Nuclear Iran

[M14 Shooter]

I'm curious -- in the last hundred years or so, has there ever been a case where sanctions against a country actually did resulted in regime change from this disatisfied populace you mentioned?

South Africa.
But then, the Afrikaaners weren't out to nuke anyone.

 

[alphieb]

My understanding is that Iran has obeyed all of the rules imposed by the
international regulatory authorities on everyone else with regard to inspections
and other controls.

If this is so, Iran would be rightly angry if the rules are changed just for them.

This seems to be yet another example of the "one law for us and another for
them" mentality that has lead to so many problems in the world.

If governments applied identical rules to everybody, we would be in a far less
frightening state than we are now.

Russia offered them Uranium in a different form so it could not be utilized as a weapon. Based on their story they are using it for energy. Why did they decline the offer from Russia?????? Doesn't that seem a bit odd???? Why are they so concerned with producing energy of that nature when they have all that oil??????? Maybe, I missing something?

 

[cnredd]

South Africa.
But then, the Afrikaaners weren't out to nuke anyone.

I stand corrected...That's not a bad one...:2wave:

Of course, the differences are multiple and obvious...

 

[alphieb]

Two different Iranian leaders have now said they plan on using their nukes as an offensive rather than defensive weapon, and for the purpose of eliminating Israel -- oops, make that "the Zionist entity" -- with both offering the same rationale. I think it is important to note their rationale, because they not only toss the notion od M.A.D. on its ear, but also the notion that it is simply a nation-state aquiring the weapon.

By their reasoning, they can destroy Israel, but withstand the response (no mutual destruction there), and they aren't really talking about Iran per se, but the entire Islamic world. They are motivated by the establishment of the caliphate, and so see the potential retaliation as worth the price.


That good old M.A.D. doctrine was flawed from the beginning, because it presupposed that nuclear engagements were between evenly balanced nation states and in the hands of rational people with a sense of self-preservation. Now, Kissinger is certainly rational, but like many very rational people, he overestimated the trait in others especially in regards to self preservation. I don't know that he ever considered the potential for nukes in the hands of religious zealots who planned on using them as an instrument of Jihad.

Of course they want to eliminate Israel, that leader, Tehran is a loose cannon and has no business with nuclear weapons. This is a war I would support.

 

[Gardener]

Its only 'flawed' when you try to apply it to circumstances outside its assumptions. It was never intended to apply to EVERY situation; to argue that it is flawed because it doesnt cover every situation is unsound.

Iran cannot be deterred, and so its more and more apparent that force is necessary.

It is the assumptions, themselves, that make the doctrine flawed rather than their application. If the doctrine is limited to one very specific application, and meanwhile the proliferation of such weaponry extends to other situations, the doctrine is of very little value.

In any case, I agree with you that Iran will not be stopped short of force.

 

[Hoot]

You were doing OK until you got here.
Are you a fireman> A policeman?
No?
Do you support the idea that the government supply these services to you, right?

According to your argument, above, if you support the government doing those things, then you should join up.

Why havent you?

I still work for the government...does that count? That's why I'm on holiday today! LOL!

 

[Hoot]

I'm curious -- in the last hundred years or so, has there ever been a case where sanctions against a country actually did resulted in regime change from this disatisfied populace you mentioned?

Without the research I can't say about regime change, but the sanctions against Libya have certainly brought that nation more in line.

 

[cnredd]

Without the research I can't say about regime change, but the sanctions against Libya have certainly brought that nation more in line.

uhhhhh.....That wasn't sanctions that did that...It was the threat of force...

Qaddafi saw the US going after Iraq and because he had WMDs, he believed he could be next on the list...He wanted NO parts of that....

 

[Kandahar]

Such as?

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that Iran is a signatory to, for starters.

... only after it became clear that they were supposed to play by altered rules.

I see. So once again, it's the Great Satan stirring up trouble in the world, rather than the insane theocrats who want nuclear weapons. Tell me, are you on Tehran's propaganda payroll or do you just spew this kind of hateful garbage for fun?

What "altered rules" are they being forced to play by? THEY SIGNED the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and are now in violation of it. Why are you defending these actions? I know you want to believe that Ahmadinejad and Khameini are nice peaceful puppy dogs who volunteer at the local orphanage, but that isn't the reality.

and the Western nations (i.e., the USA and its dumb followers) asked for it.

Well too bad. Whether we asked for it or not doesn't change the fact that CRAZY THEOCRATS ARE PURSUING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

What possible justification can you have to say that one rule is good for one country while a completely different rule is applied to another?

Your simple-mindedness is getting to be irritating. The same rules don't apply equally to all countries because countries, like people, are ****ing different. If you can't see the difference between a liberal democracy developing nuclear weapons at the height of the Cold War and not giving them up now, versus an irrational theocracy pursuing nukes today for the express purpose of wiping another nation off the map and finishing what Hitler started, then you are an idiot.

The only one I can think of is the bullying attitude of "we know what's best for you". Note that we're talking about international law here, not local laws.

We know what's best for US. Namely, not getting nuked and not having any of our allies nuked is pretty high on that list.

What reaction do you expect from a country when others preach one thing and do another?

A wide variety of reactions that don't involve pursuing nuclear weapons to wipe a country off the map.

Before you ask, I think that the current regime in Iran is reprehensible, but so are many others around the world. As the West benefits from being nice to them, we turn a blind eye to their atrocities while screaming about the rest.

So your argument is that since we don't have the resources to overthrow every detestable regime in the world, we should turn a blind eye to ALL of them including the ones with nuclear weapons pointed at our allies. Makes sense. Wait, no it doesn't.


Honest people can disagree about whether military action versus diplomatic/economic sanctions is the most suitable course of action in Iran. But let's not pretend that the Great Satan and its Zionist Allies are the bad guys here and Iran is within its rights. Doing so only makes you look like an idiot, which you are.

 

[Hoot]

uhhhhh.....That wasn't sanctions that did that...It was the threat of force...

Qaddafi saw the US going after Iraq and because he had WMDs, he believed he could be next on the list...He wanted NO parts of that....

I have no doubt that was part of it, but I'm sure you know the UN Security Council placed sanctions on Libya in 1992, which also played a part.


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/libya/indxirlb.htm

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have no doubt that was part of it, but I'm sure you know the UN Security Council placed sanctions on Libya in 1992, which also played a part.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/libya/indxirlb.htm

So...
They placed sanctions in 1992.
In 2003, after we invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam, the sanctions finally worked?

 

[Kandahar]

Force against Iran? "We have the manpower and resources to invade Iran?!" Hipster is the only one who's thinking logically about this issue.

Iran's economy is ready to collapse...high unemployment and an ever growing disastisfied youth culture.

The Iranian people have hated their government for over a decade now and the United States has funded Iranian opposition for 25 years, but we're still waiting for the government to collapse. I'm not saying that it can't happen, but it is an ENORMOUS risk to gamble that it will collapse before Iran gets nuclear weapons. I think that the best chance for a revolution was two or three years ago, when Khatami was still the president and there were nationwide strikes being held. But it didn't happen then, so I'd rather not rely on a deus ex machina revolution now.

Iran cannot make nukes and face economic sanctions and have a prayer of keeping their economy afloat. If the economy falters, the leaders of Iran will be out of power...something they do not want.

I think you overestimate the importance of the Iranian economy in this matter. The people already hate the government, yet haven't overthrown it yet.

New research suggests the cost of war in Iraq could reach 2 trillion dollars for the United States, and yet we have some of you proposing bombing runs into Iran,

How much will it cost to rebuild Israel and Saudi Arabia after they have been nuked into oblivion by Iran, and to rebuild Iran after the retaliatory nukes from Israel or the United States? Probably a lot more.

which will most certainly require additional ground forces,

We have plenty of ground forces if necessary. It's a myth that our troops are stretched too thin. Of course the war in Iraq has left us weaker, but not so weak that we couldn't also invade Iran if necessary. American military policy has been to prepare for a war on at least three fronts (Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan would be one front), although we could most likely fight a war on four or five fronts if we had to.

and further alienate the rest of the world against the U.S.,

On the contrary, this would help to reconcile the United States with allies who opposed the ridiculous war in Iraq. We'd have a lot more justification to invade Iran than we did for Iraq, and most likely a lot more international support.

and increase our obscene debt,

Again, let's look at the cost of inaction.

and only serve to further strengthen Iran's resolve to pursue nuclear weapons, and do little to delay their ability to achieve their ends.

If we overthrow the theocracy, I can guarantee you the theocracy will no longer be pursuing nuclear weapons.

Our only hope is a unified response with our allies to show Iran the consequences of pursuing nuclear ambitions,

What consequences would those be? None of them have any credibility if the threat of military force isn't behind them.

and the promise to help their nation economically if they agree to open inspections and peace.

Just like we did with North Korea...

Some of you may be interested in reading the testimony of K. Pollack, Director of research on Mid-East policy at the Brookings Institute, in a speech he gave to the House Armed Services Committee in Sept of '05.

If you like...skip ahead to page 8...."The Road Ahead," to see what Mr. Pollack suggests we do about Iran.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/testimony/pollack/20050929.pdf

Some of these ideas may have been quite palatable...in September 2005. But since then, Iran has walked away from any negotiations and seems unlikely to return to the table except to buy itself more time.

Iran has publicly stated that the express goal of any negotiations is to allow Iran to keep its nuclear program.

 

[alphieb]

Who on this thread thinks Iran can actually be trusted with Nukes? I think they have something funny up their sleeve.

 

[GarzaUK]

I wouldn't get too excited by war ladies and gentlemen. It is not too likely. If it was Bush and his admin would be threatening Iran and rattling a sabre. Iran has planned this perfectly to their credit.

They can build a nuke and with America's military at their weakest and with UN's authority in tatters (thank you very much Bush and Blair), the West can do nothing about it. Unless Russia and China joins our side we can't do ****.

Ironically if we hadn't invaded Iraq (which wasn't really a threat )and got bogged down Iran (the real threat) would be more weary of acquiring nukes.

This is Karma, we wrongly attacked a nation on grounds so that wealthy Americans can have fistful of oil dollars in their pockets. Now we are paying for it.

 

[Hoot]

So...
They placed sanctions in 1992.
In 2003, after we invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam, the sanctions finally worked?

My contention is, that without these sanctions against Libya, who knows where Libya's WMD program might have been at the time of the Iraqi invasion?

Perhaps Libya might have felt they had the firepower to repel an attack? But these sanctions, helped guarantee the inability of Libya to pose a threat.

I believe sanctions, and the threat of force are two sides of the same coin...you can't have one without the other....but sanctions should always be attempted before dragging our nation into war.

 

[Hoot]

Some of these ideas may have been quite palatable...in September 2005. But since then, Iran has walked away from any negotiations and seems unlikely to return to the table except to buy itself more time.

So...4 months later, your solution is too wage another pre-emptive war?

If we had the type of leadership that could get our allies, the UN, and the EU on board to apply pressure against Iran, we wouldn't need to be having this discussion...and we certainly wouldn't need another war.

Again...I'm sure there are different opinions, but from what I've read, Iran is still a good 5-7 years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

We still have time.

 

[alphieb]

I wouldn't get too excited by war ladies and gentlemen. It is not too likely. If it was Bush and his admin would be threatening Iran and rattling a sabre. Iran has planned this perfectly to their credit.

They can build a nuke and with America's military at their weakest and with UN's authority in tatters (thank you very much Bush and Blair), the West can do nothing about it. Unless Russia and China joins our side we can't do ****.

Ironically if we hadn't invaded Iraq (which wasn't really a threat )and got bogged down Iran (the real threat) would be more weary of acquiring nukes.

This is Karma, we wrongly attacked a nation on grounds so that wealthy Americans can have fistful of oil dollars in their pockets. Now we are paying for it.

I agree with most of your statement, but its not about oil GarzaUK, Iraq is too far, thus not cost effective to travel to obtain the oil. We get 50% of our oil right here and the rest from Venezuela which is much closer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wouldn't get too excited by war ladies and gentlemen. It is not too likely. If it was Bush and his admin would be threatening Iran and rattling a sabre. Iran has planned this perfectly to their credit.

So, because we haven't openly and directly threatened force, we won't use force?

They can build a nuke and with America's military at their weakest...

Weakest?
LOL
The US military is stronger now than it was before we invaded Iraq -- indeed, stronger now than any time since Vietnam -- possibly even WW2.

and with UN's authority in tatters (thank you very much Bush and Blair),

The UN has only itself to blame -- that what happens when you talk the talk but won;t walk the walk. If the UN has lost prestige and credibility - blame those that sat on their hands.

the West can do nothing about it. Unless Russia and China joins our side we can't do ****.

Please - tell us why.
Why, with 150,000 troops (and related infrastructure) right next door, and another 100,000+ on call, we cannot do anything.

And then, after you do that, tell us how we COULD do something if we weren't in Iraq.

 

[Kandahar]

Ironically if we hadn't invaded Iraq (which wasn't really a threat )and got bogged down Iran (the real threat) would be more weary of acquiring nukes.

I completely agree. Invading Iraq was a shocking lapse of judgment on the part of the administration, and has left us weaker by any measure. If Iran does end up acquiring nuclear weapons, it will be George Bush's fault for not having defused the crisis.

 

[Kandahar]

So...4 months later, your solution is too wage another pre-emptive war?

I was never particularly hopeful about the negotiations in the first place. But now I think it's clear to almost everyone that they've been a total failure.

If we had the type of leadership that could get our allies, the UN, and the EU on board to apply pressure against Iran, we wouldn't need to be having this discussion...and we certainly wouldn't need another war.

Agreed. I don't foresee any diplomatic or economic pressure succeeding, because Russia and China don't want to abandon their ties to Iran.

Again...I'm sure there are different opinions, but from what I've read, Iran is still a good 5-7 years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

We still have time.

That's an extremely optimistic estimate that borders on wishful thinking. Most estimates I've read are about 3-4 years. In a worst case scenario Iran could have a nuke in less than a year.

 

[GarzaUK]

So, because we haven't openly and directly threatened force, we won't use force?

Come on... this is the Bush Administration and I would like to point out that the Bush administration is using the UN. I thought they said the UN was irrevalent at one point?

Weakest?
LOL
The US military is stronger now than it was before we invaded Iraq -- indeed, stronger now than any time since Vietnam -- possibly even WW2.

Congradulations you are the first person to say that the American military is in a stronger position now that was before the Iraq war. Alot of your troops are bogged down in Iraq. Alot troops on the Korean border. America has never been this stretched before. For an invasion of Iran, you are going to need at least twice as many troops than Iraq. You make the same mistake as your governmnet did on Iraq, overestimate your power to control the peace and underestimate your opponent.

The UN has only itself to blame -- that what happens when you talk the talk but won;t walk the walk. If the UN has lost prestige and credibility - blame those that sat on their hands.

Ah so when the UN disagrees with American policies it's wrong and has no credibility?

Please - tell us why.
Why, with 150,000 troops (and related infrastructure) right next door, and another 100,000+ on call, we cannot do anything.

sigh. This is Iran's terrian from CIA factbook: rugged, mountainous rim; high, central basin with deserts, mountains; small, discontinuous plains along both coasts. Tehran itself is thousands of feet above sea level.

Spain has the same terrain and even though Napoleans France conquered them, they managed to "bleed the French white" through a series of guerrila skirmishes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Army
Iran's army includes 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000 conscripts.

Iran can also call on substatial numbers of reservists as most males must carry out a full two year millitary service at some point in their lives. It is generally acknowledged that the conscript element of the army is not trained nearly as well as the professional active duty army.

Those substatial numbers of reservists would be a million strong - maybe more. All they need is battle expereince and my dad says its comes quickly.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications....html#Military
Manpower available for military service:
males age 18-49: 18,319,545 (2005 est.)

And then, after you do that, tell us how we COULD do something if we weren't in Iraq.

Well you could invade Iran, but unfortunately for us all you are in Iraq.

 

[GarzaUK]

I agree with most of your statement, but its not about oil GarzaUK, Iraq is too far, thus not cost effective to travel to obtain the oil. We get 50% of our oil right here and the rest from Venezuela which is much closer.

When the oil runs out alphie, nations would move heaven and earth to get it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Come on... this is the Bush Administration and I would like to point out that the Bush administration is using the UN. I thought they said the UN was irrevalent at one point?

So... you cannot say that becuse they haven't yet rattled the sabres, they wont act militarily.

Congradulations you are the first person to say that the American military is in a stronger position now that was before the Iraq war. Alot of your troops are bogged down in Iraq. Alot troops on the Korean border. America has never been this stretched before.

You're making a mistake.
"Stretched" does not mean "weaker".
Fact is, we have gained a HUGE amount of combat and operational experience in Iraq, and we havent lost anything we cannot replace. This means the military is a better, more effective, more efficient fighting force than befor we went in.

For an invasion of Iran, you are going to need at least twice as many troops than Iraq.

Not that you're a competent judge here, but... so?
We invaded Iraq with 250,000 men. Why can't we invade Iran with that number, or more?

You make the same mistake as your governmnet did on Iraq, overestimate your power to control the peace and underestimate your opponent.

And you also fail to consider the different needs between the two scenarios -- we intended to topple Saddam in order to achieve our objective; we do not need to topple the Iranian government to render impotent their nuke program. Therefore, benchmarks from the Iraq war don't apply.

Ah so when the UN disagrees with American policies it's wrong and has no credibility?

The UN didnt agree with American policy, it disagreed with its own resolutions.

sigh. This is Iran's terrian from CIA factbook: rugged, mountainous rim; high, central basin with deserts, mountains; small, discontinuous plains along both coasts. Tehran itself is thousands of feet above sea level.

Point being...?

Spain has the same terrain and even though Napoleans France conquered them, they managed to "bleed the French white" through a series of guerrila skirmishes.

That would be relevant if our intention was to 'counquer' Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Army
Iran's army includes 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000 conscripts

Again - point being?
How big was the Iraqi army in 1991?

Iran can also call on substatial numbers of reservists as most males must carry out a full two year millitary service at some point in their lives. It is generally acknowledged that the conscript element of the army is not trained nearly as well as the professional active duty army.

See above.

Well you could invade Iran, but unfortunately for us all you are in Iraq.

And agiain:
How is having 150,000 men in Iraq a disadvantage in invading Iran?

 

[GarzaUK]

So... you cannot say that becuse they haven't yet rattled the sabres, they wont act militarily.

Hmmm America's budget says different. Bin Laden's aim was not to defeat America's amries, but to bankrupt America. Going good so far.

You're making a mistake.
"Stretched" does not mean "weaker".
Fact is, we have gained a HUGE amount of combat and operational experience in Iraq, and we havent lost anything we cannot replace. This means the military is a better, more effective, more efficient fighting force than befor we went in.

Yes it is - at fighting in desert terrain. Fighting in jungles or mountains quite different. Stretched does mean weaker - ask Germany who had to fight in two fronts on both World Wars. Stretched = less concentration.

Not that you're a competent judge here, but... so?

Charming.

We invaded Iraq with 250,000 men. Why can't we invade Iran with that number, or more?

Despite you m14 sig you don't really know much about military stragetem.
Because Iran isn't Iraq, it is no pushover like Iraq. Iraqi sanctions since 1991 made the Iraqi army a complete mess when Gulf War II arrived. Plus the flat desert terrain was perfect for America's favourite sledgehammer tactic. Enemies can't hide in desert, but in mountainous terrain.
Will you topple Iran's regime - probably, but the casulaties suffered in Iraq will seem like Christmas day compared to Iran. The guerrila campaign will be more deadlier than in Iraq, not only because of the higher number of civilians (in their millions) already trained with a rifle, but trained in their own soil (mountains, hills, valleys) perfect ambush country.

And you also fail to consider the different needs between the two scenarios -- we intended to topple Saddam in order to achieve our objective; we do not need to topple the Iranian government to render impotent their nuke program. Therefore, benchmarks from the Iraq war don't apply.

Benchmarks? Didn't you say above "We invaded Iraq with 250,000 men. Why can't we invade Iran with that number, or more?"
So Bush isn't going to rebuild the ME and give it the gift of democracy? If you topple Iran's government and leave, another Islamic regime will enter.

And agiain:
How is having 150,000 men in Iraq a disadvantage in invading Iran?

:roll: because they couldn't invade Iran as they are trying to take care of the Iraqi insurgency.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmmm America's budget says different. Bin Laden's aim was not to defeat America's amries, but to bankrupt America. Going good so far.

Horseshit.
The US is FAR from being bankrupt.
We could EASILY spend another $1 Trillion per YEAR on the war w/o adding an additional penny to the debt or raising taxes.

Stretched does mean weaker - ask Germany who had to fight in two fronts on both World Wars. Stretched = less concentration.

You'll recall that the US fought WW2 on three fronts - so your point is...?
You'll also note that you completely sidetepped my argument regardiong combat experience meaning we're better, and therefore STRONGER than before we invaded.

Charming.

Well, you're not.

Despite you m14 sig you don't really know much about military stragetem.

As the desert said to the grain of sand.

Iraqi sanctions since 1991 made the Iraqi army a complete mess when Gulf War II arrived.

How were they in GWI?

Plus the flat desert terrain was perfect for America's favourite sledgehammer tactic. Enemies can't hide in desert, but in mountainous terrain.

Seems we're doing pretty well in Afghanistan.

Will you topple Iran's regime - probably, but the casulaties suffered in Iraq will seem like Christmas day compared to Iran. The guerrila campaign will be more deadlier than in Iraq, not only because of the higher number of civilians (in their millions) already trained with a rifle, but trained in their own soil (mountains, hills, valleys) perfect ambush country.

You seem to have missed the part where your assumption that we have to topple their government is baseless.

Benchmarks? Didn't you say above "We invaded Iraq with 250,000 men. Why can't we invade Iran with that number, or more?"

I asked you a question - if we invaded Iraq w/ 250,000, whu cant we invade Iran with the same number. YOU contended that we cannot muster the same number for Iran. Why?

So Bush isn't going to rebuild the ME and give it the gift of democracy? If you topple Iran's government and leave, another Islamic regime will enter.

Perhaps you can tell me why you continue to think we have to topple their givernment to achieve our objective.

because they couldn't invade Iran as they are trying to take care of the Iraqi insurgency.

We're starting the draw-down in Iraq.
Every day, the number of troops we can send to Iran from Iraq goes up.