Why is France the new hawk in Europe?

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Not to be safe from sanctions, subversion, and non-violent regime change.

The new buzz word is "soft revolution" Thats why theyve been arresting every Iranian-American with the words "political science" in their resumes when they pass through. Their paranoid about it. Perhaps correctly. Nukes wont prevent that.

And they wont prevent a conventional attack that comes BEFORE the nukes are ready. Again, best way to be safe is to drop the enrichment program.

So BZZT to you.

Oh neo-cons, how delusional your conventional wisdom has become...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


[q]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.

we may be seeing some change coming in Burma, though its different in many respects from Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070923/ap_on_re_as/myanmar

Iraq and NK are/were far more totalitarian than the regime in Iran, which, if not as open as that in South Africa, is more open than any of the others you mention.

As for Cuba, those sanctions have been unilateral US only from the beginning. They should have had greatest effect at the beginning, when the Cuban economy was still mainly oriented to the US. However at that point they were supported by the USSR.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

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.

1. Theres mixed evidence of the opinion of the iranian street wrt to the enrichment program (not the nuclear program per se)

2. I do not beleive that the change from Khatami to Ahmadinajad materially impacted the domestic control of the hardline mullahs. It made the existing influence of the rev guard more visible in the state.

[lord of the mark]

anti-globalization left wing neo-con aggressor

Apparently the Iranian hardliners are SO confident of their position, they are warning the President of Argentina not to speak out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070921/wl_mideast_afp/undiplomacyisraelattacksiranargentina

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Berzerker


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

No it's not, because it's a fact that Sadam was just biding his time. Sanctions can't because all you have to do is comply for a little while, then after they are lifted, go right back to what you were doing that caused them in the first place. North Korea does this all the time. Sanctions against immoral and uncaring dictators only hurt innocent civilians and because we know this and because it's only a political ploy for leaders to show how tough they are, it makes it ethically wrong to do so. I'm not saying war is a perfect or much more moral solution, but it is a much more merciful solution. Appearances are deceiving however because the results are more immediate and brutal. Also, I have to clarify that I mean a well-planned and executed war absent of polotics, not farces like Vietnam and the Iraq War.

[Arrian]

Also, I have to clarify that I mean a well-planned and executed war absent of polotics, not farces like Vietnam and the Iraq War.

"Farces" such as Vietnam and Iraq are what you are likely to get. This is the government of the United States we're talking about. Especially in the case of an unnecessary war (as in, not a WW or otherwise resulting from a direct attack on the US), the US government WILL **** it up, and the US public will not be interested in making real sacrifices to succeed (unnecessary war, duh). This idea that we can "do it right" is dangerous, IMO. While I think the planning of Iraq War II was godawfully bad, and have ripped it repeatedly, I'm entirely unconvinced that another (presumably more competant) administration would've done appreciably better.

Think about it. What would have been required to "do it right" in Iraq? Probably 500k troops occupying the country for 5-10 years, plus a Marshall Plan style reconstruction effort. Even with that sort of effort (which the US public would not have supported - no way, no how), it would be far from a sure thing.

So I'd be careful of daydreaming about "doing it right" someday. That is the path to another farce.

-Arrian

[Shrapnel12]

Well I'm also daydreaming about people giving up the idea of sanctions, but we're just having a discussion. Yes, the Iraq War was not neccessary at the time it was started, but how about Afghanistan? It was neccessary imo, but we ****ed it up too (seemed to start out good though). I think we could have done that one right.

[Arrian]

Afganistan was necessary, or at the very least justifiable, sure. It wasn't executed terribly well, but I'm willing to cut the gummint a little slack on that given that it's friggin' Afganistan and NOTHING is easy over there. Especially when our (coerced) "ally" Pakistan is part of the problem.

-Arrian

[Shrapnel12]

This is not an opinion, but a question for discussion:

What if we had never gone to Iraq and had put all the troops in Iraq now in Afghanistan, in addition to the troops already there. What if we pursued Osama wherever he went, even into Pakistan, uncaring if Pakistan complained or not, telling them to get out of our way or we'll fight them too? What if we took a hardline towards Pakistan now? Can we do that now?

[Arrian]

That's a lotta what iffs.

Going into Pakistan uncaring about Pakistani's opinions is dicey, given that we're talking about a nuclear power here. They don't have ICBMs, there might be other methods of delivery available to them if they decided it should be done...

-Arrian