Why is France the new hawk in Europe?

[Lancer]

The government is supposedly our buds, the citizens fly planes into our buildings.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Iraq was a totalitarian state. Iran is an authoritarian state. You think Iran allows semi-free elections (albeit between mullah vetted candidates) which Iraq under Saddam did not do, cause the Mullahs have read Burke and Aristotle and believe in limited democracy? Nah, its cause theyre afraid if they dont allow enough room to vent, they will fall.

If unemployment raises significantly they will face some very serious dilemmas. That can be achieved with sanctions far lighter than those imposed on Iraq.

Most Iranians support having nuclear weapons, hardliners and reformers alike. If we impose sanctions or invade them it'll just stir up patriotic fervor and unite all sides of the political spectrum in Iran into more radicalism and anti-Americanism/westernism.

Iran isn't as ethnically/religiously divided and bitter as Iraq, it won't devolve into civil war, they'll unify against us. We should be doing what we can behind the scenes to support reform movements within Iran. The Mullahs aren't as hands on as most people say, the democratically elected government has a lot of leeway. I'm sure that if the President didn't have much of a desire to get nukes then Iran wouldn't.

Actually there was a pretty strong reform movement just a few years ago. Sadly the United States decided it would be a good idea to conquer Iran's neighbors, surround it militarily and include it in the axis of evil. So understandably that scared the crap out of Iran and they elected a hardliner who promised to protect them. Comparing the situation of its fellow axis of evil members, Iraq and North Korea the most obvious lesson to be learned is that Saddam's greatest sin is that he didn't actually have nukes, whereas we don't dare invade North Korea since they have a nuclear deterrent. Obviously Iran wants to be safe from US invasion as well.

So what can be done now that everything is ****ed up? Good question.

Work with Iran on stitching Iraq back together (like that commission suggested). Develop some better relations that way. Elect someone new in '08 who doesn't scare the bejeezus out of the world. Get our troops the heck out of Iraq (while somehow leaving it a successful, stable, and hopefully democratic country (yea, yea, waaay tougher than it looks)).

Maybe enact some very limited and specific sanctions on Iran only dealing with nuclear weapon systems and materials. But do everything through the UN. Do what we have to to get China & Russia on board. Take invasion off the table completely. Obviously it isn't going to happen anyhow, we are too bogged down in Iraq, so why hold onto a toothless threat? Put a non-invasion pledge on the table and use it to negotiate concessions regarding nukes.

Beef up Radio Free Iran (if such a thing exists). Restore official relations with Iran, do some student exchanges, cultural understanding and let our relations thaw. Let Iranians see our softer side, teach them the value of real democracy and let things run their course. I firmly believe Iran isn't as bad off as everyone makes them out to be. Any country where the opposition is brave enough to heckle and disrupt the President's speech and the government is tolerant enough to not put those people to death or throw them into a dank cell for 50 years is an incredibly far cry from totalitarianism and wouldn't measure up to the label of authoritarian either imho.

If all fails and they get close to getting nukes anyhow, well the fail safe is that Israel will just bomb them on their own. Let them take the heat, the main reason for opposing Iranian nukes is to protect Israel anyhow, so let them tend to their own defense instead of us always taking the heat for them. It isn't like the Muslim world is going to hate them any worse than they already do. Plus, with the growing Sunni-Shi'ite divide, who knows, maybe some Arab countries will be relieved that Israel bombed Iran.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Cort Haus

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2E4FueHFgmM1GImXHiG4vnRc-lQ

Kouchner warned, "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war."

Kouchner is surely saying "prepare for war".

"Prepare for the worst", at least in American English, has a different connotation than "prepare to do X" It implies getting ready for something one is trying to avoid, while the latter means one has decided to do it. Im not certain of the connotations in French.

However, like Blair, it will not be he and his country that will lead the way, but the USA. Ultimately, policy responsibility lies with Washington. Like Blair, he seeks the glow of a sense of mission and purpose as he struts the world stage,

I dont believe Blair sought a glow - I beleive he genuinely believed in his policies. I see no evidence M Kouchner is seeking a "glow" The problem of Iran and its uranium enrichment program is a real one, and that was recognized by the previous French Govt as well.

knowing full well that it won't be his country that will be doing the heavy lifting.

In the case of Blair and Iraq, britain certainly did quite a bit of heavy lifting. Who lifts what wrt Iran will depend on what strategy is pursued. At this point what is being pursued is a new UNSC resolution, and EU sanctions.


Hopefully M Kouchners statement will remind all, especially Mr Putin and whomever he is in the process of annointing as his succesor, wha the potential consequences are in sanctions are NOT pursued.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
What kind of war scenario with Iran are people after here? Something like Iraq, except bigger?

I at least am not after a "war scenario" I support another UNSC resolution, this time with sanctions that have teeth.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


What's the prescription for Saudi-Arabia then?

When pray tell did the Govt of Saudi Arabia attack the United States?

I dislike the govt of Saudi Arabia, and have done so since before you were born unless you are older than I think you are. But treating the govt of Saudi Arabia as the perpetrator of 9/11, as you seem to, because its citizens were involved, and some of its elite supported Saudi Arabia is an offense against the truth.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I at least am not after a "war scenario" I support another UNSC resolution, this time with sanctions that have teeth.

How would you get the Chinese or the Russians who are underwritting the Iranian program on board with real sanctions?

[SlowwHand]

While we're talking of Iran, China and Russia are headed towards a cold war that rivals Russia's with the USA. If it ends at that, good.

Russia needs to import Chinese. China has too many people and Russia not enough.
40 acres and a mule to move to Russia.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by OzzyKP

Most Iranians support having nuclear weapons,
hardliners and reformers alike.

That is far from clear. Most man in the street interviews ive seen and heard supporting the govt involve folks saying "we have a right to nuclear energy" Their insistence that theirs is solely an energy program is aimed at much at their own population as anyone else.

If we impose sanctions or invade them it'll just stir up patriotic fervor and unite all sides of the political spectrum in Iran into more radicalism and anti-Americanism/westernism.

Our limited sanctions so far have NOT done that, but have created discontent with the govt, albeit unfocused and limited so far.

Iran isn't as ethnically/religiously divided and bitter as Iraq,

It is highly divided, although the Farsi ruling group is about half the population, and many of the Shiite Azeris, at least those long resident in Teheran, are apparently loyal. However there is also a significant portion of the Farsi population that is unhappy with the govt.

it won't devolve into civil war, they'll unify against us. We should be doing what we can behind the scenes to support reform movements within Iran. The Mullahs aren't as hands on as most people say, the democratically elected government has a lot of leeway.

The candidates for the govt are vetted by the ruling mullahs, who tightly control the system. This is no democracy, and they ARE pretty bad. There is no longer a real reform movement within the system, and the one led by Khatemi was ineffective.

Actually there was a pretty strong reform movement just a few years ago.

The Khatemi govt was weak, was not serious about reforms, and was dismissed by the mullahs who tightened who they allowed to stand for election.

Sadly the United States decided it would be a good idea to conquer Iran's neighbors, surround it militarily and include it in the axis of evil.

We overthrew a govt in Afghanistan they had been odds with, and in Iraq that they had gone to war with. We tied up our own military. And yes, while Bush's rhetoric was poor, in that it has been subject to abuse by our adversaries, we were honest that Iran WAS an adversary, one who BEFORE Bush supported terrorism and undermined ME peace.

So understandably that scared the crap out of Iran and they elected a hardliner who promised to protect them.

Ahmadinajad was elected for his promises of economic improvement and fighting corruption.

Comparing the situation of its fellow axis of evil members, Iraq and North Korea the most obvious lesson to be learned is that Saddam's greatest sin is that he didn't actually have nukes, whereas we don't dare invade North Korea since they have a nuclear deterrent. Obviously Iran wants to be safe from US invasion as well.

Best way to be safe is to give up their uranium enrichment program.

So what can be done now that everything is ****ed up? Good question.

Work with Iran on stitching Iraq back together (like that commission suggested).

The Baker Hamilton commision suggested a great deal more than that, and placed less weight on negotiating with Iran in particular than has been made out.

As reported by Ryan Crocker, Iran has been uncooperative in negotiations that have been attempted.

Develop some better relations that way. Elect someone new in '08 who doesn't scare the bejeezus out of the world.

I doubt many people are really scared of us right now. Right now the ME region, from Israel to Egypt to Saudi ARabia to Turkey is scared of Iran.

Get our troops the heck out of Iraq (while somehow leaving it a successful, stable, and hopefully democratic country (yea, yea, waaay tougher than it looks)).

You can get the troops out of Iraq quickly. You can, MAYBE, get a stable Iraq. You cant do both.

Maybe enact some very limited and specific sanctions on Iran only dealing with nuclear weapon systems and materials.

Thats already been done. It hasnt worked. REAL sanctions are needed.

But do everything through the UN.

Why? If the US, the EU, and other democracies cooperate on sanctions that can potentially have a real impact.

Do what we have to to get China & Russia on board.
Take invasion off the table completely.

The fact that war is ON the table is probably the only thing keeping China and Russia on board. Its also something that the Mullahs need to think about.

Obviously it isn't going to happen anyhow, we are too bogged down in Iraq, so why hold onto a toothless threat?

There are other military options than an IRaq style invasion.

Put a non-invasion pledge on the table and use it to negotiate concessions regarding nukes.

Thats clearly in the cards if Iran wants to drop its enrichment program. So far they wont freeze their progran, let alone end it.

Beef up Radio Free Iran (if such a thing exists).

Radio Farda, I believe.

Restore official relations with Iran, do some student exchanges, cultural understanding and let our relations thaw.

That can accompany a quid pro quo from them. Otherwise its unilateral concessions.

Let Iranians see our softer side, teach them the value of real democracy and let things run their course.

We dont have time for things to run their course. Depending on whom you listen to they are a couple of years from a bomb.

I firmly believe Iran isn't as bad off as everyone makes them out to be. Any country where the opposition is brave enough to heckle and disrupt the President's speech and the government is tolerant enough to not put those people to death or throw them into a dank cell for 50 years is an incredibly far cry from totalitarianism and wouldn't measure up to the label of authoritarian either imho.

So youre ok with hecklers and protesters being given jail terms of a few weeks, while long term prison sentences and assasinations (including assasinations abroad) are reserved only for serious political opponents.

I see Im going to have to go back to posting the routine human right abuses practiced in Iran, the limits on the press, etc. Its MOST definitely an authoritarian state.

If all fails and they get close to getting nukes anyhow, well the fail safe is that Israel will just bomb them on their own. Let them take the heat, the main reason for opposing Iranian nukes is to protect Israel anyhow, so let them tend to their own defense instead of us always taking the heat for them. It isn't like the Muslim world is going to hate them any worse than they already do. Plus, with the growing Sunni-Shi'ite divide, who knows, maybe some Arab countries will be relieved that Israel bombed Iran.

Israel may not have the resources to succeed, and yes, the muslim world could definitely hate them more, considering they have diplomatic relations with several muslim countries. And if they did feel forced to do that, and did it, I suspect the consequences for the region, and for us, would be as grave as if we did the attack.

And Im not sure what you mean by "us always taking the heat for them" They fight their own battles.

In any case the goal is to PREVENT a war, even as we prepare for the worst. TO prevent it, the likely best tools will be strong sanctions.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How would you get the Chinese or the Russians who are underwritting the Iranian program on board with real sanctions?

A. A mix of carrots and sticks
B. Reminder that the absence of real sanctions could lead to war, which nobody wants
C. If they dont get on board, and the UNSC fails, we proceed to real sanctions with our democratic partners. EU sanctions are a major issue now.

[lord of the mark]

for ozzy:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/07/27/iran16512.htm

this one should move you, at least youre not arrested for advocating youth rights:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/07/iran15668.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/23/iran15396.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/08/iran15283.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/06/iran15271.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/09/26/iran14256.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/09/07/iran14136.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/08/iran13928.htm

[DAVOUT]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by Cort Haus

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2E4FueHFgmM1GImXHiG4vnRc-lQ

Kouchner warned, "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war."

Kouchner is surely saying "prepare for war".

"Prepare for the worst", at least in American English, has a different connotation than "prepare to do X" It implies getting ready for something one is trying to avoid, while the latter means one has decided to do it. Im not certain of the connotations in French.

I do not belong (yet) to the Académie, but I can confirm your interpretation, only adding a faint difference: replace “trying” (a simple attempt) by “strongly desiring and doing one’s best”; “worse” implies a powerful will and reaction.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
When pray tell did the Govt of Saudi Arabia attack the United States?

Since when was it necessary to attack the United States to find yourself staring at the wrong end of its gun-barrel? Is promoting terrorism and harbouring terrorists not reason enough? Saudi Arabia funds Wahabism all over the place, and is as good a candidate as any as an epicentre of Islamist extremism and by extension, terror.

I dislike the govt of Saudi Arabia, and have done so since before you were born unless you are older than I think you are.

You've disliked the govt of Saudi Arabia since the mid-sixties?

But treating the govt of Saudi Arabia as the perpetrator of 9/11, as you seem to, because its citizens were involved, and some of its elite supported Saudi Arabia is an offense against the truth.

I wasn't treating the govt of Saudi Arabia as the direct perpetrator of 9/11, (although I sometimes wonder) but illustrating how alleged connections to terrorism are a sufficient reason in some people's minds to go to war.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Cort Haus

Since when was it necessary to attack the United States to find yourself staring at the wrong end of its gun-barrel? Is promoting terrorism and harbouring terrorists not reason enough?


Saudi Arabia funds Wahabism all over the place, and is as good a candidate as any as an epicentre of Islamist extremism and by extension, terror.

Wahabism is a sect of Islam. While it is one of the least tolerant, and its easy to see why AQ terrorists are wahabists, not all wahabists are terrorists, and funding wahabism (though not, IMO, a good thing) is not per se supporting terrorism.

No extensions. Terror is terror. Being a center for a particular form of Islam is not a casus belli.

You've disliked the govt of Saudi Arabia since the mid-sixties?

You ARE older than I thought. No, I'd date my dislike to 1973.

I wasn't treating the govt of Saudi Arabia as the direct perpetrator of 9/11, (although I sometimes wonder) but illustrating how alleged connections to terrorism are a sufficient reason in some people's minds to go to war.

Now if only the govt of Irans connections to terrorism were only "alleged"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


I do not belong (yet) to the Académie, but I can confirm your interpretation, only adding a faint difference: replace “trying” (a simple attempt) by “strongly desiring and doing one’s best”; “worse” implies a powerful will and reaction.

Merci beacoup.

Vive la France!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Wahabism is a sect of Islam. While it is one of the least tolerant, and its easy to see why AQ terrorists are wahabists, not all wahabists are terrorists, and funding wahabism (though not, IMO, a good thing) is not per se supporting terrorism.

No extensions. Terror is terror. Being a center for a particular form of Islam is not a casus belli.

....

Now if only the govt of Irans connections to terrorism were only "alleged"

One of the articles I linked to above, from an Israeli source, has little doubt of the veracity of the allegations.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm

*

Saudi Arabia's past involvement in international terrorism is indisputable. While the Bush administration decided to redact 28 sensitive pages of the Joint Intelligence Report of the U.S. Congress, nonetheless, Saudi involvement in terrorist financing can be documented through materials captured by Israel in Palestinian headquarters in 2002-3. In light of this evidence, Saudi denials about terrorist funding don't hold water.
*

Israel retrieved a document of the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) which detailed the allocation of $280,000 to 14 Hamas charities. IIRO and other suspected global Saudi charities are not NGOs, since their boards of directors are headed by Saudi cabinet members. Prince Salman, a full brother of King Fahd, controls IIRO distributions "with an iron hand," according to former CIA operative Robert Baer. Mahmoud Abbas, in fact, complained, in a handwritten December 2000 letter to Salman, about Saudi funding of Hamas. Defense Minister Prince Sultan has been cited as a major IIRO contributor.
*

It was hoped, after the May 12 triple bombing attack in Riyadh, that Saudi Arabia might halt its support for terrorism. Internally, the Saudi security forces moved against al-Qaeda cells all over the kingdom. But externally, the Saudis were still engaged in terrorist financing, underwriting 60-70 percent of the Hamas budget, in violation of their "roadmap" commitments to President Bush.
*

Additionally, the Saudis back the civilian infrastructure of Hamas with extremist textbooks glorifying jihad and martyrdom that are used by schools and Islamic societies throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Ideological infiltration of Palestinian society by the Saudis in this way is reminiscent of their involvement in the madrassa system of Pakistan during the 1980s, that gave birth to the Taliban and other pro bin-Laden groups.

In a more recent analysis, the creed leaves little scope for coexistance with the West, with violence being intrinsic.

http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0705/0705_2.htm

The terms Islamofascism and theofascism have been frequently misused by Westerners to refer to virtually all forms of radical Islamism, but they are fitting appellations for Wahhabism today.[2] The sect's rejection of individual liberties, disparagement and reduction of women's rights and status,[3] disregard for the intrinsic value of human life, and encouragement of violence against unbelievers, are unparalleled among Islamic fundamentalist movements

Dismissing Wahhabism as merely "a sect" seems to whitewash the distinctly influential role in contemporary terror of the movement. To say that funding of it is "not per se supporting terrorism" would appear to be turning a blind eye to the root cause of the problem.