Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Ecofarm, Sep 25, 2009.
You are ridiculous.
Debatable, but I apparently have far firmer grasp of history than you.
It wasn't the fact that they got bombed on a tiny island that moved them towards free elections, it was the idiocy of the regime to try and grab something that wasn't theirs and the awful and shotty propaganda that deligitimized their grip on Argentina. And the military regime was already fighting against their own unpopularity and thought their little adventure would rally support behind them.
Israel vs Iran with Iran fighting back is certainly an interesting scenario. If Israel mainly strikes nuclear facilities and Iran starts firing off rockets does the US immidiately join in? Do they have the capacity for a land war in Iraq/Iran(2 million dead last time)? And Iraq itself would literally blow up with insurgents, the governement being seen as a zionist/american imperial pawns. Israel surely couldn't win a war vs Iran with only pure airpower.
Didn't read the whole thread to see if anyone posted this before but, it has been theorized for years that Iran has been building or already built an underground Nuclear facility.
You advocate bombing this country and bombing that country and then say this or that country is a threat to the world. And quite frankly, I really have doubts that the US cares about how morally upstanding other governments are as long as their useful to them. If Iran said to the US, we'll give you all the oil that you want, but we're not changing a single thing about how we govern, the US would say we have a new ally. Do you really believe that they thought that Saddam was a very benevolent person when they were allies and giving them weapons to fight Iran?!? It's all about what's best for me and that's always been the case.
... they're already looking to build weapons. If Israel leaves it in the short term, they will have them, if they don't then they'll have to deal with it again in the long term. See the problem?
I disrespectfully disagree.
So an attack now would only offset the inevitable, rather than secure any sort of lasting peace that would remove the need to be the only nuclear power. And this want by Israel ignores the fact that an attack would either be baseless (with Iran not wanting to attack Israel anyway) or create a situation in which an attack was more likely and imminent, albeit in the form of conventional missiles (with Iran willing to attack Israel proper).
Whether they can fully challenge the IDF or not, their capabilities will be improved through improved support for them. Being able to challenge Israel in terms of equal power isn't what constitutes a threat to Israel. By the same metric, Israel is completely safe from Hamas and Hezbollah now, because they cannot challenge them. But that is not the case, as is obvious.
So we would have a situation in which there would be another Afghanistan or Iraq, but most likely worse. I'm sure the Middle East and radical Islam will take kindly to that.
Again, the ability to be able to commit war crimes without international scrutiny isn't really something that should come into the argument for Israel, unless they are to make themselves the real threat in the situation.
Apart from a further unstabilised region in which Israel is even less secure? And war generally tends to result in insecurity, even if it results in victory, so perpetual war would improve Israeli security.
Which just creates a never ending cycle of perpetuation and escalation, leading more and more to less peace and less security for Israel, with growing polarisation and radicalisation of the Middle East, and continued (and probably unsustainable) war for Israel.
The major difference being that if attacked, Iran will much much more likely to use nuclear weapons as an offensive action, due to a greater want for revenge. If they build nuclear weapons in the near future, it is very, very doubtful that that would happen. So we've established that Iran would build nuclear weapons anyway, just varying between in the short-term and in the long-term. So the only real thing that would be achieved by Israel in an attack on Iran would be the removal of that short-term possibility (assuming the strike is completely successful), at the cost of a higher chance of being attacked in the long-term, as opposed to an equal one. Which would be a worse situation. I mean, it would be understandable if Israel did attack Iran, but it would be a fool's errand, a self-defeating offensive.
Did I hear "inevitable"?
If attacked, Iran will not have nuclear weapons to use as an offensive action. That's why the Israelis would be attacking.
How does your scenario account for Israel simply bombing the Iranian nuclear weapons facilities every time they try to get a new bomb-making effort together?
We have the capacity for a land war, but not for a land war while nation building. The land war would come well after an intense air campaign, and would not try to preserve infrastructure or seek to minimize damage for the purpose of nation building. It would be a proper war the kind the military is designed and equipped to wage.
And it would be hell for the entire world. Nobody wants it, Iran knows it, is using it to their advantage, and really is just asking for it in the process.
Actually, the Allies had to keep the "Imperial God King" in place in order to secure cooperation from the Japanese This example is often given by proponents of Western interventionism aimed at bringing civilization (a.k.a. democracy) to the natives.
It fails to take account of few major differences. First, Japan and Germany started the war and they knew it. They lost only after years of bloody slaughter which had left the people so exhausted and shocked, that they had no will left to continue fighting. Most of all, they VOLUNTARILY accepted occupation because they had no other choice but starvation, even greater destruction and death.
On the other hand, people in Iran don't see it that way - if you attacked them for no good reason (from their POV they have a right to have their own nuclear program), they'd resist. The only thing you would achieve would be a complete discrediting of the pro-Western opposition and a surge of support for Islamism.
Wait, you actually think Iraq was a success? Gee, the delusion is worse than I thought...
BTW, let's be realistic here - the West has run out of options. There will either be war or nuclear Iran. New York Times asked several scholars how effective could sanctions be against Iran, even if they were imposed. I chose to post the answer by Cordesman, as he is one of the leading expert on Iranian nuclear program:
If this is what this guy's saying, then I totally support it. There is no chance in hell that any sanctions could stop Iranian regime from pursuing nuclear weapons program. So either bomb them and risk a major prolonged war with all the consequences (explained in my other thread in which I explained how Russia would profit on that), or let's start getting ready for a nuclear Iran.
Your analysis is basically right Winner. Either Israel attacks now, or in the next few months, or we just accept it, and the second option is far better. Loathesome as the Iranian state may be, it isnt suicidal and will not nuke Israel. It may, however, like the rest of the world to think it is crazy enough to, if provoked. Pakistan has nukes and it's a far more dangerous place than Iran, and yet we live with it.
We live with it because it's already happened. Unless if you want to march into Pakistan and disarm them.
Iran DOESN'T have it yet and we can stop them before they do have it.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the difference.
I am not afraid of what Iran does with the nukes themselves (they'd probably have them hidden in some mountain and only use them if they were totally desperate), I am afraid that the nukes will make the regime feel stronger and embolden it to pursue more risky strategies. Like starting more proxy wars against Israel, funding more terrorists abroad etc. Nuclear Iran definitely won't make the Middle East any more secure. There won't be a mini-MAD there, unless both countries attain 2nd strike capacity. Even though, Israel is too small to survive even a limited nuclear strike, which would undoubtedly force it to strike first in a future emergency situation. Normally, it would strike using conventional means, but with nuclear Iran in the equation, it might decide to "play it safe" and use nukes.
I would really hate to be the Israeli PM now
In the future when they do produce nuclear weapons, they will be much more likely to use them than if they produced them currently. And their resolve to make nuclear weapons would be increased greatly through an Israeli attack. Which just leaves the means...
Well, I suppose if Israel had perfect knowledge of all Iranian nuclear weaponry activities, and could completely halt it all through attack after attack and if Iran did not bother to retaliate or defend itself, then this would be possible. But I don't really see either of those two premises as likely. Which means that Iran will either still have facilities available with which to create nuclear weapons (the means), or they will develop them at a greater rate at the conclusion of a conflict, if it were to stop and not being a state of perpetual war, which would, of course, result in attacks on Israel, which is precisely what would be trying to be avoided through attacking Iran. And if Iran retaliates even in the first instance, this represents a failure of the aim of keeping Israel safe.
Except almost everyone accepts that we almost certaintly cant stop them form getting them. But maybe you know better, so without abandoning the thread just because you already made your rolleyes smilieyface post to me, could you tell me how you think 'we' should stop them?
Separate names with a comma.