Path to War: A new American disaster ?

[Sixpack]

I dont know about this post, folks, but I just want to share.

Path to War refers to the HBO movie-documentary I just watched on dvd, about America getting itself kneedeep in **** in Vietnam and basically screwing itself up. It's also about the American people versus their administration. And in the end it's about 'retreat with honor' for which I further recommend the movie-documentary 'Nixon' with Brit Sir Anthony Hopkins as a memorable and credible 'retreat with honor' president Nixon.

To cut a long -very familiar to all- Vietnam story short, I dont think America should lead military sanctions against Iran.

(...)

I think I am doing you American guys a favor here. Just don't do it. Let someone else clean up the mess. Skip the crap for once. Don't be an eager beaver all the time.

And if there are no volunteers, the world's family of nations will have gained a new nuclear power, being Iran,

and God help us all....

But no bombs or American grunts are going to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, let alone make the desired peace with Iran complying to the UN-terms.

Again, save yourself the trouble and the trauma...

On this fine first Easter night (GMT/UTC+1), I bid you all goodnight :yep:

[Oberon]

The reaccuring theme I seem to see here is that 'Iran with nukes is bad' and 'America shouldn't attack Iran'.
Now I can't see how the two fit together...I agree, Iran with nukes is not going to be a good thing for its neighbours or (in the long term) the western nations, but I sincerely doubt that the EU waggling its finger at Tehran is going to do much.
Now, I'm not a person to advocate war, to be honest with you I'd prefer it if we didn't go in and stir up trouble...but...who else is going to? Like it or not we've got so far into this whole Midden Eastern mess that there is no easy way out, there is no chance of just saying 'Right, screw you guys I'm going home.", and I can't help but think that peace is something that's just not going to happen...no matter who you appease, and no matter who you bomb...there'll always be the religious zealots who declare death to the infidels...likewise there will always be those who retaliate in kind.
Religion is an extension of human nature, what you take from it depends on who you are and what you think. Use it for war or for peace.
However, two things I am sure on, now and forever...using nukes to stop nukes is crazy and hypocritical, and a ground war in Iran isn't going to be a pretty sight. What this leaves...I couldn't tell you...I don't work for the Pentagon... :damn:

[AleyArk]

To cut a long -very familiar to all- Vietnam story short, I dont think America should lead military sanctions against Iran.

(...)

I think I am doing you American guys a favor here. Just don't do it. Let someone else clean up the mess. Skip the crap for once. Don't be an eager beaver all the time.

And if there are no volunteers, the world's family of nations will have gained a new nuclear power, being Iran,

and God help us all....



OK, sounds good to me, with one provision: If the US is hit with a WMD, we get to retaliate against multiple targets in the ME, and all the capitals in Europe. I mean, by constantly restraining the US from defending itself, isn't Europe culpable? That way, if you guys are comfortable with an nuclear Iran knowing you will take a hit if we do, I guess we can live with it. :hulk:

[CCIP]

I think we all know that a ground war with Iran should be absolutely out of question. Don't even think of it.

But I think it's utter proposterous BS to say that - innocent lives and terrible collateral damage aside - that the Americans can't bomb anything into submission. Again, disregarding the costs and possible consequences for a second, there's nothing that the US can't bomb to smitherines :hmm:

At this point, I think it will and should come down to an air war with Iran. I'd like to see it conducted in the most calculated and "humane" way possible; you can't hope for much more, and we've much to fear from anything less!

(yep. Even the self-professed pacifist I am, I don't see a point in denying that this will probably have to happen.)

[Oberon]

Again, disregarding the costs and possible consequences for a second, there's nothing that the US can't bomb to smitherines :hmm:

Ooooh....do you think if I send a target list to the White House I can get my workplace blown up? It'd give me a lie-in tomorrow :D



At this point, I think it will and should come down to an air war with Iran. I'd like to see it conducted in the most calculated and "humane" way possible; you can't hope for much more, and we've much to fear from anything less!

Yeah, that's what I'm getting the feeling is gonna happen. I just hope they don't use the mini-nukes, AFBs is fair deals (nuke effects with less long term damage) but mini-nukes...not wise...not wise at all.

[CCIP]

Again, disregarding the costs and possible consequences for a second, there's nothing that the US can't bomb to smitherines :hmm:

Ooooh....do you think if I send a target list to the White House I can get my workplace blown up? It'd give me a lie-in tomorrow :D

Do you make WMDs for extremist wacknuts at work? :D

[Oberon]

Again, disregarding the costs and possible consequences for a second, there's nothing that the US can't bomb to smitherines :hmm:

Ooooh....do you think if I send a target list to the White House I can get my workplace blown up? It'd give me a lie-in tomorrow :D

Do you make WMDs for extremist wacknuts at work? :D

Well...the sausages look a bit dodgy some mornings...and some of our customers could definately be defined as wacknuts...so I think I'm in with a good chance! :up:

[Torplexed]

My fear is that if we do conduct a air campaign against Iran to shut down their nuclear program, then whatever assistance they are already rendering to the trouble-makers next door in Iraq and Afghanistan will quickly become a torrent. We're gonna have to be ready to conduct a major naval operation to keep the Straits of Hormuz open to tanker traffic as well.

[CCIP]

My fear is that if we do conduct a air campaign against Iran to shut down their nuclear program, then whatever assistance they are already rendering to the trouble-makers next door in Iraq and Afghanistan will quickly become a torrent. We're gonna have to be ready to conduct a major naval operation to keep the Straits of Hormuz open to tanker traffic as well.

Which is why, I think, the operation shouldn't be against only the nuclear program, but also generally aimed at their military infrastructure and key industry. It won't do anyone any good to take out their current WMD production capability without weakening Iran, both to make them not try anything like it in the future, and also make it less "interesting" for them to support ventures into Iraq or Afghanistan.

Obviously everything is going to come at a cost, but I think there's a real chance to keep a "clean" air war a-la Kosovo - I'm a BIG critic of that effort, but it's hard to deny that it was not a messy affair from the American perspective like Iraq is (some obvious cover-ups and excuses helped as well), and did not cause any real divisions in home politics.

I'm thinking that this'll depend on how unpopular Iran gets - if it gets irritating enough not to cause prolonged political damage at home in due time, then I bet this will be run towards the end of Bush's term sometime. There is a number of ways in which a "clean" war would help, even. :hmm:

[Sixpack]

I know we got a gung-ho bunch here but response so far surprises me, but okay....

@CCIP, my message was:

Sure, the US can blow stuff up big time. They are vey keen bombers :) So: Big deal, we all know that.

But this is not just about bombing places to smithereens. It's about achieving a real single result : Iran not getting nukes. 'Getting' as in future, and as you know that may be a very long time still...

This is not about good old fashioned conquest and occupation as in i.e. Roman or Hitler's times, thus physically controlling the hot zone.

So, and even more so than Vietnam, which after all got the crap bombed out of it in Rolling Thunder (my apologies to the Vietnamese readers if I sound disrespectful here; not intended), bombs will not break Iranian -read radical islamist- spirit. Furthermore, this will not remain an isolated Iran thing. Over time -probably soon- it will surely all backfire on the attacker.

I think the Euros will not go to war with Iran. You know how Europe is. And I'd be surprised to see America taking on Iran, never mind the tough talk as part of diplomacy and even the (already) longtime military planning of the Admin . I dont think the American people will have it.

[CCIP]

But this is not just about bombing places to smithereens. It's about achieving a real single result : Iran not getting nukes. 'Getting' as in future, and as you know that may be a very long time still...

Yes, but this single result as such is not neccesarily enough. Not that I (of all people :nope: ) want to see a big-time war over Iran, but the fact is - their nukes are really a very marginal threat to the US itself, but much more so to US interests and influence in the middle east. In fact it's not the nukes, it's Iran itself that's a threat. And an Iran without nukes - but with a tooth against the US for taking away their nukes - is probably more rather than less dangerous in that sense.

No matter how you cut it, a war against Iran's nukes is a war against Iran. The end result should be as much about the nukes going away as Iran (i.e., their strength as a serious regional power in the near future) going away. Otherwise, they won't be very happy even without their nukes, and I'd rank their potential of causing a serious mess in the middle east as very high if unchecked.

[Sixpack]

Either way Iran will remain a problem, with nukes and without nukes.

With nukes: Obvious, a player. Main question is though: is it likely Iran will use nukes as agressor ?

Without nukes: An eternal breeding ground for nothing-to-lose Allah-Akhbar terrorists, all aimed against you know who...

[CCIP]

True, but even Saudi Arabia very much fits the description of the latter - that's not something that America has the power to eradicate by any justifiable method. The key difference is that Saudi Arabia doesn't mind working with the US and behaves fairly passively as a middle-eastern power.

Unfortunately, living with conservative Islamic elements will be a fact of life for the world for a while yet. But there is a big difference between conservative Islamic elements (in their majority) sitting quietly and minding their own business in the desert and trading oil for various goods with the US, versus conservative Islamic elements flexing their military muscle at everyone around them.

And, hey, I don't see the US going to war against Saudi Arabia anytime soon - terrorists are terrorists, but it's higher-level cooperation or hostility otherwise that makes a difference :hmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

Okay, I will finally sound-off on the Iran issue here; away from the cage fighting found elsewhere.

Currenly, Iran claims 164 centerfuges. Not all of these systems are operable. To generate the amount of fissable material needed to produce a weapon, a much higher number of centerfuges are required.

With 3000, enough material for a weapon (low yield, mind you) could be produced in approximately 271 days.

With 54,000, the process is shortened to 21 days.

Iran with nuclear weapons is a problem, but we have time. One does not construct a nuclear centerfuge overnight. Calls for immediate action are unfounded. All they can currently do with their fissable material is turn turbines.

[CCIP]

Yea, I agree on that - but remember how easy it is to tell the largely-uninformed public things - I again distinctly recall the Kosovo conflict and the ridiculously-inaccurate presentations of excuses for various incidents of "wrong targets" being hit, with the public remaining largely non-vocal because they were given enough incomprehensible techy-detail and pictures of fuzzy screens that they couldn't possibly understand. :hmm:

Again, I would say that a war against Iran would mainly be a political undertaking; the fact that it can at some point make nukes and is putting itself in a rather stubborn position makes Iran a very easy target for labelling as a "WMD threat of the 1st category". Which it isn't neccesarily (certainly not more than Korea, which is much further along in that regard).

[Takeda Shingen]

Yea, I agree on that - but remember how easy it is to tell the largely-uninformed public things - I again distinctly recall the Kosovo conflict and the ridiculously-inaccurate presentations of how various incidents of "wrong targets" being hit were handled, with the public remaining largely non-vocal because they were given enough incomprehensible techy-detail and pictures of fuzzy screens that they couldn't possibly understand. :hmm:

Again, I would say that a war against Iran would mainly be a political undertaking; the fact that it can at some point make nukes and is putting itself in a rather stubborn position makes Iran a very easy target for labelling as a "WMD threat of the 1st category".

Yes, it is true that in this era of 'preemtive war', a nation does not even have to posses the convieved threat to illicit a response. There is no doubt that my country's government will use this to persue a military action, if not in the current administration, in the next.

What dismays me is that the United States is not directly threatened by a nuclear Iran. It is highly unlikely that the Iranian government would supply terrorists with material and/or weapons, as this is counter to it's current aims of being a major player on the world stage. Any such action would be suidical to that objective.

Iran also does not posses ICBM technology, and is incapable of striking the US homeland. Israel is the primary target of Iran. To this, I say that Israel has nukes, let them use them. I am weary of the Middle East. Besides, if Israel and Iran destroy each other, our troubles are solved.**

**Meant as 'tongue in cheek'. No solutions are ever this simple.

[bradclark1]

I think I am doing you American guys a favor here. Just don't do it. Let someone else clean up the mess. Skip the crap for once. Don't be an eager beaver all the time.

I wholeheartedly agree but I'll also say this. If America does not do it or lead it who will?
The U.K. citizens would raise holy hell. They will go jointly.
France? :rotfl:
Germany? Just wouldn't do it period. They might lend logistical support.
Spain? Nope. Might supply a token force but doubtful.
Russia? They will give intel and arms to the Iranians.
China? Nope.
Canada? They'll supply a token force but never lead.
Italy? Might supply a token force but I doubt it.

So who does that leave?

And just air won't do it. Some of the places will have to be taken out by troops on the ground.
Most of the world will look at the U.S. hip-deep in $hit in Iraq and just won't want to be involved fearing terrorist repercussion and then if Iran builds and uses a nuke everyone will blame the U.S. for not doing something about it. :doh:
So what do we do?

[CCIP]

And just air won't do it. Some of the places will have to be taken out by troops on the ground.

Special ops - sure, even if there's a bad history of American special ops in Iran, there's definitely a key role for them there. They could even do a big operation with a lot of Marines - and then leave once their targets are out.

I think we're talking more in terms of a full-scale operation "for keeps". It's out of question. The American military can handle it, but the cost of fighting a large-scale war against an organized enemy in the type of terrain you have in Iran will be terrible and not worth it. It's not the same as desert warfare; and it's certainly not going to work on a Blitzkrieg level. It would probably be an equivalent of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and we know how that ended up...

Europe - yeah, they won't do much. Who expects them to anymore? That said, they aren't particularly needed there.

[Sixpack]

I think I am doing you American guys a favor here. Just don't do it. Let someone else clean up the mess. Skip the crap for once. Don't be an eager beaver all the time.

I wholeheartedly agree but I'll also say this. If America does not do it or lead it who will?
The U.K. citizens would raise holy hell. They will go jointly.
France? :rotfl:
Germany? Just wouldn't do it period. They might lend logistical support.
Spain? Nope. Might supply a token force but doubtful.
Russia? They will give intel and arms to the Iranians.
China? Nope.
Canada? They'll supply a token force but never lead.
Italy? Might supply a token force but I doubt it.

So who does that leave?

And just air won't do it. Some of the places will have to be taken out by troops on the ground.
Most of the world will look at the U.S. hip-deep in $hit in Iraq and just won't want to be involved fearing terrorist repercussion and then if Iran builds and uses a nuke everyone will blame the U.S. for not doing something about it. :doh:
So what do we do?

To answer first question, as already stated in my first post: Let GOD decide ! For once and for own sake: USA, dont play God ;)

To last question: Maybe it's time to do simply nothing. Ever seriously wondered about that option. Maybe the world order is about to change. I am not saying I like it, but I dont see the USA forcing its power on anyone (because of interests CCIP referred to) like this 100 years longer. The USA can live lower profile but in peace in between the great oceans :lol: Europe is about to face the music tho'... as direct neighbour to Israel/ME)

[Sixpack]

Israel is the primary target of Iran. To this, I say that Israel has nukes, let them use them. I am weary of the Middle East. Besides, if Israel and Iran destroy each other, our troubles are solved.**

**Meant as 'tongue in cheek'. No solutions are ever this simple.

Bingo, this is the core issue. No wonder AL is so worked up all the time.

But in all fairness -I honestly HATE to say it- how much longer can and will the West cope with the Israel vs Islam-fascism ? I say we stand by Israel but damn, what a price we pay for that..... :-? :hmm: :stare: :doh:

[CCIP]

The do-nothing scenario:

-Iran gets nukes
-Iraq is left alone and goes into civil war for a while, probably emerging in some re-arranged form as a Shia state friendly with Iran.
-It's highly unlikely that there will be a nuclear war between Israel and Iran. It is likely that Israel will feel greater pressure from its neighbours, but that's also not likely to result in another major war. Main reason why I think so: Israel under pressure is not an Israel you want to be at war with, and any war with Israel will certainly cost Iran or anyone else a heavy price at questionable gain.
-It is possible that a nervous Israel would take matters into their own hands and try to take out Iran's nuclear capacity in time themselves. Which will spark a lot of fiery talk but, again, not likely an actual major war.
-It is likely that there will be an increasingly-conservative Islamic middle east, but only to an extent.
-It is unlikely that there will be any serious change to present patterns of trade between the west and middle east. They both benefit.

The result is an uncomfortable stalemate, but a stalemate nevertheless. As we know, noone wins in a stalemate, but noone loses either.

A realistic and reasonable outcome, sure, but it's not likely to inspire anyone's imagination. I don't think the American public is quite ready to accept such mediocrity :88)

[STEED]

Joseph Stalin
A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic

That's one way to sum up war. :yep:

[tycho102]

It's better that Iran develops it's nuclear weapons, now, rather than later. I say go for it.

[TteFAboB]

The US shouldn't get involved if anything other than Air-Strikes and non-nuclear weapons are needed.

The cost would be too high.

It's cheaper to rebuild Europe through another Marshall plan, meanwhile, Israel can be temporarily transfered to Iceland, we'll call it Iced-Israel, it's like Iced-Tea, but kosher.

The Cold War is gone and the 3 new threats to Democracy and Freedom cannot be defeated on a battlefield (they actually can, but the human and financial cost is absurd), so, let America go back in time before the Cold War and listen to Fuk-u-yama, that's how you pronounce it right? Juvenile jokes aside, it's time to sit quiet and wait for the call for help, isolationism at its finest, it's not that you don't want to intervene, you simply wait for them to come begging down your doorstep when they have no more options left.

Let the world decide, and learn the lesson. Then you won't have singleplayer interventions anymore.

[bradclark1]

Special ops - sure, even if there's a bad history of American special ops in Iran, there's definitely a key role for them there. They could even do a big operation with a lot of Marines - and then leave once their targets are out.
Not a history just a royal CF at desert one. A thrown together group that had never worked or trained together.


I think we're talking more in terms of a full-scale operation "for keeps". It's out of question.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. But I say it would be the biggest air assualt in history. Go in, totaly destroy everthing and pray you can evac fast enough. Air assault to perform blocking action and special ops to do the business. Course this is a hell of lot easier said then done.

[DeepSix]

*SIGH* You know, I don't like the idea of going to war with Iran, either, and I like the idea of pre-emptive wars by the U.S. even less. American tourists overseas can be arrogant and our foreign policy is sometimes heavy handed. But I will say this.

I've had it with people in countries overrun in World War II telling me how my country ought to do things. If the U.S. had sat that one out, think of all the trouble we could have saved ourselves. All the millions of sons, fathers, and brothers who might have gone on to cure cancer, find a way to unite the world in peace, end famine, or a hundred other worthwhile things. Assuming they'd have been free to do those things, of course, which I doubt.

Instead, we helped to save the nations who are now our loudest critics. You were mighty glad to have us save your bacon; now that it's about trying to make sure future generations still have a planet to live on, you sing a different tune.

I'm not saying U.S. foreign policy is always best or that I always agree with it; I'm just saying that current events are always part of a larger picture. There are some nations in the world today that would not hesitate to use WMDs - almost on a whim - against anybody, not just the U.S.

I'm not responding to any post in particular, here, because I hear stuff like this over and over, often from people whose countries are unwilling or unable to shoulder the load they want us to drop. Their complaints and their criticisms are not without merit, but while they condemn us for our leadership, which of them could do any better? Pray tell, which bastion nation of human rights will take action and lead by example if the U.S. doesn't? I'd be thrilled if France, Germany, Holland, and the rest could stop discussing and proposing and being officious long enough to actually implement a sound strategy for dealing with the very real threats North Korea, India, Pakistan, and the Middle East pose to the entire globe.

It's always easier to follow and complain about the leadership is than it is to lead yourself.

[scandium]

I've had it with people in countries overrun in World War II telling me how my country ought to do things. If the U.S. had sat that one out, think of all the trouble we could have saved ourselves. [snip]

Instead, we helped to save the nations who are now our loudest critics. You were mighty glad to have us save your bacon; now that it's about trying to make sure future generations still have a planet to live on, you sing a different tune.

The US has been criticized by countries who fought in WWII and were not "overrun". How would you silence those from Canada, for instance, who were critical of the Iraq invasion and would not participate in it, but who did fight in WWII from start to finish and were not "overrun" (and who I might add, joined in Sept '39 rather than first waiting until late '41 for Japan to attack them and having Germany declare war on them before joining to save everyone else's "bacon").

Not to dimish the US's contribution, which was at least as significant as the USSR's, but I'd imagine there are at least as many people who are sick of Americans throwing this red herring out whenever anyone dares to disagree with them.

[DeepSix]

...and who I might add, joined in Sept '39 rather than first waiting until late '41 for Japan to attack them and having Germany declare war on them before joining to save everyone else's "bacon").


So if we act first, we're heavy handed, but if we wait until we're attacked, we're what? Cowardly? Lazy?

You want the Canadians running the show? Fine, a curling contest sounds like a great way to settle things. Seriously, if the Canadians want to lead the world into utopia, fine. Ante up. Pay for it. Equip it. Defend it. We'll help. No, really.

[TteFAboB]

The US has been criticized by countries who fought in WWII and were not "overrun". How would you silence those from Canada, for instance, who were critical of the Iraq invasion and would not participate in it, but who did fight in WWII from start to finish and were not "overrun" (and who I might add, joined in Sept '39 rather than first waiting until late '41 for Japan to attack them and having Germany declare war on them before joining to save everyone else's "bacon").

Which was quite surprising, considering the extremely weak relations Canada had with the UK, the world never saw that one coming.

[scandium]

You want the Canadians running the show? Fine, a curling contest sounds like a great way to settle things. Seriously, if the Canadians want to lead the world into utopia, fine. Ante up. Pay for it. Equip it. Defend it. We'll help. No, really.

Is that what the US is doing by invading countries like Iraq, leading the world into Utopia?

[scandium]

The US has been criticized by countries who fought in WWII and were not "overrun". How would you silence those from Canada, for instance, who were critical of the Iraq invasion and would not participate in it, but who did fight in WWII from start to finish and were not "overrun" (and who I might add, joined in Sept '39 rather than first waiting until late '41 for Japan to attack them and having Germany declare war on them before joining to save everyone else's "bacon").

Which was quite surprising, considering the extremely weak relations Canada had with the UK, the world never saw that one coming.

Probably just as surprised as it was by the US's decision to "save everyone's bacon" after sitting on the sidelines for 2 years, being attacked by Japan, and finally having Germany declare war on her :roll:

[Sixpack]

Deep Six, [SIGH] you got my post all wrong.

I said I thought I did the USA a favor by advising to not lead military sanctions. Dont make the mistake to make it a new 'America's war', despite your major oil interests in that crappy region. It was a sincere advice. I dont want to see you guys wastedeep in **** again, trying to be a superhero saving the world while only adding to your Satan image in certain parts of this world of which you (too) are after all only a part of. Look at the world map, will ya ?

I also said the American people wont have it. Do you, Deep Six, represent the majority of the educated and well-informed American people ? I dont think so. Like other wars (Vietnam and current Afghanistan and Iraq) have shown the American people are lead by overly optimistic administrations who seem eager to live by WW2 era standards. But prove incompetent and 'anachronistic', as was clearly shown in HBO's 'Path to War', and also 'Nixon'. The eternal comparison with your golden age 1941-1945 is nonsense. These are different times. The world has changed dramatically.

And even if there would be a small majority in favor of big military action (the only way) now, the American people will undoubtedly get fed up probably sooner than later, just like with Iraq and Vietnam. I only ask you to be fair about your own people, which are not so different from Europeans.

So better get used to the new world, Deep six, or indeed you/USA will find yourself isolated and in effect powerless one day.

[DeepSix]

Is that what the US is doing by invading countries like Iraq, leading the world into Utopia?

As I said before, I don't want a war with Iran. I didn't like want a war with Iraq. And I don't like the idea of pre-emptive strikes by the U.S. And as I said before (or were you just reading certain parts?), I don't agree with everything my government does. But again, as I said before, if another country or group of countries has a better idea and the ability to implement it, let's hear it.

You keep saying the U.S. "waited" to be attacked by Germany and Japan and trying to throw that around as an insult, and yet at the same time you condemn the U.S. for not waiting now. I feel so enlightened....

[DeepSix]

@Sixpack. I thought I made it clear I was not referring to anyone's post in particular, including yours, and I'm not going to be drawn into a personal debate with you about my level of education and awareness.

But thanks so much for telling me what century it is.

[scandium]

Is that what the US is doing by invading countries like Iraq, leading the world into Utopia?

You keep saying the U.S. "waited" to be attacked by Germany and Japan and trying to throw that around as an insult, and yet at the same time you condemn the U.S. for not waiting now. I feel so enlightened....

I merely stated that fact as part of a rebuttal; if it insults you *shrug*. As to a comparison of Iran or Iraq to the WWII Axis, that is laughable and your point is a strawman.

[TteFAboB]

The US has been criticized by countries who fought in WWII and were not "overrun". How would you silence those from Canada, for instance, who were critical of the Iraq invasion and would not participate in it, but who did fight in WWII from start to finish and were not "overrun" (and who I might add, joined in Sept '39 rather than first waiting until late '41 for Japan to attack them and having Germany declare war on them before joining to save everyone else's "bacon").

Which was quite surprising, considering the extremely weak relations Canada had with the UK, the world never saw that one coming.

Probably just as surprised as it was by the US's decision to "save everyone's bacon" after sitting on the sidelines for 2 years, being attacked by Japan, and finally having Germany declare war on her :roll:

Indeed, I agree. If it wasn't for the Japanese attack, the USA may have never entered WW2. Quite impressive how the war spirit was raised rather quickly, and few dared to oppose the war. In the end, both Japan and Germany were defeated and most of Europe spared from Stalin's rule.

That's why I've said a few posts ago that the policy needs to return to the defensive, not because anyone wants a nuclear Iran to dominate the Middle East or has any sympathy for the worst Islamic regime in the globe, but because it's the necessary thing to do to defeat Iran, after sitting, perhaps, 2 years, maybe 3, in the sidelines.

There's alot of time. The USA certainly won't get involved untill after the elections, meanwhile it would be wise to start preparing. No White House jacko-whacko mini-nuke non-sense, let the Pentagon work alone, quietly, and in secret, so that when the time comes, the next American President will have to decide between answering international pressure - America has abandoned us! - saving European bacon once again (though those beasts are heavy metane polluters not worth saving at all, I mean the real pig, the animal, and I'm not talking about Tony Blair, Chirac or Berlusconi, I mean no offense to pigs), or go full isolationism and ignore whatever happens altogether.

It's either an Alliance or every man for himself, it's not worth it to save any bacon who farts in your face, if NATO is dead then it's best to give up on the Middle East and invest everything that would be spent on a singleplayer war against Iran on Fusion reactors, better Hydrogen sources and spreading Democracy and Freedom in their own backyard instead.

Support Israel in the sidelines, let Iran strike FIRST, let Europe and the ME defend themselves against Iran, this will:

1. Raise the oil price beyond imagination, boosting Fission, Fusion, Geothermical, etc. alternative energy sources.

2. If any damage went Europe's way, it would finally awaken the lost NATO leadership.

The cost is the usual war carnage.

What's the advantage of a pre-emptive strike against Iran again? It's a moral responsability that should be done as long as no mini-nukes are necessary and the chances of success are very high so that the human cost noted above can be avoided or minimized, otherwise it's every man for himself, it was the post-emptive strike that created popularity and support for pre-emptive strikes, time to reset the cycle.

[Abraham]

But this is not just about bombing places to smithereens. It's about achieving a real single result : Iran not getting nukes. 'Getting' as in future, and as you know that may be a very long time still...
I think it is about much more than keeping Iran quiet for an extended period..
It is about the world community taking treaties serious, especially the non-proliferation treaty.
It's about at least half a dozen other countries who are eager to get nukes.
It's about the billions spent by Western countries to remove nukes from former Soviet republics.
It's about nukes that will finally end up with every indecent Arab and African state, not to mention a number of terrorist organisations.
It's about saying "Hello World!" or "Goodbye World!"
And what then?

I bet many statesmen, self pronounced statesmen (to be) and terrorist leaders (to be) are watching carefullyhow this test case will unfold.
I hope America will show vision to do something about the problem, but will also show leadership to make sure any step is backed up by it's Allies, and by Russia and China, in the Security Council.
That's the only way to legitimise military action.
The U.S. has the military strenght. Does it have the diplomatic wisdom that is needed?

...
But in all fairness -I honestly HATE to say it- how much longer can and will the West cope with the Israel vs Islam-fascism ? I say we stand by Israel but damn, what a price we pay for that..... :-? :hmm: :stare: :doh:
You think we are paying a price for the Israeli/Arab conflict?
Bin Laden was attacking and planning to attack Western Countries without even mentioning that conflict. He called Israel "the little Satan" and America "the big Satan".
The removal of the State of Israel from the map of the world will certainly not stop Muslim extremists in their Jihad, on the contrary, I fear...

[Sixpack]

Abraham, sure it would be nice to exclude any newcomer from having total nuclear technology including the means to fabricate and maintain nuclear weapons BUT there is no sound miltary strategy to prevent it from happening, unless the West is prepared for endless battle. And I for one realize the Western civilians are not up to that task.

The West can not keep every newcomer down forever. They want their share on the world stage. If Israel has nukes to deter it enemies, why not Iran ? Isnt that fair ? Oh, ofcourse you say Iran will actually use the weapons. Well, what are we still talking about then ? We're already @war with Iran. Lets roll, Holland (too)! And I'm not talking 100 grunts and 4 vipers. No, bring a serious force this time. :roll:

But back to the issue of the spreading of nuclear technology. Within 50 years nuclear power will be what oil has been over the last century to this day and beyond. Everyone will want it and need it. Having it is power.

I suppose we could now hamper the process of spreading for a while, but just like the West has proven fundamentally powerless against the islamization of its cultures, it will eventually bow for the nuclear demands of Islamic nations. And if not legitimately the virus and technology will spread to so called 'rogue nations' anyway.

Btw, it seems Pakistan has been aiding American friend SA for years now ito nuclear missiles. Scroll down a week or 2 here.

Now, if the West would kick Iranian ass preemptively, they will really have a good reason to vow revenge on us. And I for one dont need the suicide bombers here. Nor do I believe Iran will threaten let alone strike Europe with nukes. Nor the USA, Canada, Australia, Russia, India etc...

And last but not least: Where is N-Korea in your vision ?

PS. Yes indeed: The Israel-Palestine confict is our weak spot. The alibi for those islamo-fascists over the last 40 years.

[DeepSix]

Is that what the US is doing by invading countries like Iraq, leading the world into Utopia?

You keep saying the U.S. "waited" to be attacked by Germany and Japan and trying to throw that around as an insult, and yet at the same time you condemn the U.S. for not waiting now. I feel so enlightened....

I merely stated that fact as part of a rebuttal; if it insults you *shrug*. As to a comparison of Iran or Iraq to the WWII Axis, that is laughable and your point is a strawman.

I said "trying" to insult, and you'll have to keep trying.

[Abraham]

Many questions, Sixpack...
Abraham, sure it would be nice to exclude any newcomer from having total nuclear technology including the means to fabricate and maintain nuclear weapons BUT there is no sound miltary strategy to prevent it from happening, unless the West is prepared for endless battle. And I for one realize the Western civilians are not up to that task.
A huge political treshold against nuclear weapons has been built up by international diplomacy. I for one are not going to let it erode, not now, not by Iran. Think of it like our defenses against the sea, we build them but we have to go on investing in them, knowing that there is still the chance of a breakthrough...

The West can not keep every newcomer down forever. They want their share on the world stage.
Really? South Africa under prime minister De Klerk gave up its nuclear weapons program. Lybia considered it in its best intrest to quit its program. Many nukes in the Ukraine and other former Soviet States have been deactivated... I don't know, but somehow you sound too pessimistic for me.

If Israel has nukes to deter it enemies, why not Iran ? Isnt that fair ?
Faireness is not relevant here. Would it be fair to give every country and every military dictatorship a couple of ICBM's and thus (almost) absolute power for nuclear blackmail...? Would that be a world we want to live in...?
And I feel I should defend Israels position here. First of all the country has for many years been surrounded by nations that have openly preached the destruction of Israel and all 'Zionists'. Some of these countries are still officially at war with Israel. History has taught that this threat was not empty, and the news of these days confirms that. Israel is not a member of an alliance that can savely hide under the umbrella of the U.S. nuclear guarantee.
Iran is in a very different position. Nobody threatens its political existence or the very life of the Iranian people.
Another - more legalistic - difference is that Israel did not sign (and then break) the non-proliferation treaty. Iran did...

Oh, ofcourse you say Iran will actually use the weapons. Well, what are we still talking about then ? We're already @war with Iran. Lets roll, Holland (too)! And I'm not talking 100 grunts and 4 vipers. No, bring a serious force this time. :roll:
We are not at war with Iran. We have a issue with the undemocraticly elected leadership of Iran about their nuclear policy. That issue may or may not be solved by peacefull means. If things get serious there may be a revolt against the - very unpopular - regime. Don't forget that the Iranian youth is very Western minded and wants some basic freedoms...

But back to the issue of the spreading of nuclear technology. Within 50 years nuclear power will be what oil has been over the last century to this day and beyond. Everyone will want it and need it. Having it is power.

Yes, but there is a fundamental difference between nuclear power (for peacefull means) which is available for all under inspection by the international community, and nuclear weapons programs...


I suppose we could now hamper the process of spreading for a while, but just like the West has proven fundamentally powerless against the islamization of its cultures, it will eventually bow for the nuclear demands of Islamic nations.
I think you are too pessimistic. Think about the sea and the dikes.
:D

Now, if the West would kick Iranian ass preemptively, they will really have a good reason to vow revenge on us. And I for one dont need the suicide bombers here. Nor do I believe Iran will threaten let alone strike Europe with nukes. Nor the USA, Canada, Australia, Russia, India etc...
Of course they won't strike Europe. No need to. Nuclear tipped ballistic missiles would give Iran an enormous perestige in the Arab world and political leverage on other nations as well. Furthermore it might galvanise a new Islamic revolution in Khomeini style and boost Muslim extremists all over the world to give the world Jihad a helping hand.
And could the world community afford the nuclear destruction of a member nation? Israel for instance?

And last but not least: Where is N-Korea in your vision ?
North Korea is what it is through a mistake of President Clinton. Iran watched the US policy at that time carefully, which may have brought us in this position.
Does that mean that President Bush has to repeat that mistake?

PS. Yes indeed: The Israel-Palestine confict is our weak spot. The alibi for those islamo-fascists over the last 40 years.
It is an alibi all right! Which means, not the real reason.
Which means if this alibi is removed (litterally), they'll come with another.
The cause of the matter is what counts...

[Sixpack]

Abraham, I think we do not agree on the practical aspects of the issue.

After all, your position implies total war (starting with attack; you can imagine what will follow), when diplomacy (soon definetely) fails. In my estimation the majority of western people will not support that war. Not to mention the 'islamic world'.

Also, a dragged out war is bad for my stocks. :lol:

[The Avon Lady]

First you say:
meanwhile, Israel can be temporarily transfered to Iceland, we'll call it Iced-Israel, it's like Iced-Tea, but kosher.
Then you say:
The Cold War is gone.
There's a blatant contradiction here. :P

[Sixpack]

PS Abraham:

I forgot:

I am optimistic.

You are being pessimistic here.

:lol:

[kholemann]

I heard the EU has a new standard, taken from France. The banner is completely white!

[Sixpack]

Beats a white flag with bloody stripes and stars which represent ....Hollywood ? :lol:

[kholemann]

Beats a white flag with bloody stripes and stars which represent ....Hollywood ? :lol:

If your talking about the flag of the U.S.A., them colors don't run! They also don't care what a bunch of pacifists have to say either.

[bradclark1]

Beats a white flag with bloody stripes and stars which represent ....Hollywood ? :lol:

If your talking about the flag of the U.S.A., them colors don't run! They also don't care what a bunch of pacifists have to say either.

Waiting for the firefight. :yep:

[Abraham]

Abraham, I think we do not agree on the practical aspects of the issue.
After all, your position implies total war (starting with attack; you can imagine what will follow), when diplomacy (soon definetely) fails. In my estimation the majority of western people will not support that war. Not to mention the 'islamic world'.
Perhaps we disagree on this issue, which is not a bad thing by itself.
It does not imply "total war". It just implies that your policy intrests at stake is so essential, that you are prepared to back diplomatic means up with sanctions and, eventually, military action.
Contrary to popular thinking, showing such resolution improves the chance for a diplomatic solution and lessens the chance of a military conflict.
If such a conflict would ever be necessairy, it would certainly not be a total war, not even a ground war, but a number of strikes to destroy essential nuclear facilities and part of the offensive capability of the Iranian military.
I hope in the aftermath the theocratic regime in Iran collapses.

Also, a dragged out war is bad for my stocks. :lol:That is really short term thinking...
:rotfl:

PS Abraham:
I forgot:
I am optimistic.
You are being pessimistic here.
:)
On this we certainly disagree!
:D

[Sixpack]

Abraham, we live in democracies, remember ?

First 'we' would have to rally a fat majority in favor of action, wouldnt you agree ? :know:

[Abraham]

Abraham, we live in democracies, remember ?

First 'we' would have to rally a fat majority in favor of action, wouldnt you agree ? :know:
War or military action is not a matter of a popular poll, but a decision by the government, checked by democratically chosen representatives of the people.

By the way, I think if you have a clear policy on this nonproliferation problem, that you could find a mayority in most western parliaments. Especially since the US, Britain, France and Germany have basically coordinated their policy.