Iran Crisis

Atkingani wrote: marktheshark wrote: Here's an interesting article on why leaders are reluctant to go the distance in war in the past decades. I don't entirely agree with the white guilt aspect of it, but it's still an interesting viewpoint coming from an African/American.     link   I click the link and return to PA forum... [IMG]height=17 alt=Confused src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley5.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> or Page Not Found!

I don't know what happened, but it works now. Go ahead but click on the original post.
    
    

Edited by marktheshark - May 07 2006 at 11:58

Here's an interesting article on why leaders are reluctant to go the distance in war in the past decades. I don't entirely agree with the white guilt aspect of it, but it's still an interesting viewpoint coming from an African/American.

link

Edited by marktheshark - May 07 2006 at 11:56

Atkingani wrote: OK, then it's decided: BOMB IRAN!!! A bunch of bearded Muslims with hidden  women (they must be ugly, ahem) obviously do not deserve to live.   Yes, let's repeat what Dubya said before invading Mesopotamia (Irak): "Now, we're gonna show them what is Seevilysachion."

another thing that i find scary:

recently i read a book about climate change wherein there was a bit about how blair said to bush if he did not take action on climate change then bush would not get "unconditional" support in wars. i find the notion of allies supporting each other because they are allies scary . yukkkk

this kind of relationship where if you scratch my back i will scratch yours is not a healthy way of deciding policy on such global issues. it sickens me to think what deals go unheard of.

James Lee wrote: just an observation: extremists don't need to be provoked. The mere existence of the perceived enemy is all the provocation they need....and comparisons with Hitler are inevitable when the topic of appeasement is raised.When I think of the Bush presidency, I can't help remembering that the people got sick of the boy who cried wolf just before the actual wolf appeared. But that may be an indictment of the people as much as it is of one troublemaking boy.

    The mere existence of the perceived enemy is all the provocation they need

I guess thats all the provocation we've needed to invade Iraq, and Afghanistan, so you may be right, althuogh I dont think thats quite what you meant.

My point is, james that Bush & co are extremists in the eyes of those we call extremists. This is where the line between good and evil is blurred, and what side you come down on purely depends on what side of the geographical fence you sit on.

It's worth remembering also, that we only have the word of our leaders that what happened on 9/11 (for instance) was carried out by the extremists we fight against. Lets face it, our leaders record for telling us the truth is questionable.

marktheshark wrote: When was the last time we've heard a peep out of Gadafi? I don't see the need to use nukes ourselves. I know it's been mentioned, but it's highly doubtful we would. And if Bush were to, even I would label him a criminal. To me nukes are a coward's weapon and the only nukes I can see being used are the ones from Iran if they get them!

I see no need for it either. In terms of busting 'bunkers' the current generation of these nukes would not serve that purpose, as they only burrow 20 feet before detonation, so the force of the blast and the fall out generated would be above land. The bunkers would not be scratched - depending on their depth - and the casualties would be above ground. It's clear though, that the option is under consideration, and the US, rance and the UK have all said they would consider using nukes of some kind in the ME if the operational need arose. What that need actually is, is a subjective issue. Thats what worries me.
    

Skillfully, the pro war contingent on this forum avoids the real issue. This is not about the EU not playing ball with the US, it's about the prospect of a very serious war that has the potential of directictly affecting all of our lives. There is perhaps an unspoken assumption that bombing countries 'in case' they ever attack us, will have only positive consequences. The implications of attacking Iran - especially with nuclear weapons - is going to set a new precedent. After the bombs were dropped on Japan we have seen a doctrine of deterence, rather than pre-emption. Arguably, that maintained peace for so long between the west and the Soviets.

If the US or Israel uses these weapons in a conflict in Iran it will send a signal to the rest of the non nuclear world that they are fair game for the US. In order to counter that, we would see a large number of countries 'tooling up' Regional conflicts could go nuclear very quickly. The world would cease to recognise nuclear weapons as being anything than just another weapon for open use in any battle. The Russians would panic and re-start their weapons development program - if they haven't already - and before we know it, the prospect of global nuclear war would be more real than EVER before.

And, what for?? Control of oil? Establishing a 'new world order'? eliminating a terror threat? Would it be worth it? To live in a world where war is constant, and nuclearvwar ultimately likely, where recession is the norm due to problems with countries fighting over resources. Where one nation dominates with fear?

People dont seem to appreciate the gravity of this situation. People seem to think that attacking Iran, or hitting them with sanctions is going to lessen the risk of terror on the US and her allies. It wont. They think a war will solve a problem and everything will be great for the free world thereafter. It wont. Seriously, has nothing been learnt about the ethos of terrorism at all since time began? Terrorism may never win out, but it will certainly never end. The more provoke the disenchanted and the extrememists, the more we must expect them to attack us.

References have been made hear to 'good and evil' and how pacifists would have turned a blind eye to Hitler. These are huge and unfair generalisations about those who oppose military action on Iran. If folk can seriously not make the distinction between the need to crush the Nazis, and the insanity of attacking Iran, then maybe there is no hope. Perhaps we should look more closely at the paralells between Hitlers manipulation of the media in his rise to power, and the way the Bush administration has spun news, lied about terror threats, foreign weapons capability in order to push through his Patriot Act, justify the illegal detention of terror suspects without charge, and bolster cases for war in violation of international law.


    

Edited by Blacksword - May 07 2006 at 05:33

Here in the Netherlands it's only sideline news.

The simple concept here is that the US can't go to war without a draft. There are simply not enough troops. Bush would be insane to propose a draft. So what's the other option? That's right, long range bombing and possible..............nuclear strikes. Ever wonder why that option, however insane it is, was not taken off the table? That's why.

Edited by stonebeard - May 06 2006 at 23:08

^ It may not be news in GB but its just about the #1 news story here in the states.

Edited by NetsNJFan - May 06 2006 at 22:43