Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 17th, 2007, 08:46 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAsux View Post
What political impact do military strikes have though, and are they worth it?
Too generic. You could ask this of any military manuever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAsux View Post
Even if you can set the program back, even a decade, what does what would presumably be a unilateral strike from either the U.S. or Israel do to it's credibility
The Iranian nuclear program itself? Setting it back a decade would probably end the chances of a nuclear Iran for another 15 years, if at all. Strategically, that's a huge bonus when one considers that two of their neighboring nations are a bit up for grabs at the moment, with Syria/Lebanon on the verge as well. I'm not entirely sure we should rule out a strike from other neighboring nations though. This whole assumption that the US/Israel are the only nations with a self interest in strikign Iran is incredibly naive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GAsux View Post
not to mention the impact it would have on the Iranian regime? Doesn't pre-emptive air strikes afford Iran the opportunity to strengthen its position internally by rallying the people against what would then be an enemy no only in words but in deeds?
You think Iranians want to go to war over this bomb? Look, Iranians are incredibly proud and loyal to their country - but this Islamic revolution hasn't really paid off. The interests in Tehran aren't the same as the country-side. Take a look at the US and you can see how war itself can be polarizing when you're not entirely trusting of your leadership. I'm not suggesting it's a good reason to bomb, but I wouldn't rule it out out of fear it would strengthen a country already ruled by totalitarianism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAsux View Post
A pre-emptive air strike based on information from the intelligence community that is already facing serious credibility issues based on what transpired in Iraq seems like a ridiculously risky move.

Well how far do you want to take that logic? Disband the military? I think your assumption is, we strike their nukes, it results in a full scale war against Iran. I think that's hysteria built around military analysis and other intelligence type research which predicts the worst possible situation. My personal guess would have Iran using the opportunity to make a move for Saudi Arabia instead. This issue with Iran is more to do with a Sunni-Shia conflict then the great satan, and the little satan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAsux View Post
In my opinion, you would not only strengthen the Iranian regimes internal position, but allow for them to build a reasonable international case against the "unprovoked" aggressive U.S./Israeli tactics.
What use does that international case have? US/Israel are accused of everything under the sun already. If they want provocation, they can manipulate it on two different fronts which aren't even directly at their borders...and they have been doing that effectively. So what are you arguing? That public opinion will lean towards Iran? Probably, but remember, the Osirus attacks were condemned by everyone, including the US, and that opinion changed over time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAsux View Post
Seems like it might provide a stop gap and buy more time, but I can't see air strikes solving the problem unless we intend to carry them out every 5-10 years.
Ultimately, I see diplomacy and even sanctions being the better way to go... but I don't see any of this as being very persuasive arguments against a targeted strike.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 18th, 2007, 10:15 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx View Post
This whole assumption that the US/Israel are the only nations with a self interest in strikign Iran is incredibly naive.
Interest and means, however, are two different things. Maybe you can come up with one, but I can't think of another nation that right now has the means AND the political will (be it from the people or from the top) to attack Iran right now.

The UN writing a really nasty letter to Iran is one thing, but you won't see a green light o an attack, IMO. Who other than Israel ans America would do it? Would Pakistan, which doesn't even have control of its own internal borders, attack Iran..another muslim country?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 18th, 2007, 05:03 PM       
We're living in a world where Ethiopea takes a hardline military stance while Israel makes whishy washy attempts at war. Who can guess? A few weeks ago I might have said Egypt in combination with another country, but then they decided they'd like a bomb of their own instead. I firmly believe that as the region errupts into assymetrical wars we're going to see more assymetrical alliances that only make sense for the moment if at all. I wouldn't be shocked if it happens and nobody takes credit for it at all.

Anyway all I said was that there are other nations with an interest in a strike, not that they might be able to carry it out themselves independently.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 19th, 2007, 03:40 PM       
For Preechr, from The Hotline:

Quote:
The New Hampshire Union Leader ed board writes, on 3/15 Edwards "presented his foreign policy vision, one that can be seen only through rose colored glasses." Edwards: "We know that terrorist thrive in failed states and in states torn apart by internal conflict and poverty."
"Perhaps, but poverty does not cause terrorism. Not one of the 9/11 hijackers was poor. Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants are not poor. Terrorism is fueled by ideology. The 'internal conflict' in Middle Eastern countries is the result of the same ideological forces that send terrorists to America, not the cause." Edwards "is stuck in a quasi-Marxist mind set in which social and economic conditions explain human behavior. However, human motivations are not so simplistic. If Edwards were to remove his rose colored glasses, maybe he could see that" (3/19).
That's right, you quasi-Marxist!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Mar 19th, 2007, 10:23 PM       
That book I've referenced (The Pentagon's New Map) was written by a military/intelligence analyst that counts himself a Democrat. Everybody on that ticket is very familiar with his work, not to say the NeoCons within the R camp haven't heard him many times as well. His follow up (A Blueprint for Action) is basically, surprisingly, the working blueprint for the Democratization/Globalization of the gap states. I see his work all over the place. I've said before it's THE only, real Liberal viewpoint to be had.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 19th, 2007, 11:52 PM       
Sounds like it's time for y'all to buy another book then. As if what we really need is a retired professor in the subject of Marxism advising out defense department.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Mar 20th, 2007, 12:50 PM       
Russia reportedly exits Iran nuke site
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 56 minutes ago



Russia is pulling out its experts from the Iranian nuclear reactor site they were helping build, U.S. and European officials said Tuesday. The move reflected a growing rift between Iran and Russia that could lead to harsher U.N. sanctions on the Islamic republic for its refusal to stop uranium enrichment.

The representatives — a European diplomat and a U.S. official — said a large number of Russian technicians, engineers and other specialists have returned to Moscow in the past week, at about the same time senior Russian and Iranian officials tried unsuccessfully to resolve financial differences over the Bushehr nuclear reactor. They spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because their information was confidential.

"A good number of them have left recently," said the U.S. official, of the approximately 2,000 Russian workers on site of the nearly completed reactor outside the southern city of Bushehr. The European diplomat, who is accredited to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, said a large number had left as recently as last week.

Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for Rosatom, Russia's Federal Nuclear Power Agency, confirmed that the number of Russian workers at the Bushehr plant had dwindled because of what he said were Iranian payment delays. He would not say how many had left.

The Russian departures are formally linked to a financial dispute with Iran but have a strong political component, linked to international efforts to persuade the Islamic republic to freeze activities linked to uranium enrichment, which can produce both nuclear fuel and the fissile material for nuclear warheads.

Although the reactor is 95 percent completed, Russia announced this month that further work would be delayed because Iran had failed to make monthly payments since January. It said the delay could cause "irreversible" damage to the project.

Because of the delay, Russia also indefinitely postponed delivery of enriched uranium fuel it had promised to provide Iran by this month.

Iran, which denies falling behind in payments, was furious, convinced Russia — which has long blunted a U.S.-led push for the U.N. Security Council sanctions — was now using the claim of financial arrears as a pretext to increase pressure for it to heed the council.






Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:50 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.