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)

Quote:

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

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

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

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.

Not a history just a royal CF at desert one. A thrown together group that had never worked or trained together.

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.

*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.

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.

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.

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

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

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:

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.

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....

@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.

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.

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.

Path to War: A new American disaster ?
 

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?

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...

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.

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

Path to War: A new American disaster ?
 

Many questions, Sixpack...
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...

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.

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...

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...

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 think you are too pessimistic. Think about the sea and the dikes.
:D

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?

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?

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...