Why is France the new hawk in Europe?

[Cort Haus]

LOTM, the Hamas example was just one instance, and although I'm not expecting, or calling for the USA to go to war over it, I'm arguing that if radical, violent Islamism is a problem, the KSA is at least as much an epicentre as Iran.

Sri Lanka and Australia are other examples. I could go on to give other examples from around the world.

The old 'violence out of context' argument may be true in certain instances, but it's a bit of a Ken Livingstone type argument in apologia of Islamism, tbh, and I have no doubts as to the truth in this context.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ah, yes, more about soft power.

*smacks forehead*

Duh.

Of course, had the USSR not acquired nukes, its position would've been even weaker.

-Arrian

Its international position? certainly. And Iran is trying to improve its international position.

Its safety? Thats something else.

In the case of Iran, no one serious would be talking about invading Iran, occupying it, and then changing the regime, if it didnt have a nuclear weapons program. We didnt do that when they took our diplomats hostage in violation of international law and we had a clear casus belli. We didnt do that in the succeeding years under the belligerent Reagan administration. We favored Iraq somewhat, but Iraq was engaged in a border war, they didnt expect to change the regime (and why would they? They didnt have great relations with the Shah either)

It simple Iran wouldnt be a target if they hadnt painted a big target on themselves by their nuclear program.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Sanctions rarely work.

LotM has cited South Africa in the past wrt sanctions programs that have succeeded. His point, IIRC, was that the government of SA wanted to be part of the global community (including, perhaps most importantly, the commonwealth), and were therefore really stung by being treated as a pariah.

I don't see the same phenomenon working wrt Iran.

-Arrian

That was not my point. Couldnt have been, cause it wasnt true. The National Party didnt give a damn about being in the global community. They DID care about maximizing their own political prospects. White South African civil society wanted to maintain its affluent lifestyle (again, I dont think more than a minority of them cared about global community, much less the Commonwealth, which their Boer ancestores had fought to stay out of a couple of times) Sanctions threatened that lifestyle, and had the National Party not cut a deal with the ANC, they would have been tossed for another white party that WOULD have made a deal.

the government of Iran wants to survive. They have managed to suppress dissent, when it comes from relatively modest numbers of liberal students. Do they have the means to suppress should the lions share of the Iranian urban working class go to the streets? I dont know. The Mullahs, I think, dont know. Lets say its 50-50. Faced with the prospect of rising unemployment and falling living standards, and of a urban rising by the working class Farsi population, supported by the liberal minority, and by several of the ethnic minorities, is it worth the risk for the sake of a nuclear weapons program? Mebbe. Mebbe not.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Lancer
As I've said before, if Iran wants nukes we should send them some.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Cort Haus

LOTM, the Hamas example was just one instance, and although I'm not expecting, or calling for the USA to go to war over it, I'm arguing that if radical, violent Islamism is a problem, the KSA is at least as much an epicentre as Iran.

As far as groups that are advancing on the ground in the ME right now is concerned, thats simply not true. Iran is using terror as part of state policy to advance itself towards dominance in the region.


Im no Ken Livingstone. The questioning of oversimplifications of muslim political language has been made by folks much more sophisticated than him.

Again I look at facts. The govt of KSA, while I dont like its relationship to Wahabism has managed to live in peace with the west for decades. Its mainly Wahabist population is not mainly terrorists. Iran continues to pursue a broad strategy of violence.

I suppose Mr Livingstone would agree with you that the concern with Iran is overblow though.

[Cort Haus]

I'm talking global, not ME, wrt the Wahhabist problem.

Also, of course you're no Ken Livingstone. I'm merely suggesting that you're giving KSA a relative pass on its role in exporting global terror in an expedient prioritisation of current threats.

I don't disagree with you that Iran is the greater existential threat - wrt nukes and the security of Israel. I feel, though, that good ole fashioned deterence might be the best way to deal with the Iranian threat if the US, UK and France were to make it clear to Iran that any nuclear attack on Israel would be the glassification of the whole of Iran.

[Nikolai]

New France

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I'm talking global, not ME, wrt the Wahhabist problem.

Also, of course you're no Ken Livingstone. I'm merely suggesting that you're giving KSA a relative pass on its role in exporting global terror in an expedient prioritisation of current threats.

I don't disagree with you that Iran is the greater existential threat - wrt nukes and the security of Israel. I feel, though, that good ole fashioned deterence might be the best way to deal with the Iranian threat if the US, UK and France were to make it clear to Iran that any nuclear attack on Israel would be the glassification of the whole of Iran.

Not so, the Iranian leader wants to start Armageddon. He believes it is his destiny. Detterance only works with sane people who want to live. During the Cold War, we always worried some nut would come to power in the Soviet Union who would push the button. This guy is that nut.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
the government of Iran wants to survive. They have managed to suppress dissent, when it comes from relatively modest numbers of liberal students. Do they have the means to suppress should the lions share of the Iranian urban working class go to the streets? I dont know. The Mullahs, I think, dont know. Lets say its 50-50. Faced with the prospect of rising unemployment and falling living standards, and of a urban rising by the working class Farsi population, supported by the liberal minority, and by several of the ethnic minorities, is it worth the risk for the sake of a nuclear weapons program? Mebbe. Mebbe not.

And the government of Iran will survive because China and Russia will never back any sanctions that would trully hurt Iran, which would only happen with an oil embargo.

SA is a poor example because it was not a popular government - it was a small minority ruling a huge underclass. As the black population got bigger faster and faster than the white population, the situation would eventually be untenable.

The same is not true of Iran's regime, which is "popular" in the sense that it came to power in a popular revolt, and still has significant legitimacy.

And in the end, as Ozzy said, the Iranians have every reason to try to get nukes, specially given that they have one nuclear neighbor, another nuclear state very close, and hostile relations with two other nuclear powers. And unlike Saddam, they haven't committed the cardinal sin of the international system, invading someone.

The Iranians will reach the level of nuclear knowledge where they will know how to build a bomb, and then they don't even have to move immidiately to build one, just know they know how to.

[Berzerker]

Ya, that worked in Iraq.

Apparently it did work, Saddam never reconstituted his WMD programs.

Nobody wants to hear this, but "peaceful" sanctions are worse then war. War may kill civilians as a side effect, but civilians are the direct target of sanctions. A well executed military strike would be more merciful then starving the populace with years of sanctions.

There's a difference, sanctions are about other nations and peoples boycotting Iraq. If Iraqis suffer, its the fault of those in charge who brought on the boycott. I dont like sanctions because the people in charge will screw their countrymen, but that aint the same as me dropping bombs on people.

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

Are you sure about that? I saw some guy on TV who had been polling in Iran and he got 30% support R&D on nukes and 70 % oppose it, but a large majority also want nuclear power. Therein lies the rub, we dont want them to have nukes and that means we dont want them to have nuclear power plants.

[Shrapnel12]

Apparently it did work, Saddam never reconstituted his WMD programs.

We'll never know that. We invaded him before he had the chance.

There's a difference, sanctions are about other nations and peoples boycotting Iraq. If Iraqis suffer, its the fault of those in charge who brought on the boycott. I dont like sanctions because the people in charge will screw their countrymen, but that aint the same as me dropping bombs on people.

Do you think an Iraqi cares that we killed his child by dropping a bomb or starving him to death? Sanctions cause massive suffering over a longer period of time then war. It's just easier to turn a blind eye to sanctions because we're not the ones pulling the trigger.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


And the government of Iran will survive because China and Russia will never back any sanctions that would trully hurt Iran, which would only happen with an oil embargo.

I believe that sanctions well short of an oil embargo could have a negative impact on the Iranian economy, which already is under strain. What level will be enough to trigger significantly larger scale protests and resistance than we have see thus far is difficult to say, especially given the limits on discourse in Iran.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I believe that sanctions well short of an oil embargo could have a negative impact on the Iranian economy, which already is under strain. What level will be enough to trigger significantly larger scale protests and resistance than we have see thus far is difficult to say, especially given the limits on discourse in Iran.

Can you give a single example of ANY authoritarian state brought down by sanctions?

Again, the only example given is SA, which besides being a non-popular regime, was also "democratic" in that the ruling classes did vote amongst themselves.

The authoritarians in Iran are gaining the more the country is isolated, because western Isolation over something most Iranians support (ie their right to enrich uranium) only serves to strengthen their argument that the West wants to get them no matter what, that this is nothing more than an excuse for trying to undermine the Islamic Republic. And as the hardliners gain power, the situation becomes more akin to the utter failure of sanctions against dictatorships like Cuba, Iraq, NK, Myanmar, so forth.

[Berzerker]

We'll never know that. We invaded him before he had the chance.

You said the sanctions didn't work, the absence of WMD is proof they did work. Speculating about future events doesn't change that...

Do you think an Iraqi cares that we killed his child by dropping a bomb or starving him to death?

Saddam was starving his kid, I'm not obliged to do business with Saddam because he's starving children

Sanctions cause massive suffering over a longer period of time then war. It's just easier to turn a blind eye to sanctions because we're not the ones pulling the trigger.

And this wasn't Saddam's fault? You're equating the freedom of association - boycotting Saddam - with murder. That should be a red flag you're on slippery ground...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Lancer
Really? May they go in and win. Hopefully this time they can hold Moscow.