Iran: let's cover all of the angles to figure out when we are going in

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by RX Bandit

I've posted about it a fair bit - I received invaluable assistance on a paper from over there. I was a huge fan before but after being able to ask a few questions to this day I am still impressed and think well of them.

PNAC (close past) and CSP (noticeably further left and IMO less coherent overall) is the closest thing to accurate these days in my opinion.

I disagree nearly 100% with their views regarding the military and our approach on foreign policy. They are essentially about maintaining global dominance, usually by force. They want to remove any leaders who are not in our back pocket, install democracy, and basically go around nation building. They are imperialists and if they have any more of their views actually go forward it will cost our country in many different ways. They want the military to keep growing almost like they feel the cold war is never over.

I will continue to believe that we would have invaded Iraq regardless of WMD, UN resolutions, or 9/11. They have wanted to remove Saddam Hussein since the mid 1990s and wrote Clinton on more than one occasion trying to convince him to remove Saddam. They want and feel it is necessary to install a pro-usa government in that region of vast energy supply. They really wanted the war for oil. They are huge advocates about military strenght, and tanks or planes don't run without oil. It will serve as a forward operation platform for years to come and it serves as a big strategic advantage.

[DosEquis]

The coalition of the willing is pulling out! What will we do!?!

A Defense Ministry spokeswoman in Lithuania, Ruta Apeikyte, said the Baltic nation is “seriously considering” withdrawing its 53 troops from Iraq in August.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by RX Bandit

I personally refuse to allow lesser nations. I wasn't old enough at the time but looking back on the documents and history I think it was a good move for Israel to help white South Africa develop a nuclear program. White South Africa fit the bill for a superior nation (at the time) which could be a responsible steward of technology.

Iran, anything in the middle east other than Israel, anything in eastern Europe, anything in Latin America, anything in the Pacific etc is not stable, with a responsible scientific community and any of the other factors that would lend itself to becoming one of the nuclear nations.

I would rather tactically nuke Natanz and send in ground troops to wipe out any remnants of industry that could be converted into the nuclear program than allow them the chance to use a weapon.

I have to believe most people would rather war than allow Iran to use a nuclear device.

What/where stays stable forever? South Africa in the 70's for instance?

Personally I'd like to prevent Iran getting nukes but I doubt that the world can, presently, stop them if Iran is determined, ..., except by direct large nuke weapon strike on Nantaz (neutron bombs wont work IIUC) Any follow up operation is going to need to be immediate.

Possibly the bunkers complex entrances & vent shafts could be conventionally targeted but this isn't really a definitive enough solution.

Of course if the US hadn't already 'shot its bolt' it would be able to military threaten Iran with greater credibility & flexibility

OTOH if Iraq hadn't happened perhaps there be less pressure in Iran for a nuke weapon, ..., but who can really say.

As for PNAC, ...,
Do you agree that the it is they who pushed the admin to adopt the Iraq action?

How do you respond to criticism of PNAC that centres around their policy need to appear absolutely certain & resolute being seen as inflexible arrogance? Do you conceed that theres a danger of PNAC members falling for their own hype?

In your view what, if anything, went wrong in Iraq?
What mistakes/failures were made by the Coaltion?
To what extent, if any, do any PNAC members bear responsibility for this?
What significance do you now see in Kagans early split from the admin on their initial Iraqi invasion plans?

Finally

Tony Blair leaves office in April, right?

Well, thats only a 'maybe' AFAICT but either way why do you see this as significant?

Any successor is going to have the same attitude to Iraq that Blair has. Brown has gone out of his way to show no gap between him & Blair on Iraq (which is very significant in domestic terms & their own power struggle). Admittedly Brown has signalled he'd adopt a less subserviant attitude in the 'special relationship', ..., but he has little choie but to say such things

Today Meacher (a outspoken critic of PNAC), has announced that he may run against Brown for the party leadership when Blair steps down but he has very little chance of even being able to stand let alone win.

Either way all this is irrelevant as we all know what's going to happen.

The UK armed forces chiefs have made their position clear, ..., its out of Iraq ASAP, the troops make little positive difference & their presence often makes things worse. Worse still the effort is breaking the army. Further other NATO countries wont reinforce A'stan so we need the forces over there anyway

The significance of Dannatts speech can not be over-emphasied. Serving UK military chiefs never makes such comments & need permission to speak in public anyway. One can only boggle speculatively of the conversations that occurred in getting that permission.


[edit, ...]
Links to come, ..., possibly
Brown & Iraq


Dannatt
BBC NEWS | UK | Gen Sir Richard Dannatt: Key quotes

Meacher
BBC NEWS | Politics | Meacher enters Labour leader race

Pull-out announcement(s)
BBC NEWS | Politics | Blair announces Iraq troops cut
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | In quotes: UK Iraq 'withdrawal'

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by RX Bandit

I can see how fluid and complete democracy (and widespread suffrage to Arabs, women etc) without interruption since the independence of the state would confuse you -- also the world's most responsible stewards of technology that have had a hand in nearly everything you use on the internet and any time you need advanced diagnostic medical procedures done.

Show me one time when Israel's scientific community has failed to act in a responsible fashion. Show me a country in the middle east with as widespread suffrage with unfaltering democracy from the beginning. Show me one time when Israel has failed to act in any manner whatsoever as a "lesser nation" like Iran -- you want to know who the biggest outcry came from over Sabra/Shatila massacre? Israelis. For a minor lapse in judgment in a war zone meant everything if the highest ideals of Israel were set aside even for a minute, even in a war zone.

You troll about Israel very hard without ever having a convincing argument or facts to refute anything I say. You always go for emotion comrade and it never looks well upon your case.

so a solution to the Palestinian issue would be to incorporate the west bank into a greater Israel and give all the palestinians the right to vote?

Boris
London

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by RX Bandit

I personally refuse to allow lesser nations. I wasn't old enough at the time but looking back on the documents and history I think it was a good move for Israel to help white South Africa develop a nuclear program. White South Africa fit the bill for a superior nation (at the time) which could be a responsible steward of technology.

Iran, anything in the middle east other than Israel, anything in eastern Europe, anything in Latin America, anything in the Pacific etc is not stable, with a responsible scientific community and any of the other factors that would lend itself to becoming one of the nuclear nations.

I would rather tactically nuke Natanz and send in ground troops to wipe out any remnants of industry that could be converted into the nuclear program than allow them the chance to use a weapon.

I have to believe most people would rather war than allow Iran to use a nuclear device.

this steward of technology lesser/greater nations thing...?

Is the US a responsible steward of technology given its per capita consumption rate of resources?

what are the criteria for this classification? are we talking the just about nuclear technology here?

Boris
London