Are you saying that these other nations support military action?
You are the one who was intent on suggesting that the Israeli strike worked. To wit:
Tico wrote:And I will continue to remind you that Israel was able to prevent Iraq from acquiring nukes by using a similar approach.
Right?
Leaving aside the typically pathetic attempt to make everything dichotomous, black and white, yes or no--this statement contained no acknowledgement that the Israeli air strike was not a permanent solution. The intent was, in fact, very obviously to suggest that it were.
Now you try to back track, and attempt to suggest that it was temporarily effective, and that we can now be just as temporarily effective. The Israeli strike was effective because the Germans who were helping Iraq build its breeder reactor backed out. That is not the scenario in Iran, where the government is not depending upon outside aid. You have been attempting to peddle apples as oranges, and now want to claim they were pears all along.
Taking out the Persian facilities--those of which we have any certain knowledge--will require far more than the relatively simple mission which the Israelis conducted in 1978. Most knowledgeable observers now suggest that they have underground bunkers which will require at the least the use of tactical nukes. Even that will not assure that we have taken out all of their facilities, nor that they will not continue to possess the expertise and the means to start another program, nor even assure that they cannot just continue the current program elsewhere and by other means.
Using nukes on them ups the ante and the hysteria factor by unacceptable degrees, and is especially stupid if you cannot guarantee your results. ...
... Israels attack simply drove off the German suppliers--and they thereby assured that the Ba'athists would pursue a homegrown program. The Persians already have that. I do not doubt for a moment that your attitude is conditioned by partisan pugnacity, and is ill-considered and shallow.
Set, You have the patience of Jobe!
Set,
You said...
"Subsequently, the Ba'athists developed womd which they deployed and used."
I thought part of your objection to this war was that Iraq did NOT have WMD's.
Now you say they did have them.
Make up your mind.
Exactly. I believe it did "work," which is not to say it forever ended Iraq's intentions to acquire nuclear weapons.
And you must either, (1) agree with me that it worked, which you don't want to do because it hurts your argument on this issue, or (2) don't agree with me that it worked, in which case you must believe Iraq was pursuing WMD, which hampers your argument on the Iraq War.
Quote:Leaving aside the typically pathetic attempt to make everything dichotomous, black and white, yes or no--this statement contained no acknowledgement that the Israeli air strike was not a permanent solution. The intent was, in fact, very obviously to suggest that it were.
Allow me point out that we were having a perfectly civil discussion about this topic, and then you decided to characterize my argument as "pathetic."
Your rhetoric notwithstanding, I know you don't take me for a fool, and only a fool would think a few well-placed bombs would have the effect of forever-ending a country's nuclear ambitions. I am not a fool, and have never believed that to be the case, and am not engaging in any sort of "back tracking" on this point. My suggestion is that the 1978 Israeli strike was effective, which you are forced to admit is true, unless you are willing to explain why you believe it is NOT true. And I don't expect you will be doing that.
Quote:Now you try to back track, and attempt to suggest that it was temporarily effective, and that we can now be just as temporarily effective. The Israeli strike was effective because the Germans who were helping Iraq build its breeder reactor backed out. That is not the scenario in Iran, where the government is not depending upon outside aid. You have been attempting to peddle apples as oranges, and now want to claim they were pears all along.
Nonsense. It is you who must explain why you believe a future airstrike on Iran will not be effective. Thus far you only have only state you believe it will not be a permanent solution, or that it will not be effective without using nukes and and even then it's not guaranteed effective, and apparently have thus concluded the best option is just to allow them to acquire nuclear weapons.
Quote:Taking out the Persian facilities--those of which we have any certain knowledge--will require far more than the relatively simple mission which the Israelis conducted in 1978. Most knowledgeable observers now suggest that they have underground bunkers which will require at the least the use of tactical nukes. Even that will not assure that we have taken out all of their facilities, nor that they will not continue to possess the expertise and the means to start another program, nor even assure that they cannot just continue the current program elsewhere and by other means.
No, the solution I advocate does not come with a guarantee.
As opposed to your "solution" which guarantees Iran will posses nuclear weapons, which you believe is acceptable.
Quote:Using nukes on them ups the ante and the hysteria factor by unacceptable degrees, and is especially stupid if you cannot guarantee your results. ...
I don't advocate using nukes on Iran.
Quote:... Israels attack simply drove off the German suppliers--and they thereby assured that the Ba'athists would pursue a homegrown program. The Persians already have that. I do not doubt for a moment that your attitude is conditioned by partisan pugnacity, and is ill-considered and shallow.
I don't doubt for a moment that your attitude is formed by your leftists Euroweenie attitude.
Ticomaya wrote:Exactly. I believe it did "work," which is not to say it forever ended Iraq's intentions to acquire nuclear weapons.
The implication was clear, no matter how you attempt to dance now.
Quote:And you must either, (1) agree with me that it worked, which you don't want to do because it hurts your argument on this issue, or (2) don't agree with me that it worked, in which case you must believe Iraq was pursuing WMD, which hampers your argument on the Iraq War.
No, i musn't. I don't agree that it worked, and as i've already pointed out, having driven off the foreign contractor, it lead to the attempt to develop a completely Iraqi program. You are conveniently ignoring the sequence of events. The Israelis attack in 1978. It fails to end Iraqi ambitions. In the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, this was demonstrated by the deployment and use of womd by Iraq. In the 1990-91 Gulf War, the coalition, with UN backing, took steps to end Iraqi womd programs, and provided an inspections protocol. At the time of the 2003 invasion, the current adminsitration claimed that inspections protocol had failed, despite evidence to contrary. Subsequent evidence is that the inspectors' assertions about womd programs in Iraq had been correct. I've already pointed all of this out, you're just playing games, because it hampers all of your arguments.
Quote:Quote:Leaving aside the typically pathetic attempt to make everything dichotomous, black and white, yes or no--this statement contained no acknowledgement that the Israeli air strike was not a permanent solution. The intent was, in fact, very obviously to suggest that it were.
Allow me point out that we were having a perfectly civil discussion about this topic, and then you decided to characterize my argument as "pathetic."
I have no reason to retract that characterization. It is a feeble argument, and relies upon ignoring siginificant portions of what i've written, and intentionally characterizing my argument in a false manner. I consider that to be pathetic.
Quote:Quote:Now you try to back track, and attempt to suggest that it was temporarily effective, and that we can now be just as temporarily effective. The Israeli strike was effective because the Germans who were helping Iraq build its breeder reactor backed out. That is not the scenario in Iran, where the government is not depending upon outside aid. You have been attempting to peddle apples as oranges, and now want to claim they were pears all along.
Nonsense. It is you who must explain why you believe a future airstrike on Iran will not be effective. Thus far you only have only state you believe it will not be a permanent solution, or that it will not be effective without using nukes and and even then it's not guaranteed effective, and apparently have thus concluded the best option is just to allow them to acquire nuclear weapons.
Yes, you are peddling nonsense. I've explained why i don't consider that such an airstrike would be effectively. I don't conclude, apparently or otherwise, that "allowing" them to develop nukes is the best option. Anyone who were not attempting to play games would already have noted that i don't think there is any good reason to assume that we can prevent them developing nukes, short of an invasion and permanent occupation. It should not surprise you that i do not support that idea, either.
Quote:Quote:Taking out the Persian facilities--those of which we have any certain knowledge--will require far more than the relatively simple mission which the Israelis conducted in 1978. Most knowledgeable observers now suggest that they have underground bunkers which will require at the least the use of tactical nukes. Even that will not assure that we have taken out all of their facilities, nor that they will not continue to possess the expertise and the means to start another program, nor even assure that they cannot just continue the current program elsewhere and by other means.
No, the solution I advocate does not come with a guarantee.
As opposed to your "solution" which guarantees Iran will posses nuclear weapons, which you believe is acceptable.
I don't "believe it is acceptable," i consider it inevitable, no matter what steps we take, short of an invasion and occupation--except perhaps, for concerted international diplomacy, which i have already indicated is the option of which i approve.
Quote:I don't doubt for a moment that your attitude is formed by your leftists Euroweenie attitude.
The value of your analysis is indicated by the character of your language.
So far it looks like damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Tico's snide, sneering invective provides evidence of the uselessness of attempting conversation with him.
Any further exchanges with him would just provide him more opportunities to hurl vitriol at those who don't see the world in the simplistic and jingoistic manner upon which he insists--and are therefore pointless.
He just came here to argue and belittle, but now, he'll have to attempt another victim. He's failed with me, and i'll provide him no more "shots" at his foolishness.
Well, I opt for the liberal weenie position of statesmanship instead of nuke 'em all to hell.
mysteryman wrote:Set,
You said...
"Subsequently, the Ba'athists developed womd which they deployed and used."
I thought part of your objection to this war was that Iraq did NOT have WMD's.
Now you say they did have them.
Make up your mind.
Your inability to comprehend a simple sequence of events is not evidence of equivocation on my part. The Israelis attacked the reactor at Baghdad . . . in 1978 . . . subsequently, subsequent to the 1978 attack, the Ba'athists developed, deployed and used womd.
Try to keep up, 'k?
JAMES CARAFANO, HERITAGE FOUNDATION
"?'There are no good military options. When you're trying to stabilise Iraq and you've got this long border between Iran and Iraq, and you're trying to keep the Iranians from interfering in Iraq so you can get the Iraq government up and running, you shouldn't be picking a war with the Iranians,' said Carafano. ?'It just doesn't make any sense from a geopolitical standpoint,' he said. Iran is believed to protect its most sensitive facilities by dispersing, burying and hardening them, learning from the 1981 Israeli air strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. So the payoff from surgical strikes on suspected nuclear facilities would be uncertain and temporary, Carafano said." [1/24/05]
REP. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R-FL)
"Now, we are not going to go to war with ?- with Iran. So, that military option is probably off the table. Diplomacy, you have seen what has been taking place. We have been at this diplomatic maneuver for many, many months and many, many years, all to no avail. They have even built up their nuclear infrastructure. So, that leads us to the third tool in our toolbox, which is sanctions." [Fox News, 3/15/06]
RET. AIR FORCE LT COL. SAM GARDINER
Gardiner, a simulations expert at the U.S. Army's National War College, after leading a "war game" on Iran: "After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers. You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work." [12/04]
JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT
"[A] military strike would be disastrous for the United States. It would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. And it would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years." [3/27/06]
RAY TAKEYH, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
To properly address the complexities of the Iranian challenge, Washington should appreciate that its policy of relentlessly threatening Iran with economic coercion and even military reprisals only empowers reactionaries and validates their pro-nuclear argument." [4/4/06]
DAVID ALBRIGHT, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
"David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector who is now president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, agreed that Iran ?'could cause all kinds of disruption clandestinely in Iraq.' For that reason, and several others, he said there are no good military options on the table for confronting Iran. He also said loud external threats, especially from the United States, tend to backfire by sending Iranian moderates and reformers running under the banners of the clerical regime that Washington opposes." [1/13/06]
IAEA DIRECTOR MOHAMED ELBARADEI
"I don't believe there is a military solution to the issue. I think that a military solution would be completely counterproductive." [12/9/05]
IRANIAN NOBEL LAUREATE SHIRIN EBADI
"Not only would a foreign invasion of Iran vitiate popular support for human rights activism, but by destroying civilian lives, institutions and infrastructure, war would also usher in chaos and instability. Respect for human rights is likely to be among the first casualties. Instead, the most effective way to promote human rights in Iran is to provide moral support and international recognition to independent human rights defenders and to insist that Iran adhere to the international human rights laws and conventions that it has signed. Getting the Iranian government to abide by these international standards is the human rights movement's highest goal; foreign military intervention in Iran is the surest way to harm us and keep that goal out of reach." [2/8/05]
REP. JOHN MURTHA (D-PA)
There's no way [President Bush is] going to take military action in Iran. Iran is, is three times as big geographically, there's 58 million people vs. 26 million people in, in Iraq, and, and there's no way. A fanatical government ?- I mean, the, the president of the United States does not have a military option. He can say he has a military option; he does not have a military option." [3/19/06]
FORMER COUNTERTERROR CHIEF RICHARD CLARKE
"[W]e've thought about military options against Iran off and on for the last 20 years, and they're just not good, because you don't know what the end game is. You know what the first move of the game is, but you don't know what the last move of the game is. I don't think there's any doubt that the intelligence community and the defense department believe Iran would respond with terrorism. So they would respond if we hit them militarily, if that was the first move. The second move would them striking back with terrorism, including in the United States. And then what's the third move? What's the end of that process?" [ABC's Good Morning America, 4/3/06]
FORMER BUSH STATE DEPT. POLICY DIRECTOR RICHARD HAASS
"So far, the Bush administration has shown it would like to resolve its problems with North Korea and Iran the same way it did with Iraq: through regime change. It is easy to see why. But the strategy is unlikely to work, at least not quickly enough." [8/05]
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AND DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES
"?'The U.S. capability to make a mess of Iran's nuclear infrastructure is formidable,' says veteran Mideast analyst Geoffrey Kemp. ?'The question is, what then?' NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, ?'The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.?'" [9/27/04]
