Iran and Israel at War

[Banquo's Ghost]

Let Jesse Jackson loose in Tehran.

Now total and eternal annihilation of every man, woman, child and their hamster is one thing, but that is plain nasty.

[KukriKhan]

We are of similar mind then, Beirut. Down here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have this thing called a constitution, that spells out how war is declared, and by whom, etc. Sadly, the 2001 crop of our leaders ignored those provisions and made stuff up so we could wage sort-of war on the sort-of cheap, without disturbing the everyday life of our citizens.

Communicate, communicate, communicate.

Yeah.

[Ice]

The IAF is 20 years more advanced as well.

So? Comparing Iraq and Iran, but saying the IAF is 20 more years advanced does not balance the situation.

[BigTex]

Sobriety has me by the throat once again but I still cling to the omellet.

I feel that any war with Iran will be a manaufactured war and the manufacturers should do something that makes them face the consequences of their actions and not dawdle in half-measures that will do nothing but leave the situation hanging about our necks for another twenty-years. They need to either make real peace or make real war and have the cohones to live with what they did.

If war - then war. Sherman's war. Real war. Get it done and get it over with in such a fashion that generations pass before the Iranian army so much as owns a slingshot. Wage war so that, as my friend says, " I never see the same face twice." If the hawks want war then they should have the courage of their convictions to say Dresden and Tokyo - not Shock & Awe.

If peace - then real peace. Peace that requires hard effort, communication, conciliation, and concessions. Both sides will have to lose something in order to win something. Let Obama sit with Ahmedinejad and have a cup of coffee. Let Jesse Jackson loose in Tehran. Hire Pink Floyd to redo the Pompeii concert in the middle of the desert. Have the powers that be do something, anything other than blustering and threatening and standing in the corner with their hands over their ears, yelling "La-la-la-la-la-la... I can't heeeeeear youuuuu." Communicate, communicate, communicate. The Persians are an ancient people, they know how to haggle, they know how to make a deal. So, make a deal.

Real war or real peace. Ghengis or Ghandi.

Dear god I think I may agree with Beriut for once. The middle of the road is no where to walk, you walk on either of it's exremes. Sherman was right, But I believe Niccolo Machialli put it best.

For it must be noted, that men must either be caressed or else annihilated; they will revenge themselves for small injuries, but cannot do so for great ones; the injury therefore that we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his vengeance.

:

And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it, for it can always find a motive for rebellion and the name of liberty and of its ancient usages, which are forgotten neither by lapse of time nor by benefits recieved; and whatever one does or provides, so long as the inhabitants are not seperated or dispersed, they do not forget that name and those usages, but appeal to them at once in every emergency.

It does not require an entire state to be suicidal for a nuclear or nuclear waste attack to occur on isreal. All it takes is one revolutionary guard captain stationed at a nuclear plant to turn a blind eye. Iran with nukes is going to be a bad thing, something Isreal understands.

Just look how easy it was for nuclear waste to go missing from a russian plant, travel thousands of miles and make it's way into brittain. A nuclear attack committed in covert by someone who should be called nothing less then a terrorist themselves happened, easily. If nuclear waste can not only go missing but be pluasibly denied by russia, iran will probably try.

[PanzerJaeger]

If war - then war. Sherman's war. Real war. Get it done and get it over with in such a fashion that generations pass before the Iranian army so much as owns a slingshot. Wage war so that, as my friend says, " I never see the same face twice." If the hawks want war then they should have the courage of their convictions to say Dresden and Tokyo - not Shock & Awe.

Thank you. Put an end to these incredibly restrictive ROEs. Shock and Awe was ridiculous. Destroy the freaking country and rebuild it the way you want it. The arabs have to know they're completely beaten, just like fanatics of the past. Bring them to their knees, then be merciful.

[BigTex]

Thank you. Put an end to these incredibly restrictive ROEs. Shock and Awe was ridiculous. Destroy the freaking country and rebuild it the way you want it. The arabs have to know they're completely beaten, just like fanatics of the past. Bring them to their knees, then be merciful.

If you would, could you give me a defination of the arab that is the target of your war?

Going to war against a target that is so shapeless with an inmeasurable size as a race. Sounds like a good way of losing, horribly.

I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.

Maybe you should read more about sherman before completely agreeing with him. War should be pursued only as a last resort. But if it does occur, it should be as swift as possible, becuase war is the ultimate form of suffering. Pursuing war for the sole purpose of imposing worse cruelties on "fanatics" will backfire.

[Fragony]

Thank you. Put an end to these incredibly restrictive ROEs. Shock and Awe was ridiculous. Destroy the freaking country and rebuild it the way you want it. The arabs have to know they're completely beaten, just like fanatics of the past. Bring them to their knees, then be merciful.

They aren't arabs

[PanzerJaeger]

They aren't arabs

We aren't in a war against Iran... yet.

[BigTex]

We aren't in a war against Iran... yet.

Why should we be in a war with them anyways. Isreal's posturing has solved our need for involvment. We should step back, continue to aggressively posture and support our ally, just not militarily. Let Isreal take out the Iranian nukes and take the heat for it.

Complete peace with iran is impossible as long as we support isreal. War with iran while possible would be long and for the short term financially straining. We should step back let Isreal deal with them, but ensure Isreal accomplishes it's goals.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It does not require an entire state to be suicidal for a nuclear or nuclear waste attack to occur on isreal. All it takes is one revolutionary guard captain stationed at a nuclear plant to turn a blind eye.

Really? So why hasn't it happened to Pakistan, where the security services are infested by al-Q'aeda and Taliban sympathisers? Much, much more likely than Iran. I suspect even rogue states take very good care to ensure they don't get blamed for a nuclear attack.

Just look how easy it was for nuclear waste to go missing from a russian plant, travel thousands of miles and make it's way into brittain. A nuclear attack committed in covert by someone who should be called nothing less then a terrorist themselves happened, easily. If nuclear waste can not only go missing but be pluasibly denied by russia, iran will probably try.

Very different. Not only state organised (allegedly) but an amount of non-explosive radioactive material very easily smuggled. I don't see Britain threatening a retaliatory Trident strike in return, do you?

It is true that almost any fool with access to a hospital waste bin could make a dirty bomb and scare any western city centre witless. Why haven't we seen it happen?

[Fragony]

Why would they westerners are already scared, more would transform it to hate.

[Tribesman]

Why would they westerners are already scared

Don't judge westerners by your standards Frag , most people don't have your fetish about Muslims under the bed who are out to get them

[LittleGrizzly]

You wouldn't think the loosely affiliated fundamentalists that make up Al Qaeda would be able to formulate a policy like that and carry it out, it only takes a few people to carry out the attack and if they were to do it like BG said they wouldn't even be reliant on anyone for the explosives...

Although your argument does make sense for the organisation as a whole...

[Fragony]

Don't judge westerners by your standards Frag , most people don't have your fetish about Muslims under the bed who are out to get them

Well overdoing it could make them me (as you see me ;))

[PanzerJaeger]

Why should we be in a war with them anyways. Isreal's posturing has solved our need for involvment. We should step back, continue to aggressively posture and support our ally, just not militarily. Let Isreal take out the Iranian nukes and take the heat for it.

Complete peace with iran is impossible as long as we support isreal. War with iran while possible would be long and for the short term financially straining. We should step back let Isreal deal with them, but ensure Isreal accomplishes it's goals.

I was just pointing out that I was refering to the Iraqis when I said arabs. I agree with your points.

[BigTex]

Really? So why hasn't it happened to Pakistan, where the security services are infested by al-Q'aeda and Taliban sympathisers? Much, much more likely than Iran. I suspect even rogue states take very good care to ensure they don't get blamed for a nuclear attack.

Iran has a long standing national tradition of wanting to destroy isreal. A major difference for them and pakistan. You also have al-qaeda and the taliban currently preoccupied with fighting in afghanistan and trying to takeover the government in pakistan. There's also the little note of Iran already supplying, with both weapons and funding, terrorist groups.

Pakistan and Iran are both very worrysome places, and pakistan truly highlights some of the dangers of iran getting nukes. If the taliban, and with them al-qaeda, take control of pakistan they will have access to nukes. Iran is far more stable then pakistan but who is to say that is forever it is a theocracy after all.

Very different. Not only state organised (allegedly) but an amount of non-explosive radioactive material very easily smuggled. I don't see Britain threatening a retaliatory Trident strike in return, do you?

It is true that almost any fool with access to a hospital waste bin could make a dirty bomb and scare any western city centre witless. Why haven't we seen it happen?

How is this so "very different" then the iranian government supplying one of their terrorist groups with nuclear material. If anything it will only give them more deniability in the act. The fact that it occured in a first world country shows how easily in can be transported undected. Last I checked most radioactive material besides a warhead is non explosive.

You are also completely correct you don't see britian doing a thing, the fact that it's only (allegedly) state organized is also important. It can't be proven that the state allowed this to happen. This gives Iran full pluasible deniability in a dirty bomb attack by hamas or another supported group. This is why Isreal is looking into a preventative strike. Because it can happen and because they will be left with no means to retaliate once it has.

Hospitals only have small amounts of radioactive cobalt. It's also far less potent then speant nuclear fuel. Why hasnt it happened, who knows it could, probably will in our lifetimes. There's alot of crazy people out there, doesnt take a fundi middle eastern terrorist to pull that one off. IIRC there was quite a big fuss over here about just this awhile ago.

[Tribesman]

Iran has a long standing national tradition of wanting to destroy isreal. A major difference for them and pakistan.

Errrrr... is that the Pakistan that has never recognised Israel and says they will never recognise anything until the regime in Jerusalem is gone ?
Or is it a different Pakistan you are thinking of

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Why should we be in a war with them anyways. Isreal's posturing has solved our need for involvment. We should step back, continue to aggressively posture and support our ally, just not militarily. Let Isreal take out the Iranian nukes and take the heat for it.

Complete peace with iran is impossible as long as we support isreal. War with iran while possible would be long and for the short term financially straining. We should step back let Isreal deal with them, but ensure Isreal accomplishes it's goals.

I argee with you on the top part.


But Let Them Do what they please.Everybody been holding them back way to long. There will be no peace there untill Isrealies destroys Iran and her toublesome neghiobrs.

[LittleGrizzly]

There will be no peace there untill Isrealies destroys Iran and her toublesome neghiobrs.

I think the problem with that is the non troublesome neighbours may become troublesome neighbours, by the end of that road your wiping out a continent..

[The Black Ship]

The Israeli air force has already shown what it can do to double-digit Russian SAMs and integrated air defences, you have merely to look up Syria's nascient nuclear weapons program, or should I say extinct program.

No, the difficulty lies in the number of sites to strike this time as well as the uncertainty of Israeli's ability to "bunker-bust". Noone's shown the ability to bunker-bust the type of facilities that Iran has developed, at least not to the level of destruction necessary to totally destroy an atomic program which has obtained the theoretical expertise necessary to develop a weapon. That requires a decapitation of knowlegeable personnel too.

[Tribesman]

There will be no peace there untill Isrealies destroys Iran and her toublesome neghiobrs.

So you are on the same page as the fundamentalist nuts .

[Louis VI the Fat]

Democracies can be just as irrational as autocracies. All are given to mistakes. However, no state in history ever wanted 'to end it all'.

The situation that came closest to having a madman in control of a nuclear arsenal would be the democratically elected Richard Nixon in his final years in office. He was paranoid, permapissed and extremely angry.

Come on, Louis; either you agree with me, or you must be barking mad.

Pah! You are stuck in a Cold War frame of mind. Back when Western adversaries were indeed not barking mad irrational states, but technological and socially advandced states with a rational state apparatus.

And Nixon the closest a madman has ever come to a nuclear arsenal? Hah! I've got a tenner on Sarko nuking Dublin for ruining his EU-presidency.

[Louis VI the Fat]

How delicious. No-one has implied my neo-con tendencies for some time now.

I believe that the natural state of Mankind is to be free. So yes, remove these governments and the nations of the Middle East will tend towards their natural state.

Your straw man is to suggest that I would encourage outsiders to effect this change, rather than to allow those people to discover liberty themselves.

Straw man? What straw man?

It was just a belligerent tone to encourage disagreement, that's what it is. All you neocons see enemies and strawmen everywhere.

Anyway, I'll add to your axis of strawmen: current Western notions of freedom are recent. Non-western cultures may not share them at all. What's more devastating, is that I am more and more beginning to believe that our notions of individual freedom, individual dignity are the outcome of very specific historical and social circumstance, which have unduly been generalised into universal values. For example, I can well imagine some counties prefering nuclear annihilation over Beirut's Pink Floyd concert. My anti-cultural relativistic worldview is beginning to crumble.

Devastating, because I could accept that someone would with his whole heart thinks his society's ultimate goal lays in subordination to faith, or a more social concept of freedom, or what not, while still believing that they had it all wrong and that the natural state of mankind is to be free.

This dichotomy is hidden in the language of non-western cultural emancipationalists as well. How often have we not heard expressed ideas like 'freedom for Afghani women is to wear the hijab', or, 'freedom in our society is collective, not individualistic'. The point here is that they use the word 'freedom' in this deceitful manner, where the more proper phrase would be 'by any fulfilment of our society's deepest values and norms'. That is, they have taken over the normative value of the word freedom, without the material aspect. Because they have been thought through a western dominated discourse that freedom is the highest good.

Something similar is going on with the word 'democracy'. Why on earth does Mugabe even pretend to be democratically elected? Surely, voting at the tip of a sword is the complete opposite of a democratic and free vote. Mugabe does it, because he too, confuses, or deceits through hope of this confusion, the nominal and material value of the status of democracy.

One of my main problems lays in my newfound understanding that western freedom is a progressive notion of freedom. Not progressive in a political sense, but in a social sense. It requires the notion of a changing society. But, as a society necessarily changes over time, then so too must its values. Hence, the impossibility of naming these values universal.

More worryingly, I notice that once again I find myself unable to post a cohesive essay in the time remotely acceptable for a forum post. Rewriting the above rubble into comprehensible English and something vaguely resembling a meaningful structure would take me hours. I need to hone my writing skills. Or learn to structure my thoughts. Or simply get an eduction.

[Louis VI the Fat]

For a more specific and immensely more practical point of view related to the above post, here's a fine article from the NYT.

The erroneous assumption was a relic from the liberal past: the doctrine that freedom is a natural part of the human condition.

A disastrously simple-minded argument followed from this: that because freedom is instinctively “written in the hearts” of all peoples, all that is required for its spontaneous flowering in a country that has known only tyranny is the forceful removal of the tyrant and his party.

Once President Bush was beguiled by this argument he began to sound like a late-blooming schoolboy who had just discovered John Locke, the 17th-century founder of liberalism. In his second inaugural speech, Mr. Bush declared “complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom ... because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul.” Later an Arab-American audience was told, “No matter what your faith, freedom is God’s gift to every person in every nation.” Another speech more explicitly laid out the neoconservative agenda: “We believe that freedom can advance and change lives in the greater Middle East.”

A basic flaw in the approach of the president and his neoliberal (a k a neoconservative) advisers was their failure to distinguish Western beliefs about freedom from those critical features of it that non-Western peoples were likely to embrace.

[KarlXII]

Well, you first have to know that Iran has the capacity and the will to go to war. Then you have to count their fears of foreign retaliation. Iran knows it will not stand up against a combined Israel/US, which is why it has yet to "Wipe Israel off the map".