Quote: Original post by zedz
cyansoft in answer to your questions, since there are some 'maybes' there

replace iran with north korea

they saiz they have nuclear weapons or are developing them
have tested long range launchers

A few less maybes there
Now what has the world done about this?

Perhaps the single biggest failing of the bush jr government was the decision to goto iraq instead of the NK, I think I said this back in my blog in 2001

North Korea is a problem, however there is little more we can currently do about it without angering China. Iraq was the path of least resistance for the continuation of Bush's agenda, good or bad.


As to Iran, Israel may get the perception that nobody else is willing to stop them, and may try to stop them themselves. There aren't really any good options here either.

Quote: Original post by trzy
A nuclear armed Iran could certainly do a lot of damage in the region if it wanted to, particularly if it set off a wave of proliferation in the Arabian peninsula. History is replete with examples of leaders and nations making foolish and futile grasps for power only to leave millions dead in their wake. If ever there was a worrisome hot spot of irrationality, it can definitely be found here. In the short-term, Western analysts often bring up Iran's ability to wreak havoc in the Straits of Hormuz, which could easily disrupt global oil prices and production.

Quote:
My personal oppinion is that I preffer the western governments being in a dominant position before any eastern one I can think of.

Agreed.

Well,well...
I understand that it's your rersonal opinion and respect it,but in international politic it may cause the fatal end.The best example is situation in the past autumn,it was a time of "small Carribean crysis".Now situation changes in good direction (though slowly) because of Obama politic,but one year ago we were ready for everything,and was started information campaign.
I can give you a link to video if it will be interesting for you.
-------
They say that Pakistan bomb much more dangerous then Iranian.

Quote: Original post by Krokhin

Quote: Original post by trzy
A nuclear armed Iran could certainly do a lot of damage in the region if it wanted to, particularly if it set off a wave of proliferation in the Arabian peninsula. History is replete with examples of leaders and nations making foolish and futile grasps for power only to leave millions dead in their wake. If ever there was a worrisome hot spot of irrationality, it can definitely be found here. In the short-term, Western analysts often bring up Iran's ability to wreak havoc in the Straits of Hormuz, which could easily disrupt global oil prices and production.

Quote:
My personal oppinion is that I preffer the western governments being in a dominant position before any eastern one I can think of.

Agreed.

Well,well...
I understand that it's your rersonal opinion and respect it,but in international politic it may cause the fatal end.The best example is situation in the past autumn,it was a time of "small Carribean crysis".Now situation changes in good direction (though slowly) because of Obama politic,but one year ago we were ready for everything,and was started information campaign.
I can give you a link to video if it will be interesting for you.
-------
They say that Pakistan bomb much more dangerous then Iranian.

Of course the Pakistani bomb is more dangerous. It actually exists and is in the possession of a failed state. It's absolutely pathetic on our part for maintaining such cordial relations with the Pakistanis rather than the Indians (who we are moving closer to). Iran's Islamic theocracy is also on the road to failure, and now they're going to have a bomb. Great!

All diplomatic avenues should be exhausted first and I'm glad the Obama administration is ratcheting up the pressure on this front. If sanctions don't work (which they aren't likely to) and Iran does set off a bomb, how will we respond? Every time a nation has gone nuclear, the military option has been taken off the table, enabling them to build up a small stockpile. This pattern should be changed if at all possible. And because the last thing we need is more Islamic ire directed our way, it would be convenient to use the Israelis for this purpose, since a nuclear middle-east is a more immediate threat to them (although it is no insignificant threat to us).

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by Krokhin

Quote: Original post by trzy
A nuclear armed Iran could certainly do a lot of damage in the region if it wanted to, particularly if it set off a wave of proliferation in the Arabian peninsula. History is replete with examples of leaders and nations making foolish and futile grasps for power only to leave millions dead in their wake. If ever there was a worrisome hot spot of irrationality, it can definitely be found here. In the short-term, Western analysts often bring up Iran's ability to wreak havoc in the Straits of Hormuz, which could easily disrupt global oil prices and production.

Quote:
My personal oppinion is that I preffer the western governments being in a dominant position before any eastern one I can think of.

Agreed.

Well,well...
I understand that it's your rersonal opinion and respect it,but in international politic it may cause the fatal end.The best example is situation in the past autumn,it was a time of "small Carribean crysis".Now situation changes in good direction (though slowly) because of Obama politic,but one year ago we were ready for everything,and was started information campaign.
I can give you a link to video if it will be interesting for you.
-------
They say that Pakistan bomb much more dangerous then Iranian.

Of course the Pakistani bomb is more dangerous. It actually exists and is in the possession of a failed state. It's absolutely pathetic on our part for maintaining such cordial relations with the Pakistanis rather than the Indians (who we are moving closer to). Iran's Islamic theocracy is also on the road to failure, and now they're going to have a bomb. Great!

All diplomatic avenues should be exhausted first and I'm glad the Obama administration is ratcheting up the pressure on this front. If sanctions don't work (which they aren't likely to) and Iran does set off a bomb, how will we respond? Every time a nation has gone nuclear, the military option has been taken off the table, enabling them to build up a small stockpile. This pattern should be changed if at all possible. And because the last thing we need is more Islamic ire directed our way, it would be convenient to use the Israelis for this purpose, since a nuclear middle-east is a more immediate threat to them (although it is no insignificant threat to us).

I agree that the military option should not be taken off the table if Iran does get a nuclear weapon. In fact, I believe it should be used immediately. But I don't agree with the fact that the "use" of Israel in a military strike will somehow keep Islamic ire away from us. Everyone knows in the ME knows that we arm the Israelis and everyone knows that the Israelis will not do such a thing without US and/or UK approval. So no, if Israel attacks Iran or any other Islamic state, we will still be blamed and have ire directed and coming right at us.

There are no good military options when it comes to dealing with Iran. The Iranian government has said that it will regard any military attack on their facilities as a declaration of war. It seems too obvious to have to point out, but most governments would respond that way if facilities in their nation were attacked by the military of another nation. Iran has bigger claws than Iraq did. How many lives is the effort to stop Iran worth?

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by Krokhin

Quote: Original post by trzy
A nuclear armed Iran could certainly do a lot of damage in the region if it wanted to, particularly if it set off a wave of proliferation in the Arabian peninsula. History is replete with examples of leaders and nations making foolish and futile grasps for power only to leave millions dead in their wake. If ever there was a worrisome hot spot of irrationality, it can definitely be found here. In the short-term, Western analysts often bring up Iran's ability to wreak havoc in the Straits of Hormuz, which could easily disrupt global oil prices and production.

Quote:
My personal oppinion is that I preffer the western governments being in a dominant position before any eastern one I can think of.

Agreed.

Well,well...
I understand that it's your rersonal opinion and respect it,but in international politic it may cause the fatal end.The best example is situation in the past autumn,it was a time of "small Carribean crysis".Now situation changes in good direction (though slowly) because of Obama politic,but one year ago we were ready for everything,and was started information campaign.
I can give you a link to video if it will be interesting for you.
-------
They say that Pakistan bomb much more dangerous then Iranian.

Of course the Pakistani bomb is more dangerous. It actually exists and is in the possession of a failed state. It's absolutely pathetic on our part for maintaining such cordial relations with the Pakistanis rather than the Indians (who we are moving closer to). Iran's Islamic theocracy is also on the road to failure, and now they're going to have a bomb. Great!

All diplomatic avenues should be exhausted first and I'm glad the Obama administration is ratcheting up the pressure on this front. If sanctions don't work (which they aren't likely to) and Iran does set off a bomb, how will we respond? Every time a nation has gone nuclear, the military option has been taken off the table, enabling them to build up a small stockpile. This pattern should be changed if at all possible. And because the last thing we need is more Islamic ire directed our way, it would be convenient to use the Israelis for this purpose, since a nuclear middle-east is a more immediate threat to them (although it is no insignificant threat to us).

I agree that the military option should not be taken off the table if Iran does get a nuclear weapon. In fact, I believe it should be used immediately. But I don't agree with the fact that the "use" of Israel in a military strike will somehow keep Islamic ire away from us. Everyone knows in the ME knows that we arm the Israelis and everyone knows that the Israelis will not do such a thing without US and/or UK approval. So no, if Israel attacks Iran or any other Islamic state, we will still be blamed and have ire directed and coming right at us.

That's a good point. But surely dragging in as many middle eastern players into this as possible is a good thing. Rumor has it that the Saudis will agree to allow Israel to fly over its airspace. If this is true, we should definitely push the Israelis into doing this, rather than going through Iraq.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There are no good military options when it comes to dealing with Iran. The Iranian government has said that it will regard any military attack on their facilities as a declaration of war. It seems too obvious to have to point out, but most governments would respond that way if facilities in their nation were attacked by the military of another nation. Iran has bigger claws than Iraq did. How many lives is the effort to stop Iran worth?

I really don't know how many lives it is worth to stop Iran if it sets off a bomb, bringing the world closer to nuclear terrorism and inspiring an arms race among nations completely unfit for possessing nuclear arms. Maybe Sunnis in the middle east can help us decide. They'll be none too happy if the Persians invade them.

I would hope US strategists are competent enough to come up with a plan for pushing Iran's rivals in the region into fighting it directly if necessary, but given our misadventures over the last decade, I have my doubts.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There are no good military options when it comes to dealing with Iran. The Iranian government has said that it will regard any military attack on their facilities as a declaration of war. It seems too obvious to have to point out, but most governments would respond that way if facilities in their nation were attacked by the military of another nation. Iran has bigger claws than Iraq did. How many lives is the effort to stop Iran worth?

I really don't know how many lives it is worth to stop Iran if it sets off a bomb, bringing the world closer to nuclear terrorism and inspiring an arms race among nations completely unfit for possessing nuclear arms. Maybe Sunnis in the middle east can help us decide. They'll be none too happy if the Persians invade them.

The problem I see is that military action after Iran tests a bomb isn't going to accomplish much and will be incredibly risky* but military action before they have a bomb will likely cause most of the scenarios were trying to avoid.

*I don't think their dumb enough to give nukes to terrorists but when US troops are a day from their capitol they might reconsider.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There are no good military options when it comes to dealing with Iran. The Iranian government has said that it will regard any military attack on their facilities as a declaration of war. It seems too obvious to have to point out, but most governments would respond that way if facilities in their nation were attacked by the military of another nation. Iran has bigger claws than Iraq did. How many lives is the effort to stop Iran worth?

I really don't know how many lives it is worth to stop Iran if it sets off a bomb, bringing the world closer to nuclear terrorism and inspiring an arms race among nations completely unfit for possessing nuclear arms. Maybe Sunnis in the middle east can help us decide. They'll be none too happy if the Persians invade them.

I would hope US strategists are competent enough to come up with a plan for pushing Iran's rivals in the region into fighting it directly if necessary, but given our misadventures over the last decade, I have my doubts.

Iran hasn't set off a bomb so hold your horses with the bloodlust. How many lives would be lost in a war with Iran? How many Iranians, Americans, Israelis, and Iraqis? Is preventing Iran from getting the bomb more important than those lives? Is preventing Iran from getting the bomb so important that we'll start a war to do so? Bombing Iran would start a war with Iran. It would expand the theater of the current wars. It would keep troops stuck in Iraq and lock in the continual drain on the national treasury. Oil prices will skyrocket. The economy will tank even further. The military option does not benefit the United States. It doesn't benefit the people of Iran either.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There are no good military options when it comes to dealing with Iran. The Iranian government has said that it will regard any military attack on their facilities as a declaration of war. It seems too obvious to have to point out, but most governments would respond that way if facilities in their nation were attacked by the military of another nation. Iran has bigger claws than Iraq did. How many lives is the effort to stop Iran worth?

I really don't know how many lives it is worth to stop Iran if it sets off a bomb, bringing the world closer to nuclear terrorism and inspiring an arms race among nations completely unfit for possessing nuclear arms. Maybe Sunnis in the middle east can help us decide. They'll be none too happy if the Persians invade them.

I would hope US strategists are competent enough to come up with a plan for pushing Iran's rivals in the region into fighting it directly if necessary, but given our misadventures over the last decade, I have my doubts.

Iran hasn't set off a bomb so hold your horses with the bloodlust. How many lives would be lost in a war with Iran? How many Iranians, Americans, Israelis, and Iraqis? Is preventing Iran from getting the bomb more important than those lives? Is preventing Iran from getting the bomb so important that we'll start a war to do so? Bombing Iran would start a war with Iran. It would expand the theater of the current wars. It would keep troops stuck in Iraq and lock in the continual drain on the national treasury. Oil prices will skyrocket. The economy will tank even further. The military option does not benefit the United States. It doesn't benefit the people of Iran either.

When Lessbread, the neo-cons in the DoD who thought invading Iraq was a smooth move, and the military top brass all agree that the military options with respect to Iran are poor...then that should give one pause for thought. If just about every group that normally cant agree on anything unite to agree that something is a bad idea, then maybe just, maybe it is...