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

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-22 10:24:46

Not you, Cobra, only 90% of the right wing talking heads on cable TV.

Ah, well that explains it, I stopped watching tv news during the war. See "Cobra's first rule of media" from the 'CBS mess' thread.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-22 12:55:26

If I were given the choice, I'd pull us out of the UN too. It's become nothing more than a International Procrastinators' Club. The only stuff I'd keep are things like UNICEF and WHO; the General Assembly and Security Council remind me more of a debate between sheep and wolves on what the dinner menu should be.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-09-22 18:31:21

Hm, seems as though the topic has moved in a different direction here, but I'll interject my two cents anyways.

The people who go around screaming of the doomsday scinerios wehre when Bush wins the Earth spontaniously bursts into flames (or something that establishes that result) give a bad name to those who seroiusly oppose him for real-world issues and because he is simply a bad leader. It's like the global warming debate, there are millions of raving tree-huggers trying to tell you that Earth will become Venus in 20 years if we don't stop using our convienent items, while at the same time there's a small core of people who really undertand that, no this is not The Day After Tomorrow, but global warming is a very serious issue that must be addressed. I'd hope to think that I fall into the latter category on both issues.

The reason I support Kerry over Bush is FACTS, not speculation. Bush has done a very poor job handling the quagmyre in Iraq (the fact that Iraq became a quagmyre in the first place should be evidence of htat), has worrisome stances on the environment and science, and has turned "America" into a bad word around the world. Kerry may have a limited record on many issues, but we have reason to think that he could have handled many of Bush's issues much better than he did, hence my support goes to him.

While we're on the subject, it's interesting to note that perhaps the most doom/gloom scinerio pushing politician works for Bush's side. -ahem, cough Dick Cheney-

BWhite · 2004-09-22 19:47:49

The editorial cartoon in the Times of London on Wednesday was derisive: the first panel has President George W. Bush telling the United Nations General Assembly, "Friends, our policy in Iraq is directed solely toward a successful election."
The second panel has him saying: "Mine."

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-27 04:17:17

I don't know how significant this is but it may be that the 'first shot' in an upcoming U.S.-Iranian conflict has just been fired.
With regard to Iran, Bush has said:- "No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon."

Thems sound like fightin' words to me .. ???

For the full story, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclear- … html]click here.

Palomar · 2004-09-27 07:39:42

I don't know how significant this is but it may be that the 'first shot' in an upcoming U.S.-Iranian conflict has just been fired.
With regard to Iran, Bush has said:- "No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon."
Thems sound like fightin' words to me .. ???
For the full story, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclear- … html]click here.

*Just as news is rolling in with comments by Colin Powell himself that the situation in Iraq is getting even worse.

Can the U.S. afford a conflict in Iran? Troops, financing the fight, etc.?

I don't think so.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-27 07:54:07

Can the U.S. afford a conflict in Iran? Troops, financing the fight, etc.?
I don't think so.

Well, since you bring it up...

There's a big misperception about this. Our military is as large as it is primarily because during the Cold War it was decided that we need to be able to fight two major wars simultaneously. Big wars, like one in Europe and one in the Pacific. The Middle East, not just Iraq or Iran but the region, could be classified as a single theater of operations. One major war.

Not that I'm advocating policy here, just pointing out some things to consider.

The problem with this is that the "two war" model doesn't mean "two major wars with no sacrifice at home." Therein lies the problem, a large percentage of the population believes that if gas prices go up or luxury goods cease production that we "can't afford it" when we most certainly can with a little homefront discipline.

Militarily we're set up to fight WWIII. Domestically we freak out whenever our troops actually have to fight, and if we have to pay an extra nickel at the gas pump... Mass hysteria.

That old line about the decadent Americans being a paper tiger... maybe there's something to that. :hm:

Palomar · 2004-09-27 08:02:58

*All I'm saying is we'd better think it over carefully before running off into Iran, ala "pick your battles wisely."

Just because we *can* doesn't mean we necessarily *should*.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-27 08:06:51

*All I'm saying is we'd better think it over carefully before running off into Iran, ala "pick your battles wisely."
Just because we *can* doesn't mean we necessarily *should*.

Agreed, there are many possibilities that need to be considered before we go rolling in to another long-term operation.

But if we decide that it's important enough that we should, we can.

Depending on the discipline and resolve on the homefront, of course.

BWhite · 2004-09-27 09:41:06

Can the U.S. afford a conflict in Iran? Troops, financing the fight, etc.?
I don't think so.
Well, since you bring it up...
There's a big misperception about this. Our military is as large as it is primarily because during the Cold War it was decided that we need to be able to fight two major wars simultaneously. Big wars, like one in Europe and one in the Pacific. The Middle East, not just Iraq or Iran but the region, could be classified as a single theater of operations. One major war.
Not that I'm advocating policy here, just pointing out some things to consider.
The problem with this is that the "two war" model doesn't mean "two major wars with no sacrifice at home." Therein lies the problem, a large percentage of the population believes that if gas prices go up or luxury goods cease production that we "can't afford it" when we most certainly can with a little homefront discipline.
Militarily we're set up to fight WWIII. Domestically we freak out whenever our troops actually have to fight, and if we have to pay an extra nickel at the gas pump... Mass hysteria.
That old line about the decadent Americans being a paper tiger... maybe there's something to that. :hm:

In the 1960 & early 1970s it was

"Hell No!. . . I won't GO!"

Now in the 'zeros the wealthy in America are saying,

"Hell No! . . . I won't foreGO my tax cuts!"

If we pay for these wars and cut taxes and slash social services to keep the budget from going even farther into the red, how do we maintain the social contract that keeps the fabric of America from tearing?

Remember when the people who told the truth about how much Iraq would cost were fired? To pacify Iraq we need 300,000 troops, just like Shineski said before the invasion.

= = =

I do not want Iran to have a nuclear bomb. I also want our leaders to tell us the truth about how much the War on Terror will cost and arrange to share those costs equitably across our entire society.

clark · 2004-09-27 10:00:54

I do not want Iran to have a nuclear bomb. I also want our leaders to tell us the truth about how much the War on Terror will cost and arrange to share those costs equitably across our entire society.

The man bearing truth is usually crucified for it.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-27 10:30:47

The man bearing truth is usually crucified for it.

I'll leave that one alone for the moment.

If we pay for these wars and cut taxes and slash social services to keep the budget from going even farther into the red, how do we maintain the social contract that keeps the fabric of America from tearing?

To start with we have to agree on what that social contract entails. That falls under the "culture war" we are currently engaged in.

But as you say, if we actually have to fight a Middle East War, as opposed to an Iraq war or Iran war, then sacrifices will be necessary. And then if something comes up with Korea or Taiwan we're back to the "two war" model.

We can do it, but it will mean cuts in some social services and increases in some taxes. Powerful interest groups will eat the idea from both ends while the general public writhes at any discomfort. To win the "War on Terror" we may need to fight a major war, a real war on a scale we've nearly forgotten how to handle. Militarily we're up to it, but I have serious reservations about the homefront. If those concerns prove true, we're better off lobbing cruise missiles from time to time and taking the hits as they come. We'll never win that way, but we won't have to make much sacrifice aside from losing a few hundred or thousand people every now and then. ???

At any rate, we sure bluffed those Russkies.

Palomar · 2004-09-27 10:40:57

Now in the 'zeros the wealthy in America are saying,
"Hell No! . . . I won't foreGO my tax cuts!"
If we pay for these wars and cut taxes and slash social services to keep the budget from going even farther into the red, how do we maintain the social contract that keeps the fabric of America from tearing?
Remember when the people who told the truth about how much Iraq would cost were fired? To pacify Iraq we need 300,000 troops, just like Shineski said before the invasion.
= = =
I do not want Iran to have a nuclear bomb. I also want our leaders to tell us the truth about how much the War on Terror will cost and arrange to share those costs equitably across our entire society.

*I couldn't agree more. Social Security for my generation is gone. Have fun, Baby Boomers -- the year 2011 doesn't look so hot for you.

What about the draft? The "D-word" has already been brought up with regards to Iraq. Aren't we already getting low on troops? Aren't the folks who've been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for over a year due for a break? Aren't the armed services having a difficult time recruiting new members?

If we do go into Iran, I'd be surprised if the draft -weren't- reinstated.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-09-27 11:07:13

I dunno, it always seemed to me that men, generally speaking, were of a mind and character to work together, when the need arose that is, finding themselves in apparent peril would unite to endeavor, sacrificing as much as was neccessary, towards a common good that led to a reduction of the common threat and a return to stability which provided for the peace.

It would seem, from what I recall, that such instances have occured throughout history. Perhaps it is nothing more than being subject to the victors side of the saga, yet still I happen to believe that many felt that either previous world wars were justified in the sacrifice associated with them. The case can even be made for the first Gulf War since that involved naked aggression, which is easily discernable.

However, the case of war, of sacrifice, of freedom limited and opportunity defered for reasons less discernable are harder to comprehend and agree upon. Couple this with lies of neccessity to garner public opinion and popular support, and it leads to a point where the desire for action in the time of real need is threatened. If any are unaware of the "Boy who cried Wolf", let me dispell any misunderstandings, it ends badly.

We can sit here and contemplate what inevitables might eventually develop and what possibilites yet wait in response, yet in the end, we must realize that a noble lie has brought us here, and the noble lie undermines us from within. What sacrifice can a sitting president request from us in the time of need when such claims were made falsely before? I sit here and wonder what on gods green earth could compel anyone to follow him over yet another hill, for yet the very same reasons as before. Ahab can have his whale, I shall not set sail.

When we were attacked, in every instance of that type of occassion, we have rallied and united to stand together and see peace restored and justice done. In every instance. That is the character of our nation, of our people, and our history. And it was that character which was abused the day after Afghanistan, and continues to be.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-27 18:56:00

Democracies are notoriously difficult to persuade to wage serious war, which may be a good thing, or not, depending on the circumstances. I believe part of the relative ease of the German conquests early in WWII stemmed from the fact that WWI had only finished some twenty years before. European democracies had no stomach for another war and couldn't quite believe they were embroiled in yet another one so soon!
America, too, was very hard to get motivated, even though half of Europe was under the Nazi jackboot. She had the paradigm of isolationism to overcome ("it ain't our war!"), as well as the recent memory of WWI.

Nowadays, most Western democracies have had two whole generations without any 'on-your-doorstep' wars. We've almost convinced ourselves that the age of wars has passed and that we've entered a new and enlightened era of common sense and negotiation, with blue skies ahead and increasing prosperity for all. The idea of a real war, with real casualties and real sacrifice, is a fictional concept to us; something we see in movies or on T.V.

But now the world has turned nasty again. There are people out there again with agendas we can't agree with, who can't be negotiated with, and who want to change our way of life.
People are saying: "This can't be so!" So they look for someone to blame, for some way out of it. Ahah!! It's probably our fault; we've driven these people to it by our insensitivity. All they want is a peaceful life, just like us, and all we have to do is identify their grievances and resolve them. Ahah!! It's our capitalist lifestyle and our warmongering leaders. All we have to do is give these people money and vote in Kerry, instead of Bush, and all the nastiness will go away.

Unfortunately, it's not that easy. However much the Left, with its own aims and political agenda, would like to use this latest assault on our freedom to further its interests, we're sooner or later going to have to face up to the fact that these terrorists are "not for turning".
It would be interesting to see how far Al-Qa'ida has to go before the Left and the cohorts of pro-Left journalists finally stop and realise: "Hey! These bastards really are the enemy!" Would a mushroom cloud over Paris or New York suffice? Or would even that be construed as "no more than we deserve for our wicked capitalist ways"?

People here are asking whether America can afford the money and the troops to take on Iran as well as Iraq. These are, of course, very valid and pertinent questions. But I would suggest that Iran isn't a separate conflict. America (not to mention Britain and Australia) is already fighting Iranian terrorists and/or Iranian-funded terrorists as we speak - in Iraq.
Iran's clerical leadership hates the West, it hates our freedom (decadence to them), it despises our secular views, it hates the equality of our women, and it loathes America as the wealthiest and most influential part of all this.
Soon, Iran will have a nuclear bomb and nobody is sure they aren't stupid enough to actually use it.

Can America, and Israel too, afford not to stop them? ???

If we act, things are going to get dirtier.
If we don't act, things are going to get dirtier anyway - but maybe in London and Canberra and Washington DC.
:bars:

Palomar · 2004-09-27 19:59:39

*Yes, Shaun, but resources can only be stretched so far and there is a limit to resources. Even ours.

Perhaps war with Iran would be justified. My basic concern, however, is the staggering deficit the U.S. already has. A financially weakened nation isn't my idea of strength. :-\ Probably isn't yours either (I'm not attempting to put words in your mouth); I just wanted to clarify a bit.

Reminds me of the rubber band analogy: You can only pull it so far until it either snaps back on itself or breaks. Our self-protection also consists in ensuring we don't over-extend ourselves too far, IMO. That's the crux of the issue for me.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-27 21:32:11

As CC mentions, it depends how seriously you view the threat as to how far you want to risk stretching the rubber band.
This is a poor analogy but, after Pearl Harbour, nobody sat down to evaluate how much it was going to cost to face up to Japan. And nobody had heard of atom bombs back then.

clark · 2004-09-28 06:17:15

I smell a fish, a red herring in fact.

Let us examine the possibility of nuclear strike. I'll include the Western Civilization as one, since our very civilization, of umpteen-millions, is at stake.

So, say some dirty scoundrels get their hands on a nuclear device from some newly founded nuclear power. Now, let's say that this bomb is not of the dirty radiological variety, built from the garbage of medical waste and other industrial processes found the world over, but an actual, real, nuclear bomb.

One, uranium leaves a trace signature. We may deduce who built the thing. We may further deduce which country was responsible for giving their bomb to some dirty scoundrels. We may then obliterate their entire nation.

Two Western Civilization has many many many more bombs then the rest of the world. We may strike with impunity from afar, while other nations are impotent to cross much further than their own borders.

Now, perhaps these other nations are full of idiots. I happen to think that there a few souls the world over who have a little common sense granted by a healthy dose of self preservation. Things like wanting to live. Things like wanting to see their children live. Things like not wanting generations with cancer.

Perhaps I am silly, but I think that if a third world nation had only a handful of bombs, they might realize that their use against an advesary with many more bombs, would be completely futile. Of course, perhaps, they may give them a third party and claim no part in the whole matter. Well, it only takes a small private conversation at the entry into the nuclear club that if they "lose" a bomb, or are found implicated in the use of one, they will be summarily bombed into oblivion to make them realize that this is a futile effort.

The reason third world nations want the bomb in the first place is to make us think twice about invading them in the first place. To think twice about bombing their factories or their reactors. North Korea has some bombs, which is primarily the reason why we will never, ever, invade it. We were afraif Iraq would get the bomb, which would mean we would never, ever, be able to invade it.

When the whole Pakistan and India thing with nuclear development went off, we all stood in suspense for the Kashmir saga. It was figured that if India invaded, Pakistan wouldn't lob a bomb onto India, they would blow up their armies on its own soil with an A-bomb. When you do it like that, many won't complain. (Now of course, they both have the bombs, and they are both engaged in a dialogue to try and resolve their long standing disputes and have made inroads from where they once were, the brink of war).

The same thing happened between the US and the USSR. We cameto the brink a few times, but ultimately ratified treaties to reduce the tension between us, and never invaded one another.

BWhite · 2004-09-28 06:18:34

As CC mentions, it depends how seriously you view the threat as to how far you want to risk stretching the rubber band.
This is a poor analogy but, after Pearl Harbour, nobody sat down to evaluate how much it was going to cost to face up to Japan. And nobody had heard of atom bombs back then.

This is exactly why the frenzy to cut taxes makes no sense and shows me George W. Bush fails to understand the threat except as a campaign talking point.

clark · 2004-09-28 06:20:18

Bush models himself after Regan...

Regan raised taxes, and mushroomed the deficit to reduce the available money to the government to reduce its size....

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-28 06:39:44

Ah, more posts. Rant aborted.

(Now of course, they both have the bombs, and they are both engaged in a dialogue to try and resolve their long standing disputes and have made inroads from where they once were, the brink of war).
The same thing happened between the US and the USSR. We cameto the brink a few times, but ultimately ratified treaties to reduce the tension between us, and never invaded one another.

Now that sounds like an argument for nuclear proliferation. A-bombs for everybody, for a more peaceful world.

This is exactly why the frenzy to cut taxes makes no sense and shows me George W. Bush fails to understand the threat except as a campaign talking point.

We can fight the sort of limited war we have going at present and have substantial tax cuts if we make other spending cuts. What demonstrates that Bush doesn't understand is that in addition to the war and tax cuts he has grossly increased domestic spending. Medicare prescription drug coverage, anyone?

Big, fat intrusive government is also a threat. One that no one in the major parties is willing to take on.

Cut the fat, fight the war, keep the change.

Palomar · 2004-09-28 06:40:26

As CC mentions, it depends how seriously you view the threat as to how far you want to risk stretching the rubber band.
This is a poor analogy but, after Pearl Harbour, nobody sat down to evaluate how much it was going to cost to face up to Japan. And nobody had heard of atom bombs back then.

This is exactly why the frenzy to cut taxes makes no sense and shows me George W. Bush fails to understand the threat except as a campaign talking point.

*I agree with your first point, Bill.

However, wouldn't Bush's use of "the threat as a campaign talking point" be almost too risky to attempt? A lot of people are jittery enough about the Iraq situation; likely Bush supporters would only adhere to him that much more...but he might drive away other potential supporters with talk of hitting Iran next.

But who knows...wacky world of politics. :hm:

--Cindy

clark · 2004-09-28 08:31:52

Now that sounds like an argument for nuclear proliferation. A-bombs for everybody, for a more peaceful world.

No, it's the argument for a heavily armed society that you regulary advocate. :;):

There is less crime, and more saftey, when everyone knows everyone else is armed, no? :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-28 08:43:58

No, it's the argument for a heavily armed society that you regulary advocate.
There is less crime, and more saftey, when everyone knows everyone else is armed, no?

There you go trying to equate conflicts between individuals with conflicts between nation states.

Different game, different rules.

If I were a third-world dictator I'd want nukes, but as an American I want to prevent third-world dictators from getting them. It's a selfish decision either way.

clark · 2004-09-28 09:22:44

As an american, why don't you want third world nations to have the nuke?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-09-22 10:24:46

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

#52 2004-09-22 12:55:26

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

#53 2004-09-22 18:31:21

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

#54 2004-09-22 19:47:49

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

#55 2004-09-27 04:17:17

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

#56 2004-09-27 07:39:42

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

#57 2004-09-27 07:54:07

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

#58 2004-09-27 08:02:58

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

#59 2004-09-27 08:06:51

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

#60 2004-09-27 09:41:06

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

#61 2004-09-27 10:00:54

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

#62 2004-09-27 10:30:47

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

#63 2004-09-27 10:40:57

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

#64 2004-09-27 11:07:13

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

#65 2004-09-27 18:56:00

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

#66 2004-09-27 19:59:39

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

#67 2004-09-27 21:32:11

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

#68 2004-09-28 06:17:15

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

#69 2004-09-28 06:18:34

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

#70 2004-09-28 06:20:18

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

#71 2004-09-28 06:39:44

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

#72 2004-09-28 06:40:26

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

#73 2004-09-28 08:31:52

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

#74 2004-09-28 08:43:58

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

#75 2004-09-28 09:22:44

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

Board footer