Time is Not on the World's Side: The Iranian Threat

[wade]

The idea that the USA can engage Iran now is ridiculous. We are already over extended in Iraq and Afganistan. Pakistan and other muslim nations are increasingly destablized as it is. Any incursion into another extended war would give North Korea an invitation to attack South Korea, as the USA would have to redeploy forces from SK in order to undertake such an operation. China might even see the time as ripe to reclaim Taiwan. The only US counter option would be full scale nuclear response.

Furthermore, Iran has abundant nuclear material, and sits on or near at least 2/3rds of the worlds readily available oil supply - they could simply threaten to contaminate this oil and then they'd be free to make demands, since they would be the "wronged" party.

Short of a massive surprise nuetron bomb attack on a multitude of threat nations, the USA has very limited military options. And the consequences of such an attack, unless totally successful, would be devestating for the entire world.

And finnaly, we (the USA) simply cannot afford it. The wars in Iraq and Afgan are already putting the USA into the poor-house. Serious recession or even a depression are looming just around the corner. Bush may deny it, but there is no question that TAXES of one form or another are comming in the not too distanct future, unless we simply claim Iraqi oil as payment for "freeing" them... and the consequences of such an action on the world economy would be staggering.

Wade.

 

[Annie]

The idea that the USA can engage Iran now is ridiculous. We are already over extended in Iraq and Afganistan. Pakistan and other muslim nations are increasingly destablized as it is. Any incursion into another extended war would give North Korea an invitation to attack South Korea, as the USA would have to redeploy forces from SK in order to undertake such an operation. China might even see the time as ripe to reclaim Taiwan. The only US counter option would be full scale nuclear response.

Furthermore, Iran has abundant nuclear material, and sits on or near at least 2/3rds of the worlds readily available oil supply - they could simply threaten to contaminate this oil and then they'd be free to make demands, since they would be the "wronged" party.

Short of a massive surprise nuetron bomb attack on a multitude of threat nations, the USA has very limited military options. And the consequences of such an attack, unless totally successful, would be devestating for the entire world.

And finnaly, we (the USA) simply cannot afford it. The wars in Iraq and Afgan are already putting the USA into the poor-house. Serious recession or even a depression are looming just around the corner. Bush may deny it, but there is no question that TAXES of one form or another are comming in the not too distanct future, unless we simply claim Iraqi oil as payment for "freeing" them... and the consequences of such an action on the world economy would be staggering.

Wade.

Not sure where you are getting your 'facts' from. I do know that 'sitting on top of' is different than producing. Heck, prior to 1920's, the ME produced about 0%, though the potential was there. What does Iran do with the $ is does get from being the 4th largest oil producer? Think that might have something to do with the acknowledged discontent, I mean over and above the suppression of freedoms?

All the other things you've included, such as claiming Iraqi oil as payment and using quotes about freeing them- Have to build some sort of point of view other than 'flame clauses'.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The idea that the USA can engage Iran now is ridiculous. We are already over extended in Iraq and Afganistan. Pakistan and other muslim nations are increasingly destablized as it is. Any incursion into another extended war would give North Korea an invitation to attack South Korea, as the USA would have to redeploy forces from SK in order to undertake such an operation. China might even see the time as ripe to reclaim Taiwan. The only US counter option would be full scale nuclear response.

Furthermore, Iran has abundant nuclear material, and sits on or near at least 2/3rds of the worlds readily available oil supply - they could simply threaten to contaminate this oil and then they'd be free to make demands, since they would be the "wronged" party.

Short of a massive surprise nuetron bomb attack on a multitude of threat nations, the USA has very limited military options. And the consequences of such an attack, unless totally successful, would be devestating for the entire world.

And finnaly, we (the USA) simply cannot afford it. The wars in Iraq and Afgan are already putting the USA into the poor-house. Serious recession or even a depression are looming just around the corner. Bush may deny it, but there is no question that TAXES of one form or another are comming in the not too distanct future, unless we simply claim Iraqi oil as payment for "freeing" them... and the consequences of such an action on the world economy would be staggering.

Wade.

I suspect your assertions regarding our capabilities are based on zero actual knowledge. That's just a suspicion.

Can you AFFORD being put to death under Shariah Law for being a christian? How will that effect your pocketbook?

 

[wade]

You guys are missing the point. We (the USA) simply cannot afford to engage in another major land war, our economy is already strained to the limits. We don't have the military forces to do so either, and even if we institute the draft, which I think is a sure thing if Bush is re-elected, and likely if Kerry wins as well, it will still be years before we have the forces for such operations.

The point about the oil is that Iran can easily polute the oil it sits on, as well as good deal of what exists in its neighbor nations, so that it cannot be used for several hundred years. Saddam could have done this in the 1st gulf war, and forced the US to back off, but he was fool, or he would not have invaded Kuwait in the first place, or he would have continued on and taken Saudi Arabia if he was hell-bent on such action (making US response extremely difficult).

The point about Iraqi oil as payment for the war is simple - the $ have to come from somewhere, and I suspect in the end this is how Bush plans to finance this war. Otherwise, the hit to the US economy is just too staggering, it leaves us too weak to deal with the next target. It's not a flame clause m8, it's a reality clause - war costs $, a lot of $. It has to come from somewhere and the US middle class is tapped out.

I'm not at much risk RightWing, as I doubt they are going to come over here to the USA and try to "put me to death".... and who say's I'm christian! :hail:

The one clear point you do make is that the most likely outcome of this whole thing is a religious fundimentalist government in Iraq. People have to rise up and demand freedom, it cannot be "given" to them. The Iraqi's have not done this and it is clear the Moslim mindset is not bent towards "freedom". In the end, we either must stay there and force "freedom" upon them, or watch the country break down into a very bloody civil war. Personally, I think civil war is inevetable, after which we will re-enter Iraq, and break it into at least 3 seperate states. Iraq is not much of a nation, given the clear religious and ethinic groups which dominate specific regions of the country. Iraq was created by the Allied powers after WWII as per the deal with the Shaw at the time. Times are different and a realistic re-appraisel will need to be made at some point.

Wade.

 

[dilloduck]

You guys are missing the point. We (the USA) simply cannot afford to engage in another major land war, our economy is already strained to the limits. We don't have the military forces to do so either, and even if we institute the draft, which I think is a sure thing if Bush is re-elected, and likely if Kerry wins as well, it will still be years before we have the forces for such operations.

The point about the oil is that Iran can easily polute the oil it sits on, as well as good deal of what exists in its neighbor nations, so that it cannot be used for several hundred years. Saddam could have done this in the 1st gulf war, and forced the US to back off, but he was fool, or he would not have invaded Kuwait in the first place, or he would have continued on and taken Saudi Arabia if he was hell-bent on such action (making US response extremely difficult).

The point about Iraqi oil as payment for the war is simple - the $ have to come from somewhere, and I suspect in the end this is how Bush plans to finance this war. Otherwise, the hit to the US economy is just too staggering, it leaves us too weak to deal with the next target. It's not a flame clause m8, it's a reality clause - war costs $, a lot of $. It has to come from somewhere and the US middle class is tapped out.

I'm not at much risk RightWing, as I doubt they are going to come over here to the USA and try to "put me to death".... and who say's I'm christian! :hail:

The one clear point you do make is that the most likely outcome of this whole thing is a religious fundimentalist government in Iraq. People have to rise up and demand freedom, it cannot be "given" to them. The Iraqi's have not done this and it is clear the Moslim mindset is not bent towards "freedom". In the end, we either must stay there and force "freedom" upon them, or watch the country break down into a very bloody civil war. Personally, I think civil war is inevetable, after which we will re-enter Iraq, and break it into at least 3 seperate states. Iraq is not much of a nation, given the clear religious and ethinic groups which dominate specific regions of the country. Iraq was created by the Allied powers after WWII as per the deal with the Shaw at the time. Times are different and a realistic re-appraisel will need to be made at some point.

Wade.

The Iraqis are proving themselves daily in efforts to rid themselves from insurgents. Give em a little time. I don't think a major ground war is what anyone is interested in. Strategic attacks on Irans nuclear facilities would halt the immediate threat presented by nukes and covert operations to assist the Iranians who are tired of the mullahs are probably under way as we speak. I don't see a problem with that.

 

[Merlin1047]

From a boaster-booster of Isreal:
Israel does not need to rely on America for its survival. One only has to look at the wars waged against Israel since 1948. Israel has the capacity and wherewithall to defend itself. Israel has their own weapons technology and manufacturing capability apart from the USA.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Absolutely delusional. But if true, why are we continuing to pump billions into a cause that does not need US support?

 

[dilloduck]

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Absolutely delusional. But if true, why are we continuing to pump billions into a cause that does not need US support?

:rotflmao: --guess that's why AJ has been given a week to "rethink" things a bit.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Absolutely delusional. But if true, why are we continuing to pump billions into a cause that does not need US support?

They are OUR ally against terror too. They are on OUR side in the ME, the side of civilization. It's a strategic move.

I do believe aj's braggadocio is a bit over the top, however.

 

[Merlin1047]

They are OUR ally against terror too. They are on OUR side in the ME, the side of civilization. It's a strategic move.

I do believe aj's braggadocio is a bit over the top, however.

I wasn't saying that supporting Israel should be discontinued. I was simply challenging the assertion that Israel doesn't need US protection and that they could fend off hostile Arab states on their own. I guess AJ thinks that Israel's armor, aircraft, small arms and the money to maintain a healthy economy even while our own suffered are gifts from God and the US was simply the conduit.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I wasn't saying that supporting Israel should be discontinued. I was simply challenging the assertion that Israel doesn't need US protection and that they could fend off hostile Arab states on their own. I guess AJ thinks that Israel's armor, aircraft, small arms and the money to maintain a healthy economy even while our own suffered are gifts from God and the US was simply the conduit.

Yeah. I wonder. God's plan is a mystery. I think he's a bit full of it(not god, aj).

 

[Merlin1047]

The idea that the USA can engage Iran now is ridiculous. We are already over extended in Iraq and Afganistan. Pakistan and other muslim nations are increasingly destablized as it is. Any incursion into another extended war would give North Korea an invitation to attack South Korea, as the USA would have to redeploy forces from SK in order to undertake such an operation. China might even see the time as ripe to reclaim Taiwan. The only US counter option would be full scale nuclear response.

We have forces deployed in some parts of the world for no real reason other than to support the economies of those countries. Germany and Japan come to mind. Ever ask yourself what the hell we're still doing in Germany now that the threat of Soviet invasion has evaporated? And surely Japan could defend itself against any Chinese threat - at least long enough for us to rally to that nation's defense, if required. As far as the two Koreas - let them fight it out themselves. I'm pretty confident that the south can hold its own if attacked.

What I find particularly strange about your statement is this: "Pakistan and other muslim nations are increasingly destablized as it is." So you view the anti-terrorist campaigns in Pakistan is "destabilizing"? I suppose that meshes with the hollywierd view that any disruption of the status quo is detrimental. Personally I don't see Pakistan as being destabilized. I simply see them coming to grips with the terror element which has until recently been given free rein in their country. Don't know about you, but somehow I have a great deal of difficulty seeing that as a bad thing.

 

[wade]

Merlin, look at what is going on in Pakistan - a new Taliban-like element is gaining increasing popular support. Posters of the twin towers in flames with Bin-Ladin in the foreground, pictured as a hero, are the most popular in Pakistan.

As far as the Iraqi's support of the coalition in Iraq, this is what the Adminstration is telling you is happening. Look at the numbers though, and it is clear that this is NOT what is happening. Sure there are some who support us, but their are many who don't. There are a lot who are just waiting for the US/coalition forces to leave, or reduce sufficently, before taking action.

As for the number of troops in Germany, well that works for us too. US forces stationed in Germany are more easily deployed to the mid-east, and many of them have been.

Who said anything about Japan. It's Taiwan that the Chineese want back. Do you think Japan is going to defend Taiwan?

Wade.

 

[wade]

Isreal won "every war" since '48. Hmmm... seems to me they lost in '75 and the USA had to bail them out.

Wade.

 

[freeandfun1]

Merlin, look at what is going on in Pakistan - a new Taliban-like element is gaining increasing popular support. Posters of the twin towers in flames with Bin-Ladin in the foreground, pictured as a hero, are the most popular in Pakistan.

As far as the Iraqi's support of the coalition in Iraq, this is what the Adminstration is telling you is happening. Look at the numbers though, and it is clear that this is NOT what is happening. Sure there are some who support us, but their are many who don't. There are a lot who are just waiting for the US/coalition forces to leave, or reduce sufficently, before taking action.

As for the number of troops in Germany, well that works for us too. US forces stationed in Germany are more easily deployed to the mid-east, and many of them have been.

Who said anything about Japan. It's Taiwan that the Chineese want back. Do you think Japan is going to defend Taiwan?

Wade.

Dude, you make no sense at all. Do you live in a fantasy land?

The Chinese and Japanese have been fighting each other for THOUSANDS of years. North Korea and/or China is Japan's biggest threats in the region. How you get from "troops in Japan" to, "it's Taiwan the Chinese want back" I have no idea. You either don't read very closely, or you are so ignorant of world facts that you didn't understand his point.

 

[freeandfun1]

Isreal won "every war" since '48. Hmmm... seems to me they lost in '75 and the USA had to bail them out.

Wade.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Annie]

Dude, you make no sense at all. Do you live in a fantasy land?

The Chinese and Japanese have been fighting each other for THOUSANDS of years. North Korea and/or China is Japan's biggest threats in the region. How you get from "troops in Japan" to, "it's Taiwan the Chinese want back" I have no idea. You either don't read very closely, or you are so ignorant of world facts that you didn't understand his point.

I think it's both and

 

[wade]

Dude, you make no sense at all. Do you live in a fantasy land?

The Chinese and Japanese have been fighting each other for THOUSANDS of years. North Korea and/or China is Japan's biggest threats in the region. How you get from "troops in Japan" to, "it's Taiwan the Chinese want back" I have no idea. You either don't read very closely, or you are so ignorant of world facts that you didn't understand his point.

It's you who is not reading very well. He was refering to my post, where I said:

...China might even see the time as ripe to reclaim Taiwan. ...

I never said anything about Japan, and since he was replying to my post, his reference to Japan was totally out of place.

It does not matter that Japan and China/Korea have been past enemies, that's not the current situation. The current situation is that China still considers Formosa (now Tiawan) Chineese territory, and they want it back. They only need for the West to become too weak to stop them and they will take it back.

Wade.

 

[freeandfun1]

It's you who is not reading very well. He was refering to my post, where I said:



I never said anything about Japan, and since he was replying to my post, his reference to Japan was totally out of place.

It does not matter that Japan and China/Korea have been past enemies, that's not the current situation. The current situation is that China still considers Formosa (now Tiawan) Chineese territory, and they want it back. They only need for the West to become too weak to stop them and they will take it back.

Wade.

His reference was to troops being in Japan. As they are.

Before you give me a history lesson on Asia, let me tell you that I have lived in Asia, I own a business in Asia now and I am married to an Asian. I have studied their history well and know it much better than most.

Japan and China are historical enemies and they will always remain so. Korea (actually, the "Koreas") is, as always, caught in the middle.

 

[Annie]

YAHOO!

Iran Seeks Support on Nuclear Technology ​

Mon Aug 9, 4:34 PM ET

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - Iran is demanding Europe's leading powers back its right to nuclear technology that could be used to make weapons, dismaying the Europeans and strengthening Washington's push for U.N. sanctions, a European Union (news - web sites) official and diplomats said Monday.

Declining to respond to a list of demands presented by Iran last week — whose contents were made available to The Associated Press — the Europeans are urging the Iranian government to instead make good on a pledge to clear up suspicions about its nuclear ambitions.

But diplomats said Iran's demands undermine the effort by France, Germany and Britain to avoid a confrontation. They had hoped to persuade Tehran to give up technology that can produce nuclear arms, but now are closer to the Bush administration's view that Iran should be referred to the U.N. Security Council for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the diplomats said.

The Iranian list, presented during talks in Paris, includes demands that the three European powers:

_Support Iran's insistence its nuclear program have access to "advanced technology, including those with dual use," which is equipment and know-how that has both peaceful and weapons applications.

_"Remove impediments" — sales restrictions imposed by nuclear supplier nations — preventing Iran access to such technology.

_Give assurances they will stick by any commitment to Iran even if faced with "legal (or) political ... limitations," an apparent allusion to potential Security Council sanctions.

_Agree to sell Iran conventional weapons.

_Commit to push "rigorously and systematically" for a non-nuclear Middle East and to "provide security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran, both allusions to Israel, which is believed to have nuclear arms and which destroyed Iraq (news - web sites)'s nuclear reactor in a 1981 airstrike to prevent it from making atomic arms.

France, Germany and Britain last year had held out the prospect of supplying Iran with some "dual use" nuclear technology, but only in the distant future and only if all suspicions about the Iranian program were laid to rest.

With Iran still under investigation, the demands stunned senior French, German and British negotiators, said a European Union official familiar with the Paris meeting.

 

[dilloduck]

The more I read about this the more i believe France to be totally compromised. Irans insistance for European protection may force its' hand. Chiracs' adminstration is dependent on the support of the French-Arab population!