The Iran War

Malor wrote:
The thing is, we are not the same country we were when that went down with Iraq. If we were, we'd have troops in Syria and Libya and maybe even Egypt by now. We certainly wouldn't have had the restraint to hold our intervention back to an air war, and even that in just one of them.

I disagree with every sentence in that paragraph. To all visible evidence, Obama is being run by the exact same security apparatus; his foreign policy appears managed by his subordinates, rather than vice versa. I'm almost sure that he simply believes what the people around him tell him, and hasn't figured out that their entire worldview was shaped by Bush and is toxic to democracy and freedom.

Even under Bush, we wouldn't have troops in those places. The military is simply stretched too thin, and there's little benefit to us in interfering.

You say that like there was an actual consideration of strategy under Bush. I don't think that would have stopped them.

Not talking as a support to being offensive, talking about keeping other people from interfering with your offensive plans by, say, invading you/bombing you back to the stone age.

Absolutely not. Iran having nukes does not stop us from bombing them. Iran can choose to strike back with nuclear weapons, but if it does so, it will cease to exist. And it's very unlikely that any air war we'd conduct would ever push them to the point that they felt there was nothing left to lose.

Nuclear weapons are useless on offense. They just don't do anything for you. In a world bristling with many thousands of nuclear warheads, they are as purely a defensive weapon as has ever existed.

The only reason they've ever been used offensively is because we were first, and didn't need to fear retaliation.

I'm not sure we'd be ready to take that risk. And I think Iran knows it. Because I think they know that we question what their definition of "nothing left to lose" is.

Nomad wrote:

Don't get me wrong, the US is not the pristine paragon of justice and righteousness that some people would like to think, but lets not compare a few isolated incidences from the US to a coordinated and widespread pattern of behavior in Iran.

I am not arguing that we should go to war, I am contesting your opinion(OG) that Iran doesn't deserve the scrutiny that it is currently receiving.

A few isolated incidents?

One of our two political parties has essentially the same view on homosexuals as Iran: they're an abomination and anyone who is gay is sub-human. If you want to talk about persecution of religious minorities, try building a mosque in this country. Or talk to the NYPD about their program of spying on Muslims. Or the FBI's failed programs to entrap "radical" Muslims by planting agents at mosques. And if you want to talk about persecution of minorities, you should simply look at how many blacks are in prison (also, remember to note that the land of the free locks up more people than any other country).

I asked for solid reasons why the world should look at Iran as a threat and examples of why we should be beating the drum of war (and make no excuse, that's what we're doing here...looking for reasons to somehow justify an attack on Iran), but none of the points you raised come close to that level. Hell, the US is either just as guilty, or far guiltier on those same points.

So I'll ask it again: what is this terrible threat that Iran represents?

CheezePavilion wrote:

It's their support for for Hezbollah by way of Syria, isn't it? Which leads--rightly or wrongly--to Israel acting the way it does in the region. Iran may not be the embodiment of all evil, but it's not exactly a choir boy here, either. They're certainly part of the reason for the mess.

Oh, you mean like our support of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan? Our selling arms to Nicaraguan Contras? And every proxy war we waged with the Soviets during the Cold War?

I'm mean we f*cking *know* that Pakistan created and is still supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan and yet no one is clamoring that we invade them. I wonder why that is...

CheezePavilion wrote:

There's also the question of whether Iran is developing a nuclear weapon *precisely* in order to become a threat in the region. Nuclear weapons *are* a good way to get people to stop picking on you. They're also a really good way to get people to leave you alone when you pick on someone else.

Oh, come on Cheeze. We've spent the past decade occupying the two countries on either side of Iran (after overthrowing their governments) and now you're going to claim that they're developing nukes so they can replace us as the bully of the Middle East?

Iran hasn't attacked anyone in like a thousand years. They've maintained that even after the Revolution. They've only been invaded (ironically by a country who we actively supported with arms and intelligence...Iraq).

Claims that Iran is just waiting to take over the region smack of crazy conspiracy theorists and paranoid dreams of ultra-conservatives. Sadly, they all boil down to some variation of the mythical single Caliph for the entire Muslim world.

Malor wrote:

Oh, they sure are. They're a nasty place. There were super-nasty crackdowns after the people protested an obviously rigged election a couple years ago, and a lot of people died.

The reports I've seen have put the body count at around 100 and with perhaps 500 people still in jail (after thousands were let go). Tragic, yes. But not invasion worthy by any stretch, especially considering what's going down in Syria.

I'm not trying to whitewash Iran's actions, but I'm also not going to play the "let's dig around until we find some terrible event we can use to justify going to war" because that's what is seems like everyone's doing.

Malor wrote:

It's easy to get into the mindset that Iran is the good guys, because we're being such obviously aggressive evil assholes in going after them. They aren't. They're a totalitarian religious state, one of the nastier countries in the world.

I never said that Iran is the good guys. I'm just tired of any country whose national interests are different than the ours getting painted as the embodiment of evil and worthy only of destruction.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

It's their support for for Hezbollah by way of Syria, isn't it? Which leads--rightly or wrongly--to Israel acting the way it does in the region. Iran may not be the embodiment of all evil, but it's not exactly a choir boy here, either. They're certainly part of the reason for the mess.

Oh, you mean like our support of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan? Our selling arms to Nicaraguan Contras? And every proxy war we waged with the Soviets during the Cold War?

Yes. I don't know what your point here is, but yes.

I'm mean we f*cking *know* that Pakistan created and is still supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan and yet no one is clamoring that we invade them. I wonder why that is...

Same reason we didn't launch a full-scale invasion of Cambodia even though we knew the NVA was fighting the Vietnam War from there?

I also think Pakistan is a special case: Pakistan is part of a matched pair with India. India had nuclear weapons--Pakistan did not. Not a good scenario given their history. Now, give them both nuclear weapons and you've got a MAD situation like us and the Soviets. 99% of the time nuclear proliferation is bad, but Pakistan may be the one case where it made the world more stable.

Iran hasn't attacked anyone in like a thousand years.

First off, I don't give much credence to that "a thousand years" talk. For a thousand years Scandinavian countries were warriors, from Vikings to Gustavus Adolphus. France were the Gauls who sacked Rome to the Grand Armee under Napoleon that marched to Moscow before it met its match, more environmental than military. Now the Scandinavians only get excited about wind power and gender equity in the workplace, while the French turned into cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

Second, invasion isn't the only way to attack someone. Like you pointed out our proxy wars with the Soviets? Iran is fighting a proxy war with Israel using Syria/Lebanon--Hezbollah, Contras, what's the real difference for our purposes here? It's even a question whether Iran has played a part in the violence in Darfur. Don't lose sight of the geopolitics here. Iran is very useful to Russia and China.

Claims that Iran is just waiting to take over the region smack of crazy conspiracy theorists and paranoid dreams of ultra-conservatives. Sadly, they all boil down to some variation of the mythical single Caliph for the entire Muslim world.

No, they don't. They can be, sure. But there's another explanation, one that is far more mundane and is cynical more than paranoid: counties look to expand their influence, especially in their region. I don't see how that's such a controversial idea. Take over? No--I agree, Iran isn't going to invade anyone. Expand influence? Yes. That has nothing to do with religion or some idea of a restored Caliphate. It has to do with two very simple, eternal things when it comes to the behavior of countries: money and power.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Yes. I don't know what your point here is, but yes.

The hypocrisy of our position. We are guilty of effectively being state sponsors of terrorism multiple times time over, but it's somehow OK when we do it. When Iran does it, it's a solid reason justify attacking/invading them.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I also think Pakistan is a special case: Pakistan is part of a matched pair with India. India had nuclear weapons--Pakistan did not. Not a good scenario given their history. Now, give them both nuclear weapons and you've got a MAD situation like us and the Soviets. 99% of the time nuclear proliferation is bad, but Pakistan may be the one case where it made the world more stable.

It's not a special case. Both Israel and the US have nukes and both countries have singled out Iran, a country currently without nuclear weapons. Give them nukes and we have a MAD situation that will cause everyone to stop the saber-rattling because of the higher stakes involved.

CheezePavilion wrote:

First off, I don't give much credence to that "a thousand years" talk. For a thousand years Scandinavian countries were warriors, from Vikings to Gustavus Adolphus. France were the Gauls who sacked Rome to the Grand Armee under Napoleon that marched to Moscow before it met its match, more environmental than military. Now the Scandinavians only get excited about wind power and gender equity in the workplace, while the French turned into cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

Second, invasion isn't the only way to attack someone. Like you pointed out our proxy wars with the Soviets? Iran is fighting a proxy war with Israel using Syria/Lebanon--Hezbollah, Contras, what's the real difference for our purposes here? It's even a question whether Iran has played a part in the violence in Darfur. Don't lose sight of the geopolitics here. Iran is very useful to Russia and China.

You make a fair point about the "thousand years" thing. I was merely trying to point out that Iran hasn't been an aggressor for an exceptionally long time and yet some people act like they're ready to invade the rest of the Middle East at a moments notice (and then use that as a justification for attacking them).

I agree with you that Iran is fighting a proxy war, but, again, that fact doesn't justify our threats to make it a hot war. We've done much worse and we didn't have the rest of the world slapping us with economic sanctions and calling for the overthrow of our government.

I haven't lost sight of the geopolitics. Remember the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary? We told Europe to get the f*ck out of our backyard (North and South America) or they'd have hell to pay. Now we're Spain mucking around in Iran's version of Cuba.

Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan is Iran's backyard and we should be mindful of that. They have millenia of history in the area and religious and cultural ties that far outstrip of our desire to get cheap oil, spread "democracy," or play knight in shining armor for Israel.

CheezePavilion wrote:

No, they don't. They can be, sure. But there's another explanation, one that is far more mundane and is cynical more than paranoid: counties look to expand their influence, especially in their region. I don't see how that's such a controversial idea. Take over? No--I agree, Iran isn't going to invade anyone. Expand influence? Yes. That has nothing to do with religion or some idea of a restored Caliphate. It has to do with two very simple, eternal things when it comes to the behavior of countries: money and power.

That Iran wants to expand their influence isn't exactly a casus belli. Again, it's their backyard, not ours. It's ridiculously naive for us to believe that they wouldn't want to have influence to things happening right next to them, especially when those things involve regime change, hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities, forced migration of millions of people, and years of violence and chaos.

We're the ones who ratcheted up pressure in the Middle East. We're the ones who drove a big ass wedge between Sunni and Shia and turned a philosophical disagreement into a justification for sectarian violence that really should have been classified as ethic cleansing.

If there's anyone who's a threat to the Middle East, it's us. Which is why I'm all for Iran developing nukes. It will make it much more difficult for us to cook up some trumped up charges and use them as an excuse to attack or invade another country. We need MAD in the Middle East.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Yes. I don't know what your point here is, but yes.

The hypocrisy of our position. We are guilty of effectively being state sponsors of terrorism multiple times time over, but it's somehow OK when we do it. When Iran does it, it's a solid reason justify attacking/invading them.

Okay. I still don't see the point.

OG_slinger wrote:

It's not a special case. Both Israel and the US have nukes and both countries have singled out Iran, a country currently without nuclear weapons. Give them nukes and we have a MAD situation that will cause everyone to stop the saber-rattling because of the higher stakes involved.

No, because Iran could never get into the kind of war with Israel/the US that Pakistan could with India. I'm not talking about saber-rattling here, I'm talking about nuclear war.

OG_slinger wrote:

I agree with you that Iran is fighting a proxy war, but, again, that fact doesn't justify our threats to make it a hot war. We've done much worse and we didn't have the rest of the world slapping us with economic sanctions and calling for the overthrow of our government.

Maybe we have and maybe we haven't--that's not relevant to my point that a nuclear weapon will give them greater leeway in conducting proxy wars.

OG_slinger wrote:

I haven't lost sight of the geopolitics. Remember the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary? We told Europe to get the f*ck out of our backyard (North and South America) or they'd have hell to pay. Now we're Spain mucking around in Iran's version of Cuba.

Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan is Iran's backyard and we should be mindful of that. They have millenia of history in the area and religious and cultural ties that far outstrip of our desire to get cheap oil, spread "democracy," or play knight in shining armor for Israel.

Considering what we did with our sphere of influence in the western hemisphere, I'm not so sure that's a great argument.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

No, they don't. They can be, sure. But there's another explanation, one that is far more mundane and is cynical more than paranoid: counties look to expand their influence, especially in their region. I don't see how that's such a controversial idea. Take over? No--I agree, Iran isn't going to invade anyone. Expand influence? Yes. That has nothing to do with religion or some idea of a restored Caliphate. It has to do with two very simple, eternal things when it comes to the behavior of countries: money and power.

That Iran wants to expand their influence isn't exactly a casus belli.

Maybe, maybe not, but that's not relevant to my point: developing a nuclear weapon isn't just about making themselves less of a target for invasion. It's also about getting people to leave them alone when they pick on someone else.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Okay. I still don't see the point.

That's too bad.

CheezePavilion wrote:

No, because Iran could never get into the kind of war with Israel/the US that Pakistan could with India. I'm not talking about saber-rattling here, I'm talking about nuclear war.

You're actually making my point. Pakistan and India have actually had several shooting wars and numerous border skirmishes (and active proxy wars) over the years and yet both countries stepped back quite a bit once Pakistan developed nukes. Why? The stakes of letting disagreements escalate militarily went up dramatically.

Do you think Israel would be nonchalantly talking about launching an alpha strike against Iran if there was a chance that seven minutes later Tel Aviv would be a cloud of radioactive dust?

CheezePavilion wrote:

Maybe we have and maybe we haven't--that's not relevant to my point that a nuclear weapon will give them greater leeway in conducting proxy wars.

And that's purely speculation on your part. Which means you're kinda supporting military intervention because maybe, someday, Iran might do something.

If we're so concerned about Iran's proxy wars in the region, perhaps we should move to de-escalate things by getting the f*ck out of the region entirely and telling Israel they're on their own.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Considering what we did with our sphere of influence in the western hemisphere, I'm not so sure that's a great argument.

It's wasn't an argument. It was simply an explanation of why Iran feels justified having a say in things happening right next door to them. They have far more skin in the game about what goes down in the region than we do and it's simply naive for us to think that they don't.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Maybe, maybe not, but that's not relevant to my point: developing a nuclear weapon isn't just about making themselves less of a target for invasion. It's also about getting people to leave them alone when they pick on someone else.

Again, Iran using a nuke to help them be aggressors is pure speculation on your part. I would actually posit that (outside America) no country has developed nuclear weapons for aggressive reasons. They've developed nuclear weapons for defensive reasons. I mean why does Israel have nukes?

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Okay. I still don't see the point.

That's too bad.

Why? It's of no relevance to this discussion that I can see.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

No, because Iran could never get into the kind of war with Israel/the US that Pakistan could with India. I'm not talking about saber-rattling here, I'm talking about nuclear war.

You're actually making my point. Pakistan and India have actually had several shooting wars and numerous border skirmishes (and active proxy wars) over the years and yet both countries stepped back quite a bit once Pakistan developed nukes. Why? The stakes of letting disagreements escalate militarily went up dramatically.

Do you think Israel would be nonchalantly talking about launching an alpha strike against Iran if there was a chance that seven minutes later Tel Aviv would be a cloud of radioactive dust?

You're missing my point: I'm talking about keeping a country with nuclear arms from ever getting to the point of thinking it was on the verge of losing everything. If Iran does not have arms, who cares what Israel threatens it with? You can't use something you don't have.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Maybe we have and maybe we haven't--that's not relevant to my point that a nuclear weapon will give them greater leeway in conducting proxy wars.

And that's purely speculation on your part.

You're contradicting yourself here: you can't say in one line of your argument that countries won't talk nonchalantly about launching an alpha strike against a country with nuclear weapons, and then in another line tell me it's purely speculation that it won't give them greater leeway in conduction proxy wars. You think it's purely speculation that if a country has the threat of an alpha strike against it removed, that doesn't give it greater leeway to conduct proxy wars?

OG_slinger wrote:

Which means you're kinda supporting military intervention because maybe, someday, Iran might do something.

No, I'm not. I'm saying they don't have a great track record (for sure, in past days), and that Iran wouldn't be developing a nuclear weapon purely for isolationist purposes. Whether that means military intervention is warranted is another matter.

OG_slinger wrote:

If we're so concerned about Iran's proxy wars in the region, perhaps we should move to de-escalate things by getting the f*ck out of the region entirely and telling Israel they're on their own.

Actually, I think we *are* the stabilizing force. I think an Israel feeling it had no allies it neither can depend on nor has to answer to for its actions would only escalate the problems in that region.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Considering what we did with our sphere of influence in the western hemisphere, I'm not so sure that's a great argument.

It's wasn't an argument. It was simply an explanation of why Iran feels justified having a say in things happening right next door to them. They have far more skin in the game about what goes down in the region than we do and it's simply naive for us to think that they don't.

Do they really have more skin in the game? We use a lot of oil--the middle east is where there is...a lot of oil. We've got plenty of skin in the game about what goes down in the middle east. Until we switch over to electric cars, we're involved in that region, just like China is as it begins to transform.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Maybe, maybe not, but that's not relevant to my point: developing a nuclear weapon isn't just about making themselves less of a target for invasion. It's also about getting people to leave them alone when they pick on someone else.

Again, Iran using a nuke to help them be aggressors is pure speculation on your part. I would actually posit that (outside America) no country has developed nuclear weapons for aggressive reasons. They've developed nuclear weapons for defensive reasons. I mean why does Israel have nukes?

If your purpose is to defend yourself from the consequence of your aggressive actions, that's developing a nuke to help you be an aggressor.

Why? It's of no relevance to this discussion that I can see.

It's called double standards, Cheeze.

Malor wrote:
Why? It's of no relevance to this discussion that I can see.

It's called double standards, Cheeze.

I know what it's called, I just don't see the relevance to a discussion of Iran's track record or whether this is some purely defensive move.

It means it's hypocritical for us to use those stated behaviors as justification for war, when we routinely engage in the same exact behaviors.

Should we be going to war with ourselves?

Malor wrote:

It means it's hypocritical for us to use those stated behaviors as justification for war, when we routinely engage in the same exact behaviors.

Should we be going to war with ourselves?

Maybe, maybe not: but I'm not talking about whether we should go to war or not and on what basis or not.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Why? It's of no relevance to this discussion that I can see.

Said the man obsessed with proxy wars.

CheezePavilion wrote:

You're missing my point: I'm talking about keeping a country with nuclear arms from ever getting to the point of thinking it was on the verge of losing everything. If Iran does not have arms, who cares what Israel threatens it with? You can't use something you don't have.

And you're missing the entire point of nuclear proliferation: as long as one country has nukes another country is going to feel threatened by that and they will work to quickly develop said weapons.

And I'm fairly confident that Iranians actually care that Israel is actively threatening them (and not with a proxy war, but with a good old fashioned shooty war).

CheezePavilion wrote:

You're contradicting yourself here: you can't say in one line of your argument that countries won't talk nonchalantly about launching an alpha strike against a country with nuclear weapons, and then in another line tell me it's purely speculation that it won't give them greater leeway in conduction proxy wars. You think it's purely speculation that if a country has the threat of an alpha strike against it removed, that doesn't give it greater leeway to conduct proxy wars?

What are you talking about?

Israel has directly threatened Iran with a significant conventional attack involving hundreds of Israeli aircraft. There's no proxy involved: it's purely the nation of Israel stating their intent to bomb the sh*t out of the nation of Iran, not Israel secretly sending dissident groups inside Iran a pittance of support.

If Iran had nuclear weapons like Israel did, Israel would never be so cocky to make a statement remotely like that for fear that things would escalate very quickly to a place no one really wants to visit again.

All your statement shows is that a nuclear-armed Israel feels confident enough to threaten non-nuclear armed Iran. So, in a way you've proven that the state of Israel is using their nuclear arsenal to be more aggressive (that and the US's sad behavior of blindly supporting Israel in everything it does).

CheezePavilion wrote:

No, I'm not. I'm saying they don't have a great track record (for sure, in past days), and that Iran wouldn't be developing a nuclear weapon purely for isolationist purposes. Whether that means military intervention is warranted is another matter.

Again, pure freakin' speculation, Cheeze. You are assuming that Iran is developing nuclear weapons (if they actually are) and that they will use them for aggressive purposes (or as a threat to shield other aggressive behavior).

CheezePavilion wrote:

Actually, I think we *are* the stabilizing force. I think an Israel feeling it had no allies it neither can depend on nor has to answer to for its actions would only escalate the problems in that region.

Wha? That's one heck of a whitewash of the past decade, Cheeze.

Israel is a tiny nation with a tiny population and they know it. They rely on the collective guilt of the world to exist. Once they become the blatant aggressor, public opinion shifts and, before you know it, they'd be so isolated from the rest of the world that apartheid-era South Africa would look like a banging block party. And then they'd have to deal with the fact there's only six million Jews and some 325 million Arabs (and some billion plus Muslims).

CheezePavilion wrote:

Do they really have more skin in the game? We use a lot of oil--the middle east is where there is...a lot of oil. We've got plenty of skin in the game about what goes down in the middle east. Until we switch over to electric cars, we're involved in that region, just like China is as it begins to transform.

Yes, they have more skin in the game by any objective measure. It's where they *live* FFS.

CheezePavilion wrote:

If your purpose is to defend yourself from the consequence of your aggressive actions, that's developing a nuke to help you be an aggressor.

Again, pure speculation on your part.

OG_slinger wrote:

And I'm fairly confident that Iranians actually care that Israel is actively threatening them (and not with a proxy war, but with a good old fashioned shooty war).

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

No, I'm not. I'm saying they don't have a great track record (for sure, in past days), and that Iran wouldn't be developing a nuclear weapon purely for isolationist purposes. Whether that means military intervention is warranted is another matter.

Again, pure freakin' speculation, Cheeze. You are assuming that Iran is developing nuclear weapons (if they actually are) and that they will use them for aggressive purposes (or as a threat to shield other aggressive behavior).

For their proxy war. See the circle here? Iran claims it needs a nuclear weapon to prevent the shooty war by Israel brought on by their proxy war. That's speculation?

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

You're contradicting yourself here: you can't say in one line of your argument that countries won't talk nonchalantly about launching an alpha strike against a country with nuclear weapons, and then in another line tell me it's purely speculation that it won't give them greater leeway in conduction proxy wars. You think it's purely speculation that if a country has the threat of an alpha strike against it removed, that doesn't give it greater leeway to conduct proxy wars?

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about what a nuclear weapon would mean for Iran's behavior.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Actually, I think we *are* the stabilizing force. I think an Israel feeling it had no allies it neither can depend on nor has to answer to for its actions would only escalate the problems in that region.

Wha? That's one heck of a whitewash of the past decade, Cheeze.

I think it's more a disagreement about the net effect of both stabilizing and destabilizing actions. Besides, the past decade is over.

OG_slinger wrote:

Israel is a tiny nation with a tiny population and they know it. They rely on the collective guilt of the world to exist. Once they become the blatant aggressor, public opinion shifts and, before you know it, they'd be so isolated from the rest of the world that apartheid-era South Africa would look like a banging block party. And then they'd have to deal with the fact there's only six million Jews and some 325 million Arabs (and some billion plus Muslims).

What I fear is what they do once they become the blatant aggressor.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Do they really have more skin in the game? We use a lot of oil--the middle east is where there is...a lot of oil. We've got plenty of skin in the game about what goes down in the middle east. Until we switch over to electric cars, we're involved in that region, just like China is as it begins to transform.

Yes, they have more skin in the game by any objective measure. It's where they *live* FFS.

I don't know--the two countries next to them got invaded and occupied and they seemed to get along fine. There's a difference between having skin in the game, and having reputation on the line.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

If your purpose is to defend yourself from the consequence of your aggressive actions, that's developing a nuke to help you be an aggressor.

Again, pure speculation on your part.

I disagree.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I think it's more a disagreement about the net effect of both stabilizing and destabilizing actions. Besides, the past decade is over.

People hold grudges for a very long time.

What, exactly, would having a nuclear weapon let them do? Not get threatened by ranged bombing from Israel or the US. It's not going to notably effect the proxy wars from either party.

Seriously, if a dirty bomb went of in Tel Aviv, most of Iran would be glowing glass within hours.

It'd also prevent idiocy from thinking that a ground invasion will help anything at all. Is the world more stable after our assault on Iraq?

Kannon wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I think it's more a disagreement about the net effect of both stabilizing and destabilizing actions. Besides, the past decade is over.

People hold grudges for a very long time.

What, exactly, would having a nuclear weapon let them do? Not get threatened by ranged bombing from Israel or the US. It's not going to notably effect the proxy wars from either party.

Seriously, if a dirty bomb went of in Tel Aviv, most of Iran would be glowing glass within hours.

It'd also prevent idiocy from thinking that a ground invasion will help anything at all. Is the world more stable after our assault on Iraq?

I'd considered a nuclear proxy way and didn't talk about it (I think!) because that is more speculative. I'm talking about a conventional proxy war here, though.

A ground invasion would help prevent a nuclear weapon from being developed. You know--if there is one. I agree, though, that it wouldn't help much else: it was frustrating to stand by and watch the repression in Iran, but sometimes any action is worse than inaction.

Is the world more stable after our assault on Iraq? Well, Saddam was going to die someday. I don't think his kids were up to the task. That either means spontaneous democracy (not likely), civil war, or something like what happened in Egypt. I don't know if any of the likely scenarios for Saddam's end would have made the world more stable than our assault on Iraq.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Is the world more stable after our assault on Iraq? Well, Saddam was going to die someday. I don't think his kids were up to the task. That either means spontaneous democracy (not likely), civil war, or something like what happened in Egypt. I don't know if any of the likely scenarios for Saddam's end would have made the world more stable than our assault on Iraq.

I think any of those scenarios would be better than we got. Certainly from an entirely selfish perspective. As Americans we got NOTHING from invading Iraq.

CheezePavilion wrote:

For their proxy war. See the circle here? Iran claims it needs a nuclear weapon to prevent the shooty war by Israel brought on by their proxy war. That's speculation?

Nope. I never once said that Iran might be developing a nuclear weapon because of proxy wars. That's entirely your construct.

I said that is is really any wonder that Iran might be developing a nuclear weapon because practically every single one of its neighbors have been invaded by the US and had their governments violently overthrow by US soldiers over the past decade.

You'd have to big the thickest idiot on the planet not to wonder "hmm, are they going to do that to me?" And on top of that, the leader of said country declared my country to be part of an "axis of evil." Not in the diplomatic "their national self interest runs counter to ours," but in the frightening "those motherf*ckers are pure evil (and need to be destroyed)."

Remember how people have been using the old "Iran's leader said Israel needs to be destroyed" as a justification for threatening them with war? We've done it as well.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I'm talking about what a nuclear weapon would mean for Iran's behavior.

No, you're talking about what you think a nuclear weapon might mean for Iran's behavior. You have absolutely zero proof of your assertion that a nuclear-armed Iran would be more hostile or aggressive than they are now.

I can understand that you might think so, but going to war or even considering going to war requires a hell of a lot more proof than that.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I think it's more a disagreement about the net effect of both stabilizing and destabilizing actions. Besides, the past decade is over.

Really? If what happened last decade doesn't matter then why do idiots in the South still have bumper stickers on their car saying the South will rise again? The Civil War was 160 years ago and it *still* plays a huge role in our politics and culture.

What we did (on a lie) caused several hundred thousand people to die; displaced millions of people and turned their lives upside down; and, inflamed an entire region. People don't forget that sh*t. That becomes a defining moment in their lives and affects them, their children, their politics, and their culture.

CheezePavilion wrote:

What I fear is what they do once they become the blatant aggressor.

They get cut off from the rest of the world's trade, isolated diplomatically, their sons get shipped off to occupy countries where everyone hates them and wants to kill them, and then their government realizes it doesn't have the bodies or the treasure to back up it's tough talk and it can't survive the domestic pressure to bring everyone home, make peace, and get everyone back to living their lives. When that happens, they have to settle down and work for a political solution.

We're not helping them by letting them hide behind our skirt. We're just delaying the day of reckoning.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't know--the two countries next to them got invaded and occupied and they seemed to get along fine. There's a difference between having skin in the game, and having reputation on the line.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I disagree.

And I disagree with your disagreement. I just don't want something like you're trying to say--Iran having a nuke will make them be more aggressive--to be used as a reason we should attack them now, which is really what this entire thread is about. We've already had our wars based on lies and no proof, we don't need another.

NathanialG wrote:

As Americans we got NOTHING from invading Iraq.

No. We got a trillion dollars in debt (and growing) and the hatred of an entire region. Those are gifts that keep on giving.

OG_slinger wrote:

And I disagree with your disagreement. I just don't want something like you're trying to say--Iran having a nuke will make them be more aggressive--to be used as a reason we should attack them now, which is really what this entire thread is about.

I realize that's what this entire thread is about; maybe the thread *should* come to the conclusion that war with Iran is the wrong move. However, the accuracy of what I am saying has nothing to do with whether someone wants a reason to go to war with Iraq or a reason not to. Sometimes we have to say things that are inconvenient given our larger conclusions.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I think it's more a disagreement about the net effect of both stabilizing and destabilizing actions. Besides, the past decade is over.

Really? If what happened last decade doesn't matter then why do idiots in the South still have bumper stickers on their car saying the South will rise again? The Civil War was 160 years ago and it *still* plays a huge role in our politics and culture.

What we did (on a lie) caused several hundred thousand people to die; displaced millions of people and turned their lives upside down; and, inflamed an entire region. People don't forget that sh*t. That becomes a defining moment in their lives and affects them, their children, their politics, and their culture.

I realize this is off-topic, but I just have to say that those bumper stickers don't have anything to do with the Civil War. They have to do with a *lie* about the Civil War those people have been told. Many of them are descendants of UNION soldiers; many of them have ancestors that had their lives turned upside down by the CONFEDERATE Home Guard. It's not the Civil War that inflamed the region. It's Reconstruction and the actions of one of the earliest and most successful insurgent militias in modern history--the KKK--that inflamed the region. It's all part of a big lie called the Lost Cause that's been told to Southerners.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I realize this is off-topic, but I just have to say that those bumper stickers don't have anything to do with the Civil War. They have to do with a *lie* about the Civil War those people have been told. Many of them are descendants of UNION soldiers; many of them have ancestors that had their lives turned upside down by the CONFEDERATE Home Guard. It's not the Civil War that inflamed the region. It's Reconstruction and the actions of one of the earliest and most successful insurgent militias in modern history--the KKK--that inflamed the region. It's all part of a big lie called the Lost Cause that's been told to Southerners.

Start another thread on that point.

That being said, I'm exceptionally confident that what happened last decade matters to a great number of people in the Middle East. I'm even more confident considering that the entire Shia/Sunni difference of opinion started some 14 centuries ago and it was considered a perfectly acceptable reason in Iraq to drag someone out of their house in the middle of the night and execute them because of which side they were on.

As a species, we're remarkable for our capacity to hold a grudge.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I realize this is off-topic, but I just have to say that those bumper stickers don't have anything to do with the Civil War. They have to do with a *lie* about the Civil War those people have been told. Many of them are descendants of UNION soldiers; many of them have ancestors that had their lives turned upside down by the CONFEDERATE Home Guard. It's not the Civil War that inflamed the region. It's Reconstruction and the actions of one of the earliest and most successful insurgent militias in modern history--the KKK--that inflamed the region. It's all part of a big lie called the Lost Cause that's been told to Southerners.

Start another thread on that point.

That being said, I'm exceptionally confident that what happened last decade matters to a great number of people in the Middle East. I'm even more confident considering that the entire Shia/Sunni difference of opinion started some 14 centuries ago and it was considered a perfectly acceptable reason in Iraq to drag someone out of their house in the middle of the night and execute them because of which side they were on.

As a species, we're remarkable for our capacity to hold a grudge.

What happened last decade is we invaded a country from which an attack on us was launched, and we invaded another country, but we'd invaded that country before to defend our...well whatever Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are to us. In both cases we were attacking former....allies? If people in the Middle East are going to bear a grudge against us for that, then they're a bunch of morons. I can see holding a grudge for what we were up to half a century ago, but if the events of the last decade--especially considering what kind of decade that was--is what causes people to hold a grudge, they're not logical enough to be trusted to go anywhere near nuclear weapons.

So invading a country for valid reasons once gives you a casus belli to invade them again at any point in the future?

Yonder wrote:

So invading a country for valid reasons once gives you a casus belli to invade them again at any point in the future?

Maybe, maybe not: I know it doesn't give a neighboring country a reason to hold a grudge. In fact, why exactly would Iran hold a grudge against us for invading Iraq given the history? Shouldn't Iran be like, the *least* likely member of the Saddam Hussein Fan Club?

So you are saying that a Muslim nation with a lot of oil and a strained relationship with the US should look at what the US did to a Muslim nation with a lot of oil and a strained relationship with the US and say "it's cool dudes."

Yonder wrote:

So you are saying that a Muslim nation with a lot of oil and a strained relationship with the US should look at what the US did to a Muslim nation with a lot of oil and a strained relationship with the US and say "it's cool dudes."

I'm saying a bunch of Shi'ite Persians have no reason to hold a grudge over a country dominated by Sunni Arabs that invaded them with US support, then getting invaded themselves by the US.

What happened last decade is we invaded a country from which an attack on us was launched, and we invaded another country, but we'd invaded that country before to defend our...well whatever Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are to us. In both cases we were attacking former....allies? If people in the Middle East are going to bear a grudge against us for that, then they're a bunch of morons

You're trolling, right? You must be trolling. 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, not Afghani. Our entire pretext for invading Afghanistan was that bin Laden was hiding there, and that the Taliban wouldn't turn him over immediately.

But he may never have been hiding there.

Then we just completely PULLED sh*t OUT OF OUR ASS to invade Iraq, because there was oil there.

What sane country in that area wouldn't hold a grudge?

You've gotta be trolling.

Malor wrote:
What happened last decade is we invaded a country from which an attack on us was launched, and we invaded another country, but we'd invaded that country before to defend our...well whatever Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are to us. In both cases we were attacking former....allies? If people in the Middle East are going to bear a grudge against us for that, then they're a bunch of morons

19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, not Afghani.

I know: see the part I emphasized in the the reply.

Cheeze, you have to stop dancing around and around and around. State your case. What country did we attack that attacked us first?

Malor wrote:

Cheeze, you have to stop dancing around and around and around. State your case. What country did we attack that attacked us first?

I'll dance with you for the sake of argument: none. Now, what does that have to with anyone but the people Afghanistan holding a grudge over our invasion of Afghanistan?

I'll dance with you for the sake of argument: none

Then why the heck did you say:

What happened last decade is we invaded a country from which an attack on us was launched

like it was important? You just keep throwing out these walls of words, but much of the time, when people try to actually understand what you're arguing, you jump off into irrelevancies. You yourself are now saying that what you said before was not just irrelevant, but outright false. So why did you say it?

Now, what does that have to with anyone but the people Afghanistan holding a grudge over our invasion of Afghanistan?

People in Iran are friends with people in Afghanistan. They share religions, families, borders. And that's completely leaving aside their security concerns in having a huge US force in TWO countries immediately adjacent, sandwiched between two invasions.

Your assertion is almost exactly like saying that if the Soviet Union invaded Mexico, we have no business being angry.

Maybe I'm just too stupid, but I really, really don't understand how you can make assertions like that. I don't understand how anyone could be that disconnected from simple cause and effect. It's like you have different rules for everyone else except us or something.

So let's rephrase your assertion: "Now, what does that have to do with anyone but the Mexican people holding a grudge over Russia's invasion of Mexico?"

Are you still unable to see how ridiculous a stance that is?

Now, what if Russia had invaded both Canada AND Mexico? Would we be stupid to be offended and, dare I say it, even nervous?