View Full Version : Netanyahu says strike on Iran would be good for Arabs
(Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought on Tuesday to convince Arab states that an Israeli military strike on Iran would benefit them, removing a potential threat and easing tensions across the Middle East.
Netanyahu has made a number of veiled threats to attack Iran's nuclear program and has appealed to the United States and the United Nations to set a limit for Tehran on its further development.
In an interview published on Tuesday with French magazine Paris Match, Netanyahu said such a strike would not worsen regional tensions, as many critics have warned.
"Five minutes after, contrary to what the skeptics say, I think a feeling of relief would spread across the region," he said.
"Iran is not popular in the Arab world, far from it, and some governments in the region, as well as their citizens, have understood that a nuclear armed Iran would be dangerous for them, not just for Israel," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/30/us-israel-iran-idUSBRE89T19120121030
Note: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:53pm EDT
Well duh, of course bombing their enemy is "good". From that perspective, the US making a strike on Russia would also be great and ease tensions for Europe.
Betonov
10-30-12, 12:49 PM
Reminds of that oldie: bombing for peace is like ''khm'' for virginity
So far Netanyahu is doing great job on the Iranian issue....
When it comes to internal matters he needs kick in the ass ASAP.
Netanyahu thinks highly of himself, and war is the solution to all problems.
Netanyahu thinks highly of himself, and war is the solution to all problems.
That's easy for Netanyahu to say, as long as someone else is doing the actual fighting.
That's easy for Netanyahu to say, as long as someone else is doing the actual fighting. Right, too easy.
Stealhead
10-30-12, 08:51 PM
Netanyahu is correct a powerful Iran is a serious threat to Saudi Arabia's hegemony in the region so if the Israelis pulled off a strike on Iran "project" the house of Saud would be very very pleased I'd say they would have a round of toasts to such an event but they dont drink alcohol.
CaptainHaplo
10-30-12, 08:55 PM
Considering that he has served on the front lines, been under fire himself (and wounded) - rest assured he doesn't take the reality of war lightly.
The reality is that a nuclear Iran is a danger to everyone in that area. Netanyahu was correct. A non-nuke Iran is less dangerous. These are simple facts.
However - his way of stating it was not the best.
Skybird
10-30-12, 08:58 PM
Well duh, of course bombing their enemy is "good". From that perspective, the US making a strike on Russia would also be great and ease tensions for Europe.
Doesn't compare for the ancient past. Even straightout wrong regarding the present.
----
A nuclear armed Iran will lead to a nuclear arms race throughout the ME. Egypt. Maybe Libya agin one day. Turkey for sure. Saudi Arabia anyway. Guld players - remaisn to be seen. Shia versus Sunni, Arabs versus Persians. On emillenia of open bills.
That explosive mixture will pay off badly for ALL THE WORLD, not just Israel.
Plus nuclear proliferation threats. Plus religion. Plus somewhat hysteric tempers and megalomania. Plus some nutheads even mistaking Armaggeddon for the return of the missing Mahdi (or the Messiah calling out Judgement Day).
Much worse a mixture than the cold war ever was - and even during that we were already simply lucky at several occasions.
Lao Tse says it is wise to fight dangers while they are still too small to pose dangers indeed.
Stealhead
10-30-12, 11:02 PM
Lao Tse also said;
Man's enemies are not demons, but human beings like himself.
And the point of an easy danger from Iran is past already it will be hard either way now we can only slow down their program with out a total war of invasion in order to completely
destroy the program.
He could have said more diplomatic statement.
He could have said more diplomatic statement.
Yes he could.
TLAM Strike
10-31-12, 06:54 AM
That's easy for Netanyahu to say, as long as someone else is doing the actual fighting.
Considering that he has served on the front lines, been under fire himself (and wounded) - rest assured he doesn't take the reality of war lightly.
Thank you CH, I was going to mention that, he served in two wars and several smaller incidents and was wounded saving a bunch of hostages. Not to mention his brother was killed in the line of duty during Operation Entebbe.
If someone like that says war is the answer, you have to listen. :yep:
Jimbuna
10-31-12, 08:44 AM
I doubt the Israelis have the capability to take out the underground facilities but a retaliatory strike on said foe would probably be a different matter.
It will be interesting to see what the US does, if anything, after the presidential elections.
CaptainHaplo
10-31-12, 09:24 AM
If someone like that says war is the answer, you have to listen. :yep:
So many people talk war vs peace and claim that the "hawkish" are quick to fight because they don't understand the cost. Nothing could be further from the truth.
For those who serve - the reminder of how horrible conflict or battle can be is not very far away. For those who have lost friends, you never forget. For those who have faced death and survived - you are never the same again.
No - those who serve - and even moreso those who have faced battle - understand the horror more than those who sit at home protesting and whining. Force is never a good option - but there comes a time when it truly is the only option. That happens when the cost of doing nothing is higher than the cost of doing something. That is the situation that Bibi finds his country in - and he is brave enough to face that.
Jimbuna
10-31-12, 10:23 AM
So many people talk war vs peace and claim that the "hawkish" are quick to fight because they don't understand the cost. Nothing could be further from the truth.
For those who serve - the reminder of how horrible conflict or battle can be is not very far away. For those who have lost friends, you never forget. For those who have faced death and survived - you are never the same again.
No - those who serve - and even moreso those who have faced battle - understand the horror more than those who sit at home protesting and whining. Force is never a good option - but there comes a time when it truly is the only option. That happens when the cost of doing nothing is higher than the cost of doing something. That is the situation that Bibi finds his country in - and he is brave enough to face that.
Good post :yep:
My point was that I don't believe Israel can sustain a war against Iran because of the distance involved. Once they attack iran, their first strike better do the job, because they will have their handsfull with Hamas from southern Lebanon and Palestine. It will then fall on the US to sustain the attacks, which we could do. We would hammer them from the air and sea. Doubt we could afford a land war, but the Air Force and Navy certainly could put the hurt on them. The Iranians could get a few hits in themselves, but the response would not be to their liking. Even without using nukes.
The distances issue works both ways.
Also from hardware and abilities point of view regardin this issue i rather bet on IDF.
The style of dealing with Gaza and Lebanon if need arises also will be diffrent.
It will be fight about quick and decisive gains to stop rocket fire and protect own population not about PR like brfore.
If our good neighbors put on fight it will be their last...in particular for their leadership.
Thank you CH, I was going to mention that, he served in two wars and several smaller incidents and was wounded saving a bunch of hostages. Not to mention his brother was killed in the line of duty during Operation Entebbe.
If someone like that says war is the answer, you have to listen. :yep: Right, :yep:
Jimbuna
10-31-12, 03:05 PM
The distances issue works both ways.
Also from hardware and abilities point of view regardin this issue i rather bet on IDF.
The style of dealing with Gaza and Lebanon if need arises also will be diffrent.
It will be fight about quick and decisive gains to stop rocket fire and protect own population not about PR like brfore.
If our good neighbors put on fight it will be their last...in particular for their leadership.
If it does come to this it could be the bloodiest conflict for the region yet.
Maybe ya are right there...:hmmm:
If Israel has viable long-term solutions short of nuking Iran to bedrock, then the world is all ears.
...
Nope? Okay, back to sanctions.
If Iran stays the course they're on, then they will be reduced to North Korea levels of misery because of their spectacularly mismanaged economy even before the sanctions happened, and they will have no one to blame but the Ayatollahs. Except unlike the North Koreans, Iranians don't think the Ayatollahs created the world and that their country is paradise on earth.
Armistead
10-31-12, 06:31 PM
I think the next step will be a date set for a military response if they don't comply. Either way it's coming to a head next year.
Jimbuna
10-31-12, 06:44 PM
I think the next step will be a date set for a military response if they don't comply. Either way it's coming to a head next year.
I fear you may well be right.
The date might already be set, just secretly. I don't think a public announcement would do any good and would just give the Iranians time to prepare. The element of surprise would be necessary to have a chance at success.
Armistead
10-31-12, 09:46 PM
The date might already be set, just secretly. I don't think a public announcement would do any good and would just give the Iranians time to prepare. The element of surprise would be necessary to have a chance at success.
Hard to know, but a set date for possible attack might be tried first, let's face it, blowing up nuke plants is a dangerous thing. Most agree, it will take a mass effort, mostly to deal with Iran's possible counterattacks. It will be much more than a few air strikes on the plants, we'll have to a massive force in the area.
I think it will be like all our wars there, build up mass defenses, give dates and see what happens. If we attack, we have to assume counterattacks are coming and we'll deal with that by going on the offensive taking out government and military targets, missle launchers, etc.....It will be a war, not a strike.
If it does come to this it could be the bloodiest conflict for the region yet.
In terms of casulaties in civilian population it is most likely the case since the methods of terror organizations like hamas or hizbolah is to fire missles from populated areas.
This time if missles start falling on entire coutry the game might be very diffrent.
Yes, because Israel is the only country in the region that is populated by people.
Look, I understand the military implications of this, and from all signs this war is likely already inevitable. It's not solely Israel's fault; the international community is really letting everyone down here. I have always considered and still consider this whole thing resolvable, if only the pressure and sanctions on Iran were more determined and less than token. Nobody seems to care enough to enforce peaceful measures, and everybody seems to have developed this tunnel vision of "oh well, Israel's gonna bomb them anyway..."
Other than that, I don't care what Bibi's military background and losses are. By the same token, we could sing praises to that great WWI ace, Hermann Goering, as a model of a politician and humanitarian leader who understood the implications of war. Or, you know, any other terrible bloody person who also happened to be a war hero at some point. One doesn't exclude the other.
My real concern is the pathetic, inhumane marketing of this war that Netanyahu's government is engaged in. His childish bomb graphic and his peddling of this to the Arab world on cold, dirty politics should offend any civilized person. What you have to understand is that this is a war that will come at a cost of tens of thousands Iranian civilians, who have nothing to do with the nuclear program, to be dead, injured, homeless, poisoned, and otherwise suffering. And you're going to reduce it to a risk calculation and hedge it in terms like "threat" or a silly bomb graphic? Really? Lao Tze said it's okay to press the button and kill tens of thousands of people? Who else? Tell me more about how noble and great it is to bomb other countries and blow up nuclear facilities.
There is no moral justification for this, particularly as the whole thing would be avoidable given enough international will. From where I stand, Israel's leadership is not solely responsible for it at all, but their position has been narrow-minded and anti-humanitarian. I think the fact that several posters here have successfully ignored the fact that Iran is also populated by humans really nails that message home for me. If you are willing to conveniently ignore that on the scale of national policy, then your society deserves no protection from anything.
Tribesman
11-01-12, 03:52 AM
The distances issue works both ways.
Also from hardware and abilities point of view regardin this issue i rather bet on IDF.
The style of dealing with Gaza and Lebanon if need arises also will be diffrent.
It will be fight about quick and decisive gains to stop rocket fire and protect own population not about PR like brfore.
If our good neighbors put on fight it will be their last...in particular for their leadership.
In terms of casulaties in civilian population it is most likely the case since the methods of terror organizations like hamas or hizbolah is to fire missles from populated areas.
This time if missles start falling on entire coutry the game might be very diffrent.
Have you been drinking the patriot juice again?
In the last attempt on the northern front despite operating on the basis that there were "no civilians at all" the troops failed to reachmany of their planned destination, took much longer to reach those points they did get to and managed to achieve their aim of stopping the rockets by amazingly getting an increase of them on a daily basis.
You idea of a different game appears to be more of an attempt of the same failed game again and again.
Tribesman
11-01-12, 03:56 AM
Other than that, I don't care what Bibi's military background and losses are. By the same token, we could sing praises to that great WWI ace, Hermann Goering, as a model of a politician and humanitarian leader who understood the implications of war. Or, you know, any other terrible bloody person who also happened to be a war hero at some point. One doesn't exclude the other.
Get with the program. People who have put on a uniform are special.... because they have put on a uniform.
You know it must make sense somehow:03:
Have you been drinking the patriot juice again?
In the last attempt on the northern front despite operating on the basis that there were "no civilians at all" the troops failed to reachmany of their planned destination, took much longer to reach those points they did get to and managed to achieve their aim of stopping the rockets by amazingly getting an increase of them on a daily basis.
You idea of a different game appears to be more of an attempt of the same failed game again and again.
I like you alot...really...but you dont really know what you talking about here.
Tribesman
11-01-12, 08:21 AM
I like you alot...really...but you dont really know what you talking about here.
Can you demonstrate exactly how your new idea is any different from all the previous attempts and how it would actually somehow work this time?
Your line about quick and decisive action without worrying about PR is exactly the same crap they spewed last time.
If your neighbours make a stand to fight it was going to be their last stand last time too.
I know exactly what I am talking about, and I am talking about you supporting trying the same things again and again with the same advertised objectives again and again yet again and again achieving only the same inevitable results...which will lead to you trying the same thing again next time with the same advertised objectives and the same spiel that it is going to work this time as it really honestly isn't the same thing again and again and this will be different somehow...which again will give you the same results.
CaptainHaplo
11-01-12, 08:48 AM
Yes, because Israel is the only country in the region that is populated by people.
Who said it was the only region populated? Given Bibi's reference to it doing good for the arab countries - this comment makes no sense.
Other than that, I don't care what Bibi's military background and losses are. By the same token, we could sing praises to that great WWI ace, Hermann Goering, as a model of a politician and humanitarian leader who understood the implications of war. Or, you know, any other terrible bloody person who also happened to be a war hero at some point. One doesn't exclude the other.
Point taken. However, Bibi has proven in the past that he is no warmonger. His actions - trying to rally the international community - which you rightly state shares blame - demonstrate he is trying to avoid a conflict.
My real concern is the pathetic, inhumane marketing of this war that Netanyahu's government is engaged in. His childish bomb graphic and his peddling of this to the Arab world on cold, dirty politics should offend any civilized person. What is inhumane about it?
What you have to understand is that this is a war that will come at a cost of tens of thousands Iranian civilians, who have nothing to do with the nuclear program, to be dead, injured, homeless, poisoned, and otherwise suffering.
First of all - no it won't. The majority of targets are underground and not in the middle of cities. The above ground targets WILL likely spread some contaminant - but those contaminants from an explosion do not rival the effects of an actual nuclear exchange. Its like comparing a "dirty nuclear bomb" to an actual nuclear explosion. Taking out the facilities would not result in a thermonuclear reaction. That does not mean that there is no danger from it, but your acting like attacking such sites is equitable to a nuclear detonation at them - and that is highly inaccurate.
And you're going to reduce it to a risk calculation and hedge it in terms like "threat" or a silly bomb graphic? Really? Lao Tze said it's okay to press the button and kill tens of thousands of people? Who else? Tell me more about how noble and great it is to bomb other countries and blow up nuclear facilities.
Let me play devil's advocate. You claim this will cost the lives of "tens of thousands". While I disagree - lets use that number for argument's sake. So - tens of thousands. How many do you think will die if Israel faces a nuclear attack - and thus is forced to retaliate? 7.6 Million live in Israel alone. Iran has a population of more than 74 Million. Lets say 2/3 casualties. 50 Million lives lost - on both sides. Not counting the loss of life that will occur when Pakistan and India see nukes flying and add their own. Or the countless dead in the aftermath. The middle east going off - your going to see 100 Million dead on the most conservative estimate.
There is no moral justification for this, particularly as the whole thing would be avoidable given enough international will.
I agree that it is avoidable - but that isn't within Israeli control. If it turns out that it is not avoidable - I disagree that the death of "tens of thousands" as you claim - somehow is not morally justified when weighed against the deaths of 50-100 Million.
Ultimately - a conflict goes on the heads of those who wage it or cause it to be waged. Both sides will have their hand in it - but Iran could avoid this by not being the bellicose, terrorist supporting regime it is. Thus, by refusing to diffuse this issue - they become responsible for the actions they create - and thus the possible deaths of their own civilians. To argue against that would be like saying that Adolf Hitler - and Hermann Goering as you mentioned before - were not responsible for the vast and overwhelming costs that Europe - and the German people - paid due to WW2.
From where I stand, Israel's leadership is not solely responsible for it at all, but their position has been narrow-minded and anti-humanitarian. I think the fact that several posters here have successfully ignored the fact that Iran is also populated by humans really nails that message home for me. If you are willing to conveniently ignore that on the scale of national policy, then your society deserves no protection from anything.
Israel is not innocent to be sure. To call their position "anti-humanitarian" is however a gross misrepresentation. Their position on Iran is simple - no nuclear weapons. How is having a nuclear weapon a "humanitarian" issue for Iran? Israel is willing to support a nuclear ENERGY program in Iran provided it meets the mandates and inspection rules of the IAEA. Iran is unwilling to meet that demand - because having a clandestine nuclear weapons program when your openly and fully inspected is too difficult for them.
:o Opposing a nuclear armed Iran is somehow "anti-humanitarian"..... I just can't see it...
Tribesman
11-01-12, 02:19 PM
Who said it was the only region populated? Given Bibi's reference to it doing good for the arab countries - this comment makes no sense.
Irrelevant since Bibis comment about it doing good made no sense.
Now his comment might have made sense if the Gulf states were not currently all sitting on their own powder kegs, but as they are his offer of lighting another fuse can only been seen for what it is.
Can you demonstrate exactly how your new idea is any different from all the previous attempts and how it would actually somehow work this time?
.
When i talk about decisiveness it does not mean that IDF has some magic solutions.
It is about protecting or minimizing damage to own civilians in time of war by all means.
Just look at previous "campaigns" , it is easy easy to see that IDF was fighting with a hand tied behind its back.
It will not happen with missiles raining on Tel-aviv.
bw
Only magical solution is if somehow people stop acting crazy in ME.
From where I stand, Israel's leadership is not solely responsible for it at all, but their position has been narrow-minded and anti-humanitarian. I think the fact that several posters here have successfully ignored the fact that Iran is also populated by humans really nails that message home for me. If you are willing to conveniently ignore that on the scale of national policy, then your society deserves no protection from anything. What do you mean by ignoring?
Is Israeli national policy to have some wars from time to time for the heck of it?
Bibi wakes up in the morning with itchy finger?
Just take a look around ME east and see what is happening....this place is nuts.
its like zombie apocalypse or something like that....:doh:
Tribesman
11-01-12, 05:25 PM
When i talk about decisiveness it does not mean that IDF has some magic solutions.
It is about protecting or minimizing damage to own civilians in time of war by all means.
Just look at previous "campaigns" , it is easy easy to see that IDF was fighting with a hand tied behind its back.
It will not happen with missiles raining on Tel-aviv.
What???????
Exactly the same rubbish as last time.
They declared that civilians simply didn't exist, everything was therfore a target which means their hands were officialy not tied in any way...it was still a disaster and still led to more incoming missiles not less.
bw
Only magical solution is if somehow people stop acting crazy in ME.
Now that would be magic.
Rubbish or not...im not going to argue about it.
Hopefully it all plays out without the need for war.
Tribesman
11-02-12, 04:47 AM
MH the problem is that the game is rigged.
they keep on upping the ante while trying the same old things thinking that maybe this time will work out different.
They have pushed their acceptable stake up to and beyond the reasonable limits and still not won, every time they hold 4 aces and the others still turn up a hand of five aces.
The only two ways to up the stakes for a "win" is by going for all out regional genocide and or using a pre emptive nuclear option, but either one would really amount to suicide for the State so you still lose.
Whe the game is rigged and the stakes are totally unacceptable the only option left is to change the game.
Unfortunately Bibi is a nut and seem to enjoy the game as it currently is.
If you talk about last Lebanon war it was mismanaged.
There had been no obvious objective besides whooping hizbollah a bit where possible.
It was also managed like some small scale operation in west bank back in 2000s.
A direct consequence of army dealing with intifada for too long and becoming sort of police force not adequate for real war in terms of training and state of mind.
Things have changed by now....actually it is back to old school but with twists....
Skybird
11-02-12, 06:20 AM
As I see some people still are very concerned about the well-being of thew agressor, while the same people refuse to care for the wellbeing of people - in Western cities. The biggest threat from a nuclear Iran is not an exchange with Israel, although that cannot be ruled out since you are dealing with religious hysterics holding the power in Iran.The biggest threats are
- the incalculatable risks and instability coming from a a nuclear Iran, because Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey all three can be taken for sure to react to a nuclear Iran by gettin g their own nukes;
- and proliferation of nukes or nukie know how to to either other regimes hostile to the West and America (in a bit to form alliances and to do some pain to Wahsington), and - and that worries me the most:
- terror groups that get used as proxies that either launch a dirty suitcase bomb in New York or London or Frankfurt, or plant them around the Western world and by that make Western governments completely vulnerable to nuclear blackmailing.
Haplo seems to imply that their subterranean facilities that are burried deep under mountains still can be reached by conventionel ammunitions. I am not sure of that, as a matter of fact I have doubts that parts of their programs even can be reached by mini-nukes anymore. A local contamination will be the result of any of the two scenarios, with mini-nukes causing more radiating debris reahcing into the atmosphere. However, that does not compare to "nuking a city" or a full "nuclear war", like it was implied by some people int he past. And the tlak never has been of "nuking cities". If a decision is made to destroy their facilties by force, this force needs to be directed against:
- command and control and air defence
- local defences at taregt sites
- facilities connected to the nuclear weapon program, and their reactor.
Only of the third target category, some objectives which are indeed extremely hardened qualify for trying to crack them open by nukes.
Also, the heads maintaining their program - engineers, commanders - need to be identified, found targetted and killed. The Israelis already started with that some time ago, but seem to have found the delay caused by that unsatisfying.
Near the borders or coasts, commando operation and fast ground assaults may be an alternative, though an extremely risky one. the best option to destroy hardened facilities underground, is by taking them and then blowing them up from within. But that is unlikely a scenario, and as said: extremely risky. Not all such attempts will be successful, maybe not even the better part of them. I do not expect to see such actions in case of an attack on Iran. Anyhow, ground combat is no option anyway to take all of Iran. A ground invasion is something that most likely can be ruled out completely. It simply is not realistic a scenario. The country is really big. The population is hostile, and telling you by experience: extremely patriotic. The n umbers in forces in order to spreasd all over iran and reach all those 300+ critical installations that play a role for their nuke program, simply will be impossible to be collected. I think it would take several hundred thousands of troops - not rotating in and out. Simultaneously.
I have no doubt that this task is too big to be carried out by Israel alone. It may choose to try it nevertheless - put of despair. However. For the time being, recent comments by Ehud Barrak seem to indicate that they are aware of their limited reach and want to give the impression of having reasons why they give it more time (he said that earlier this year Iran apparently made a decision to freeze nuclear development - something I will never believe, I see it as Israeli diplomatic tactics). They know they have not even a chance to cause lasting damage without the Americans. So, more time is ticking away, time that is being used by Iran, I have no doubt. And so it will become even more difficult to hit them where it hurts their program.
I personally think the point of time when their program indeed could have been destroyed by bombing it into pieces, has long since passed. Another masterful achievement by dreamy Western diplomacy.
I also think this: compared to a nuclear Iran, nuclear Pakistan - already not shy of raising troubles, playing double games and proliferating nuclear key know-how to rogue nations - does compare like a purring kitty compares to a hungry tiger. Nuclear Iran will give us much more fun and entertainment to enjoy, than Pakistan ever did.
And finally I think the Western public will not wake up before the first nuclear terror strike has hit a Western metropole. And even then some hopeless cases will not stop telling us that Islam has nothing to do with it and that it is our own fault that they hate us so much.
Takeda Shingen
11-02-12, 02:13 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Thank God that Skybird is not in charge of anything.
I firmly believe that Romney plans to take us into Iran. I also think that it will be another Iraq. With Israel pushing us to war and the neocons back in charge it will be disastrous. God help my poor country.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Thank God that Skybird is not in charge of anything.
Ditto :yep:
I firmly believe that Romney plans to take us into Iran. I also think that it will be another Iraq. With Israel pushing us to war and the neocons back in charge it will be disastrous. God help my poor country.
I dunno. I don't get that sense from Romney. He strikes me as a guy who would be a lot more focused on domestic issues than foreign ones.
Though I have little love for Romney, my guess is as far as Iran goes it will be more of the same with him at the helm.
Even when North Korea tested their first nuke, South Korea and Japan saw no need to embark on their own nuclear programs for a deterrence force (before anyone says that Iran is different because of them being religious whack-jobs, try to remember that a dead man is still the "President" of North Korea). The United States need only re-affirm their commitments to their alliances to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel. After all, nukes aren't needed as a deterrence when it comes to countries like Iran; with the gloves off, two CVBGs can make the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo look like campfires by comparison.
Skybird
11-05-12, 06:54 AM
Though I have little love for Romney, my guess is as far as Iran goes it will be more of the same with him at the helm.
Even when North Korea tested their first nuke, South Korea and Japan saw no need to embark on their own nuclear programs for a deterrence force (before anyone says that Iran is different because of them being religious whack-jobs, try to remember that a dead man is still the "President" of North Korea). The United States need only re-affirm their commitments to their alliances to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel. After all, nukes aren't needed as a deterrence when it comes to countries like Iran; with the gloves off, two CVBGs can make the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo look like campfires by comparison.
That is your reasoning of why they should trust the US. But your reasoning is not the reasoning of Saudis Arabia, Egypt, Turkey. All of which seek cultural dominance in the Islamic sphere, and dominance in the geographic region as well. The Sunni Saudis see themselves as the holy guardians of Islam. The Shia Persians want that position. Sunni and Shia are hanging at each other throat since a millenium. Turkey has proven several times now its underhandedness, and has messed around with practically all its neighbours, Erdoghan wants Turkey as the big hegemon in the region, and has slammed the door into the US's face repeatedly in the past ten years, and already over the Afghanistan and Iraq war.
You sound a bit too self-convinced there, convinced of the American position. and mind you, the past two major military adventures the US embarked on, were lost, and the objectives were not met. that does not raise any more trust into the US potence. Mind you also that in current diplomatic summits, the American fiscal cliff raises more and more concerns. The least that could be said is the US is a giant in decline, not a giant raising. Finally, it still is remembered that America betrayed the Iraqi Shia in 1992, pushed them to revolt and then looked unmoved when Saddam massacred them, with America even having him allowed the helicopters to accomplish that task. Put trust over your most vital existential issues in America? Even the Israelis showed increasing hesitation to do so recently.
Also, do not underestimate the role or irrationality just because you try to be rational. And do not make flawed compariusons between different cultures, like your comparsion between the ME, and Korea. In 2003 such comparisons were made regarding the attidue of the poulation and the way in which the country would be pacified before they went into Iraq . They said what has worked in Germanyx, will work there, too. Just that Germany culturally and regarding temperament is so many times closer to the Us and is part of the West, than Iraq is - that detail they comfortably overlooked. They also compared to Japan. But Japan, though culturall indeed very different to the US, was a totally defeated dead body at the end of WWII - a status that is no true for the enemy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, nor are the Saudis or the Egyptians or the Turks that much at america's mercy. As a matter off act, America is at the mercy of its foreign financiers. If they stop paying for you, your economy and financial system collapses.
You make some very serious mistakes there, I think. The situation is much more complex. As the saying goes: "It's the Middle East". Reason from an American perspective - will lead you into a mess. The Middle East is neither reaosnable, nor is America beyond doubt to be able to handle it.
Armistead
11-05-12, 01:52 PM
If Iran doesn't give, we'll attack within a year. Defense contractors are becoming overstocked, time to clear the shelves and insure these job creators continue to thrive.
Skybird
11-05-12, 04:54 PM
A very very good reflection on why rationality is never universal, but culture-dependent, and why therefore nuclear weapons proliferation will not lead to stability in the world, but quite the opposite. It also gives some background information on the Cuba crisis that was new to me - that the Cubans were bitterly determined to sacrifice themselves i and fire the Russian missiles against America in an offensive strike if that would be the only way to ensure the global victory of socialism over Americanism - something that is in congruence with the agitations by Che Guevara as well.
Unfortunately, this text is available in German only.
LINK: When hate is greater than the fear of retaliation (http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article110661887/Wenn-der-Hass-groesser-als-die-Angst-vor-Vergeltung-ist.html)
What we call rational, and what people in other cultures call rational, sometimes is lightyears apart. Same is our understanding of terms like freedom, peace, tolerance and coexistence - and the understanding of these terms from Quran'S perspective. It is here where terms no longer mean the same things anymore, and despite using the same names people talk in different languages.
Tower of Babylon, anyone?
Lesson of it all: be careful to just assume the other is running by the same motives and logic like you do. If you invite a cannibal for dinner, he may ignore your prepared meal and instead consumes you - like you have invited him.
A very very good reflection on why rationality is never universal, but culture-dependent, and why therefore nuclear weapons proliferation will not lead to stability in the world, but quite the opposite. [...]
Unfortunately, this text is available in German only.
Oh yes, very unfortunately. I would have appreciated to read this one, really.
While you're at it, Sky, may I ask you to let me know what you think about this point of view (http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/06/20/iran-and-the-bomb-a-fabricated-threat/) on the same subject ?
One of the comments at the bottom of that page may reveal the real reason why Iran is the next-on-the-list. Haha. :O:
Skybird
11-05-12, 07:45 PM
Ironically, the Kenneth Waltz that article of yours mentions, is the Kenneth waltz mentioned in the German article. And I follow the argument in that German article. The argument that war becomes impossible if EVERYBODY has nuclear weapons, fails due to the fact that there is no universal rationality. Nukes for everybody leaves war still a possibility although the stakes in a nuclear exchnage are much higher for everybody. I earlier reminded of the irrational factors that also play a role in the formula over Iran.
In other words, I think Waltz has it completely wrong and many of the "scholars" claimed to support his reasoning are wrong, too. Terribly wrong. The risk they accept to take is a risk that I never will tolerate. I also think that article is heavily self-suggestive and allows to get carried away by its own wishful thinking in the meaning of following its own flaws in order to come to the wanted conclusions. Not really an intellectual masterpiece.
And just for the record, Alex, I cannot help it that Die Welt, although being a major newspaper in Germany, has no English page. They tried that experiment, and abandoned it short time later again, probbaly too much work for too little reward. Of the major German newspapers and magazines, Der Spiegel is the only one with an daily English site where they translate some of their main articles. That'S why most links to German newspapers in English that I sometimes post, relate to Der Spiegel essays, and no other newspapers. If that gives you a reason for wanting to be ironic, so be it. But understanding that humour I can not, I admit.
and mind you, the past two major military adventures the US embarked on, were lost, and the objectives were not met.
Care to explain which objectives weren't met?
Last I checked Saddam and Osama were still dead.
Tribesman
11-06-12, 02:47 AM
Care to explain which objectives weren't met?
Last I checked Saddam and Osama were still dead.
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
It would be a much shorter list if you could list anything that was met as the list of abject failures in those two conflicts would exceed even one of Skybirds walls of text in length.
The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said he is ready to order a strike on Iran if international sanctions do not stop its nuclear programme.
"I am, of course, ready to press the button if necessary," he said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20220566
Note: Update record, 6 November 2012 Last updated at 12:12 GMT
:haha:Uhh..this picture again.
:haha:Uhh..this picture again. Ya got to live with that, :D
Jimbuna
11-06-12, 10:59 AM
:haha:Uhh..this picture again.
Probably the picture he will always be best known for :)
Skybird
11-06-12, 11:14 AM
Care to explain which objectives weren't met?
Last I checked Saddam and Osama were still dead.
The objective of Iraq was to destroy the weapons of mass destruction of which, so said members of the administration before the war, they knew that Saddam had them and where they were.
The objectives mentioned for Afghanistan were to get Osama AND to pacify and bring democracy to Afghanistan. If it were only Osama, then I wonder why troops are still there and why there is so much activity done to maintain Bagram, and some other places there.
Reasons given before a war, are reasons, are objectives. Reasons given after a war, are foul excuses to get away with it. As an ex-soldier, you should know that decisive difference. How often have I told you this now? Five times? Ten times?
Beyond that, both Iraq and Afghanistan have given the US and the West more longterm strategic worries, than there have been before. So in the geostrategic view on things, both wars also seem to rate as defeats. The only thing that got achieved was to tighten the chain of US bases around and close to China a bit more. Whether that can justify the immense investments and vulnerabilities one has accepted, remains to be seen in the future. As I see it, the "empire's frontlines" are dangerously overstretched.
Also, the war investments are missing for being spend for internal needs of the US: education system, health system, and especially infrastructure (bridges time and again mentioned as a major concern), powergrid modernisation, and bringing the remains of the heavy industry into competitive shape again (modernisation), especially thinking on steel. Always just switching on the money printers only increases the mess and the height of the cliff that waits at the end - yours, and as a consequence that of the world markets as well.
And before you accuse me again of predicting doom and fall for America, I do that to some degree indeed, in that America after a century of rise now is in a century of fall/decline indeed - but not as a fast moving event like you seem to imply, taking place just any moment and within one year. America is in decline, no doubt. But this process will take 2-3 generations to finally end in the final phase. And while America is in decline, China is in rise. This is their century like the last one was yours and the one before was Britain's. What goes up, must come down, what must rise will fall. Nobody's an exception. Europeans, well many of us still need to learn this. The EU has marginalised itself on the world stage, and the desinterest of the US for Europe, and increasingly Israel, just shows that. You guys know damn well that your future challenge waits in the Pacific, not on the old continent anymore. I admit, that does not go down easy with many Eurocrats. But I am none of these. I accept the tired status of Europe on the world stage. Because I am realistic enough to see that we cannot help it. Europe has had its time.
The risk they accept to take is a risk that I never will tolerate. I also think that article is heavily self-suggestive and allows to get carried away by its own wishful thinking in the meaning of following its own flaws in order to come to the wanted conclusions. Not really an intellectual masterpiece.
Hmm, I didn't see things that way. And in fact, I admit I don't see what values you may be standing up for right now, nor why you're doing so. I mean, the American guy who's the author of that article may well have his mind free enough to discuss this matter in all honesty, while your way of thinking (well-justified most of the time, on most subjects) desperately looks pretty much like a subordinate one dictated or at least influenced by an external authority, on this very subject.
Are you going to blame Kenneth Waltz for putting everyone straight about the atomic power that is supposed not to be the special privilege of any country ?
And just for the record, Alex, I cannot help it that Die Welt, although being a major newspaper in Germany, has no English page. They tried that experiment, and abandoned it short time later again, probably too much work for too little reward. Of the major German newspapers and magazines, Der Spiegel is the only one with an daily English site where they translate some of their main articles. That's why most links to German newspapers in English that I sometimes post, relate to Der Spiegel essays, and no other newspapers. If that gives you a reason for wanting to be ironic, so be it. But understanding that humour I can not, I admit.
I didn't blame you nor Die Welt for not translating the article to English.
After all, the author of the article may be more familiar with the subject than I am, and I just like to get familiar with everyone's point of view, because I may well be wrong thinking the way I do. Since more than one of your posts has got to catch my attention until now and since you say this article is worth reading, I just would have appreciated to take a look at it, you know. Yet I do not agree with you all the time, I'd say your opinion is informed enough most of the time, and is well worth taking into consideration. I didn't want to sound ironic in any way. I certainly hope you feel better now.
Other than that, every regular journalist working for any newspaper being a lady of the night hired to say what needs to be said according to her pimp wearing the red white and blue hat (yet the red is fading more and more as time goes by), I just would have appreciated to grasp the subtle ins and outs of what you consider as the iranian problem actually when it comes to the nuclear power, being a German guy yourself, following your watching of the news for the past weeks and months.
And also, I would like to know what your decisive arguments are, when it comes to why the atomic supremacy is supposed to remain in the hands of one and only little country in the Middle-East, of which the existence is very debatable.
The objective of Iraq was to destroy the weapons of mass destruction of which, so said members of the administration before the war, they knew that Saddam had them and where they were.
The objective was to destroy their capacity and willingness to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Destroying any stockpiles we found would have been toward that aim but certainly not the driving motivation. The key was always eliminating Saddam as he was the driving force behind it.
The objectives mentioned for Afghanistan were to get Osama AND to pacify and bring democracy to Afghanistan. If it were only Osama, then I wonder why troops are still there and why there is so much activity done to maintain Bagram, and some other places there.Get Osama, dismantle his training camps and his network were the main objectives. Again that mission was accomplished in spades.
All that nation building crap was just a tertiary objectives foisted on our military by politicians trying to please everyone at the same time but they were certainly not the primary reasons for us to go over there or else we would have gone long before.
After all not every secondary objective in WW2 was achieved either but you can't call it a failure, well maybe you could but we certainly don't see it that way.
The objective of Iraq was to destroy the weapons of mass destruction of which, so said members of the administration before the war, they knew that Saddam had them and where they were.
The objective was to destroy their capacity and willingness to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Destroying any stockpiles we found would have been toward that aim but certainly not the driving motivation. The key was always eliminating Saddam as he was the driving force behind it.
The objectives mentioned for Afghanistan were to get Osama AND to pacify and bring democracy to Afghanistan. If it were only Osama, then I wonder why troops are still there and why there is so much activity done to maintain Bagram, and some other places there.
Get Osama, dismantle his training camps and his network were the main objectives. Again that mission was accomplished in spades.
All that nation building crap was just a tertiary objectives foisted on our military by politicians trying to please everyone at the same time but they were certainly not the primary reasons for us to go over there or else we would have gone long before.
After all not every secondary objective in WW2 was achieved either but you can't call it a failure, well maybe you could being from a country that most definitely lost the war, but we certainly don't see it that way.
Tribesman
11-06-12, 11:58 AM
wow, just wow. :doh:
Do you really honestly believe that nonsense you just wrote August?
http://socialmediainfluence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/head-scratch.jpg
^Are you already bold,after Netanyahus image :O:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.