"Victory Is Not an Option"

[Arrian]

If Irans main concern is to avoid being targeted for military action, theyd be better off without nukes.

No, the best way to avoid being targetted is to acquire those nukes. Because, as you say, they can then continue to pursue other policies of theirs with impunity.

Iran messes around in the region. We, on the other hand, are good guys who would never "mess around" in the region.

Before you get all high and mighty about that comparison, I understand Iran funds unsavory, nasty and downright awful people. Then again, we've made a Iraq into an absolute cluster****. We can do this because we're powerful, including our massive stockpile of nuclear weapons.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by padillah
There's no real way to tell but Pakistan persued and aquired nukes and they weren't in an "Axis".

This is one of the arguments I have against pre-emptism - you can never tell what a person "might" do.

Tom P.

In 2002 Pakistan was supporting the coalition campaign in Afghanistan (and Perv had gone out on a limb to do so) and was reaching out to India.

Pakistan is in the "axis of not currently evil"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


No, the best way to avoid being targetted is to acquire those nukes. Because, as you say, they can then continue to pursue other policies of theirs with impunity.

Iran messes around in the region. We, on the other hand, are good guys who would never "mess around" in the region.

Before you get all high and mighty about that comparison, I understand Iran funds unsavory, nasty and downright awful people. Then again, we've made a Iraq into an absolute cluster****. We can do this because we're powerful, including our massive stockpile of nuclear weapons.

-Arrian

First of all I said an invasion for regime change, which is impossible anyway, whether they have nukes or not.

A response to their "messing around" would be a more limited strike.

OTOH, in order to deny them nukes we might take actions that go beyond what we would even to stop them messing around. Please see Kuci and KHs discussion "could we take out Chinas nukes"


I am of course going to get high and mighty about the "messing around" comparison. Its not trivial. We are trying to achieve peace in the middle east, they are trying to prevent it. As for Iraq, we have been incompetent, and maybe we will end up failing, but we've been TRYING to achieve something positive there. We have failed in stopping people who want "to mess around" which is what Iran wants.

Now look, some folks think its hypocritical for the mean imperialist US, and its EEVIL Zionist allies to object to Iran dominating the region. If you agree with that, fine. If you think it would be a MAJOR problem, then you might as well face thats that what the SANE mullahs want the nukes for (not for stopping Paul Wolfowitz from advancing democracy in Teheran with the 3rd ID) (the INSANE folks in the Iran govt, of course are less interested in regional domination than they are in bring back the 12th Imam, but Ive given up for the moment trying to convince people that the consequences of that, though its a small probability, are so bad as to be unacceptable - I suppose you'll at least join me in sending assistance to Tel Aviv after its nuked - or maybe you wont - whatever)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
We, on the other hand, are good guys who would never "mess around" in the region.

If we werent, we could have finished off this insurgency a long time ago. I think you know that.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
they helped out themselves in Afghanistan. Theyd been supporting the Northern Alliance for awhile, esp Muhummad Khan "emir" of Herat, and they expected their influence there to increase with the fall of the Taliban. Meanwhile they were supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, and they already had a nuclear enrichment program. And theyd been subject to US economic sanctions for years. They could hardly have been surprised.

With a common enemy (the Taliban and Al Qaeda) and a reformist prime minister, its easy to see relations normalising. Funding anti-Israel groups doesn't seem to come between America and the various Arab states.

[Drake Tungsten]

TCO says...

US out of Iraq now.

That is all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by VJ
You guys already won. All the original objectives of the war were completed when Hussein was captured. The problem is with stupid opposition leaders who somehow reframed the objectives of the war after victory so they could come up with something to bash sonny Bush with. Since when did it the duty of Americans to upkeep Iraqi police forces and pay for all the costs of the Iraqi government?

Time to declare victory and go home.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by VetLegion
I think the worst mistake US did was abandoning conscription. They'd never have sent an army of conscripts to Iraq. Funny how something that seemed a good idea not so long ago looks so disasterous now.

Not having conscription is even more important than having political disincentives to military operations.

[padillah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



In 2002 Pakistan was supporting the coalition campaign in Afghanistan (and Perv had gone out on a limb to do so) and was reaching out to India.

Pakistan is in the "axis of not currently evil"

My meaning was more along the lines of "it doesn't matter to them what 'axis' they were in. They were going after nukes, period."

@OP: Acquiring nuclear weapons is not something you decide to do Wednsday after tea. Being declared to be "in an axis" means diddly squat to these guys. You're talking about nuclear f----ng weapons.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Arrian


No, the best way to avoid being targetted is to acquire those nukes.
...
-Arrian

Sorry, man. Acquiring nuclear weapons has brought Iran more attention then almost anything else they could have done (besides using them).

The world is now united in confronting them. How and with what I don't know but rest assured, France may not appreciate what we did in Iraq but they will not sit still while Iran arms itself. Neither England or Germany or Russia or China or... In short, you don't get to pull the crap they've pulled and then get nuclear weapons.

Heck, as LOTM pointed out, even Pakistan isn't actually trusted. And they're wussies compared to Iran.

Remember, it was the thought of nuclear weapons that started this whole Iraq thing. (that and about 15 other excuses but I digress)

Tom P.

[Arrian]

Tom P - if Iran actually HAD the nukes, instead of merely a program aimed at acquiring them, they would be immune. That's the basis for seeking them in the first place.

LotM - sorry, but

We are trying to achieve peace in the middle east, they are trying to prevent it.

is laugh-out-loud funny. Of course we want peace, on our terms. When peace isn't working toward our objectives, we go to war. But that's ok, because we go to war because we want peace! How about that.

I prefer our bull**** to theirs, when push comes to shove. But I do not accept that we have some right to dominate the ME, and Iran is eeevil because they, a nation who is, um, actually there, would rather be the playa.

As to the 12th imam - one could respond about evangelical Christians in the US who seek to bring about the final battle. Which group is closer to power? Perhaps the Iranian one, but I'm not convinced. I don't think we necessarily have the best understanding of internal Iranian politics... we struggle to predict our own, for goodness sake.

I'm sorry that I don't see everything through the prism of how it might effect Israel. However, were Israel attacked, I'd be all for the US living up to its obligations as a friend & ally. I simply do not believe that Iran would nuke Israel. On this, I guess we differ.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
LotM - sorry, but

is laugh-out-loud funny. Of course we want peace, on our terms. When peace isn't working toward our objectives, we go to war. But that's ok, because we go to war because we want peace! How about that.

What terms pray tell, does Iran want peace on? They want Israel to withdraw to the 67 armistice lines? Or perhaps that plus give up the Galillee? I havent heard them offer that. They want peace based on Israel ceasing to exist. Claiming that is wanting peace in the same sense (our bull**** to theirs) that US administrations have pursued peace betwee Israel and its neighbors for the last several decades doesnt strike me as making any sense. Its nonsense. The Oslo accords, the Clinton initiatives, were they "our bull****". I know its terribly uncynical of me to claim that there is a difference, but I think there is, and its a profound one.

I mean do you see rightwingers who want to nuke Iran for revenge for 1979 as "wanting peace" - after all Iran would be a very peaceful peace after its nukes. Words have meanings. In this case Iran IS, in any reasonable use of words against peace - IE peace between Israel and its neighbors (including the Pals).

Quite frankly the fact that Iran is from there makes them that much more dangerous as a dominant power. They dont have 6000 mile supply line, and they arent going away. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt can see that. I would think an American could as well.

And I dont think they just want to be a "playa" They are a player, without nukes, by virtue of their size and influence. What I see is an Iran that wants to dominate Lebanon, Iraq, Pal/Israel. And the Gulf states as well.

I think that if they do so, it will be BAD thing, and not just for Israel. I wouldnt look on that with equanimity.

Right wing christians? Bush is probably as good as theyre ever going to get, and thats not his view of things. Ahmadinajad is President of Iran now (and while the Iranians situation is complex, thats not a position without power as some have said) But not having a crystal ball about Iranian politics makes me want them to NOT have a bomb.

I dont necessarily think its probable that Iran will nuke Israel. Im just not real comfortable with even a small possibility of it. And neither should you be, even if you were 100% apathetic about Israel - you say live up to US obligations? and what would those be? to nuke Iran in retaliation? What will be the consequences of that happening? What will be the hardening of attitudes in the West (or at least in the US) and then, after retaliation, the response in the muslim world? It wont be pretty, and will, IMHO, dwarf the consequences of a preeptive conventional attack on Iran, and certainly dwarf by far the consequences of a campaign of escalating sanctions, which is where we are at now.

[lord of the mark]

"Now look, some folks think its hypocritical for the mean imperialist US, and its EEVIL Zionist allies to object to Iran dominating the region. If you agree with that, fine. If you think it would be a MAJOR problem, then you might as well face thats that what the SANE mullahs want the nukes for (not for stopping Paul Wolfowitz from advancing democracy in Teheran with the 3rd ID) "


So, arrian, i take it you agree with the above?


"(the INSANE folks in the Iran govt, of course are less interested in regional domination than they are in bring back the 12th Imam, but Ive given up for the moment trying to convince people that the consequences of that, though its a small probability, are so bad as to be unacceptable "

So I guess it was silly of me to bother trying again, wasnt it?

" I suppose you'll at least join me in sending assistance to Tel Aviv after its nuked - or maybe you wont - whatever)"


I wasnt thinking so much in terms of govt to govt stuff, as like sending your personal money for reconstruction and healing, etc. Its not going to be pretty if Tel Aviv is nuked. But like I said, you probably dont have as much invested in that, and thats kewl, I guess.

[Barnabas]

I think Iran nuking Israel is less possible than Pakistan nuking India.

[fed1943]

While I agree mostly with you, may I suggest two words for you
to talk about?
Mossadegh.
Oil.
Best regards,