Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Bibi's speach - Yea or Nay? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Bibi's speach - Yea or Nay?
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
No one ever says what happens on day two after a hypothetical bombing attack. If Iran is this cartoon villain enemy that you imagine, what next? What level of military action would end the threat from such people?

Greg, are you honestly asking us to seriously believe that you actually think that Seneca's proposed targeting Iranian civilians?

Seneca, for the record, if Israel took out Ayatollah Khameni and the nuclear development sites, and harmed nothing else in Iran, would that not satisfy everything that you're calling for? If I'm giving you too much benefit of the doubt, and if Greg's right that you want Israel to obliterate whole swaths of Iranian people, by all means correct me.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll add that any attack that materially harmed the non-nuclear military or civilian capabilities of iran could only play into ISIS' hands.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
No one ever says what happens on day two after a hypothetical bombing attack. If Iran is this cartoon villain enemy that you imagine, what next? What level of military action would end the threat from such people? Iran is a bigger country than Iraq, with a population of 77 million - how much do you need to destroy, and how many of them do you need to kill until you achieve what you consider to be a satisfactory outcome? How many ground troops are you planning on sending in after the initial "shock and awe" phase of bombing?

If they nuke us or Israel, how many/much of them are you willing to kill?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
No one ever says what happens on day two after a hypothetical bombing attack. If Iran is this cartoon villain enemy that you imagine, what next? What level of military action would end the threat from such people?

Greg, are you honestly asking us to seriously believe that you actually think that Seneca's proposed targeting Iranian civilians?

Seneca, for the record, if Israel took out Ayatollah Khameni and the nuclear development sites, and harmed nothing else in Iran, would that not satisfy everything that you're calling for? If I'm giving you too much benefit of the doubt, and if Greg's right that you want Israel to obliterate whole swaths of Iranian people, by all means correct me.

Answer this question: how did the Iranian government come to power?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
The Dobbs quote appears to have some substantiation (link), but I'll drop the assertion of transferring materials to enable the chemical weapons program; the Iraqi use of chemical weapons (and the use of US targeting intelligence) are the more important claims, and I have seen much deeper substantiation for them

We all know that Iraq used chemical weapons, although the figure of 1 million victims seems excessive.

Targeting intelligence would apply to normal rocketry as well as chemweapons. It's clear from how we used targeting weapons during gulf war I that Bush and US military conceived of those weapons as mechanisms to REDUCE civilian deaths. In that case giving them to Iraq could easily have been conceived by the US as benign to Iranian civilians in what was turning out to be a horrible war. I.e. we wanted Iraq to win, but to win with a minimum casualty loss.

It only becomes remotely rational to believe that Bush intended the targeting to be used for the opposite purpose that he used targeting for in Gulf I, if we believe the radical, astonishing, and gut-wrenching claim that we also shipped Saddam Hussein Bubonic Plague.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
No one ever says what happens on day two after a hypothetical bombing attack. If Iran is this cartoon villain enemy that you imagine, what next? What level of military action would end the threat from such people?

Greg, are you honestly asking us to seriously believe that you actually think that Seneca's proposed targeting Iranian civilians?

Seneca, for the record, if Israel took out Ayatollah Khameni and the nuclear development sites, and harmed nothing else in Iran, would that not satisfy everything that you're calling for? If I'm giving you too much benefit of the doubt, and if Greg's right that you want Israel to obliterate whole swaths of Iranian people, by all means correct me.

Answer this question: how did the Iranian government come to power?
By a revolution intiated by a very large range of iranian enemies to the Shah, including some groups that were even more secular than the Shah. Then by murdering all the rival groups.

It's all laid out very nicely on wikipedia, under "victims of the Iranian revolution" or something like that.

Speaking of victims, I have to correct something that I said to Greg a few years ago. My middle school-mate from the late 1970s, whom I had been informed was among the victims of Khomeni, just contacted me from London minutes ago. I'm delighted to be mistaken.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you are claiming that the Iranian revolution did not have popular support?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
No one ever says what happens on day two after a hypothetical bombing attack. If Iran is this cartoon villain enemy that you imagine, what next? What level of military action would end the threat from such people? Iran is a bigger country than Iraq, with a population of 77 million - how much do you need to destroy, and how many of them do you need to kill until you achieve what you consider to be a satisfactory outcome? How many ground troops are you planning on sending in after the initial "shock and awe" phase of bombing?

If they nuke us or Israel, how many/much of them are you willing to kill?
As for myself, I'll answer it to hannibal. Not a one. I won't raise a finger to avenge Israel. And I doubt that many others in America would. Nor should you lift a finger to avenge us. I'm willing to have my country sacrifice blood and resources to protect you from evil hostiles, but I don't believe in war for purposes of revenge.

In that light, if you disagree with our treaties, I strongly suggest you do what you reasonably deem necessary to protect yourselves.

(Please note that with the word "reasonably," I completely exclude what Israeli idiots, fundamentalists and other fanatics "deem necessary." If you ask me, or inquire of Rabin's bones, those bastards are a far greater danger to your country than ISIS and a nuclear Iran combined.)

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
No one ever says what happens on day two after a hypothetical bombing attack. If Iran is this cartoon villain enemy that you imagine, what next? What level of military action would end the threat from such people?

Greg, are you honestly asking us to seriously believe that you actually think that Seneca's proposed targeting Iranian civilians?

Seneca, for the record, if Israel took out Ayatollah Khameni and the nuclear development sites, and harmed nothing else in Iran, would that not satisfy everything that you're calling for? If I'm giving you too much benefit of the doubt, and if Greg's right that you want Israel to obliterate whole swaths of Iranian people, by all means correct me.

Answer this question: how did the Iranian government come to power?
By a revolution intiated by a very large range of iranian enemies to the Shah, including some groups that were even more secular than the Shah. Then by murdering all the rival groups.

It's all laid out very nicely on wikipedia, under "victims of the Iranian revolution" or something like that.

quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So you are claiming that the Iranian revolution did not have popular support?

[Exploding]

Again: What I said was that the actual REVOLUTION had popular support. And most of the original leaders of the revolution were murdered by Khomeni.

quote:
Other opposition groups[65] included constitutionalist liberals – the democratic, reformist Islamic Freedom Movement of Iran, headed by Mehdi Bazargan, and the more secular National Front. They were based in the urban middle class, and wanted the Shah to adhere to the Iranian Constitution of 1906 rather than to replace him with a theocracy,[66] but lacked the cohesion and organization of Khomeini's forces.[67]

Marxist groups – primarily the communist Tudeh Party of Iran and the Fedaian guerrillas[68] – had been weakened considerably by government repression. Despite this the guerrillas did help play an important part in the final February 1979 overthrow[69] delivering "the regime its coup de grace."[70] The most powerful guerrilla group – the People's Mujahedin – was leftist Islamist and opposed the influence of the clergy as reactionary.

Nevertheless, in my quest to find that information again, I found other information that supports your point of view, if I understand you correctly:

quote:
Iran voted by national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979,[20] and to approve a new theocratic-republican constitution[11][12][21][22] whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country, in December 1979.

The revolution was unusual for the surprise it created throughout the world:[23] it lacked many of the customary causes of revolution (defeat at war, a financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or disgruntled military),[24] occurred in a nation that was enjoying relatively good material wealth and prosperity,[15][22] produced profound change at great speed,[25] was massively popular, resulted in the exile of many Iranians,[26] and replaced a pro-Western semi-absolute monarchy [15] with an anti-Western authoritarian theocracy based on the concept of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (or velayat-e faqih). It was a relatively non-violent revolution, and helped to redefine the meaning and practice of modern revolutions (although there was violence in its aftermath).

If that description is correct, and if the election was representative, then I'd have to say that the Iranian people WERE insane on the whole, and that if the current generation is like the one that voted for poverty and oppression over its previous prosperity and relative freedom, then yes, they are as nuts as you suggest.

Nevertheless, it's a moot point because even if the people were perfectly sane, they have no legal mechanism for displacing the Ayatollah and the religious police. The fact that their own parents sold them into slavery in 1979 does not make them less slaves of a mad government. Therefore whether you are right or whether I was right about the Iranian people in general, it's logical to do what needs to be done to stop the Ayatollah's lackeys from getting nukes.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hannibal,

"You are saying - that the current outrage on this speech will have no affect on future relations between bibi and Obama ? "...

Not among rank and file conservatives. In fact, we are embarrassed that Obama even sits as president. I saw a poll of military personnel today indicating 13% support Barry, and 55% are very dissatisfied with him as their Commander in Chief. You have to understand the traditional reluctance of the military to voice political views at all. The 37% who had a presumptive ambivalence remained silent for reasons other than indecision. They detest the man.

The New York perspective is a very poor indicator of the American heartland... and this clown will be gone in 22 months in any event.

"The Likud party is far cry from the Republican party when it comes to economic positions. Israel is a social democracy. "...

Yes, most american conservatives know that. We are even
sympathetic given the perpetual quasi-war footing you guys are on.

"So... there are conservatives in Israel, but in all honesty I don't believe it is the same as conservatives in the USA. I could be wrong here, but I think the context of an Israeli conservative vs an American conservative is different. "...

Please elaborate on this.

"By now, I am pretty certain bibi does not have the guts to bomb Iran. I think he is all talk on that matter. I think I have a much larger exposure to the way he acts and behaves. and it seems to me that he has will not act on this matter. "...

Why?

[ February 21, 2015, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, the total war deaths were 1 million, the chemical warfare subset of those deaths was around 100,000
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also in response to Pete:

Do I think that the pro-bombing people are contemplating the killing of civilians? No, I haven't even seen any evidence that most pro-bombing people have thought much deeper than "Iran = danger, must strike first".

But I could be shown to be wrong.


(And this next is addressed more to Seneca and other pro-war types, not specifically Pete)

I would appreciate if any of the pro-war advocates could point me to detailed discussions of the strategy for military and nation-building actions that start with the bombing of Iran and conclude with the elimination of the threat and the withdrawal of all coalition troops. Because, surely, after the disasterously misguided Iraq War which was similarly started with no real plan for conclusion, we can see that it would be foolish to again start a war with so little planning for its outcome.

The bomb Iran faction echoes the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war and the domestic "stand your ground" laws, which can be translated as "If I am scared of you, I have moral permission to kill you first".

[ February 21, 2015, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel c, can you provide a link to the polls that you cite?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

I saw it in the Military Times review, but it is not a mobile friendly link. Here is a USA Today link. :

"In a new Military Times survey of nearly 2,300 active-duty service members, only 15% approve of Obama's performance, way down from an already low rating of 35% in 2009.
The president's disapproval rating, meanwhile, has increased from 40% to 55% over the past five years.
The reasons include massive changes in military culture brought about by Obama, including an end to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gay service members, the vow to lift the ban on women in combat, and a crackdown on sexual assault and sexual harassment within the ranks."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/12/22/obama-military-times-survey-low-approval-ratings/20759451/

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, actual data provides better insights

The same actual polling data shows several features that erode the point it appears that you were attempting to make

(1) First, Military Times itself acknowledges that it has house effect that biases its polls more towards Republicans than other polls ("National polls of veterans have shown a strong preference for Republican candidates over Democratic hopefuls, although not as wide a gap as shown in the Military Times Poll"). Note, of course, that the population of Veterans is significantly older than the population of active duty troops, so the "strong preference" finding is not necessarily applicable to the issue in question (younger voters support Obama more than older voters).

(2) The downward trend in Military Times polling data on Obama comes at the same time as a broad downward trend towards all political sides

quote:
In the last nine years of the Military Times Poll, the percentage of respondents who consider themselves Republican has slowly dropped, from nearly half of those surveyed in the late 2000s to just 32 percent this year...

Likewise, readers who described themselves as "very conservative" have remained steady over the years, but "conservative" respondents have dwindled as well — down to 29 percent from a high of 41 percent in 2011...

Even support for the tea party was spotty, with just 13 percent of readers saying they back nearly all tea party candidates and 34 percent saying they never back the conservative offshoot.

(3) You repeat the assertion of the USA Today article that the causality for the drop in support for Obama is due to some of the policies that he has implemented, but the actual Military Times article paints a different picture:

quote:
The greatest cultural shift under Obama may well be the swiftly-growing acceptance of homosexuality in the ranks following the official change in law that took effect in September 2011.

A Military Times poll in 2009 found 35 percent of troops felt that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in uniform. Five years later, that figure has jumped to 60 percent.

Similarly, open opposition to homosexuality in the military has collapsed. In 2009, 49 percent of troops felt gays, lesbians and bisexuals should not be allowed to serve. In 2014, such disapproval fell to just 19 percent.



[ February 21, 2015, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

During the Vietnam war we had a draft. Veterans coming from that era draw more heavily from inductees of your political persuasion. The military is much better since going all volunteer (we do not have enlisted fragging of officers any longer).

But if you believe my comments are significantly "eroded", please realize that I speak as a conservative... not a republican. You partisans do not seem to understand the difference.

You can hardly take refuge in the fact that Barry did very poor in military polling (35% in 2009) even before he implemented a single "social engineering" policy. Many members have retired early, or been fired (Barry tends to do that when officers advise him on military matters).

Things will change with the seating of a new administration in 2016.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Please elaborate on this."

In most "normal" countries - right/left is a discussion about government intervension levels, checks & balances etc.

There is only one axis.

In Israel there are two axis - the traditional right/left (which compared to the US the zero point is on your left side) and also the "one-state"/"two-state" solution axis

In Israel, conservatives are more focused on this axis, and less about the economic one. That's because most of our conservatives are religious, they don't really care about how well the economy is doing but only about how much money and funding they get from the government.

For instance - If I will say on myself that I am a less government intervention + two state solution guy - I am very liberal in Israel, but in the US I might be considered conservative

That is how I am looking at things, I could be wrong here, but this is the context.

"Why?"

Because bibi is a liar. Did you know that by now he has been the PM of Israel for over 9 years? that is pretty much the longer tenureship after David Ben-Gurion. He has not a single grand project or dramatic decision to his name. When it comes to making a major decision that will clearly mark "Israel is going on this path" or "Israel is going on that path" he stalls, and stalls and never make a decision. At the end he makes the most populistic decision at that point in time, and its always a decision to keep the status quo as long as possible.

That is why he is so successful - to the left some how he portraits himself as the only person who can sign a peace treaty, and to the right he is mister security who will never divide jerusalem and never give up on the settlements etc.

Furthermore, he is also stalling when it comes to make a lot simpler military decisions. in 2009 (which was TWO elections ago, I know it is sad) he swore, it is recorded on video, he said "The Olmert Government was weak against Hamas (referring to the 2007 operation in Gaza) Unlike Olmert I will destroy Hamas"
well... since then both in 2011 and 2014 he had equal opportunities to destroy Hamas and he did not. He only made Hamas stronger by negotiating with it 3 different times. In 2011 after calling for 75,000 reservists who waited outside of Gaza for two weeks eventually everyone was sent home. In 2014 again - 75,000 reservists and again they were about to be sent home, if only they realized that if the IDF will not do something about the tunnels (which were NOT a surprise to anyone) there will be "mass desertions" of the small towns and villages around Gaza. Only then, instead of finally toppeling Hamas down, they decided on a small operation to destroy the tunnels knowing that Hamas will remain in power, become stronger and rebuild the same tunnels.

You would think that the person who controls the strongest army all the way east to India, north (and south) to Russia and west to France will be able to destroy Hamas. Especially after he promised he would do so.

And you think this coward will go to war with Iran? (which bombing their nuclear program would cause)

Trust me, there is no difference between the likud and the labour when it will come to decide to bomb Iran or not. Bibi will decide not to, of that I am sure.


@Pete
"As for myself, I'll answer it to hannibal. Not a one. I won't raise a finger to avenge Israel."

I am not expecting you to, this is why Israel has its own army and its own capabilities. We don't ask you to fight our wars for us.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

"Similarly, *open* opposition to homosexuality in the military has collapsed. In 2009, 49 percent of troops felt gays, lesbians and bisexuals should not be allowed to serve. In 2014, such disapproval fell to just 19 percent."

Can you appreciate the significance of 19% "open opposition" to Barry's homosexual policy?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hannibal,

" - If I will say on myself that I am a less government intervention + two state solution guy - I am very liberal in Israel, but in the US I might be considered conservative. "...

Interesting.

"Trust me, there is no difference between the likud and the labour when it will come to decide to bomb Iran or not. Bibi will decide not to, of that I am sure. "...

I trust you, but still hope you are wrong... because our lying coward will not bomb Iran either. It is a good thing conservatives won control of the Senate. No treaty with Iran that the current administration comes up with will pass review.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I might be considered conservative"

I am also pro gay marriage, pro abortion and pro science [Smile] so I may be considered a liberal in the US as well [Smile]

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hannibal,

Conservatives are "pro-science", so perhaps the Hasidic component of the Israeli electorate is skewing your perception of American conservatives more than you realize. [Wink]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
(And this next is addressed more to Seneca and other pro-war types...

...I would appreciate if any of the pro-war advocates could point me to detailed discussions of the strategy for military and nation-building actions that start with the bombing of Iran and conclude with the elimination of the threat and the withdrawal of all coalition troops. Because, surely, after the disasterously misguided Iraq War which was similarly started with no real plan for conclusion, we can see that it would be foolish to again start a war with so little planning for its outcome.

The bomb Iran faction echoes the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war and the domestic "stand your ground" laws, which can be translated as "If I am scared of you, I have moral permission to kill you first".

First off I am not "pro-war." Please stop referring to me that way, ok? I am pro-survival, which means I believe in war only as a last resort to stave off death and destruction.

Second, I don't have a plan for "nation building" in Iran. Nor do I think one is entirely necessary when faced with nuclear attack from inaction. It would be nice, but I would never say that not having one should tie our hands even if we're going to be attacked.

Greg, do you deny that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons?
Do you deny that they would either use those nukes on Israel, the US, or both?
Do you deny that they might funnel those nukes to terrorists and hope to get away with it claiming they weren't involved?
Do you deny that their military is FULL of high-level commanders who are unhinged and who might take action without permission of the top levels of their government even if the Ayatollah forbade use of nuclear weapons?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, when you say "pro-survival", what I hear is that you believe in the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war (and the domestic "stand your ground" laws); as I said, it sounds like the principle of "If I am scared of you, I have moral permission to kill you first". Please provide any corrections or clarifications and I will use your phrasing to describe your views; I know I have characterized this pejoratively, but I would want to know where you differ from this on moral grounds.

But I also believe that you are wrong on pragmatic grounds. I grant you that it is quite possible that some factions within the government of Iran are trying to take steps towards development of nuclear weapons. But I derive a totally different lesson from that possibility. Addressing that risk with bombing will increase our danger. The unfortunate message of American extremists going against their fear-fantasy "Axis of Evil" (Iraq, North Korea, and Iran) was that if a country does not develop nukes, then they are at a real risk of the United States going to war against them, killing tens of thousands, and overthrowing their regime. So one the one hand, fear-based extremism actually hurts American interests. But in addition, acting in accordance with fear-based extremism does not guarantee a positive outcome.

For example, let's look at the wisdom shared by Mr Netanyahu when he last made the pro-war case in testimony in front of Congress in 2002

quote:
…If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.
link

If Iran is as evil as you say, then dropping bombs won't do it. Tell me seriously how you expect day 2 to go in the bombing campaign? And day 3? At what point does the threat end? Or, does starting a US bombing campaign in fact align all of Iran with the extremists, and aim a country of 77 million at producing nukes deeply underground as the only means of defense?

There are risks with pursuing a diplomatic solution. There is a finite possibility that Iran might cheat, and they might get away with it. But I see no reason to believe that the crazy extremists in the Iranian government are more likely to use nukes than the crazy extremists in the Soviet Union and Communist China in the Cold War, or the crazy extremists in governments currently with nukes such as Pakistan, North Korea, or Russia.

I find it no more likely to believe that Iranians would funnel nukes to terrorists than the Pakistanis would, or that the Russians would give them to their Ukrainian separatists. In each case, I find it rather hard to believe that whoever had the nukes would risk handing any over to someone they didn't control. That not only goes for terrorists, but also for members of the military command structure who might control the nukes.

So there is a non-zero risk in pursuing diplomacy. But there are much higher risks from pursuing war at this point. The near-zero cost and casualty Iraq War promoted by Bush and Netanyahu led to 3-6000 Americans killed and I believe 100,000 wounded; cumulative costs are >$1 trillion, and I have yet to see the "enormous positive reverberations" that were guaranteed by Mr Netanyahu. Iraq was a country with a population about 26 million when we waged war in 2003; Iran has a population of 77 million. How many Americans will be killed, how much will it cost, and how positive are the "reverberations" that you guarantee if we should follow the guidance of those advocating for war?

[ February 21, 2015, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are risks with pursuing a diplomatic solution. There is a finite possibility that Iran might cheat, and they might get away with it. But I see no reason to believe that the crazy extremists in the Iranian government are more likely to use nukes than the crazy extremists in the Soviet Union and Communist China in the Cold War, or the crazy extremists in governments currently with nukes such as Pakistan, North Korea, or Russia.

I find it no more likely to believe that Iranians would funnel nukes to terrorists than the Pakistanis would, or that the Russians would give them to their Ukrainian separatists. In each case, I find it rather hard to believe that whoever had the nukes would risk handing any over to someone they didn't control. That not only goes for terrorists, but also for members of the military command structure who might control the nukes.

The difference between all of those regimes and Iran is that all of those regimes are secular, while Iran is a theocracy. Do you dispute this?


Let me apparently requote the following questions which you failed to answer before asking me questions. Answer mine, take them into account before attempting yours again and I might considering answering yours that survive the context of mine preceding them.

quote:
Greg, do you deny that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons?
Do you deny that they would either use those nukes on Israel, the US, or both?
Do you deny that they might funnel those nukes to terrorists and hope to get away with it claiming they weren't involved?
Do you deny that their military is FULL of high-level commanders who are unhinged and who might take action without permission of the top levels of their government even if the Ayatollah forbade use of nuclear weapons?


Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, this communication thing does work out so well if you don't actually read my responses. So to make it easier, I have listed your questions and followed with my responses that I already gave you in my previous posting (see below). And since I have given you the courtesy of answering your questions, can you please answer the question (which incidentally I originally asked before yours): What is your plan to successfully conclude the war against Iran starting with the first day on which you advocate that the US should start dropping bombs?

Q: do you deny that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons?
A: "I grant you that it is quite possible that some factions within the government of Iran are trying to take steps towards development of nuclear weapons"

Q: Do you deny that they would either use those nukes on Israel, the US, or both?
A: "But I see no reason to believe that the crazy extremists in the Iranian government are more likely to use nukes than the crazy extremists in the Soviet Union and Communist China in the Cold War, or the crazy extremists in governments currently with nukes such as Pakistan, North Korea, or Russia."

Q: Do you deny that they might funnel those nukes to terrorists and hope to get away with it claiming they weren't involved? and
Do you deny that their military is FULL of high-level commanders who are unhinged and who might take action without permission of the top levels of their government even if the Ayatollah forbade use of nuclear weapons?
A: "I find it no more likely to believe that Iranians would funnel nukes to terrorists than the Pakistanis would, or that the Russians would give them to their Ukrainian separatists. In each case, I find it rather hard to believe that whoever had the nukes would risk handing any over to someone they didn't control. That not only goes for terrorists, but also for members of the military command structure who might control the nukes."

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I also disagree with your assertion that Iran's theocracy makes them fundamentally different from other regimes with crazy extremists in some positions of power. My whole life I have heard stories of how the current enemy of the times was filled with crazy ideological fanatics, and while I believe that there are some extremists in many regimes, I don't see any basis for thinking that Iran has the craziest fanatics in the world right now (if I had to guess, I'd say that North Korea may have some of the most crazy in leadership at the moment). If you had to judge the greatest extremists in the nuclear age by their actual actions, the Islamists of today cannot compete with the totalitarian Communist regimes (Soviets and Chinese under Mao in particular) that were willing to kill far more people on the basis of ideology. Some of the non-nuke non-theocracies such as Pol Pot were at least as dangerous due to ideology as the Islamists of today

[ February 21, 2015, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you are fundamentally and wholly wrong. I also do not see the ability to persuade you or reason with you given that you think a theocracy that has stated that we are a "great Satan" and "should be destroyed" is not a threat to us if they acquire nuclear weapons.

At this point I think the only thing that will convince people like yourself is the mushroom cloud going off over NYC or LA. I hope it doesn't come to that but at this point I do not conceive of anything that would convince you otherwise.

Is there anything that would convince you that Iran would use nuclear weapons offensively either directly or via proxy short of them actually deploying them? What would it be?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"A: "But I see no reason to believe that the crazy extremists in the Iranian government are more likely to use nukes....."

Greg, I wanted to add this days ago but I kept forgetting.

Do you know what will happen if Iran will get nukes? Then it will be no stopping Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey from getting nukes.

Suddenly the whole middle east, together with its borderline collapse regime, crazy dictators, fanatic terror organizations and what not, is full of countries who have nukes. Woo hoo!

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, like my answer or not, I still believe that you owe me the courtesy of a response to my question: what is your plan for the war against Iran?

Your refusal to answer so far indicates to me that you have absolutely no clue how to successfully conduct and complete the war that you so eagerly want to start.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hannibal, I agree that if Iran gets nukes, the odds increase that Iran's neighbors will want to get risks.

However, I don't believe that bombing Iran will reduce the odds that Iran or one of its neighbors will get nukes. I find it plausible that bombing Iran may be more likely to encourage the development of nuclear weapons in Iran as not bombing Iran. An American War on Iran will once again demonstrate that the only way a small country can protect itself from American warfare is to actually possess nukes.

And as collateral damage, expect far more than the 3000-6000 American combat casualties and the $1T spent on the similarly foolish War on Iraq. And I am still waiting for a coherent plan that provides high confidence that the War will make things better - and it evidently doesn't exist. The foolish, fearful incompetents that pushed for the Iraq War are the same as those pushing for a new Iran War - and they still don't have a plan for how to succeed.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

"And as collateral damage, expect far more than the 3000-6000 American combat casualties and the $1T spent on the similarly foolish War on Iraq. "...

I did not read through your prior comments, so can you tell me why ground troops are necessary to obliterate stationary targets?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" As for myself, I'll answer it to hannibal. Not a one. I won't raise a finger to avenge Israel."

I am not expecting you to, this is why Israel has its own army and its own capabilities. We don't ask you to fight our wars for us."

exactly. I think it's hilarious that some lefties make the argument that Iran would never dare nuke Israel because the US would nuke Iran in revenge [Roll Eyes]

America only basks in revenge in its internal politics. I don't think we've ever fought a war of revenge in our entire history.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel c, no one has actually been willing to tell me what they envision as a war plan. Do you believe that by dropping some bombs we could eliminate the possibility that Iran is developing nukes? What fraction of their capability is stationary targets? Do we know where they all are? Can we verify that they are permanently destroyed without boots on the ground? And the day or week after declaring war, are you expecting that Iran won't start increasing its level of preparations for counter-strikes? Do we let a nation of 77 million (minus those we kill in the bombing) suddenly mobilize for war against us and our allies? Or does your vision of theocratic extremists in Iran's government lead you to a prediction that their response to bombing will be to become placid and live in piece? Or are you arguing the right-wing policy advocated by some extremist Israelis it will be necessary to regularly "mow the lawn" (by which they mean kill enemy troops and civilians)?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think that Iran can afford to engage in counterstrikes against Israel at the same time that ISIS is so close to its front door.

OTOH, I don't think that the US wants to risk that right now either.

It certainly would be create an interesting situation if Israel bombed and hit US or international inspectors at the nuke sites ...

[ February 22, 2015, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"noel c, no one has actually been willing to tell me what they envision as a war plan. Do you believe that by dropping some bombs we could eliminate the possibility that Iran is developing nukes? "...

We could use "bombs", but they would need to be a penetrator/detonation design, and layered to reach the vitals of hardened underground facilities. I would not risk the aircrews.

It would be better to use up some of our 1970s vintage Minuteman III stock with conventional warheads, and let the ayatollahs contemplate the effect of a much more potent Trident II nuclear strike.

"What fraction of their capability is stationary targets? "...

Right now, all of their "capability" is stationary. If they are given time to fit nuclear warheads to mobile launch platforms, Europe, and Israel are sitting ducks.

We would become vulnerable only when their space-launch vehicle becomes operational, which is why we will have to launch a preemptive nuclear attack if our allies are attacked with nuclear equipped medium range missiles.

"Do we know where they all are? "...

I assume that you mean the nuclear manufacturing facilities. Yes, we do know, and there is no way that they can hide from us.

"Can we verify that they are permanently destroyed without boots on the ground? "...

No manufacturable item can be "permanently destroyed", but we can destroy current inventory by making it hazardous to human contact for the next 24,000 years.

"And the day or week after declaring war, are you expecting that Iran won't start increasing its level of preparations for counter-strikes? "...

Who are the Iranians going to strike, and with what?

"Do we let a nation of 77 million (minus those we kill in the bombing) suddenly mobilize for war against us and our allies? "...

I suppose they can "mobilize" if it makes them feel better.

"Or does your vision of theocratic extremists in Iran's government lead you to a prediction that their response to bombing will be to become placid and live in piece? "...

The ayatollahs themselves have shown little personal interest in becoming martyrs.

"Or are you arguing the right-wing policy advocated by some extremist Israelis it will be necessary to regularly 'mow the lawn' (by which they mean kill enemy troops and civilians)? "...

I think a demonstration of just what ICBMs can do against hard targets will be enough.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel,

(1) What makes you think that our intelligence on weapons in Iran so much better than it was in Iraq? We would need to have vastly better intelligence now to assume that we knew where every target was.

(2) I find your lack of concern about the negative consequences associated with our starting a war to be shocking, particularly in after the same irresponsible ignorance was demonstrated to cause tremendous damage to the United States in the run up to the Iraq War. You still have not yet responded to the shocking arrogance and ignorance demonstrated by Mr. Netanyahu last time he came to Congress to advocate for war:
quote:
…If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.
He guaranteed it - it's almost like he was incapable of imagining anything going wrong. Is that the kind of advice that we would want to trust again?

(3) If you are worried about the risks of nuclear war, I advise against launching ICBMs (even if they had conventional warheads - no one knows that till they blow up), and you also need to know where you are going to aim them, because most of the flight paths from our ICBMs to Iran go over Russia.

[ February 22, 2015, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg, Pete, Noel

I do not advocate for an "American invasion of Iran" I never did. It is a great shame that your country wasted a whole lot of resources on Iraq. All I suggested was that signing a deal that keeps Iran as a borderline nuclear state is a bad deal.

It will elevate Iran to the level of North Korea, all the countries in the middle east will see that the US word is worth nothing and will seek their own nuclear weapons.

Israel's situation will be much more precarious for a tons of reasons we discussed here, no need to regurgitate.

Israel Knows where the nuclear facilities are (and they are spread all over Iran, which is a huge country). Every once in a while there is an "accident" that happens near or within those sites... Israel has the capability, not as grand as yours is of course, but Israel has the capability to deliver massive damage to Iran. Set them back 10 years maybe, which is a lot of time in the middle east. We have our own sub launched cruise missiles, ICBMS, long range bombers, and advanced electronic warfare capabilities that I doubt there are more then 3-4 other countries with similar capabilities.

We do need American political support. Currently it feels like we are alone in this campaign. The west is more interested in western companies making money in Iran and is comfortable with a bad deal instead of facing with reality.

Thats our problem

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"(1) What makes you think that our intelligence on weapons in Iran so much better than it was in Iraq? We would need to have vastly better intelligence now to assume that we knew where every target was. "...

Apples, and oranges. The problem in Iraq was locating the alleged contraband "yellow cake" uranium oxide precursor to concentrated weapons-grade U-235. It is transportable, and Saddam was playing cat-and-mouse with inspectors. We already knew he had a bunch of 1940s style centrifuges.

Iran is far ahead of where Iraq was at the time the United States invaded, and we now have observation satellites capable of penetrating darkness, cloud cover, and even earth. Manufacturing/testing not only leaves a large industrial footprint, but also produce airborne isotopes which convey with precision the developmental state of a nuclear program.

We know.

"(2) I find your lack of concern about the negative consequences associated with our starting a war to be shocking, particularly in after the same irresponsible ignorance was demonstrated to cause tremendous damage to the United States in the run up to the Iraq War. "...

How are you comparing the two? I am not suggesting invasion, but an ICBM strike with non-explosive kinetic warheads.

"You still have not yet responded to the shocking arrogance and ignorance demonstrated by Mr. Netanyahu last time he came to Congress to advocate for war: "...

I like his style. Did you want a detailed commentary?

"He guaranteed it - it's almost like he was incapable of imagining anything going wrong. Is that the kind of advice that we would want to trust again? "...

Unfortunately, he had no control over the American electorate in 2008.

"(3) If you are worried about the risks of nuclear war, I advise against launching ICBMs (even if they had conventional warheads - no one knows that till they blow up), and you also need to know where you are going to aim them, because most of the flight paths from our ICBMs to Iran go over Russia. " ...

Yes, we would have to give Putin a heads up just before launch. I understand that he is really into physical fitness, and it would give his anal sphincter an exceptional work-out. As an aside; we fly over Russian territory at high altitudes on a daily basis with no notification at all.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't understand why we just don't nuke the Middle East. I guess we should add Indonesia and North Korea. Since ISIS and the ilk all pose a threat to our safety lets just be done with them. Since they are all Muslims (except North Korea) its no big deal anyway? Think of all the time, money and lives (at least those that matter) we'd save?

Sounds incredible but that seems to be what certain individuals seem to feel we need to do to protect ourselves albeit not on as grand a scale.

Why is the US such a target? Is it possibly because we keep manipulating the affairs of nations to the benefit of the US and the detriment of the native populations?

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
that was Kennedy seniors argument against interfering with the Nazis.

It Will Make Us Enemies.

well it did. nothing that America's ever done has made it more enemies than what we did in ww2. and yet it was still the right thing to do.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1