Political Potlock I

BWhite · 2005-10-30 00:34:06

Too good not to share. From Saturday Night Live:

"66% of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling the war in Iraq. The other 34% believe that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church."

srmeaney · 2005-10-31 01:21:12

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co … 83,00.html

if Russia Breaks up does that mean an end to Russian support for the Space Program?

BWhite · 2005-10-31 19:58:30

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co … 83,00.html
if Russia Breaks up does that mean an end to Russian support for the Space Program?

If China annexes Siberia. . .

Grypd · 2005-11-15 17:53:38

US troops searching for a missing 15 year old Iraqi boy entered a goverment compound. They then forced a locked door and discovered more than 170 Iraqi detainees with most showing Malnourishment and many also with visible evidence of torture having been used against them. There where also a couple of the prisoners who had been paralysed by the damage done to them by torture.

BBC, Iraqi detainees found starving

THis is a major embarassment for the US, It has been described as having happened on there watch. In a recent speech of President Bush "he told the crowd that this new Iraq would be a beacon of democracy and human rights in the middle east"

These detainess where never recorded as being arrested and for such a large "black" organisation to have collected so many and kept them, tortured and likely killed, indicates that the trust the US puts in the new Iraqi security agency is not well placed.

John Creighton · 2005-11-15 18:15:46

US troops searching for a missing 15 year old Iraqi boy entered a goverment compound. They then forced a locked door and discovered more than 170 Iraqi detainees with most showing Malnourishment and many also with visible evidence of torture having been used against them. There where also a couple of the prisoners who had been paralysed by the damage done to them by torture.
BBC, Iraqi detainees found starving
THis is a major embarassment for the US, It has been described as having happened on there watch. In a recent speech of President Bush "he told the crowd that this new Iraq would be a beacon of democracy and human rights in the middle east"
These detainess where never recorded as being arrested and for such a large "black" organisation to have collected so many and kept them, tortured and likely killed, indicates that the trust the US puts in the new Iraqi security agency is not well placed.

The US has to really on the IRAQ people to eventually be responsible for order. The US should discuss these concerns with the IRAQ authorities and offer any assistance that the IRAQ government asks for in ensuring the human rights of the prisons are respected.

I would like to point out that with all the violence and joblessness in IRAQ that an American style prison might not seem like such a bad place to some people in IRAQ. There are people in the US that think the prisons in the US are too soft. The Americans have to respect human rights in their prisons for reasons of international image and they should encourage the IRAQ government to do the same if for no other reason to project an image of freedom. However, I think it is more important for the IRAQ government to develop a greater since of sovereignty so that the Americans can leave the area sooner.

Grypd · 2005-11-15 18:26:59

I agree that we will have to rely on the Iraq people to supply there own law and order but have we forced the issue too fast. Certainly only last week the UK was talking about removing the UK contingent next year. But we cannot do this if we then leave basically what we came to destroy in charge and actively following Saddam and his Baath parties stock in trade.

We need to be able to leave Iraq and say honestly it is a better place now than when we came. At the moment with the insurgency and rising ethnic factional anger, we leave and we will in all likehood have civil war within the space of a few short years.

We are training people fast but in our drive have we in choosing these people just rejected the Black and too keep the white found we have too few and gone for more and more who are really dark grays. This could certainly explain how this torture camp could have come about. Worse is there more than one or are we going to find a large pit filled with the victims who died.

srmeaney · 2005-11-22 05:29:22

British leak exposes US government plan to conduct its own Terrorist bombings against Arab Press house Al-Jazeera.

http://ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_ … 01,00.html

Earthfirst · 2005-11-22 16:40:45

I dont trust what the BBC airs as the truth. Also as long as the person is not a US citzeen and is not in American territory. The US government can do what ever they want to that person. But with soliders in a time of war they have too treat them well, but there is no war it ended in Iraq long ago. There is no hostile Iraq government we liberated the peoples of Iraq. Now we are starting a new government in Iraq for the people to be free.
Its strange people go on and on about the war in Iraq, it ended all ready! What it is now is a control action as we start up the new Iraq government. The attacks are from outsiders who kill Iraq people alone with the US soliders. These outsiders dont want Iraq to be free, they want to start a islamic nation. These people are also not united to kick americans out of Iraq, they are many fraction getting there along awaited change to kill each other. For them they care about Iraq freedom or its people, its just their chance to blow them selfs about for islamic geehad and try to get some american ass well. There is no war, just malecomtemps.
Once Iraq government is up and running we can start to take american troops out, but not before they can handle it. Also I never belive polls, I can find a hunderd people that all think Bush is doing a great job me being one of crouse. Were did they do the poll? Goldengate park, time square, some liberal bathhouse in San Fransico. Liberalism is just another form of durgs

srmeaney · 2005-11-22 21:52:59

US Education surrenders to a Manadarin Speaking future
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connec … n_chinese/

So Mandarin will be a required space Colonist Language.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-23 09:52:26

The good news is that possibly as early as 2006 troops in Iraq will begtin to be stationed outside of their nation.

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10166449/]Three brigades may be cut in Iraq in early 2006
Some U.S. troops would remain ‘on call’ in Kuwait[/url]

The sooner the military budget can decrease the sooner more money can go for other things...

srmeaney · 2005-11-27 22:43:26

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationsp … drcrd.html

I wonder if he drives through dallas with the top down...Hmm?

Earthfirst · 2005-11-29 15:23:55

To srmeaney: Mandarin has been taught in US schools for a long time, mostly in colleges but also in high schools. Did you see how many students were learning Mandarin in the artical 300 kids. Verse like 3000 for spanish in the state the artical in linked. Have you ever taken a forign lingo class. In my college it is manitory for my degree path, I am taken spanish 102 now. The thing is we dont really learn to speak spanish that well. Mostly just spanish grammer, there alaphbet is almost the same as english expect for the lettler K is not used. Once I am done with 101 though 104 I will quickly forget most of it any ways. Why because the liberals think that we need to know other cultures, bull In America English is all I will ever need to know and all those peayons from Mexico better learn english fast. It the same for the kids taken Mandarin, you only try to learn it if you are going to vist the country, or have a job where people speak that lingo and not english.
By the way lots of china's kids are learning english too, English has been the most important lingo in the world, and still is today. Looks like the first people on Mars will speak American english! English is the worlds most wildly learnt second lingo.
Most non native english speakers live in India, Japan, and the republic of china "Taiwan". Question, why do you bash your own native tounge? You should be happy that there are so many fellow speakers and that you dont have to waste your time in spanish class like I do. No Mas, muy mal y me durmo en espanol class. Caul es tu lingo Ud. srymeany, muy simpactico es el New Mars e tu? Not the best spanish but I am trying, I am Trilingo I speak cannda A, canndain beer is fit for a king or the sink because it taste bad. FYI Asutrailen wine is bad too.
English is the lingo franka of the world, chew on that you mal-contemp from the south seas.

srmeaney · 2005-11-30 00:01:32

To srmeaney: Mandarin has been taught in US schools for a long time, mostly in colleges but also in high schools. Did you see how many students were learning Mandarin in the artical 300 kids. Verse like 3000 for spanish in the state the artical in linked. Have you ever taken a forign lingo class. In my college it is manitory for my degree path, I am taken spanish 102 now. The thing is we dont really learn to speak spanish that well. Mostly just spanish grammer, there alaphbet is almost the same as english expect for the lettler K is not used. Once I am done with 101 though 104 I will quickly forget most of it any ways. Why because the liberals think that we need to know other cultures, bull In America English is all I will ever need to know and all those peayons from Mexico better learn english fast. It the same for the kids taken Mandarin, you only try to learn it if you are going to vist the country, or have a job where people speak that lingo and not english.
By the way lots of china's kids are learning english too, English has been the most important lingo in the world, and still is today. Looks like the first people on Mars will speak American english! English is the worlds most wildly learnt second lingo.
Most non native english speakers live in India, Japan, and the republic of china "Taiwan". Question, why do you bash your own native tounge? You should be happy that there are so many fellow speakers and that you dont have to waste your time in spanish class like I do. No Mas, muy mal y me durmo en espanol class. Caul es tu lingo Ud. srymeany, muy simpactico es el New Mars e tu? Not the best spanish but I am trying, I am Trilingo I speak cannda A, canndain beer is fit for a king or the sink because it taste bad. FYI Asutrailen wine is bad too.
English is the lingo franka of the world, chew on that you mal-contemp from the south seas.

On the Contrary, I think it arrogant that the 8% of the Global population who currently speak english should assume to be the future of all conversation.
But then we live on a planet where 0.00001% of the population is telling the rest that they dont have the right to an equal share.

You know earthfirst, If you claim to be something better than the last generation then get your ass elected governor of Arizona and pump in Sea water for crop irrigation. Australian Tropical research is doing some interesting work on Grafting fruit trees to Mangrove rootstock allowing salt water irrigation. You might turn out to be the Man who fed the world on Seawater...

DonPanic · 2005-12-04 14:34:57

I dont trust what the BBC airs as the truth. Also as long as the person is not a US citzeen and is not in American territory.

Getting so closed-minded...
What would you say, should foreigners deny US moon travels just because news announcers are not from their own countries ?

idiom · 2005-12-04 17:41:57

We do don't we?

Whats really scary is the whining about anti-american bias being present in American media. You have to be kidding me.

Often anti-god stuff can come through but religion and patriotism are not the same thing. Sad that I can actually expect people to be offended by that idea.

Rxke · 2005-12-12 02:51:04

Quite an interesting survey being done by the BBC in Iraq

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 514414.stm

The poll by Oxford Research International was commissioned by the BBC in association with ABC News, NHK, Time Magazine and Der Spiegel.

In all, 1,711 Iraqis were interviewed throughout the country in October and November 2005.

Interesting graph at the bottom... And conclusion in article.

Earthfirst · 2006-01-17 16:58:32

what should be done about Iran, or Persia as it should be called?
Invade them, or just really make them mad by sending a couple of air stricks at the iran leaders homes, or motor pool.

Commodore · 2006-01-20 23:17:15

Iran can't be invaded and occupied like Iraq. Its several times the size with 3 times the population.

Like in Iraq, the biggest question is how connected the regime is to the day to day goverment operations. In Iraq it evaporated out from under us. Iran had before the most recent election a fairly robust opposition in its pariliment. They were powerless, but vocal. Its likely they'd be willing to fill in if they don't die first. We need to go straight to the people with various forms of electronic infromation warfare.

War is inevitable barring a sudden counter revolution. The navy and air force can tear Iranian armed forces to shreds, but they also have extremeist militias. If we are going to bring peace, were going to need to do a slow, methodical, house to house, town to town, city to city clearing and disarming campaign that denies outsiders reentry to clear areas, or at least the delievery of arms. Also we will need to secure, rebuild, fortify, and rearm on the fly. It will be a slow grinding affair, but if we are methodical we will always have overwhelming firepower to bear.

That said there is time. The whole UN charade will take at least a year. That will give us time to finish up in Iraq. Also interesting, the more indignant the EU-3 get, the less wiggle room they have to weasle out this time.

Also, apparently Syria has decided to side with Iran. They can be tied down easy enough so that they can not assist their Persian friends.

Grypd · 2006-01-21 06:09:05

Iran can't be invaded and occupied like Iraq. Its several times the size with 3 times the population.

Correct it also has borders not only with Iraq but also Afghanistan and there would be a reguirement to provide sufficient forces on both sides to ensure that they would be secure.

Like in Iraq, the biggest question is how connected the regime is to the day to day goverment operations. In Iraq it evaporated out from under us. Iran had before the most recent election a fairly robust opposition in its pariliment. They were powerless, but vocal. Its likely they'd be willing to fill in if they don't die first. We need to go straight to the people with various forms of electronic infromation warfare.

Yes but the elections where held and though it is vocal the opposition is in a minority, And generally the elections where not up to worlds standards they do not appear to have generated much discord amongst the populace. Also though there is a generally more progressive feeling in Iran that does not count towards a more pro western feeling just a trend to Iran feeling more confident in itself. And the hardline president of Iran, mr Ahmadinejad has by confronting the west actually increased his popularity in Iran. The Iranians do not like the western world and they certainly hate the USA most of all. It is impossible to control an occupied country when the majority of the population hate you, even a troublesome minority if large enough ensures defeat. Iran if it comes down to regime change must come from within.

War is inevitable barring a sudden counter revolution. The navy and air force can tear Iranian armed forces to shreds, but they also have extremeist militias. If we are going to bring peace, were going to need to do a slow, methodical, house to house, town to town, city to city clearing and disarming campaign that denies outsiders reentry to clear areas, or at least the delievery of arms. Also we will need to secure, rebuild, fortify, and rearm on the fly. It will be a slow grinding affair, but if we are methodical we will always have overwhelming firepower to bear.

The USA does have overwhelming firepower it just will not be allowed to act. Russia has major assets in Iran and China recieves about 50% of Irans oil this combination pretty much ensures that the USA would have to act alone.

That said there is time. The whole UN charade will take at least a year. That will give us time to finish up in Iraq. Also interesting, the more indignant the EU-3 get, the less wiggle room they have to weasle out this time.
Also, apparently Syria has decided to side with Iran. They can be tied down easy enough so that they can not assist their Persian friends.

The problem with imposing sanctions is that China and Russia will not let it pass at the UN. This is simply a matter of self interest. Russia has billions invested in invogorating the Iranian oil industry and China's economy relies on recieving 50% of the oil that Iran produces. We impose sanctions and as in Iraq not only will we be unable to stop smuggling, we will find that Iran will do the same and close to 33% of Irans oil goes to the west. That would be cut off and since the majority of the world has reached a peak of production then that means for the west increased oil prices.

To stop Iran's nuclear facilities will be a lot more difficult than those of Iraqs for a start unlike Iraq they have been spread out and hardened. EU negociators have always been concerned that unlike other countries Iran is actually able to mine its own Uranium. This in short means sanctions will be unlikely to stop a programme and negociated means have so far failed especially with Iran stating it wishes to produce electricity by nuclear means. To be able to do this it must have refined Uranium, what the problem is that theoretically they will be able to refine it to the stage it is bomb capable purity.

Frances warning over Roque states nuclear plans

Less wriggle room intersting point you do recognise that this includes the UK which is currently in Iraq and Afghanistan and from whose bases the USA would need to attack Iran. Anyway when it comes down to it there is no way the UK which is overstretched could provide troops for an incursion into Iran and certainly Geramny which is constitutionally barred from foreign actions would not ever. In short only France could get involved but it does not have enough trust or public support for any such action especially with the french publics distrust of the USA.

Commodore · 2006-01-21 11:09:05

Correct it also has borders not only with Iraq but also Afghanistan and there would be a reguirement to provide sufficient forces on both sides to ensure that they would be secure.

As time goes by and Iraqi units come online US force will leave the population centers and move towards the Syrian and Iranian borders. Combined with air power, we'll have no trouble holding the line, even if Iran resorts to human wave attacks like they did in the 80's. Afganistan can not be invaded without a mechanized army because there in nothing in its western quarter. Again, something that easy for air power to thwart. There is really nothing for Iran in Afganistan anyway.

Yes but the elections where held and though it is vocal the opposition is in a minority, And generally the elections where not up to worlds standards they do not appear to have generated much discord amongst the populace. Also though there is a generally more progressive feeling in Iran that does not count towards a more pro western feeling just a trend to Iran feeling more confident in itself. And the hardline president of Iran, mr Ahmadinejad has by confronting the west actually increased his popularity in Iran. The Iranians do not like the western world and they certainly hate the USA most of all. It is impossible to control an occupied country when the majority of the population hate you, even a troublesome minority if large enough ensures defeat. Iran if it comes down to regime change must come from within.

I believe the previous parliment had a majority reformist make up, as they were able to pass many things that the hard line mullahs in the juduciary had to over turn. The current situation is most likely due to voter apathy. Its hard to be interested in an election when all the canidates are hand picked by the mullahs.

And 70% of the population was born after the revolution, and despite what the 2 minute hates you see on TV would lead you to believe, that 70% does not hate us. The hate the vice police that tell them what to and not to do all the time. They want better relations with the west. And while they do take pride in their nations ability to indipendantly produce their own nuclear fuel, I see nothing that would inicated they are willing to support a war against the west to prevent international inspections to make sure the technology isn't used for weapons.

The USA does have overwhelming firepower it just will not be allowed to act. Russia has major assets in Iran and China recieves about 50% of Irans oil this combination pretty much ensures that the USA would have to act alone.
The problem with imposing sanctions is that China and Russia will not let it pass at the UN. This is simply a matter of self interest. Russia has billions invested in invogorating the Iranian oil industry and China's economy relies on recieving 50% of the oil that Iran produces. We impose sanctions and as in Iraq not only will we be unable to stop smuggling, we will find that Iran will do the same and close to 33% of Irans oil goes to the west. That would be cut off and since the majority of the world has reached a peak of production then that means for the west increased oil prices.

If the EU-3 don't back down, then it would be a NATO operation, with or without the Russian or Chinese support. Neither have the will or power to stop us on an issue such as thisl The simple fact of the matter is if Iran doesn't back down this will end in bloodshed. The Isrealis will not stand idle. With that in mind the rest of the world has to consider how best to get the quickest and least bloody resolution. China and Russias interests are not served by war between Isreal and Iran. If it comes to blows they would support us to minimize any disruption.

To stop Iran's nuclear facilities will be a lot more difficult than those of Iraqs for a start unlike Iraq they have been spread out and hardened. EU negociators have always been concerned that unlike other countries Iran is actually able to mine its own Uranium. This in short means sanctions will be unlikely to stop a programme and negociated means have so far failed especially with Iran stating it wishes to produce electricity by nuclear means. To be able to do this it must have refined Uranium, what the problem is that theoretically they will be able to refine it to the stage it is bomb capable purity.

Ultimately it won't matter. Isreal will take its best shot, and whatever the outcome, Iran will strike back, most likely wildly, and the US will get involved, and then we will finish the facilities off.

Frances warning over Roque states nuclear plans
Less wriggle room intersting point you do recognise that this includes the UK which is currently in Iraq and Afghanistan and from whose bases the USA would need to attack Iran. Anyway when it comes down to it there is no way the UK which is overstretched could provide troops for an incursion into Iran and certainly Geramny which is constitutionally barred from foreign actions would not ever. In short only France could get involved but it does not have enough trust or public support for any such action especially with the french publics distrust of the USA.

The EU-3 is pushing this issue for a couple reasons. One is they are starving for relevence. Another is they are within range of Iranian IRBM. But perhapes most importantly, they realize after the French riots that they will lose their culture identitys if they fail to improve the situation in the Muslim world. The more it sucks there, the more people will come to Europe, and the more Europe will become Eurabia. This is a tenative first step for regime change in Iran. As Iraq improves, Britians troops will be freed up. The Basra area has always been calm anyway. German has troops in afganistan, and if its a NATO operation there is no reason to think they won't join in at least a supporting role.

reddragon · 2006-01-21 20:18:57

Commodore, you seem to think that a war with Iran is likely, even inevitable. While it is possible, I do not think that it is very likely, and I do not think that we should be resigned to it, since that makes it more likely. Even the hawks currently in power in our (American) government are playing down the possibility or war. As much as American, Europe, Russia, China, and Iran disagree, none of them, I think, wants a war over this. Iran wants to thumb its nose at the West, but it does so in the realization that we will not attack in response to insults and snubs only. Ahmedinejad is trying to see how much he can get away with, but if he sees that he has gone too far, I think that he will back off quickly.

Suspected development of nuclear weapons is not reason enough for war. In all circumstances, and especially when we are already in a war, we do not want to go to war unless it is absolutely necessary. It would only be necessary and, in my opinion, justified if Iran actually attacked someone, most likely Israel, but I do not think that it is likely that it will do this given that it knows that that would result in its own ultimate destruction.

There is a strong suppressed movement for reform, even democracy, in Iran. But the Iranians are united in their opposition to American interference in their affairs. Thus they would be united against an American invasion. There are some interesting similarities between America and Iran really. Both are led by a conservative president who doesn't get along well with other countries; both have significant opposition to the policies of this leader; but the populations of both will unite in the face of a threat to their nation and their sovereignty. If American troops march into Terahn, they will not be greeted as liberators. Likely the situation would prove much like the quagmire in Iraq, only worse.

An invasion of Iran would not be taken well by the American people unless Iran had struck first. It would almost certainly necessitate a draft, something which worries me and which would lead to Vietnam-like protests and divisions in the nation. It would also be opposed abroad, hardening the hatred of our enemies and alienating our friends. If Iran does have nuclear weapons, the results could be disastrous.

We may have to accept Iran as a nuclear nation, and potentially a cold war type standoff could develop, although more likely it would be a grudging acceptance as with China or Pakistan. Still, no first strike is the best policy in a nuclear confrontation, and making a few concessions is better than fighting Vietnam II or even WWIII.

Sorry for the long post.

Commodore · 2006-01-21 21:53:49

I'd love to see this issue be solved through peaceful means. But I just don't think its going to happen. Diplomancy only works when both sides want the same thing. Japan wants to buy our beef, and we want to sell it. Only when both sides work together to bring down barriers will resolutions be found. Likewise with various Cold War arms reductions treaies, both side wanted to reduce the cost maintaining massive forces, and reduce the threat of war.

Iran wants at the very least unrestricted nuclear research, which leaves open the possibility for nuclear weapons and we'd never know it.. We, the EU-3, and the Russians have offered the compromise of providing the fuel and disposing of it form them, which would give them the power they want. The only safe conculsion we can come to is that they want more than electricity.

A repeat of the cold war with Iran is impossible. There is no such thing as MAD to prevent the Iranians from making a first strike. While Isreal has (in theory) its own nukes, it doesn't have the hundreds required to completely destroy Iran. Dozens would be requiered to disable just the Iranian miltary. And even then there is little point. It would take very few bombs to wipe out the vast majority of the Isreali population, and the rest would need to evacuate, or die, or be immediately overrun. The theorized "Samson Option" is little more than revenge attack against major Arab capitals. Iran could most likely shrug it off, happy to have finally slayed the Zionists no matter the cost. The rest of the world would not want to deal with the fallout, literally and figuratively, of a full scale Isreali counterattack.

The lines have already been draw. I don't think there is any question that Isreal will strike if Iran doesn't back down. And Iran knows that it can likely survive the worst Isreal can dish out, and they "know" have several dozen virgins waiting in paradise if they don't. The best outcome comes from us stepping in, because only we have the power to land cripling conventional blows.

The key is letting the UN process run its course so we can regain our offensive forces. That is why Bush let the European take the lead on this. That is why Iran is making its stand now. Any furthur delay over the next couple years and they will miss their chance.

Grypd · 2006-01-22 05:32:50

A quick brief of Iran and the history of its nuclear programme

We all would prefer this to be dealt with by peaceful means but Iran is determined to have Nuclear power. It does make a strong case in stating its oil will eventually run out. It is an arid country so hydro is limited, little coal reserves the only thing it does have is natural uranium. In short nuclear is the power source they need. In good concience there is no way that this can be disputed.

You have to remember that the Iranian nuclear plans where started not by the Mullahs but by the Shah. The whole basis of his plans where for 23 nuclear power stations to be built to provide power and the USA supplied most of the research material and a fully functional 5 megawatt Nuclear reactor. In 1975 Henry Kissinger signed a deal to allow Iran to develop its own processing plants and in 1976 went even further and offered them a US built plutonium reprocessor. It also has a German supplied reactor that was 50% built and another 85% completed which was stopped in 1979.

Needless to say 1979 happened and though Iran was always considered Nuclear as its chance to develop its country the Gulf war happened not the one we consider as operation desert storm but the war with Iraq that lead to possibly one of the bloodiest and expensive wars of recent times. Iran is only now coming out of the financial difficulties it garnered from that war. It is simply coming back to what it originally planned and since 1995 those not completed reactors have begun to be repaired and built again this time by Russia.

Under the nuclear non proliferation treaty Iran is perfectly legaly entitled to develop its Nuclear facilities for the use of civilian purposes. And it is also allowed to do research too and with its treaty with the USA it is allowed to enrich Uranium. In short it has not broken any rules.

This shows that if Iran gets refered to the UN and this is very doubtful considering the opposition it will recieve from the likes of Russia and China there is every chance nothing will happen. And in internal Iran the support the current regime will get from its stopping the evil actions of the great satan USA will increase the popularity of the current regime. Sanctions imposed would have no real effect in stopping Irans nuclear ambitions though it would cause economic problems but also allow Iran to stop sending the west including turkey oil.

reddragon · 2006-01-22 11:01:54

Ahmedinejad talks about "wiping Israel off the map," but I do not expect him to actually attack them. Presumably he understands that to do so would be essentially suicidal. America and other nations would come to the defense of Israel if it were attacked, and against them Iran would have no chance. Given that Iran struck first and that defeat was assured, the other Arab nations would be reluctant to join it. Thus Iran is more likely to talk big than actually start anything.

The other war scenario is that Israel attacks Iran first. Fearing for its safety, it might attempt such preempive action. It would, however, only do so if it was confident that it would have American support in the ensuing war, and it might even ask for explicit American approval before acting. If Israel did strike first, America would certainly not be obligated to come to its defense and would not even be necessarily justified. In such a scenario the Arab nations would come to Iran's defense. Other nations would probably not help Iran, but they would be reluctant to help Israel either.

In a war America has the power to decide which side wins. In order to come to a peaceful resolution, we must make it clear that we will not condone or tolerate military action by any nation, admittedly not a position we have much moral authority to take, but still one we have the military power to take if our leaders will once again remember the responsibility that comes with power. To Iran we must make it clear that an attack on Israel will lead to their own destruction. To Israel we must emphasize that our support for their sovereignty does not give them carte blanche by virtue of our power, and we do not guarantee any assistance in a mess of their own making.[/tex]

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-22 19:28:19

I listen to an episode of Charlie Rose last night where he interviewed the former head of the CIA (forget his name).

He described how they "influenced" Gadafi to start acting right. Waited for him to deny the existance of certain "secret" projects and then showed him the evidence proving the lie.

I think Iran will be dealt with in much the same way. The American invasion of Iraq has caused many of it's neighbors to breath a heavy sigh of relief. They are grateful but will enver admit it publically.

However, the Iranian progress toward Nuclear Weaponry is more terrifying to their Middle Eastern neighbors ever were or could be. Iran will always lack a Nuclear Weapons Delivery System with sufficient range to bomb anyone other than Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc...

If and when the CIA gets enough evidence to trigger military intervention, the US or Isreal will simply bomb whatever needs to be bombed into Smithereens.

And anyone who objects will be quietly showed the evidence and then expected to thank us for the intervention.

Personally, I am not nearly as afraid of Iran as I am North Korea, whom I think we should have pre-emptorily attacked last year, and then sent a bill for the action to China for cleaning up their back yard.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-10-30 00:34:06

Re: Political Potlock I

#27 2005-10-31 01:21:12

Re: Political Potlock I

#28 2005-10-31 19:58:30

Re: Political Potlock I

#29 2005-11-15 17:53:38

Re: Political Potlock I

#30 2005-11-15 18:15:46

Re: Political Potlock I

#31 2005-11-15 18:26:59

Re: Political Potlock I

#32 2005-11-22 05:29:22

Re: Political Potlock I

#33 2005-11-22 16:40:45

Re: Political Potlock I

#34 2005-11-22 21:52:59

Re: Political Potlock I

#35 2005-11-23 09:52:26

Re: Political Potlock I

#36 2005-11-27 22:43:26

Re: Political Potlock I

#37 2005-11-29 15:23:55

Re: Political Potlock I

#38 2005-11-30 00:01:32

Re: Political Potlock I

#39 2005-12-04 14:34:57

Re: Political Potlock I

#40 2005-12-04 17:41:57

Re: Political Potlock I

#41 2005-12-12 02:51:04

Re: Political Potlock I

#42 2006-01-17 16:58:32

Re: Political Potlock I

#43 2006-01-20 23:17:15

Re: Political Potlock I

#44 2006-01-21 06:09:05

Re: Political Potlock I

#45 2006-01-21 11:09:05

Re: Political Potlock I

#46 2006-01-21 20:18:57

Re: Political Potlock I

#47 2006-01-21 21:53:49

Re: Political Potlock I

#48 2006-01-22 05:32:50

Re: Political Potlock I

#49 2006-01-22 11:01:54

Re: Political Potlock I

#50 2006-01-22 19:28:19

Re: Political Potlock I

Board footer