The Iran War

Malor wrote:

The fundamental problem is that the Old Testament is not a land deed, but the UN insisted on treating it as one.

FTFY. The land of Palastine was under British control and the UN General Assembly voted to create the state.

bandit0013 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Robear wrote:

If Obama could bargain that for a halt to building in the West Bank, I'd say "Job well done". (I don't think a withdrawal is in the cards.)

I think the problem is modern diplomacy, the UN, etc. It used to be that when you won a war, you ran the other population out of town, that land was yours. In the case of Israel, they did win the war, but they weren't allowed to finish the job. Now you have this multi generational seething hatred on their doorstep. Especially since it's being funded by neighboring states who could have taken the losing side in and integrated them. Hezbollah and Hamas are just both proxy groups to fight an ongoing war against Israel, everyone knows it, no one really cares.

I really don't like war, but if you're going to go to war, you may as well finish what you begin.

I'm pretty sure it was the defeat of the folks who brought us the Final Solution that pretty much put an end to that paradigm.

The irony. It burns.

The Germans tried to occupy to much land. If they had stopped earlier, history tells us that Britain and the US would have left them the fark alone and most of continental Europe would be speaking German today.

I'll leave that up to a different debate, but I think it is fair to say that the whole ethnic cleansing thing pretty much became passe after Herr Schickelgruber put it to the industrial test. To paraphrase Dr. Farnsworth, "Everybody wants to ethnic cleanse, but use a gas oven and suddenly you've gone too far".

OG_slinger wrote:

He should tell Netanyahu that Israel can do whatever they want, but the US will leave them out to dry if they launch an attack.

He should tell Netanyahu that if Israel uses a nuclear weapon in aggression the United States will invade them and forcibly disarm them. He should then say that they will get a free pass this once, but if Israel ever again uses the threat of nuking an innocent populace in an effort to force the hand of the United States then all aid to their nation will be cut off and they will face the same sanctions applied to other nations that have developed or are developing weapons of mass destruction with a high likelihood of using those weapons offensively.

bandit0013 wrote:
Robear wrote:

If Obama could bargain that for a halt to building in the West Bank, I'd say "Job well done". (I don't think a withdrawal is in the cards.)

I think the problem is modern diplomacy, the UN, etc. It used to be that when you won a war, you ran the other population out of town, that land was yours.

Because that worked so well for the British in Ireland...

Historically, it *used* to be that common people basically didn't care who their overlords were most of the time. And the overlords didn't run anyone out: half the reason for going to war was to get more subjects.

The *problem* is nationalism, which gave birth to the idea that one ethnicity being ruled over by another is unacceptable. The reason occupations no longer work isn't due to modern diplomacy, it's due to modern politics.

Paleocon wrote:

I'll leave that up to a different debate, but I think it is fair to say that the whole ethnic cleansing thing pretty much became passe after Herr Schickelgruber put it to the industrial test. To paraphrase Dr. Farnsworth, "Everybody wants to ethnic cleanse, but use a gas oven and suddenly you've gone too far".

I remember reading the Roosevelt was very reluctant to get involved it what was being viewed as a "religious" war. We really didn't jump into the fire until it looked like the Brits might actually lose control of the North Atlantic. You're right though, that's a discussion for another thread.

Bear wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I'll leave that up to a different debate, but I think it is fair to say that the whole ethnic cleansing thing pretty much became passe after Herr Schickelgruber put it to the industrial test. To paraphrase Dr. Farnsworth, "Everybody wants to ethnic cleanse, but use a gas oven and suddenly you've gone too far".

I remember reading the Roosevelt was very reluctant to get involved it what was being viewed as a "religious" war. We really didn't jump into the fire until it looked like the Brits might actually lose control of the North Atlantic. You're right though, that's a discussion for another thread.

I'm certainly not arguing that the time honored German tradition of Jew-whacking was the proximal cause of our involvement in World War 2, but the Austrian failed watercolorist pretty much defines the point in history in which scrubbing with Ethnic Cleanser(tm) is no longer socially acceptable. And the idea that supporters of the Jewish state would somehow bemoan the loss of that privilege is, as I have mentioned above, comically ironic.

Robear wrote:

If Obama could bargain that for a halt to building in the West Bank, I'd say "Job well done". (I don't think a withdrawal is in the cards.)

Trading a US military strike on Iran in exchange for the Israelis to stop stealing land from the Palestinians? That's a horrible deal.

He should tell Netanyahu that Israel can do whatever they want, but the US will leave them out to dry if they launch an attack.

So why not get something for the concession, if it's going to happen with or without our agreement? That's what I was thinking.

Because we'd purely lose. We'd end up with the global cost of the direct strike on our hands, plus Israel would continue to digest Palestine. They'd just pause between bites until we finished attacking, and then resume, no matter what they said to the contrary.

If they go it alone, at least they'll bear the brunt of any repercussions.

Malor wrote:

Because we'd purely lose. We'd end up with the global cost of the direct strike on our hands, plus Israel would continue to digest Palestine. They'd just pause between bites until we finished attacking, and then resume, no matter what they said to the contrary.

If they go it alone, at least they'll bear the brunt of any repercussions.

If they go it alone, they will most likely fail. They recognize this and are trying to pressure the US into doing their bidding for them. The questions we should be asking are what are the consequences of an Israeli strike that does fail? What is the most likely post strike outcome? And how are American interests affected in that outcome environment.

Personally, I think it provides us with a tremendous opportunity to finally tell Netanyahu and his brand of expansionistic megalomania to go screw himself. Had we had the moral courage to do the same when he stepped on his phallus in Lebanon, we would have a far more functional relationship with Israel today.

OG_slinger wrote:

Trading a US military strike on Iran in exchange for the Israelis to stop stealing land from the Palestinians? That's a horrible deal.

It's not their land. The land is a disputed territory which is held by Israel since 1967 and it's previous owner was Jordan. The ownership of the land would be determined when both side would manage to negotiate something. So far we got some intermidiate agreement we'll do nothing and try to avoid killing each other too much (except for Gaza which is a still a war zone ).

Malor wrote:

The fundamental problem is that the Old Testament is not a land deed, but the Israelis insist on treating it as one.

Correct! Historical claims don't mean anything under international law(as far as I heard). This goes both ways . Both the Israelis and the Palestinians can't claim it's their land because some distant ancestors lived there.

Let leave the territorial dispute out of this thread. I don't think anyone wants this thread derailed... (we know the fate of those threads ).

In the case of a war with Iran the Palestinians are going to suffer almost the same consequences as the Israelis. A 50KT nuke on Tel-Aviv may kill about 1 million Israelis but it would also make it difficult to live in the "West Bank". The Palestinians may not like us but they are in the same boat as Israel in case of a war (without the gas masks and bomb shelters). A failed interception can also lead a rocket to land short of its target (happened in the gulf war) and then it may land in Palestinian controlled territories or in Jordan.

---------------
Anyways I heard about all those crazy things on the news this morning. About how Israel is going to "force USA" to attack by threatening to attack by itself. This is just silly. What Netanyahu may do to convince Obama is talk about what's close to his heart : He'll talk about OIL! . Oil is what make the USA go to war and a nuclear Iran may affect the oil supply which may raise oil prices. The price of oil is just going up which can make the recession even worst.

This is why none cares about Syria which is on the news daily due to the ongoing massacre (we don't have a thread about that either). Lybia is an oil producer so the west cared. Syria is not an oil producer so the world doesn't care. It's as simple as that. If Bibi want the USA to do the dirty work he has to convince Obama and friends that a nuclear Iran == higher oil prices. Everyone can endure high oil prices for a few month but in the long run it would raise the price of living and proliferate nuclear power as a temporary alternative. Nuclear power is cheaper than petroleum but nuclear technology proliferation is not what the super-powers have planed for the future. Green energy is nice but it's still fairly expensive. Electric cars are starting to show up but if you want cheap power to drive them it's either Coal,Gas or Nuclear.

I'm not certain how a nuclear Iran equals high oil prices when a nuclear Israel doesn't. Care to enlighten us?

Oil is what make the USA go to war and a nuclear Iran may affect the oil supply which may raise oil prices.

I'd say Israel attacking Iran would do about a thousand times as much damage to the oil supply as Iran's nuclear program, even if they actually are trying for nuclear weapons, which is most emphatically not proven.

Interesting op-ed piece in the WP regarding the unwisdom of an Israeli strike.

Personally, I think we should let them go for it, but provide them zero support and leave them high and dry when they step on their dicks.

It makes me really sad that the most people on this thread are pushing for is us "letting Israel attack without our help" and not "smacking down Israel and threatening sanctions". I know it's not actually going to happen, but we should at least hope and push for that.

Yonder wrote:

It makes me really sad that the most people on this thread are pushing for is us "letting Israel attack without our help" and not "smacking down Israel and threatening sanctions". I know it's not actually going to happen, but we should at least hope and push for that.

It's unlikely that sanctions would have the short term effect of altering Israeli behavior. Moreover, it would undermine the long term desired outcome of having Israel learn from the mistake of military and diplomatic overreach. If we smack them down, they'll just fall back into the whole antisemitic persecution paranoia. If we let them step on their phalluses and sit on our hands in the Security Council, they might get to benefit from the opportunity to realize a new and more rational diplomatic reality.

Paleocon wrote:
Yonder wrote:

It makes me really sad that the most people on this thread are pushing for is us "letting Israel attack without our help" and not "smacking down Israel and threatening sanctions". I know it's not actually going to happen, but we should at least hope and push for that.

It's unlikely that sanctions would have the short term effect of altering Israeli behavior. Moreover, it would undermine the long term desired outcome of having Israel learn from the mistake of military and diplomatic overreach. If we smack them down, they'll just fall back into the whole antisemitic persecution paranoia. If we let them step on their phalluses and sit on our hands in the Security Council, they might get to benefit from the opportunity to realize a new and more rational diplomatic reality.

The problem with that is that it makes Israel out to be the most important country. Giving Israel the opportunity to nuke Iran, learn from their mistakes, and grow as a country sounds great and all, for everyone involved. Oh yeah, except for the people in that country that got nuked?

By that token why don't we withdraw from South Korea and let North Korea learn the hazards of over-extension by themselves*. Maybe we should leave Taiwan, so that after China invades the country, disappears the political figures, and oppresses the populace they can learn that friendship was the true treasure all along?

*Ignoring that the change of leadership last year makes that a less likely outcome today.

Yonder wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Yonder wrote:

It makes me really sad that the most people on this thread are pushing for is us "letting Israel attack without our help" and not "smacking down Israel and threatening sanctions". I know it's not actually going to happen, but we should at least hope and push for that.

It's unlikely that sanctions would have the short term effect of altering Israeli behavior. Moreover, it would undermine the long term desired outcome of having Israel learn from the mistake of military and diplomatic overreach. If we smack them down, they'll just fall back into the whole antisemitic persecution paranoia. If we let them step on their phalluses and sit on our hands in the Security Council, they might get to benefit from the opportunity to realize a new and more rational diplomatic reality.

The problem with that is that it makes Israel out to be the most important country. Giving Israel the opportunity to nuke Iran, learn from their mistakes, and grow as a country sounds great and all, for everyone involved. Oh yeah, except for the people in that country that got nuked?

By that token why don't we withdraw from South Korea and let North Korea learn the hazards of over-extension by themselves*. Maybe we should leave Taiwan, so that after China invades the country, disappears the political figures, and oppresses the populace they can learn that friendship was the true treasure all along?

*Ignoring that the change of leadership last year makes that a less likely outcome today.

Setting aside, for a moment, that South Korea is far more capable of invading the North than the North is to invade the South, the point I'm making is that the current monster we have in Israel is largely due to our creation of circumstances that lead to moral hazard. Our support for Israel irrespective of their irresponsible behavior (e.g.: the invasion of Lebanon) has resulted in their rationally recognizing that there are few risks to outrageous behavior and nothing but rewards for doing so. We are, in effect, guaranteeing them hurricane water damage insurance for building on an annual flood plain. The solution isn't to tell them not to. There is way too much history of our backing down for that and the incentive for calling our bluff is too high.

We're a lot better off just telling them they're cut off and all the tantrums about how "Israel is alone in the world" won't get them more than some pizzicato from the world's tiniest violin.

And yeah, it sucks to be an Iranian civilian, but ...

Yonder wrote:

It makes me really sad that the most people on this thread are pushing for is us "letting Israel attack without our help" and not "smacking down Israel and threatening sanctions". I know it's not actually going to happen, but we should at least hope and push for that.

Pro-Israel groups paid for 81 Congresspeople--that's 20% of of the House of Representatives--to visit Israel for three weeks of propaganda last summer. I doubt much of the time was spent talking to people in the Gaza Strip or who've had their homes and farms stolen.

I would just prefer that Obama would tell Netanyahu that Israel can no longer hide behind America's skirt. If they attack, they will be doing it alone and America will have to publicly distance itself from Israel to avoid our much more important interests in the region. That distancing could be minor, such as no longer standing up for Israel in the UN and using our status in the Security Council to block resolutions against Israel, or major, such as pulling our diplomats from and severing all trade with Israel.

Unfortunately he did the exact opposite:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120304/DEFREG02/303040001/Obama-Warns-Iran-He-Will-Use-Force-Necessary?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Obama wrote:

Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests

Nevin73 wrote:

Unfortunately he did the exact opposite:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120304/DEFREG02/303040001/Obama-Warns-Iran-He-Will-Use-Force-Necessary?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Obama wrote:

Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests

I tell myself that he is just playing it up during an election year but wouldn't actually commit to anything as the American public has very little stomach for another war right now. That and the effect on gas prices would be completely dumped in his lap so it seems counter to push for that to happen any time soon. But I tell myself all sorts of things so the world makes sense ...

PissedYeti wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Unfortunately he did the exact opposite:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120304/DEFREG02/303040001/Obama-Warns-Iran-He-Will-Use-Force-Necessary?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Obama wrote:

Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests

I tell myself that he is just playing it up during an election year but wouldn't actually commit to anything as the American public has very little stomach for another war right now. That and the effect on gas prices would be completely dumped in his lap so it seems counter to push for that to happen any time soon. But I tell myself all sorts of things so the world makes sense ...

Aye.

Nevin73 wrote:

Unfortunately he did the exact opposite:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120304/DEFREG02/303040001/Obama-Warns-Iran-He-Will-Use-Force-Necessary?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Obama wrote:

Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests

You need to parse his words a bit more carefully.

Obama said that he want's to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. All our intelligence and that of the IAEA have shown that Iran isn't actually building a weapon...yet.

NYT[/url]]Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.

That position is dramatically different than Israel's, which boils down to them wanting to destroy Iran's ability to ever produce a nuclear weapon. So the US's "red line" is Iran actually moving to further enrich nuclear materials to weapons-grade status while Israel's "red line" seems to be the mere fact that Iran has nuclear technology.

None wants a war but sometimes degenerating into cavemen is the only option. I heard on the news today that Netanyahu said he means business with his "duck" speech ( the local news site mentioned he said something more direct). They said on the news Obama will not go to war just before reelection . The question is how much time we have to wait for a change of direction in Iran.

If we wait until November I doubt the first thing the new President would do is order the US military to go to war against Iran. This means that if Israel wants to wait for an American military action it would take at least two or three years. Iran is already have enough nuclear material for about 4 nukes. If understand correctly they'll have a nuclear bomb in one or two years.

So America should have attacked Israel when your country developed nuclear weapons?

Niseg wrote:

If understand correctly they'll have a nuclear bomb in one or two years.

I know that I'm super quaint and adorable and naive, but I would love if you could post your evidence for this, and your evidence that they are actually trying to get a nuclear bomb.

I have looked and looked, thus far I have just found intelligence officials saying "We don't have any specific evidence" or saying "we think that Iran abandoned their plan to develop nukes a decade ago". The only 'evidence' I have seen that they are going for the bomb is "but it's Iran."

Yonder wrote:
Niseg wrote:

If understand correctly they'll have a nuclear bomb in one or two years.

I know that I'm super quaint and adorable and naive, but I would love if you could post your evidence for this, and your evidence that they are actually trying to get a nuclear bomb.

I have looked and looked, thus far I have just found intelligence officials saying "We don't have any specific evidence" or saying "we think that Iran abandoned their plan to develop nukes a decade ago". The only 'evidence' I have seen that they are going for the bomb is "but it's Iran."

Right there with ya.

Yonder wrote:
Niseg wrote:

If understand correctly they'll have a nuclear bomb in one or two years.

I know that I'm super quaint and adorable and naive, but I would love if you could post your evidence for this, and your evidence that they are actually trying to get a nuclear bomb.

I have looked and looked, thus far I have just found intelligence officials saying "We don't have any specific evidence" or saying "we think that Iran abandoned their plan to develop nukes a decade ago". The only 'evidence' I have seen that they are going for the bomb is "but it's Iran."

If Iran gets nuclear power, on a scale to power their country, they can sell more of their oil, which should, theoretically, lower the price a little. I'm okay with that, since for some reason, nuclear power is a non-starter here.

Kannon wrote:

If Iran gets nuclear power, on a scale to power their country, they can sell more of their oil, which should, theoretically, lower the price a little. I'm okay with that, since for some reason, nuclear power is a non-starter here.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/yNR8I.jpg)

Paleocon wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Niseg wrote:

If understand correctly they'll have a nuclear bomb in one or two years.

I know that I'm super quaint and adorable and naive, but I would love if you could post your evidence for this, and your evidence that they are actually trying to get a nuclear bomb.

I have looked and looked, thus far I have just found intelligence officials saying "We don't have any specific evidence" or saying "we think that Iran abandoned their plan to develop nukes a decade ago". The only 'evidence' I have seen that they are going for the bomb is "but it's Iran."

Right there with ya.

I'll join the call for evidence of a time table but I don't think it's any real stretch to assume Iran is also trying to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons. Honestly I think they'd be kind of insane not to, given their geographical and political situation. But note that I said "capability." That doesn't mean actual, functional, launch-ready weapons. Iran's best move, their best compromise between defense and diplomacy, is to show the world that they could built a nuclear weapon if they need to, but they haven't and won't so long as they see a reasonable alternative.

Kannon wrote:

I'm okay with that, since for some reason, nuclear power is a non-starter here.

It's a non-starter because powerful people have a vested interest in keeping us on fossil fuels, because of sensationalist PR, and because of highly publicized, horrifying nuclear disasters like Chernobyl (and now, Fukushima). Also Jane Fonda. No, seriously.

Kannon wrote:

I'm okay with that, since for some reason, nuclear power is a non-starter here.

Perhaps I should have said "I know why, but our alternatives are...?

Woo, scary theoretical accident as opposed to some minor actual accidents, oil spills and pollution that are demonstrably worse, and, oh hey, global warming.

But, oh, bombs. Something about that and minor accidents that don't compare to the massive oil spills.