Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

Palomar · 2004-09-29 12:20:35

You can only convert an equal.

*Some folks think communication is only possible between equals.

What about communication breakdown? Or when one party refuses to communicate?

Wisdom urges "us" to grasp that there are no "thems" only us.

*Well that's easier thought than done. Isn't "we versus them" predicated quite a bit on values, belief systems, mores, etc.? Either I believe it's okay to toss men in jail for "not cutting their hair the correct way" or I believe guys can cut their hair however they choose. That is an either/or, right? And that leads to us/them. Unfortunate as it may be, but I don't see a way of getting around this seemingly universal aspect of the human condition...unless of course we all agree to some consensus (which has never happened yet and likely never will).

?

I appeciate the good intentions. Is it likely, though? I doubt it.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-09-29 12:23:36

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html]Another opinion

= and =

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/ … 4.html]The response

clark · 2004-09-29 12:36:21

To quote Vonnegut, "So it goes."

I shall have a stiff drink tonight. My friend redeploys in November, and his first daughter just arrived.

Thank you Bill, I don't think I want to add anymore to this thread.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-29 12:43:08

Edit: in answer to Cobra, "this comment was made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail."

Well that explains it, post-war.

Capture Bin Laden, then allow the Muslim people to try him for his crimes based on their laws.

That'll be a tough sell, assuming we can determine who to turn him over to.

Bill, I quickly read through the articles you linked. Many valid points, but I must point out that they are almost all resulting from the current "weak Roman" approach. We know this can't work, it becomes more obvious as the days pass. In time we will shift to either the "strong Roman" or (I still have to snicker) "enlightened liberal" approach you mentioned earlier.

If I had to guess I would predict a swing toward the latter approach. This is now totally unworkable after Iraq, the idea is dead as a viable option. It is now merely an excuse to cut and run, which will destroy any credibility we have left. Next time we need to project force we'll have to use overwhelming brutality to be taken seriously, the mere threat will be meaningless.

So arguing over the unworkability of "weak Roman" is meaningless blather, what is required is an open debate on the merits of a stronger approach and the consequences of leaving the task unfinished.

John Creighton · 2004-09-29 13:05:04

How do you recommend implementing the strong man approach? I suggest set up Iraq military and police withdraw to external bases and if the cannot maintain order move back in with whatever force is deemed appropriate. Perhaps communicating with the IRAQ military and police to reduce friendly casualties. The Iraq military should be supplied with body armor and maybe some armored vehicles.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-29 13:30:50

Are the iraqi police supplied with anything now?

BWhite · 2004-09-29 13:32:32

How do you recommend implementing the strong man approach? I suggest set up Iraq military and police withdraw to external bases and if the cannot maintain order move back in with whatever force is deemed appropriate. Perhaps communicating with the IRAQ military and police to reduce friendly casualties. The Iraq military should be supplied with body armor and maybe some armored vehicles.

Last time we did that, Sadr's men raided the police stations and looted the body armor.

John Creighton · 2004-09-29 13:36:35

Last time we did that, Sadr's men raided the police stations and looted the body armor.

Maybe we can work with Sadr. Wasn’t George Washington a guerrilla leader.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-29 14:27:10

Maybe we can work with Sadr. Wasn’t George Washington a guerrilla leader.

That's not a bad idea. Is there anything Sadr wants/and or needs that we can provide?

Last time we did that, Sadr's men raided the police stations and looted the body armor.

He seems OK for light weaponry... :;):

Seriously, though, if you were a cleric in charge of Iran and wanted to stay that way, what would you do in the face of the United States' current posturing?

Trebuchet · 2004-09-29 23:57:04

Seriously, though, if you were a cleric in charge of Iran and wanted to stay that way, what would you do in the face of the United States' current posturing?

Pray for Kerry?

If I were an Iranian cleric, I wouldn't be so crazy as to put my nation in such dicey situations as "annoy the superpower". The United States is too busy playing Global Babysitter to the loud freaks to bother with a nation which isn't a major problem (Afghanistan, North Korea) or trying to look like a major problem (Saddam and his vaporware WMD program). Which means that you sit tight, oppress your people at home, and don't scream from the rooftops about your desire to use nukes once you have them, build your 'peaceful nuclear program' in widely scattered and fortified sites, and parade large missiles around. That looks only slightly suspicious, don't you think?

So assuming I am an Iranian mullah with a desire to keep a hold on my nation, I would not pursue nuclear weapons and be amazingly open about my lack of desire in WMD. I'd spend the cash on conventional weapons in case I need to beat the hell out of one of these obnoxious new democracies next to me. And I'd slip Lil' Kimmy cash from time to time to ensure that there is always someone higher in America's crosshairs.

If I were feeling particularly Machiavellian I might pull a Ghaddafi ("I am your BESTEST BUDDY! Look at the nuclear program I was putting together with help from my strongest neighbor Pakistan and that looney in North Korea! You really ought to do something about them.") then see if I could make my domestic opposition think the US sold them out. Put a split between the US and the domestic revolutionaries and most of my serious problems are over.

Palomar · 2004-09-30 05:58:31

If I were an Iranian cleric, I wouldn't be so crazy as to put my nation in such dicey situations as "annoy the superpower".
So assuming I am an Iranian mullah with a desire to keep a hold on my nation, I would not pursue nuclear weapons and be amazingly open about my lack of desire in WMD.

*Yeah, you'd think that would be obvious, wouldn't you?

I recall reports from Al-Jazeera, during the US capture of Baghdad; apparently the Arab world was stunned beyond all get-out that we'd sacked that city and made Saddam take to his heels so quickly.

I guess Iranian leaders are slow learners. :hm: But then most of humankind seems to be.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-30 06:10:45

If I were an Iranian cleric, I wouldn't be so crazy as to put my nation in such dicey situations as "annoy the superpower"...

You raise some good and obvious points, but the premise is flawed. You'd behave in that manner if you were leading Iran. None of us can make truly accurate guesses of what goes through the head of an Islamic fundamentalist mullah, not being mullahs ourselves. ???

But a guess: Were I a cynical Iranian ruler using Islam as a front to legitamize my rule, yet still believing that Allah is great, we are righteous, America is the Great Satan and that the Israelis are out to get me... I'd want the nukes. They're a good way of keeping the Great Satan from sacking my capitol (though also a good way to make the Great Satan want to) and if those Israelis try anything... Or maybe I'll hit 'em first. It's not as though the neighbors will get upset and the Americans get squeamish around wackos with sun-bombs, can't imagine why.

By the way, don't worry about those rockets. Communications satellites, yeah, that's the ticket. Peace.

BWhite · 2004-09-30 08:09:20

If I were an Iranian cleric, I wouldn't be so crazy as to put my nation in such dicey situations as "annoy the superpower"...
You raise some good and obvious points, but the premise is flawed. You'd behave in that manner if you were leading Iran. None of us can make truly accurate guesses of what goes through the head of an Islamic fundamentalist mullah, not being mullahs ourselves. ???
But a guess: Were I a cynical Iranian ruler using Islam as a front to legitamize my rule, yet still believing that Allah is great, we are righteous, America is the Great Satan and that the Israelis are out to get me... I'd want the nukes. They're a good way of keeping the Great Satan from sacking my capitol (though also a good way to make the Great Satan want to) and if those Israelis try anything... Or maybe I'll hit 'em first. It's not as though the neighbors will get upset and the Americans get squeamish around wackos with sun-bombs, can't imagine why.
By the way, don't worry about those rockets. Communications satellites, yeah, that's the ticket. Peace.

Also think about the distinction between the hammer and the scalpel.

America has a President who does not do nuance and shrugs off the obvious lack of a link between al Qaeda and Saddam.

Iran has already been named as a charter member of the Axis of Evil

Trebuchet suggests the mullahs lay low and avoid rocking the boat. How? they are already dead-center in our targeting radar. That little laser pointer light is already lighting up Tehran.

Since Bush insists on swinging the hammer and declines the scalpel, what choice do they have?

How should we change?

Don't corner a rat until we are ready to kill it!

Trebuchet · 2004-09-30 11:02:55

Trebuchet suggests the mullahs lay low and avoid rocking the boat. How? they are already dead-center in our targeting radar. That little laser pointer light is already lighting up Tehran.

The only way to survive once the laser light pointer is shining on you is to do whatever it takes - and I mean whatever it takes, not halfassed stuff - to convince the US that you're not really as psycho and threatening as you seem. Because no matter how scary you are, the US is going to be a lot scarier in terms of knocking your ass down. They have stealth bombers with earth-penetrating bombs to kill your hardened nuclear sites, they're counting the zits on your forehead from orbit, they're listening in on all your phone calls. Realistically, it doesn't matter what you do; the US has proved in the case of Iraq that not only is it willing to beat the hell out of a nation it suspects of pursuing WMD, but that is is extrordinarily paranoid about WMD development and will think you're further along than you really are. That all adds up to the fact that pursuing nuclear weapons guarantees defeat, not safety, because the US will stop negotiating and start shooting when they think you're close. They will not wait until you have them in-hand.

Ghadaffi worked this all out a long time ago, hence, why Libya ostentatiously disarmed. He now has a relatively free hand in north Central Africa for his schemes, without having to worry about US Marines stopping by to chat. The mullahs have thus proven themselves more nutty than Whacky Ghaddafi. Interesting.

Note that North Korea is something of an exception to the rules here. But that is because the Norks have a pseudo-WMD in the sheer numbers of artillery aimed at Seoul, threatening hundreds of thousands of civilians with death. Absent this threat, Kim Il Jong would have been forcibly divested of his nuclear program.

Palomar · 2004-09-30 11:09:30

Because no matter how scary you are, the US is going to be a lot scarier in terms of knocking your ass down...they're counting the zits on your forehead from orbit...The mullahs have thus proven themselves more nutty than Whacky Ghaddafi.

:laugh: :laugh:

Yep.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-09-30 11:09:47

Trebuchet suggests the mullahs lay low and avoid rocking the boat. How? they are already dead-center in our targeting radar. That little laser pointer light is already lighting up Tehran.
The only way to survive once the laser light pointer is shining on you is to do whatever it takes - and I mean whatever it takes, not halfassed stuff - to convince the US that you're not really as psycho and threatening as you seem.

But what if you believe the guy with the laser pointer is the psycho one?

Like I said, its macho vs macho.

= = =

Edit: We have satellites. They have car bombs and a higher birth rate.

= = =

Edit #2: If we stopped being macho, stopped being worried about "standing tall" and chose to use a scalpel instead of a hammer we could achieve our goals with less trouble, expense and blood.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-30 11:30:13

But what if you believe the guy with the laser pointer is the psycho one?

Then I guess you mostly die, considering he's already got his gun trained on you.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-30 11:38:39

Edit: We have satellites. They have car bombs and a higher birth rate.

This seems more like a stunningly concise statement of the sheer scope of the failure to modernize that Iran has had. One nation has built satellites and advanced the sciences on every front, and the other is poor, overpopulated, and its best military weapon is cobbled-together makeshifts. One has women in its army, and the other has women in the 7th century.

How very frightening. Let's take them seriously!

BWhite · 2004-09-30 11:46:55

But what if you believe the guy with the laser pointer is the psycho one?
Then I guess you mostly die, considering he's already got his gun trained on you.

As do a lot of people in the http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/prin … 2295]Green Zone.

Iran has hundreds if not thousands of missiles capable of reaching Baghdad.

BWhite · 2004-09-30 11:50:30

Edit: We have satellites. They have car bombs and a higher birth rate.
This seems more like a stunningly concise statement of the sheer scope of the failure to modernize that Iran has had. One nation has built satellites and advanced the sciences on every front, and the other is poor, overpopulated, and its best military weapon is cobbled-together makeshifts. One has women in its army, and the other has women in the 7th century.
How very frightening. Let's take them seriously!

I agree.

My worry is what we do with the Islamicsts 30 years from now or 50 years from now if birth rates continue the direction they are heading.

One person, one vote is the American ideal.

Unless we decide that some people are sub-human (like the Nazis did) eventually we will be swamped by sheer numbers.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-30 13:04:56

My worry is what we do with the Islamicsts 30 years from now or 50 years from now if birth rates continue the direction they are heading.
One person, one vote is the American ideal.

I wonder how big an electoral vote prize China and India are...

...wait a minute, they're not US states! </sarcasm>

The fact that there is a population explosion somewhere else is no reason for fearfulness here. As far as immigrants go, you cut the numbers back to where you feel you can assimilate them; it's not like the Middle East is right over the border. No need to bring in Nazi references. They're free to screw up their own lands however badly they want, and their military strength is so pathetic that I'm unworried about them going on a spree of conquests in 30 to 50 years. By that time the US will probably be technologically advanced to the point where they might as well be fighting the Borg ("Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Your cultural distinctiveness will be obliterated by an endless sprawl of Wal-Marts and McDonalds...").

Ultimately, Islamic terror loses the War on Terror. The only question is how many people die in the process.

Euler · 2004-09-30 13:39:35

Realistically, it doesn't matter what you do; the US has proved in the case of Iraq that not only is it willing to beat the hell out of a nation it suspects of pursuing WMD, but that is is extrordinarily paranoid about WMD development and will think you're further along than you really are. That all adds up to the fact that pursuing nuclear weapons guarantees defeat, not safety, because the US will stop negotiating and start shooting when they think you're close.

No, from their perspective it means that the US might invade even if Iran is not developing WMDs, but that the US will not invade if they successfully develop nukes. They may see creating nukes as the only way to stop a US invasion.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-30 13:43:16

No, from their perspective it means that the US might invade even if Iran is not developing WMDs, but that the US will not invade if they successfully develop nukes. They may see creating nukes as the only way to stop a US invasion.

This would be penny wise but pound foolish: while if you actually have nukes you might be safe, you first have to get nukes, which will guarantee US invasion.

It is much safer to follow the example of Libya.

Euler · 2004-09-30 13:47:19

This would be penny wise but pound foolish: while if you actually have nukes you might be safe, you first have to get nukes, which will guarantee US invasion.
It is much safer to follow the example of Libya.

Yes, but if they think that they will be invaded anyway, then it might seem like a reasonable gamble.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-30 13:55:42

It's an unreasonable gamble, since they know that Libya wasn't invaded and no noises about invading Libya are being made... look, this isn't difficult to understand: Iraq, crazy dictator, thought to be developing WMD, smashed. Libya, crazy dictator, ostentatious display of abandoning WMD, still in power. Very simple!

Basically, all this proves is that the mullahs are irrational. Which we already knew anyways, to be honest.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2004-09-29 12:20:35

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#127 2004-09-29 12:23:36

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#128 2004-09-29 12:36:21

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#129 2004-09-29 12:43:08

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#130 2004-09-29 13:05:04

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#131 2004-09-29 13:30:50

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#132 2004-09-29 13:32:32

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#133 2004-09-29 13:36:35

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#134 2004-09-29 14:27:10

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#135 2004-09-29 23:57:04

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#136 2004-09-30 05:58:31

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#137 2004-09-30 06:10:45

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#138 2004-09-30 08:09:20

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#139 2004-09-30 11:02:55

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#140 2004-09-30 11:09:30

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#141 2004-09-30 11:09:47

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#142 2004-09-30 11:30:13

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#143 2004-09-30 11:38:39

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#144 2004-09-30 11:46:55

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#145 2004-09-30 11:50:30

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#146 2004-09-30 13:04:56

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#147 2004-09-30 13:39:35

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#148 2004-09-30 13:43:16

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#149 2004-09-30 13:47:19

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#150 2004-09-30 13:55:42

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

Board footer