Israeli sanctions: US can't handle Iran

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Is it possible that the former strongarm tactics used by (American backed)Israel towards the Palistinians has taken a more "diplomatic" means because they are truly attempting to take a more peaceful approach to conflict resolution?

...or could there be a remote possibility that with Iran's explicit support for Hamas, the United States has told it's client state to back off becasue it could not handle even a partial conflict with Iran, nor could it handle the shockwave effect it would have on the region?

The US has long endorsed, supported and funded the terror imposed upon the Palistinians by Israel and has effectively blocked the actual (and dubiously labelled) "peace process" through various means for the last 40 years or so. At a time when the Palistinians pose the most serious and most violent opposition to Israel, why the shift in policy?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 666 • Replies: 15

No top replies

Wow - what an incredibly loaded way to frame a question! It would be impossible to attempt an answer to your question when it's premise is so lopsided.

0 Replies

AliceInWonderland wrote:

Wow - what an incredibly loaded way to frame a question! It would be impossible to attempt an answer to your question when it's premise is so lopsided.

What's so loaded about it, and under what gounds is a "premise lopsided".

If it's too complicated, or too slanted, break it down into smaller bits.

America has in fact backed Israel.

Israel has in fact been the aggressor against Palestine, and has in fact sought further territory through violent means.

America has in fact endorsed Israeli terror against Palistenians, but as Chomsky would contest, under the guise of counterterror (terror is what they do and counter terror is what we and our clients do.

America has, through security council vetos, and other various non-diplomatic means, been a de facto barricade in the peace process for the past several decades.

The American military is in fact stretched to a limit that would not and could not handle a conflict with a country like Iran.

If the US engaged themselves or their clients in any more middle east conflicts there would in fact be a shockwave through the middle east that would surely plumment the region into a full scale warzone.

If any of these contribute to the "loadedness" of the question, please address them individually.
I only stated that this scenario was a possibility, not an actual fact. It's hypothetical based on my suppositions.
Feel free to discredit or argue the point, but don't call it a loaded question and then go home.

0 Replies

The land owned by Jewish settlements was purchased, primarily from Arabs willing to sell. Those settlements were defended via violent means when attacked. Then the state of Isreal was installed. Some territory was gained through violent means at a time when Isreal was under attach from all sides, but nearly all of it was returned in exchange for peace treaties. Isreal has repeated extended an olive branch to Palestine, but the reality is that the Palestinian people have been kept in refugee status by Arab nations as a potent symbol to breed anger for the "evil Zionist." I feel terrible for those poor people. The only place Palestians have a good life is within the borders of Isreal. Every time a peace treaty has been signed, every single time, the peace has been broken by Palestinians (or perhaps others posing as Palestinians) via bombings of civilians. It is not just recently that American has staid Isreal's hand and prevented them from taking more aggressive action. It's been happening for years.

0 Replies

So, the question remains, is the diplomoatic approach sincere/legitimate, or is there a possibility that America simply couldn't handle a conflict with Iran?
In light of the lack of success in Iraq there is a marked difference in the tone of this administration toward Iran.
I thought that there was a distinct possibility that the passive approach by Israel, which often echoes the modus operandi of the US, was more likely to be a result of stretched American resources than a legitimately diplomatic means to a desired end.

I can't say I honesly believe that many American administrations have sought global, or even regional peace so long as their needs are being met.

0 Replies

Iran is clearly a much larger threat to both the US and Israel than Iraq ever was and I believe that the US's machismo has just been challenged.

0 Replies

Could the U.S. get involved in a ground war in Iran? (ie: Sending in multiple divisions of ground troops to take objectives.)

No, we would have no problem however in sending in small Special Forces units to cause havok wherever needed.

Could the U.S. knock out every power plant, airport, port facility, water treatment/sewer plant, bridge, road junction, communications nexus, telephone exchange, and every other piece of infrastructure from the air and thus reduce Iran to the 19th century?

Yes, the U.S. Airforce has a great deal of unused combat power and is fully capable of knocking down enough of Iran's infrastructure that they will KNOW they are in a war.

Will we do this?

No, because it would cause too many non-military casualties. We would probably knock out every piece of military infrastructure and communications if Iran refuses to comply with the U.N. A.E.C.

As to the rest of the 'Palestinians', I suggest that the rest of the Arab world follow the words of its own holy book and show some generosity and hospitality to the refugees that have been in their countries instead of using them as a breeding ground for the next wave of suicide bombers tat they fling against Israel.

Get over it folks ... that land belongs to Israel... the Jews had title to it LONG before the 'Palestinians' started living there.

The 'Palestinians' moving into the Israeli's house while they are away doesn't give them the right to still live there when the original owners come back.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Could the U.S. get involved in a ground war in Iran? (ie: Sending in multiple divisions of ground troops to take objectives.)

No, we would have no problem however in sending in small Special Forces units to cause havok wherever needed.

What's the point of causing "havoc". Isn't that the inherent problem in Iraq? Many insurgents causing havoc with no rhyme, reason or stated objective?
Hell, I'm sure the imptent Canadian army could send a few select groups over there to cause havoc. That doesn't say much, norsolve anything.

Fedral wrote:

Could the U.S. knock out every power plant, airport, port facility, water treatment/sewer plant, bridge, road junction, communications nexus, telephone exchange, and every other piece of infrastructure from the air and thus reduce Iran to the 19th century?

Yes, the U.S. Airforce has a great deal of unused combat power and is fully capable of knocking down enough of Iran's infrastructure that they will KNOW they are in a war.

Brilliant. Sounds like the Iraq war plan. mess up the country fix it later.
This is my point.
The US simply could not handle any kind of organized or strategically planned offensive or articulate a reasonable defensive against even a non-nuclear Iran.

Fedral wrote:

Will we do this?

No, because it would cause too many non-military casualties. We would probably knock out every piece of military infrastructure and communications if Iran refuses to comply with the U.N. A.E.C.

Meticulously knocking out every piece of "military infrastructure" is a rather arrogant stance considering the so-called "collateral damages" that would follow from such an offensive. It is simply impossible to pick off desired locations without winding up in the same kind of debacle as is found in present day Iraq.
You may please the hawks, but you will surely lose support throughout the world generally and within the Arab world specifically.

Fedral wrote:

As to the rest of the 'Palestinians', I suggest that the rest of the Arab world follow the words of its own holy book and show some generosity and hospitality to the refugees that have been in their countries instead of using them as a breeding ground for the next wave of suicide bombers tat they fling against Israel.

Get over it folks ... that land belongs to Israel... the Jews had title to it LONG before the 'Palestinians' started living there.

The 'Palestinians' moving into the Israeli's house while they are away doesn't give them the right to still live there when the original owners come back.

Then I'm sure you'd gladly pack your **** up and leave if the Seminoles decided to lay claim to the lands that lie beneath Epcot Center.

0 Replies

Akaya wrote:

Iran is clearly a much larger threat to both the US and Israel than Iraq ever was and I believe that the US's machismo has just been challenged.

I don't think the US and Iran (or any other country) considers foreign policy in terms of a street fight between two teenagers showing off for their friends. The problem the US has with Iran is that there is no engagement at all. Iran poses no threat to the US other than playing politics in Iraq. The US poses no threat to Iran, both because it is stretched thin elsewhere and because of the international instability it would cause in oil markets. Iran is basically correct that it can start building nuclear weapons without anyone stopping them. China and Russia will look the other way, Europe will eventually and the US doesn't have any leverage other than physical attack which it won't do unless forced to by an Iranian attack on a neighboring country, an event that seems ludicrously unlikely. Iran really doesn't pose any threat to Israel either other than by funding terrorists organizations. It's all smoke and mirrors. The "Great Satan" thing is laughable. Just another phantom enemy to focus the populus on things other than the economy, corruption, etc. In that, Iran and the US are similar.

0 Replies

Sorry, missed the start date. Welcome to A2K!

0 Replies

[quote="Fedral
[
Get over it folks ... that land belongs to Israel... the Jews had title to it LONG before the 'Palestinians' started living there.

The 'Palestinians' moving into the Israeli's house while they are away doesn't give them the right to still live there when the original owners come back.[/quote]

That's not really accurate either. There have always been various nomadic arab tribes in the area. Isreal was the first to have a capital there. The Palestinians, from a loosely organized bunch of villages and towns, were ordered to leave by Egypt and Jordan in order to make way for their armies to move in and crush Isreal. When their plans did not go as expected, we were left with large refugee camps full of people with no-where else to go, people too proud to build permantly because it would mean admitting defeat, people who fully expected to be taken care of in the homes of their fellow Moslems (but were denied). It's all very sad. They could have stayed right where they were and lived peacefully.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

Akaya wrote:
Iran is clearly a much larger threat to both the US and Israel than Iraq ever was and I believe that the US's machismo has just been challenged.

I don't think the US and Iran (or any other country) considers foreign policy in terms of a street fight between two teenagers showing off for their friends. The problem the US has with Iran is that there is no engagement at all. Iran poses no threat to the US other than playing politics in Iraq. The US poses no threat to Iran, both because it is stretched thin elsewhere and because of the international instability it would cause in oil markets. Iran is basically correct that it can start building nuclear weapons without anyone stopping them. China and Russia will look the other way, Europe will eventually and the US doesn't have any leverage other than physical attack which it won't do unless forced to by an Iranian attack on a neighboring country, an event that seems ludicrously unlikely. Iran really doesn't pose any threat to Israel either other than by funding terrorists organizations. It's all smoke and mirrors. The "Great Satan" thing is laughable. Just another phantom enemy to focus the populus on things other than the economy, corruption, etc. In that, Iran and the US are similar.

Perhaps it was incorrect to say it's machismo had been challenged, but the fact remains that Bush very intentionally included Iran in his Axis of Evil statement in his SOTU address.
The US is so conditioned to having nations cower with the mere threat of involvement that all that is required is the simple suggestion that the Giant is not impressed.
Iran has stated that it will not back down, and, unlike little helpless Iraq, it can actually defend itself against an American offensive.

0 Replies

Akaya wrote:

Perhaps it was incorrect to say it's machismo had been challenged, but the fact remains that Bush very intentionally included Iran in his Axis of Evil statement in his SOTU address.
The US is so conditioned to having nations cower with the mere threat of involvement that all that is required is the simple suggestion that the Giant is not impressed.
Iran has stated that it will not back down, and, unlike little helpless Iraq, it can actually defend itself against an American offensive.

I don't know that we live in the same world. The US whines, complains, hectors, etc all the time and is routinely ignored. What countries "cower with the mere threat of involvement" from the US? Syria? Cuba? Venezuela? France? Canada? China? Russia? I'm really coming up blank here. Heck, Israel routinely ignores us and they're supposed to be a "puppet government", right? Sure Bush included Iran in his SOTU address. He's got to blame someone and stir up his base so that they don't focus on domestic issues. Same thing with the "Great Satan" stuff. SOP for politicians.

Note: Iran, like many smaller countries, could not protect itself from destruction from the US, Russia or China. It could fend off occupation perhaps, but any of those countries could do significant damage to the Iranian infrastructure with very little Iran could do in return. Iran is not all that different from pre-war Iraq in that respect. This is not likely because there in no benefit in doing it, not because it couldn't be done.

0 Replies

Akaya wrote:

Fedral wrote:
Could the U.S. get involved in a ground war in Iran? (ie: Sending in multiple divisions of ground troops to take objectives.)

No, we would have no problem however in sending in small Special Forces units to cause havok wherever needed.

What's the point of causing "havoc". Isn't that the inherent problem in Iraq? Many insurgents causing havoc with no rhyme, reason or stated objective?
Hell, I'm sure the imptent Canadian army could send a few select groups over there to cause havoc. That doesn't say much, norsolve anything.

In this little scenario, we are assuming that the U.S. and Iran are at war...
If we assume so, any destruction caused will be to cause maximum confusion and inconvienience to the enemy.

Akaya wrote:

Fedral wrote:
Could the U.S. knock out every power plant, airport, port facility, water treatment/sewer plant, bridge, road junction, communications nexus, telephone exchange, and every other piece of infrastructure from the air and thus reduce Iran to the 19th century?

Yes, the U.S. Airforce has a great deal of unused combat power and is fully capable of knocking down enough of Iran's infrastructure that they will KNOW they are in a war.

Brilliant. Sounds like the Iraq war plan. mess up the country fix it later.
This is my point.
The US simply could not handle any kind of organized or strategically planned offensive or articulate a reasonable defensive against even a non-nuclear Iran.

If the mission is to do enough damage to force the Iranians to comply with the U.N. A.E.C., then this could be a viable method of applying pressure.

Akaya wrote:

Fedral wrote:
Will we do this?

No, because it would cause too many non-military casualties. We would probably knock out every piece of military infrastructure and communications if Iran refuses to comply with the U.N. A.E.C.

Meticulously knocking out every piece of "military infrastructure" is a rather arrogant stance considering the so-called "collateral damages" that would follow from such an offensive. It is simply impossible to pick off desired locations without winding up in the same kind of debacle as is found in present day Iraq.
You may please the hawks, but you will surely lose support throughout the world generally and within the Arab world specifically.

Keep in mind, that even the FRENCH have been putting pressure on Iran to disband its nuclear weapon program... and once again, we aren't talking about invasion, merely applying military pressure to ensure compliance.

Akaya wrote:

Fedral wrote:
As to the rest of the 'Palestinians', I suggest that the rest of the Arab world follow the words of its own holy book and show some generosity and hospitality to the refugees that have been in their countries instead of using them as a breeding ground for the next wave of suicide bombers tat they fling against Israel.

Get over it folks ... that land belongs to Israel... the Jews had title to it LONG before the 'Palestinians' started living there.

The 'Palestinians' moving into the Israeli's house while they are away doesn't give them the right to still live there when the original owners come back.

Then I'm sure you'd gladly pack your **** up and leave if the Seminoles decided to lay claim to the lands that lie beneath Epcot Center.

If the Seminoles showed up and took EPCOT Center and the rest of Florida by 'Right of Arms' and proceeded to defeat the Florida National Guard, then the Regular Army, then kick the ass of a coalition of the U.S., Canada, Mexico and several of the Central and South American countries militaries with a force less than a quarter of the combined coalitions size... TWICE, then I guess I'd learn to speak Seminole and keep my mouth the hell shut.

The 'Palestinians' lost, plain and simple...
So did every other country that ever decided that the Israelis needed to be 'driven into the sea'....
Time to get over it and accept that they are there to stay folks.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

If the Seminoles showed up and took EPCOT Center and the rest of Florida by 'Right of Arms' and proceeded to defeat the Florida National Guard, then the Regular Army, then kick the ass of a coalition of the U.S., Canada, Mexico and several of the Central and South American countries militaries with a force less than a quarter of the combined coalitions size... TWICE, then I guess I'd learn to speak Seminole and keep my mouth the hell shut.

He he, now that was funny.

Aside from the humor, and not to appear argumentative, but I highly doubt the Americans would get a sliver of help from Mexico, S. America or Canada in staving off a Seminole attack. After all the claim was not that they would have to fight for the land, it was that they "had title to it long before the 'Palestinians' started living there".
That is a completely different scenario altogether.

Also, if the Seminoles had the financial and military backing of, I dunno, some vastly wealthier and militarily superior power, the situation would change. The Seminoles (read: the Israeli's), do not and never have had their own military machinery or infrastructure required to overtake the Floridians (read: Palistinians).

Add to this the ability of the Seminoles (read: the Israeli's) to call upon their superpower friend to legitimize their vices through Securtity Council cetos and demonize the Floridians actions through their vast and biased mainstream media.

0 Replies

Getting back to your original topic: We try diplomacy first, and second, and third and fourth, etc. We try to go through the UN again, and again, and again, and again before we use military force. We're still early in the process with Iran. The fact that we're not stomping around in military boots in Iran is because there may (hopefully) be a diplomatic solution. Although I'm not holding my breath - difficult to negotiate in good faith with irrational folks.

0 Replies

Israeli sanctions: US can't handle Iran

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know