T Nation

Force Against Iran

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Honestly? I would rather worry about a conventional AirLand battle between Jews and Muslems, than I would a nuclear war with anyone.
[/quote]

I agree that the Iranian nukes should be taken out. But, I don’t want Israel to do it for reasons stated above.

I think we could probably do it quickly and painlessly (no loss of American lives).

This is not a full scale invasion like Iraq. This is simply a strategic strike (or several of them) in order to take out key targets and leave them “nukeless.”

While we are at it we might also take out a few terrorists training camps providing we know where they are.

Let the world know that WE won’t stand for terrorist states having nukes!

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JohnGalt wrote:
Iranian is not a word. It does not define someone from or relating to Iran. Someone from Iran is Irani, not iranian. I’m sure the population of Iran does not run around calling us Americanians.

Please provide further details on this.

I just checked Wikipedia, Irani does not appear although Iranian does.

From www.m-w.com

Main Entry: Ira?ni?an
Pronunciation: i-'rA-nE-&n, -'ra-, -‘r?-; I-’
Function: noun
1 : a native or inhabitant of Iran
2 : a branch of the Indo-European family of languages that includes Persian – see INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES table

  • Iranian adjective

It appears that both Irani and Iranian are legitimate although usage of Iranian is much more common.[/quote]

I find that completely bizzare. Having been born in the middle east and and lived there for 10 years (not to mention half my family is Indo-Irani) I have never until coming to america heard the word iranian.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ZEB wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The U.S. doesn’r have to do a damn thing to control Iran.

All we have to do is announce publicly that we will be lifting all restraints from Israel, and that the Israeli Armed Forces may now proceed with eliminating ALL threats to their nation’s security.

We’d see the Nuke Sites dismantled within the week.

I think that would be a mistake as it would fuel the “Jewish vs. Islamic” feud. It would also leave us in the more difficult position of having to protect Israel.

Honestly? I would rather worry about a conventional AirLand battle between Jews and Muslems, than I would a nuclear war with anyone.
[/quote]

After all we’ve seen, enciting further animosity would more likely lead to an ever increasing number of terrorist groups than a conventional Air/Land battle.

[quote]JohnGalt wrote:

After all we’ve seen, enciting further animosity would more likely lead to an ever increasing number of terrorist groups than a conventional Air/Land battle.[/quote]

Then what do you suggest we (and the rest of the world) do regarding the Iran nuclear threat?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
CRAWFORD, Texas (Aug. 13) - President Bush said he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear program.

How do you feel about President Bush’s latest comment? How do you feel about using force against Iran?
[/quote]

We should have gone after Iran in the first place. They have been a much bigger threat to the US and the Mid-East than Iraq ever was; they were just keeping it on the down low. But maybe W meant Iran instead of Iraq, he just couldn’t back down once he got started.

But how will we pay for this next step in the “war” and then the Syrian, Korean and Chinese phases? Where will we find the troops and the materiel?

I’m sure he has a plan…

WMD

[quote]JohnGalt wrote:
After all we’ve seen, enciting further animosity would more likely lead to an ever increasing number of terrorist groups than a conventional Air/Land battle.[/quote]

Your statement makes no sense. No one is talking about “enciting further animosisty”. The subject is about how to rid Iran of its nuclear technology. I could give a shit how incited the damn Iranians are. They’re the ones breaking the rules.

August 13, 2005

Get Ready for World War III
By Paul Craig Roberts

With every poll showing majorities of Americans both fed up with Bush?s war against Iraq and convinced that Bush?s invasion of Iraq has made Americans less safe, the White House moron proposes to start another war by attacking Iran. VP Cheney has already ordered the US Strategic Command to come up with plans to strike Iran with tactical nuclear weapons.

Bush refuses to meet with Cindy Sheehan, instead using his vacation time at the Crawford ranch to talk war with Israeli television. In a recent interview with Israeli TV, Bush said: "All options are on the table"with regard to Iran.

Likudnik Israel is Bush?s last remaining ally, or egger-on, in his war against “Islamic terrorism.” Israel, which is loaded with nuclear weapons and is not a signatory to the nuclear pacts, is the accuser against Iran, asserting that Iran?s nuclear energy program is just a veil behind which to produce weapons. Israel?s Likud Party fears that Iranian weapons would be a check to its plans to complete the dispossession of the Palestinians and further expand Israel?s borders.

Iran has signed the nonproliferation pact and is willing for the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor the nuclear energy program.

Bush, however, dismisses all facts and assurances and is willing to attack Iran based on nothing but Israel?s paranoia.

Bush can ignore the American public, because the Democrats, like the Tory Party in the UK, have completely collapsed as an opposition party. The Republican Party is now increasingly referred to as the Republikud Party.

The only check on Bush is the lack of US troops. Bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, US commanders are stating that a third rotation of our exhausted and demoralized troops in Iraq can be avoided only by troop withdrawals by next spring.

However, on August 11 Bush nixed the military?s talk of reducing US troops in Iraq. The next day the commander of US logistics in Iraq announced that the number of insurgent attacks on US forces along supply routes has doubled in the last year, making it clear that far from winning, the US is not even holding its own.

Cindy Sheehan has the right question for Bush: What noble cause is being served by all this suffering and destruction?

Bush is in hiding from Mrs. Sheehan, because he knows only ignoble causes are being served. According to the CIA, the main beneficiary of the war is Osama bin Laden?s recruitment drives. While America?s military recruitment falters and US generals announce that the war has broken the Reserves and National Guard, the cause of Islamic extremism basks in the Iraqi war.

Gentle reader, do you realize the danger of having a president so disconnected from reality that he plots to attack Iran?a country three times the size of Iraq?when he lacks sufficient forces to occupy Baghdad and to protect the road from Baghdad to the airport?

Despite all the high profile “sweeps” of US forces through insurgent strongholds, US commanders report a doubling of insurgent attacks.

The Bush administration is insane. If the American people do not decapitate it by demanding Bush?s impeachment, the Bush administration will bring about Armageddon. This may please some Christian evangelicals conned by Rapture predictions, but World War III will please no one else.

Dr. Roberts, [email him] a former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former Contributing Editor of National Review, was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan administration.

August 09, 2005

Why is America?s VP Lobbying for a Boost in China?s Nuclear Capability?
By Paul Craig Roberts

What I have noticed about conservatives and Republicans is that they are no longer conservative and Republican. They believe in the efficacy of force. If we are losing in Iraq, it is because we are not using enough force. All we have to do to win in Iraq, they maintain, is to nuke the towel heads. In case you have forgotten, Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, suggested that the US nuke Mecca in retaliation for a terrorist attack.

Conservative Ann Coulter was more mild, no doubt due to her feminine nature. Her solution to Islam was to “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

Determined to win, conservatives and Republicans are willing to nuke Iraq. Precisely what they would be winning, they cannot identify. But they believe that with sufficient force, America can teach those on the receiving end a lesson and make them do what the Bush administration wants. That is the extent of the brainpower that conservatives and Republicans bring to war and diplomacy.

Conservatives and Republicans used to be people who thought it was America?s business to avoid wars and to govern well at home. It was Democrats who involved us in wars?World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam all started under Democratic presidents.

Governing well at home meant being suspicious of government power, not giving government cart blanche with Orwellian legislation called “the Patriot Act.” I can remember when conservatives and Republicans would have gone berserk if Democrats had identified patriotism with the police state legislation called “the Patriot Act.”

You can?t learn a word of this from rightwing talk radio or Fox “News.” According to these war-mongering propagandists, Democrats (read Jane Fonda and John Kerry) are squishy pacifists who want the commies to take over the world. Democrats always run away once a shot is fired, say the rightwing crazies, and believe terrorists are people who had a bad childhood.

As a result of the influence of Israel?s neoconservative supporters and evangelicals expecting The Rapture, conservatives and Republicans are focused on the Middle East. They are apoplectic over Iran?s nuclear power program. If Iran has a nuclear power program, Iran might be able to produce a nuclear weapon in ten years. Vice President Cheney has ordered a plan for the US to use tactical nuclear weapons to take out Iran?s capability should an excuse arise.

That would be the third Islamic country the US would have attacked in as many years. All hell would break loose. Meanwhile, the chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced that the Commission will approve Westinghouse?s sale of two nuclear reactors to China.

Conservatives and Republicans think this is a good idea. Vice President Cheney has lobbied in behalf of the sale. It is good for private business. It means $2.4 billion in revenues for Westinghouse Electric Company.

Iran will never again be a world power, even if it has a few nukes. Persia was a power in ancient times, not today. If we don?t bother Iran, Iran won?t bother us.

China is a different matter. China already is a world power. China holds enough US government debt to have the dollar and US interest rates in its hand. Last month in an official briefing a top Chinese general, Zhu Chenghu, said that if the US messes around with China or tries to interfere with China?s reunification with Taiwan, China will nuke the US: "If the Americans are determined to interfere, then we will be determined to respond.

We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course, the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."

VP Cheney and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission want to make sure China has what it takes to do the job.

The moronic Bush administration is all concerned about “weapons of mass destruction” where they aren?t, not where they are. Why in the world is the Bush administration using up the US military and its weapons systems in Iraq, a country that was no threat whatsoever to the US, while aiding and abetting China?s rapidly growing economic and military power?

Having asked this question, I will receive 1,000 emails from Bush worshippers who will indignantly inquire why I am demonizing China. I am not demonizing China. I am simply asking a question about the intelligence of the Bush administration.

Bush?s supporters, of course, are busy at work demonizing landlocked Middle Eastern states that have nothing but fanatical insurgents to ward off US military attacks on their homelands.

The conservative movement has disappeared. The Republican Party has disappeared. The two have morphed into a brownshirt movement that worships coercion and a strutting little marionette who believes he can threaten peoples into submission.

Why does Cheney want to sell nuclear reactors to China, but order the US Strategic Command to prepare to nuke Iran?s nuclear power capability, a capability that would allow Iran to sell more oil to an energy-starved world?

What?s going on here?

Dr. Roberts, [email him] a former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former Contributing Editor of National Review, was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan administration.

Paul Roberts should stop holding back and tell us how he really feels about the Bush administration…

bluey

did you mean to post that stuff on daily Kos?

Every poll? Come on, try facts instead of hyperbole. People will take you more seriously.

Do you advocate Iran as a nuclear power? Think the Mullahs have your best interest at heart?

Using Paul Craig Roberts’ columns as some sort of support for your position is about as blindly ABB as you can get.

I’m sure you could prove your point much more effectively were you to try just a little harder than quoting a partisan hack’s op/ed pieces.

[quote]JohnGalt wrote:
rainjack wrote:
ZEB wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The U.S. doesn’r have to do a damn thing to control Iran.

All we have to do is announce publicly that we will be lifting all restraints from Israel, and that the Israeli Armed Forces may now proceed with eliminating ALL threats to their nation’s security.

We’d see the Nuke Sites dismantled within the week.

I think that would be a mistake as it would fuel the “Jewish vs. Islamic” feud. It would also leave us in the more difficult position of having to protect Israel.

Honestly? I would rather worry about a conventional AirLand battle between Jews and Muslems, than I would a nuclear war with anyone.

After all we’ve seen, enciting further animosity would more likely lead to an ever increasing number of terrorist groups than a conventional Air/Land battle.[/quote]

That’s not a good reason to allow homocidal maniacs to posess nuclear weapons.

The nuclear program in Iran can be set back 10-15 years in one evening if the US chooses to do so. It needs to be made very clear to them that the program they have exists now because we are allowing it to do so. The patience of our nation is wearing thin.

The US will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. The negotiation should only be a discussion of the timetable for their disarmarment.

my comment was reffering not to dealing with iran but rather to a previous statement about support of israel causing conflict between muslims and jews. I believe it was you rainjack who assumed such conflict would amount to open warfare rather than continued/increased terror attacks.

Use of force is a very broad term. It could mean anything from strategic air strikes to full invasion (as was the case in afghanistan/iraq). I am not in favor of occupation, but would consider a strategic strike at a weapons facility to be reasonable. Double standards, however, should not exist.

It is unrealistic to expect the rest of the world to forgo nuclear power if it rests in the hands of a foreign nation. When America tosses its nuclear arsenal, it would be a powerful example and a step in the right direction. The notion that this would leave us defenseless is absurd, should the necessity arise we have the knowledge to produce such devices.

[quote]JohnGalt wrote:
my comment was reffering not to dealing with iran but rather to a previous statement about support of israel causing conflict between muslims and jews. I believe it was you rainjack who assumed such conflict would amount to open warfare rather than continued/increased terror attacks.[/quote]

I never tried to connect the dots from Iran to the WOT. I said that the U.S. could play innocent while letting a more than willing accomplice handle the dirty work of neutralizing Iran’s potential nuclear threat.

I said I would rather see a conventional war than than a nuclear war.

The jihad against the west is irrevocable, so I think it’s rather pointless to worry about pissing them off anymore.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
We should have alrady kicked Iran’s ass twice by now. They have the whispers of political unrest and a growing affinity for democracy floating in the air. It probably wouldn’t take more than a little shove to topple the gov’t they have now.

I think that Syria should be leveled. That’s where the “insurgants” are coming from. I say kick the shit out of Syria, and put up a big freakin wall between them and Iraq. Then you’d see stability.[/quote]

rj, i dont know if you, or some others realize, but we are talking about people here. so “leveling” a country and limiting their freedoms is A) fucked up, and B) a good way to spawn more terrorism.

IMO, we must stop the iranian nuclear program simply because they are lead by religeous nuts. i am of iranian ancestry, and i am personally offended by meatheads saying stuff like level them or whatever. just stupid.

that kind of thinking got bush into the white house, and fuels recruitment of suicide bombers. oh by the way, how is that working out with GWB? is the US out of the shitter yet? (economically, and militarily since we have thousands of our boys including a good friend of mine over in iraq without an exit strategy)

if iran has nukes, good bye israel. plain and simple. im not saying israel is or isnt right, but damn if iran has nukes they arent gonna just sit on them.

my $0.02

I’m no fan of Iran, and do fear a nuclear capable Islamic state, but always find it rather ironic how the US is constantly telling other states that they cannot have nukes. What country in the world has the most nukes, and what country has actually used them to kill thousands of innocent civilians?

[quote]UB07 wrote:
rj, i dont know if you, or some others realize, but we are talking about people here. so “leveling” a country and limiting their freedoms is A) fucked up, and B) a good way to spawn more terrorism. [/quote]

If you are going to take everything that is written in the political forums literally…well…good luck with that.

But - I am sick and tired of this castrated attitude of not wanting to spawn more terrorism.

Listen - They already hate us. This is a jihad. Do you and your apologist buddies not comprehend that it matters not what we do? They are going to want us and Israel gone. Period. So save the whole “let’s not make them any madder” BS for the apologist convention. It’s bullshit and everyone with a functioning brainstem knows that.

[quote]
IMO, we must stop the iranian nuclear program simply because they are lead by religeous nuts. i am of iranian ancestry, and i am personally offended by meatheads saying stuff like level them or whatever. just stupid.[/quote]

Like I said - taking this literally is an undertaking best left for other forums.

I’m not sure why invading Syria and creating a buffer between them and the Iraqi border is so offensive to you.

I wonder if you will have the same reaction when a terrorist uses a nuclear device on innocent citizens. You will probably blame the U.S. for it.

Yeah - he banged the war drum to get re-elected. And 51% of the American people are mindless robots that feed off of war mongering. Give me a fucking break, junior.

Economically, the US is the best in the world, and getting stronger. And we will win this war when we win it. Not when pussies like you cry loud enough.

Israel will not let that happen. Everyone in the middle east is scared shitless of Israel. They should be since Israel’s kicked just about everyone’s ass over there at least once.

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
I’m no fan of Iran, and do fear a nuclear capable Islamic state, but always find it rather ironic how the US is constantly telling other states that they cannot have nukes. What country in the world has the most nukes, and what country has actually used them to kill thousands of innocent civilians?[/quote]

C’mon Deano - that’s just an old worn out line, and you know it.

The difference is that we have nukes and we are a stable nation. Neither Iran, nor any of the “Governments” in the middle east are stabel enough to be trusted with nuclear weapons.

You can do better than that.

Iran is certainly a very large threat to America’s national security and will become an even greater one if it becomes a nuclear power. Although I dislike Bush, I would support his choice to use force against Iran to keep them from gaining nuclear armaments. At this point, I seriously doubt that diplomatic action will be able to deter the Iranians from their path. Military action will most likely have to be taken in order to stop Iran.

However, if Iran does become a nuclear power, the U.S. and other nations will be in a serious bind. Mullahs are a very strong group in Iran (both politically and religously) and will have little reservation in using nuclear weapons as a viable weapon.

Plus, I would say that nuclear safeguards in Iran would not be as advanced as those in America or other nuclear powers. Because of that, it would only take a few fanatical military personnel with the right connections to send the world to hell.

With this in mind, it definitely makes sense to use force against Iran. The problem is that any use of force will probably lead to a war between the U.S. and Iran. The Iranian armed forces are more advanced than the Iraqi forces were and will put up more of a challenge. I am sure that the U.S. will be able to subdue Iran, but it will be much harder than Iraq was.

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
I’m no fan of Iran, and do fear a nuclear capable Islamic state, but always find it rather ironic how the US is constantly telling other states that they cannot have nukes. What country in the world has the most nukes, and what country has actually used them to kill thousands of innocent civilians?[/quote]

How is that ironic at all? The US doesn’t pose a threat to global security because it has nuclear weapons. Iran, quite obviously, is a threat. And just because of the atrocities in Japan we shouldn’t have the right to tell other countries that pose a threat to not have nukes?

The US is a hegemon and with its power it has a responsibility to enforce global security.