Time to attack iran

[Gunny]

someone was also convinced that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons too... had glossy sat images and everything.

how did that work out?

You only get to be wrong on that one once. Anyone that thinks Saddam would not have and was not pursuing some kind of nuclear weapons capability clearly lives in a cave. He was a thug and way to obvious.

 

[Gunny]

John Bolton may be many things, but a serious foreign policy analyst he is not. I've written often and at length about why he is wrong on my blog.

He pops up again this month in Standpoint Magazine, crticising Obama for “rejecting American exceptionalism” and "sounding like a European". On one level, of course, this is barely-concealed code for ‘weak’, ‘effeminate’ and 'ineffectual', intended to conjure up images of appeasement and indecision in the face of evil. But at a deeper, philosophical level Bolton is objecting to the grand tradition of American realism, wrongly believing that this places him squarely within the mainstream and Obama somehow at odds with it.

Quite how someone with such a flimsy grasp on the history and philosophy of American foreign policy can have risen to such a position of influence is beyond me, although ‘influence’ is perhaps the wrong word. He is certainly indulged by editors of magazines such as Standpoint and his arguments do resonate with large numbers of Americans, but as serious foreign policy analysis his argument is not worth a row of beans.

The task for a mature American foreign policy is to purge the debate of this sort of moralism, eschew moral, philosophical and religious categories in favour of geopolitical ones and view America not as sui generis, but rather as a great power like any other. This means acknowledging limits. It means dropping our obsession with quick fixes and instant solutions, abandoning this conception of foreign policy as something for the Twitter generation - fully of nice, tidy, easily-digestible, bite-sized chunks - in favour of the hard slog of diplomacy, alliance building, deterrence and containment.

The problem with foreign policy as the neoconservatives conceive it is that there is no room for anything messy, no space for untidy, real-world narratives, nothing that can not be shoehorned into their simple formulas. It is time to get past this adolescent fixation with simple narratives, time to end foreign policy as Hollywood movie. It is time for foreign policy for grown ups. It is time for complicated, nuanced, uneven, and yes - sometimes unedifying - diplomacy. It is time for a dose of realism. That is what Obama was elected for, and it is what he is delivering.

Images of appeasement don't have to be conjured up ... they're rather obvious; which, would be what is barely-concealed code for ‘weak’, ‘effeminate’ and 'ineffectual'.

Diplomacy is only as good as your ability to back it up with force. If people know you won't use that force, they scoff at diplomacy. Probably too simple a formula for you, but what the Hell.

 

[toomuchtime_]

John Bolton may be many things, but a serious foreign policy analyst he is not. I've written often and at length about why he is wrong on my blog.

He pops up again this month in Standpoint Magazine, crticising Obama for “rejecting American exceptionalism” and "sounding like a European". On one level, of course, this is barely-concealed code for ‘weak’, ‘effeminate’ and 'ineffectual', intended to conjure up images of appeasement and indecision in the face of evil. But at a deeper, philosophical level Bolton is objecting to the grand tradition of American realism, wrongly believing that this places him squarely within the mainstream and Obama somehow at odds with it.

Quite how someone with such a flimsy grasp on the history and philosophy of American foreign policy can have risen to such a position of influence is beyond me, although ‘influence’ is perhaps the wrong word. He is certainly indulged by editors of magazines such as Standpoint and his arguments do resonate with large numbers of Americans, but as serious foreign policy analysis his argument is not worth a row of beans.

The task for a mature American foreign policy is to purge the debate of this sort of moralism, eschew moral, philosophical and religious categories in favour of geopolitical ones and view America not as sui generis, but rather as a great power like any other. This means acknowledging limits. It means dropping our obsession with quick fixes and instant solutions, abandoning this conception of foreign policy as something for the Twitter generation - fully of nice, tidy, easily-digestible, bite-sized chunks - in favour of the hard slog of diplomacy, alliance building, deterrence and containment.

The problem with foreign policy as the neoconservatives conceive it is that there is no room for anything messy, no space for untidy, real-world narratives, nothing that can not be shoehorned into their simple formulas. It is time to get past this adolescent fixation with simple narratives, time to end foreign policy as Hollywood movie. It is time for foreign policy for grown ups. It is time for complicated, nuanced, uneven, and yes - sometimes unedifying - diplomacy. It is time for a dose of realism. That is what Obama was elected for, and it is what he is delivering.

Images of appeasement don't have to be conjured up ... they're rather obvious; which, would be what is barely-concealed code for ‘weak’, ‘effeminate’ and 'ineffectual'.

Diplomacy is only as good as your ability to back it up with force. If people know you won't use that force, they scoff at diplomacy. Probably too simple a formula for you, but what the Hell.

It might not be necessary to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if the US, EU, Russia and China could agree to apply really strong economic sanctions, but even if Russia and China removed their objections, Germany and China, both of which do major business with Iran, are unlikely to, and of course, Obama is not about to take a position that will not get high popularity ratings in Europe. That reduces the choices to either using force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power or accepting the inevitability of a nuclear arms race in the ME and, most likely, nuclear war in the region.

 

[Modbert]

You only get to be wrong on that one once. Anyone that thinks Saddam would not have and was not pursuing some kind of nuclear weapons capability clearly lives in a cave. He was a thug and way to obvious.

The FBI's conversations with Saddam seem to disagree with you.

FBI says Saddam's weapons bluff aimed at Iran - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.

"Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran," FBI special agent George Piro wrote on notes of a conversation with Saddam in June 2004 about weapons of mass destruction.

He believed Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself, the report said.

The FBI reports, released on Wednesday, said Saddam asserted that he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for blocking the return of UN weapons inspectors who were searching for WMD.

"In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq," according to the documents obtained and released by the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institute.

 

[Gunny]

You only get to be wrong on that one once. Anyone that thinks Saddam would not have and was not pursuing some kind of nuclear weapons capability clearly lives in a cave. He was a thug and way to obvious.

The FBI's conversations with Saddam seem to disagree with you.

FBI says Saddam's weapons bluff aimed at Iran - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.

"Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran," FBI special agent George Piro wrote on notes of a conversation with Saddam in June 2004 about weapons of mass destruction.

He believed Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself, the report said.

The FBI reports, released on Wednesday, said Saddam asserted that he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for blocking the return of UN weapons inspectors who were searching for WMD.

"In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq," according to the documents obtained and released by the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institute.

Whatever dude. Look at the asshole's history, He attained power as a thug and was a thug as a leader. Thugs always go for the best weapons and he had the oil to buy them. He used possessed and used WMDs in the past, and would have done so again.

Look at the religious thugs in Iran. What are THEY doing? The same thing. Nuclear weapons is a means to make nations like the US, Russia and China think twice about screwing with them.

Try the logic and common sense factors sometimes. They actually work.

 

[Gunny]

John Bolton may be many things, but a serious foreign policy analyst he is not. I've written often and at length about why he is wrong on my blog.

He pops up again this month in Standpoint Magazine, crticising Obama for “rejecting American exceptionalism” and "sounding like a European". On one level, of course, this is barely-concealed code for ‘weak’, ‘effeminate’ and 'ineffectual', intended to conjure up images of appeasement and indecision in the face of evil. But at a deeper, philosophical level Bolton is objecting to the grand tradition of American realism, wrongly believing that this places him squarely within the mainstream and Obama somehow at odds with it.

Quite how someone with such a flimsy grasp on the history and philosophy of American foreign policy can have risen to such a position of influence is beyond me, although ‘influence’ is perhaps the wrong word. He is certainly indulged by editors of magazines such as Standpoint and his arguments do resonate with large numbers of Americans, but as serious foreign policy analysis his argument is not worth a row of beans.

The task for a mature American foreign policy is to purge the debate of this sort of moralism, eschew moral, philosophical and religious categories in favour of geopolitical ones and view America not as sui generis, but rather as a great power like any other. This means acknowledging limits. It means dropping our obsession with quick fixes and instant solutions, abandoning this conception of foreign policy as something for the Twitter generation - fully of nice, tidy, easily-digestible, bite-sized chunks - in favour of the hard slog of diplomacy, alliance building, deterrence and containment.

The problem with foreign policy as the neoconservatives conceive it is that there is no room for anything messy, no space for untidy, real-world narratives, nothing that can not be shoehorned into their simple formulas. It is time to get past this adolescent fixation with simple narratives, time to end foreign policy as Hollywood movie. It is time for foreign policy for grown ups. It is time for complicated, nuanced, uneven, and yes - sometimes unedifying - diplomacy. It is time for a dose of realism. That is what Obama was elected for, and it is what he is delivering.

Images of appeasement don't have to be conjured up ... they're rather obvious; which, would be what is barely-concealed code for ‘weak’, ‘effeminate’ and 'ineffectual'.

Diplomacy is only as good as your ability to back it up with force. If people know you won't use that force, they scoff at diplomacy. Probably too simple a formula for you, but what the Hell.

It might not be necessary to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if the US, EU, Russia and China could agree to apply really strong economic sanctions, but even if Russia and China removed their objections, Germany and China, both of which do major business with Iran, are unlikely to, and of course, Obama is not about to take a position that will not get high popularity ratings in Europe. That reduces the choices to either using force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power or accepting the inevitability of a nuclear arms race in the ME and, most likely, nuclear war in the region.

I have not advocated war with Iran. My main point is that turning a blind eye to Iran won't make Iran go away. Everyone wants to play this "pretend it isn't happening" game or "it's none of our business" but I think it is. I think a fundamental Islamic regime that backs terrorist organizations is every nation's business that wishes to exist.

A ground war is out. We just flat don't have the military assets, even if we weren't engaged on two other fronts, to invade and occupy a country the size of Iran. We would have to mobilize on the scale of WWII to do so.

Sanctions won't work against Iran any better than they did Saddam. The government didn't suffer -- the people did.

If a little pissant like Kim il Jung can raise the hell he has from his crappy little bankrupt nation, just imagine what a nation like Iran, that also is a major oil supplier, can do.

The UN should tell Iran to cease and desist and if they still do not then we should bomb the shit out of anything that even has the potential to be a nuclear facility.

 

[Modbert]

Whatever dude. Look at the asshole's history, He attained power as a thug and was a thug as a leader. Thugs always go for the best weapons and he had the oil to buy them. He used possessed and used WMDs in the past, and would have done so again.

Look at the religious thugs in Iran. What are THEY doing? The same thing. Nuclear weapons is a means to make nations like the US, Russia and China think twice about screwing with them.

Try the logic and common sense factors sometimes. They actually work.

I'm not disagreeing he was a thug or attained power was a thug. However, he was disarmed since the early 90's when we first invaded, and Saddam was bluffing since. The problem is, instead of Iran, America did.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Images of appeasement don't have to be conjured up ... they're rather obvious; which, would be what is barely-concealed code for ‘weak’, ‘effeminate’ and 'ineffectual'.

Diplomacy is only as good as your ability to back it up with force. If people know you won't use that force, they scoff at diplomacy. Probably too simple a formula for you, but what the Hell.

It might not be necessary to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if the US, EU, Russia and China could agree to apply really strong economic sanctions, but even if Russia and China removed their objections, Germany and China, both of which do major business with Iran, are unlikely to, and of course, Obama is not about to take a position that will not get high popularity ratings in Europe. That reduces the choices to either using force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power or accepting the inevitability of a nuclear arms race in the ME and, most likely, nuclear war in the region.

I have not advocated war with Iran. My main point is that turning a blind eye to Iran won't make Iran go away. Everyone wants to play this "pretend it isn't happening" game or "it's none of our business" but I think it is. I think a fundamental Islamic regime that backs terrorist organizations is every nation's business that wishes to exist.

A ground war is out. We just flat don't have the military assets, even if we weren't engaged on two other fronts, to invade and occupy a country the size of Iran. We would have to mobilize on the scale of WWII to do so.

Sanctions won't work against Iran any better than they did Saddam. The government didn't suffer -- the people did.

If a little pissant like Kim il Jung can raise the hell he has from his crappy little bankrupt nation, just imagine what a nation like Iran, that also is a major oil supplier, can do.

The UN should tell Iran to cease and desist and if they still do not then we should bomb the shit out of anything that even has the potential to be a nuclear facility.

Well, we both arrive at the same conclusion that force will be necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but I think severe sanctions could be more effective in Iran than they were in Iraq because the Iranian government doesn't have the tight police state control Saddam's government had. Economists estimate Iran already has about 20% unemployment and an inflation rate of about 25%. Sanctions that prevented Iran from importing gasoline or the machinery and parts it needs to keep its oil fields and other industries working might make the government have to choose between open rebellion and giving up their nuclear weapons programs. However, Germany, Italy, Russia and China will never agree to such sanctions, so military force is the only real options available.

 

[Luissa]

maybe we should solve our own economic crisis before we go spending even more money fighting another war. Many other empires have tried to take over the world and most of them do not exsist today.
Attacking Iran would be pretty stupid right now.

 

[editec]

Nothing we can do is really going to prevent other nations from getting nuclear technology.

It won't matter which group runs Iran (the Mullahs or the progressives in that nation who were in the streets protesting) Iran is going to continue developing that technology precisely because it is surrounded by other nations that have it.

 

[JW Frogen]

Nothing we can do is really going to prevent other nations from getting nuclear technology.

Iraq, Syria, Lybia all say a collective DOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[scottpgreen]

You mean accepting the garbage from ppl like Brent Scowcroft and other dimwit realists, who are willing to fudge the lines of tolerable behavior because the other party is "different," or was "colonized", or has some "cultural uniqueness," etc.

Spare me, its the same BS I've heard for decades, arabs, africans SE asians, and s americans cannot live in democracies, and we need to accept that. Bull-fucking-shit. The same dipshits who screech at the US for racist policies cannot see the inherent racist policies they seek to implement.

No. I certainly do not mean that.

I agree with you that we ought to be deeply suspicious of any community, group or cause that claims special status for itself and then seeks to exploit our guilt about colonialism, empire or any other historical trauma, injustice or sleight.

By a diplomacy that acknowledges limits I simply mean one that substitutes sound strategic judgement for the kind of simple moral absolutes favoured by the neoconservatives.

Many of the calls for a more robust line reflect a heartfelt desire to do something, anything, in the face of vicious brutality and injustice. On that very human level, they are understandable – admirable, even - but they make for bad foreign policy. Contra the ideologues on the neoconservative fringe, it is the job of those tasked with steering America through this crisis to eschew universalising, moralising rhetoric in favour of the cold calculation of interests.

And that is just what Obama and his team are doing. Watching, waiting, viewing this through the prism of enduring American interests, not allowing policy to get caught up in the swirl of events. One thing the neoconservatives are determined to do is to make this about America, to place America at the centre of the narrative; their growing impatience with Western inaction a rage against the idea of American impotence. One thing they cannot abide is an America on the periphery. This is a familiar kind of solipsism, one to which a young republic is especially vulnerable, and it must be overcome. The desire to insert ourselves at the centre of every crisis must be resisted. In its place there needs to be a much more disciplined and focused response. Thankfully, mercifully, after the excesses of the Bush years, that is exactly what we are getting.

 

[rhodescholar]

maybe we should solve our own economic crisis before we go spending even more money fighting another war. Many other empires have tried to take over the world and most of them do not exsist today.
Attacking Iran would be pretty stupid right now.

Yes, FDR - bury our heads in the sand, and hope all of the world's conflicts just blow away in the wind...as if they wouldn't affect us

 

[Shogun]

maybe we should solve our own economic crisis before we go spending even more money fighting another war. Many other empires have tried to take over the world and most of them do not exsist today.
Attacking Iran would be pretty stupid right now.

clearly, you hate jooos and want to see dead joooos floating in the water.



rhodes truly is one of the dumbest motherfuckers to his these boards in a LONG, long time.

 

[rhodescholar]

clearly, you hate jooos and want to see dead joooos floating in the water.

As if a worthless **** like you ever gave one shit about them u weak turd.

rhodes truly is one of the dumbest motherfuckers to his these boards in a LONG, long time.

Compared to you moron, I'm Einstein...you just cannot handle me so you insult, weak minded tool sissy...

 

[Shogun]

YOU might think so, idiotmeister... But.. that pretty much illustrates my point.

 

[Luissa]

maybe we should solve our own economic crisis before we go spending even more money fighting another war. Many other empires have tried to take over the world and most of them do not exsist today.
Attacking Iran would be pretty stupid right now.

Yes, FDR - bury our heads in the sand, and hope all of the world's conflicts just blow away in the wind...as if they wouldn't affect us

FDR did what he could during a depression, he sent aid to England and did not get too involved in a battle we had nothing to do with.
What about your own conflict? We do not have the money to get into a third war and we sure as hell don't need to spread ourselves out like that. One of the reasons China is THe Republica of China, is because the Empire of China tried to fight too many enemies at once and brushed off the enemies in their own country.
We can't solve everyone else problems while we neglect our own.

 

[elvis]

maybe we should solve our own economic crisis before we go spending even more money fighting another war. Many other empires have tried to take over the world and most of them do not exsist today.
Attacking Iran would be pretty stupid right now.

Yes, FDR - bury our heads in the sand, and hope all of the world's conflicts just blow away in the wind...as if they wouldn't affect us

FDR was NOT isolationist. He wanted to get involved but didn't have the support. 80 percent of the country was against getting involved in World War II until December 7.

 

[rhodescholar]

maybe we should solve our own economic crisis before we go spending even more money fighting another war. Many other empires have tried to take over the world and most of them do not exsist today.
Attacking Iran would be pretty stupid right now.

Yes, FDR - bury our heads in the sand, and hope all of the world's conflicts just blow away in the wind...as if they wouldn't affect us

FDR was NOT isolationist. He wanted to get involved but didn't have the support. 80 percent of the country was against getting involved in World War II until December 7.

Hi Elvis.

One can argue that you are correct, but I can also argue where was his leadership?

There are conspiracy theories that he intentionally kept the fleet in Hawaii to be attacked. It is well known that he was very much in favor of entering the war, but needed an event to use as a casus belli.

Sometimes being a leader means doing something that is unpopular (do I hear 2003 Iraq war - or even more to the point, how about 2009 Iran war?) but is better in the long run.

Unfortunately, shortsighted, self-serving leaders are more interested in scoring points than pursuing better decisions - like the dimwitted senators and congressmen railing about the AIG bonuses recently. It wasn't until the media-manufactured furor did they say anything and even then, their ideas sucked - they were only interested in placated an angry public - not providing intelligent, long-term solutions.

Sometimes a good leader isn't a Bill Clinton-wet my finger and see which way the polls are blowing - it means being definitive and having a press conference/national address, where a president can explain his reasoning - and if its sound, and he is of good character, can convince enough of the public his decision is just and justified.

 

[Article 15]

Yes, FDR - bury our heads in the sand, and hope all of the world's conflicts just blow away in the wind...as if they wouldn't affect us

FDR was NOT isolationist. He wanted to get involved but didn't have the support. 80 percent of the country was against getting involved in World War II until December 7.

Hi Elvis.

One can argue that you are correct, but I can also argue where was his leadership?

There are conspiracy theories that he intentionally kept the fleet in Hawaii to be attacked. It is well known that he was very much in favor of entering the war, but needed an event to use as a casus belli.

Sometimes being a leader means doing something that is unpopular (do I hear 2003 Iraq war - or even more to the point, how about 2009 Iran war?) but is better in the long run.

Unfortunately, shortsighted, self-serving leaders are more interested in scoring points than pursuing better decisions - like the dimwitted senators and congressmen railing about the AIG bonuses recently. It wasn't until the media-manufactured furor did they say anything and even then, their ideas sucked - they were only interested in placated an angry public - not providing intelligent, long-term solutions.

Sometimes a good leader isn't a Bill Clinton-wet my finger and see which way the polls are blowing - it means being definitive and having a press conference/national address, where a president can explain his reasoning - and if its sound, and he is of good character, can convince enough of the public his decision is just and justified.

The Iraq War wasn't unpopular at it's conception.

You're all over the place.