leejo

Let's stick to Iran. There is a lot of attention to certain "principles" in these threads when the actual problem is completely ignored. Iran is, in my opinion, totally irrsponsible. They are threatening us with thousands of volunteer suidice bombers. Who thinks they wouldn't threaten us with nukes? Or our allies? Or anyone who disagrees with them?

They cannot acquire nukes, and someone needs to ensure that they don't. It may be Israel with our permission and some support, but at the end of the day we'll get the blame for any strike that takes place inside Iran, so we might as well do it ourselves, IMO.

They cannot acquire nukes, and whether we need to use tactical nukes, diplomacy, bribes, murder, strategic carpet bombing of Tehran, a full invasion, or a thousand drum circles and henna rituals, we need to do what it takes.

Pokerface

I disagree. The problem is that we're the ones focusing on principles, and they're summarily ignored by the leaders because they're focusing on one specific instance. THAT'S the real problem.

If you're running your war from the moral high ground, you need to be certain you stay there.

__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash
Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

leejo

So...you'd rather have Iran armed with nukes and our leaders shamed than give it a rest with these abstract concerns?

If you're running a war, you need to be certain that you WIN. Taking and holding the moral high ground is a method made necessary in the age of media. It's a myth. It's the sort of fiction that turns a dude who blows up a mosque full of people into a sympathetic insurgent and renders some kid from Illinois who just wants to get home with his buddies in one piece a vicious killer. It says that some a-hole who openly claims to want to wipe a nation from the face of the earth and threatens us with "thousands of volunteer suicide bombers" gets a nuke and the nation who have tried for two years to find a peaceful solution needs to be held to account.

That's how retarded thinking that the moral high ground is the cart, not the horse, is.

Switchcraft

I'm not even sure what principles are supposedly being violated. We don't test nuclear weapons anymore. But we've never said we won't use them. It's been the policy of the US for decades that we would be willing to use nuclear weapons in the face of WMDs.

I just don't see the problem with us trying to improve our arsenal in the face of new threats. North Korea and Iran both have bunker complexes we're not sure we can destroy with conventional weapons. I'm not comfortable with the idea of promising either of those countries not to use unconventional weapons.

Overlag

when you got big strong countries, pushing there weight around, threatening other countries what do you expect when those small countries decide its time to try and help defend themselfs and produce nukes.

im pretty sure once Iran has nukes, we wont go bardging into there country claiming its for there good (not that im against Iraq or Afganistan wars)



HOWEVER....... Why the hell is there such a problem, Iran has always said that its nuclear program is about power generation, which of coarse would piss us off because the hippies in our countries protesting have stopped US all from using Nuclear power.....

And even if they did make a nuclear bomb.... how are they going to get it ANYWHERE? its not as if they have ICBM's or any long range bombers that would stand a chance.


Isnt it "funny" that once North Korea claimed it tested a nuclear bomb, we all stopped threatening them.... Strange that isnt it. We cant bully small nations forever, and expect them to bend over all the time.


(I am not standing up Korea, Iraq, Iran, or any other country actions... its more logical reasoning)

__________________
From Adam Webb

leejo

This is what I'm talking about. At the end of the day, is this a matter of big countries pushing little countries around, or is the essential question "should Iran have nuclear weapons?" To me, the question is the latter. The former is an interesting abstract question of principle.

If you want to get abstract, should a nation with a demonstrated pattern of deception to the IAEA and the UN with a leader who is threatening to annihilate a nation that has never attacked it (no mere regime change there!) and just this week threatened Europe and the USA with thousands of volunteer suicide bombers acquire the technology and materials required to make a nuclear weapon? Yes our leaders are corrupt, yes we shouldn't have lynched black people 50 years ago, yes North Korea is more powerful with nukes than without. The central question remains, should Iran have nukes?

For me the answer is unequivocally "no".

ScratchMonkey

If it's "right" to violate "principles", then they're not principles. If we need to violate a treaty to protect the world, then it's time to withdraw from the treaty. The President just needs to put it before Congress. (They'll do anything he wants, it seems.)

__________________

Switchcraft

But we don't need to do any such thing. The treaty banned tests involving nuclear explosions. We are not attempting to test nuclear weapons. And the widely understood interpretation of that treaty has never been seen to encompass the use of nuclear weapons during war.

I don't really understand how the CTBT relates to the topic at hand.

Coridon

They could reach Israel, and therefore the international community is trying to defuse the situation before Israel does, because there's no way Israel will allow Iran to actually develop nuclear weapons.

Not to mention, the Shia in Iran are thought to be infidels in the eyes of the Wahabi majority in Saudi Arabia, and if they ever overthrow the king there will be major tension between the "former" Saudi Arabia and Iran.

In many ways Iran is isolated in middle eastern political terms; the U.S. is not the only "external threat". Even though Europe and the US are not directly threatened, our allies and oil supply are, which tends to grab Washington's attention in a big hurry.

leejo

Not always. If it's "right" to violate a "principle" then sometimes the principle isn't working and needs to be adjusted to fit the real world.

It's a principle that people shouldn't lie. And yet we have contracts. And in support of contracts we have lawyers and courts, and in support of courts we have police who have the authority to kill you if you resist their authority with enough vigor. This is an example of where the principle meets the practical.

I also agree Switchcraft that there's no treaty violation going on. I'm not sure what principle is your concern. I was simply referring to an earlier post about "if I give you $4800" or some such thing and attempting to steer the conversation back to the real question: should the world, or the United States alone, allow Iran acquire nuclear weapons?

Steeler

I think the real question is more complex than simply, "should we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?" A better question to start with would be, "IS Iran attempting to acquire nuclear weapons?"
Then, "Are they LIKELY to develop or acquire nuclear weapons?"
"In what strength and configuration?"
"When and by what means?"
"What are the options for preventing this from happening?"
- and finally -
"Should one of those options be a pre-emptive military strike?"

Although it is a foregone conclusion, I think, that few nations in the world want to see a nuclear Iran, it is NOT a foregone conclusion that military action is the appropriate response. We may be pushed into that eventually, but we must be very careful in how we go about it, as we are not in the best strategic or political position to pull off something major like that.

__________________

leejo

I agree. I also think that the past several years' negotiations have represented a careful approach to dealing with Iran. At the end of the day, though, I think we should use military force, if that's what it takes. Under no circumstances should this nation acquire nuclear weapons of any size or configuration. Not with their thousand volunteer suicide bombers and repeated threats by its head-of-state to remove Israel from the face of the earth. Say it once, it's a slip. Say it again and again, and it's policy.

Steeler

My main concern is that the decision has already been made. Senator Lieberman has suggested that even if we could not bomb every last science lab and reactor in Iran to halt their research, we could bomb enough to "delay and deter it." Which is exactly the kind of half-assed video game warfare that Clinton was accused of when he fired missiles into Afghanistan.

We would have to be prepared for a ground war, possibly necessitating an old Soviet-style tank/infantry conflict and subsequent occupation. Assuming, of course, that the Iranians don't keep us bogged down northwest of their border as Iraq erupts around us. Because if Iran wants to make Iraq a living Hell for us, they can.

And then you've got the nuclear option, which is so effing crazy that I can't believe we're having serious discussions in some circles about doing that. Even if that solved the "problem" of Iranian nuclear ambition, the consequences in other realms would be dire.

Listen for talking points on Iranian nuclear capabilities in the coming months. If you start to hear a lot of talk about "within the next 2-3 years," or "by 2009," get ready to duck.

__________________

leejo

Contrariwise, the situation in Iraq might get much more pleasant if Iran had its own problems to solve without stirring the pot in Iraq.

I disagree that we'd need a ground invasion or need to effect a regime change-style invasion. We'd simply need to secure and destroy their nuclear facilities for now. I think that could be done with an airborne invasion supported by air power, or possibly with air power alone, but what do I know?

In any case, the policy IMO needs to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. As a principle, we should use the least amount of force necessary to be successful, but we need to be successful. If that requires overwhelming or nuclear force, so be it. I don't like it, but we can't have them armed with nukes.

Steeler

They don't need a significant investment of resources to destabilize Iraq. Tehran already has a great deal of influence on the major Shiite political entities in Bahgdad, allies throughout the south, and they can slip as many Basijis across the border as they want. Obviously, they can't stop a concerted bombing campaign, but if we start one, and then don't follow up with an occupation, then the logical response would be a ground war against southern Iraq, whre they could hit us hard. Hitting them would certainly entrench the nationalist and fundamentalist hardliners, and Iran has demonstrated a willingness to pay for their wars with much of their own blood.

__________________