Well, looks like we already picked out our next target: IRAN

[Agathon]

Jesus, apart from loony Zionists and people who think that the US can actually accomplish this without painting a target on US civilians and interests in the rest of the world, who really thinks any of this is a good idea?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Can't go for Iran now...gotta leave something for Bush III.

First female president?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I fail to see why it would be unacceptable. I live in a country which has only its nukes to thank for its independence, and I think that most modern democracies should have nukes, to avoid being bullied.

Iran with nukes is only unacceptable if the regime remains a theocracy (= possibility of being unreasonable with the weapons), or if you see it from an American perspective: "damn this country that dares not obeying us".

Im not sure about the significance you attribute to the "force de frappe", but I doubt anyone thinks it would be a good idea for everyone from Belgium to Australia to Japan to have nukes.

As for the moderate Iranians - let me make clear that I am not advocating that position, and I cant offhand cite anyone who does. I think the argument would be that even a post-mullah Iranian regime would not be stable, either internally or externally. It takes more to make a modern democracy than overthrowing a dictatorship, as we are learning so well. I think many who would NOT accept a preemptive attack on a moderate Iran, would still want to see Iran peacefully swear off nukes, much as Ukraine and South Africa did. This all raises the question of Pakistan, which is also not a modern democracy. The hope would be that Pakistan will disarm in conjunction with India, but the India - China rivalry complicates that. Obviously a moderate Iranian regime would likely insist on Israeli nuclear disarment (analogous to Pakistan - India). Presumably a "moderate" Iranian regime would be one that would be willing to sit down and negotiate with Israel, unlike the current regime.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
While I support soft means for regime change in dictatorial countries, I am worried about what the Bush admin would consider "soft".

Striking on a Nuclear Plant is definitely not soft IMHO. So is the active support to armed opposition, which can easily use terrorist methods.

There's propaganda, trade and diplomatic restrictions, the (indirect and secret) funding of the opposition etc. These soft ways definitely don't pay in short term, and they must be used wisely to be useful at all. I don't think Bush has the patience nor the wisdom to make anything out of it.

Of course trade restrictions dont work all that well when done unilaterally, as is currently the case.

As for time, the Mullahs are as aware as you are that soft methods take time. Which gives them a powerful incentive to do their own preemption, especially if they see new regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan as the ultimate soft weapons (note that Iraq, with its alternative sources of Shiite leadership, its shrine cities that Iranians visit in large numbers, etc is a particular source of democractic "infection") Given that, and that Iran MAY be using what you call hard methods (support to armed insurgents) in Iraq, its not clear that endless patience is a good idea.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Boshko
Please please don't. I'm within range of North Korean artillery Whatever else that can be said of North Korea, they've got plenty of guns and people who know how to shoot 'em.

I feel your pain. I was there 10 years ago. A peaceful solution is always preferable.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
The opposition in Iran is, as Ramo said, weaker today than four years ago. The state has plenty of oil money to keep itself going, and military action vs. Iran short of full scale invasion and regime change would only encourage Iran to make a mess for us in Afghanistan and Iraq, something Iran can do. IN the end, striking at Iran now save for a full scale invasion, wich the US simply can't do, owuld only serve to make our "sucess" in Afghanistan and Iraq even more perilous.

They need encouragement?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Except the whole "strike at the nuclear facilities bit", which the admin. must be insane to think it would do it. My guiess on the "source", if its someone up high, would be Feith.

That's not regime change.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I fail to see why it would be unacceptable. I live in a country which has only its nukes to thank for its independence, and I think that most modern democracies should have nukes, to avoid being bullied.

The Germans were going to invade you again?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Jesus, apart from loony Zionists and people who think that the US can actually accomplish this without painting a target on US civilians and interests in the rest of the world, who really thinks any of this is a good idea?

How would there be any more of a target than we have already?

[MRT144]

I hope Bush does **** to Iran just so itll make everything FUBAR and a republican wont be elected for the next 24 years

[Kuciwalker]

You're the same guy who was hoping that lots and lots of American soldiers died so that Bush wouldn't be reelected, right?

:vomit:

[MRT144]

no i wasnt.

[Kuciwalker]

Was that MOBIUS, then?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The Germans were going to invade you again?

Nope, but we never know about what the future holds. Maybe the EU will collapse, as a wide economic crisis wakes up the nationalism. Maybe the EU-US relations will become extremely strained and inimical at some point, maybe the US will end up being best buddies with an extremely aggressive and bullying Chinese hyperpower...

And so far, our nuclear power simply made us free of American tutelage when it comes to our protection. Only the countries that have developed their own nuclear technology (Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and of course Russia) know they don't have to rely on the US to avert invasions.

It's good to have, when you know the US is self-interested, like any other country, and will protect you only if it fits its interests.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
How would there be any more of a target than we have already?

Many shia groups show some restraint so far. You are being attacked mostly by sunni groups. Besides, State sponsored terrorists lie low for the moment. If you declare war to Iran, or Syria, you bet they'll use their terrorist networks to strike at home.