War In Iran

[coheneran]

I've been reading lots of articles about American military escalation on the Iranian borders (for example USS Baatan, I think it's called? just moved through the Suez Canal and is apparantly due in the Persian gulf at the end of the month), and the possibility of a military offensive against Iran. Not only is there military escalation, but also huge spin on the part of the media about Iran's meddling in Iraq (which turned out to be the opening of an Iranian bank, to help with funds for reconstruction), the nuclear weapons (that don't and never existed, and won't exist for the forseeable future), and the evil dictatorship of Ahmadinejad and the suffering of the Iranian people. All looking very familiar, and reminds me of 2002.

Anyway, some links, and then a discussion, perhaps?

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/361238.html (Anti-Iran media spin)

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/361240.html (Troop escalation)

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/01/361224.html (Letter addressed to US administration signed by various international and national law organisations warning of the illegality of war against Iran)

http://lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html (Pretty irrelevant, but nice nonetheless; Iran looking very much like Israel there, bar the snow)

Remember, as with any news reportings: "Delete the adjectives and you will have the bare facts."

[YDtoad]

All looking very familiar, and reminds me of 2002.


The difference being that this time, a dictator is openly proclaiming his desire and intent to go nuclear, while denying the Holocaust and loudly stating his desire to annihilate Israel.

PS Haven't we been through why "Indiemedia" is a crock? It'd be like VF linking to WND.

[coheneran]

The difference being that this time, a dictator is openly proclaiming his desire and intent to go nuclear, while denying the Holocaust and loudly stating his desire to annihilate Israel.

The intent was to build nuclear, and this is important, POWER STATIONS, not weapons. Please source the holocaust denial thing, and as for him saying we should "wipe Israel off the map" (if I recall correctly), he clarified himself afterwards and said that we should abolish the state of Israel and instead create a shared Palestinian and Jewish state, which is basically going back to the pre-Nagba arrangements except without all the collonialism and foreign occupation.

PS Haven't we been through why "Indiemedia" is a crock? It'd be like VF linking to WND.

What're VF and WND?

And no, it's only a crock if you're the sort of person who'll believe anything a particular individual will say because they're that particular individual, without listening to their words (ie. if you're a celebrity worshipper). On the other hand, if you take the time to actually read the articles without trying to work out if the person who wrote them is a famous journalist or broadcaster, then we can discuss the real issue properly. In other words stop attacking my sources because you don't like their name.

[shaqadelic]

Please source the holocaust denial thing,

He is probably referring to a Holocaust convention that was held last year in Iran. Its aim is to openly discuss opinions on the tragedy but the media made it out as a conference which goal is to disprove the Holocaust.

Although they were a number of deniers who attended the event but at the same time, there were Orthodox Jews who were there and stated loud and clear that the Holocaust occurred without restrictions.

[coheneran]

Oh. Even if he was a holocaust denier, that's no reason to go to war against him. There're regular nazi conventions in Germany and Austria, I don't see the US doing military operations there.

Except from that German of Lebanese descent who was mistaken for a terrorist. It's so hard to tell who's on our side these days, when almost everybody's brown.:rolleyes:

[PerpetualBurn]

Indymedia is a crock.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

The intent was to build nuclear, and this is important, POWER STATIONS, not weapons.



That's really what i wanted to think, but there was word of them sharing knowledge with the North Koreans about nuclear weapons developments. That's not a fact, but just because Iran isn't america doesn't mean the guys at the top aren't also bad people.


Please source the holocaust denial thing,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6167695.stm

[griftadan]

i think it's blatantly obvious at this point that they want nuclear weapons. whether or not they involved in the insurgency is debatable.

[shaqadelic]

I don't really see any concrete evidence to be honest, the IAEA's position is that they have not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive device by Iran. I am more comfortable with taking their words than the Bush administration's.

[lunchforthesky]

Assuming they are actively trying to proliferate nuclear armaments, what is the International Community/America going to do about it? We can't win a war in Iran.

[Yield]

i think it's blatantly obvious at this point that they want nuclear weapons. whether or not they involved in the insurgency is debatable.

I personally doubt that the government of Iran is sending any insurgents into Iraq. Insurgents may be coming from Iran, but I don't think they are directly connected with the government.

We can't win a war in Iran.

I think this is true. We're in a situation in Iraq where we can't spare any troops, if we leave then we've got more chaos. We also still have our war in Afghanistan. Anything else is just too much.

[shaqadelic]

Assuming they are actively trying to proliferate nuclear armaments, what is the International Community/America going to do about it? We can't win a war in Iran.


The US can definitely destroy Iran's nuclear program without being involved in large scale war.

But why military action? Use diplomacy. With Iran being dependent on Russia on political and economic levels, the Kremlin will have diplomatic advantages in dealing with the Islamic Republic if (big if) they are arming nuclear weapon.

Personally, I am not worried with Iran having nuclear weapon because they won't be stupid enough to use it neither hand it to terror groups cause the weapons can be traced back to them.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I'm yet to hear a good reason why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons that odesn't apply to America also.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

I'm yet to hear a good reason why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons that odesn't apply to America also.

Because Iran is a theocracy?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Because Iran is a theocracy?

/:upset:




wait I am confused


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election%2C_2005

[run don't walk]

We're already fighting a war with Iran. :|

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

/:upset:




wait I am confused


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election%2C_2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election%2C_2005#Election_con troversies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran


The election that put him in power disallowed many challengers, and he shares power with an unelected Ayatollah

[run don't walk]

The Iranians have also shelled parts of Iraqi Kurdistan.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election%2C_2005#Election_con troversies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran


The election that put him in power disallowed many challengers, and he shares power with an unelected Ayatollah

I take it that powershare is not like a british monarchy kind of powershare.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

[shaqadelic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

The election that put him in power disallowed many challengers, and he shares power with an unelected Ayatollah

Interestingly, it is notable to note that the very same same Ayatollah has prohibited nuclear weapon and nuclear arms proliferation.


The Iranians have also shelled parts of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Either the US allows this which is hard to believe or this claim is not true.

[run don't walk]

Either the US allows this which is hard to believe or this claim is not true.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1852843,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4960478.stm
http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc813102.html
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=52007
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article485023.ece

...just google Iran shelling Kurditsan or something...

[coe]

Going to war with Iran would be the dumbest mistake ever.

[run don't walk]

Going to war with Iran would be the dumbest mistake ever.

We're already in a war with Iran.

[Light Fantastic]

Because Iran is a theocracy?

And what?

[Amit]

authoritarian states should not be trusted with weapons of mass destruction; there simply aren't accountable checks and balances nor a stable political climate for them to have them

especially theocratic ones

[run don't walk]

^This.

[griftadan]

they don't need to be trusted within their own system, deterrence is good enough to keep them from using them.

[shaqadelic]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1852843,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4960478.stm
http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc813102.html
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=52007
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article485023.ece

...just google Iran shelling Kurditsan or something...

I read the BBC article, they targeted the PKK which is recognised as a terror group to the US and EU.

[Akira]

If we launch a preemptive offensive against Iran I will seriously consider moving to Canada. Iraq couldn't fight the US back. I am willing to be Iran would have the power to attack the US, which scares me.

[coe]

I'd move as well.

[griftadan]

If we launch a preemptive offensive against Iran I will seriously consider moving to Canada. Iraq couldn't fight the US back. I am willing to be Iran would have the power to attack the US, which scares me.

they don't even have the military infrastructure to mount a conventional attack half way across the globe, and the odds of being killed by iranian back terrorists is insanely low.

you'd be fine.

[YDtoad]

they don't even have the military infrastructure to mount a conventional attack half way across the globe, and the odds of being killed by iranian back terrorists is insanely low.

you'd be fine.

You're correct, but full scale military engagement with Iran would almost inevitably result in suicide bombings in America, maybe dozens of them.

[BassRevelation]

Ive been seeing such articles as well. I'm guessing that we will end up launching some offensive on Iran in the next few months.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

You're correct, but full scale military engagement with Iran would almost inevitably result in suicide bombings in America, maybe dozens of them.

Good thing it won't be a full scale military engagement. It would be clean, surgical strikes against known nuclear plants, similar to what Israel did in Iraq back in the 80s. Minimal collateral damage, though I'm sure the political backlash would be out of this world

[YDtoad]

Well, any military aggression (I shouldn't have been so specific) would likely result in reprisals in the form of suicide bombings either here in America or at American embassies.

[BassRevelation]

Well, any military aggression (I shouldn't have been so specific) would likely result in reprisals in the form of suicide bombings either here in America or at American embassies.

I think the backlash will be much worse than a series of suicide bombings.

in a fight with their army, we would be obliterated. Thats besides the point. I can see them(or any group of thugs) launching a serious attack on American soil.

[Cain]

See, there's just no good reason not to try and use diplomatic leverage, since the majority of the Iranian populace is rather unhappy with their President anyway and have plenty of moderates amongst them.

I read a pretty good essay in the Times by Nicholas Kristof who makes a fairly good point in saying that our basic position in the Middle East, based at it has traditionally been on oil concerns until the 1967 Israeli war, has neccesitated our closest alliance with Saudi Arabia, which is the bastion of Wahabbism, the most intolerant form of Islam, and which is home to most of the 9/11 hijackers. Iran is actually more of a natural ally, excluding the president, than Saudi Arabia is.

[YDtoad]

I think the backlash will be much worse than a series of suicide bombings.

in a fight with their army, we would be obliterated. Thats besides the point. I can see them(or any group of thugs) launching a serious attack on American soil.

Who do you mean by "them"? I think you'd be dealing with decentralized cells of suicide attacks, kind of like what we see in Iraq today. Only over here. As for us being obliterated, we could devastate their army. We have superior technology.

But of course the better way is to strangle them, rather than hit them with a shovel. Blockade their ports to start with.

See, there's just no good reason to try and use diplomatic leverage, since the majority of the Iranian populace is rather unhappy with their President anyway and have plenty of moderates amongst them.

I read a pretty good essay in the Times by Nicholas Kristof who makes a fairly good point in saying that our basic position in the Middle East, based at it has traditionally been on oil concerns until the 1967 Israeli war, has neccesitated our closest alliance with Saudi Arabia, which is the bastion of Wahabbism, the most intolerant form of Islam, and which is home to most of the 9/11 hijackers. Iran is actually more of a natural ally, excluding the president, than Saudi Arabia is.

While this is true, how likely is it that any of the sane ones will get into real power any time soon?

[BassRevelation]

Who do you mean by "them"? I think you'd be dealing with decentralized cells of suicide attacks, kind of like what we see in Iraq today. Only over here. As for us being obliterated, we could devastate their army. We have superior technology.

by them i mean Iran.

And there's no way our army could win a war on three fronts. You should also realize that we're dealing with a real, full army of Iran and not loosely, unorganized set of attacks as we are with Iraq.

[griftadan]

by them i mean Iran.

And there's no way our army could win a war on three fronts. You should also realize that we're dealing with a real, full army of Iran and not loosely, unorganized set of attacks as we are with Iraq.

we could if we took our troops out of europe and then ingored the rules of engagement. international pressure would make this undesirable though.

[Akira]

So in conclusion, a military full offensive would be completely asinine without support of other countries. And I would rather us not start a new World War.

[griftadan]

by them i mean Iran.

And there's no way our army could win a war on three fronts. You should also realize that we're dealing with a real, full army of Iran and not loosely, unorganized set of attacks as we are with Iraq.

but thats what were good at, destroying organized armies. we suck at insurgencies.

[lunchforthesky]

Attacking Iran would surely draw other countries into the conflict like Syria. The rest of the middle east isn't going to just sit there while they get picked off one by one.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Attacking Iran would surely draw other countries into the conflict like Syria. The rest of the middle east isn't going to just sit there while they get picked off one by one.

Then the USMC launch an attack on karkand and the newly formed Middle East Coalition go to defend it and then every nerd in the western world is able to make himself useful by informing the us army that Medic is the class to go as if you want to score lots of points and that the best plan is to send a squad in through the back of the mosque to take that flag while the rest of the arabs are defending the outpost

instant rep for anyone who knows what's going on

[shaqadelic]

Wait, why is everybody under the assumption that Iran arming nuclear weapon = fact?

authoritarian states should not be trusted with weapons of mass destruction; there simply aren't accountable checks and balances nor a stable political climate for them to have them

When it comes to the use of nuclear weapon, the decision is made by people whose power over the issue is absolute, regardless of the country's political system.

The people of America didn't have a say about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What is more surprising General MacArthur, the Supreme Allied Commander of the Pacific Theater wasn't even consulted. This highlight how absolute and centralised the power of the decision makers is.

Thus, you can't trust anybody with nuclear weapon because even a democracy can have a warmonger elected (I am not saying Truman was one so don't draw that conclusion). The thing that could build trust is a no-first-use policy, even that is very little trust. Notably, only one democratic country has taken that policy.

[Smokey D]

Comparing the use of nuclear weapons when there was only one nuclear power to a world where there's nearly a dozen is pretty pointless.

[shaqadelic]

Comparing the use of nuclear weapons when there was only one nuclear power to a world where there's nearly a dozen is pretty pointless.

The decision making system has not changed in my view and are the same for all the nuclear powers. The people still do not have any say and the forntline generals still will have little input.

So in my view it is false security to think that a democratic state is more trustworthy with nuclear weapons.

Personally, I am quite worried with Israel possesing nuclear weapon, they have practiced gross negilgence and many would say war crimes in the past. Their conduct in last year's Lebanese war is a prime example, dropping cluster bombs way overdue their date of use in civilian areas which results in over 1 million bomblets being left behind. Even worse, they have not provided maps showing their bombing targets which suggest they have bombed indiscriminately. I do not trust anybody with this kinda conduct having nuclear weapon even if they are a democratic state.

[Amit]

The people of America didn't have a say about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What is more surprising General MacArthur, the Supreme Allied Commander of the Pacific Theater wasn't even consulted. This highlight how absolute and centralised the power of the decision makers is.

Thus, you can't trust anybody with nuclear weapon because even a democracy can have a warmonger elected (I am not saying Truman was one so don't draw that conclusion). The thing that could build trust is a no-first-use policy, even that is very little trust. Notably, only one democratic country has taken that policy.

your point is irrelevant though

the important thing is that democratic states have checks and balances and systems of accountability in place

there is nothing like that in authoritarian states (especially theocratic ones)

[shaqadelic]

It is very relevant that regardless of political system, if you have a warmonger then there is no stopping him/her.

Checks and balances, the only forms of those are a no first use policy and only one democratic state has that.

A theocracy that bans nuclear weapons is comforting to me, that is what Iran exactly is.

[Amit]

if you have a warmonger then no one is going to vote for them so they don't have any power :X

don't apply authoritarian thinking to a democratic state; it doesn't make for valid conclusions

[shaqadelic]

I don't see why democracy is immune to warmongers being voted in.

A self proclaimed war president was already voted by the American public. It is good that he is on his way out but the damage he has done to security of Americans is undeniable.

The only checks and balance is a no first use policy and more non democratic states have adopted that than democratic ones. What do you think of this fact?

[Amit]

I don't see why democracy is immune to warmongers being voted in.

it isn't immune but it's a hell of a lot less likely than in an authoritarian state

and what makes you think warmongers are the only ones who might use nuclear weapons

A self proclaimed war president was already voted by the American public. It is good that he is on his way out but the damage he has done to security of Americans is undeniable.

what is a war president

The only checks and balance is a no first use policy and more non democratic states have adopted that than democratic ones. What do you think of this fact?

there are more checks and balances than that

such as the motivations of not being executed and losing political power

[Krabsworth]

A self proclaimed war president was already voted by the American public. It is good that he is on his way out but the damage he has done to security of Americans is undeniable.



what security damage?

no attacks in 5 years security damage?

[shaqadelic]

it isn't immune but it's a hell of a lot less likely than in an authoritarian state

It already happened in America.

and what makes you think warmongers are the only ones who might use nuclear weapons

More likelier than anybody else.

what is a war president

The title Bush gave himself and illustrated in his actions.

there are more checks and balances than that

such as the motivations of not being executed and losing political power


This characteristic of self preservation of power is existence among authoritarian states as well, if they used nukes they will face extreme retaliation which will lead to death and loss of political power, thus they do not dare.

In fact the only country that has used nuclear weapon in history has not been held accountable.


what security damage?

no attacks in 5 years security damage?

I am sure you are aware of the anti American feeling has escalated in the world since the War in Iraq. This occurrence has made US more the target than it ever was. I feel that this is damaging to the security of Americans.

[pedro durruti]

what security damage?

no attacks in 5 years security damage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

Well technically there have been terrorist attacks in America since 9/11, if you scroll down and pick through all the other incidents. No major attacks, yes. But that is a failed argument because we have undergone long periods in history without any major terrorist attack with no national security plan or international war on terror.

[Krabsworth]

None of the attacks on America in that one even count as minor tbh.

Running people down in an SUV?

[pedro durruti]

There have also been a couple shootings. Although I'm not sure what motives there were in the DC snipes.

[Krabsworth]

I think those guys (John Muhammad or something?) were just a couple of crazies :/

[griftadan]

i think it's unlikely that any leader will use nuclear weapons in the modern world regardless of how much authority they possess.

in short, who cares?

[RNR]

Unless they were brainwashed religious martyrs of some sort. But I don't see that happening.

[coheneran]

Well, any military aggression (I shouldn't have been so specific) would likely result in reprisals in the form of suicide bombings either here in America or at American embassies.

Yeah, like when those Greek anarchists (God bless those heroes) blew up the eagle on top of the American embassy, and also a toilet. That was far more symbolic (and hilarious) than double-you tee-see.

Who do you mean by "them"? I think you'd be dealing with decentralized cells of suicide attacks, kind of like what we see in Iraq today. Only over here. As for us being obliterated, we could devastate their army. We have superior technology.

You mean like you're devastating the insurgency and the Taliban?

While this is true, how likely is it that any of the sane ones will get into real power any time soon?

Depends if any of them run in the next elections. Frankly, I'm quite disappointed by the USA and UK for that coup in Iran which took out that extremely pro-USA Iranian leader way back in the day.

your point is irrelevant though

the important thing is that democratic states have checks and balances and systems of accountability in place

there is nothing like that in authoritarian states (especially theocratic ones)

Because all those checks and balances about stopping illegal wars worked perfectly, right?

i think it's unlikely that any leader will use nuclear weapons in the modern world regardless of how much authority they possess.

in short, who cares?

Zero.

[PerpetualBurn]

Because all those checks and balances about stopping illegal wars worked perfectly, right?

I call non-sequitur!

[coheneran]

Since when was it illegal to throw petty insults at American governing bureaucracy?

[PerpetualBurn]

It's not illegal.

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

You mean like you're devastating the insurgency and the Taliban?

Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that the United States does indeed have the power to obliterate enemies like Al Qaeda and the insurgency, but it would be illegal (in some instances) and unlikely given the restraint required in most modern warfare today and the relentless and global opposition to the war in Iraq.

[shaqadelic]

Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that the United States does indeed have the power to obliterate enemies like Al Qaeda and the insurgency, but it would be illegal (in some instances) and unlikely given the restraint required in most modern warfare today and the relentless and global opposition to the war in Iraq.

It has the power to obliterate every single living thing in Afghanistan and Iraq which will serve killing their enemies but also the people they claim to 'liberate'.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Yeah, like when those Greek anarchists (God bless those heroes) blew up the eagle on top of the American embassy, and also a toilet. That was far more symbolic (and hilarious) than double-you tee-see.


Heroes?

The standards for being a hero really have dropped if all you have to do now is some juvenile and slightly political vandalism

[coheneran]

Heroes?

The standards for being a hero really have dropped if all you have to do now is some juvenile and slightly political vandalism

If that guy who flew the Hiroshima B52 is a hero, these guys can be heroes.

Besides which, the exagguration's purpose was to point out how hilarious it was and how much I approve, not to get them nominated for a Nobel prize.

EDIT: Seen that video of American jets obliterating those British ground troops? Does that mean we can take them off the official list of Allied casualties?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

If that guy who flew the Hiroshima B52 is a hero, these guys can be heroes.

Besides which, the exagguration's purpose was to point out how hilarious it was and how much I approve, not to get them nominated for a Nobel prize.

Doing what you're trained to do and following orders = totally not a hero

EDIT: Seen that video of American jets obliterating those British ground troops? Does that mean we can take them off the official list of Allied casualties?


sharp... But that sh!t is really tough, both for the pilots involved and the bereaved. wouldn't've killed the pilots to check the tanks for orange blocks, what with the technology they have in those planes.

[coheneran]

I don't have much sympathy for those soldiers, to be honest, but I think the politicians have more blood on their hands than the troops, so to speak.

[Smokey D]

The decision making system has not changed in my view and are the same for all the nuclear powers. The people still do not have any say and the forntline generals still will have little input.

But the world wouldn't have been destroyed in a mono-nuclear situation.

So in my view it is false security to think that a democratic state is more trustworthy with nuclear weapons.

I don't. Democracies tend to elect moderates.

Personally, I am quite worried with Israel possesing nuclear weapon, they have practiced gross negilgence and many would say war crimes in the past. Their conduct in last year's Lebanese war is a prime example, dropping cluster bombs way overdue their date of use in civilian areas which results in over 1 million bomblets being left behind. Even worse, they have not provided maps showing their bombing targets which suggest they have bombed indiscriminately. I do not trust anybody with this kinda conduct having nuclear weapon even if they are a democratic state.

Britain and America annihilated thousands of people in the bombing of Germany and Japan. Millions died in China and Russia. Pakistan and India go to war every couple of decades. France has a shocking record in its former colonies. Just because a country has done some bad things it doesn't mean it's going to go nuclear on someone's ***.

Besides, no country is going to supply strategic maps and military intelligence to its enemy. That would wholly defeat the purpose, and you're applying an unfair standard on Israel.

[coheneran]

What's so unfair about saying Israel was using out-of-date weaponry that's already banned internationally?

[Smokey D]

That's not the unfair bit. The unfair bit is when you expect Israel to give up its strategic secrets and reveal the extent of its knowledge about its enemies when that violates standard international practise, and, quite frankly, the point.

[coheneran]

There's no reasonable point in war.

[Smokey D]

Don't quote hippyisms at me.

[coheneran]

Lol, it's perfectly simple. There's no good reason to kill someone, and war kills lots of someones, therefore there's no good reason(s) to go to war, ever.

[Smokey D]

Occasionally, there's a bloody good reason to go to war. Like when not going to war will result in more suffering than otherwise. Besides, one doesn't need to go to war to maintain state secrets.

[coheneran]

The idea that going to war will end in ultimately less suffering is flawed because it is one-sided. For example, it's not that we should never have gone to war in WW2 (as the Allies, I mean), it's that Hitler should have never invaded Poland and we should have never retaliated. There is no good reason, universally, to go to war.

[Smokey D]

What happens if someone by some act or omission was causing more harm than war? Perhaps withholding food or medicine from a significant part of the population, or enslaving another group or what have you. War isn't the only cause of distress.

[coheneran]

Some would say that refusing a group of people equal treatment is going to war against them. Unless they do not resist, but everybody resists.

[Smokey D]

Some people would be stupid because war has a specific meaning in that states or proto-states use armies or some other combat group to secure particular strategic goals. You can't say that any sort of conflict or oppression is war because that subverts and dilutes the definition.

[coheneran]

If you say so master.

EDIT: In that case, what would we call the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? It may not seem like war to you, but when you get down on the ground over there and look at all the little pieces and all the graveyards, it begins to look like a war.

[PerpetualBurn]

Lol, it's perfectly simple. There's no good reason to kill someone, and war kills lots of someones, therefore there's no good reason(s) to go to war, ever.

Now let's hold hands and all the bad people in the world will just disappear.

[Smokey D]

Israel-Palestine is a difficult thing to classify. Certainly, Israel possesses an army and conducts itself like a state at war. Palestine, however, is too under-developed to be a true state and its security forces are hardly ever the actors in the conflict. However, the terrorist groups in Palestine could be considered proto-states and they possess their own armed elements to act as substitutes for an official army.

[coheneran]

Now let's hold hands and all the bad people in the world will just disappear.

Just because war is always wrong doesn't mean bad people will go away. It just means less babies will be thrown out with the bathwater.

[PerpetualBurn]

War is never good, but sometimes it's the right thing to do.

[coheneran]

When was war ever the right decision? Keep in mind what I said about not being one-sided.

[Smokey D]

To stop slavery.

[coheneran]

I don't know enough about the American civil war to comment, but I'm guessing it wasn't about slavery, that was just an excuse. Like Bush's excuse here was WMDs, then liberation, then democracy. Anyone remember the original name of the war in Iraq, before it was changed? It was Operation: Iraqi Liberation. That does not make for a good abbreviation. Good thing they changed it to Operation: Iraqi Freedom.

[PerpetualBurn]

When was war ever the right decision? Keep in mind what I said about not being one-sided.

Keep in mind that I don't have a choice about the other nations aims, only to defend myself.

[Smokey D]

First of all, I wasn't specifically talking about the American Civil War. I was posing a hypothetical. Secondly, while there were many causes to the Civil War, including divergent economic systems and changing cultures feeling unrepresented in the Federal government, the pro- and ant-abolitionist movements were probably the proximate spark for the movement to secession.

[coheneran]

Keep in mind that I don't have a choice about the other nations aims, only to defend myself.

But if the other nation was going to war against you first, they had no good reason to go to war, and so whether or not you retaliate is irrelevant because the war is pointless. Nations come and go, but people have always been there to have wars declared in their names, and then died for no good reason, regardless of what flag their leader happened to be waving.

[Smokey D]

Wars are not always, or at least need not always, be fought in national or dynastic interests. I already gave you an example of when that might occur.

[coheneran]

I think it's up to the oppressed to liberate themselves, otherwise the would-be liberators would end up oppressing another group.

[PerpetualBurn]

But if the other nation was going to war against you first, they had no good reason to go to war, and so whether or not you retaliate is irrelevant because the war is pointless. Nations come and go, but people have always been there to have wars declared in their names, and then died for no good reason, regardless of what flag their leader happened to be waving.

Given my position the right thing would be to go to war.

[Smokey D]

I think it's up to the oppressed to liberate themselves, otherwise the would-be liberators would end up oppressing another group.

If the existing regime required war to be overthrown, the oppressed would be going to war by trying to liberate themselves.

[shaqadelic]

But the world wouldn't have been destroyed in a mono-nuclear situation.

Well, we don't live in one. And personally, I don't trust even if only one country has nukes.

I don't. Democracies tend to elect moderates.

And they have elected someone like Bush who is a self proclaimed war president.

Britain and America annihilated thousands of people in the bombing of Germany and Japan. Millions died in China and Russia. Pakistan and India go to war every couple of decades. France has a shocking record in its former colonies. Just because a country has done some bad things it doesn't mean it's going to go nuclear on someone's ***.

Israel's capability for accurate bombing is millions times higher than overdue cluster bombs. The fact that they did what they did knowing that they are capable of better technology and they are deploying them at civilian areas are conducts that are worrying of a country possessing nukes.

The other powers are no more better but China, India, Russia have a no first use policy. US, Britain and France (in recent operations) don't practice such gross negligence and disregard for civilian lives; in the Kosovo War, they decided to stop using cluster bombs all together because of the risk to civilian lives. The times when US and Britain do use cluster bombs (they did in the 2003 Iraq war), they definitely won't use overdue ones.

Besides, no country is going to supply strategic maps and military intelligence to its enemy. That would wholly defeat the purpose, and you're applying an unfair standard on Israel.

The UN bomblets removal squad is Israel's enemy now?

The cluster bombing maps (if they even have those maps which by latest report, they probably don't thus suggesting indiscriminate bombing) have no strategic and intelligence value anymore as Hezbollah have left the positions and will not use them in any new conflict.

[coheneran]

Given my position the right thing would be to go to war.

If you were being attacked, you wouldn't be starting a war, you'd be joining one which was started for a bad reason. It takes two to tango, so to speak.

If the existing regime required war to be overthrown, the oppressed would be going to war by trying to liberate themselves.

If the oppressed liberate themselves, it's not a war, it's an insurrection or revolution or insurgency. Personally, I like the word intifada, which is used to mean "people's uprising" but originally means "shaking off".

[Smokey D]

Well, we don't live in one. And personally, I don't trust even if only one country has nukes.

Of course we don't live in one. That's why comparing the irresponsibility of using nukes on Japan with the potential irresponsibility of using them today is fruitless.

And they have elected someone like Bush who is a self proclaimed war president.


Bush is moderate, by and large.

And certainly not radical enough to order a nuclear strike.

Israel's capability for accurate bombing is millions times higher than overdue cluster bombs. The fact that they did what they did knowing that they are capable of better technology and they are deploying them at civilian areas are conducts that are worrying of a country possessing nukes.

They're use of cluster bombs was appalling but all it suggests is that they're willing to use inaccurate anti-personal weaponry. The US uses daisy cutters in a similar fashion. Nuclear weapons are so qualitatively different in the way they're are perceived and the level of destruction they wreak that it is utterly pointless in comparing them to any conventional weaponry.

Besides, if we were going to start comparing tactics and they're compatibility with nuclear weapons, then what do we have to say about supporters of suicide terrorism?



The other powers are no more better but China, India, Russia have a no first use policy. US, Britain and France (in recent operations) don't practice such gross negligence and disregard for civilian lives; in the Kosovo War, they decided to stop using cluster bombs all together because of the risk to civilian lives. The times when US and Britain do use cluster bombs (they did in the 2003 Iraq war), they definitely won't use overdue ones.


Israel has a no-use policy. It has repeatedly said it will not be the first nation to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.

And the use of conventional weaponry, no matter how indiscriminate, cannot realistically be compared to a nuclear situation.


The UN bomblets removal squad is Israel's enemy now?

Be more accurate in your criticisms next time. You said nothing about any bomblet removal teams.


The cluster bombing maps (if they even have those maps which by latest report, they probably don't thus suggesting indiscriminate bombing) have no strategic and intelligence value anymore as Hezbollah have left the positions and will not use them in any new conflict.

It is standard practise of any military power not to declassify operations until some time after the conflict.

If the oppressed liberate themselves, it's not a war, it's an insurrection or revolution or insurgency. Personally, I like the word intifada, which is used to mean "people's uprising" but originally means "shaking off".

Let's not get into the habit of changing the definitions. If you're participating in an organised attempt by armies or some other military arrangement to achieve strategic goals, you're participating in a war. It doesn't matter if it's to seize control of the means of production or to free yourself from slavery. It's still war.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I don't have much sympathy for those soldiers, to be honest, but I think the politicians have more blood on their hands than the troops, so to speak.

Well in America if you are poor and there is unemployment in your town then joining the army becomes the most practical path for you to get work

I gather that that incident was caused by british radio problems resultig in us not teling the usa our convoy had moved

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

If you were being attacked, you wouldn't be starting a war, you'd be joining one which was started for a bad reason. It takes two to tango, so to speak.

this saying means "two people involved in something are equally to blame", whereas clearly if a country is being invaded for its resources then it is not at fault at all

so

"It takes one to start a tango and one to be forced to either dance or die"

[shaqadelic]

Of course we don't live in one. That's why comparing the irresponsibility of using nukes on Japan with the potential irresponsibility of using them today is fruitless.

I was talking about how the decision makers' power over nukes are absolute, regardless of political system. Even now this has not change.

Bush is moderate, by and large.

Not to the people of the developing world and a significant portion of the developed world. The invasion of Iraq, the illegality of it, the lies of WMD, the powerless UN and the significant damage it has left on Iraq make many people wonder how can a democracy elect someone like Bush.

And certainly not radical enough to order a nuclear strike.

Well, I never said that he is radical enough to do that but what is to stop someone (who does not make his intention known at first) from being elected.

They're use of cluster bombs was appalling but all it suggests is that they're willing to use inaccurate anti-personal weaponry.

Their willingness to use inaccurate anti personal weapon is just the beginning.

They used overdue cluster bombs that have a failure rate as high as 70% and as low as 25% with an average of 50% whereas normal failure rate is 5%. The level of contamination is worse than even the Gulf War which went on longer than the Israel-Hezbolah conflict.

Many times, they not only strike civilian areas (villages, town and cities) but in the middle of urban areas.

And the majority of the cluster bombs were dropped hours prior to the ceasefire which shows disregard for the lives of civilians that will be returning to their homes after hostility ends.

The US uses daisy cutters in a similar fashion.

The US is no saints either, I agree but its use of cluster bombs bear some restraints. They don't use overdue cluster bombs, the highest failure rate in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is 15% which is still lower than Israel's lowest rate.

Nuclear weapons are so qualitatively different in the way they're are perceived and the level of destruction they wreak that it is utterly pointless in comparing them to any conventional weaponry.

It is not about comparisons, it is about viewing the conducts in war of a side. Israel using overdue cluster bombs in such irresponsible manners and disregard for civilian lives when they are more technologically superior and in possession of smarter bombs raises legitimate worries whether they are responsible enough to have nuclear weapon.

Furthermore, according to Amir Peretz, the overdue bombs were used without knowledge of the higher ups meaning somehow lower staffs can go to the stockpile and take weapon without being accounted. This kind of blunder is worrying even if nuclear bombs will have stricter procedures.

Besides, if we were going to start comparing tactics and they're compatibility with nuclear weapons, then what do we have to say about supporters of suicide terrorism?

Well, if a side with Israel's level capabilities insist on using suicide bombing, then there is something wrong with them.

Israel has a no-use policy. It has repeatedly said it will not be the first nation to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.

Yes, I have seen politicians make those statements. However, it is not official (thus non binding) neither is it in clear language a no first use policy like those of India for example.

Be more accurate in your criticisms next time. You said nothing about any bomblet removal teams.

Who else would have logical grounds to request for the maps other than the removal team? It would be comical for me to imply that Hezbollah request for the maps.

And the use of conventional weaponry, no matter how indiscriminate, cannot realistically be compared to a nuclear situation.

Conducts in conventional warfare is one of the few indicators available to speculate the conducts of a side when using nukes. It may not be accurate but it shouldn't be ignored either.

It is standard practise of any military power not to declassify operations until some time after the conflict.

In past conflicts involving cluster ammunitions, sides have produced maps. Also considering the little strategic value of the maps, there is no real reasons to hold on to them if Israel actually has them.

BTW, I am feeling like I'm going too deep into this and appearing to support other countries having nukes and not Israel. My general standpoint is that I do not trust any country with nukes.

[coheneran]

Well in America if you are poor and there is unemployment in your town then joining the army becomes the most practical path for you to get work

That's true, but the choice is still there, regardless of how much army advertising you've swallowed.

I gather that that incident was caused by british radio problems resultig in us not teling the usa our convoy had moved

Perhaps it's time to go back to cup-and-string basics...

this saying means "two people involved in something are equally to blame", whereas clearly if a country is being invaded for its resources then it is not at fault at all

so

"It takes one to start a tango and one to be forced to either dance or die"

Lol. I realised when I put it down that it will probably confuse more than anything else, but I wasn't using it for that meaning. I meant more that war is always started for a bad reason, in which case it's a bad war, so regardless of whether or not you're defending yourself or attacking another, you're still participating in an evil tango.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

That's true, but the choice is still there, regardless of how much army advertising you've swallowed.

Easy to say; we've never been there. We're not all crazy anarchists like you ;)


Perhaps it's time to go back to cup-and-string basics...

you crazy anarchists and your anti technology ways

Lol. I realised when I put it down that it will probably confuse more than anything else, but I wasn't using it for that meaning. I meant more that war is always started for a bad reason, in which case it's a bad war, so regardless of whether or not you're defending yourself or attacking another, you're still participating in an evil tango.


Well although this is technically correct it implies it's bad to defend your country from evil communazis and the like so it's making it sound like you have idiotic views that you don't

[coheneran]

Well although this is technically correct it implies it's bad to defend your country from evil communazis and the like so it's making it sound like you have idiotic views that you don't

In a war, even if we're defending ourselves, we're still killing innocent people, and soldiers would target innocent people without being ordered to, because that is the psychology war creates, and it is a self-perpetuating one. A human turned into a fighter on the battlefield will take that mentality, that way of thinking, home.

[Smokey D]

I was talking about how the decision makers' power over nukes are absolute, regardless of political system. Even now this has not change.

It has changed because there are external forces influencing the direction of policy that didn't exist prior to the Soviet's development of nuclear weapons.

Not to the people of the developing world and a significant portion of the developed world. The invasion of Iraq, the illegality of it, the lies of WMD, the powerless UN and the significant damage it has left on Iraq make many people wonder how can a democracy elect someone like Bush.

Even being a war president doesn't make him radical. I will grant that it's slightly out of the normal spectrum of moderate behavoir, but the vast majority of his policies are moderate.

One might consider his hand was forced (at least in Afghanistan) by a radically new situation caused by 9/11. He was elected in 2000 at least for being a domestically focused president.


Well, I never said that he is radical enough to do that but what is to stop someone (who does not make his intention known at first) from being elected.


Technically, yes. However, that would involve such a massive change in policies (no one would really vote for a person who was willing to do things like nuke people) or a dramatic shift in the values of the electorate that at the current time it doesn't bear thinking about.

Certainly, none of this undermines the idea that democracies tend to elect moderates (or at least, people who are more moderate than those outside of democracies) while dictatorships tend to reinforce and radicalise opinions of the ruling cabal.


They used overdue cluster bombs that have a failure rate as high as 70% and as low as 25% with an average of 50% whereas normal failure rate is 5%. The level of contamination is worse than even the Gulf War which went on longer than the Israel-Hezbolah conflict.

Many times, they not only strike civilian areas (villages, town and cities) but in the middle of urban areas.

And the majority of the cluster bombs were dropped hours prior to the ceasefire which shows disregard for the lives of civilians that will be returning to their homes after hostility ends.

I agree that this demonstrates a willingness to inflict punishment and terrorise a population, and I don't want you to think I supported Israel or the war in Lebanon. However, a nuclear weapon would elicit such a fundamentally different response from the international community, the enemy and potential enemies and from within Israel itself that it cannot reasonably be compared to the use of any conventional weapon.


It is not about comparisons, it is about viewing the conducts in war of a side. Israel using overdue cluster bombs in such irresponsible manners and disregard for civilian lives when they are more technologically superior and in possession of smarter bombs raises legitimate worries whether they are responsible enough to have nuclear weapon.


No, about the same as comparing a handgun to a tank.


Furthermore, according to Amir Peretz, the overdue bombs were used without knowledge of the higher ups meaning somehow lower staffs can go to the stockpile and take weapon without being accounted. This kind of blunder is worrying even if nuclear bombs will have stricter procedures.

I don't think any modern state with nuclear weapons would let anyone other than the general-staff or government officials come into contact with nuclear weapons.


Well, if a side with Israel's level capabilities insist on using suicide bombing, then there is something wrong with them.


Iran has sufficient military infrastructure to not need suicide bombings, but it still supports groups that employ the tactic.

I am more concerned about the connection between the ideology behind suicide terrorism and the failure of the MAD doctrine.

Who else would have logical grounds to request for the maps other than the removal team? It would be comical for me to imply that Hezbollah request for the maps.

You didn't even say you were talking about Lebanon.

And there would be many parties interested in securing the maps, including governments.

Conducts in conventional warfare is one of the few indicators available to speculate the conducts of a side when using nukes. It may not be accurate but it shouldn't be ignored either.

I think the history of a country's response to the threat of mass destruction are probably more instructive.


In past conflicts involving cluster ammunitions, sides have produced maps. Also considering the little strategic value of the maps, there is no real reasons to hold on to them if Israel actually has them.

They've been produced within 6 months of the war?


BTW, I am feeling like I'm going too deep into this and appearing to support other countries having nukes and not Israel. My general standpoint is that I do not trust any country with nukes.

I'm not entirely sure I'd agree. I trust some countries with nukes more than I trust others, and I do think they've had a positive effect on (ie, have limited) the potential for massive warfare. However, I think there is a point when the returns gained in the safety of dissuasion is outweighed by the increase in risk between potentially hostile parties. I don't know whether we have reached that point with Israel or if we would reach it with Iran, but I feel we're getting close.

[shaqadelic]

It has changed because there are external forces influencing the direction of policy that didn't exist prior to the Soviet's development of nuclear weapons.

Even the external factors don't make the decision maker's power over nuclear weapon any less absolute.

Even being a war president doesn't make him radical. I will grant that it's slightly out of the normal spectrum of moderate behavoir, but the vast majority of his policies are moderate.

Foreign policy (especially those concerning war) has stronger and lasting impression than other policies for the citizen of the world. And of course the Guantanamo Bay prison and rendition flights are things you don't expect from a democracy as well.

One might consider his hand was forced (at least in Afghanistan) by a radically new situation caused by 9/11. He was elected in 2000 at least for being a domestically focused president.

I don't agree with the way he handled Afghanistan either. I recall after two weeks of bombing, the Taliban offered to extradite Osama if the US could provide evidence but the offer was rejected.

Whatever it is, what happened in Iraq is appalling and I do feel Bush and Blair are responsible for destabilizing the country to what it has become today.

Technically, yes. However, that would involve such a massive change in policies (no one would really vote for a person who was willing to do things like nuke people) or a dramatic shift in the values of the electorate that at the current time it doesn't bear thinking about.

Certainly, none of this undermines the idea that democracies tend to elect moderates (or at least, people who are more moderate than those outside of democracies) while dictatorships tend to reinforce and radicalise opinions of the ruling cabal.

It doesn't undermine but it does point out that democracy is not immune from electing a warmonger, no matter how unlikely. And personally, I feel in the current state of the world where an unrealistic and excessive fear has been created towards terrorism, more radicals can be elected into power than ever before.

I agree that this demonstrates a willingness to inflict punishment and terrorise a population, and I don't want you to think I supported Israel or the war in Lebanon. However, a nuclear weapon would elicit such a fundamentally different response from the international community, the enemy and potential enemies and from within Israel itself that it cannot reasonably be compared to the use of any conventional weapon.

I feel that by the time a side decide to use nuclear weapon, it has weighted all the potential responses. All that is left is whether it will maximize punishment and the population's deaths or not. One can assume that the side may practice more restraint just because of the nature of nuclear weapon but I feel one should take more heed from the side's conducts in conventional warfare than said assumption.

No, about the same as comparing a handgun to a tank.

One can speculate that a side uses his tank (when he decides to use it) the way he uses his handgun.

I don't think any modern state with nuclear weapons would let anyone other than the general-staff or government officials come into contact with nuclear weapons.

Well, I hope that is the case but if Peretz is right, then Israel has a responsibility to account their stockpile properly to build confidence for them to have nuclear stockpile.

Iran has sufficient military infrastructure to not need suicide bombings, but it still supports groups that employ the tactic.

Well, Iran couldn't arm the groups (I am assuming you are talking bout Hamas here) with more accurate and capable weaponry either. If Iran is able to arm Hamas with capabilities to fight heads on with Israel's military but still insist on the use of suicide bombing on civilians, then there is definitely something worrying about their conducts.

For the case of the Israel-Arab conflict, I always see suicide bombing on civilians is a choice made out of desperation and one that won't be used if the armed groups have equal capabilities.

I do not want to come across as a person who supports suicide bombing on civilians though cause I am opposed to it.

I am more concerned about the connection between the ideology behind suicide terrorism and the failure of the MAD doctrine.

The desire of self preservation of power prevails over this. Even heads of Hamas for example are not willing to sacrifice themselves.

You didn't even say you were talking about Lebanon.

And there would be many parties interested in securing the maps, including governments.

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14130702&postcount=47

Their conduct in last year's Lebanese war is a prime example,..

I highly doubt it because of the little strategic value. Also, since the cluster bombs are anti personal in nature, it doesn't reveal Israel's knowledge of specific Hezbollah targets (if they have any value at all at this point which they probably don't).

I think the history of a country's response to the threat of mass destruction are probably more instructive.

That can be used to somehow speculate a threshold before the use of nukes but not really their conduct when actually using nukes.

They've been produced within 6 months of the war?

I believe less than six months.

I'm not entirely sure I'd agree. I trust some countries with nukes more than I trust others, and I do think they've had a positive effect on (ie, have limited) the potential for massive warfare. However, I think there is a point when the returns gained in the safety of dissuasion is outweighed by the increase in risk between potentially hostile parties. I don't know whether we have reached that point with Israel or if we would reach it with Iran, but I feel we're getting close.

Regarding the hostilities between Iran-Israel or US-Iran, if (big if considering the fatwa from their Supreme Leader against nuclear weapon and IAEA's findings) Iran acquire nuclear weapon, the possibility of escalation into direct warfare will be significantly decreased or disappear all together. Currently, hostilities are escalating because there is no deterrent possessed by Iran.

[Smokey D]

Even the external factors don't make the decision maker's power over nuclear weapon any less absolute.

The final decision of any decision maker is absolute. We have to consider the influences on that decision.

Foreign policy (especially those concerning war) has stronger and lasting impression than other policies for the citizen of the world. And of course the Guantanamo Bay prison and rendition flights are things you don't expect from a democracy as well.

What Bush is perceived as and what he actually is aren't exactly the same thing.

I don't agree with the way he handled Afghanistan either. I recall after two weeks of bombing, the Taliban offered to extradite Osama if the US could provide evidence but the offer was rejected.

At the least, the Taliban made no effort to secure the pre-eminent suspect in one of the greatest crimes of the last decade on the off chance evidence could be provided. Given that they were either unwilling or unable to do this, there was not much reason for us to believe they would have gone through with their promise to hand him over.

It doesn't undermine but it does point out that democracy is not immune from electing a warmonger, no matter how unlikely. And personally, I feel in the current state of the world where an unrealistic and excessive fear has been created towards terrorism, more radicals can be elected into power than ever before.

Potentially, which to me seems like a good reason to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Especially in countries with a history of radicalism.


I feel that by the time a side decide to use nuclear weapon, it has weighted all the potential responses. All that is left is whether it will maximize punishment and the population's deaths or not. One can assume that the side may practice more restraint just because of the nature of nuclear weapon but I feel one should take more heed from the side's conducts in conventional warfare than said assumption.

It would never be in Israel's best interest to seek the massive destruction of its neighbours.

One can speculate that a side uses his tank (when he decides to use it) the way he uses his handgun.


Analogies are only of limited usefulness, but it's impossible to use a tank like you'd use a handgun.


Well, I hope that is the case but if Peretz is right, then Israel has a responsibility to account their stockpile properly to build confidence for them to have nuclear stockpile.

Yep. That'd be good.


Well, Iran couldn't arm the groups (I am assuming you are talking bout Hamas here) with more accurate and capable weaponry either. If Iran is able to arm Hamas with capabilities to fight heads on with Israel's military but still insist on the use of suicide bombing on civilians, then there is definitely something worrying about their conducts.

Hamas to a degree, but mainly Hizbollah. Both insist on targeting civilian populations, which I cannot abide.

Granted, Israel often targets civilian populations but one side doing something bad doesn't make it alright for the other side to do the same thing.


For the case of the Israel-Arab conflict, I always see suicide bombing on civilians is a choice made out of desperation and one that won't be used if the armed groups have equal capabilities.


I think that may have originally been the case, but suicide terrorism has become its own ideology; a goal in itself for nearly all of its practitioners.


The desire of self preservation of power prevails over this. Even heads of Hamas for example are not willing to sacrifice themselves.

Accountability in terrorist groups is probably even less regulated than in countries with undeclared nuclear stockpiles. All it would take is one particularly zealous member.


That can be used to somehow speculate a threshold before the use of nukes but not really their conduct when actually using nukes.


Well, obviously. But the first bit is so much more important than the second because once nukes are used all rules go out the window.

Regarding the hostilities between Iran-Israel or US-Iran, if (big if considering the fatwa from their Supreme Leader against nuclear weapon and IAEA's findings) Iran acquire nuclear weapon, the possibility of escalation into direct warfare will be significantly decreased or disappear all together. Currently, hostilities are escalating because there is no deterrent possessed by Iran.

An explicit conflict between the parties might be avoided, but again I point to the fact that Iran has a history of supporting groups who espouse suicide terrorism. It is not inconceivable that these people would not be bound by the compunctions that make the MAD doctrine work.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

In a war, even if we're defending ourselves, we're still killing innocent people, and soldiers would target innocent people without being ordered to, because that is the psychology war creates, and it is a self-perpetuating one. A human turned into a fighter on the battlefield will take that mentality, that way of thinking, home.

so you're saying we should all just get shot because otherwise we'll end up killing women and children?

[Rabbi]

We are already at a some kind of Cold War with Iran. In that 'We've got better bombs than you" sorta way.

[shaqadelic]

The final decision of any decision maker is absolute. We have to consider the influences on that decision.

And I do but that is irrelevant to my point.

What Bush is perceived as and what he actually is aren't exactly the same thing.

Well radical or moderate is nothing but based on perception.

At the least, the Taliban made no effort to secure the pre-eminent suspect in one of the greatest crimes of the last decade on the off chance evidence could be provided.

I have no doubt that they would have no problem locating Osama and Al Qaeda's members but they have no obligation to without evidence from the other side which the US didn't have at that point of time. In a way, US is partly responsible for not having the evidence because investigation started much later compared to other tragedies.

Given that they were either unwilling or unable to do this, there was not much reason for us to believe they would have gone through with their promise to hand him over.

The question of whether they are unwilling or unable cannot be answered because their offer wasn't contemplated in the first place. Before the conflict, the Taliban has also offered to extradite Osama to a third party state, Pakistan (I recall) without the pre condition of evidence and that was refused as well.

Regardless whether or not the Taliban's offers should have been contemplated, the course of action that the US and NATO took have failed to bring Osama to court which is a failure to meet one of their main objectives of going into Afghanistan in the first place.

Potentially, which to me seems like a good reason to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

I support non proliferation of nuclear weapon as well. Although I am not convinced that Iran is aiming for nuclear weapon, there is no real evidence to support the Bush administration's accusations. Mere words of the administration is not trustworthy in my view.

Furthermore, Iran has a reason to despise weapon of mass destruction, many of its people (1000 000 of them), mostly civilians were killed by Iraqi chemical weapon which was acquired and used with the support and assistance of the West, most notable the US. In fact even now, those who survived are still suffering and in need of frequent medical attention. Not to mention the population and children & relatives of veterans who were contaminated have developed health complications.

Especially in countries with a history of radicalism.

One can apply that to Israel as well for having a military occupation that have committed many human rights abuses. I would consider that a radical action.

It would never be in Israel's best interest to seek the massive destruction of its neighbours.

One can assume and I share that same thought but it is no secret they have no trouble terrorizing and punishing the population (as you aptly put it) causing indiscriminate deaths and destruction of infrastructure.


Analogies are only of limited usefulness, but it's impossible to use a tank like you'd use a handgun.

You can have the same irresponsible conducts when using them.

Hamas to a degree, but mainly Hizbollah. Both insist on targeting civilian populations, which I cannot abide.

I don't consider Hezbollah a practitioner of suicide bombing but yes they do target civilians and I do not support that. However, I don't rule out that their strategy would not be so civilian targeted if they have more accurate and capable weaponry, something Katyusha rockets are not.

Notably, in last year's conflict, more Israeli soldiers are killed than civilians, whether it is because of good civilian protection by Israel or because Hezbollah targeting military targets whenever they can are debated, I don't rule out it is a bit of both.

Granted, Israel often targets civilian populations but one side doing something bad doesn't make it alright for the other side to do the same thing.

Yes, I agree.

I think that may have originally been the case, but suicide terrorism has become its own ideology; a goal in itself for nearly all of its practitioners.

I don't agree (atleast when it concerns the Israel-Palestine conflict). Al Jazeera English will be airing an interesting d0cumentary in the coming future about children in war torn areas and one of the focus was on Gaza. I read a preview/summary of it about a girl whose mother or grandmother (don't remember) was a suicide bomber. The girl is interested to be an engineer and help rebuild Gaza (normal and respectable ambition) but she said that if life becomes too desperate, she may be a martyr first.

I do feel that once you rid of the factors that cause desperation and hopelessness, suicide bombing won't be a willing choice anymore for people.

Accountability in terrorist groups is probably even less regulated than in countries with undeclared nuclear stockpiles. All it would take is one particularly zealous member.


That still doesn't mean there is no desire to preserve power. Armed groups like Hamas know that if they use a nuclear bomb (however impossible for them to acquire one in the first place), retaliation by Israel will be so intense that it will destroy the top heads as well thus they won't dare.

Well, obviously. But the first bit is so much more important than the second because once nukes are used all rules go out the window.

Both are equally important.

I don't think all rules will be out of the window. Even nuclear weapon can be used with some measure of responsibility (to minimize civilian's death for example).

An explicit conflict between the parties might be avoided, but again I point to the fact that Iran has a history of supporting groups who espouse suicide terrorism. It is not inconceivable that these people would not be bound by the compunctions that make the MAD doctrine work.

I disagree. It would only be conceivable if the leaders of Iran and to a lesser extent Hamas participate in suicide bombing which they don't. Nuclear attack will definitely cause a retaliation that would not spare the leaders any chance to survive.

Also I think using groups as proxy is a good example of the desire to preserve power (which supports the MAD doctrine) because of the unwillingness to be involved in direct conflict which puts one in harm's way.

Anyways, I won't be around in the coming days so I may not reply to your response. Nice to have a level headed discussion in this place though.

[griftadan]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iraq.main/index.html

[pedro durruti]

How do we know that this isn't just another set of propaganda intended to dupe the American public into war with Iran?

"They're killin' our soldiers tryin' to free the i-rackees! Let's get 'em!!!"

I know Ahmadinejad confirmed ties to Hezbollah, but what has he said about these allegations?

[griftadan]

he hasn't said anything, but others denied them. there isn't going ot be war in iran. we don't have the ability or will to wage war. there is little reason to lie about this.

and think about, it's not too hard to realize why iran has interest in arming shiite insurgents.

[ashman]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iraq.main/index.html

That's very convienient.

[TheDarkHorse]

he hasn't said anything, but others denied them. there isn't going ot be war in iran. we don't have the ability or will to wage war. there is little reason to lie about this.
I would've said the same about Iraq, of course overestimating the power of the republican guard forces. With Iran, a fortiori.

and think about, it's not too hard to realize why iran has interest in arming shiite insurgents.
Also for the purpose of defending them, not because they're maliciously fighting the US, begging for a battle. They'd do the same if it was any other country that invaded.

[Thunderchild]

There is bound to be military conflict between the US and Iran, if not because of the US's fears of Irans nucleur capabilities then because of their denial of Israel, which the US may be forced to act upon simply because of the vast Jewish majority in the US voting Bush out if he doesn't.

[lunchforthesky]

Vast Jewish majority?

Bush is out anyway and the Republicans dont need Jews to win elections.