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 » "U.S.-Iran tensions may trigger war" (Page 9)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: "U.S.-Iran tensions may trigger war"
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What right does the President have to wage war when Congress explicitly denies him the authority? From the IHT:
quote:
Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins combat troop withdrawals.
...
"We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein," Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., said of the 2002 resolution, in a speech last week before the Brookings Institution. "The WMD was not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq."

With regard to Iran, what can Bush do if the Congress doesn't support him? The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is fuzzy on consultation and reporting to Congress, but clear on Congressional authority:
quote:
SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of Untied States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red,

My son half plagerized one of your posts on Iran. He asked me what I thought of the Iran situation and I told him, but I then told him he should read your posts. He did and using parts of them wrote his own two page report. Thanks. You should feel honored.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Rather, that we need to be prepared to something more, should understanding fail."

I thought that was what all them Trident nukes were for.

The new missile gap: we got hundreds and they mmight have one in a few years.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  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 
Remind me, Dave, what part of the constitution gives Congress power to enact those particular sections of the War Powers Resolution? Are you aware of what SCOTUS has said on the matter?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
"Rather, that we need to be prepared to something more, should understanding fail."

I thought that was what all them Trident nukes were for.

The new missile gap: we got hundreds and they mmight have one in a few years.

Considering the hit our economy took just from the WTC, I really don't want to see what would happen if we lost even part of Manhattan, or LA, Chicago, or any other major urban area.

We may be able to turn their entire nation to glass, but that doesn't mean we want to give people an open invitation to try to glass over even one city block of our territory by means of any kind of high explosives.

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting article by Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times. (I had to paraphrase it because I read it in the Houston Chronicle, but the NY Times will not let you copy it unless you pay them. I usually don't write such long posts but I think this one is well worth the time it took me to copy it down and will be worth the time it will take you to read it.)

Friedman's thesis is that we have more in common with Iran than not. That talks with Iran could lead to a breakthrough in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere.

quote:
He starts out by pointing out how much more we have in common with Iran than Saudi Arabia, and then he goes on to point out that because we took out two of Iran's main foes, Saddam and al-Qaida, that there is a growing sentiment in Iran to make friends with the US.

Differences in Iran and Saudi Arabia: He (Friedman) contends that Iran actively helped us defeat the Taliban and install a pro-US elected alliance of moderate Muslims. Holds sort-of-free elections. That Iran's women get to vote, hold office, are the majority of its university students and are fully integrated into the work force. Iran was one of the few Muslim nations to hold pro-US demonstrations following 9-11. And though Iran's president denied the holocaust in a recent speech a month later his candidates got wiped out in nationwide elections by voters who preferred more moderate conservatives. He contends that Iran has strategic interest in the success of the pro-U.S. elected Iraqi government. That although it is directly next to Iraq it has never sent any suicide bombers, and has long protected its Christians and Jews. He says Iran has more bloggers than any country in the Muslim Middle East. He points out that the brand of Islam practiced by Iran respects women, is open to reinterpretation in light of modernity and rejects al-Qaida's nihilism (Pete will love that line. [Smile] )

Conversely Saudi Arabia gave us 14 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11. They don't allow their women to drive, vote or run for office. It is illegal in Saudi Arabia to build a church, synagogue or Hindu temple. [And Saudi Arabia helped finance the Taliban.

Saudi Arabia's 'private' charities help sustain al-Qaida. Young men from Saudi Arabia's mosques have been regularly recruited to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq. Mosques and charities in SA raise funds to support the insurgency in Iraq. Saudi Arabia does not want the elected, Shiite led government in Iraq to succeed. While Saudi Arabia's leaders are pro-US, polls show many of its people are hostile to America -- some of them celebrated on 9-11. The brand of Islam supported by SA and exported by it to mosques around the world is the most hostile to modernity and other faiths.

He admits that Iran has engaged in terrorism against the US, and that SA has supported America at key times in some areas. His point is that hostility between the US and Iran since 1979 id not organic. By dint of culture, history and geography, we actually have a lot of interest in common with Iran's people.

Because of our destruction of Saddam and the Taliban former ambassador Davos of Iran said "There is now more readiness for dialogue with the United States."


Friedman states that the most important thing we can do to stabilize the Middle East is not solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but toto resolve the Iran-US conflict. (I have to think Israel-Palestine runs a close second). But he contends the solving of the former would facilitate the solving of the latter! And Iran's help would be invaluable in stabilizing Iraq. (something I think most of us think is a lost cause, neh?)

His keys to negotiating with leverage over Iran are A) To make it clear that Iran can't push us out of the gulf militarily (easily done). B) Bring down the price of oil which is the key to Iran's hardline leaderships cockiness. (How would we do that?) In other words squeeze the hardliners financially. But all of this has to be accompanied with a clear declaration that the US is not seeking regime change in Iran, but a change of behavior, that the US wants to immediately restore its embassy in Tehran and that the first thing we should do is grant 50,000 student visas for young Iranians to study as US universities.

He says if we do that all we have to do is sit back and watch the most amazing debate explode inside Iran. I quote: "You can bet the farm on it." (Which is what we would be doing.)

A question: "(Iran) Has long protected its Christians and Jews"? (Is that true?)

This is the problem; I listen to Ahmadinejad and I want to nuke Tehran, then I read articles about the people of Iran and I want us to talk to them. How can talking hurt? If we don't like what they say we can still nuke them. (Although I don't know if they have "the mother of all armies" I have seen a map and Iran is considerably larger than Iraq. Maybe we've bitten off enough for now and should invite the Iranians to the dinner table to talk while we digest Iraq over a nice bottle of Chianti? Oh right, Muslims don't drink, do they?

Thoughts, comments? Unwarranted insults? [Smile]

KE

[ February 24, 2007, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...what part of the constitution gives Congress power to enact those particular sections of the War Powers Resolution? Are you aware of what SCOTUS has said on the matter?
Pete, it's complicated, I know. So, this is my understanding of the situation regarding the WPR, but correct me if I'm off base here.

A slight history cobbled together from memory, an unfortunately unreliable source...The Chadha case punched a hole in the legitimacy of the original WPR, because the WPR implicitly had given Congress the right to veto something that the President hadn't presented to Congress to pass. Congress responded to the SC with a new piece of legislation to fill in that hole. I don't know of any other significant SC ruling regarding the WPR. I don't think any President has accepted that it is constitutional, but under Congressional pressure, they have accepted Authorization acts from Congress in most if not all major conflicts since the early 80s that implicitly or explicitly refer to its provisions.

The WPR makes sense to me, because Congress is trying to assert its authority over the use of the military in foreign conflicts. The Constitution gives the Congress sole authority to declare war, but isn't clear about when or how they do that. It also gives the Congress the authority to fund the military, but doesn't explain how a president is supposed to get funding authorization for military action overseas outside of a DoW. So, we end up in a state where the President can act unilaterally to engage in a military conflict in response to a threat, but he has to get Congress to act in order to pay for it, usually off the books. Every conflict is unique, so part of what I've said applies to some and not to others.

We end up in the funny position where, practically speaking, the President has to go to Congress for authorization for overseas military action in each separate situation, and they pass a unique bill in each case. All of those authorizations are modeled on or reference provisions in the WPR, but the WPR is not itself used.

So, for Bush to launch open warfare against Iran will require Congressional authorization and funding, but there is no clear process that outlines how he needs to do it. The Congress is both realist and cowardly, so if Bush launches military airstrikes against Iranian facilities without prior notification to Congress, they will probably have to let him have his way, but they (both Dems and Goppers) will be pissed. The only way to prevent that from happening is to pass legislation ahead of time that establishes explicit requirements for him to act, but I wouldn't expect him to respect its provisions, even if he swore he would. As you've pointed out, some people believe we're already in a state of "legal war", so he doesn't need any further authorization anyway.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From another article:

quote:
Some Iranians believe Ahmadinejad has been too antagonistic toward the U.S. and its allies. Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in recent weeks has emerged as a high-level advocate of a more conciliatory stance toward the West in the nuclear dispute.
KE
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE, thanks for taking the time to collect that info. Friedman was woefully wrong about how events in Iraq would unfold, uttering every three months from April/03 through July/06 that "The next six months will be crucial", until he finally gave up and admitted we lost.

I think he and many neo-con commentators learned a big lesson from their support and even enthusiasm for the war in Iraq. That lesson was basically that we don't have a fkucnig clue how to unravel or solve the problems that region is enmeshed in. It's their history, not their military, diplomatic or commercial relations, that puts them at odds with each other. Notably, in laying out his case for what to do in the article (January/07), nowhere does he talk about Iranian nukes as the issue.

Having indicted Saudi Arabia, he doesn't propose doing anything about them, which I think is wrong. I agree with his policy objective to avoid war with Iran and generally agree with the way we go about it, but I would favor more intense pressure on them.
quote:
...More important, when people say, ''The most important thing America could do today to stabilize the Middle East is solve the Israel-Palestine conflict,'' they are wrong. It's second. The most important thing would be to resolve the Iran-U.S. conflict.

That would change the whole Middle East and open up the way to solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, because Iran is the key backer of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Syria. Iran's active help could also be critical for stabilizing Iraq.

This is why I oppose war with Iran. I favor negotiations. Isolating Iran like Castro's Cuba has produced only the same result as in Cuba: strengthening Iran's Castros. But for talks with Iran to bear fruit, we have to negotiate with Iran with leverage.

How do we get leverage? Make it clear that Iran can't push us out of the gulf militarily; bring down the price of oil, which is key to the cockiness of Iran's hard-line leadership; squeeze the hard-liners financially. But all this has to be accompanied with a clear declaration that the U.S. is not seeking regime change in Iran, but a change of behavior, that the U.S. wants to immediately restore its embassy in Tehran and that the first thing it will do is grant 50,000 student visas for young Iranians to study at U.S. universities...


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"(Iran) Has long protected its Christians and Jews"? (Is that true?)
Christians and Jews are discriminated against in Iran, and pretty much always have been to varying degrees.

They haven't had anything that could remotely be termed a pogrom in a very, very long time.

It's not quite "aparthied", I mean, Christians and Jews can travel, use the same bathrooms, go to university...but they really aren't equal citizens.

Much of the Jewish population of Iran has emmigrated in the last 60 years, there are only 40,000 of them in the country now. I wonder how many Shia'a would be left in Iran, however, if they essentially had a free pass to move to a First World nation.

It's much like the Iranian relationship with the Kurds..."tolerance" in the sense that we use the word wouldn't be accurate...but we're not talking ethnic cleansing or genocide.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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:
The only way to prevent that from happening is to pass legislation ahead of time that establishes explicit requirements for him to act, but I wouldn't expect him to respect its provisions, even if he swore he would
That's a pretty unlikely hypothetical, since no sitting president in history has ever said or done anything to validate those parts of the WPA, leg alone "swearing to honor them." Even Clinton and Carter, of all people, carefully worded their actions to avoid the possibility of a reasonable informed person coming to the conclusion that they were submitting to the "requirements" of the WPA.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"We may be able to turn their entire nation to glass, but that doesn't mean we want to give people an open invitation to try to glass over even one city block of our territory by means of any kind of high explosives."

Open invitation? The new h-BOMB: Hyperbolic Bombast.

I wasn't aware we'd invited anyone to nuke us.

I know this is mere sophistry countering mere sophsitry, but when your sophistry hinges on an expression like "that doesn't mean we want to give people an open invitation to try to glass over even one city block of our territory", it is thereby rendered absurd.

So we're willing to glass over portions of another country, or invade them conventionally, because they *might* blow up 42nd street?

The whole world has lived with our Trident missiles poised among them for decades. The most lethal things on earth.

It has also lived for 50 years (since the Korean War) with our willingness to stick our armies in other's lands, wage bloody hell, botch things up miserable, retreat when the 'botchulism' can no longer be tolerated, congratulate ourselves on 'standing up liberty/human rights', using phrases, like 'pease with honor', worthy of Chinese Tiannemann Square deniers/apologists.

My point here is not to rub our nose in our past wrongs as some justification for wrongs done toward us. (How come no one calls anyone anti-American anymore? Has the hypocritical idiocy of that slur finally rendered it more damaging to the slinger than the slubg-at?).

My point is to show that the same logic, whereby we call nations like Iran "rogue threats", is the same logic they use to justify calling us enemy number one and pursuing nuclear weapons. (Which of course they are. If I were an Iranian, I'd support such measures, at least emotionally.)

I've mentioned before, and now mention again: Bush and Ahmadinejad look like brothers.

Bush is arguably a more popular president in the USA than Ahmadinejad, but not by much. If we put Ahmadinejad and Cheney oin a race, it would be a close contest.


Bush:

Bush 1

Bush 2

Bush 3

Ahmadinejad:

Ahmad 1

Ahmad 2

Ahmad 3

They act alike, too. Obnly Bush is the copycat. Ahmad was calling us Great Satan long before Bush called them Evildoers of the Axis of Terror.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE

Thanks. Tell him to send me a copy.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
"We may be able to turn their entire nation to glass, but that doesn't mean we want to give people an open invitation to try to glass over even one city block of our territory by means of any kind of high explosives."

Open invitation? The new h-BOMB: Hyperbolic Bombast.

I wasn't aware we'd invited anyone to nuke us.

I know this is mere sophistry countering mere sophsitry, but when your sophistry hinges on an expression like "that doesn't mean we want to give people an open invitation to try to glass over even one city block of our territory", it is thereby rendered absurd.

1) With Iran we have a nation that has a historical tendency to provide military support, at every level it is capable of providing support in, to terrorist forces aligned against Israel.

2) Iran has a government that uses religious overtones in everything it does. It is not outside of reason to believe that at least some of the people in the upper tiers of Government are "true believers" in their faith. Unlike the government USSR which was very overtly Atheistic in nature, Iran's government is overtly theistic in nature.

3) Death holds an entirely different connotation for Iran's government/citizenry than it did the citizenry/government of the USSR. In particular for a religion such as the one Iran espouses, where special rewards are given to those who die while in opposition to "the infidel" the effectiveness of a "we will kill you" policy is somewhat questionable. (Free pass to paradise for everyone in Iran?)

4) The "deterence policy" I was responding back to was pretty much a continuation of the MAD policy employed against the Soviets, only more disproportionate. Basically "If you cause any nuke to go off in our territory, we wipe your nation off the map."

5) If we actually did go through with wiping Iran "off the map" (which I find fairly unlikely), it also would be widely perceived as a genocide against Muslims. So even if we did go through with it, depending on what the goals of the Iranian leadership was in such a situation, they may still have success in one particular goal: The eventual destruction of the United States from both internal(we did just commit genocide on a large scale) and external(nearly a billion pissed off Muslims remaining, I doubt sect is going to matter overly much to them at that point) forces.


....Which is why I said its an open invitation for someone to walk over here and set off a single nuke on us. Either we won't respond as advertised(invitation to potentiall try again later), or we do, and set ourselves up for a fight we really don't want to face. All it takes is someone with a nuke who doesn't view death at the hands of their enemy as a bad thing(for which I think many Islamic movements in the Middle East qualify). Further I'm reasonablly confident that "the powers that be" over in Iran have already put measures in place to help maximize their chances of survival, even if the general population does not.

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently, the Cheney railroad is back on the tracks and delivering its cargo. From the LA Times:
quote:
Although international concern is growing about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran.

The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran's long-secret nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic was developing illicit weapons.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."

Sounds too damned familiar. It doesn't mean that Iran isn't developing nukes, but those who think we have no choice but to attack Iran to stop them from doing so still have to work on their facts before clamoring for us to act.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh I like the fact that the IAEA said this week that essentially, the entire Iranian nuclear program is a shock to the IAEA. They are far more advanced than the IAEA ever imagined. They have far more resources than the IAEA thought possible. And most chillingly, because of those two facts the IAEA stated rather bluntly that they cannot determine the size, the level of operations, or the non military nature of the Iranian program.

In other words, the IAEA, even with inspectors on the ground found out that Iran literally fooled the IAEA for 20 years. The intelligence gained by the IAEA is "cold" because all their intelligence indicated a timid and not very advanced Iranian program. The hot truth is that the Iranians essentially have all the componets and raw materials, and are quite capable of operating the program self contained. Meaning that the IAEA has essentially admited that Iran is a full fledged nuclear power and the IAEA cannot determine any peaceful or military nature of the program because it knows almost nothing about the program even after 20 years of oversight.

Aside from the question of whether Iran is using advanced centrifuges, the IAEA has essentially said that Iran is in gross violation of the NNPT and is self admitedly doing things that usually mean only one thing: Iran is building weapons with a radiologcal component. However, the IAEA has said that it's information is only partially confirmed and it cannot comit to a clear and definative conclusion that Iran is building a bomb.

Thats diplomatic doublespeak for saying the IAEA got hoodwinked by the Iranians, but the IAEA doesn't want anyone to draw any conclusions from the fact that the IAEA got hoodwinked, even if the conclusions one could draw from the known facts is that a bomb is perculating along nicely.

The fact that the IAEA was at first surprised that Iran had double the number of currently running centrifuges, and then mortified to learn that Iran plans to have 10 times that many running by early May 2007, shows that in this case the worst case fears have been eceeded far beyond what the IAEA even assumed to be possible. Iran wasn't even suppossed to be anywhere near this capacity.

So when it comes to the capabilities of the IAEa on the ground, they have shown themselves to be keystone Cops. The didn't even take notice of the problem for 20 years. As a famous character in Cassablanca once stated " I'm Shocked! Shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment"

He took his winnings anyway.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, you've narrowed your understanding of the situation and drawn your conclusions. But, there's a huge amount of conflicting information out there, leading to confusion and disagreement at the top levels of the US, Britain and other governments about what is happening and what to do about it. The Pentagon is practically in chaos, and Gates is apparently opposed to Cheney on this one. Here's another article that makes clear how divergent the opinions are about what to do and what will happen if we launch a military strike.
quote:
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"All it takes is someone with a nuke who doesn't view death at the hands of their enemy as a bad thing(for which I think many Islamic movements in the Middle East qualify). Further I'm reasonablly confident that "the powers that be" over in Iran have already put measures in place to help maximize their chances of survival, even if the general population does not."

Replace "Islamic" with 'Pentagon' and "Middle East" with 'USA', and your statement fits in perfectly with Cold War history of American military/foreign policy.

Let's see what happens if I substitute similarly throughout your response:

"1) With America we have a nation that has a historical tendency to provide military support, at every level it is capable of providing support in, to terrorist forces aligned against Iran.

2) America has a government that uses religious overtones in everything it does. It is not outside of reason to believe that at least some of the people in the upper tiers of Government are "true believers" in their faith. Unlike the government USSR which was very overtly Atheistic in nature, America's government is overtly theistic in nature.

3) Death holds an entirely different connotation for America's government/citizenry than it did the citizenry/government of the USSR. In particular for a religion such as the one America espouses, where special rewards are given to those who die while in opposition to "the infidel" the effectiveness of a "we will kill you" policy is somewhat questionable. (Free pass to paradise for everyone in Iran?)"

Only number three fits awkwardly on the USA, but then, it fits awkwardly when you attempt to blanket a population of 66 million people.

Substitution doesn't apply to the remaining two statements:

"4) The "deterence policy" I was responding back to was pretty much a continuation of the MAD policy employed against the Soviets, only more disproportionate. Basically "If you cause any nuke to go off in our territory, we wipe your nation off the map."

I think this is pretty much a opresumed given. Who wants to find out what we'd do under such circumstances?

"5) If we actually did go through with wiping Iran "off the map" (which I find fairly unlikely), it also would be widely perceived as a genocide against Muslims. So even if we did go through with it, depending on what the goals of the Iranian leadership was in such a situation, they may still have success in one particular goal: The eventual destruction of the United States from both internal(we did just commit genocide on a large scale) and external(nearly a billion pissed off Muslims remaining, I doubt sect is going to matter overly much to them at that point) forces."

I think that rumors of Iranian mass suicidal religious psychosis are greatly exaggerated, even among top levels of government.

THe point about SAD (Singularly Assured Destruction) is that it gives the majot nuke power (America) the option of obliterating. A nuclear Iran has the option of inviting its obliteration.

My point in all this is to encourage you to view things from Iranian perspective, to ponder how maybe, just maybe, the interpretations you use to deem them suicidally insane, are also applicable from their point of view to us.

They don't call us the Great Shaitan simply because we're Xtian. THey call us the Great Shaitan because of the previous centuri=y's history of USA/British/European ilitary coercion of their lands and peoples.

The Turks were Muslim (look at their flag sometime) but they were despised too. The reason Muslims cooperated with Western powers in the early 20th century was to remove oppressors from their soil, even though the oppressors were Muslim.

That we are right and they are wrong is not a given in Iran, eh? It's very easy for a leader like Ahmadinejad to convince a large chunk of his people that Americans are dangerously crazy, a nation dominated by Xtian supremacists, who only tolerate Iran because of its oil.

All he has to do is cite numerous quotes by our current presidency and this admiistration, and lay them against the background of American policy/action toward Iran since WWII.

You can justify measures on the basis of what you perceive as Iranian insanity. I say that whatever measures are taken will be far more effective than otherwise if they take into account why much of Iran justifies its measures toward us on the basis of their belief that we're insane and dangerous, and how our treatment of Iran for 60 years does little to refute this belief and much to substantiate it.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dave

In this case, I could care less what our government is doing or planning to do. My conclusions come from the IAEA report alone.

The summary is simple. The IAEA firstly was hoodwinked for 20 years. Assumptions as to the capabilities of the Iranians proved to be fantastically short of the current confirmed on the ground facts that the IAEA has been able to verify. The Iranian programs are far beyond the preconceptions the IAEA had. The true scope of the program however is currently beyond verification, because essentially the Iranians have only revealed portions of the program after a development or production milestone has been met.

EG the IAEA assumed that Iran may plan on installing centrifuges and refining its own uranium at two specific sites sometime within the next few years. However the IAEA found out that not only were the Iranians already processing uranium, but had been for an extended period of time of at least a year, with a higher capacity than even postulated by the IAEA, and had substantial capacity to ramp up production in a little over 2 months. And the IAEA found out that last tidbit only when the Iranian Foreign Minister announced it to the Press.

All things combined, the IAEA has essentially said Iran is a nuclear power in terms of self sufficiency, production capacity, and technology knowledge. That Iran has yet to put a working commercial power-plant online does not seem to bother the Iranians who apparently just want cheap electrical power. That they are doing verified things that usually mean that military conversion of nuclear technology raises a huge red flag. The IAEA has presented the known scope of the programs, has also stated that it cannot confirm the actual scope of the program. And the IAEA cannot confirm one way or the other if Iran is intent on a peaceful use of nuclear technology, a militarization of the technology, or a combination of the two.

Fact is we have a really limited choice of military options. But the issue isn't what we plan to do in military terms. The issue is do the Iranians pose a true threat in nuclear terms and do they actually intend to follow through on their goals of eliminating the USA and its allies in "great fires"? Given that they have been committed to nuclear development for 20 years, that they did so secretly without oversight until 2002, and the fact that they have steadfastly refused to comply with any IAEA demands, I'd say Iran is a problem. It is also a problem because it seems that their nuclear program isn't set up in priority terms for peaceful uses.

Would you bother refining uranium to fuel grade standards for a civilian power plant that isn't even functional yet, especially when the Russians have said that they would provide you the fuel for free?

If you are planning a peaceful nuclear power program, having another government willingly process fuel for you, and then reprocess spent fuel rods would be the equivalent of getting your electrical energy needs provided for free. Heck the Russians even offered to remove the waste fuel and store it inside Russia so that Iran wouldn't even have to build a radioactive containment storage facility. Instead the Iranians have said "no" and are refining fuel far in advance of need, or even expected need. At this point after $1 billion dollars the Russians may not even finish the nuclear reactor. Which begs the question why does Iran need nuclear fuel if it has a very real expectation that it won't have a functional power plant to use it in?

America had a couple of uranium processing sites running at full tilt long before it had any nuclear power plant that wasn't experimental. And we ran them full tilt for a little more than three years before we had three mounds of enriched fuel. We of course needed a bomb to test at Trinity, as well as enough to make bombs for the Enola Gay and Boc's Car to drop.

So if you need a bomb,first you develop a uranium ore mine, which the Iranians have done even though the ore is low grade and commercially unviable as a fuel source in terms of extraction costs. Then you get the centrifuges running, which the Iranians have, even though the Russians offered to process fuel and fuel rods for free. Get a delivery system, which they have. And then wait long enough to build up a stockpile of weapons grade nuclear stuff.

What has the IAEA said about Iran? Well Iran seems hell bent on expanding and improving its centrifuge processing. Iran just shot a missile into sub-orbital space on Friday, so that pretty much means they got a way to deliver a nuclear horse shoe. The IAEA has also flatly stated that Iranian capacity is far beyond its expected level of development. Iran meanwhile has told the world they have no intention of stopping whatever it is they are doing.

So regardless of what is going on at 10 Downing Street or 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the report filed by the IAEA from Vienna lays out the facts pretty bluntly. Strip away the diplomatic language and what remains is a reality. Iran's nuclear program has far more potential to be a military program rather than a civilian one-even if the IAEA refuses to decide either way.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that at this stage of the game it's an easily foregone conclusion that Iran wants fast-track capacity toward having a nuke.

Were I an Iranian, I'd be all for it. I would fear the USA (although I would also fear my own government, especially their Persian version of Dubya, Ahmadinejad). I would want to have the means to threaten to not go gentle into that long night. I would want the means to make it really really hurt to storm my ass.

A prime reason we have the fundamentalist syndrome in Islam, and especially in Iran, is because since at least WWII, we have conveniently ignored the international etiquette by which one nation respects another's sovereign nationhood.

Iran/Iranians know this all too well. They knew it well enough before the 1980 revolution, but it is now essential canon of their national narrative.

Perhapos now would be a good time for us to understand that, whatever else Iran/Iranians are/aren't, it is a nation and they are its citizens.

But again, as I said elsewhere: ain't gonna happen. Ain't in our nature any more than it was in that of the Romans.

Number One American foreign policy: **** widdem. And when they **** with us in retaliation, BOMB THE **** OUTTA DEM.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KL
Are you feeling O.K.?

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Got the flu but Advil works pretty good. Thanks for asking.

Oh, were you trying to be sarcastic?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No I wasn't being sarcastic.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
"1) With America we have a nation that has a historical tendency to provide military support, at every level it is capable of providing support in, to terrorist forces aligned against Iran.

The United States fails the italicized portion of the above quote, even in the most paranoid of the conspiracy claims regarding US involvement in an Israeli nuke. (And even then, you're pushing the definition of terrorist to claim the State of Israel as a terrorist organization, considering it is legaly recognized as a state by the UN)

quote:
2) America has a government that uses religious overtones in everything it does. It is not outside of reason to believe that at least some of the people in the upper tiers of Government are "true believers" in their faith. Unlike the government USSR which was very overtly Atheistic in nature, America's government is overtly theistic in nature.
While the politicians are apt to use religious teminology, and express religious views in the course of doing their jobs. The non-political aspects of the government are inherently secular in the US. Even where the politicans blur the line between religion and government, the government is inherently secular in the sense that the government cannot make/issue/support religious decrees.

Iran's government literally is a Theocracy, it may be one with a number of democratic trappings, but it is a Theocracy none-the-less.

quote:
3) Death holds an entirely different connotation for America's government/citizenry than it did the citizenry/government of the USSR. In particular for a religion such as the one America espouses, where special rewards are given to those who die while in opposition to "the infidel" the effectiveness of a "we will kill you" policy is somewhat questionable. (Free pass to paradise for everyone in Iran?)"
The US lacks a religious sect/branch with a sufficiently large pluralirity to be able to set policy by itself. Iran, on the other hand, has one. Further, I'm not aware of any sizeable Christian sects that hold "death while in opposition to a heathen(infidel)" as a free ticket to heaven.

quote:
"5) If we actually did go through with wiping Iran "off the map" (which I find fairly unlikely), it also would be widely perceived as a genocide against Muslims. So even if we did go through with it, depending on what the goals of the Iranian leadership was in such a situation, they may still have success in one particular goal: The eventual destruction of the United States from both internal(we did just commit genocide on a large scale) and external(nearly a billion pissed off Muslims remaining, I doubt sect is going to matter overly much to them at that point) forces."

I think that rumors of Iranian mass suicidal religious psychosis are greatly exaggerated, even among top levels of government.

THe point about SAD (Singularly Assured Destruction) is that it gives the majot nuke power (America) the option of obliterating. A nuclear Iran has the option of inviting its obliteration.

And I'm going to reference back to the alleged Isreali nuke capability. At least one version of which I've heard entailed espionage on the part of Israel by means of playing on some sympathies Americans had for their plight.

If the United States as secular as it is supposed to be, could let one "slip by." What kind of odds do you want to take on Iran being able to keep control over its nukes(or even just the material to make one) when/if they obtain some?

[ February 25, 2007, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: TheDeamon ]

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, my head is spinning a little bit. I do listen carefully to your views (before strongly disagreeing with them). Your opinion about the ineptitude of the IAEA is relatively recent, as a year ago you wrote "I think the IAEA reports as to the Iranian capability is pretty much as unbiased a source as I can produce."

My sense is that your one constant thought is your conclusion about what Iran's intentions are, but the ground keeps shifting underneath you as the Iranians fail to deliver on your dire prophecies. I repeat, respectfully, that your facts don't appear to be any more solid than those being reported from a wide variety of sources that disagree with you, as well as with each other.

We all agree that the Iranians are heading toward developing a nuclear weapon. We don't know that they'll get there, when they'll get there, or what they would intend to do with it once they had it. Intense pressure should be brought to bear on them, but insisting they are evil increases the threat, and clamoring for a devastating military preemptive strike raises it even more. I said earlier that our fierce rhetoric (Cheney's, not yours) may make the war that we supposedly want to avoid happen.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The IAEA is the least biased source I can find. And it isn't ineptitude on the behalf of the IAEA, rather it is intentional Iranian concealment and secrecy that has caught the IAEA with its pants down.

And the IAEA knows that has been the case.

It isn't a case of shifting sands. Rather my argument that Iran is getting the bomb and living up to what it has said about its rights to a bomb hasn't changed yet. It has become more refined in the last five years, but it hasn't moved away from a central point-Iran is getting the bomb all by itself.

Its a case of simple math. Given X amount of Uranium yellow-cake produced from Iranian mines that are confirmed to exist, and given a now minimum of 3000 centrifuges running 24/7 how long will it take to produce enough enriched uranium for a single warhead? Given that the Iranian centrifuges are home made, and are apparently capable last year of nearly double the refining capability expected by the IAEA, the case may already exist that they have at least one nuke.

With the assumed additions being made to the farms with the upgraded centrifuges the IAEA suspects to exist, you may have to take nearly 105 off the time it takes to refine the uranium.

Up until a few months ago, many people were still arguing that Iran either didn't have anything close to a functional nuclear program or they were arguing that Iran wouldn't possibly build a bomb. It is nice to know that you now say everyone agrees with me that they are indeed committed to a weaponized nuclear program. That a few decades of diplomatic pressure and economic embargoes has done nothing to stop them should give us pause. What more can we bring to bear in terms of nonviolent and diplomatic penalties against them? And since we are already scraping the bottom of the diplomacy and economics barrel, aside from my economic disappearing dollar tactic, what else do we have left to through against the wall?

The facts are pretty solid, especially since they are the verified facts presented by the IAEA. That the IAEA doesn't cross the diplomatic lines and directly state Iran is building a weapon system has more to do with the fact that the IAEA is leaving up to the Security Council to make the final conclusions. So pretend your reading the unbiased IAEA report, and you also happen to be the Security Council. After reading the report, could you reasonably conclude Iran is building a peaceful nuclear power program?

The Iranians have been delivering on my dire predictions, and have repeatedly surpassed even my worst case scenarios. At this point whether they are "evil" is no longer relevant. They don't consider themselves evil. Frankly they are on the verge of becoming the first Islamic nation in the Middle East to hold the ultimate power-broker chip. From their point of view, its almost a resurgence of the Persian Empire. It also means we have to decide what to do about it.

Which again brings us back to the central issue of this thread. Knowing that it is at least 51% likely that Iran intends to build a bomb, what can or should we do? And how long do we wait to do something?

So what do you disagree with? Is the IAEA wrong about the finding on the ground in Iran? Is the bias towards military development at the expense of peaceful development not supported by their facts? Is it possible that Iran's cascades really aren't running, and Iran has no uranium ore mines? Does it take an infinite time to refine uranium to weapons grade level? Was it not this time last year when Iran announced it had already produced a 2% concentration, and expected to double the purity level percentage weekly?

Since everything the Iranians have announced has turned out to be verified by the IAEA, 52 weeks of 2% concentration has to at least give them one fuel rod's worth of uranium ready to go into a non-existent reactor. Do you expect them to test a device without having further uranium availible to build other bombs?

Or do you think, as I do, that they would wisely stockpile enough for at least three or four devices before showing the world they have gone atomic?

Your head may be spinning because apparently I was right. Now how do we avoid a military engagement? And we better come up with the answer quickly because the geopolitics of the Middle East and Europe are about to fundamentally shift in the very near term.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"we don't have a fkucnig clue"

Excellent hack.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
fkucnig wroks!
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which is all very funny, but the question still remains.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In all seriousness, the only ideas left on the table are do nothing, stop Iran by economic means, shift our conventional forces into Iran, use conventional weapons to take their nuclear program out, or use nuclear weapons to take their nuclaer program sites out.

No one has any more comentary or solutions?

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We can't do nothing. Human nature oprevents it. We can't stop them by economic means, not with oil so scarce even Iran is cnsidering rationing it among themselves. The latter two choices are euphemisms for Starting A Big-Ass WAR.

I ask for the umpteenth time on this forum: are we ready for a return of the draft? For an economy dominated by the Pentagon?

Only this time, the Pearl Harbor that starts it is one of our making?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
We can't do nothing. Human nature oprevents it. We can't stop them by economic means, not with oil so scarce even Iran is cnsidering rationing it among themselves. The latter two choices are euphemisms for Starting A Big-Ass WAR.

I ask for the umpteenth time on this forum: are we ready for a return of the draft? For an economy dominated by the Pentagon?

Only this time, the Pearl Harbor that starts it is one of our making?

There is stuff the US could overtly to do within its own borders that could offset it, but the problem, as always, is who pays for it. As well as the ever on-going argument on how involved government should be in the process.

Change the one time $2,000 tax credit for hybrid vehicles. Make the $2,000 tax credit available to anyone purchasing a vehicle with a highway(or city, for the hybirds with regenerative braking tech) MPG rating of 40+ Miles Per Gallon. Provide progressively bigger tax breaks for vehicles with higher fuel efficiency standards.

Provide significant tax breaks for corporations that are fielding technologies which "significantly improve" fuel efficiency standards for vehicles they are installed in.

Provide tax breaks to incentivize people/corporations to potentially retrofit existing vehicles.

Dump a LOT of money into R&D efforts to help in research involving those areas. (DoD has best justification for that, forces that require less oil = forces with a smaller logistics "tail" behind them)

Develop "Superhighway 2.0" to supplant/replace the current interstate highway system currently in use. Of course, this one would likely take as long/longer to roll out as the initial version did = about 50 years. But first people working in the transit sector need to get a little more creative where mass transit systems are concerned. I think we do have the technology for a reasonably hybridized "world of tommorow - 1930s World's Fair edition" mass transit system.

They just have a mental road block to overcome, then they have to sell it to the right people. Namely in that the form of mass transit may not exactly be "mass transit" in the typical sense, and it wouldn't be door to door per say. =P

Home -> Transit Station -> Board the "transit vehicle" by driving your vehicle onto it -> Commence high speed express transit(no stops in between) to your destination transit station -> drive car off "transit vehicle" -> Complete the transit to your ultimate destination.

-- Maybe that nice economical pure electric vehicle with a 100 mile range is more than adequate to the task of a 60 mile round-trip communte + some other stops along the way.. Just don't drive all the way to work. Which brings an interesting point up, such a system doesn't neccessarily need to have "high capacity/priority" universal vehicle support(some support would be needed at first, or the thing would probably never really catch on/become self-sustaining). You could probably provide that to certain types of "certified vehicles"(to cut back on logictics issues with trying to support the 11,323,156 different size/wieght configurations current vehicles come in). Maybe those "certified vehicles" also could have a means to passively "plug in" to the transit vehicle, so the user can run their Air Conditioner/Radio/etc without having to leave their engine on. =P

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...are we ready for a return of the draft? For an economy dominated by the Pentagon?
Once we begin merely contemplating a true global war against whatever-the-enemy-is, we need to reinstitute the draft and revisit our budget priorities, and possibly even consider changes to our industrial infrastructure, as we did in WWII. Rumsfeld has proven that no war against a determined enemy can be expected to be a small war, and no war can be won from a distance against an enemy who is able to reach out through guerrilla or terrorist tactics. Thus, millions of soldiers may need to fight, and the war may last a long time, with major devastation to our economy.

[Edited to add: TD, good ideas!]

[ February 27, 2007, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

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 
"Rumsfeld has proven that no war against a determined enemy can be expected to be a small war"

Proven? So suddenly now you're calling Rumsfeld the ideal tactician?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course true Green energy and getting us off the petrol teat would go a long way to helping out; however, that's a long term solution. Let's say 10 years of an all-out effort to cut 50% of our petrol usage in the USA.

In the mean time, they still are building and then have the bomb. Now, I think they don't want to get leveled any more than the Soviets did, so while it won't be MAD in the sense of how it was in the cold war, we'll have us an old-fashioned Mexican standoff.

However, you take away their #1 funding and you cut the funds for them doing much harm to us, yet you also will massively destabilize the region. Governments will fall and there will probably be a fair amount of regional civil wars. Today this wouldn’t effect us much, but when some of those destabilized states has nukes, it makes it a whole different discussion.

If we were going to have an all out push for proper green - I say proper as in really clean, not this quasi-green hybrid stuff that isn’t very green at all, then we also better have a good economic plan to let the states that make most of their income from petrol down easy. Not sure how to do that, but it would be in our best interest – particularly if said states have the nukes.

Not a bad long term plan – I’ve been thinking it’s a good idea to kill 2 birds with one stone, but it’s not going to help us solve the Iranian question in the next few years.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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:
Now, I think they don't want to get leveled any more than the Soviets did
I think you're wishful thinking. The Soviets were not committed to martyrdom and holy war; they stopped short of calling us the great Satan. Stalin was a sociopath, not a psychopath. You could appeal to his sense of self-preservation. Hell, Mao's physician reported an eyewitness account of an exchange where Mao griped at Stalin for refusing to use Nukes against the West.

I think that they won't use nukes directly, at least at first, but that's less to do with self-preservation than a desire to do more damage in the long term. Aminajab's cult seriously believes that sowing chaos in the world will bring about God's direct intervention; that would make Aminajab something of a John the Nuclear Baptist, preparing the way for some strange new Messiah.

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 
"so while it won't be MAD in the sense of how it was in the cold war, we'll have us an old-fashioned Mexican standoff."

Not quite. In an "Iranian standoff," the Mexican standoff aspects only apply to nukes. Meanwhile bullets do fly and escalate to chemical weapons, biological weapons, and dirty bombs while we hold back on the actual nukes.

Another aspect of a Mexican standoff that does apply: someone eventually does shoot ... it's inevitable. The web is too thick and inextricable for everyone to get out alive.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yet we had MAD with the Soviets for years. Hell, we technically still have it with Russia.

My one divergence with what seems to be the general opinion here is - fundamentalists or no - I don't think Iran as a state has a death wish nor do I think they have any illusions about what would happen if we do invade. In their own way, I think they are rational. I’m not even incredibly worried about them having a nuke today. Tomorrow if and when we attack, or tomorrow if and when they destabilize, then yes, it’s a big worry.

Seems to me they are merely following the North Korea model - rattle the saber until the last minute, then back down and take the bribes to be quiet again until next time. NK has learned to play that one very well, why shouldn't Iran try it?

Of course, there isn't a thing we want or need from NK, while there's plenty we'd like to get hold of from Iran, so maybe the NK play won't work out so well after all.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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 
jm, seems to me that it's inconsistent of you to condemn what we did in NK, and yet call for accomodation with Iran.

I think NK was a success because of the PRC's involvement; I think that blatant politics is all that prevents the news from recognizing that, and if Iran was a vassal state to another country like NK essentially is to the PRC, that would be an excellent model.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jm0397:
However, you take away their #1 funding and you cut the funds for them doing much harm to us, yet you also will massively destabilize the region. Governments will fall and there will probably be a fair amount of regional civil wars. Today this wouldn’t effect us much, but when some of those destabilized states has nukes, it makes it a whole different discussion.

You take away their #1 source of funding, and their governments collapse, it will cause for some concern at first, as they have a lot of money reserves built up over the past several decades.

But after a few years of fighting over there, it will be treated like a civil war in Africa, South America, or South East Asia. Some concerned people will try to stop the fighting, but by and large, most of the world won't really care.

Of course, there are other other long-term reasons to push for the US "going green." If we develop the technology, we own it, everyone else wanting to use will be paying us for it, as well as likely ongoing support of it. Great economic engine for us. Further, as we effectively still are the world's economic engine, we set the standard for everyone else. If our stuff is hyper-efficient with use of fossil fuels, most other (first-world) nations won't be far behind.

The South China Sea is currently a shooting gallery in waiting right now, lots of unexploited natural resouces(including crude) there. But it isn't being explored extensively because it is locked in terrirotorial disputes between Vietnam, China, Japan, and a few other nations.

The less need they have for fossil fuels, the less rason they have to start a war over that area when one side decides the NEED those resources.

quote:
If we were going to have an all out push for proper green - I say proper as in really clean, not this quasi-green hybrid stuff that isn’t very green at all, then we also better have a good economic plan to let the states that make most of their income from petrol down easy. Not sure how to do that, but it would be in our best interest – particularly if said states have the nukes.

Not a bad long term plan – I’ve been thinking it’s a good idea to kill 2 birds with one stone, but it’s not going to help us solve the Iranian question in the next few years. [/QB]

Well, that quasi-hybrid thing has its own technical issues. Mostly in relation to handling/securing cars/trucks/vans on a platform of any kind and being certain they can be safely transported across any kind of distance at any kind of speed. But that partially why I mentioned "certified vehicles" having special considerations, they'd presumeably have most of those "safety issues" addressed as an inherent part of the vehicles construction/design vs a car found on the road right now.

Examples:

A) Nothing can be done passively to stop a driver from putting their car in neutral and disengaging the brakes on their car once driven onto a "flat platform" which would be problematic if that platform should suddenly accelerate/decelerate for some safty related reason, or if the platform w/car simply traveled across some kind of incline/decline.

B) Alternately, driver placing the car in drive(or reverse), gunning the engine and simply driving their car off the front or back of the platform while in transit.

At least with a "certified car" they could possibly have more inherent safety measures in place such as the cars onboard computer takes control of the transmission, forces the car into park until at the destination, engages the parking brake for more passive safety, and is able to engage the normal braking system in the event the travel platform informs it that a sudden (emergency) deceleration is coming just to help make sure that in the ultimate worst case situation, the car slides off rather than rolls off.

This problem is a big contributing factor as to why Amtrak doesn't like the idea of people being able to access their cars while riding the Auto-Train. Their people load the car on the train, their people manually secure the car once loaded onto the train, their people unload the car once at its destination. (At least from my understanding, I've never actually used it) The big technical restraint on an idea even remotely resembling what I proposed right now is finding a "user friendly" means of making the Car on Road -> Can on Train -> Car on Road interface work. (Well, that and with the Auto-Train format, you spend 16.5 hours in transit. Nobody seriously wants to be trapped inside their car for that long of a streatch continously with no way to get out.)

And that methodology can be quite green. The certified vehicle can be all electric. The Transit mechanisim could be electrified light rail/maglev/something else, running off a Nuke plant somewhere. Heck, for the certified vehicle might be able to use transit time as charge time.

The other thing is that since the "vehicles" that are actually moving within this closed system are pure passenger cars, or auto-carriers, the stopping and aceleration charactistics of everything moving within that system is known and controllable. It actually would be borderline stupidity to not have them networked together passing information to each other.

Basically it lacks a lot of problems that even a convoy, or otherwise "beefed up" variation of adaptive cruise control could acheive on public roads today because they're sharing the road with human drivers, and currently have no means to reliably communite with other vehicles(nevermind actually being able to figure out which vehicle is actually in front of them while negotiating a curve in the road)... And because entry/exit to system is able to be even more finely controlled, there is less general need to accelerate/decelerate to adjust to traffic levels/patterns, so other energy efficiencies could be found. Though you still have the issue of a converyance mechanisim of probably at least one ton being used to convey another vehicle around. So there is an extra ton of weight to move around than would have been present if they just stuck to the public roads.

[ February 27, 2007, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: TheDeamon ]

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10   

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