Iraq opened itself up to full inspections.

Negative. They refused to let inspectors into certain areas.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Iraq opened itself up to full inspections.
Iraq ASKED to talk directly with its accuser.

The LEAST we could of done, was listen when the inspectors said 'we found nothing' and accept when the iraqis said ' we have nothing, so lets talk '

The Iraqis had their opportunity to open themselves up to international scrutiny. They did not. Good faith and credibility are essential to diplomacy. By 2003, Iraq had squandered both.

I dont call that humouring, I call that avoiding a unnessecary war, which has resulted in hunderds of thousands of innocent DEAD!

People dying is never good. That argument is fine, but were you insisting that Iraq stop its mass slaughter of its people in 1993 and throughout all of Saddam's tenure? And if we had brought Iraq to the table, would you have insisted that they stop killing their own people? And if so, how would you have enforced that if the UN was in Iraq's pocket?

Everyone was in on the oil for food scandal, But that doesnt mean the UN was wrong.
The UN process
- made inspections occur ** Which found nothing
- Brought Saddam to talk to the Americans ** which bush refused to do

To Me, the UN Succeeded, but the US didnt care, and was going in regardless.

Yes the UN is dead, and yes the UN was curropt. But in this particular case the UN Worked, its the US that ruined any chance of peace.

Did the IAEA work? They were still being denied access to places as late as 2002 and 2003. Given Iraq's past, their stalling, and their lack of good faith in negotiations, why would we expect that the inspectors found everything? It is possible, as some have alleged, that the weapons were sent to another country such as Syria in the time that Iraq was pussy-footing? I am not saying this happened, but it might explain Iraq's actions during that time. And if so, then should we have stayed at the negotiating table with them?

I hope I don't come across as too antagonistic. I am enjoying this thread very much. You, Agit8dChop, have taken a lot of flak here and haven't descended to anger or name-calling.

[edit on 1/28/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by grover
The world is a much safer place with Nygdan nowhere near the halls of power.

Ahh but maybe I am seated close to the throne, maybe that would explain why things are so messed up these days.....

wolfie_uk
joke, but how would you know when aiming your catapult, rifle or laser guided bomb know what or who you are hitting is an Iranian ???

You don't. They're talking about when a person is captured or their nationality is discovered at a check point or during a raid. They've gone so far as to capture a commander of the Revolutionary Guard, you know, the organization within Iran that is charged with maintaining the Islamic Revolution? What do you think they are doing there? Selling cabbages, or organizing the shia militias?

Agit8dChop
I personally think Iran have just as much a right to be in Iraq as the Americans Do.

Of course they do.

They have a right to be helping their region defend against the foreign invaders.

Indeed, it is there right to go to war with us.

The USA if it takes on IRAN, will fail.

If we invade iran, and it ends up like Iraq, who's the real looser there? The americans, who at least have destroyed a state that supports international terrorism and is rich and organized enought to send arms to terror groups around the world, or the Iranians, who're going to be living within a failed, anarchic "state"?

Iraq opened itself up to full inspections.

What?
They most certainly did not. They dind't cooperate with the inspectors, the inspectors never ONCE said 'we have confirmed that Iraq has no WMD", all they ever said was "we can't confirm it, we haven't received documentation that would demonstrate it'. THey weren't there to find WMD, they were there to receive documentation that the WMD were destroyed and then verify it.
Hell, even if it was their job to find WMD, they wouldn't've been able to, because they didn't even find a giant, undisclosed, secret, camoflauged chemical weapons plant in Najaf. That was only discovered by US troops after the invasion. So what are you talking about?

The LEAST we could of done, was listen when the inspectors said 'we found nothing'

When the inspectors said 'we found nothing', that was the cue to go to war, because they were there looking for evidence that iraq had destroyed its WMD. Iraq failed to demonstrate that, per the inspectors.

Brought Saddam to talk to the Americans ** which bush refused to do

Why the heck would the US 'talk' to hussein? What could he say that could possibly matter? He had to present evidence that would convince the inspectors that they had destroyed their WMDs. He didn't. Thats why there was a war.

luxifero
It's nonsense that nobody can provide substantial evidence that Iran is arming Militias;

They've captured members of the Revolutionary Guard within Iran, what do you think they are doing there?
Were the american military 'observers' in Vietnam not engaged in warfare against the communists???
I certainly don't think that we've caught anyone redhanded at this point. And I don't think it matters. I don't know if there is enough to go to war at this point, but you're out of touch with the basic reality of geo-politics if you think that Iran has high ranking members of its military in Iraq, and they are NOT working with the shia militias.

regensturm
But does this low-fi war of assymetrical warfare need to become more?

I agree, there are definitly good arguements for not escalating it at this point. Perhaps the best arguement is that the public in the US compltely withdrew support for the war in iraq, and clearly is going to elect a democrat in 2008. THat means that we'd have to invade, occupy, and at least in theory stabilize and permit an open liberal democratic government to form in Iran, in little more than a year. Which is immpossible.

IF there was any time to invade Iran, it was years ago.

War is genocide if it’s discriminate as people who declare sending people ‘back to the stone age’ want it to be.

I don't think that that is what people mean when they say that. They are saying to completely destroy the government and infrastructure of the country. Punitive war isn't genocide.

‘back to the stone age’ is regarded as hyperbole for either a nuclear attack, or mass carpet bombing, that is genocide and extermination.

I suppose it can be taken either way.

There are changes underway in Iran.

The problem with that is that, any movement that is anti-government that gains steam, we're going to have to support it, that'll make it an american puppet ANYWAY, and delegitimatize it.
Either way, I don't see a revolution, either radical (overthrow the government) or reactionary (vote in liberals/moderates), as happening anytime soon, and I certainly don't think that if there was a radical revolution, that the moderate democrats would win, nationalists, socialists, or islamists would win.

Threatening Iranians with death if they don’t overthrow their government is vulgar.

I am a vulgar person. Its a vulgar world.

Many Iranians do not care about politics, and just want to get through life

Well, that'll be their fatal mistake then. If they're going to sit there and do nothing while their government is killing our troops in iraq, then its their own fault for supporting war against us, and they'll really have no legitimate basis of complaint if we counter-attack, and destroy their nation in the process.

They will unite behind their government because of the threat of war.

Their government won't exist if we go to war with them. There will be one big region of anarchy and sectarian violence, from the Jordan river to nearly the Indus River. They can pick and choose which local warlords they want to support and stick with them, be they former government commanders or civilian militias, but there won't be any 'government' to back.

They will unite behind their government because of the threat of war.

Thats completely false. WWII defeated the nazis, italians, and japanese. It didn't result in the overthrow of franco, but so what? There was no more danger of a global fascist axis.

Fascist and communist regimes popped up through the mid to late 70’s in Latin America and elsewhere.

None of those regimes were actual fascists regimes, engaged in world fascism. They were localised military juntas. They weren't fascist ideolouges.

The US did develop space technology from war, with the help of Nazi scientists.

Yes. War brought modernization. War made europe what it was, and allowed it to spread its empire across the globe, and that resulted in the modern world, with liberal democratic governments where before there were god-kings, emperors, and rajas.

War brings about more wars. People said after WW1 that it was the war to end all wars. They were wrong.

They were off by one. After WWI, and WWII, Europe entered into a stage where its inconceivable that, say, modern France and Germany would ever invade each other or go to war against one another.

World War One led to World War Two, which led to The Cold War and the proxy wars, which led to where we are today.

I'm not saying that we're going to end war. BUt its false to say that war settles nothing. The wars in europe lead to democratic unity and peace in europe. Wars can be won, its crazy to say that it doesn't happen.

Unamed Iranian officials have been saying for a while that US ‘feet’ are on the ground in Iran. The Iranians could say the war started with that.

Fair enough for the iranians then. We shouldn't be trying to struggle with them indirectly anyway. They're weak and have no power beyond their own borders, other than to equip terror groups. Better to smash them than try to contain them.

marg6043
like Agit8dChop they are welcome in Iraq.

By some of the shias, yes. But not by the Kurds, Sunnis,Assyrians, Iraqi Jews, Yezidi, or even some of the other shias.

rogue1
The Iranians support teh Ahiite militia's such as the Mahdi Army.

Where are you getting this from??? THe Mahdi Army isn't exactly friendly with Tehran.

Originally posted by Nygdanwho's the real looser there? The americans, who at least have destroyed a state that supports international terrorism

your not buying the whole ' america is safer ' bs?

If we do go into Iran and it fails like Iraq, you will not have destroyed a STATE which sponsors terrorism, you would of further embolden the terrorists, giving them a much larger battlefield in which to hit westerners.

Originally posted by Togetic


This is interesting logic. However, if wars are spiraling as you say, what do we do about it? And, more importantly, assuming that everyone embraces peace and, say, disarms, how do you deal with someone who later on decides to take up arms?

Well, it could be answered that why would that someone need to arm when everyone else is disarmed.

It would be imperiative to look at why that someone would take up arms, and see if talks can be the way to resolve it.

Originally posted by Togetic
The assumption that if there were no weapons there would be no war is illogical.

That is not what I said. I said why would someone arm themselves if everyone was disarmed.

By that I am saying, what would make that someone arm, what reason would trigger it.

Originally posted by TogeticFirst, someone not satisfied with their lot in life could create weapons. Someone in the mists of time had to do it to get the ball rolling.

Indeed, but before any arming of that someone's potential opponents begins, or rather engages in a war, we would have to ask whether such reasons for arming can be reasoned with, or not.

Originally posted by Togetic Secondly, this seems to be a misunderstanding of human nature. Violence is there; it is not going away. Is there then an imperitive for some sort of defense against someone who would threaten you? It that not just, not fair?

Intelligence, knowledge and reaction following the knowledge is the defence.

Originally posted by Togetic
With regard to the second point, the question begs: is there ever a point where talks fail? Further, you seem to assume that any bargaining will be in good faith. This is a naive assumption. Talks can be entered into for the purposes of stalling, political posturing, probing another country's weaknesses, and a whole bunch of other reasons not related to securing peace.

Note I said that "see if talks can be the way to resolve it." not "talks are the sole way to resolve it."

Originally posted by Togetic
Further, the reason someone wants to arm and perhaps possibly go to war is an important thing to understand. However, even if you understand it, does that necessarily mean that you can bring about peace? What if a country is led by a madman who wants global domination by his religion, and he would rather die than see that goal unfulfilled? Is that man ever going to be appeased by negotiated concessions that allow co-existence? The principal question in your scheme is: when does talking become futile? Would you sit by and let someone who has said that they want to kill you arm themselves? Would you talk, or would you disarm them by choice?

The question is, can that madman become a moderate when he realises reality? That can only be found out first by finding out through talks, to see how far they can get. If the madman's opposites declare war, we will never know and see only death and destruction anyway.

Originally posted by Togetic
The desire for peace is a noble one. But we live in an imperfect world, and the approach you seem to be espousing is precisely the one Neville Chamberlain took in appeasing Hitler, and is precisely one of the major actions that allowed Hitler to move into France.

The approach you seem to be taking is that of someone who has from the start a negative outlook on talks at a time of potential crisis, which is precisely the sort of actions that has led to wars the world over.

I am not an appeaser, someone who will do anything to placate rather than negotiate, I am just someone who sees the route of talks something to explore before going in guns blazing without any true knowledge of whether a settlement could have been reached otherwise.

Call me an optimist, call me what you like, but it is better to be an optimist in such a case as this then one who just says "Oh f*** it, let's nuke 'em" and by not being able to be negotiated with because he refused to see any point from the outlook in talks becomes as bad as the person he said was not worth negotiating with because he could not be reasoned with.

Give jaw-jaw a chance. Not the end solution, just a chance.

If that makes me a Chamberlain type figure to you, that's fine.

You are wrong and dismissive to say that, but fine.

Obviously to talk is to surrender on your knees, apparently.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I agree, there are definitly good arguements for not escalating it at this point. Perhaps the best arguement is that the public in the US compltely withdrew support for the war in iraq, and clearly is going to elect a democrat in 2008. THat means that we'd have to invade, occupy, and at least in theory stabilize and permit an open liberal democratic government to form in Iran, in little more than a year. Which is immpossible.

It’s impossible not only in little more than a year, but at all.

Originally posted by Nygdan
IF there was any time to invade Iran, it was years ago.

Not really. Before Ahmadinejad, a moderate was President.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't think that that is what people mean when they say that. They are saying to completely destroy the government and infrastructure of the country. Punitive war isn't genocide.

Punitive war is genocide when it destroys people, and the facilities to stay alive. Electricity. Water.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The problem with that is that, any movement that is anti-government that gains steam, we're going to have to support it, that'll make it an american puppet ANYWAY, and delegitimatize it.

Then don’t have American support for it. Just let such movements progress and continue in a natural manner. Such movements can become influential.

I’m telling you, attacking Iran will destroy any chance of change.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Either way, I don't see a revolution, either radical (overthrow the government) or reactionary (vote in liberals/moderates), as happening anytime soon, and I certainly don't think that if there was a radical revolution, that the moderate democrats would win, nationalists, socialists, or islamists would win.

The youth of Iran want change, and they can not be held back forever. Leave them and their country be, and they may be able to enact reform easier.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Well, that'll be their fatal mistake then. If they're going to sit there and do nothing while their government is killing our troops in iraq, then its their own fault for supporting war against us, and they'll really have no legitimate basis of complaint if we counter-attack, and destroy their nation in the process.

That’s like an Iraqi saying “If the American citizens are just going to sit there and do nothing while their government is killing our people, then it’s their own fault for supporting war against us, and they’ll really have no legitimate basis of complaint if we counter-attack on their mainland and destroy their nation in the process.”

Not every Iranian supports attacks on US troops, but just because Iranians do not care about politics, or simply live to work through the day and feed their kids and pays no attention to the wider world in the process of family life does not mean they are deserving of being killed.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Their government won't exist if we go to war with them. There will be one big region of anarchy and sectarian violence, from the Jordan river to nearly the Indus River. They can pick and choose which local warlords they want to support and stick with them, be they former government commanders or civilian militias, but there won't be any 'government' to back.

You know as well as I do that the governments rarely suffer in wars as they hide in their bunkers and around the country.

They will be there to backed, as they voice their leadership.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Thats completely false. WWII defeated the nazis, italians, and japanese. It didn't result in the overthrow of franco, but so what? There was no more danger of a global fascist axis.

Just because they lost, does not mean a percentage of their people did not unite behind their governments at a time of war.

As for no more global fascist axis, Franco survived to continue his persecutions, as did other fascist regimes who popped up. Just because they did not threaten the US did not mean a global fascist axis did not exist.

Originally posted by Nygdan
None of those regimes were actual fascists regimes, engaged in world fascism. They were localised military juntas. They weren't fascist ideolouges.

Just because they did not call themselves ‘Fascist’ (gives you a bad reputation) does not mean they were not fascist in practice.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Yes. War brought modernization. War made europe what it was, and allowed it to spread its empire across the globe, and that resulted in the modern world, with liberal democratic governments where before there were god-kings, emperors, and rajas.

Endless wars for a long time sustained god-kings, emperors and rajas, and little else. More progress could have been made without such wars that held nations back. Liberal democratic governments came in the peace that followed not in wars.

Originally posted by Nygdan
They were off by one. After WWI, and WWII, Europe entered into a stage where its inconceivable that, say, modern France and Germany would ever invade each other or go to war against one another.

Because they found they were allies in The Cold War, had two wars previously, and needed to form a alternative to being a US client state or a Soviet one.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I'm not saying that we're going to end war. BUt its false to say that war settles nothing. The wars in europe lead to democratic unity and peace in europe.

The end of wars did, not the wars in themselves. Wars settle nothing but the foundations of future wars, and Europe may not be safe from further wars. We saw that in the Balkans.

Originally posted by Nygdan Wars can be won, its crazy to say that it doesn't happen.

Wars are won and lost, then fought again.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Fair enough for the iranians then. We shouldn't be trying to struggle with them indirectly anyway. They're weak and have no power beyond their own borders, other than to equip terror groups. Better to smash them than try to contain them.

And create two hells of battleground: Iraq and Iran.

How does that improve the US’s situation in The Middle East precisely?


[edit on 29-1-2007 by Regensturm]

Originally posted by Regensturm
The approach you seem to be taking is that of someone who has from the start a negative outlook on talks at a time of potential crisis, which is precisely the sort of actions that has led to wars the world over.

I think we're both assuming that the other's position is absolute. I apologize for making that assumption, and I assure you that it doesn't apply to me.

Talks have served an important place in history. They prevented the escalation of the Cold War to a nuclear conflict, for one. They resulted in South Africa disarming. They absolutely have their place.
The following conditions must be met before talks should be attempted.

1. Good faith. There must be a history of good faith by the county, or an assurance of good faith backed up by reliable concessions or promises acceptable to the international community. Not acting in good faith should be sufficient for backing out of talks.
   
2. Cessation of hostilities. There must be a cessation of all hostilities before talks should begin. If Luxembourg wants to negotiate with Canada, but Canada is still attacking Luxembourg day after day, then negotiation by Luxembourg is possibly inappropriate and if they want to militarily defend themselves, that should is appropriate.
   
3. Acquiescence to global standards of conduct. Countries must be beholden to the cause of human rights, and have a verifiable record of such, before they should be negotiated with. Furthermore, there must be evidence presented that corruption within the nation has been dealt with.
   
   Perhaps this is a harsh standard, but the international community has the responsibility to insist on high standards of conduct from countries. If they cannot meet these requirements, and they play badly, then the international community must stop them.
   
   My opinion can be summed up as follows: talking must be attempted until the party stops meeting those criteria given above. After that, the international community must reserve and seriously consider the option of force. The force option must never be taken off the table, even when it should be the only thing left on the table.
   

   
   Well, it could be answered that why would that someone need to arm when everyone else is disarmed.
   

   
   To this, I have to respond simply that sometimes people just want more stuff than they have. They want more resources, or more land, or more subjects. It's petty, to be sure. But it does happen.
   

   
   Intelligence, knowledge and reaction following the knowledge is the defence.
   

   
   This is fine, so long as the force option is the secondary defense, and the other side knows that force is on the table.
   

   
   I am not an appeaser, someone who will do anything to placate rather than negotiate, I am just someone who sees the route of talks something to explore before going in guns blazing without any true knowledge of whether a settlement could have been reached otherwise.
   
   Call me an optimist, call me what you like, but it is better to be an optimist in such a case as this then one who just says "Oh f*** it, let's nuke 'em" and by not being able to be negotiated with because he refused to see any point from the outlook in talks becomes as bad as the person he said was not worth negotiating with because he could not be reasoned with.
   
   Give jaw-jaw a chance. Not the end solution, just a chance.
   
   If that makes me a Chamberlain type figure to you, that's fine.
   
   You are wrong and dismissive to say that, but fine.
   
   Obviously to talk is to surrender on your knees, apparently.

   
   
   I apologize if I was dismissive. Again, your position, like mine, is more moderate. Speaking from a position of strength is often more effective than all the missiles in the world.
   
   To conclude, I am interested to see what your criteria for talks versus force are. And I would like to hear other peoples' standards as well.
   

Originally posted by Regensturm
It’s impossible not only in little more than a year, but at all.

I don't like Nygdan's presentation; it lacks elegance. On the other hand, the assumption that anything in this arena is impossible is illogical.

Originally posted by Nygdan
IF there was any time to invade Iran, it was years ago.

Not really. Before Ahmadinejad, a moderate was President.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't think that that is what people mean when they say that. They are saying to completely destroy the government and infrastructure of the country. Punitive war isn't genocide.

Punitive war is genocide when it destroys people, and the facilities to stay alive. Electricity. Water.

This creates a problem. You and I agree that genocide is bad. At the same time, if you resist the US committing what you say is genocide, then what about Africa? You need to put the same vehemence into stopping those injustices as well to stay consistent. This means putting pressure on the UN and other countries.

Then don’t have American support for it. Just let such movements progress and continue in a natural manner. Such movements can become influential.

I’m telling you, attacking Iran will destroy any chance of change.

I am not up on the research. Are there any academic or CIA reports that agree with that approach?

The youth of Iran want change, and they can not be held back forever. Leave them and their country be, and they may be able to enact reform easier.

The reform movements in Iran have historically been quashed by the ruling clerics and government. The problem in Iran is that their highest court adjudicates with Islamic law, which will not allow moderate change. Moderate presidents in the past have tried and failed. Something more than leaving them alone is required, because that has a record of failure.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Well, that'll be their fatal mistake then. If they're going to sit there and do nothing while their government is killing our troops in iraq, then its their own fault for supporting war against us, and they'll really have no legitimate basis of complaint if we counter-attack, and destroy their nation in the process.

...

Not every Iranian supports attacks on US troops, but just because Iranians do not care about politics, or simply live to work through the day and feed their kids and pays no attention to the wider world in the process of family life does not mean they are deserving of being killed.

I am trying to be moderate and reasonable here. People like Nygdan make it impossible for someone trying to make the other case here. Both extreme sides need to stop and take a hard look at their opinions, and do their homework. And I agree that most Iranians are innocent and just trying to make it through the day.

You know as well as I do that the governments rarely suffer in wars as they hide in their bunkers and around the country.

They will be there to backed, as they voice their leadership.

I don't necessarily know if that is true. It certainly is in the short term; it took 5-10 years to get all of the Nazis out of Germany, but it did happen. Changing hearts and minds is a process that must be measured in generations.

Just because they lost, does not mean a percentage of their people did not unite behind their governments at a time of war.

As for no more global fascist axis, Franco survived to continue his persecutions, as did other fascist regimes who popped up. Just because they did not threaten the US did not mean a global fascist axis did not exist.

But you must admit that it stopped the global threat of those ideologies, and relegated them to the extremes where they belong.

Endless wars for a long time sustained god-kings, emperors and rajas, and little else. More progress could have been made without such wars that held nations back. Liberal democratic governments came in the peace that followed not in wars.

It took the wars to create the moderate regimes because the belligerent regimes in place were too war-like to cede power to moderation. Perhaps, then, there is a place for war to institute changes that are, in the end, positive?

Originally posted by Nygdan
I'm not saying that we're going to end war. BUt its false to say that war settles nothing. The wars in europe lead to democratic unity and peace in europe.

The end of wars did, not the wars in themselves. Wars settle nothing but the foundations of future wars, and Europe may not be safe from further wars. We saw that in the Balkans.

Originally posted by Nygdan Wars can be won, its crazy to say that it doesn't happen.

Wars are won and lost, then fought again.

But it is true that there was a "last" war in the case of Europe that encouraged them, along with the political climate, to abandon their belligerency. That was catalyzed by World War II and the Cold War and, arguably, would not have arisen any other way.

And create two hells of battleground: Iraq and Iran.

How does that improve the US’s situation in The Middle East precisely?

I agree that just smashing Iran doesn't work. The political process can work, but it must be backed up with the option of force so that Iran knows that if they do not come to the table and start being a positive member of the community, they won't be around much longer. I am willing to give them the opportunity to change, and to become a moderate state. I hope that your prediction that it can happen through the political process is correct in this case.

[edit on 1/29/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
you will not have destroyed a STATE which sponsors terrorism, you would of further embolden the terrorists, giving them a much larger battlefield in which to hit westerners.

Its pretty obvious that they won't have access to the same resources as they would with the islamic republic around.

regensturm
It’s impossible not only in little more than a year, but at all.

Thats not true. THe nazis had a resistance, and it was stopped. The french resistance wasn't stopped in the nazi's lifetime, but even it was controlled. Its not immpossible to invade and set up a democratic government. Napoleon did it repeatedly throughout europe, the british did it in south africa, etc.

Before Ahmadinejad, a moderate was President.

I am saying, earlier in Bush's term as president. I am saying, whatever anyone thinks about the iraq war, it'd be irresponsible now to start a war with iran, knowing full well that there's no way that it'd be 'done' before the next presidency.

Punitive war is genocide when it destroys people, and the facilities to stay alive. Electricity. Water.

I disagree. Genocide is the destruction of a people or at least their attempted eradication. No one is saying 'lets exterminate the persian ethnicity', and no one is suggesting anything that actually would destroy them.

Then don’t have American support for it. Just let such movements progress and continue in a natural manner. Such movements can become influential.

I am saying that its just not a likely political situation, that there'd be a native democratic uprising in iran, and that we wouldn't support it, ESPECIALLY if it looked like we could get there in time before it was defeated.
Its just not going to happen that we leave iraq AND withdraw from the region, we won't have a large number of troops, but we're still going to have support of proxies, assasination, etc etc, going on. Instead of an upfront war it will just become another shadow war.

I’m telling you, attacking Iran will destroy any chance of change.

it doesn't matter. If we are attacking, we are saying 'this is too much of a threat, and we can't wait and hope for internal democratic change'. We'd be eliminating the entity that can cause the most serious of the attacks, and that can sponsor the non-iranian international terror groups. Yes, we'd have many ticked off iranians, who'd want to attack us, and they'd try, but thats entirely different from having a ticked off iranian government that is using its resources to attack us.

Leave them and their country be, and they may be able to enact reform easier.

Excluding that I don't think we have time to invade them anyway, if we did, then too bad for them. We certainly don't have to wait in the hope that they will do something.

That’s like an Iraqi saying “If the American citizens are just going to sit there and do nothing while their government is killing our people, then it’s their own fault for supporting war against us, and they’ll really have no legitimate basis of complaint if we counter-attack on their mainland and destroy their nation in the process.”

Indeed. How could we say that their anger and attacks are illegitimate? We attacked and invaded them and destroyed their country. They have a right to attack us.

and pays no attention to the wider world in the process of family life does not mean they are deserving of being killed

Well, too bad. Lots of people that don't deserve to die or get killed do. Besides, the vast majority of civilian deaths in iraq have been at the hands of fellow iraqis, not american soldiers. If the US invades iran and there are massive casualities ala iraq, it won't be at the hands of the americans. True, we'd have a responsibility, but in the end, its their own people that are killing them.

You know as well as I do that the governments rarely suffer in wars as they hide in their bunkers and around the country.

Hussein hid in his 'bunker' and was unable to run the insurgency or make any pronouncements or do anything other than get captured and die. Thats what will happen to amhadinejad if the US invaded iran. The government would be destroyed.

Just because they did not threaten the US did not mean a global fascist axis did not exist.

Most regimes that people are calling fascist aren't fascist, they're just militant juntas. And WWII settled the issue of whether fascism was a workable, viable, political alternative, just like the collapse of the USSR and the capitalization of China has settled the issue of whether communism is a worthwhile alternative. It doesn't matter that cuba didn't also collapse, or that some petty dictators in south america were called nazis. People in the lead up to WWII honestly thought that democracy was an inept type of government, and that strong armed one man rule is better, kept the trains running on time, etc. WWII showed that it wasn't.

. More progress could have been made without such wars that held nations back.

How did the wars hold them back? If there weren't those major wars, then the european states would just be a bunch of seperated little towns and small states fighting with each other today.

Liberal democratic governments came in the peace that followed not in wars.

No they didn't. Especially in the colonial era, there was more liberalism and democracy during it, than in the periods prior to it and following it. Heck, the 'peaceful' period following colonialism was even more repressive.

Because they found they were allies in The Cold War, had two wars previously, and needed to form a alternative to being a US client state or a Soviet one.

The reasons are irrelevant, no big war, and no threat of war, and they'd be at each others throats to this day. We don't think it 'odd' that sunnis and shias blow each other up, if we didn't have those other wars, we'd be reading about serb terrorists bombing austrian markets, and french and german border communities raiding one another.

And create two hells of battleground: Iraq and Iran.

How does that improve the US’s situation in The Middle East precisely?

It requires a state to develop nuclear weapons, and to support multiple terror organizations throughout the world. A 'failed state' can't do that. We dont' get many terrorists coming here from, say, ethiopia. If we make iran like somalia, then it'd suck for the iranians, and there's still be dangers for us, but it'd be better than them having a fully functioning state to attack us with.

Togetic
Both extreme sides need to stop and take a hard look at their opinions, and do their homework. And I agree that most Iranians are innocent and just trying to make it through the day.

This is silly. I never said 'target the iranian populace' or 'kill innocent iranians' or even to do things for the express purpose of harming the population. If we can go to war with iran and not kill a single civilian, then all the better. But we all know that that doesn't ever happen in a war. I am merely saying that the fact that innocent civilians will certainly suffer during the war, is not a good enough reason to not have the war. THe only reason to have a war is if your own civilians are endangered, and you have to be willing to kill other civilians and peoples to protect your own civilians.

quote: Togetic
Both extreme sides need to stop and take a hard look at their opinions, and do their homework. And I agree that most Iranians are innocent and just trying to make it through the day.

This is silly. I never said 'target the iranian populace' or 'kill innocent iranians' or even to do things for the express purpose of harming the population. If we can go to war with iran and not kill a single civilian, then all the better. But we all know that that doesn't ever happen in a war. I am merely saying that the fact that innocent civilians will certainly suffer during the war, is not a good enough reason to not have the war. THe only reason to have a war is if your own civilians are endangered, and you have to be willing to kill other civilians and peoples to protect your own civilians.

This is a reasonable position. I apologize if I misunderstood it. With so many unreasonable opinions flying around, it is difficult to piece out a statement with reasonableness behind it. It also teaches me to read the entire thread before I start posting.

I understand your position as you have laid it out in this post, and I agree with most of your responses. I agree that change in Iran is impossible under the status quo, and that American and/or international military intervention may be the only thing able to effactuate before the state becomes a real threat. Either Iran comes to the table in good faith, or they need to suffer the consequences of defying the international community. This is not an American thing, this is a global safety thing.

At the same time, if you resist the US committing what you say is genocide, then what about Africa? You need to put the same vehemence into stopping those injustices as well to stay consistent. This means putting pressure on the UN and other countries.

Perhaps we should put more pressure on the U.S to regress from voting against treaties that would ban arms being sold into these countries? How would that fair with you in stopping genocide? The U.S has supported genocide for centuries the world over and it certainly cares little for the genocide in Sudan as it is of no strategic importance. Simply leaving this to the UN allows the U.S to find one more reason to negate the institution and watch as it will obviously blunder in front of this slaughter with little help from them.

Somalia was imperative mind you, but for PR reasons. Perhaps the current Bush will find the same reasons his father did for Somalia in Sudan: to save face; but sadly he's already making sure his fathers African endevours don't go unnoticed not especially when he can pretend to be fighting terrorism there.

The reform movements in Iran have historically been quashed by the ruling clerics and government. The problem in Iran is that their highest court adjudicates with Islamic law, which will not allow moderate change. Moderate presidents in the past have tried and failed. Something more than leaving them alone is required, because that has a record of failure.

So exactly what do you propose? Iranians don't seem up in arms for reform as the west purports, in fact, it's to less of an extent than the American publics criticism of their own government which has become a threat to global stability.

Iranian society still proponents liberalism and has evidently propped up these religious institutions in the wake of western influence in the region which has molested it of it's sovereignty and thusly so I do find it more appropriate to allow it to champion it's issues democratically and diplomatically.

It took the wars to create the moderate regimes because the belligerent regimes in place were too war-like to cede power to moderation. Perhaps, then, there is a place for war to institute changes that are, in the end, positive?

Perhaps history needs to be more objective and individuals need to come to internalization that the political concept intact in western societies for centuries proposed solving problems of social, economic and justice through a forum of representative democracy, not through arms and militias, or 500 pound bombs. These wars did not create moderate regimes, it simply subdued those then and replaced them with others that would certainly find other discreet methods of subordination and injustice; arpathied, proxy wars, economic slavery for example. We have methods of bringing an entire African nation to it's knees by charging unreasonable amounts of interest on loans offered, or charging 10's of millions of dollars for medication and treatment of ailments which have brought countless countries to an utter stand still. Still, these are just a few methods used exclusive of military coercion.

Those you seem to believe were responsible for bring moderation have done rightly so in their method and execution..

I agree that just smashing Iran doesn't work. The political process can work, but it must be backed up with the option of force so that Iran knows that if they do not come to the table and start being a positive member of the community, they won't be around much longer. I am willing to give them the opportunity to change, and to become a moderate state. I hope that your prediction that it can happen through the political process is correct in this case.

I find no different between your opinion and Nygdans, you're just more eloquent as you aptly admitted yourself.

You're willingness to give them a chance to become a moderate stance is arrogant. They are a moderate state dealing with a country that is pressing a resolution of violence and negation from a freedom inalienable to all: free nuclear energy. Iran is a positive contributor to the international community and I'm not sure how you can posit it as otherwise. There is absolutely marginal evidence to prove that Iran has partaken in the insurgency or has the clout as exaggerated on media agencies world wide, including Reuters which is by no means a primary source for concrete intelligence.

Conjecture has no place here.

I disagree. Genocide is the destruction of a people or at least their attempted eradication. No one is saying 'lets exterminate the persian ethnicity', and no one is suggesting anything that actually would destroy them.

No need. Actions speak louder than words and in this case the the actions of the United States speaks very loudly.

Genocide is the " the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" and something which the U.S is very familiar with. The current administration does not need to express it's view to exercise genocide when it can just the same vote against treaty's preventing arms from being sold into these regions of the world where genocides take place frequently, arms that sold by countries like the U.S themselves.

Well, too bad. Lots of people that don't deserve to die or get killed do. Besides, the vast majority of civilian deaths in iraq have been at the hands of fellow iraqis, not american soldiers. If the US invades iran and there are massive casualities ala iraq, it won't be at the hands of the americans. True, we'd have a responsibility, but in the end, its their own people that are killing them

You must be suffering from delusion and myopia, along with your countries leaders. Do you understand the theory of cause and affect? It's not Iraqis killing each other, it's this extreme hubris, deleterious foreign policy, and this yearning to remain the worlds superpower and eventually a hyper power whose clout in the international community cannot be compromised.

You set the precedent by behaving like dogs may I remind you.

Luxifero

I understand your position as you have laid it out in this post, and I agree with most of your responses. I agree that change in Iran is impossible under the status quo, and that American and/or international military intervention may be the only thing able to effactuate before the state becomes a real threat. Either Iran comes to the table in good faith, or they need to suffer the consequences of defying the international community. This is not an American thing, this is a global safety thing.

Rubbish.

Iran is not a threat nor is an international thing. America simply conjured vague intelligence reports its refuses to verify, some exaggerated remarks from the Iranian leadership and a lot of exploitation of the American publics sensitivities and finds a marginal case to wage a war against Iran; just like Iraq.

Iran has come to the table but been refused audience or simple refuted for it's vehemence in actualizing it's right to nuclear energy as officiated by the Nuclear proliferation treaty, something which the U.S does not abide by mind you.

Luxifero

Originally posted by Luxifero
Rubbish.

Iran is not a threat nor is an international thing.

This tone does not help a dialog. What is accomplished by it?

America simply conjured vague intelligence reports its refuses to verify,

Can you give an example of intelligence that has been exaggerated? And is there comparable intelligence from a European country that argues against this conclusion in good faith?

some exaggerated remarks from the Iranian leadership and a lot of exploitation of the American publics sensitivities and finds a marginal case to wage a war against Iran; just like Iraq.

How are such remarks taken out of context or exaggerated? Those statements call for the destruction of Israel and the United States--in those terms. If they are not exaggerated, what is your bar for sufficiently belligerent statements that must be taken at face value? If you can infer from American statements that we are interested in a war with Iran, why is it such a leap that Iran's statements--even assuming that they are thinly veiled--are equally belligerent?

Further, the argument that there has been exploitation on American sensitivities has not been borne out by the evidence.

Iran has come to the table but been refused audience or simple refuted for it's vehemence in actualizing it's right to nuclear energy as officiated by the Nuclear proliferation treaty, something which the U.S does not abide by mind you.

Luxifero

I have no problem with Iran having nuclear energy. But they must submit to international inspections, as the UN is asking for.