. But standing around clucking our tongues and REAFFIRMING the right of the guy that stole the dam' election to govern his internal matters however he saw fit...just what do you think the boys think of us NOW?

                                No, I don't care how you spin it, that was a complete boneheaded fumble of a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get out of the corner we put ourselves into on the cheap. It was forevermore blown, comprehensively. And now...if we want to prevent the unthinkable from happening...and we BTTER...we'll have to take higher risks and pay a higher cost.

                                It was a disaster, and twenty years from now, it will be seen as the tragedy that it truly is.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X