Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

Setanta wrote:

Which is not, of course, the point of this thread. The point is that many people are justifiably apprehensive, on the basis of the track record of the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad, that diplomacy will not be allowed to run its reasonable course.

It would be extremely irresponsible for this administration to NOT plan for the eventuality of diplomacy not succeeding. Anyone placing all their eggs in the diplomacy basket is a fool.

My question is to those of you who are apprehensive about the US striking Iran, and inquiring whether you would prefer Iran to get nukes.

0 Replies

I've already answered elliptically, to the effect that it is just plain stupid to assume that a simple air strike will prevent the Persians from developing nuclear weapons. In fact, i consider that it would likely just harden the resolve of their government, whose stock would likely rise with the people if they were attacked.

I know you count on your ability to force a response on your terms, but it is a useless hope on your part.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
So if the price is not another war (I'll ignore your "un-winnable" and "illegal" characterization), would your answer be "no"?

If Bush could stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by purely diplomatic means, I would encourage him to do that, yes.

But if Iran cannot be stopped by diplomatic means -- and we all know that Iran is the key to diplomatic success on that question -- are you saying you would prefer allowing Iran to acquire nukes rather than the US making military strikes on Iran's reactors?

Yes, that's what I'm saying, because I disagree with your implied premise that an effective strike against Iran's nuclear program can be confined to the reactors.

More generally, I think of politics as a choice of tradeoffs, in which it is usually meaningless to say "I want X" without specifiying what price you are willing to pay. So let me ask you, Tico, what is the price you are willing to pay? How high would the risk have to be to make you conclude that Iran's nuclear program is not worth striking against?

0 Replies

Okay, let's try it in tiny steps, since logic is apparently hard for some to grasp. If the US cannot prevent Iran from doing what it wills, then your question about the desirability of Iran obtaining nukes is irrelevant. What I think personally is as immaterial as your question.

For the record, since this will undoubtedly add some little tally point to your mental scoreboard and spare us another mindless repetition of you-didn't-answer-the-question, I personally don't think Iran's possession of nuclear weapons will matter one bit in the long run. Given the Bush administration's ineffectively bellicose posturing relative to this "Axis of Evil" partner, they would be foolish in the extreme not to seek the most effective deterrent defense possible.

Of more particular concern is the future actions of the current US administration-- the administration under whose watch Iran was able to make this move-- which may serve to signal Iran that they would be able to use these weapons offensively with impunity.

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

. . . they would be able to use these weapons offensively with impunity.

This was the substance of my objection to the Iraq war in the months before the invasion took place. In addition to questioning the sources of the Administration's allegations about Ba'athist womd programs--i asked (to deafening silence) with what reasonable probability one could assert that Iraq would think it could use womd with impunity.

The lack of a response from any supporter, or the dubious and unsupported allegation that Iraq could be counted on to provide womd to terrorists, strongly suggested to me that neither the administration nor its supporters habitually think things through to their logical conclusion.

Pakistan is an unstable polity with nuclear arms, and a militantly fundamentalist Muslim population. Can we assume that the Administration and its supporters have come to the conclusion that Iran is a likely threat to use nuclear weapons, but that Pakistan is not? Oh year, silly me . . . those guys are "on our side."

0 Replies

I'm rather sure now that Pakistan will be the next after Iraq.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I'm rather sure now that Pakistan will be the next after Iraq.

Oh-oh. Sounds like the old Domino Theory-- first Vietnam, then all of SE Asia, then we'll be fighting them on the beaches of California... :wink:

0 Replies

Pakistan is for sissies. I say let Taiwan declare independence and defend it against the invasion of the Big Guys from the continent. Enough of those little league, softball, cuddly wars!

0 Replies

Of course, Taiwan. And a couple of Near East countries are still in the sleeve's as well.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
So if the price is not another war (I'll ignore your "un-winnable" and "illegal" characterization), would your answer be "no"?

If Bush could stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by purely diplomatic means, I would encourage him to do that, yes.

But if Iran cannot be stopped by diplomatic means -- and we all know that Iran is the key to diplomatic success on that question -- are you saying you would prefer allowing Iran to acquire nukes rather than the US making military strikes on Iran's reactors?

Yes, that's what I'm saying, because I disagree with your implied premise that an effective strike against Iran's nuclear program can be confined to the reactors.

More generally, I think of politics as a choice of tradeoffs, in which it is usually meaningless to say "I want X" without specifiying what price you are willing to pay. So let me ask you, Tico, what is the price you are willing to pay? How high would the risk have to be to make you conclude that Iran's nuclear program is not worth striking against?

I think allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would be catastrophic, and so the price we ought to be willing to pay is very high. That being said, I believe my implied premise is correct.

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

Okay, let's try it in tiny steps, since logic is apparently hard for some to grasp. If the US cannot prevent Iran from doing what it wills, then your question about the desirability of Iran obtaining nukes is irrelevant. What I think personally is as immaterial as your question.

Wait ... you said you were going to "try it in tiny steps," yet you almost immediately leapt to the conclusion that the US "cannot prevent Iran from doing what it wills." What did you intend by that statement? Are you referring solely to our dimplomatic efforts? If the US cannot prevent Iran from doing what it wants through diplomatic means, the US can prevent Iran from doing what it wants through military means. Do you deny that?

Even if you deny it, you cannot deny that the US can pursue the military avenue in an effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The question I'm trying to get you to commit to, and the one which you seem dead set against answering, is whether you think it more adviseable to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, or to attempt the military approach, in the event that diplomacy fails.

And yes, I know your personal opinion is immaterial, yet you still believe it worthwhile to post at this forum. One wonders why.

blacksmithn wrote:

For the record, since this will undoubtedly add some little tally point to your mental scoreboard and spare us another mindless repetition of you-didn't-answer-the-question, I personally don't think Iran's possession of nuclear weapons will matter one bit in the long run. Given the Bush administration's ineffectively bellicose posturing relative to this "Axis of Evil" partner, they would be foolish in the extreme not to seek the most effective deterrent defense possible.

"I personally don't think Iran's possession of nuclear weapons will matter one bit in the long run."

Still not an answer. Why do you have such an aversion to answering that basic question? Well, to avoid another repetition of "you-didn't-answer-my-question," why don't I try and answer for you? The answer you seem to believe in, yet don't want to utter, is "yes," you think it's wise for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. I'll answer for you, since you seem incapable of performing that simple task.

blacksmithn wrote:

Of more particular concern is the future actions of the current US administration-- the administration under whose watch Iran was able to make this move-- which may serve to signal Iran that they would be able to use these weapons offensively with impunity.

Would you clarify what you mean to say here: "... the administration under whose watch Iran was able to make" what "move"?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Pakistan is for sissies. I say let Taiwan declare independence and defend it against the invasion of the Big Guys from the continent. Enough of those little league, softball, cuddly wars!

This would be the "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" school of international politics, then?

0 Replies

I have answered the question time and again. Now I'm done with you. Go attempt to play word games with another patsy.

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

I have answered the question time and again. Now I'm done with you. ....

Fine. Have fun conversing with those who agree with you.

0 Replies

Tico:

Quote:

you think it's wise for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

From Iran's point of view, it probably is.

Did you think they made decisions based upon what we consider wise?

I think you probably intended to say 'you think it's wise to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.'

To which the answer is obviously, 'it isn't in our best interests, but they haven't acted aggressively towards us and we don't have the right to determine what other countries do or don't do on an individual basis, no more than one has the right to enforce the law on one's own.'

While we certainly can stop Iran, the question of prudence comes into play; will it be worth the trouble it causes, in the ME, here at home, and around the world?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I would dissent to the extent that i continue to assert that, absent an invasion and an occupation, there is no reason to assume that we can prevent it.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tico:

Quote:
you think it's wise for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

From Iran's point of view, it probably is.

Did you think they made decisions based upon what we consider wise?

I think you probably intended to say 'you think it's wise to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.'

That's exactly what I asked him to begin with. ("Do you believe it would be wise to allow Iran, a state-sponsor of islamic terrorism, to acquire nuclear weapons?")

Cyclops wrote:

While we certainly can stop Iran, the question of prudence comes into play; will it be worth the trouble it causes, in the ME, here at home, and around the world?

Yes, that's basically the question I'm asking: Will the benefits of stopping Iran, a state-sponsor of terrorism, from acquiring nukes, be worth the trouble in doing so?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I would dissent to the extent that i continue to assert that, absent an invasion and an occupation, there is no reason to assume that we can prevent it.

And I will continue to remind you that Israel was able to prevent Iraq from acquiring nukes by using a similar approach.

Right?

0 Replies

Quote:

Yes, that's basically the question I'm asking: Will the benefits of stopping Iran, a state-sponsor of terrorism, from acquiring nukes, be worth the trouble in doing so?

I think anyone who asserts an answer on this one way or the other is full of it.

The best we can make are hazy probability guesses on the effects of our actions, on such a large scale; the Laws of Unintended Consqeunces have screwed up things enough times in the past, why would things be different now?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I think allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would be catastrophic, and so the price we ought to be willing to pay is very high. That being said, I believe my implied premise is correct.

Well, since neither the still (and hopefully later as well) Labour government nor the Conservatives or Liberal-Democrats seem to applaute, the price will not only be high but include most probably the loss of your strongest and closest allies as well.

Formerly, I'd always thought the US attitude towards wars was different to that of others because they hadn't had a war on their own ground since centuries.

Now, I more and more think, it might be a kind of cultural trait.

0 Replies

Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know