New roll-out (propaganda campaign) for war with Iran?

George, has there been any discussion of what will happen in Iran after an intervention of some sort by the US?

I only ask, b/c I haven't seen one, and recent history has shown that, yeah, maybe we should have one before we attack.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The question you pose is an evasion of the issue. One must always consider all the available strategies and all their likely consequences. It is hardly logical to fault one who deliberately creates beneficial ambuiguity with respect to his future actions in a strategic situation with necessary failure to consider the implications of the various options.

Not long ago we were assured by the same complacent sources that our insistance on exclusively five party negotiations with North Korea, instead of the direct negotiation, bribery and public ass-kissing that preceded it, would lead to disaster. It appears the opposite has occurred.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The question you pose is an evasion of the issue. One must always consider all the available strategies and all their likely consequences. It is hardly logical to fault one who deliberately creates beneficial ambuiguity with respect to his future actions in a strategic situation with necessary failure to consider the implications of the various options.

Not long ago we were assured by the same complacent sources that our insistance on exclusively five party negotiations with North Korea, instead of the direct negotiation, bribery and public ass-kissing that preceded it, would lead to disaster. It appears the opposite has occurred.

Not long ago, we were assured that attack and invasion of Iraq wouldn't lead to disaster; it appears the opposite has occurred.

Those who are running the show cannot be trusted to have competently planned out their actions, as they have a track record of doing the exact opposite.

You evaded the question: what would happen to Iran after we attack it? Do we have any plans for this period? I haven't seen any.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

History doesn't reveal its alternatives. We have a rather good knowledge of the bad aftereffects of the Iraqi invasion. We generally spend little effort considering what might otherwise have unfolded - it might have been better, but it too would have presented difficulties.

The Administration has been clear that it favors a political/diplomatic solution to the affronts Iran is posing to the Western World. I have been clear here that an attack on Iran is very unlikely. It is Blatham and the other anti-Administration commentators here who have shrilly insisted that an attack or something like one is in the offing. I find this to be a highly unrealistic and illogical interpretation of the available facts. For them to go on and insist that not only is such an attack likely, but that its consequences are certainly unplanned is an unfounded extrapolation from facts that strongly suggest the opposite.

You appear to ignore the fact that there are multiple players in the strategic game between Iran and the West. Iran itself is an independent actor and it has shown a proclivity for aggressive and destabilizing actions. The "what ifs" of this problem must necessarily include uncertainty about what Iran might do - they too have threatened at various times to close the Straits of Hormuz, change the map of the Middle East and confront the basic values of the Western World (not to mention the illegal assault on our embassy and extended confinement of our embassy staff).

While you complain that the Administration has not included you in its contingency planning, you have not offered us any alternative approaches to the strategic problem.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

History doesn't reveal its alternatives. We have a rather good knowledge of the bad aftereffects of the Iraqi invasion. We generally spend little effort considering what might otherwise have unfolded - it might have been better, but it too would have presented difficulties.

The Administration has been clear that it favors a political/diplomatic solution to the affronts Iran is posing to the Western World. I have been clear here that an attack on Iran is very unlikely. It is Blatham and the other anti-Administration commentators here who have shrilly insisted that an attack or something like one is in the offing. I find this to be a highly unrealistic and illogical interpretation of the available facts. For them to go on and insist that not only is such an attack likely, but that its consequences are certainly unplanned is an unfounded extrapolation from facts that strongly suggest the opposite.

You appear to ignore the fact that there are multiple players in the strategic game between Iran and the West. Iran itself is an independent actor and it has shown a proclivity for aggressive and destabilizing actions. The "what ifs" of this problem must necessarily include uncertainty about what Iran might do - they too have threatened at various times to close the Straits of Hormuz, change the map of the Middle East and confront the basic values of the Western World (not to mention the illegal assault on our embassy and extended confinement of our embassy staff).

While you complain that the Administration has not included you in its contingency planning, you have not offered us any alternative approaches to the strategic problem.

Here's one off the cuff - don't aggressively attack Iran. This removes the necessity for a post-war plan.

I don't really understand what the threat - to the US - from Iran really is. They have some sabers to rattle against Israel, great; that's Israel's problem, not our problem. To get wrapped up in petty regional conflicts is beneath us and distracts from our mission as a nation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

One could assume, if only for the sake of covering every base, that as long as the Iranians are prevented from exploiting their oil, which they have done nothing to deserve to do, it was our activities which changed it from messy gunk to a valuable commodity, to our disadvantage whatever else might happen is of little or no consequence. It could be argued that we gave oil its value and thus it is ours. As soon as we hit the magic nuclear trick oil will return to messy gunk and nobody here will give a damn what they do.

No wonder Sir Anthony Eden wept real tears. He foresaw this mess.

c.i. What do you want to know about Americans? They are so much at ease with themselves that half of them can't be bothered voting. The middle-east policy has all party approval in both our countries. I can't see any possible future Democrat President/ess doing things much differently.

People who emote about the policy should get on with explaining the "No-war" policy and have their explanations examined.

0 Replies

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." Ernest Hemingway
War is a rocket.
Who packets the profit?
Who pays the bill?
How to stop this noxious belch of belligerence.?
If those at the helm of affairs fail to take not of the views of 90 percent of humanity which iupholds peace and not BARBARISM then those are the people who are unfit to preach any moral sermans.
Let Hitler and his barbarism is the thing of past
.

0 Replies

Rama, You are right; wars are stupid and both sides lose. Why spend billions on wars when we can help build better lives for all?

0 Replies

C I
I know that in every country there are some nasty politicians
who dance according to the tune of corporate vultures.
But I feel sorry for those who still admire/ adore/ appreciate this rotten barbaric politics
and discussing about the out come of ensuing criminal acts .

0 Replies

I asked for an explanation of a "No-war" policy not a pile of mealy-mouthed platitudes designed to show the shining virtue of their authors.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I asked for an explanation of a "No-war" policy not a pile of mealy-mouthed platitudes designed to show the shining virtue of their authors.

Okay:

Except for scenarios in which we are imminently - and I do mean imminently - and directly threatened, we should avoid all war at all costs. For two reasons:

1, war is incredibly expensive, in terms of real-world monies and also political capital;

2, war rarely if ever accomplishes goals or finds solutions to problems.

There are almost no situations in which it is in the 'best interests' of the country to go to war. Sometimes it is unavoidable, but that is very, very rare indeed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Sorry spendius
It was not my intention to belittle your approach.
Of course there are some who qualify my iimplicit comment.
I had not meant you when I responded.
Sorry again ..

0 Replies

You needn't apologise to me mate. Feel free to say anything you like. I wouldn't want any assumptions you might have about my sensitivity to be restricting the free flow of debate.

More platitudes Cyclo.

What about preparations for war. A "No-war" policy must include all preparations as well. No military- no defence industry.

You can't have a "turn the other cheek" policy to save "monies" and "political capital". A "No-war" policy has no "unless" about it.

People made war on the aboriginal population of North and South America and the goal was to take their land. That goal was acheived. Was it avoidable?

0 Replies

Quote:

More platitudes Cyclo.

What about preparations for war. A "No-war" policy must include all preparations as well. No military- no defence industry.

Those weren't platitudes. And a 'no-war' policy doesn't necessarily mean 'no preparations for war.' I have no idea where you got that idea.

You are Appealing to Extremes. If you would actually discuss the things I mentioned, maybe we could get somewhere.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Let us be civil
and exchange our views
dispassionately.
If possible!

0 Replies

I forgot to add: one of my major complaints about modern military spending, is that almost none of it is being spent on space. Which is where almost all of it should be spent.

We're busy arming ourselves for the last war; we should be arming ourselves for the next ones.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I thought Ahmedinejad made a thoughtful and balanced speech tonight. An exsquitely delivered kick in the nuts to GWB.

I've always thought Islam was rubbish, but after tonight, I'm thinking about conversion.

ok I thought no thank you very much. Put that nasty looking knife down RIGHT NOW

0 Replies

Cyclo-

Do you mean Zap 'em from the celestial dome with a laser of alpha rays generated in the Grand Coolie Dam.

I could debate that.

Not the principle. How to do it.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Cyclo-

Do you mean Zap 'em from the celestial dome with a laser of alpha rays generated in the Grand Coolie Dam.

I could debate that.

Not the principle. How to do it.

Forget lasers; it's much easier to use good ol' fashioned kinetic energy.

Take a crowbar. Put a small digital camera and computer on the front, tiny heatshield, tiny rocket engine on the rear.

Put a thousand of them in orbit over an area, say, the Atlantic ocean. If anything comes along that we don't like, call one or two of them down from orbit, and whatever they hit will cease to be a problem, guaranteed.

The next area of conflict will definitely be space. The natural resources present there dwarf anything we have on the surface of the Earth - tremendously so. It would be foolish in the extreme not to get on top of this, for national and humanitarian and environmental reasons. It's one of the things that pisses me off so much about our current militarism; we could be spending this money on something that will win us the next few centuries, not a tiny plot of land.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I can see the sense in that.

"Leave your stepping stones behind something calls for you,
Leave the dead you left, they will not follow you."

Bob Dylan. From 40 years ago.

0 Replies

New roll-out (propaganda campaign) for war with Iran?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know