Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

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.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Are you saying that these other nations support military action?

If the U.S. shakes it's nuclear stick, watch Russia and China shake back! Russia has a huge financial stake and China isn't about to sit by and watch the U.S. dry up another oil supply!

Anon

Set, You have the patience of Jobe!

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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?

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.

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

Set, You have the patience of Jobe!

Set will be along any minute to correct your spelling.

0 Replies

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?

0 Replies

Here's my guesstimate at what will happen regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions between now and our next Presidential election.

I suspect that the current administration will make a great show of handing off the problem to the U.N. The United Nations will dither and dally to no great effect. Some UN sanctions may be attempted, but will be ineffective and Iran will thumb its nose at the world.

Some will advocate direct unilateral intervention by the United States, but nothing will come of that either. Some covert diplomacy and operations might be mounted, without marked success. Our ability to even gather HUMINT inside Iran is limited, and to nudge Iran's policy direction is I think beyond our abilities.

Iran may test a device in hopes of influencing our Presidential election. I think that would backfire on them, and increase the chances that the new administration will be under pressure to mount an intervention. I don't think even then the U.S. will take any direct and effective action. A few more years further down the road, an Iranian nuclear missile will detonate over Tel Aviv, or an Islamic terrorist group will obtain Iranian nuclear materials or a devise to use against the United States, or some European capitol. Once the Iranians have let the cat out of the bag, they will be toast. I'm not convinced that the Mullahs really understand, or even care that their their fanaticism is ultimately sucidal. After all, paradise awaits the martyrs who fall in battle against the unbelievers.

If the United States were to mount a strictly conventional, but massive air strike against the Iranian nuclear community, what would the likely outcomes be? There would probably be a move in the UN to censor and punish the United States for "unwarranted aggression". Current allies with large Islamic populations would be under great pressure to break all ties with the United States, and to join with Iran to "protect islam from the infidel". The Leftists, Marxists and Socialists of the world would scream to high heaven that the U.S. had again demonstrated its bullying attempt to dictate to the world. Rioting and anti-American demonstrations would reach new heights around the world. Hoping to cash in on America's unpopularity, the Islamic terrorist groups would "retaliate" by mounting terror operations inside the U.S. and its allies. The Democrats would say, "We told you, that Bush & Co. were conspiring to world conquest". This would, of course, be Hillary and Teddy's principle campaign plank.

It might even be worth the political costs, if the threat of an Iranian nuclear presence could be definitely thwarted for some significant period of time. Balancing the risk against the possible return would be a chancy calculation at best. We would have to take out a significant number of essential facilities. The damage would have to be on such a scale that it could not be repaired and replaced quickly, easily, or cheaply. That's a tall order when the nuclear facilities may not be completely known, are dispersed, protected by the best air defenses they can muster, and protected by hardened sites.

To intervene, or not to intervene, that is the question. Which would be most effective in preserving the peace and stability of the region? Which carries the greater risk of making an already volatile part of the world even more dangerous? That, my children, is a choice that we leave to our elected leadership. Will the "right" choice be made? Who knows, but at least the decision will be made by those with the best information (though it may be tragically flawed) and who are given that responsibility by the Constitution. Personally I'm glad that the Shrub, for all his faults, is in the White House instead of President Carter, a saintly man, or Kerry, Hillary or any other Democrat that springs to mind at the moment.

0 Replies

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:

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.

I've already explained that, and see no reason--other than your unwillingness to acknowledge it--to repeat the explanation.

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:

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.

The value of your analysis is indicated by the character of your language.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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.

Then go back and find a post where I said what you claim I did. You can't, and are left with your ridiculous and pathetic claim of what you think I implied.

Quote:

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.

You're the one who appears to be "playing games," because none of what you just said relates to my point. It was in this post that you admitted the 1978 strike was effective. Are you now saying it was "effective," it just didn't "work"?

The larger point, the one you wish to coveniently ignore, is that the strike was effective, and Iraq did not apparently acquire nuclear weapons following that strike. What you are left with is attempting to distinguish the Iraq situation with the Iran situation.

Quote:

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.

On the contrary, what I'm trying to do is boil away the extraneous fluff you added to your argument, and present the ultimate question in stark terms. So stark, that you and your leftist friends are not comfortable admitting that you believe it wise to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, even though that is the natural result of what you advocate.

And while I often find your remarks pathetic, I am usually able to keep it to myself. I'm aware that self-control is not one of your strong character traits.

Quote:

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.

You don't think an airstrike would be effective, and you don't think it's adviseable to try. In the absence of diplomacy succeeding -- which it likely won't -- what is your solution to the problem? Do you have a solution? Shall we wring our hands?

If you don't think "allowing" them to acquire nukes is the best option, what do you think is the best option? If you're tired of my trying to put words in your mouth, maybe you'd be so kind as to express your thoughts for yourself. You express disdain at my attempt to cut to the chase and paint a black or white scenario, but I don't see you coming up with any solution to the problem, nuanced or otherwise. The only conclusion I can reach is you don't have a solution. Between the options of attempting an airstrike and not attempting an airstrike, you appear to believe we should not attempt an airstrike. The natural result of which -- again, this is assuming diplomacy has failed -- is to "allow" Iran to acquire nukes.

Thus, I think it is a fair characterization of your position that you would rather Iran acquire nukes than attempt an airstrike. Please try and explain the error of my logic in this regard, if you are capable.

Quote:

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.

I also advocate "concerted international diplomacy," but if and when that fails, you are willing to accept what you characterize as "inevitable," and would rather simply accept this "inevitable" rather than attempt an airstrike, or series of airstrikes designed to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities.

I disagree, because I do not find it acceptable to believe a nuclear Iran is "inevitable." This is certainly not a matter where we ought to just throw our hands up in the air.

Quote:

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.

Aren't you the one who characterizes others' posts as "horsie poop"?

<shrug> I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

0 Replies

So far it looks like damned if you do, damned if you don't.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

So far it looks like damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Doubtful, edgar. But in any case, it appears some are content to keep it just at "damned if you don't."

0 Replies

Tico's snide, sneering invective provides evidence of the uselessness of attempting conversation with him. I have explained why i don't agree with his facile and shallow reference to the 1978 Israeli attack--more than once. I have explained why the situation with Iran today is not analogous--more than once. I have explained what i consider the best option--more than once.

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.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Tico's snide, sneering invective provides evidence of the uselessness of attempting conversation with him.

My "sneer" came only after you called my argument "typically pathetic." If you didn't want the conversation to plummet to that level, you might have chosen your words a little more carefully.

Quote:

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.

Said the man who first hurled the vitriol in this discussion (" typically pathetic attempt"). Perhaps your faithful will find your explanation endearing, but what it boils down to is you don't like having your position taken apart in the manner I did.

Quote:

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.

Belittling you was certainly not the reason I came to this thread. As I've pointed out, it is you who was unable to keep the discourse civil, and you elevated it to invective. My intent was to engage in a discussion about the topic. Of course there will be arguments, but such is the nature of most discussions in the politics forum. There was no "belittling" going on until you engaged in that activity. Go back and review the posts if you doubt my recollection here.

0 Replies

Well, I opt for the liberal weenie position of statesmanship instead of nuke 'em all to hell.

0 Replies

Set, I don't want to get in the middle of your fire-fight with Tico.

However, it is a fair question, I think, to ask what policy would you advise if Iran ignores international pressure to cancel its nuclear weapons program and let that be completely verified by a competent team under United Nations supervision?

The alternatives seem to be:

1. Stop Iran, by one means or another, from acquiring nuclear weapons that will destabilize the region and threaten world peace.

2. Let Iran build and test nuclear weapons to their hearts content, and take the risk that they will not use those weapons to threaten, blackmail, or make a first-strike attack on some other nation

Which is your solution? Alternative One, or Alternative Two. There may be a third alternative, and I'd be interested in what it might be.

If you support Alternative One, then there are at least three sub-alternatives:

1. Diplomatic pressure alone, or with sanctions, or:
2. Conventional intervention by some nation, or the UN, utilizing some mix of ground, air and naval forces, or;
3. A nuclear first-strike on the Iranian nuclear sites, or;
4. A progressive increase in the use of force to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club in violation of its treaty obligations.

There are pros and cons for each of the alternatives, and sub-alternatives that I've tried to weigh in postings above. Other analysts might reasonably come to different conclusions. What are your thoughts?

I think that is all that Tico is looking for anyway ... your take on possible alternatives, solutions and probable outcomes.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Well, I opt for the liberal weenie position of statesmanship instead of nuke 'em all to hell.

Just to be clear, the "liberal weenie position" (i.e., "cave in and do nothing") comes after statesmanship has been attempted and failed. :wink:

0 Replies

Wrong, Tico. Liberals want engagement, not inaction.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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?

Let me put this is words you understand...
The Israeli air force attacked the reactor in 1978...do you agree with that?

Then AFTER the attack,the Ba'athists developed WMD.

That is what you are saying.

FYI,
Here is the definition of subsequently...

sub·se·quent (sbs-kwnt, -kwnt)
adj.
Following in time or order; succeeding.

Thats from here...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subsequent

And here...

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Is the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of the word.

Maybe you used the wrong word in your statement.

AFTER the Israeli's took out Iraq's nuke plant,they developed and used WMD.

Yet,you claim that Bush lied and that Iraq didnt have WMD.

So,which is it?
Did they or didnt they?

0 Replies

Israel took out Iraq's nuclear plant in '78. Iraq used poison gas in its war agaist Iran in the late 80's. In 2001 Colin Powell testified before the before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, saying that through the sanctions that were imposed against Iraq after the Gulf War Iraq was unsuccessful in pursiung WMD programs, and that while he believed that Saddam still had some stockpiles of WMD, he also believed that Iraq lacked the capacity to deliver these sorts of weapons systems, or even that Iraq actually had these systems at all.

0 Replies

Experts Speak: No Good Military Options in Iran

Quote:

0 Replies

I started this thread, War With Iran Has Begun... ,last summer. It contains some background information and links that some of you may find interesting.

0 Replies

Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know