Fox News: War against Iran becoming likely

[O Town]

I smell a lock thread coming soon.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Why anyone would listen to faux pa--news...

I'd dare say, 'Faux News' is no more unreliable, or ideologically conservative, than CBS, of the 1972 document written in MS-Word about Bush's bad service as a fighter pilot in the Texas ANG, is unreliable and biased left wing.

Dan Rather was doing Democratic Party fundraisers while still the Evening News anchor.


That said, O'Reilly is an idiot, Geraldo is Geraldo, and does anybody with a brain really care about Greta von Susteren's 'dead/missing white girl of the week'?

[feederband]

I smell a lock thread coming soon.

[x-y-no]

Iran is quite probably supplying some of the weapons which wind up being used against us in Iraq .

That would all I would need to bomb them...Its really a lose lose all the way around...

I don't like that either, but honestly we've done the same thing many, many times against our adversaries. That was pretty much the whole story of the cold war for 50 years, after all.

And you didn't address the issue I raised regarding our posture.

What if we were to just let them do what they want as building nucs? Maybe in a couple of years they could just lob them at us in Iraq...We will still be there...

I'm sure they would lob them Israel ..,In which I could care less but would cause a even bigger conflict...

Well, I don't agree that non-military means of discouraging Iran from developing nuclear weapons have been exhausted. But even if they were, there's no good reason I can see for believing that a massive air assault will prevent that long-term (in fact it might make it more likely).

Furthermore, the effectiveness of deterrence is greatly under-rated. Pakistan has had the "Islamic Bomb" now for a long time yet has not used it, despite having engaged in a lot of extreme rhetoric over the years. I see no reason to believe that Iran's rulers lack the capacity of rational analysis or the instinct of self-preservation and can therefore be deterred just as Stalin, Khrushchev etc. were. You say you are "sure they would lob them Israel" - well Israel is a nuclear power on the level of France and Britain, if not above them. They possess hundreds of fission weapons and quite probably a substantial number of thermonuclear weapons. Iran is quite well aware of the kind of reprisal they would face if they did any such thing.

[x-y-no]

I smell a lock thread coming soon.

Hmmm ... maybe I'm off track, but I don't think this has strayed too far into political territory - at least yet. Tell you what - since I'm participating (and therefore not necessarily a fair judge) I'll ask the other mods to give the thread a read.

[O Town]

I smell a lock thread coming soon.

Hmmm ... maybe I'm off track, but I don't think this has strayed too far into political territory - at least yet. Tell you what - since I'm participating (and therefore not necessarily a fair judge) I'll ask the other mods to give the thread a read.

Hey, no no. Don't throw my name up. I am not complaining at all. I just thought that long post by Ed Mahmoud was a little heavy with politics. But hey what do I care. I should have just kept my mouth shut. Sorry didn't mean to stir the pot.

[x-y-no]

I smell a lock thread coming soon.

Hmmm ... maybe I'm off track, but I don't think this has strayed too far into political territory - at least yet. Tell you what - since I'm participating (and therefore not necessarily a fair judge) I'll ask the other mods to give the thread a read.

Hey, no no. Don't throw my name up. I am not complaining at all. I just thought that long post by Ed Mahmoud was a little heavy with politics. But hey what do I care. I should have just kept my mouth shut. Sorry didn't mean to stir the pot.

Actually, on second (more thorough) reading, you have a point on that one.

I think it's a good discussion, though, I hate to quell it. Let me see if I can't find a better way ...

[Ed Mahmoud]

Well, in a way it is too bad that Bush and Rumsfeld so badly mismanaged the war against Iraq. It may have been justified (they really, really thought they would find WMD. The "Bush Lied/People Died" stuff makes no sense, because if Bush lied, they'd have made sure some planted WMD was found, otherwise they look like idiots), maybe not. But it was badly run.


So now it will be difficult to do anything about Iran. Because, although Mohammad al-Baradei, who, while Sunni, has Shia relatives and thus may not be impartial, says Iran, with the third highest natural gas reserves in the world (hard to export, easy to make domestic electricity with) isn't building the Bomb, Iran is almost certainly developing nuclear weapons, not civilian power plants. And Achmedinajehad regularly denies the Holocaust, and promises the end of the 'Zionist entity'. Achmedinajehad seems a true believer, in an apocalyptic form of Shia that involves a 'hidden Twelth Iman', or the Islamic messiah, the 'Mahdi'. Belief in a doomsday/apocalypse/end-times isn't just the domain of a some fundy Christians. The Mahdi is supposed to come during a final war between Islam and the kuffar, and Achmedinejehad may welcome a war. Recall also the head Iranian cleric, the Grand Ayotallah Khameini, said almost a decade ago that a nuclear attack would destroy Israel, while a retaliation by Israel killing tens of millions of Muslims would not kill Islam.

BTW, you can Google the terms above, about the Mahdi, the hidden Imam, and Khameini's quotes about nuclear war with Israel.

When Iran gets the bomb, which is likely because Bush has little support to do anything militarily, it will likely supply them to Hezb'Allah, which is essentially an arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. So one terrorist group with nukes.

Saudi Arabia, as an Arab and Sunni power, has a long time distrust of the Aryan/Persian and Shia Iranians, and each sees itself as the leader of the Islamic world. Saudi would probably see the need for nuclear weapons as well, and it may have funded the Pakistani nuclear program, and even if it didn't, it certainly has the money to buy Pakistani nukes or technology. While the Crown Prince opposes al Qaeda, elements of the large Saudi royal family do not.



snip-Edited for overly political content-unsnip

While I think a war with Iran might be neccessary, it'd be nice if the threat of war worked, because I don't think the American economy would handle $5 or $6 a gallon gas. I served six years in the Navy in the '80s, mostly at sea, but never saw any combat.

[Ed Mahmoud]

No how did I do that, I went to edit, and wound up replying.



Well, the mods can kill the original if they want.

[x-y-no]

No how did I do that, I went to edit, and wound up replying.



Well, the mods can kill the original if they want.

OK, will do.

Thanks.

[flwxwatcher]

I think the case can be made we are fighting a covert War with Iran right now. Both sides have been raising the stakes in recent weeks it seems. This tidbit about Iran came out today.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 3120070913

[Ed Mahmoud]

Iran is quite probably supplying some of the weapons which wind up being used against us in Iraq .

That would all I would need to bomb them...Its really a lose lose all the way around...

I don't like that either, but honestly we've done the same thing many, many times against our adversaries. That was pretty much the whole story of the cold war for 50 years, after all.

And you didn't address the issue I raised regarding our posture.

What if we were to just let them do what they want as building nucs? Maybe in a couple of years they could just lob them at us in Iraq...We will still be there...

I'm sure they would lob them Israel ..,In which I could care less but would cause a even bigger conflict...

Well, I don't agree that non-military means of discouraging Iran from developing nuclear weapons have been exhausted. But even if they were, there's no good reason I can see for believing that a massive air assault will prevent that long-term (in fact it might make it more likely).

Furthermore, the effectiveness of deterrence is greatly under-rated. Pakistan has had the "Islamic Bomb" now for a long time yet has not used it, despite having engaged in a lot of extreme rhetoric over the years. I see no reason to believe that Iran's rulers lack the capacity of rational analysis or the instinct of self-preservation and can therefore be deterred just as Stalin, Khrushchev etc. were. You say you are "sure they would lob them Israel" - well Israel is a nuclear power on the level of France and Britain, if not above them. They possess hundreds of fission weapons and quite probably a substantial number of thermonuclear weapons. Iran is quite well aware of the kind of reprisal they would face if they did any such thing.

Israel has an estimated 100 to 200 weapons, unoffically. Most are assumed to be either delivered by aircraft or Jericho missiles.

Israel has a limited number of the F-15I and F-16I attack fighters that have the range for unrefueled flight to Iran and back. I'd suppose in a nuclear retaliation mission, returning back may not be as important, but it limits Israel's ability to do the job against Iran on its own, as Iran learned well the lessons of the Osirak strike, and has dispersed its nuclear facilities, has put some underground in hardened shelters, and others near universities in Tehran and other population centers, possibly both to claim peaceful purposes and guarantee any air attack would kill civilians.


If more than a few nukes came through, Israel would be decapitated.


Rumor has it that Israel may be trying to develop a nuclear armed cruise missile for the Dolfin class subs purchased form Germany, as a deterrent.

Although deterrance is questionable. 'MAD" worked before neither the Russians or Americans wanted to die, whereas in Islamic theology death as a result of combat results in 72 virgins in Paradise.

The Islamic concept of martyrdom, death in combat, in the last 30 years reinterpreted by some as death during a suicide operation, is rather different than the Westernized concept, seen in the mother and sons, or the old man, who were killed by the Greeks rather than eat a forbidden ('treyf') food, pork, in the Book of Maccabees. That is, death before disobeying G-d.

[JTD]

There's already been an Iranian thread that went on for quite some pages that didn't stray into "lockable" territory so I think we are all right.

I just have fundamental objections to bombing Iran. I mean Matt Lauer was in Iran today. The Iranian people are an extraordinary bunch. They are not fundamentalist at all. They have a thriving culture. The young people of Iran are pro-western in the way they dress, the music they listen to, the food they eat. They dislike the mullahs running the show in Tehran just as much as some westerners do I dare say. If we bomb Iran, we turn an entire generation of young people who share our ideology into a group that has lost their sons, brothers, parents, grandparents, jobs, everything due to our actions, i.e., the west, and we drive them right into the welcoming arms of Al Qaeda.

Let's not destroy the thriving culture and wonderful country that Iran seems to be.

I'm sorry. How many innocent people would die if we bomb Iran? How many civillians? I can't justify it, How many people are already suffering due to the crippling economic sanctions that have been placed on Iran?

Matt Lauer also interviewed a senior analyst in Iran today who noted that in their respective countries (U.S. and Iran), both leaders are similar in many ways in terms of being stubborn and being at the extreme ends of the spectrum. It was an interesting analysis.

Lastly, how do we do anything but give Iran a temporary setback by bombing them for 2 days? And do you have any idea what President Ahmadinijad's response will be? The regional and global implications of this would be catastrophic and it would be an insane idea.

This cycle of endless war has got to stop.

[x-y-no]

Israel has an estimated 100 to 200 weapons, unoffically. Most are assumed to be either delivered by aircraft or Jericho missiles.

Even the low end of that range is an enormous arsenal compared to anything any other country in the region could possibly amass. (And given their incentive and capacity, it would be foolish for anyone to assume their arsenal is at the low end of that range).

Israel has a limited number of the F-15I and F-16I attack fighters that have the range for unrefueled flight to Iran and back. I'd suppose in a nuclear retaliation mission, returning back may not be as important, but it limits Israel's ability to do the job against Iran on its own, as Iran learned well the lessons of the Osirak strike, and has dispersed its nuclear facilities, has put some underground in hardened shelters, and others near universities in Tehran and other population centers, possibly both to claim peaceful purposes and guarantee any air attack would kill civilians.

If more than a few nukes came through, Israel would be decapitated.

I certainly agree Israel does not have the capacity to launch the kind of pre-emptive attack being discussed here. But they certainly do have the capacity to launch a truly massive nuclear response to a nuclear attack. And however decapitated their chain of command might be, I'm sure that they would have the means to launch such a reprisal.

Additionally, I find it very likely that we would join in such a reprisal - which escalates the potential size by an order of magnitude or more.

Rumor has it that Israel may be trying to develop a nuclear armed cruise missile for the Dolfin class subs purchased form Germany, as a deterrent.

My understanding (although I agree it's based on rumor) was that they'd already accomplished a submarine launch capacity.

Although deterrance is questionable. 'MAD" worked before neither the Russians or Americans wanted to die, whereas in Islamic theology death as a result of combat results in 72 virgins in Paradise.

The Islamic concept of martyrdom, death in combat, in the last 30 years reinterpreted by some as death during a suicide operation, is rather different than the Westernized concept, seen in the mother and sons, or the old man, who were killed by the Greeks rather than eat a forbidden ('treyf') food, pork, in the Book of Maccabees. That is, death before disobeying G-d.

Really, it's a terribly debilitating misconception to believe that those in power in the region aren't rational actors. Of course the mind-set you describe exists in disturbing quantity, but all one has to do is observe the actual behavior of these nations to see that they have a quite well-developed instinct for self-preservation. As long as that exists, deterrence is a very viable strategy.

[Ed Mahmoud]

There's already been an Iranian thread that went on for quite some pages that didn't stray into "lockable" territory so I think we are all right.

I just have fundamental objections to bombing Iran. I mean Matt Lauer was in Iran today. The Iranian people are an extraordinary bunch. They are not fundamentalist at all. They have a thriving culture. The young people of Iran are pro-western in the way they dress, the music they listen to, the food they eat. They dislike the mullahs running the show in Tehran just as much as some westerners do I dare say. If we bomb Iran, we turn an entire generation of young people who share our ideology into a group that has lost their sons, brothers, parents, grandparents, jobs, everything due to our actions, i.e., the west, and we drive them right into the welcoming arms of Al Qaeda.

Let's not destroy the thriving culture and wonderful country that Iran seems to be.

I'm sorry. How many innocent people would die if we bomb Iran? How many civillians? I can't justify it, How many people are already suffering due to the crippling economic sanctions that have been placed on Iran?

Matt Lauer also interviewed a senior analyst in Iran today who noted that in their respective countries (U.S. and Iran), both leaders are similar in many ways in terms of being stubborn and being at the extreme ends of the spectrum. It was an interesting analysis.

Lastly, how do we do anything but give Iran a temporary setback by bombing them for 2 days? And do you have any idea what President Ahmadinijad's response will be? The regional and global implications of this would be catastrophic and it would be an insane idea.

This cycle of endless war has got to stop.

If you read Michael Ledeen, he believes the government of Iran has to be toppled at almost any cost, but he opposes a military strike, as many, perhaps even a majority, of the Iranian people would prefer a less repressive government, and any military strike would probably rally common Iranians to their government. He would support heightened diplomatic pressure (not always easy when the People's Republic of China both wants Iranian oil and seems to enjoy countering US influence, and they have a veto, and Russia is making money selling weapons and nuclear equipment to Iran), and more economic pressure, on the theory that if life gets bad enough for most Iranians, they are more likely to turn against the government.


Of course, the US has been doing this to Castro's Cuba for decades, and it hasn't led to revolt yet.


Side topic- little question here- Castro has imprisoned and even executed political prisoners. But almost certainly not on the scale of the People's Republic of China. Yet we trade freely with China.

But then again, there aren't hundreds of thousands of political opposition refugees from Communist China concentrated in a single critical swing state.

[JTD]

But then again, there aren't hundreds of thousands of political opposition refugees from Communist China concentrated in a single critical swing state.

Exactly. It is a total double standard. Cuba's human rights abuses don't come close to being on par with China's but yet China is granted most favoured nation trading status and the doors are thrown wide open. It's an outrage. I also think that it is an outrage that the brutal Chinese regime has been given the 2008 summer olympics. The games shouldn't go to a tyrannical country.

Anyway back to Iran, I'm doubtful that sanctions will work. They seem never to do so. I think the best strategy is for Israel to let the Iranian hardliners know that they will not tolerate irresponsible use of Iranian nuclear weapons. That might be more effective than an bombing campaign. MAD (mutually assured destruction).

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

It is horrible to point this out, but it is probably true that the military has accidentally supplied the insurgents with a good chunk of the weapons they are using. This occurred simply because policy makers trusted the untrustworthy in a country that really isn't a country at all, but rather a collection of different territorial and tribal entities that were forced to share a common national border by an outside force (the British Empire in this case) roughly sixty years ago.

[HURAKAN]

I will make just one comment. We don't need another war.

[Brent]

I will make just one comment. We don't need another war.

Thank you! I supported the Iraq war, but I will not support another one in Iran.

and I still say it will not happen anytime soon(aka, until Bush leaves)

[brunota2003]

I would like to mention something that my World History teacher mentioned my freshman year of High School. What has happened to every kingdom/empire so far that has attacked or taken over the Holy Land (Israel)? Notice they no longer exist? I just think it is interesting to point out, and with that kind of record on their side, it would be better to be with, than against them. Plus they are a Pro-Western country...so.