|
Change of Mind after Freedom of Speech?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Purple |
Do you think its justified to invade/rape Iran after all this 'Freedom of Speech' war that you guys witnessed?
Did this recent developments have changed your thoughts about Iran? |
|
|
| trancaholic |
I'm not sure what you mean by "Freedom of Speech" war - especially since you say "after", indicating that it is over. However, if you're referring to the Cartoon Crisis, then no, my stance is pretty much the same: Strategical bombings of select sites would be the best course of action right now. Invasion seems to be pointless.
My attitude has been shaped by the insane rhetorics of the Iranian president, and hasn't anything to do with the general contempt towards the west on display in the streets of the Middle East these days. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| like that would be justification for a war |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| In Purple's world, that is ;) |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
my stance is pretty much the same: Strategical bombings of select sites would be the best course of action right now. Invasion seems to be pointless. |
I think strategical bombings of selected sites would be pretty pointless as well. First of all it's hard to know exactly where all the sites are, secondly many of them are probably underground in areas with lots of ppl over it, which would mean lots of civilian causulties, thirly even if they managed to bomb all the facilites they would for sure build new ones as soon as possible after that (given the current idocity of the Iranian goverment). Forthly, such bombings would give Iran a good reason to get nuclear arms since they could then prove that the rest of the world is agressive towards them, it would also make the support by the Iranians bigger for their goverment (war = stronger nationalism), etc. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
St Andrew, great article to counter your claim:
| quote: |
In a Single Night
By Edward N. Luttwak from The Wall Street Journal
Posted February 09, 2006
Many commentators argue that a pre-emptive air attack against Iran's nuclear installations is unfeasible. It would not be swift or surgical, they say, because it would require thousands of strike and defense-suppression sorties. And it is likely to fail even then because some facilities might be too well hidden or too strongly protected. There may well be other, perfectly valid reasons to oppose an attack on Iran's nuclear sites. But let's not pretend that such an attack has no chance of success. In fact, the odds are rather good.
The skeptics begin sensibly enough by rejecting any direct comparison with Israel's 1981 air attack that incapacitated the Osirak reactor, stopping Saddam Hussein's first try at producing plutonium bombs. Iran is evidently following a different and much larger-scale path to nuclear weapons, by the centrifuge "enrichment" of uranium hexafluoride gas to increase the proportion of fissile uranium 235. It requires a number of different plants operating in series to go from natural uranium to highly enriched uranium formed in the specific shapes needed to obtain an explosive chain reaction. Some of these plants, notably the Natanz centrifuge plant, are both very large and built below ground with thick overhead protection.
It is at this point that the argument breaks down. Yes, Iraq's weapon program of 1981 was stopped by a single air strike carried out by less than a squadron of fighter-bombers because it was centered in a single large reactor building. Once it was destroyed, the mission was accomplished. To do the same to Iran's 100-odd facilities would require almost a hundred times as many sorties as the Israelis flew in 1981, which would strain even the U.S. Air Force. Some would even add many more sorties to carry out a preliminary suppression campaign against Iran's air defenses (a collection of inoperable anti-aircraft weapons and obsolete fighters with outdated missiles). But the claim that to stop Iran's program all of its nuclear sites must be destroyed is simply wrong.
An air attack is not a Las Vegas demolitions contract, where nothing must be left but well-flattened ground for the new casino to be built. Iran might need 100 buildings in good working order to make its bomb, but it is enough to demolish a few critical installations to delay its program for years -- and perhaps longer because it would become harder or impossible for Iran to buy the materials it bought when its efforts were still secret. Some of these installations may be thickly protected against air attack, but it seems that their architecture has not kept up with the performance of the latest penetration bombs.
Nor could destroyed items be easily replaced by domestic production. In spite of all the claims of technological self-sufficiency by its engineer-president, not even metal parts of any complexity can be successfully machined in Iran. More than 35% of Iran's gasoline must now be imported because the capacity of its foreign-built refineries cannot be expanded without components currently under U.S. embargo, and which the locals cannot copy. Aircraft regularly fall out of the sky because Iranians are unable to reverse-engineer spare parts.
The bombing of Iran's nuclear installations may still be a bad idea for other reasons, but not because it would require a huge air offensive. On the contrary, it could all be done in a single night. One may hope that Iran's rulers will therefore accept a diplomatic solution rather than gamble all on wildly exaggerated calculations.
source: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/wsj/acc...+a+Single+Night
|
|
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
St Andrew, great article to counter your claim: |
That artile does indeed raise some good points :)
Given the current world situation though I still think they would manage to build new nuclear facilities by the help from for example Russia (which doesn't seem to mind that Iran get nuclear weapons). Also, it would still give Ahmadinejad more support among the Iranians, and he could more than before justify (to his people) why Iran should build nuclear weopons. Also Iran could easily start to around more in Iraq if the USA launched an attack on Iran.
Edit:
Really, what gives ppl like Ahmadinejad continued support is that there is a threat from outside which he can use to get his people together as a way to divert the attention from domestic problems to foreign problems. So to let Iran be despite Ahmadinejad's provocations might very well be the best way to get ppl like him out of office. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
thirly even if they managed to bomb all the facilites they would for sure build new ones as soon as possible after that (given the current idocity of the Iranian goverment). |
Yoepus' article addressed your two first points, so I'll only address the last two. First and foremost: By "select sites" I wasn't refering to just nuclear development sites. I also meant to include other sites that directly or indirectly help the Islamists control the population by fear, including sites such as Ahmadinejad's bed-chamber. Targetting the nuclear development sites would most likely delay the day when Iran posses a stockpile of nuclear warheads,, and that delay may be enough for external and internal forces to get rid of the Islamists.
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Forthly, such bombings would give Iran a good reason to get nuclear arms since they could then prove that the rest of the world is agressive towards them, it would also make the support by the Iranians bigger for their goverment (war = stronger nationalism), etc. |
and
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Really, what gives ppl like Ahmadinejad continued support is that there is a threat from outside which he can use to get his people together as a way to divert the attention from domestic problems to foreign problems. So to let Iran be despite Ahmadinejad's provocations might very well be the best way to get ppl like him out of office. |
He's a newly elected leader threatening half the world with extermination or subjugation, and I think we should take that seriously. The last two cases of such mega'lo'maniacs were dealt with using force and containment. Obviously containment doesn't seem to work with Iran - it has been undertaken for 25 years, with the only result being Iran now wanting nukes.
Furthermore, I would think that it would be possible to bomb Iran, while making sure that to the everyday Iranian it looks as an attack on the Islamists rather than the Iranian people as a whole. At least it was possible in Iraq, where there were no sympathy for Saddam after his fall from grace.
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Given the current world situation though I still think they would manage to build new nuclear facilities by the help from for example Russia (which doesn't seem to mind that Iran get nuclear weapons). |
I'm curious as to what has prompted you to conclude that Russia is impartial to Iran getting nuclear weappons? I haven't been monitoring the signals from the Kreml with too much attention these last couple of months, but recall that Russia tried preventing Iran from pursuing nukes by promising to deliver all nuclear fuels needed for a civilian power generating program, and dispose of the remnants afterwards too. That indicated to me that Russia was pretty keen on keeping the Iranians from developing nukes.:conf:
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Also Iran could easily start to around more in Iraq if the USA launched an attack on Iran.
|
Wouldn't an attack on the Iranian military power nexus leave Iran with little surplus to instigate further problems in other countries? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Yoepus' article addressed your two first points, so I'll only address the last two. First and foremost: By "select sites" I wasn't refering to just nuclear development sites. I also meant to include other sites that directly or indirectly help the Islamists control the population by fear, including sites such as Ahmadinejad's bed-chamber. Targetting the nuclear development sites would most likely delay the day when Iran posses a stockpile of nuclear warheads,, and that delay may be enough for external and internal forces to get rid of the Islamists. |
Ahmadinejad might be a mad man, and the world would be better of without him, I defenitely agree. However, I don't think such strikes would be effective in archieving a more peaceful world. First of all, assume the US or any other western world country would manage to kill Ahmadinejad through a strike on his bed chamber, sure that man would be out of the problem, but it would create so many more problems. First of all, he is a man that was elected (even though it was from a selected few he was still elected over more west/reform friendly candidates), and you should not really take out men that are elected by their people. Secondly, it would, just like Iraq, create a lot new tension between the middle east and the west, and it would also therefore increase the probability for terrorst strikes and similar, it would also increase the support for fundamentalistic guys like Ahmadinejad and it would therefore imo only be a very short term solution. Plus what is it that says that there will be a reform friendly guy taking over after this guy? Iran do have a working constitution and there would be ways of how to deal with such situation (just like I don't think we would get a more middle eastern friendly guy in the US if al queda managed to bomb the white house and kill everone in there).
I also agree with you that an airstrike would likely delay the development of nuclear arms in Iran, however, would it help in the long term? How can you be so sure that internal and external forces would get rid of the Islamists?
| quote: | He's a newly elected leader threatening half the world with extermination or subjugation, and I think we should take that seriously. The last two cases of such mega'lo'maniacs were dealt with using force and containment. Obviously containment doesn't seem to work with Iran - it has been undertaken for 25 years, with the only result being Iran now wanting nukes.
Furthermore, I would think that it would be possible to bomb Iran, while making sure that to the everyday Iranian it looks as an attack on the Islamists rather than the Iranian people as a whole. At least it was possible in Iraq, where there were no sympathy for Saddam after his fall from grace. |
We should take it very serious indeed, but is force really the best way to deal with the problem? Saddam didn't have much support after his fall, but imo his situation were quite different, he was a dictator that could do whatever he wanted to. Iran is very different, and is somehow if not a democracy at least a society with different goverment bodies overlooking each other, and suprisingly all of them are actually elected by the people in one way or another (direct or indirect). Iran might be a hole, but I think their goverment got a lot more support amongst the people than the goverment in Iraq did.
Furthermore I think that an attack from America or the west will be a good thing for the anti-American sentiments in the country, ie the Islamists.
You are also making a dangerous assumption here, that our miltaries would do a good job, look at what we did in Iraq, we took down a ruthless dictator and still got the population against us? What makes you think that our incompetent leaders would do it better this time?
Besides, Ahmadinejad has no power whatsoever to declare war so it's not like it's a new threat if it is actually threat of war that is the threat.
| quote: | | I'm curious as to what has prompted you to conclude that Russia is impartial to Iran getting nuclear weappons? I haven't been monitoring the signals from the Kreml with too much attention these last couple of months, but recall that Russia tried preventing Iran from pursuing nukes by promising to deliver all nuclear fuels needed for a civilian power generating program, and dispose of the remnants afterwards too. That indicated to me that Russia was pretty keen on keeping the Iranians from developing nukes.:conf: |
Nah, I was just thinking about that it was actually Russia that learnt Iran the technology in the first place, it is also Russia that now is pretty much refusing a security council deal, but you are right of course they do mind and my comment might have been pretty stupid.
| quote: | | Wouldn't an attack on the Iranian military power nexus leave Iran with little surplus to instigate further problems in other countries? |
In the short term, yes. Long term, no. Iran would now have a reason to Attack other countries, which it didn't before (after all, Iran never declared a war before) |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
...but it would create so many more problems. First of all, he is a man that was elected (even though it was from a selected few he was still elected over more west/reform friendly candidates), and you should not really take out men that are elected by their people. |
I used to think this as well. However, recently I've been thinking a lot about tolerance and how it applies to those intolerant of tolerance, and my stance has become less normative. Opting for the godwin here, think about that Hitler was elected by the German people as well. Would you - if given the choice - not take him out pre-1938? It seems to me that the fact "leader threatens other countries with extermination" preempts the power of the argument "democratic decisions should be respected, so elected leaders cannot be assassinated". Philosophically, I think that it's the more democratic choice, too: Consider the population of the world - I think that if it came down to a vote as to whether the psycho should be taken out or allowed to threaten other countries, the majority would be in favour of the former. Taking on this wider view of what democracy is, rather than see democracy as a process having taken place in Iran, is justified, because the psycho has demonstrated beyond any doubt that he is *not* satisfied with only determining the future of Iran.
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Secondly, it would, just like Iraq, create a lot new tension between the middle east and the west, and it would also therefore increase the probability for terrorst strikes and similar, it would also increase the support for fundamentalistic guys like Ahmadinejad and it would therefore imo only be a very short term solution. |
I agree on the first part, but accept a higher risk of terrorist strikes as a price to pay in order to avoid the much higher death toll of a single nuclear detonation on a major city. As to the latter point, see below.
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Plus what is it that says that there will be a reform friendly guy taking over after this guy?
...
I also agree with you that an airstrike would likely delay the development of nuclear arms in Iran, however, would it help in the long term? How can you be so sure that internal and external forces would get rid of the Islamists?
...
We should take it very serious indeed, but is force really the best way to deal with the problem? Saddam didn't have much support after his fall, but imo his situation were quite different, he was a dictator that could do whatever he wanted to. Iran is very different, and is somehow if not a democracy at least a society with different goverment bodies overlooking each other, and suprisingly all of them are actually elected by the people in one way or another (direct or indirect). Iran might be a hole, but I think their goverment got a lot more support amongst the people than the goverment in Iraq did.
|
I only know three Iranians, but they're all very well-educated and laid-back. Furthermore, Tehran is a major metropolis, and its universities are unusually free-spirited and well-attended. Moreover, I tend to read a lot of things like this. All in all, I get the feeling that an Iran with its main power structures disabled wouldn't necessarily fall into the fundamentalist outrage camp, as we've seen it happen in Iraq. Iraq is different for a number of reasons, most obviously because of the illeterate population, it's Arab (as opposed to Persian) origin, and it's neighbouring countries (with Syria being a main instigator of trouble in Iraq).
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Furthermore I think that an attack from America or the west will be a good thing for the anti-American sentiments in the country, ie the Islamists. |
That's probably where we differ the most. I expect that the 25 years of Islamism have revealed to most Iranians that this is not the road to salvation. An attack would probably stir up anti-West sentiments, but those feelings could be channeled into other objectives - such as getting rid of the Islamist presence.
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
You are also making a dangerous assumption here, that our miltaries would do a good job, look at what we did in Iraq, we took down a ruthless dictator and still got the population against us? What makes you think that our incompetent leaders would do it better this time?
|
Well, I don't propose an invasion, nor an export of democracy and liberty to Iran, which I think are the two points where the Iraq fiasco manifested itself. Our incompetent leaders should let Iran develop in any direction it desires, as long as that direction doesn't implies threats towards other nations. I know this is philosophically hypocritical, as Iran can claim that the West is imposing one of their values (no destroying of Israel) onto Iran, but seeing as it is logically impossible for both sides to get their wishes fulfilled, I stand with the culture and values I agree with.
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Besides, Ahmadinejad has no power whatsoever to declare war so it's not like it's a new threat if it is actually threat of war that is the threat. |
I didn't get this. Why can't he declare a war? And what's the difference between declaring a war on X and saying "jump into the ocean or we'll destroy you X"?
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Nah, I was just thinking about that it was actually Russia that learnt Iran the technology in the first place, it is also Russia that now is pretty much refusing a security council deal, but you are right of course they do mind and my comment might have been pretty stupid.
|
I wasn't implying that your comment was stupid - I just didn't get your reasons for saying so. No offence meant.:)
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
In the short term, yes. Long term, no. Iran would now have a reason to Attack other countries, which it didn't before (after all, Iran never declared a war before) |
Again, depends on your definition of declaring war. To my mind having the police transport protestors from the countryside to central Tehran in buses, allow the protestors to break into an embassy and trash it, have the police drink tea with the protestors afterwards, before returning the dear people to their homes in buses, is pretty f*cking close to a declaration of war. And as previously stated, "move or die" seems to be a declaration of war, if not in extent, then at least in intent. Same goes with sponsoring terrorist groups, I think. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
| Because our dumbass president invaded Iraq, we don't have the manpower or the money to go to war against Iran which is far more dangerous than Iraq ever was. To have enough military forces to fight Iran we would either have to pull all the troops out of Iraq,or restart the military draft. Saddam Hussein was a very bad & extremely corrupt leader but he was not a muslim jihadist extremist as is Ahmedinijihad. |
|
|
| DJFreaq |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shamen DJ's
Because our dumbass president invaded Iraq, we don't have the manpower or the money to go to war against Iran which is far more dangerous than Iraq ever was. To have enough military forces to fight Iran we would either have to pull all the troops out of Iraq,or restart the military draft. Saddam Hussein was a very bad & extremely corrupt leader but he was not a muslim jihadist extremist as is Ahmedinijihad. |
Yea pretty much. Our country shot itself in the foot by invading Iraq.
It's going to be the classsic "boy who cried wolf" analogy.
We went into Iraq screaming WMDs... and nothing. And now Bush's aproval rating is at an all time low.
Even if Iran was a greater threat, I doubt even conservative-leaning-moderates are going to want to side with an "attack Iran" stance.
Ahh poppycock! We could just send Dick Cheney with his gun! He's the rambo of the right! |
|
|
|
|
