Judging by recent events, it seems that Bush & co. might be planning an overthrow of Iran's government next, perhaps fairly soon. I have heard other reports saying there could be a limited airstrike on their suspected nuclear plant, or other sites in Iran. Whatever the case, it seems Iran is the next country that our illustrious president is planning on attacking.
If we're going to start taking out up-and-coming democracies, what's next? And, if not up-and-coming democracies, will North Korea soon be on the president's sights? And doesn't Iran hate al-Qaeda? Don't they preach different branches of Islam? And didn't Iran condemn the September 11 attacks? And what about Iraq? Where are those weapons of mass destruction? Shouldn't we finish there before going next door?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Iran will never be hit. Why? For 2 reasons:
1) We tried in 1979. Carter authorized it. Carter was a Democrat, & it failed horribly & miserably. Therefore, the Chosen of God (e.g., the Republican war machine) won't try to go where the opposition has fucked up before.
2) Iranians are not Arabs. Iranians are Persians. It's an entirely different mindset. They don't even speak Arabic; they speak Farsi, & there's only one Catherine Bell to go around. Sadly.
(NOTE: by "Republican war machine," I don't mean Republicans are warmongers. I mean the machine of the party itself, like the Democratic war machine.)
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Not "hit," in the sense of Iraq. I'm talking about "hit" in the sense of Clinton's 1998 cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan. And, eventually, the toppling of their government, Chile style. Though a ruthless dictator would probably not be put in place...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Fuck, man...'79 was just for HOSTAGE RESCUE. And that's set the precedent ever since.
No, Iran's been smart & played both sides of the street. We trained some of their guys 20, 25 years ago & they still remember.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
First off, I'm completely against any hostile action against Iran under the current circumstances.
quote:Originally posted by Shik: 1) We tried in 1979. Carter authorized it. Carter was a Democrat, & it failed horribly & miserably. Therefore, the Chosen of God (e.g., the Republican war machine) won't try to go where the opposition has fucked up before.
As you yourself said, that '79 thing was only for a hostage rescue, not a full-out anti-government operation. Unfortunately, people like Rumsfeld are probably thinking that their Mighty Republican Power is unstoppable. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought that it was a good idea to try the direct and undiplomatic route again...
quote:2) Iranians are not Arabs. Iranians are Persians. It's an entirely different mindset. They don't even speak Arabic; they speak Farsi, & there's only one Catherine Bell to go around. Sadly.
Yes, great shame. Despite my lack of confidence in the current administration, I assume that they're smart enough to realize the differences between Arabs and Iranians....
However, I'm pretty sure that Rumsfeld and the rest don't care at all. After the "wonderful" results from Iraq, they're probably getting awfully cocky, ready to conquer the rest of the world...
The sad thing is, I don't think there's any need to make changes in the current policy towards Iran at all... granted, reforms have been going forward slowly, but they *are* going forward. After seeing not one but TWO nations on their borders getting the full brunt of American firepower, I find it very hard to believe that they're still harboring al Qaeda. After all, we've figured that bin Laden himself is probably hiding out somewhere in western Pakistan... and Pakistan's hardly been the paragon of democracy in recent years. Hell, it's a goddamn military dictatorship right now! I haven't heard anyone seriously discussing any invasion of Pakistan. Have you?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Therefore, the Chosen of God (e.g., the Republican war machine) won't try to go where the opposition has fucked up before."
Or they'll do it to prove they're better than the opposition.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I once heard of three good rules to live by.
1: If your girlfriend/wife asks you if this dress makes her look fat, pretend you didn't hear it. If she asks again, swiftly answer no, without looking.
2: Never enter into a fight to the death against a sicilian (I'll just accept that at face value).
3: Never fight a land war in Asia.
This would be especially true of North Korea, it's mountainous ridges and forests making Afghanistan look like Kansas. Its army seems to be tailor-made for the country as well, not to mention more indoctrinated and definitely more disciplined than the Iraqis. I also heard somewhere that the Koreans are the original experts on guerilla-style tunnel-digging. They were the ones sent to Vietnam to help out the VC get their shit together.
And hey, if James Bond couldn't pull it off... Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: 3: Never fight a land war in Asia.
Iraq was in Asia last time I checked. Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"...That's what America is all about: the power to walk into small countries and tell them what to do!"
Posted by EvilTree (Member # 1027) on :
Middle East is some sort of aberration Asia. Screw desert.
There were also two Korean battalions fighting with the Yanks in Vietnam War, having the highest death to kill ratio in entire war.
I don't see why hit Iran now? The fundy cleric nutters still have much power yes, but looks like gradually reforms are coming through, unless this is some big Iranian sham.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by EvilTree: Middle East is some sort of aberration Asia. Screw desert.
There were also two Korean battalions fighting with the Yanks in Vietnam War, having the highest death to kill ratio in entire war.
Not to forget that the South Koreans who assisted the U.S. troops were deployed as tunnel rat's, as well as jungle fighters. I heard stories of those guys going into the jungle for a week w/very little in the way of food, but as much ammunition as they could carry. They kill off any VC they ran across and take their food - something the U.S. troops would never do. A lot of times, they'd come back w/excess food to share w/their buds back at the firebase. This, and I recall reading that this is how the "necklace of ears" stories started, as a lot of the ROK Marines (South Korean Marines) were highly disciplined, but also very Hard Core.
quote:I don't see why hit Iran now? The fundy cleric nutters still have much power yes, but looks like gradually reforms are coming through, unless this is some big Iranian sham.
Politically and militarily, it wouldn't be at all smart. For starters, we've got fewer troops in the Middle East than we did prior to the start of the Iraq campaign. Also, what has Iran actually done that we could use as a "logical" reason for starting to bomb or invade them?
Nothing.
Iran has been a bunch of Good Boys who, for the most part, are playing by the rules as the U.S. has stated them for the region. To act in any fashion towards Iran would be considered going over the line and we'd then have made France's case that we're too aggressive and only seeking to further U.S. World Supremacy. You know, that New World Order thing.
No, I don't see us "hitting" Iran in any fashion in the immediate future (1 - 2 years), if ever. As has already been mentioned, they're making slow progression in the areas of "Westernization" with their society. They're still pretty fundamentalist, but things are at least changing in the direction that the U.S. would like to see. And while it's conceivable that they're hiding Al Qaeda or Hussein Regime members, they're doing so Very Covertly and are keeping a tight reign on them. If they were to knowingly hide those individuals, they'd give the U.S. a very good reason to turn it's Giant Flaming Eye on them.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Putting aside any other questions of justification or wisdom, the best time to invade Iran would be before they finish building their alleged nuclear weapons.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
The deadline for North Korea has passed, then.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Absolutely. Though, that probably has more to do with the hundreds of artillery pieces aimed at downtown Seoul.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
A good reason not to invade NK, but what about all those missiles allegedly aimed at Kuwait and Israel with chemical/biological weapons? Oh, that's right, the threat from those was non-existent. Silly me!
We'll have to wait and see what comes out of tomorrow's meeting with agency leaders at the White House, if they release any information about what took place.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: As you yourself said, that '79 thing was only for a hostage rescue, not a full-out anti-government operation. Unfortunately, people like Rumsfeld are probably thinking that their Mighty Republican Power is unstoppable. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought that it was a good idea to try the direct and undiplomatic route again...
Just a point of clarifcation. Who was Carter's SecDef? The man who reinstituted the B-1B program....Donald Rumsfeld.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Putting aside any other questions of justification or wisdom, the best time to invade Iran would be before they finish building their alleged nuclear weapons.
Would these be the same kinds of nuclear weapons that we know Iraq was working on? If so, I'd suggest that the CIA guys start working on a way to counteract those cloaking devices before they start advocating an invasion of another country... Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Putting aside any other questions of justification or wisdom, the best time to invade Iran would be before they finish building their alleged nuclear weapons.
Wow. Hadn't heard all of this. Been a screwed up week or so for me and I've not been keeping up with the news as much as I usually try to. Interesting reading, tho I have my automatic filters set for anything coming from the BBC.
Thanks for posting that, "Sol System". Appreciate the education on the latest.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Constructive engagement would take patience and diplomacy and offer no guarantee of speedy change. Does that sound like the preferred approach of the Bush administration?
Now that says it all.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It is unlikely that anything done in Iran will be done overtly and in force. More likely, it will be done politically, and quietly. Reform is to be hastened, that much is certain.
Of greater interest at the moment are the recent changes in the Israel / Palestinian situation, re: the votes and acceptance of the Road Map. Sharon, so often labeled 'warmonger' by certain unfriendlies, has been the one facing down his own party, urging their government to accept the road map. The Palestinian Cabinet has already approved it, nominally, at least. Hmm.
quote:Of greater interest at the moment are the recent changes in the Israel / Palestinian situation, re: the votes and acceptance of the Road Map. Sharon, so often labeled 'warmonger' by certain unfriendlies, has been the one facing down his own party, urging their government to accept the road map. The Palestinian Cabinet has already approved it, nominally, at least. Hmm.
I find it a choice irony that three years ago, Ehud Barak -- a man earlier known as a conservative, borderline hard-liner (with military experience in Lebanon, IIRC) was in the exact same position, trying to force the unpleasant necessity of compromise onto the rest of his party. I believe that Ariel Sharon campaigned on the platform of Barak being too willing to compromise -- or probably for compromising at all. And now he's doing the same thing.
I'd like to think that more people are finally starting to wise up over there, but that's what we all thought ten years ago after the Oslo Accords were signed. You all know the rest of that story...
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
It's ALSO quite likely China & Russia don't exactly relish the prospect of those new tactical nukes going off in their backyard.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: I'd like to think that more people are finally starting to wise up over there, but that's what we all thought ten years ago after the Oslo Accords were signed. You all know the rest of that story...
It's all in the follow-through. Nobody made anybody stick to Oslo. But now, with a significant force nearby, some folks are wising up to the idea that a new treaty just might be enforceable this time.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
What value does unilaterally enforced "peace" have? The underlying hatred isn't going to magically vanish into thin air when there are AMERICAN tanks rolling through the damn area.
[ May 27, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: At the same time, Congress is likely to press for removal of the People's Mujahedeen, a group within the umbrella Iranian resistance council, from the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. Mr. Safavi, the Iranian opposition official, says a growing roster of members of Congress wants a policy that supports anti-regime forces. He predicts pressure will end up swaying the administration to adopt a policy that uses "all means available" to resist the mullahs.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: What value does unilaterally enforced "peace" have?
Ask a parent of a two-child home.
An "enforced" peace is likely to be the only kind you'll ever see in the Middle East.. at least, until it's been enforced long enough for inertia to take over.
To be honest, what I'd like to see is a perfect, yet totally unsatisfactory (to both parties)solution... the same solution my father used to propose to my brother and me when we squabbled late into the night: Accept an imposed peace, NOW, or face Destruction of both parties, regardless of farcical claims over who started it. Grumble all you want, but do it QUIETLY. The first one who acts up gets crushed.
Ideally, this threat would be backed up by an overwhelming outside military presence (Here's where the real difficulty lies -- finding a group not biased towards either the side of Israel (Like the US may be) or the Palestinians (Like much of Europe, and the UN) Maybe a joint two-power force (US-Russia?), where at least the two powers have equal say - anything they agree on gets done, hard and fast. I'm not talking about one of those piddling little 500-member "peacekeeping" forces, though. I'm talking about a group of soldiers able to project FORCE enough to keep both sides under control.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Accept an imposed peace, NOW, or face Destruction of both parties...
And it's that sort of sweet talk that makes the world swoon when the US asks it to the prom.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
and the UK is usually our date....
As we whisper our sweet nothings in your ear...
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Thats not a bad idea First. Create a plan that is fair (I must stipulate that it be a plan that gets some form of overall UN approval) -even if they (israel & palestine) don't like it- then simply enforce it. I'd actually support US & Russian military action in that case.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: and the UK is usually our date....
As we whisper our sweet nothings in your ear...
Not for much longer, with the rate Blair is cutting our forces...
quote: The underlying hatred isn't going to magically vanish into thin air when there are AMERICAN tanks rolling through the damn area.
No, but at least then they'll be concentrating on killing the Americans rather than each other.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Accept an imposed peace, NOW, or face Destruction of both parties...
And it's that sort of sweet talk that makes the world swoon when the US asks it to the prom.
Wallflower. Just because you can't dance...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I would bet real money that I can strut my stuff far more funkily than you, sir.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Cheeky monkey.
Just carrying on the metaphor.
In the real world, you're probably right. I move like Al Gore bred with Frankenstein.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)