The current refusal of Iran to open their nuclear program to international oversight raises a few questions. Would the community weigh in? (I couldn't find any similar topics in the Soapbox archives).
1. Does Iran as a nuclear weapon power represent a threat to the security of the United States or any other nation?
2. Does any nation or group of nations have any "right" to determine the actions of another sovereign nation regarding nuclear activity to include nuclear weapons development?
3. Specifically, would the U.S. or Israel or (your nation here) be justified in striking militarily if that nation determined their strike would halt or delay Iran's (or other nation's) development of nuclear weapons?
Full Version: Nuclear Iran
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75
QUOTE(cptrev @ Jan 6 2006, 06:02 PM)
The current refusal of Iran to open their nuclear program to international oversight raises a few questions. Would the community weigh in? (I couldn't find any similar topics in the Soapbox archives).
1. Does Iran as a nuclear weapon power represent a threat to the security of the United States or any other nation?
2. Does any nation or group of nations have any "right" to determine the actions of another sovereign nation regarding nuclear activity to include nuclear weapons development?
3. Specifically, would the U.S. or Israel or (your nation here) be justified in striking militarily if that nation determined their strike would halt or delay Iran's (or other nation's) development of nuclear weapons?
[right][snapback]172567[/snapback][/right]
1. Does Iran as a nuclear weapon power represent a threat to the security of the United States or any other nation?
2. Does any nation or group of nations have any "right" to determine the actions of another sovereign nation regarding nuclear activity to include nuclear weapons development?
3. Specifically, would the U.S. or Israel or (your nation here) be justified in striking militarily if that nation determined their strike would halt or delay Iran's (or other nation's) development of nuclear weapons?
[right][snapback]172567[/snapback][/right]
Hey CPTREV.
When a country is run by a mad man such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad all options should be on the table.
In the past several weeks, Ahmadinejad has called the holocaust a myth, called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and now wishes for the death of Ariel Sharon.
It is much more likely that Israel will step forward and destroy the nuclear development before Iran uses it on them, IMO. Everyone could breathe easier when Israel bombed Baghdad's nuclear reactor in 1981. Thank goodness for THAT!
I am reminded of a lesson my son learned in high school. He played football in little league and in junior and senior high. After going through a variety of cuts, bruises and broken bones, by the time he was a senior in high school, he figured it out and told me: "If you want to win, you have to hit them first and hit them hard" It's good advice. It was good advice then and it worked for him and it's still good advice.
I live in a very wooded area and mosquitos can be a huge problem unless I take a preemptive strike. With West Nile disease and encephalitis a threat to my family, I destroy their breeding sites and do everything in my power to keep them away from my home.
America is being threatened by dangerous enemies. Millions of people could be wiped out with nuclear and/or dirty bombs in our cities. We must take the necessary steps to protect our people.
In the past several weeks, Ahmadinejad has called the holocaust a myth, called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and now wishes for the death of Ariel Sharon.
It is much more likely that Israel will step forward and destroy the nuclear development before Iran uses it on them, IMO. Everyone could breathe easier when Israel bombed Baghdad's nuclear reactor in 1981. Thank goodness for THAT!
I am reminded of a lesson my son learned in high school. He played football in little league and in junior and senior high. After going through a variety of cuts, bruises and broken bones, by the time he was a senior in high school, he figured it out and told me: "If you want to win, you have to hit them first and hit them hard" It's good advice. It was good advice then and it worked for him and it's still good advice.
I live in a very wooded area and mosquitos can be a huge problem unless I take a preemptive strike. With West Nile disease and encephalitis a threat to my family, I destroy their breeding sites and do everything in my power to keep them away from my home.
America is being threatened by dangerous enemies. Millions of people could be wiped out with nuclear and/or dirty bombs in our cities. We must take the necessary steps to protect our people.
QUOTE(cptrev @ Jan 6 2006, 02:02 PM)
The current refusal of Iran to open their nuclear program to international oversight raises a few questions. Would the community weigh in? (I couldn't find any similar topics in the Soapbox archives).
1. Does Iran as a nuclear weapon power represent a threat to the security of the United States or any other nation?
No
2. Does any nation or group of nations have any "right" to determine the actions of another sovereign nation regarding nuclear activity to include nuclear weapons development?
It depends on what sort of 'group' of countries you have in mind. The U.N., for example, does have that 'right'.
3. Specifically, would the U.S. or Israel or (your nation here) be justified in striking militarily if that nation determined their strike would halt or delay Iran's (or other nation's) development of nuclear weapons?
No
[right][snapback]172567[/snapback][/right]
1. Does Iran as a nuclear weapon power represent a threat to the security of the United States or any other nation?
No
2. Does any nation or group of nations have any "right" to determine the actions of another sovereign nation regarding nuclear activity to include nuclear weapons development?
It depends on what sort of 'group' of countries you have in mind. The U.N., for example, does have that 'right'.
3. Specifically, would the U.S. or Israel or (your nation here) be justified in striking militarily if that nation determined their strike would halt or delay Iran's (or other nation's) development of nuclear weapons?
No
[right][snapback]172567[/snapback][/right]
Good to see you underhip. Glad to have found you.
Nomarchy, I'm sure we disagree strongly on the U.N. having any rights at all, being what it is, a collection of sovereign nations with no sovereignity of its own, no elections, no accountability except to its own member nations. Certainly the U.N. has no "right" to dictate anything to a member nation.
If joining the UN meant yielding your sovereignty to a majority vote of the Security Council, it would very soon have zero members.
But, yes, the U.N. was the group I had foremost in mind, followed by NATO, OPEC, G-8, etc...
Judy, I think your rhetoric may be a bit strong... I'm uncomfortable comparing people with pests and I think the calculus of a guaranteed thousand deaths vs. a million "possible" deaths is one that should be undertaken most carefully.
Nomarchy, I'm sure we disagree strongly on the U.N. having any rights at all, being what it is, a collection of sovereign nations with no sovereignity of its own, no elections, no accountability except to its own member nations. Certainly the U.N. has no "right" to dictate anything to a member nation.
If joining the UN meant yielding your sovereignty to a majority vote of the Security Council, it would very soon have zero members.
But, yes, the U.N. was the group I had foremost in mind, followed by NATO, OPEC, G-8, etc...
Judy, I think your rhetoric may be a bit strong... I'm uncomfortable comparing people with pests and I think the calculus of a guaranteed thousand deaths vs. a million "possible" deaths is one that should be undertaken most carefully.
QUOTE(cptrev @ Jan 6 2006, 05:41 PM)
Judy, I think your rhetoric may be a bit strong... I'm uncomfortable comparing people with pests and I think the calculus of a guaranteed thousand deaths vs. a million "possible" deaths is one that should be undertaken most carefully.
[right][snapback]172584[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]172584[/snapback][/right]
It's an illustration. I thought you would understand that.
QUOTE(cptrev @ Jan 6 2006, 05:02 PM)
1. Does Iran as a nuclear weapon power represent a threat to the security of the United States or any other nation?
Given the current pres of Irans sentaments and comments regarding Israel, and the fact that Israels leardership is now a big ?, and the fact that they allready have nukes of there own which they would not hesitate to use. IMHO it is a threat to the security of the world.
2. Does any nation or group of nations have any "right" to determine the actions of another sovereign nation regarding nuclear activity to include nuclear weapons development?
"Right" is in the eye of the beholder.
3. Specifically, would the U.S. or Israel or (your nation here) be justified in striking militarily if that nation determined their strike would halt or delay Iran's (or other nation's) development of nuclear weapons?
Perhaps if there were a coalition of nations, they could apply some effective pressure.
[right][snapback]172567[/snapback][/right]
Judy, I understood... I just think we throw words about a bit carelessly sometimes. I apologize for presuming to rebuke you.
Tex, the EC has been "pressuring" Iran - even with normally Arabic favored nations like France... pretty much nothing but delay & deny.
I think it is going to come down to my questions... are they a threat - and if so, do we have a right (or a responsibility as some would say) to destroy or mitigate that threat.
Tex, the EC has been "pressuring" Iran - even with normally Arabic favored nations like France... pretty much nothing but delay & deny.
I think it is going to come down to my questions... are they a threat - and if so, do we have a right (or a responsibility as some would say) to destroy or mitigate that threat.
I would say it is a threat.
I would also say "responsibility".
I would also say "responsibility".
QUOTE(cptrev @ Jan 6 2006, 06:14 PM)
Tex, the EC has been "pressuring" Iran - even with normally Arabic favored nations like France... pretty much nothing but delay & deny.
[right][snapback]172595[/snapback][/right]
Yes, and it is quite possible that it could lead to a short life span for Ahmadinejad.
Kewl.
First CPTREV.
Now Tex_Mati.
First CPTREV.
Now Tex_Mati.
QUOTE(cptrev @ Jan 6 2006, 02:02 PM)
The current refusal of Iran to open their nuclear program to international oversight raises a few questions. Would the community weigh in? (I couldn't find any similar topics in the Soapbox archives).
1. Does Iran as a nuclear weapon power represent a threat to the security of the United States or any other nation?
2. Does any nation or group of nations have any "right" to determine the actions of another sovereign nation regarding nuclear activity to include nuclear weapons development?
3. Specifically, would the U.S. or Israel or (your nation here) be justified in striking militarily if that nation determined their strike would halt or delay Iran's (or other nation's) development of nuclear weapons?
[right][snapback]172567[/snapback][/right]
1. Does Iran as a nuclear weapon power represent a threat to the security of the United States or any other nation?
2. Does any nation or group of nations have any "right" to determine the actions of another sovereign nation regarding nuclear activity to include nuclear weapons development?
3. Specifically, would the U.S. or Israel or (your nation here) be justified in striking militarily if that nation determined their strike would halt or delay Iran's (or other nation's) development of nuclear weapons?
[right][snapback]172567[/snapback][/right]
Imagine a globe with only one nuclear power. If it's us, is the world a safer place?
How about if it's us and kerry is President?
I believe your question is intended to be rhetorical - but I'd answer a resounding YES -- even if Kerry was president.
But.... given my druthers, I'd rather every nation having nukes and any random name from the telephone book instead of Kerry as the US President.
Not that I don't like the guy... :-)
But.... given my druthers, I'd rather every nation having nukes and any random name from the telephone book instead of Kerry as the US President.
Not that I don't like the guy... :-)
I just don't understand how the same crowd that was in favor of unilateral disarmament is now opposed to disarming Iran.
go figure.
go figure.
QUOTE
But.... given my druthers, I'd rather every nation having nukes and any random name from the telephone book instead of Kerry as the US President.
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Jan 6 2006, 04:34 PM)
[right][snapback]172582[/snapback][/right]
Ditto.
As to #3, any such attack would of course be an act of war. And under international law, retaliation would be a lawful response.
QUOTE(davisął @ Jan 6 2006, 03:39 PM)
[right][snapback]172609[/snapback][/right]
What do you expect, jackass? As long as someone is in favor of Iran having nukes, they might as well be in favor of every nation on earth having nukes. As long as someone is in favor of Kerry being in control of one nations' nukes they may as well be in favor of any random jackass in any random nation being in control of the nations' nukes.
That was hyperbole, davis.
I'd actually want to disqualify anyone currently in politics.
I'd actually want to disqualify anyone currently in politics.
It's worth a non-nuclear WWIII if it would ensure the non-existence of a nuclear WWIII
QUOTE(cptrev @ Jan 6 2006, 04:41 PM)
Good to see you underhip. Glad to have found you.
Nomarchy, I'm sure we disagree strongly on the U.N. having any rights at all, being what it is, a collection of sovereign nations with no sovereignity of its own, no elections, no accountability except to its own member nations. Certainly the U.N. has no "right" to dictate anything to a member nation.
If joining the UN meant yielding your sovereignty to a majority vote of the Security Council, it would very soon have zero members.
But, yes, the U.N. was the group I had foremost in mind, followed by NATO, OPEC, G-8, etc...
Judy, I think your rhetoric may be a bit strong... I'm uncomfortable comparing people with pests and I think the calculus of a guaranteed thousand deaths vs. a million "possible" deaths is one that should be undertaken most carefully.
[right][snapback]172584[/snapback][/right]
Nomarchy, I'm sure we disagree strongly on the U.N. having any rights at all, being what it is, a collection of sovereign nations with no sovereignity of its own, no elections, no accountability except to its own member nations. Certainly the U.N. has no "right" to dictate anything to a member nation.
If joining the UN meant yielding your sovereignty to a majority vote of the Security Council, it would very soon have zero members.
But, yes, the U.N. was the group I had foremost in mind, followed by NATO, OPEC, G-8, etc...
Judy, I think your rhetoric may be a bit strong... I'm uncomfortable comparing people with pests and I think the calculus of a guaranteed thousand deaths vs. a million "possible" deaths is one that should be undertaken most carefully.
[right][snapback]172584[/snapback][/right]
Many nations have nukes. Only 1 has used them.
BTW, I already welcomed you in the Iraq folder. But welcome back again. Belated Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Thankfully, the only nation I trust.
hunin... you so make me want to restart an international law thread.
Who's law?
I understand treaties... they are agreed to by signatory sovereign nations.
But who wrote this law of which you speak? And who enforces same?
Who's law?
I understand treaties... they are agreed to by signatory sovereign nations.
But who wrote this law of which you speak? And who enforces same?
QUOTE(Tex_Mati @ Jan 6 2006, 05:11 PM)
[right][snapback]172592[/snapback][/right]
And Mati!!!! Holy Moly! Belated Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you as well!!!
Trust you both are well.
QUOTE(cptrev @ Jan 6 2006, 05:44 PM)
hunin... you so make me want to restart an international law thread.
Who's law?
I understand treaties... they are agreed to by signatory sovereign nations.
But who wrote this law of which you speak? And who enforces same?
[right][snapback]172617[/snapback][/right]
Who's law?
I understand treaties... they are agreed to by signatory sovereign nations.
But who wrote this law of which you speak? And who enforces same?
[right][snapback]172617[/snapback][/right]
We did to a great degree. No one force us to sign and for many years and to many people the laws are seen to be the antidote to rampant warfare. Peaceful conflict resolution. We call nations that break international law rogue nations. Or at least we used to.
In theory, the UN. In reality the nation members, of which we are 1.
Then there's compliance w/the law because it is the law - the main thing that keeps civilization in order.
Drat, gotta fly.
Hope to see these old names l8r. Good to hear from you.
QUOTE(Human Ills @ Jan 6 2006, 05:26 PM)
Imagine a globe with only one nuclear power. If it's us, is the world a safer place?
[right][snapback]172600[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]172600[/snapback][/right]
Ain't gonna happen.
QUOTE(Human Ills @ Jan 6 2006, 05:27 PM)
How about if it's us and kerry is President?
[right][snapback]172601[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]172601[/snapback][/right]
Heh, also unlikely.
I don't believe the powerful threat of nukes will be dissuaded... until the powerful with the nukes dissuade them and their threat first...
Try to look at it from the "underdogs" point of view... what if we were "them" and "they" were US?...
I put it to you who deem the US the only ones worthy to wield the power of destruction that we are no more worthy than anyone else... evidence our bullying and arrogance and self indulgence... I don't think that we've shown ourselves to be anything special... beyond excesses...
If you don't believe that "they" should have this power... then you shouldn't believe that we should have it either...
I think that we should utterly disarm... withdraw all troops(that want to come home:~)... disassemble the military industrial complex... assemble the means for all the people of the world to live good and fullfilled lives... and proclaim a new era of peace and goodwill on earth for all of mankind.
Try to look at it from the "underdogs" point of view... what if we were "them" and "they" were US?...
I put it to you who deem the US the only ones worthy to wield the power of destruction that we are no more worthy than anyone else... evidence our bullying and arrogance and self indulgence... I don't think that we've shown ourselves to be anything special... beyond excesses...
If you don't believe that "they" should have this power... then you shouldn't believe that we should have it either...
I think that we should utterly disarm... withdraw all troops(that want to come home:~)... disassemble the military industrial complex... assemble the means for all the people of the world to live good and fullfilled lives... and proclaim a new era of peace and goodwill on earth for all of mankind.
QUOTE(CharlieRay @ Jan 7 2006, 12:31 AM)
I don't believe the powerful threat of nukes will be dissuaded... until the powerful with the nukes dissuade them and their threat first...
Try to look at it from the "underdogs" point of view... what if we were "them" and "they" were US?...
I put it to you who deem the US the only ones worthy to wield the power of destruction that we are no more worthy than anyone else... evidence our bullying and arrogance and self indulgence... I don't think that we've shown ourselves to be anything special... beyond excesses...
If you don't believe that "they" should have this power... then you shouldn't believe that we should have it either...
I think that we should utterly disarm... withdraw all troops(that want to come home:~)... disassemble the military industrial complex... assemble the means for all the people of the world to live good and fullfilled lives... and proclaim a new era of peace and goodwill on earth for all of mankind.
[right][snapback]172627[/snapback][/right]
Try to look at it from the "underdogs" point of view... what if we were "them" and "they" were US?...
I put it to you who deem the US the only ones worthy to wield the power of destruction that we are no more worthy than anyone else... evidence our bullying and arrogance and self indulgence... I don't think that we've shown ourselves to be anything special... beyond excesses...
If you don't believe that "they" should have this power... then you shouldn't believe that we should have it either...
I think that we should utterly disarm... withdraw all troops(that want to come home:~)... disassemble the military industrial complex... assemble the means for all the people of the world to live good and fullfilled lives... and proclaim a new era of peace and goodwill on earth for all of mankind.
[right][snapback]172627[/snapback][/right]
Mebbe we could do this at the local level, charlie...utterly disarm the police force, bring the boys back from the streets, disassemble the enforcement branches of the city govt... assemble the "whatzis" for all the people in town to live good and fullfilled lives...and just proclaim "abracadabra" for all mankind.
You go first.
stick with the illusion of control
the real crooks run the show
the real crooks run the show
Great thread and a whole host of intelligent responses. You bring out the best in people, Cap'n Rev.
I have to ask the obvious question that hasn't been, yet. Even if it were determined that "we" needed to do this, from where now comes the force?
I have to ask the obvious question that hasn't been, yet. Even if it were determined that "we" needed to do this, from where now comes the force?
That's one obvious question. The other is, who will believe the Bush Administration? Even need be?
The sky?
QUOTE(lil bart @ Jan 6 2006, 08:59 PM)
Great thread and a whole host of intelligent responses. You bring out the best in people, Cap'n Rev.
I have to ask the obvious question that hasn't been, yet. Even if it were determined that "we" needed to do this, from where now comes the force?
[right][snapback]172659[/snapback][/right]
I have to ask the obvious question that hasn't been, yet. Even if it were determined that "we" needed to do this, from where now comes the force?
[right][snapback]172659[/snapback][/right]
Air force. USAF.
QUOTE(lil bart @ Jan 6 2006, 08:59 PM)
That's one obvious question. The other is, who will believe the Bush Administration? Even need be?
[right][snapback]172660[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]172660[/snapback][/right]
Mostly no one.
Not that that's been a hurdle thus far.
Cheery up there, dearie Birdie. It has been a hurdle. It is a hurdle. You don't think the President called all them past advisors to the White House for nuthin', do ya. It's a big hurdle in a big way, and I don't think it's going away.
QUOTE(lil bart @ Jan 6 2006, 10:41 PM)
Cheery up there, dearie Birdie. It has been a hurdle. It is a hurdle. You don't think the President called all them past advisors to the White House for nuthin', do ya. It's a big hurdle in a big way, and I don't think it's going away.
[right][snapback]172684[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]172684[/snapback][/right]
For show mostly. Just watch that course change.
A 'serious chat' w/old SoDs is nice. A nice tea. No one undiplomatic. Did Bushie take notes? Any backside shots? Doodles on the notepad?
Yeah, that er, summit and $2 Bushie can buy a latte. Well, have someone buy it for him. A very modest consultation w/people of experience but little power. Not peers even in their own minds likely. At least not in a crowd.
A nice tea w/the loyal opposition would be an even better effort. More daring. Nixon goes to China effort.
I heard the Prez allowed 5 whole minutes for questions from the impressive participants at the impressive 'meeting.'
That make me think it ws merely PR.
He brought them there to tell them something. He wasn't interested in what they thought.
That make me think it ws merely PR.
He brought them there to tell them something. He wasn't interested in what they thought.
QUOTE(hunin @ Jan 7 2006, 12:31 AM)
...Did Bushie take notes? Any backside shots? Doodles on the notepad?
[right][snapback]172689[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(Bee @ Jan 7 2006, 01:11 AM)
I heard the Prez allowed 5 whole minutes for questions from the impressive participants at the impressive 'meeting.'
That make me think it ws merely PR.
He brought them there to tell them something. He wasn't interested in what they thought.
[right][snapback]172710[/snapback][/right]
That make me think it ws merely PR.
He brought them there to tell them something. He wasn't interested in what they thought.
[right][snapback]172710[/snapback][/right]
May as well have been wearin' earplugs.
I saw Lawrence Eagleburger on Cspoon with Haig.
He is a total dick. The man is a pig.
They went into the bubble and came out again.
bubbleheads
QUOTE(lil bart @ Jan 6 2006, 07:59 PM)
Great thread and a whole host of intelligent responses. You bring out the best in people, Cap'n Rev.
I have to ask the obvious question that hasn't been, yet. Even if it were determined that "we" needed to do this, from where now comes the force?
[right][snapback]172659[/snapback][/right]
I have to ask the obvious question that hasn't been, yet. Even if it were determined that "we" needed to do this, from where now comes the force?
[right][snapback]172659[/snapback][/right]
Thanks for the kind words lil bart. I try... although I was known to touch a few nerves and bring out the worst at times - much to my dismay.
I would say that hunin was exactly right... we would do this solely with air power - the new kind without pilots... just Tomahawks, precision guided from WAY up high out of AA range, maybe even a non-nuclear intercontinental or two just to keep up the targeting practice.
Fight this one the right way - with intelligence (although we currently seem low on both types - spying AND IQ) - with SF, air power, with PSYOPS... encourage the underground - no stupid "economic sanctions" that give the ruling class the right to starve their own people and blame us... Bomb every palace and weapons factory -- and ship tons of rice & beans & corn to the ports every single day.
Fight 'em with kindness.
a radical. I like it.
QUOTE(hunin @ Jan 6 2006, 10:31 PM)
For show mostly. Just watch that course change.
A 'serious chat' w/old SoDs is nice. A nice tea. No one undiplomatic. Did Bushie take notes? Any backside shots? Doodles on the notepad?
Yeah, that er, summit and $2 Bushie can buy a latte. Well, have someone buy it for him. A very modest consultation w/people of experience but little power. Not peers even in their own minds likely. At least not in a crowd.
A nice tea w/the loyal opposition would be an even better effort. More daring. Nixon goes to China effort.
[right][snapback]172689[/snapback][/right]
A 'serious chat' w/old SoDs is nice. A nice tea. No one undiplomatic. Did Bushie take notes? Any backside shots? Doodles on the notepad?
Yeah, that er, summit and $2 Bushie can buy a latte. Well, have someone buy it for him. A very modest consultation w/people of experience but little power. Not peers even in their own minds likely. At least not in a crowd.
A nice tea w/the loyal opposition would be an even better effort. More daring. Nixon goes to China effort.
[right][snapback]172689[/snapback][/right]
Well of course it's a PR effort. But the point is that that has become necessary. That's a minor revolution right there. And the need isn't over after one tea.
Your points taken.
Except for the two-buck latte? Where the hell do you get a two-buck latte?
Tell yer Minnesotans not to bother moving to the left coast. For a host of reasons and that would be one.
QUOTE(cptrev @ Jan 7 2006, 09:27 AM)
Thanks for the kind words lil bart. I try... although I was known to touch a few nerves and bring out the worst at times - much to my dismay.
I would say that hunin was exactly right... we would do this solely with air power - the new kind without pilots... just Tomahawks, precision guided from WAY up high out of AA range, maybe even a non-nuclear intercontinental or two just to keep up the targeting practice.
Fight this one the right way - with intelligence (although we currently seem low on both types - spying AND IQ) - with SF, air power, with PSYOPS... encourage the underground - no stupid "economic sanctions" that give the ruling class the right to starve their own people and blame us... Bomb every palace and weapons factory -- and ship tons of rice & beans & corn to the ports every single day.
Fight 'em with kindness.
[right][snapback]172833[/snapback][/right]
I would say that hunin was exactly right... we would do this solely with air power - the new kind without pilots... just Tomahawks, precision guided from WAY up high out of AA range, maybe even a non-nuclear intercontinental or two just to keep up the targeting practice.
Fight this one the right way - with intelligence (although we currently seem low on both types - spying AND IQ) - with SF, air power, with PSYOPS... encourage the underground - no stupid "economic sanctions" that give the ruling class the right to starve their own people and blame us... Bomb every palace and weapons factory -- and ship tons of rice & beans & corn to the ports every single day.
Fight 'em with kindness.
[right][snapback]172833[/snapback][/right]
Thanks for the elaboration on Birdie's response, which I did understand. I guess what I don't understand, or remain skeptical of, is that these plans "going in" might sound neat and with defined parameters. But if it is anything like Iraq, Cap'nMajor [
], reality the day after is very, very different than fantasy the day before.
That said, I don't know nuthin' about military matters.
Sometimes I know enough to read or read through the stuff in the papers.
Sometimes I know enough to read or read through the stuff in the papers.
I think the Iran gambit would be to preclude their thinking they can ignore the requirements to have international oversight... not regime change or anything quite so grand... (short term)... and long term? We just might grow to understand enough about the region to actually encourage a secular (or at least sane) counter-revolution without even pretending to be in control of it or its aftermath.
One of the things I have read that people (who know about such matters) are worried about, vis-a-vis our current hip- or neck-deepness in Iraq, is that if and when the military would be needed elsewhere, it is already overstretched. Sometimes I wonder if the Mighty make threats partly to try to diminish that idea.
Bah... our military is stretched thin for LONG TERM commitments... folks like me don't like leaving our families for a year at a time for a kinda sorta pretty important long-term kinda thing... so folks like me are beating a path to the exit.
But we've got a BIG Army with LOTS of folks still doing dumb stuff like guarding Germany and South Korea and a HUGE Reserves and National Guard population.
Believe me, we could pop anyone fast and VERY hard as long as we weren't expecting to hang around and sweep up after ourselves and try to police the nation and purge them of everyone that doesn't like us and , and, and...
The military isn't as stretched as it claims. Trust me.
It's long term health, on the other hand, is probably much WORSE than it claims.
But we've got a BIG Army with LOTS of folks still doing dumb stuff like guarding Germany and South Korea and a HUGE Reserves and National Guard population.
Believe me, we could pop anyone fast and VERY hard as long as we weren't expecting to hang around and sweep up after ourselves and try to police the nation and purge them of everyone that doesn't like us and , and, and...
The military isn't as stretched as it claims. Trust me.
It's long term health, on the other hand, is probably much WORSE than it claims.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.