Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Iran and Nukes

Iran and Nukes
Thread Tools
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 02:32 PM
 
Would it be worth it to normalize relations to some extent with Iran in order to gain guarantees (such as US supervised surveillance) that their nuclear technology is for peaceful purposes.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
Would it be worth it to normalize relations to some extent with Iran in order to gain guarantees (such as US supervised surveillance) that their nuclear technology is for peaceful purposes.
I think we should turn Iran into a glass parking lot. That will shut the terrorists up.

(That was sarcasm)
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
Would it be worth it to normalize relations to some extent with Iran in order to gain guarantees (such as US supervised surveillance) that their nuclear technology is for peaceful purposes.
That's too vague to comment on, really. But any move toward cooperation is a step in the right direction. As it stands, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is broken, anyway.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 02:38 PM
 
I think we should start a new thread on the topic.

Of course a normalisation of relations will help. The problem is that the US isn't interested in normalisation nor peace.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
I think we should start a new thread on the topic.

Of course a normalisation of relations will help. The problem is that the US isn't interested in normalisation nor peace.
Well of course your wrong there, a more proper response would be that it appears the current administration is not interested in normalisation or peace.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
Well of course your wrong there, a more proper response would be that it appears the current administration is not interested in normalisation or peace.
True. It's just that I doubt that any administration would have the balls to do it. But yeah, I should have used "administration" instead.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
I think we should start a new thread on the topic.

Of course a normalisation of relations will help. The problem is that the US isn't interested in normalisation nor peace.
I agree. We need to bomb them to hell and back... a couple times... at least.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
I agree. We need to bomb them to hell and back... a couple times... at least.
Yup, killing more innocent civilians is always the answer coming from the US. Nothing new here.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 03:13 PM
 
Actually, although certainly looks attractive at first glance, I have my doubts that it would help. Although the current Iranian administration might be pacified, in doing so it would alienate the hard-liners in that government like little else could. An attempted coup would be not only possible but probable, and if such a thing were to succeed you can bet that any progress made up to that point would be put to use. That's how extremists work when they first grab (or retake) power.

As the law of unintended consequences strikes again...
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey
That's too vague to comment on, really. But any move toward cooperation is a step in the right direction. As it stands, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is broken, anyway.
It never had any teeth. (The NNPT).

OK, normalisation - exchange of Ambassadors, some trade negotiations perhaps leading to the end of the embargo, we try not to ostracize them as much and in return there is US led monitoring of their nuke program.

Iran is going to go nuke regardless, Europe does not have anything to offer them to stop nor do they possess the capability to do anything militarily, The US doesn't have any good options on the military side and despite their fear of a nuke Iran I don't think Israel would make a strike. Besides, the sites are far apart, well protected and the mullahs are rolling in oil money so any damage can be repaired in months.

Better, in my opinion, to acknowledge they are going to have a program and place a tight leash on it while at the same time trying to pry open their society - Iran gets nuclear weapons then the Saudis and others in the ME will try to do the same. The Saudis fear the Iranians just as much as the Israelis.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Colorado Springs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 03:29 PM
 
Disclaimer: I AM teh drunk righ tnow.

The rest of the world could agree to convert their governments to Islamic theocracies. That would be the only thing that would shut the terrorists up.

I think the issue at the core of the world's problems right now is that Muslim men do not get laid enough. But that's their own damn fault for circumcising their daughters so that they can't/don't enjoy sex.

It's a fact: Men who are adequately sexed don't cause near as much trouble.
Caffeinated Rhino Software -- Education and Training management software
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Yup, killing more innocent civilians is always the answer coming from the US. Nothing new here.
Yup. BOOM! More bombs, rocket's red glare, napalm, sand into glass.

*shudders with excitement*
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
It never had any teeth. (The NNPT).
I agree. But also, its very nature encourages the acknowledged nuclear weapons states to overreact, due to the simple fact that any peaceful nuclear development can very quickly be turned into nuclear weapons development. Or, in basic international relations terms, the NNPT does nothing to relieve the acute security dilemma for the current nuclear weapons powers. It's why we need a broader re-evaluation of the treaty beyond just Iran v. the U.S. We need to start from scratch on this, and fast.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
Yup. BOOM! More bombs, rocket's red glare, napalm, sand into glass.

*shudders with excitement*
9/11 must have been a moment of ecstasy for you......

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey
I agree. But also, its very nature encourages the acknowledged nuclear weapons states to overreact, due to the simple fact that any peaceful nuclear development can very quickly be turned into nuclear weapons development. Or, in basic international relations terms, the NNPT does nothing to relieve the acute security dilemma for the current nuclear weapons powers. It's why we need a broader re-evaluation of the treaty beyond just Iran v. the U.S. We need to start from scratch on this, and fast.
That's never going to happen. Why do you think it was written as it was?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:05 PM
 
Iran is in the driver's seat here. There is no compelling reason for them NOT to go all the wy to developing nukes. Embargos won't work (see Iraq), they control enough oil to make them a major economic player. The EU won't use military strikes. The US is already spread pretty thin, so the odds are that our threats are empty.

The big unknown in my eyes is Isreal. They'v been known to take things in their own hands before. A couple of well planned sorties and the program would be set back another 10 years.

If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by boots
Iran is in the driver's seat here. There is no compelling reason for them NOT to go all the wy to developing nukes. Embargos won't work (see Iraq), they control enough oil to make them a major economic player. The EU won't use military strikes. The US is already spread pretty thin, so the odds are that our threats are empty.

The big unknown in my eyes is Isreal. They'v been known to take things in their own hands before. A couple of well planned sorties and the program would be set back another 10 years.
The problem is two-fold with the last scenario.

1. They would need US/Iraqi approval due to the airspace (refuelling amongst other).
2. Iran has the capability to hit them back due to their missile program.

=> Israel will sit on it's hands.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:15 PM
 
Like I said, I don't know. They are the only ones I see as being ABLE to act...but it would require some interesting logistics.

It all depends upon whether or not they see an nuclear Iran as worth the risk of counter attack. With Sharon in office, I susspect they might.

If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:24 PM
 
I'm sure he thinks it would be worth it. The problem is that he won't act because he needs the US. If the US says no (which they will due to having lost control of the situation in Iraq) Israel will just do what they say. The situation in the ME is at the stage that an unprovoked attack from either the US or Israel will be the last drop. The US knows that and Israel (otherwise they would never have left Gaza) so they won't do anything about it but threaten.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
9/11 must have been a moment of ecstasy for you......
or you.


We still blowing things out of proportion, talking in hyperbole, or can I stop now?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:42 PM
 
The prescence of nukes doesn't cause inherent instability. In fact, a good argument can be made for the opposite.

Its also not as black/white as nukes in the hands of "democracies" as is so often cited. Democracies are no more insulated from irrationally "pushing the button" than any other form of government.

In fact, if Pakistan was a Democracy, we'd have a serious problem. The issue is more about the economy.

Nations with thriving, wealth-generating, consumer economies don't seek out wars of annihilation. Or have we suddenly forgotten all the lessons of the Cold War? It certainly seems like the Neocons have forgotten (or never learned them in the first place).

We should be doing everything we can to foster economic prosperity in Iran (and elsewhere). Then we don't really have to care if they develop the bomb. In fact, they might even provide a stabilizing force in the M.E. under the right economic/political conditions.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
or you.
Not at all. I thought I'd already told you about a thousand times (if not more often) that I don't want to see civilians dead.
We still blowing things out of proportion, talking in hyperbole, or can I stop now?
Well, perhaps you could remind me of a dispute the US settled without the use of force or the threat of using force. Because I can't remember one at the moment.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
That's never going to happen. Why do you think it was written as it was?
Because those were the only terms that developing non-nuclear weapon states would agree to.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
Better, in my opinion, to acknowledge they are going to have a program and place a tight leash on it while at the same time trying to pry open their society - Iran gets nuclear weapons then the Saudis and others in the ME will try to do the same. The Saudis fear the Iranians just as much as the Israelis.
Fareed Zakaria, from today's Washington Post:
...Tehran is seeking a grand bargain: a comprehensive normalization of relations with the West in exchange for concessions on nuclear issues. It will never give up its right to a nuclear program, he argues, but it would allow such a program to be monitored to ensure that it doesn't morph into a weapons project. But the prize they seek, above all, is better relations with the United States. "That is their ultimate goal,"...
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey
Because those were the only terms that developing non-nuclear weapon states would agree to.
Do you really believe that the nuclear states would let non-nuclear states set the terms?

No my friend, it's the other way around.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Fareed Zakaria, from today's Washington Post:
Did you hear that? That was the neo-con / right wing world-view collapsing.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Do you really believe that the nuclear states would let non-nuclear states set the terms?

No my friend, it's the other way around.
Uh...I think you misunderstood me. Nuclear weapons states would be perfectly happy with a treaty that halted nuclear development of any kind in non-nuclear states. But no non-nuclear state in their right mind would sign something like that. Thus, we get a NNPT that splices hairs between "peaceful" and "non-peaceful" nuclear development to make it palatable for both groups to sign.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey
Uh...I think you misunderstood me. Nuclear weapons states would be perfectly happy with a treaty that halted nuclear development of any kind in non-nuclear states. But no non-nuclear state in their right mind would sign something like that. Thus, we get a NNPT that splices hairs between "peaceful" and "non-peaceful" nuclear development to make it palatable for both groups to sign.
You are right, I somewhat did.

My point was that the nuclear states wanted the ability to use any potential developments in nuclear technology as a reason for threats. And as you pointed out of course the n-n-s wanted the ability to develop civilian nuclear technology which meant we have this mess today.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 06:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Well, perhaps you could remind me of a dispute the US settled without the use of force or the threat of using force. Because I can't remember one at the moment.
Our current immigration dispute w/ Mexico maybe? Cuba too, for that matter. Of course, those are issues you don't care about, so I don't imgaine that they would even appear on your radar.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
Our current immigration dispute w/ Mexico maybe? Cuba too, for that matter. Of course, those are issues you don't care about, so I don't imgaine that they would even appear on your radar.
Both matters have been resolved? Well, that's news to me.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Did you hear that? That was the neo-con / right wing world-view collapsing.
No, that comes from the pressure we're exerting, and their own fear. The Neo-Cons are winning, though your spin was interesting.

They look at Iraq, our pullout from there coming soon, and despite the fact that things didn't go perfectly, Iran doesn't want >500,000 US troops pouring into their country. They'll do just about anything to avert that type of action.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Both matters have been resolved? Well, that's news to me.
We're not handling it with our military, and that's what you were commenting about, wasn't it?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
We're not handling it with our military, and that's what you were commenting about, wasn't it?
"remind me of a dispute the US settled"

But didn't you also invade Cuba once? La Playa Girón?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 06:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
No, that comes from the pressure we're exerting, and their own fear. The Neo-Cons are winning, though your spin was interesting.

They look at Iraq, our pullout from there coming soon, and despite the fact that things didn't go perfectly, Iran doesn't want >500,000 US troops pouring into their country. They'll do just about anything to avert that type of action.


1. Iran has from the start wanted normal relations with the West. Do you know why the hostilities started between the US (and the West) and Iran?

2. They have nothing to fear but sanction at the most. As recent history has shown the US won't get involved in wars that will cost lives.

3. The pullout coming soon? Has your government said that or are you just hoping they retreat?

4. You think the US could get 500k soldiers for a war against Iran? That's about 50% of the total forces available. Are you sure you aren't just dreaming here?

5. And if they are so afraid why have they continued to challenge you on every single issue?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell


1. Iran has from the start wanted normal relations with the West. Do you know why the hostilities started between the US (and the West) and Iran?

2. They have nothing to fear but sanction at the most. As recent history has shown the US won't get involved in wars that will cost lives.

3. The pullout coming soon? Has your government said that or are you just hoping they retreat?

4. You think the US could get 500k soldiers for a war against Iran? That's about 50% of the total forces available. Are you sure you aren't just dreaming here?

5. And if they are so afraid why have they continued to challenge you on every single issue?
1. lip service, no real "want".

2. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, even this war has cost many lives. Within historical context, those are alll "recent". Besides, aren't you guys the onee who post snapshots of every death you can get your hands on? You want even MORE loss of life?

3. They've been talking for a year now about whittling down forces, and recently the view of the administration is that such a thing is in the near future.

4. Yes, I do think they can. Even 200-250K would be decisive.

5. If they've been so bold, why are they backing down now? Hell, they've all but bent over and pointed us the way. They've changed their tone and posture, no matter how you spin it.

But didn't you also invade Cuba once? La Playa Girón?
How many decades ago?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Colorado Springs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
1. lip service, no real "want".

2. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, even this war has cost many lives. Within historical context, those are alll "recent". Besides, aren't you guys the onee who post snapshots of every death you can get your hands on? You want even MORE loss of life?

3. They've been talking for a year now about whittling down forces, and recently the view of the administration is that such a thing is in the near future.

4. Yes, I do think they can. Even 200-250K would be decisive.

5. If they've been so bold, why are they backing down now? Hell, they've all but bent over and pointed us the way. They've changed their tone and posture, no matter how you spin it.



How many decades ago?

There are two wars in American History I believe to be unjustified: The Mexican War, and the Spanish-American War. Both were wars of straight-up conquest/expansion. The latter is interesting when considered in the light of current events, as it was sold to the American people as an expedition to free the poor Cubans from tyrannical Spanish rule (but for some reason we needed to go grab the Phillipines too, and the natives ensured we did not have a pleasant stay). Oh, and I also believe the wrong side won the US Civil War, but that's IMHO.
Caffeinated Rhino Software -- Education and Training management software
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 03:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
1. lip service, no real "want".

2. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, even this war has cost many lives. Within historical context, those are alll "recent". Besides, aren't you guys the onee who post snapshots of every death you can get your hands on? You want even MORE loss of life?

3. They've been talking for a year now about whittling down forces, and recently the view of the administration is that such a thing is in the near future.

4. Yes, I do think they can. Even 200-250K would be decisive.

5. If they've been so bold, why are they backing down now? Hell, they've all but bent over and pointed us the way. They've changed their tone and posture, no matter how you spin it.



How many decades ago?
1. How do you know and in what way do you mean? And you forgot the latter part of that point.

2. After Vietnam you haven't gone into a war that cost any serious amount of lives.

3. Like you say, talk. They also talked about there being WMD's but that was just that. Talk.

4. Sure, maybe 200-250k would be enough to win against the Iranian forces. But you would never win the war. You still haven't won in Iraq and that was easy compared to Iran.

5. Backing down? When did they back down?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 03:25 PM
 
Saying Vietnam is the last time we've gone to war that cost serious numbers of lives is a bit disingenuous. It's not that far back in historical terms. That's like saying "This is the first price hike for regular gas since yesterday...." It's pretty meaningless in the time frame, but is phrased so that it sound relevant. We're bleeding pretty good right now in Iraq. Not like Vietnam, but we are spending a lot of lives.

If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by boots
Saying Vietnam is the last time we've gone to war that cost serious numbers of lives is a bit disingenuous. It's not that far back in historical terms. That's like saying "This is the first price hike for regular gas since yesterday...." It's pretty meaningless in the time frame, but is phrased so that it sound relevant. We're bleeding pretty good right now in Iraq. Not like Vietnam, but we are spending a lot of lives.
Vietnam isn't that short back in history.

And because you have started to lose soldiers in Iraq now (I think the rate is going up) public opinion of the war is falling, and the calls for the US to retreat is becoming more and more common. These barely 3000 lives (can't remember the exact number) is nothing compared to what an invasion against a fully motivated Iranian military and public will cost. And because of that there isn't a chance the US will make a move.

And the last military operation in Iran didn't exactly go too well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
( Last edited by von Wrangell; Aug 17, 2005 at 03:32 PM. Reason: no, habla ingles!)

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Vietnam isn't that short back in history.


In terms of history, 35 years is a long time?

I suppose if we were in a major confrontation twice a year, maybe you could say that. But we aren't. 35 years is a very short time in military history.


And vietnam wasn't popular either. What does that have to do with it? If it is sold as a national security issue, it will get popular support. Then, when people start dying, it will become unpopular. That's the way it pretty much always works.

If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 05:22 PM
 
I don't think defeating the Iranian military would be much of a challenge for the US.

But as we are learning now, that's also the easiest part of empire building. As the ancient proverb teaches us:

"You can knock down government ministries with precision-guided munitions; you can't pick up garbage with them. "
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by thunderous_funker
I don't think defeating the Iranian military would be much of a challenge for the US.

But as we are learning now, that's also the easiest part of empire building. As the ancient proverb teaches us:

"You can knock down government ministries with precision-guided munitions; you can't pick up garbage with them. "
I'd hate to see a US occupation of Iran. That would be completely insane.

: shudder :
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by thunderous_funker
I don't think defeating the Iranian military would be much of a challenge for the US.

But as we are learning now, that's also the easiest part of empire building. As the ancient proverb teaches us:

"You can knock down government ministries with precision-guided munitions; you can't pick up garbage with them. "
Exactly. Iraq was demoralised for more than 20 years. Just imagine how a well motivated and fierce resistance in Iran would be.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by boots


In terms of history, 35 years is a long time?

I suppose if we were in a major confrontation twice a year, maybe you could say that. But we aren't. 35 years is a very short time in military history.
Of the top of my head:

Invasion of the Dominican Republic
Gulf of Sidra x2
Lebanon
Invasion of Grenada
Operation El Dorado Canyon
Attack on Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.
Operation Golden Pheasant
Invasion of Panama
Gulf War I
Somalia
Balkans
Attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan
Invasion of Afghanistan
Gulf War II
Haiti

That's quite an achievement IMO. Yes, some were legitimate and some were UN missions but that's quite a bit of wars and use of the military in so few years. Oh, and this is just official US use of the military. Not counting CIA operations.
And vietnam wasn't popular either. What does that have to do with it? If it is sold as a national security issue, it will get popular support. Then, when people start dying, it will become unpopular. That's the way it pretty much always works.
Just wars don't become unpopular because of the sacrifices made. At least I don't recall the Brits wanting to make peace with Hitler.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 06:47 PM
 
35 years is no time in terms of history. The US is over 200 years old and is quite a young country. For that matter, we also have above normal amounts of military activity.

I recall the Brits trying to make peace with Hitler. I'm surprised you don't.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 10:33 PM
 
Yes, the brits DID want to make peace with Hitler. Neville Chamberlain should mean something to you.

But as for Iran, why today the news shows us something revealing.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_...20in%20dispute

TEHRAN - Tehran warned the European Union trio of Britain, France and Germany over radical actions against Iran in the ongoing dispute over the Islamic state’s controversial nuclear programme, local media reported Wednesday.

Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization Deputy Mohammad Saaidi said on state television that “the harsher the Europeans play the game, the more Iran will get decisive on pursuing other nuclear projects”.

(bolded for emphasis.)
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.

     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 08:08 AM
 
I guess neither of you understood my point. Ah, well.

And what's wrong with the emphasis? Don't see a problem there.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 03:00 PM
 
So seriously, why aren't people concerned with the fact that the US has nukes? Why are the only ones that are allowed?
"That's okay, I'd like to keep it on manual control for a while."
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2