A bunch of cunts, mostly in the Australian sense. Except that one guy.

Invasion of Iran

This is how it will happen (most likely):

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/04/collapsing_iran.html
Permalink Send private email كولم 
April 26th, 2006 7:47am
"a military confrontation between the US and Iran is now unavoidable"

Somehow everbody seems to have already assumed this mindset.
Why is that?
Why is it so hard to see that a simple statement like "We will not attack Iran (or any other country) preemptively" will make most of the threat go away?
Why doesn't anybody see that the threat of a US attack on Iran forces them to develop nukes instead of convinces them not to.
Tell me please.
Permalink Send private email Locutus of Borg™ 
April 26th, 2006 8:09am
Because our government is too stupid to avoid war, nor do they WANT to avoid war.
Permalink Send private email Dana (a female Dana) 
April 26th, 2006 8:35am
Jews + Republicans + failures to capture Osama Bin Laden + failure to stabilize Iraq and use the oil = fake attention on Iran.

Come on, with so many muslim countries, and with the knowledge about uranium increasing every year, and with Russia selling their know-how, it's unavoidable that some muslim countries will get the atomic bomb.

All I know is that we won't have a World War IV. :-)
Permalink Believe in you, I 
April 26th, 2006 8:45am
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Permalink Einstein a go-go! 
April 26th, 2006 8:47am
..."and with Russia selling their know-how"...

Russia has been extremely responsible with its nuclear knowledge and technology, according to most accounts. Apart from some chaos in the early transition as the empire collapsed, Russia has as tight of internal control as the US does. I hardly think Russia wants Chechnyan rebels with nuke.

If the US thinks it's critical to move on Iran, the first step would humorously have to be regime change in the US. The simple reality is that Bush and his administration have lost their credibility on the world stage (rightly or wrongly - I'm just stating a current reality), and as the article mentioned such an attack would be met with revulsion and extreme cynicism.

As it is the knee jerk reaction is that it's some sort of control of oil issue, protecting Israel, the industrial war complex, etc. It's easy to see nothing but bad intentions. But then Madrid, or Moscow, or London, or Tokyo, or Canberra, or Ottawa, or Berlin are annihilated by a nuclear package that can be sourced to Iran.

Ooops!
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
April 26th, 2006 8:56am
"But then Madrid, or Moscow, or London, or Tokyo, or Canberra, or Ottawa, or Berlin are annihilated by a nuclear package"

Ask yourself, why is would this happen. What causes this hatred. What do these people fear.
Sure there are crazy maniacs, but terrorism is much more wide spread and organized than to blame it on madmen.
Why do sane and often literate and educated people plan and execute terrorist attacks.

It's all talk about revenge, pre-emptive strikes, defending "our" way of live, bringing democracy, bla bla bla.
If our society is so much more enlightened and free and better why do take every opportunity presented to us to prove the world the opposite?

Are we at risk of a nuclear terrorist attack, propably. I say, take the risk.
Permalink Send private email Locutus of Borg™ 
April 26th, 2006 9:11am
Interesting.  Certainly, it would take more than ONE nuclear device, carried in a re-inforced mini-van, to "take out" any of the cities mentioned.

I agree that the "attack them BEFORE they attack us" mentality reeks of paranoia and cowardice.  Also, it requires the kind of moral tap-dancing we see around us currently.  How do you KNOW they're going to attack you?  What if your "evidence" is wrong?  Do you put the situation back the way you found it?  Can you?  Do you even ADMIT that you might have been wrong?

What if you KNOW they're NOT going to "attack you", but you WANT to attack them to make yourself more comfortable?

In any event, spending money "to keep away the Tigers" is a lose-lose game.  You're buying more and more army, more and more police, more and more security -- but it's really expensive to try to close ALL the holes in a non-police-state.

If you succeed, you've spent hundreds of times more dollars on "threats that weren't really a threat", in order to catch that 1% of threats that were real.  And if you fail, even WITH all your spending, part of that 1% gets through.

There are things that can be done, to effectively increase our security.  And those things ARE being done.  But trying to buy a "Guarantee" that we can never be hit again is simply too expensive.
Permalink AllanL5 
April 26th, 2006 9:24am
"But trying to buy a "Guarantee" that we can never be hit again is simply too expensive"

Not only that, it will also increase the hate of our adversaries (?) and their motivation to strike us, which pretty much invalidates the whole effort.
Permalink Send private email Locutus of Borg™ 
April 26th, 2006 9:30am
"Certainly, it would take more than ONE nuclear device, carried in a re-inforced mini-van, to "take out" any of the cities mentioned."

What in the world do you define as "taken out"? A giant crater in the ground? Absolute elimination?

If a nuclear device was blasted in the center of any of those towns, not only would it create an enormous cemetary, it would render the entire city non-functional. That's ignoring silly things like radiation (and I doubt a terrorist group would try to minimize radiation). Modern society is very fragile, and even a two day blackout demonstrates how enormously fragile it is. I think a nuclear blast might be even worse.

"I agree that the "attack them BEFORE they attack us" mentality reeks of paranoia and cowardice."

The funny thing is that 95% of the planet Earth desperately doesn't want Iran to get nuclear weapons. 90% of them just assuage themselves into the hypocrisy of letting the US deal with it, all while hurling insults at the US.

In any case, your take on "paranoia" is interesting. The Iranian leadership continually calls for the annihilation of Israel. Israel has several hundred nukes. If Iran gets nukes the probability of one detonating in Israel goes up dramatically, by any rational evaluation. If Israel gets nuked then there goes the Middle East. Here comes China to secure the oil fields. There goes the US. Here comes Russia.

Welcome WWIII.

Paranoid and head-in-the-sand ignorant are just two perspectives on the same thing.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
April 26th, 2006 9:39am
"Not only that, it will also increase the hate of our adversaries (?) and their motivation to strike us, which pretty much invalidates the whole effort."

Being a devil's advocate, but do you think those who want to strike the US don't already have several lifetimes of motivation?

Much of the anti-West sentiment in the Middle East is still courtesy of the British Empire, for crying out loud. Things happened that the US was left to deal with, so the US has become the lightning rod for past wrongs. I doubt a strike on Iran would do anything to increase tensions beyond existing levels.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
April 26th, 2006 9:41am
>Being a devil's advocate

Does that pay well?

> but do you think those who want to strike the US
> don't already have several lifetimes of motivation?

It's a threshold. You can hate people without transitioning to wanting them dead. The the waves excitation overwhelm you and you flip, turning into a patriot rather than a subject of briton, to use a different situation.

By invading iraq the US flipped a lot of people from passive mode to active mode. That's was the plan and it worked.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 26th, 2006 9:48am
I've always wondered about people harbouring grudges from long before they were born.

Perhaps I should hate the Marsh Arabs after my grandad was sold bread infected with typhus as a POW after Kut - but frankly I can't be bothered.
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
April 26th, 2006 9:49am
> but do you think those who want to strike the US
> don't already have several lifetimes of motivation?

Maybe we should work on decreasing that motivation instead increasing it? Like, actually solving the problem.
Permalink Send private email Locutus of Borg™ 
April 26th, 2006 9:51am
"Maybe we should work on decreasing that motivation instead increasing it? Like, actually solving the problem."

Idealism and reality often course divergent paths. A huge percentage of violent criminals, for instance, revert to criminal behaviour once released from prison, no matter how much support you offer them. You can look and say that if only they had a nicer childhood, and if only you had better bully control in school, and if on there were better prenatal nutrition, etc. All of that idealism, however, doesn't change the fact that when released that prior rapist has a good probability of committing another sex attack.

The damage has already been done, and you can't revert history through idealism.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
April 26th, 2006 9:55am
"But then Madrid, or Moscow, or London, or Tokyo, or Canberra, or Ottawa, or Berlin are annihilated by a nuclear package"

Sorry, I should not have said "take out", "annihilated" was the word I was responding to.  And no, one nuclear device will not "annihilate" a city.

And thank you for illustrating the paranoia I was talking about.  Yes, exactly, the paranoid choice is between attacking Iran, because their rhetoric is SO scary, or letting them have unfettered access to nuclear weapons, because of course there's NO middle course.

I agree, Iran's current President's rhetoric and position on this are idiotic and inflammatory.  I agree, Iran should be prevented from gaining nuclear weapons.  I do NOT agree that war is necessary to achieve this.  LOTS of countries have been prevented from developing nuclear weapons without war.

I also believe that should Iran actually smuggle a nuclear device, or ANYBODY smuggle a nuclear device made in Iran, China, or North Korea, into the U.S. and detonate it, that mutually assured destruction should take hold.

I do NOT think this justifies George Bush suggesting or claiming that's going to happen in the next 9 months, and therefore it's necessary to make a First Strike on Iran to prevent it.
Permalink AllanL5 
April 26th, 2006 10:02am
That's great. And what are the probabilities of a World War III? I would say 100%! Then it doesn't matter anymore where you live, because the world will be cold, radioactive, and desert.

It's just a question of time.

Hopefully, the Republicans will avoid single handedly the WWIII.
Permalink Believe in you, I 
April 26th, 2006 10:03am
"you can't revert history through idealism."

But you can learn from your mistakes.
I agree that my statements are very idealistic but clearly our current approach only leads to escalation.
Permalink Send private email Locutus of Borg™ 
April 26th, 2006 10:04am
"And thank you for illustrating the paranoia I was talking about."

What an inane comment. The whole point of nuclear non-proliferation is the scenarios I mentioned.

"I agree, Iran should be prevented from gaining nuclear weapons. I do NOT agree that war is necessary to achieve this. LOTS of countries have been prevented from developing nuclear weapons without war."

Of course that would be preferrable. So how do you suppose that should be done?

The problem is that the world diplomatic structure is extraordinarily broken. China and Russia pick appropriate positions to allow them to keep their allies, all while acting disappointed when the US is forced to act (not to mention feeling a bit comfortable when the US is dragged into expensive, equipment sucking conflicts). Europe seems to largely live in an imaginary bubble where everyone wants to hold hands and dance in a circle if it wasn't for those violent Americans.

I'm not even American, but personally I think the only way the US can correct the laughable world diplomatic scene would be to basically completely withdraw from acting on other's behalfs. Pull troops home from around the world. Impose no threats on anyone (and feel comfortable knowing that their personal risk is minimized, as now the threats can focus on supporting the Chechnyan rebels, overthrowing the government of Turkey. Fun things like that), and live a decade in isolation.

I imagine that it might do a bit to cure the hypocrisy that is the diplomatic solution today.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
April 26th, 2006 10:08am
Oh, I shouldn't miss the overthrow of the government of Pakistan. Strangely lots of Indians fall to the anti-American sentiment, but it might be a bit sobering when some nuclear armed, extremely hardline factions take over Pakistan. Of course North Korea would immediately try to cure its own ills by running roughshod over South Korea. China would move it in clean house. Taiwan would last a day. Japan would be under military pressure and would have to start dramatically ramping up militarization.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
April 26th, 2006 10:14am
> Idealism and reality often course divergent paths.

But self delusion leads everyone down pretty much the same path.


>A huge percentage of violent criminals, for instance,
> revert to criminal behaviour once released from prison,
> no matter how much support you offer them.

The analogy is laughably poor. After the colonies defeated england did people go about their business or did they revert back to their previous criminal behaviour?

These people understandably feel they have been wronged and they are fighting back using what tools are available. To analogize that with criminal behaviour, well that makes you a true american I guess.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 26th, 2006 10:15am
What's with people and their laughably poor understanding of analogies?

The analogy was that historical damage often cannot be undone, and you have to deal with the real world repercussions.

If I gave an analogy detailing decades of pollution, tainting land and sea for decades -- thus demanding caution and expensive procedures for years to come, even if today you stopped all pollution -- would you claim that my analogy is laughably poor because the Middle East isn't pollution? Give me a break.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
April 26th, 2006 10:18am
> What's with people and their laughably poor
> understanding of analogies?

When you create an analogy you create the source and target domains and how they are to be mapped. There's nothing wrong with my understanding, what's wrong is the structure of your analogies. If you use criminal actors as a source domain you cannot possible be surprised at how it will be mapped.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 26th, 2006 10:21am
"If Iran gets nukes the probability of one detonating in Israel goes up dramatically, by any rational evaluation. If Israel gets nuked then there goes the Middle East. Here comes China to secure the oil fields. There goes the US. Here comes Russia.

Welcome WWIII."

My, Dennis, you seem draconian today.  Perhaps I'm just reacting over-strongly to what you're actually saying. 

I thought this thread was about the "Invasion of Iran".  It sounded to me like you're arguing that to prevent WW-III, we need to pre-emptively strike Iran.  Soon.

I guess it's all a question of how likely (or inevitable) all those "IFS" are in your paragraph above. 

IF Iran gets nukes -- well, yes, we're all trying to stop that.

The Probability goes up that one will go off in Israel -- well, currently the probability of an Iranian device going off in Israel is ZERO, and the current President of Iran is making threats, so sure, the probability goes up.  How far?  Certainty?  .0001%?

"IF Israel gets nuked then there goes the Middle East" -- really?  More hyperbole?  Where does it "go"?  Global war in the Middle East?  All Arab nations united against Israel?  Hasn't happened before.  Okay, Israel attacks Iranian nuclear assets -- hasn't this happened before?  Again, what's the probability?  You seem so sure it's almost 100%.

"... welcome WW-III".  Okay, I'll give you those.  But the string if "IFS" to get there are not nearly as certain as you seem to be making them out to be.  That's why I made my paranoia comment -- if you make such certain pronouncements against such speculative possibilities, then its EASY to justify attacking Iran first.  The paranoia lies in assigning such certainty to disaster.

But there's LOTS of things that can be done short of attacking Iran first.  And CERTAINLY this line of reasoning should not be used to justify a first strike.
Permalink AllanL5 
April 26th, 2006 10:23am
"My, Dennis, you seem draconian today."

I'm just playing speculation. Of course I don't believe most of what I'm writing, but at the same time I'm cynically of some of the overly idealistic visions some people comfort themselves with.

"Okay, Israel attacks Iranian nuclear assets -- hasn't this happened before? "

If Israel got nuked, it seems likely that there would be a nuclear response. It seems doubtful that the exchange would stop there. Saudi Arabia has always been a tenuous place, and such a war would almost certainly lead to the hardliners taking over in Saudi Arabia, for instance. Similarly Jordan. It expands out from there.

"And CERTAINLY this line of reasoning should not be used to justify a first strike."

It's all just random speculation, in this case by a bunch of armchair generals just imagining scenarios. Somewhere, however, there are people who have to make such sobering choices -- choices that can cost of save millions of lives -- presuambly usually with more information than we have. It's easy for us to see only the negatives (for instance the chaos of Iraq, a war entered into on absurd grounds, and the cost in lives and money), but we don't have the benefit of knowledge what would have been.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
April 26th, 2006 10:29am
Bush doesn't have any credibility in persuading Congress and/or the American people to do anything to Iran with conventional weapons. And everyone -- including the Iranian leadership, who reads about Bush's poll numbers same as you do -- knows that.

So the only thing he can do is act crazy and hope people believe he is (or don't want to wager against it). Judging by some of the comments here, the act is succeeding.

Looking at it this way, the 'we will not take nukes off the table' leak to Sy Hersch was a masterful stroke of stretegy. Had the NY Post or Fox News or Bob Woodward reported this, it would have been seen as a conspiratory gesture, and not a very believable one at that. But Seymour Fucking Hersch, macho-liberal, Pulitzer Prize-winning, Abu Ghraib-uncovering, investigative reporter for the Bush-loathing The New Yorker? No way. Someone's learned a thing or two about leaking since Valerie Plame.

The ironies of realpolitick being what they are, no one at the Bush administration can even take credit for this strategy -- by far the best move the Bush administration has taken in over four years -- as it would jeopardize the whole 'I'm nuts and my gun is loaded' effect.
Permalink Bruno Di Pumadoro 
April 26th, 2006 10:41am
bush lied to us about WMD in Iraq. They can launch in 45 minutes? Rummy says "we know where the WMD are?" How can I believe that he's going to be telling the truth *this time* ?
Permalink Peter 
April 26th, 2006 11:45am
Because the intel isn't sourced through him this time.
Permalink Send private email كولم 
April 26th, 2006 2:24pm
"Because the intel isn't sourced through him this time."

Oh, really?  And you know this how?  Where is the intel being sourced from?

As far as I can tell, the Iranians (except for their president) are claiming again and again, "We're NOT trying to Build a Nuclear Weapon!".

So where is the intel that they ARE trying to?  Besides G.W. Bush saying it over and over again?
Permalink AllanL5 
April 26th, 2006 6:16pm
>>>>> How can I believe that he's going to be telling the truth *this time* ?

You can't. No one can. That's why Bush has to jump up and down doing crazy shit -- like saying nukes-on-Iran aren't off the table -- for people to pay attention to him.

It's either that or roll over and play dead.
Permalink Bruno Di Pumadoro 
April 26th, 2006 7:32pm
"That's why Bush has to jump up and down doing crazy shit"

They did the same crazy shit with Iraq as well (I believe in version 1.0, and beta 2.0), leaking policy papers that discussed nuclear and chemical attack options. These were paraded as possible retaliations for any WMD attack coming from Saddam's side.

Seems like it worked. In v1.0 Saddam actually did have WMDs, and apparently failed to use them against an overwhelming enemy.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
April 26th, 2006 11:02pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: April, 2006 Other topics: April, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics