Is Iran a threat to world?

[latuff]

If the U.S., Europe, India, Pakistan (and Israel, which has 200 nuclear warheads) can have weapons of mass destruction, why not Iran?

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2006/04/nukes.jpg

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Iran can wipe the sweat off America's balls. Do they honestly think were scared ? If we weren't busy in Iraq , we'd already go tic-tac-tao on thier asses with Afganistan & Iraq and go for the sweep.

You know Bush is thinking this. Who is Iran to push us around ? FUCK EM !! :p

[Iangould]

I Who is Iran to push us around ? FUCK EM !!

And somehwere in Tehran an Iranian is typing " Who is America to push us around ? FUCK EM !!"

[Mike Smith]

If the U.S., Europe, India, Pakistan (and Israel, which has 200 nuclear warheads) can have weapons of mass destruction, why not Iran?

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2006/04/nukes.jpg

...because the guys with the nukes and bigger armies are saying "No."?

[Iangould]

...because the guys with the nukes and bigger armies are saying "No."?

Yeah, North Korea, Pakistan and India should all serve as cautionary tales to Iran.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

And somehwere in Tehran an Iranian is typing " Who is America to push us around ? FUCK EM !!"

George Bush is more than likely hearin this and thinkin..." Who's got bigger balls ? Me or Iran ? FUUUUCCCCCKKKK EMMMMM!! "

;)

[Samurai]

Because Iran is the biggest state sponser of terrorism in the world...

[Iangould]

Because Iran is the biggest state sponser of terrorism in the world...

Yeah, that's why the US is recruiting members of the MIK terrorist group to try and overthrow their government.

[Devon C.]

All I wanna know is, who drew that?

[StoneGold]

Actually, Israel doesn't say they have nukes. Everyone else just says they do. But they don't.

[Iangould]

All I wanna know is, who drew that?

Latuff did.

[JeffreyWKramer]

All I wanna know is, who drew that?

Latuff, the guy who started the thread. That's his schtik - he does political cartoons - usually with a pro-Palestinian and/or anti-US bias - and starts threads here about them.

[Iangould]

Actually, i'd say it's more an anti-Republican bias.

[latuff]

Actually, Israel doesn't say they have nukes. Everyone else just says they do. But they don't.Detailed account of the Israeli nuclear weapons programme and arsenal. From the Federation of American Scientists. (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/)

[BlairH]

The main reason for myself not wanting Iran to get their hands on nuclear weapons is because their leader has repeatedly made it clear that he wants to wipe the Jewish State of Israel from the map. Soon he'll have the means to do just that unfortunately.

I'm actually lukewarm at the prospect of striking Iran. Any strike would have to include a major attack on their naval and air forces. And any surface forces that could threaten the Straits of Hormuz. I can imagine we're all patting ourselves on the back then the Iranians start launching Seersuckers and C802s at any shipping most importantly oil tankers. Yeah, that would be real good.

The problem is do you want to destabilize another regime right now? The last thing Turkey wants is another country with a 30+% Kurd minority destabilized in the region. It would be one more step closer to a Kurdistan and in the view of the Turks, one step closer to violating their territorial integrity. Even when there was a regime friendly to the US, it was dictatorial. There is a reason for that, as we are learning again in Iraq. Unless you can find another leader strong enough to control the whole country, destabilizing the regime probably isn't worth doing.

So you have to take out their air, naval, and surface missile and rocket forces without inhibiting the ability of the Iranian regime to maintain power. Now what happens if they decide to invade Iraq as retaliation? That might be bad, but it might also be very good. Remember the Iraqis are arab, not Persian. They don't necessarily like the Iranians and chances are they would finally come together to fight. However, they would need a strong government to lead them.

[Iangould]

Actually, Israel doesn't say they have nukes. Everyone else just says they do. But they don't.

They neither confirm nor deny - I'm sure there's some other perfectly reasonable reason why they've been producing highly enriched uranium for the past thirty years.

[BlairH]

They neither confirm nor deny - I'm sure there's some other perfectly reasonable reason why they've been producing highly enriched uranium for the past thirty years.

Agreed, it is fairly obvious that they have nukes.

During the first gulf war. The Israelis made veiled threats to the effect that any chemical attack by Iraq on Tel-Aviv would result in an N-Attack on Iraq.

[latuff]

Because Iran is the biggest state sponser of terrorism in the world...I will tell you who's the biggest terrorist state in the world:
A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html)

[Iangould]

The main reason for myself not wanting Iran to get their hands on nuclear weapons is because their leader has repeatedly made it clear that he wants to wipe the Jewish State of Israel from the map. Soon he'll have the means to do just that unfortunately.

"Soon" meaning a minimum of three to four years and more likely 10 years to never.

Either scenario putting it beyond the end of Ahmadinejad's term in office - assuming Khamenei would let him within 50 feet of the nuclear button.

I'm actually lukewarm at the prospect of striking Iran. Any strike would have to include a major attack on their naval and air forces. And any surface forces that could threaten the Straits of Hormuz. I can imagine we're all patting ourselves on the back then the Iranians start launching Seersuckers and C802s at any shipping most importantly oil tankers. Yeah, that would be real good.

Even better will be the reaction of the disenfranchised shia majorities in Dubai and Bahrain (which include sizeable Iranian and Iraqi expat communities).


The problem is do you want to destabilize another regime right now? The last thing Turkey wants is another country with a 30+% Kurd minority destabilized in the region.[/QUOTE}

Minor factual correction - I think the Kurdish minority in Iran is more like 10% of the population. I'd be more concerned about the Azeris.


[QUOTE} So you have to take out their air, naval, and surface missile and rocket forces without inhibiting the ability of the Iranian regime to maintain power. Now what happens if they decide to invade Iraq as retaliation? That might be bad, but it might also be very good. Remember the Iraqis are arab, not Persian. They don't necessarily like the Iranians and chances are they would finally come together to fight. However, they would need a strong government to lead them.

Fat chance, any Iranian invasion of Iraq will be framed as a liberation of their shia brothers from their American occupiers and a defence of the Shia holy places from desecration by the Sunnis.

Such an invasion would probably have the support of Grand Ayatollah sistani who is himself of Farsi descent and who spent most of the 1990's in Iran and by SCIRI, the main party in the current iraqi government.

[StoneGold]

Detailed account of the Israeli nuclear weapons programme and arsenal. From the Federation of American Scientists. (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/)
You misunderstood my use of the "But they don't." I meant they don't say that they do. Which you have them doing. But they don't say that they do. They say that they don't.

[BlairH]

You misunderstood my use of the "But they don't." I meant they don't say that they do. Which you have them doing. But they don't say that they do. They say that they don't.

They don't say that they don't they don't refuse not to say that they do.

[StoneGold]

They don't say that they don't they don't refuse not to say that they do.
Eh, whichever. Either way, they aren't saying "We have nukes and you can't inspect them."

[Dennis K]

Latuff, the guy who started the thread. That's his schtik - he does political cartoons - usually with a pro-Palestinian and/or anti-US bias - and starts threads here about them.


It's only pro-Palestinian when it doesn't interfere with being anti-U.S. Otherwise, he can't be bothered.

[Adam Crocker]

The main reason for myself not wanting Iran to get their hands on nuclear weapons is because their leader has repeatedly made it clear that he wants to wipe the Jewish State of Israel from the map. Soon he'll have the means to do just that unfortunately.

Oh bloody hell. I can't count how many times I've pointed out on this board alone that Aheminjad was clearly forced to back track on his remarks or that he isn't the ultimate decision making power in Iran. Yet this point STILL gets brought up as though it accurately describes Iran's power structure.

[BlairH]

"Soon" meaning a minimum of three to four years and more likely 10 years to never.
There are many bright individuals in Iran. They will build a bomb if they want a bomb.

Either scenario putting it beyond the end of Ahmadinejad's term in office - assuming Khamenei would let him within 50 feet of the nuclear button.
The nuclear button will most likely be (unofficially of course) entrusted to the Revolutionary Guard. A prospect I'm not looking forward to.


Fat chance, any Iranian invasion of Iraq will be framed as a liberation of their shia brothers from their American occupiers and a defence of the Shia holy places from desecration by the Sunnis.
The Sunni, the Kurds and -most of all- the American forces there would be able to resist an Iranian invasion. Old Soviet Era tanks don't exactly come off lightly when faced with superior US technology (see the 100 hour land battle in GW1)

Such an invasion would probably have the support of Grand Ayatollah sistani who is himself of Farsi descent and who spent most of the 1990's in Iran and by SCIRI, the main party in the current iraqi government.
I'm not so sure of that. Any support for an Iranian "liberation" would most likely undermine his authority in the country. The man wants to govern, and to do that -like it or not- he needs the tacit support of the rest of the population, not just his Shia supporters. I think -from what we've seen of him- he would rather hold onto the reigns and be seeen as a respectible leader than have his leadership questioned by dubious support for Iranian intervention.

[JeffreyWKramer]

There are many bright individuals in Iran. They will build a bomb if they want a bomb.


Ironically, the fact that it has taken them so long to get this point is largely due to many of the bright individuals having been killed or driven out of the country after the overthrow of the Shah.

[BlairH]

Oh bloody hell. I can't count how many times I've pointed out on this board alone that Aheminjad was clearly forced to back track on his remarks or that he isn't the ultimate decision making power in Iran. Yet this point STILL gets brought up as though it accurately describes Iran's power structure.

It still gets brought up because no matter how many times he backtracks he always ends up saying something equally or more repulsive within a day or so. He may not be the supreme source of authorityu in Iran but he commands popular support in the Revolutionary Guard, and when you've got an army at your back, you can be extremely authoritative.

[Iangould]

Oh bloody hell. I can't count how many times I've pointed out on this board alone that Aheminjad was clearly forced to back track on his remarks or that he isn't the ultimate decision making power in Iran. Yet this point STILL gets brought up as though it accurately describes Iran's power structure.

Actually in the last couple of days he made quite similar remarks abotu the state of Israel being a "rotten tree" etc.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It still gets brought up because no matter how many times he backtracks he always ends up saying something equally or more repulsive within a day or so. He may not be the supreme source of authorityu in Iran but he commands popular support in the Revolutionary Guard, and when you've got an army at your back, you can be extremely authoritative.


If you think the Guard answers more to the President than it does the Ayatollahs, you really have very little understanding of the way things work in Iran, Blair.

[Adam Crocker]

Actually in the last couple of days he made quite similar remarks abotu the state of Israel being a "rotten tree" etc.

Fair enough. I guess they only bothered when the last remark provoked an international outcry.

[Iangould]

There are many bright individuals in Iran. They will build a bomb if they want a bomb.

Yes but as I explained at length in another thread, they still have some quite substantial technical problems to overcome which are complicated by having to build all their facilities deep underground.

[Dennis K]

Yes but as I explained at length in another thread, they still have some quite substantial technical problems to overcome which are complicated by having to build all their facilities deep underground.


Not to mention the fact that when the times comes that Israel thinks Iran is a legitimate threat to their national security, they're probably going to handle it themselves.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Fair enough. I guess they only bothered when the last remark provoked an international outcry.

Yeah, he says crazy shit all the time. He's really not the one to worry about, though. The Iranian President is about as much the leader of Iran as the British royal family are leaders of the UK these days. Aheminjad is sort of like their Ann Coulter, but with a puppet office rather than a newspaper column.

[Iangould]

It still gets brought up because no matter how many times he backtracks he always ends up saying something equally or more repulsive within a day or so. He may not be the supreme source of authorityu in Iran but he commands popular support in the Revolutionary Guard, and when you've got an army at your back, you can be extremely authoritative.

In addition to Jeffrey's comments you need to understand that the Revolutionary Guard aren't "the army".

They're a paramilitary auxiliary with a major role in internal security.

They exist alongside the regular military the way the Republican Gaurd did in Saddam's Iraq; the SS did in Nazi Germany or the "Security Army" did in Stalinist Russia.

Dividing the military and setting the different factions against each other is a standard tactic in dictatorships to reduce the risk of a military coup.

The Revolutionary Guard had a major military role during the Iran-Iraq war but these days they mostly enforce Sharia law.

[Iangould]

Can some explain to me the difference between the Iranian President making off the cuff remarks about "destroying the Zionist entity" and an official US policy of promoting regime change in the islamic Republic of Iraq?

Apart from the US actually having the resources to achieve their stated objective.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Can some explain to me the difference between the Iranian President making off the cuff remarks about "destroying the Zionist entity" and an official US policy of promoting regime change in the islamic Republic of Iraq?

Apart from the US actually having the resources to achieve their stated objective.

Well, I do think there is a bit of difference there. For one thing, the guys who say that are generally talking about wiping out the Israeli people, not just toppling their government.

[Iangould]

Well, I do think there is a bit of difference there. For one thing, the guys who say that are generally talking about wiping out the Israeli people, not just toppling their government.

Are they though?

There's an Iranian Jewish population of somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000 who are subject to discrimination and harassment but who haven't exactly been shoved into gas chambers.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Are they though?

There's an Iranian Jewish population of somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000 who are subject to discrimination and harassment but who haven't exactly been shoved into gas chambers.


Arab countries generally aren't particularly worried about eliminating Jews in general - remember, there have been Jewish populations throughout the Middle East during the entire existence of Islam. But, there is a lot of discomfort with a Jewish state. Many people in the Middle East are of the opinion that, since Islam is the true faith, all governments/states in that part of the world should be Islamic. As such, they want to eliminate Israel, and they realize that eliminating a government but leaving the state in place will just result in a Jewish state with a different government - probably more fanatically hard-line. Thus, short of Israel dismantling itself, those interested in such things see the only solution to be wiping Israel off the map. Given the population of Israel, the only way to really do that would be to wipe out the Israeli people.

The thing is, though, I don't see any evidence the Ayatollahs are really interested in anything like that. They fund terrorist groups like Hezbullah, sure, but they do that mostly as a way of building up prestige and favors in the Middle East. For that matter, I don't see any real evidence that any of the rulers of any of the Middle Eastern states are really interested in starting a war to accomplish that sort of thing. Statements of that sort, and aid to terrorist groups, are more a way of catering to the yahoos among the populace - essentially, these sorts of things are the Middle East equivalent of the Terri Schiavo debacle and Senate hearings about video game violence - than they are a true statement of intent. Now, if only they could stop saying and doing such stupid things, maybe there would be less violence and more progress in that part of the world.

[Iangould]

Arab countries generally aren't particularly worried about eliminating Jews in general - remember, there have been Jewish populations throughout the Middle East during the entire existence of Islam. But, there is a lot of discomfort with a Jewish state. Many people in the Middle East are of the opinion that, since Islam is the true faith, all governments/states in that part of the world should be Islamic.

There's also the minor matter that the govenrment of that area used to be islamic and that was changed by the use of force resulting in several million refugees.


As such, they want to eliminate Israel, and they realize that eliminating a government but leaving the state in place will just result in a Jewish state with a different government - probably more fanatically hard-line.

Except that if you gave the vote to everyone currently living in Israel and the Occupied Territories (democracy - what a concept) you'd no longer have a Jewish state. (A diversion: this is why I tend to favor ceding East Jerusalem to Palestine - to maintain a Jewish majortiy within Israel.)

The thing is, though, I don't see any evidence the Ayatollahs are really interested in anything like that. They fund terrorist groups like Hezbullah, sure, but they do that mostly as a way of building up prestige and favors in the Middle East.

Let's note too that Hezbollah emerged during the Lebanese civil war when it was fighting Sunni militias armed and supported by the Gulf states and Druze and Christian militias backed by Israel.

It's well past time for Hezbollah to disarm but Iran's supprot for them initially had a good deal to do with not wanting to see other Shia massacred.

[Mike Smith]

Yeah, North Korea, Pakistan and India should all serve as cautionary tales to Iran.

We are in cahoots with Pakistan and Indida though, see the cartoon?

The big countries don't approve of North Koreas nukes or missiles, hence the sanctions.

[Iangould]

We are in cahoots with Pakistan and Indida though, see the cartoon?

The big countries don't approve of North Koreas nukes or missiles, hence the sanctions.

Iran's already subject to US sanctions and I doubt the threat of extending them will frighten them much - especially since any such effort woudl need to get past the Security Council vetoes of China (a major customer for Iranian oil) and Russia, their main weapons supplier.

[Mike Smith]

Iran's already subject to US sanctions and I doubt the threat of extending them will frighten them much - especially since any such effort woudl need to get past the Security Council vetoes of China (a major customer for Iranian oil) and Russia, their main weapons supplier.

Exactly, a point that was actually alluded to by W. Bush of all people. North Korea was suspected of taking steps to develop nuclear weapons, pulled out of the treaty, and has hinted at threats to allied nations. This act, by our standards, is criminal.

Despite different goals every recognized nuclear power and security council member is necessarily against North Korea having nukes, by law.

The only difference that comes about is methodology to attempt to curb and halt their nuke production. The US likely would like a UN sponsored fight, China doesn't seem to keen on the idea of Western countries invading N. Korea and likely have economic concerns, and of course Russia needs money. Whatever the motives by treaty we are supposed to prevent the spread of nukes, especially by nonproliferation countries.

Given Iran's status and agreement not to pursue nuclear weapons, they are indeed subject to punishment for even making attempts to develop weapon-grade technology.

[Iangould]

Actually uranium enrichment isn't prohibited to non-nuclear powers under NNPT since it has civilian as well as military purposes.

The Iranians voluntarily suspended enrichment as a good faith gesture when they were accused of trying to build a bomb.

Its their other activities which they're in trouble for.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

They don't say that they don't they don't refuse not to say that they do.

I'm still a little drunk/hungover from last night, and that sentence, along with StoneGold's, almost made what little is left of my brain explode.

[Mike Smith]

I'm still a little drunk/hungover from last night, and that sentence, along with StoneGold's, almost made what little is left of my brain explode.

This is potential sig material.

On topic, I just finished reading an article about Irans response to recent "tough-talk" from the US, namely Condi.

Paraphrasing: "She can say whatever she wants, it's just words in the air." he said with a grin. It's good stuff.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Iran can wipe the sweat off America's balls. Do they honestly think were scared ? If we weren't busy in Iraq , we'd already go tic-tac-tao on thier asses with Afganistan & Iraq and go for the sweep.

You know Bush is thinking this. Who is Iran to push us around ? FUCK EM !! :p

Well, you just have to hope they don't think like Bush, because otherwise they are completly justified in a 'pre-emptive' strike.

No offense, but right now, I'd be hard pressed to blame them.

[heretic]

If the U.S., Europe, India, Pakistan (and Israel, which has 200 nuclear warheads) can have weapons of mass destruction, why not Iran?

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2006/04/nukes.jpg
If President Ahmadinejad were not going on about wiping Israel off the map I would agree wholeheartedly. As it stands... I suspect the people really in charge (Khamenei and co.) are trying to play 'Good Cop, Bad Cop' with the world.

HTG

[heretic]

The thing is, though, I don't see any evidence the Ayatollahs are really interested in anything like that. They fund terrorist groups like Hezbullah, sure, but they do that mostly as a way of building up prestige and favors in the Middle East. For that matter, I don't see any real evidence that any of the rulers of any of the Middle Eastern states are really interested in starting a war to accomplish that sort of thing. Statements of that sort, and aid to terrorist groups, are more a way of catering to the yahoos among the populace - essentially, these sorts of things are the Middle East equivalent of the Terri Schiavo debacle and Senate hearings about video game violence - than they are a true statement of intent. Now, if only they could stop saying and doing such stupid things, maybe there would be less violence and more progress in that part of the world.
Nice to hear someone take a good hard look at things. I have pointed out the usefulness of Israel as a convinient scapegoat for various Arab Tyrants in various forums (try here (http://yahoogroups.com/group/lidlesseye) and here (http://yahoogroups.com/group/thecrescentland)), but it is too easy to presume that the Umma are inherently alien and iminical in thier thought processes than to attribute mere self-serving underhandedness to thier leaders.

HTG

[JeffreyWKramer]

it is too easy to presume that the Umma are inherently alien and iminical in thier thought processes than to attribute mere self-serving underhandedness to thier leaders.

It certainly isn't unusual for leaders to be downright evil, genocidal scumbags - we have plenty of examples of that sort - but more often than not, politicians and leaders do what they do for self-serving reasons. That is just as true in Iran and Syria and places like that as it is true in Washington, DC.

Let's be real here. If the leaders of the Middle East really wanted a jihad against Israel, they could launch it, and Israel would be wiped out by the force of superior numbers. Now, much of the middle east would be wiped out at the same time, as Israel would no doubt demonstrate that yes, they do have nukes - but that wouldn't bother the leaders if they really believed all the jihadist claptrap. If they believed that, they'd think the slain folk would go to Allah as honored martyrs, and Allah would preserve the nations of the True Believers. But, none of those rulers do that. Instead, they give a bit of money to groups who perform suicide bombings, sniper attacks and the occasional, inaccurate rocket attack. They do this to look "tough on Jews" to the masses who have bought into the scapegoating and bigotry, and because this keeps the populaces focused on "the Zionist problem" so they won't instead focus on how crappy their standards of living are and what assholes - and, in many cases, downright crooks - their leaders are.

[FBHthelizardmage]

Not to mention the fact that when the times comes that Israel thinks Iran is a legitimate threat to their national security, they're probably going to handle it themselves.

Short of tactical nuclear weapons, Israel cannot mount a viable strike against Iran. The distances are to far, Iran's facilities to extensive and to well defended and Israel's assets to limited. The only way such a strike could be mounted would be with US cooperation. Even then, it'd require an air campaign probabbly stretching over months, and still probabbly wouldn't prevent them from building the bomb. Just dellay it a while.

And short of them being nuked first, I highly doubt they'll deploy tactical nuclear weapons.

[FBHthelizardmage]

In all honesty, Iran would have to be crazy not to want nuclear weapons. They are surround by them. In Iraqi there's a major American force, and with the rhetoric coming out of the current administration lately, they can't help but believe it's a threat.


Then there's Israel, over the other side, which also have nukes and must be considered a hostile power and a major security risk.

Just across the ocean you have India and unstable Pakistan both with nuclear weapons. Also near by is Russia, who while they have current good relations with, isn't exactly a staunch ally.

Really, the Iranian government might be more stable with nukes. They've had a historically very calming influence on regimes.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Really, the Iranian government might be more stable with nukes. They've had a historically very calming influence on regimes.

They worked wonders for the USSR, for sure. And nukes have certainly improved the quality of American politics.

Sorry, but that isn't a particularly convincing argument. Me personally, I don't think it at all a good thing that Iran is likely going to be able to have nuclear weapons within a few years, but I don't know what can really be done about it, and I do know that the last thing the US should be doing is launching another war.

[Calybos]

What's interesting to me is two underlying assumptions in most U.S. responses to this question:

1. A threat to Israel is somehow crucially important to the U.S.--as though the two nations were actually indistinguishable. (My first impulse is "So what? Let Israel fight its own enemies.")

2. The U.S. somehow has the right to dictate to other countries what they are and aren't allowed to do--including not allowing them to do the exact same stuff WE do! "The rules apply to you guys, not to us... and whenever we say so."

And then we wonder why the U.S. gets a reputation as an arrogant bully to be resisted by any means necessary. Hmm, I wonder why?

[Rabid Trekkie]

What's interesting to me is two underlying assumptions in most U.S. responses to this question:

1. A threat to Israel is somehow crucially important to the U.S.--as though the two nations were actually indistinguishable. (My first impulse is "So what? Let Israel fight its own enemies.")

2. The U.S. somehow has the right to dictate to other countries what they are and aren't allowed to do--including not allowing them to do the exact same stuff WE do! "The rules apply to you guys, not to us... and whenever we say so."

And then we wonder why the U.S. gets a reputation as an arrogant bully to be resisted by any means necessary. Hmm, I wonder why?

Well we are allies with Israel and may be called upon if any drastic action were ever taken so it is something we should take a serious look into.

Plus there's the fact that even with as bad as America is with its current Pres, the one in Iran makes ours looks like a member of Mensa.

As for our reputation as an arrogant bully, that's what everyone says now. On the other hand if something really bad did happen and we didn't do anything the world would then get pissed because the U.S. didn't step in. We're damned if we do and the same if we don't.

[FBHthelizardmage]

They worked wonders for the USSR, for sure. And nukes have certainly improved the quality of American politics.

Sorry, but that isn't a particularly convincing argument. Me personally, I don't think it at all a good thing that Iran is likely going to be able to have nuclear weapons within a few years, but I don't know what can really be done about it, and I do know that the last thing the US should be doing is launching another war.

Well, yes in fact they were. Had no nukes been present, I'm almost certain general war between the USSR and the USA would have broken out. Since nuclear war meant general destruction, and the death of the leader who authorised it, It probabbly did calm both nations.

Look at India and Pakistan. Before they both had nukes, both were more than willing to sabre rattle with the other. Since both got nukes, niether has been so willing.

A nation with nukes is conventionally secure. They can destroy any invading force. But again, they can be destroyed. This could very well make the Iranians rather less willing to contemplate foriegn adventures.

Iran having nukes isn't particularly favourable to the USA or the west, since Iran doesn't like us, and it's not part of the world system. But it may make them less willing to do anything ill advised.

[FBHthelizardmage]

2. The U.S. somehow has the right to dictate to other countries what they are and aren't allowed to do--including not allowing them to do the exact same stuff WE do! "The rules apply to you guys, not to us... and whenever we say so."

And then we wonder why the U.S. gets a reputation as an arrogant bully to be resisted by any means necessary. Hmm, I wonder why?

Simple. They've got the power to do so. They're at the top, along with Europe, and they feel their intrests are threatened.

It's self intrest, the same reason Iran wants the bomb.

[warspite1805]

We should leave Iran for the time being, if in the VERY UNLIKELY even in the futiure they try to deploy nukes Israel, the US along with other countries could whipe Iran off the map at the press of the button. The Iranian government knows this and are not mentally retarded nor do they fancy being nuked. Iran is mostly just talk, let us not forget both China and North Korea has threatened to use nuclear weapons on the US and her allies in the past. Most of it is just politics, as long as the US and her Allies retain a credible nuclear deterent thgings should just be peachy. We really have nothing to worry about.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Iran is mostly just talk, let us not forget both China and North Korea has threatened to use nuclear weapons on the US and her allies in the past. Most of it is just politics, as long as the US and her Allies retain a credible nuclear deterent thgings should just be peachy. We really have nothing to worry about.

Well the only reason China and NK haven't done anything is because Sam Fisher keeps sabotaging their plans.

[BlairH]

Well the only reason China and NK haven't done anything is because Sam Fisher keeps sabotaging their plans.

US supremacy during the 20th and 21st Century can be attributed to a corps of elite special forces personell including but not limited to Ding Chavez, Sam Fisher, Jack Bauer, Jack Ryan, John Rambo, John Matrix, John Maclean and Willem Dafoe.

[StoneGold]

John Rambo,
That's if you don't want to count Rambo dying after Trautman blew off the top of his head with a shotgun, after he massacred a small southern town because the sherriff was a dick.

[BlairH]

That's if you don't want to count Rambo dying after Trautman blew off the top of his head with a shotgun, after he massacred a small southern town because the sherriff was a dick.

Y'know after reading the novel, First Blood the movie left me with a "WTF? Rambo and Trautman are soulmates now?" vibe.

[Iangould]

If President Ahmadinejad were not going on about wiping Israel off the map I would agree wholeheartedly. As it stands... I suspect the people really in charge (Khamenei and co.) are trying to play 'Good Cop, Bad Cop' with the world.

HTG

That or Ahmadinejad is involved in a power struggle with people in the administration who want to improve relations with the west.

[Iangould]

Well we are allies with Israel and may be called upon if any drastic action were ever taken so it is something we should take a serious look into.


Yes but Israel gets special treatment that other US allies don't for domestic political reasons.

Imagine the reaction if the French were caught spying on the US.

There's only one country that fought on the same side as the US in WWI; WWII; Korea; Vietnam; the Gulf War; the invasion of Afghansitan and the invasion of iraq.

Hint: it wasn't Israel.

[Iangould]

We should leave Iran for the time being, if in the VERY UNLIKELY even in the futiure they try to deploy nukes Israel, the US along with other countries could whipe Iran off the map at the press of the button. The Iranian government knows this and are not mentally retarded nor do they fancy being nuked. Iran is mostly just talk, let us not forget both China and North Korea has threatened to use nuclear weapons on the US and her allies in the past. Most of it is just politics, as long as the US and her Allies retain a credible nuclear deterent thgings should just be peachy. We really have nothing to worry about.

Let's note that sometimes governments do enage in total irrational and self-destructive courses of behaviour - two obvious examples are Iraq's refusal to withdraw from Kuwait and the Khmer Rouge picking a fight with Vietnam.

But it's a lot less common than people seem to think.

[StoneGold]

Yes but Israel gets special treatment that other US allies don't for domestic political reasons.

Imagine the reaction if the French were caught spying on the US.

There's only one country that fought on the same side as the US in WWI; WWII; Korea; Vietnam; the Gulf War; the invasion of Afghansitan and the invasion of iraq.

Hint: it wasn't Israel.
Yeah, it wasn't France either. Sure, there was the French Reisistance, but the actual government was working for the Nazis.

[BlairH]

There's only one country that fought on the same side as the US in WWI; WWII; Korea; Vietnam; the Gulf War; the invasion of Afghansitan and the invasion of iraq.

Don't forget the war of Independance.

[Iangould]

Yeah, it wasn't France either. Sure, there was the French Reisistance, but the actual government was working for the Nazis.

No, it was Australia.

We found out how much that was worth when we nearly went to war with Indonesia over East Timor and Clinton ran a mile to avoid supporting us.

[StoneGold]

No, it was Australia.

We found out how much that was worth when we nearly went to war with Indonesia over East Timor and Clinton ran a mile to avoid supporting us.

OK, because the way you were setting the whole thing up, Australia was kind of a left of field answer, you know?


Now if only Australia actually existed.

[BlairH]

No, it was Australia.

Ah well ignore my "War of Independence" post.

[gary bolt]

Yes but Israel gets special treatment that other US allies don't for domestic political reasons.

Imagine the reaction if the French were caught spying on the US.

There's only one country that fought on the same side as the US in WWI; WWII; Korea; Vietnam; the Gulf War; the invasion of Afghansitan and the invasion of iraq.

Hint: it wasn't Israel.

If the U.S. were your neighbour you probably would have wised up by now.

[StoneGold]

Ah well ignore my "War of Independence" post.
See, I wasn't the only one who didn't see where Ian was going.

[BlairH]

See, I wasn't the only one who didn't see where Ian was going.
We was misled! Misled I say!

[BlairH]

If the U.S. were your neighbour you probably would have wised up by now.

Would voting in the pro-US Administration conservative party be a part of this wising up process?

[Citizen V]

Iran can wipe the sweat off America's balls. Do they honestly think were scared ? If we weren't busy in Iraq , we'd already go tic-tac-tao on thier asses with Afganistan & Iraq and go for the sweep.

You know Bush is thinking this. Who is Iran to push us around ? FUCK EM !! :p

Then why has the USA done so horribly in Iraq?The era of the USA is over,i dont belive Iran is a threat to the world.

[gary bolt]

Would voting in the pro-US Administration conservative (minority) party be a part of this wising up process?

Overwhelming support, no?

Bolds added by me.

[BlairH]

Overwhelming support, no?

Bolds added by me.
More people voted for them than the most effective opposition didn't they?

It's actually quite sad really. "If Bush gets in again, I'm moving to Can-FRANCE!" doesn't have quite as good a ring to it.

[Iangould]

More people voted for them than the most effective opposition didn't they?

The only reason the conservatives arei n power is because the Liberals were unable to reach a deal with the PQ.

[BlairH]

The only reason the conservatives arei n power is because the Liberals were unable to reach a deal with the PQ.

Of course such a shaky relationship with the PQ would have unquestionably resulted in an indecisive and hence unresponsive coalition gov't, and all of the problems associated with such a system.

[Iangould]

OK, because the way you were setting the whole thing up, Australia was kind of a left of field answer, you know?


Now if only Australia actually existed.

I thought the mention of Iraq made it pretty obvious I wasn't referring to France.

[BlairH]

I thought the mention of Iraq made it pretty obvious I wasn't referring to France.

We both must have thought you were referring to GW1 (although that technically wasn't an invasion of Iraq). The FFL supported the flanks in the push for Kuwait City.

[Iangould]

Of course such a shaky relationship with the PQ would have unquestionably resulted in an indecisive and hence unresponsive coalition gov't, and all of the problems associated with such a system.

Unlike an indecisive and unresponsive minority government.

Actually the deal I had in mind would probably have involved the PQ supporting money bills while the Liberals formed a coalition government with the NDP.

[BlairH]

Unlike an indecisive and unresponsive minority government.
At least such a government would have an actual mandate (however shaky) to do it's job. Whenever I think of coalitions, I get this image of the partners sitting down in a smoke filled room after the election, behind closed doors, throwing their party manifestos to the fire and coming up with a new political platform, which will lack legitimacy since it's contents were never actually put to vote.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Then why has the USA done so horribly in Iraq?The era of the USA is over,i dont belive Iran is a threat to the world.

The way I see it (those better versed in military strategy can correct me if I'm wrong) is that the way we hit Iraq was better suited for a quick raid, leaving them disabled and allowing us to move around at will for a period of time.

The logical conclusion, in my mind, for that tactic would have been then to pack up and leave. Instead Bush decides to stay and try to help the Iraqis rebuild a democratic government. Morally correct? Yes. Tactically sound? No. If we had moved in with overwhelming force and taken the country in stages, pacifying an area and then moving on with a group in reserve still in the city.

The general in charge (Franks right?) did his job well for what the orders were, just the orders were wrong.

[FBHthelizardmage]

The way I see it (those better versed in military strategy can correct me if I'm wrong) is that the way we hit Iraq was better suited for a quick raid, leaving them disabled and allowing us to move around at will for a period of time.

The logical conclusion, in my mind, for that tactic would have been then to pack up and leave. Instead Bush decides to stay and try to help the Iraqis rebuild a democratic government. Morally correct? Yes. Tactically sound? No. If we had moved in with overwhelming force and taken the country in stages, pacifying an area and then moving on with a group in reserve still in the city.

The general in charge (Franks right?) did his job well for what the orders were, just the orders were wrong.

Well, prewar Iraqi planning was a big fat failure. Rumsfield and his chums were jerking off for small mobile forces at the expense of the military reality of attempting to secure a nation of 20 million people.

Plus they pretty much disguarded any lessons from previous operations of this type, like Bosnia.

The orignal misjudgement was that Iraqi would throw flowers at the Collition forces like they were liberators, and they'd then explode into fully fledged democratic goverment.

This was highly unrealistic and didn't happen. It could have happened but it'd have required more like 3 times the number of troops deployed.

The blame for this failure lies squarely with the Pentagon.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

At least such a government would have an actual mandate (however shaky) to do it's job. Whenever I think of coalitions, I get this image of the partners sitting down in a smoke filled room after the election, behind closed doors, throwing their party manifestos to the fire and coming up with a new political platform, which will lack legitimacy since it's contents were never actually put to vote.

That sounds like the Coalition in power in Australia.

Did we ever get the new Workplace relations Act even whispered about during the election?
What happened to the medicare promises made?

Bah, down with coalitions.

[ILLUS]

Who is the US to tell another country they can't have nuclear energy? I don't want to be the world's police when we can't even take care of our own homeless, sick, elderly...so on. Iran can do what they want for all I care. We create our own problems by forcing our will on others.

[Jerry W. Loper]

If the U.S., Europe, India, Pakistan (and Israel, which has 200 nuclear warheads) can have weapons of mass destruction, why not Iran?

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2006/04/nukes.jpg

For basically the same reason that it's legal for a responsible, law-abiding adult to buy a shotgun, but illegal for a sadistic, spoiled 6-year-old who drowns puppies. I always get a kick out of seeing somebody post this opinion, because since if Iran gets nukes, it'll be a couple of primitive fission devices, which if it uses against the countries Iran's leaders hate the most (Israel and the USA), will result in the mass killing off of its own citizens.

P.S. Another claim I keep seeing people bring up is that Iran's nuke program is peaceful, intended for energy and not for weapons. Considering that (1) Two Iranian presidents have said that Israel should be destroyed and (2) Iran is swimming in oil, if Iran's nuke program is for energy and not for bombs, I will be very pleasantly surprised, to say the least. ;)

[Typo Lad]

Yes but Israel gets special treatment that other US allies don't for domestic political reasons.

Actually, Israel's special treatment is very much a cold-war holdover.

Just saying.

[FBHthelizardmage]

For basically the same reason that it's legal for a responsible, law-abiding adult to buy a shotgun, but illegal for a sadistic, spoiled 6-year-old who drowns puppies. I always get a kick out of seeing somebody post this opinion, because since if Iran gets nukes, it'll be a couple of primitive fission devices, which if it uses against the countries Iran's leaders hate the most (Israel and the USA), will result in the mass killing off of its own citizens.

P.S. Another claim I keep seeing people bring up is that Iran's nuke program is peaceful, intended for energy and not for weapons. Considering that (1) Two Iranian presidents have said that Israel should be destroyed and (2) Iran is swimming in oil, if Iran's nuke program is for energy and not for bombs, I will be very pleasantly surprised, to say the least. ;)

Multiple American presidents have IIRC called for the removal of the Iranian regime. And the Iranian President actually has very little power in their structure.

This isn't to say that the Ayatollah’s like Israel. They don't. But they aren't utterly committing everything to it's total annihilation either. They bought weapons from it remember?

Iran may or may not be developing an alternative to oil for it's economy. But yeah, they probably are building a bomb. But then, they'd be crazy not to do so.

Frankly, Pakistan is just as unstable and evil as is Iran. Perhaps more unstable, they're just our friend, hence we don't care about them having a bomb.

[Adam Crocker]

Unlike an indecisive and unresponsive minority government.

Actually the deal I had in mind would probably have involved the PQ supporting money bills while the Liberals formed a coalition government with the NDP.

Fussy nitpick: It's BQ (Bloc Quebecois). The PQ (Parti Quebecois) is the separatist provincial party, not the federal one.

In any case I'm not sure about your point. If the Liberals had bothered to try and offer to hammer out a deal with the BQ, the likelihood that the Bloc would reciporcate would be dubious. Remember, while the sponsorship scandal damaged the party around Canada, it was particularly damaging for it in Quebec. And the Bloc had made it a policy to be keep its distance from the government over the scandal and pose as antagonist to the Liberals, which it could then capitalize on in an eventual federal election, increasing its seats, and giving renewed impetus to the soveriegnty movement. (Even if it didn't quite turn out the way they had hoped.)

Some analysts believe this is why the NDP forced the issue of healthcare on the liberals shortly after the final report of the Gomery Inquiry was released. It wasn't merely a matter of holding up the party's positions on healthcare, but distancing themselves to a degree from a government with shaky support and led by a party implicated in corruption. For example, during the 2005-2006 campaign, the NDP shifted much of its criticism onto the Liberals when in the 2004 campaign it had criticized the Liberal and Conservative Parties in equal measure.

However, I do agree that Blair's portrait of the situation is simplistic. The Bloc effectively drains a lot of potential seats away from any of the federal parties by only operating out Quebec and enjoying a great deal of support there. Moreover, that assumes that relations with the U.S. were the only things on Canadians' minds in the election and ignores that Paul Martin's poor campaigning in the last election helped the Liberals to lose their tenuous grip on power.

In any case Harper has had to pull back in the past on certain foreign policy positions he'd otherwise be inclined to support. Shortly before the missile defence system was shot down by Martin, the Conservatives pulled back from their public support for it due to the system's unpopularity with the Canadian public. Moreover, during the campaign Harper issued a response to a letter from the Cato institute (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/12/harper-american051212.html) by writer Patrick Basham called "A Gift From Canada?" outlining his differences with the Republicans in the U.S.

[Iangould]

For basically the same reason that it's legal for a responsible, law-abiding adult to buy a shotgun, but illegal for a sadistic, spoiled 6-year-old who drowns puppies. I always get a kick out of seeing somebody post this opinion, because since if Iran gets nukes, it'll be a couple of primitive fission devices, which if it uses against the countries Iran's leaders hate the most (Israel and the USA), will result in the mass killing off of its own citizens.

Yeah, Pakistan really falls into the "responsible law-abiding adult" camp - ever hear of AQ Khan?


P.S. Another claim I keep seeing people bring up is that Iran's nuke program is peaceful, intended for energy and not for weapons. Considering that (1) Two Iranian presidents have said that Israel should be destroyed and (2) Iran is swimming in oil, if Iran's nuke program is for energy and not for bombs, I will be very pleasantly surprised, to say the least. ;)

No, what people keep bringing up is that, contrary to repeated claims on this board of advocates of war wirth Iran, Iran has NOT said it's developing nuclear weapons and has NOT said it will use such weapons on Israel.

Developing a nuclear energy program does make a degree of sense - at $70 a barrel they think they can make more money off a barrel of oil by exporting it than by burning it to generate electrcity.

[Adam Crocker]

That or Ahmadinejad is involved in a power struggle with people in the administration who want to improve relations with the west.

Another point I've repeatedly tried making here, but I guess it's worth digging out my old post (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2491019&postcount=65) on the matter. Might as well also dredge out my old post on how Iranian foreign policy (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2488240&postcount=32) is still a lot more pragmatic than people casting the nightmare scenarios of Iran launching nukes paint it to be.


P.S. Another claim I keep seeing people bring up is that Iran's nuke program is peaceful, intended for energy and not for weapons. Considering that (1) Two Iranian presidents have said that Israel should be destroyed and (2) Iran is swimming in oil, if Iran's nuke program is for energy and not for bombs, I will be very pleasantly surprised, to say the least. ;)

While I think it's pretty clear that Iran wants nukes as a deterrent, this argument is flimsy. Oil is a non-renewable resource and Iran counts on it for funds to help diversify its economy and meet debt payments. Moreover, the country still imports a fair amount of electricity and has a growing population. As such, expecting the country to rely on oil solely for its energy needs is ridiculous.

[gary bolt]

Another claim I keep seeing people bring up is that Iran's nuke program is peaceful, intended for energy and not for weapons. Considering that (1) Two Iranian presidents have said that Israel should be destroyed and (2) Iran is swimming in oil, if Iran's nuke program is for energy and not for bombs, I will be very pleasantly surprised, to say the least. ;)

They may be swimming in oil now but they wont be for long. The planet is starting to run out. Peak oil (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/) is starting to play out. Peak oil is the name given to the scenario where global demand for oil exceeds global supply of oil.

[west3man]

If the U.S., Europe, India, Pakistan (and Israel, which has 200 nuclear warheads) can have weapons of mass destruction, why not Iran?

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2006/04/nukes.jpg
I don't think this particular cartoon (I don't remember what you prefer for us to call them) translates very smoothly, but I get the point and agree that our position is somewhat hypocritical.

[FBHthelizardmage]

I don't think this particular cartoon (I don't remember what you prefer for us to call them) translates very smoothly, but I get the point and agree that our position is somewhat hypocritical.

Well, when you get right down to it, Iran has every reason to fear the US and believe that nuclear weapons will stand you off.

It seems there's a lot of Hysteria getting in the way here: but, Iran is as I said surrounded by nuclear powers. US forces in Iraq and Afganistan also bracket it.

They are, to adopt an old phrase more frightened of you than you of them. And for good reason. America overthrew the democratic government of Iran, Installed the Tyrannical Shah, backed him with troops while he conducted a reign of terror, then after a popular uprising overthrew him, proceeded to back the aggressive war launched on them by their neighbour, help it with intelligence and training, and facilitate it's use of weapons of mass destruction (America sats were helping predict winds for Iraqi gas attacks)

This isn't to say that the Iranian Regime is clean. I meet a guy on a course a few months ago, an Iranian Kurd still limping from the torture done to him by the secret police. But America has not exactly shown it's self to be a friend of the Iranian people either. And the Iranian government has no doubt observed the difference in US reaction to North Korea VS Iraqi.

While there's no sign yet the Iranians are going for a bomb, they'd be a bit nuts not to want one.

[Typo Lad]

First we got the bomb,
and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood!
Then Russia got the bomb,
but that's okay!
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.

Who's next?

France got the bomb,
but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb,
but have no fears!
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.

Who's next?

Then Indonesia
claimed that they
Were gonna get one
any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.

Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case,
we better get a bomb.

Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?)
maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm...
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?

[heretic]

They worked wonders for the USSR, for sure. And nukes have certainly improved the quality of American politics.

Sorry, but that isn't a particularly convincing argument. Me personally, I don't think it at all a good thing that Iran is likely going to be able to have nuclear weapons within a few years, but I don't know what can really be done about it, and I do know that the last thing the US should be doing is launching another war.
Unfortunately a lot of people are convinced that unless we do so we will lose multiple cities and at least one ally (Israel) will be wiped out.

Even more unfortunately, the current President seems dead set on confirming this.

HTG

[FBHthelizardmage]

Unfortunately a lot of people are convinced that unless we do so we will lose multiple cities and at least one ally (Israel) will be wiped out.

Even more unfortunately, the current President seems dead set on confirming this.

HTG

It's pretty crazy since Iran could only hit the United states with fractional orbital bombardment. you're a huge distance away from them.

[BlairH]

It's pretty crazy since Iran could only hit the United states with fractional orbital bombardment. you're a huge distance away from them.

It didn't take long for the US and the USSR to improve ballistic missile design to the extent that they could send a nuclear warhead halfway around the world and hit cities on another continent. Iran doesn't have this capacity, although 10 years ago we said the same thing about uranium enrichment.

[FBHthelizardmage]

It didn't take long for the US and the USSR to improve ballistic missile design to the extent that they could send a nuclear warhead halfway around the world and hit cities on another continent. Iran doesn't have this capacity, although 10 years ago we said the same thing about uranium enrichment.

The USSR had technology equal to the USA, Iran doesn't. Plus the distances are IIRC, somewhat further. Russia only had to throw ICBMs over the pole.

This isn't to say that Iran could never hit the USA with a missile, but I wouldn't hold your breath worrying about Iranian missiles falling on your heads.

Really, Iran isn't close to being a threat to the USA, they're tiny, poor and couldn't even beat Iraq. A few nukes won't change that.

[Iangould]

It didn't take long for the US and the USSR to improve ballistic missile design to the extent that they could send a nuclear warhead halfway around the world and hit cities on another continent. Iran doesn't have this capacity, although 10 years ago we said the same thing about uranium enrichment.

It's not just the missiles. You also have to be able to shrink the bomb to the point where it will fit on the missile.

The Indians' first "nuclear device" weighed several tonnes and took a fair-sized truck to transport. It took them a couple of decades to get from that to the capacity to deliver a practicable warhead. For all their posturing, there's no proof that the Pakistanis have managed that yet.

The Iranians have the advantage of reports from elsewhere and advances fields like computing but the US and USSR had vastly greater resources to throw at the problem and many more world-class scientists.

[OzBat!]

This afternoon I was following a link from a link from a link, and ran across this article in the Asia Times online site (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD13Ak03.html) from MK Bhadrakumar, a former career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service.

Aside from the obvious anti-Israel politi-speak, I thought there were some real interesting insights into why Iran features so strongly in the US forward-planning world view. Some of them were wild fantasies too, mind you! But how the various middle eastern factions could shape up makes for compelling reading.

[heretic]

It's pretty crazy since Iran could only hit the United states with fractional orbital bombardment. you're a huge distance away from them.
The ususal story/thought is that one would be smuggled in via a Malevolent Terrorist Middleman or they will buy/repaint an airplane to use as a guided weapon ala 11 Sep.

People can get rather paranoid.

HTG

[FBHthelizardmage]

The ususal story/thought is that one would be smuggled in via a Malevolent Terrorist Middleman or they will buy/repaint an airplane to use as a guided weapon ala 11 Sep.

People can get rather paranoid.

HTG

It strikes me actually that the current attitude to the Middle East is somewhat similar to the attitude to Russia in the 1950s (http://www.moria.co.nz/sf/rocketattackusa.htm).

The Middle East and Arabs in general are presented as a sort of faceless, irrational mass bent on our annihilation.

Like the soviets, they are portrayed as bent on our annihilation no matter the cost to them or the gains they could make by doing so.

This is stupid both for obvious reasons and because it makes it hard to predict realistically what those who are our enemies will actually do.

[Nick Soapdish]

First we got the bomb,
and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood!
Then Russia got the bomb,
but that's okay!
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.

Who's next?


Another Tom Lehrer fan! Funny how lots of his stuff still seems topical.

[Typo Lad]

Another Tom Lehrer fan! Funny how lots of his stuff still seems topical.

Especially The Sharing Song.

Pass the creme, would you?

[Calybos]

It strikes me actually that the current attitude to the Middle East is somewhat similar to the attitude to Russia in the 1950s (http://www.moria.co.nz/sf/rocketattackusa.htm).

The Middle East and Arabs in general are presented as a sort of faceless, irrational mass bent on our annihilation.

Like the soviets, they are portrayed as bent on our annihilation no matter the cost to them or the gains they could make by doing so.

This is stupid both for obvious reasons and because it makes it hard to predict realistically what those who are our enemies will actually do.
It also drastically overestimates the threat level in order to justify a warlike policy and attitude among the masses.

A depressingly big chunk of America just isn't comfortable unless we're "gettin' our war on" somewhere.

[FBHthelizardmage]

It also drastically overestimates the threat level in order to justify a warlike policy and attitude among the masses.

A depressingly big chunk of America just isn't comfortable unless we're "gettin' our war on" somewhere.

Yeah.

Military industral complex anyone? It's even sillier since they're a fraction of the strength the soviets were in the time period. At the time the Soviets had little in the way of ability to rain down atomic destruction on the USA.

They did however have the bomb, a means to deliver it to the USA, and probabbly the best conventional army in the world.

Iran doesn't have the bomb, doesn't have armies enough to be Iraqi, and so on.

[Iangould]

The ususal story/thought is that one would be smuggled in via a Malevolent Terrorist Middleman or they will buy/repaint an airplane to use as a guided weapon ala 11 Sep.

People can get rather paranoid.

HTG

They could do the exact same thing tomorrow with Sarin.

[FBHthelizardmage]

They could do the exact same thing tomorrow with Sarin.

Well, I'm not so sure. Gas is a far more marginal weapon than nukes. Terrorists are generally better off using conventional explosives than gas, it'd kill more people and it's easier to use.

[Paul McEnery]

Well, I'm not so sure. Gas is a far more marginal weapon than nukes. Terrorists are generally better off using conventional explosives than gas, it'd kill more people and it's easier to use.
Hmm.

And assuming there were such a thing as "terrorists" -- which there isn't -- and assuming they all wanted the same thing -- which they don't -- why would you assume that "they" would achieve any objective by any specific means?

What there are in the world are people who are willing to use unethical means to gain their objective. Some of them are businessmen, some of them are governments, some of them are cell organizations, and some of them are lone individuals.

The difference between a Timothy McVeigh who kills a few people to burn off his emotions, and a United Fruit Corp Executive who engineers a coup and a 100,000 person genocide to make a bigger profit ---

Well, I'd rather have the former, really.

[Iangould]

Well, I'm not so sure. Gas is a far more marginal weapon than nukes. Terrorists are generally better off using conventional explosives than gas, it'd kill more people and it's easier to use.

A tonne of Sarin would kill a lot more people than a tonne of explosives.

The lethal dose of VX is from 10-30 milligrams.

http://www.ilpi.com/msds/vx.html

VX was probably used by the Iraqis in the 1980s and is considered more effective than the earlier nerve agents like Sarin because it persists in the environment for hours or days and stick to almost anything.

[BlairH]

A tonne of Sarin would kill a lot more people than a tonne of explosives.

It's all in the application. For a shopping mall or large sporting stadium they'd probably best use the gas. For the base of a tall building or populated monument, they'd take the explosives any day.

[heretic]

It strikes me actually that the current attitude to the Middle East is somewhat similar to the attitude to Russia in the 1950s (http://www.moria.co.nz/sf/rocketattackusa.htm).

The Middle East and Arabs in general are presented as a sort of faceless, irrational mass bent on our annihilation.

Like the soviets, they are portrayed as bent on our annihilation no matter the cost to them or the gains they could make by doing so.

This is stupid both for obvious reasons and because it makes it hard to predict realistically what those who are our enemies will actually do.
But this is different! They are _MUSLIM_!

I am serious, this is the rational involved. It does not help that every act of cruelty or madness within Dar-ul-Islam is seen as an inherent product of said religion.

HTG

[Shellhead]

But this is different! They are _MUSLIM_!

I am serious, this is the rational involved. It does not help that every act of cruelty or madness within Dar-ul-Islam is seen as an inherent product of said religion.

HTG

Maybe people would be less likely to have this negative impression of Islam, except for two things:

1. The violent fanatics keep loudly proclaiming that they are commiting terrorism in the name of Islam.

2. The more moderate muslims have been mostly silent about the actions of the violent fanatics.

[FBHthelizardmage]

A tonne of Sarin would kill a lot more people than a tonne of explosives.

The lethal dose of VX is from 10-30 milligrams.

http://www.ilpi.com/msds/vx.html

VX was probably used by the Iraqis in the 1980s and is considered more effective than the earlier nerve agents like Sarin because it persists in the environment for hours or days and stick to almost anything.

In theory yes. In practice it's a lot more difficult than that.

Gas is hard to deploy effectively, and hard to spread. Conventional explosives and nuclear weapons are very easy.

compare the Tokyo subway attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway)

with the purely conventional attack on London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_London_transport_explosions)

Gas is really a highly overrated weapon. In general it's always been less effective than high explosives, though a lot more frightening.

[FBHthelizardmage]

Maybe people would be less likely to have this negative impression of Islam, except for two things:

1. The violent fanatics keep loudly proclaiming that they are commiting terrorism in the name of Islam.

2. The more moderate muslims have been mostly silent about the actions of the violent fanatics.

I've yet to hear a moderate muslim who hasn't condemned the actions of the suicide bombers. At least in the 1950s their weren't any moderate communists.

[Dennis K]

I've yet to hear a moderate muslim who hasn't condemned the actions of the suicide bombers. At least in the 1950s their weren't any moderate communists.


I haven't heard a moderate Muslim with any real clout in Iraq condem the actions (not saying they haven't, just saying I haven't heard about them if they had). The ones I've heard about could be charitably described as "peripheral".

[Paul McEnery]

I haven't heard a moderate Muslim with any real clout in Iraq condem the actions (not saying they haven't, just saying I haven't heard about them if they had). The ones I've heard about could be charitably described as "peripheral".
Here's a question for you.

How many muslims from Iraq have you heard from at all?

[FBHthelizardmage]

I haven't heard a moderate Muslim with any real clout in Iraq condem the actions (not saying they haven't, just saying I haven't heard about them if they had). The ones I've heard about could be charitably described as "peripheral".

What about that Shia guy who called for all insurgents to be hunted down?

[Charles RB]

And assuming there were such a thing as "terrorists" -- which there isn't

Most of the UK would disagree with you on that...

[Shellhead]

What about that Shia guy who called for all insurgents to be hunted down?

Does he have a name?

[Iangould]

Does he have a name?

He probablymeans former interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi although he could also be referring to Grand Ayatollah Sistani.

Juan Cole provides a list of Islamic statements denouncing terrorism:

http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html

[cable guy]

Most of the UK would disagree with you on that...

Most anyone would disagree with that one.

[FBHthelizardmage]

Grand Ayatollah Sistani.

That's him. I can't spell these guys names

[Paul McEnery]

Most of the UK would disagree with you on that...
I'm used to being disagreed with. :D

But in any case, what the hell do we mean by terrorists?

I mean, back in the 70s, the term meant something. The PLO, the IRA, Baader-Meinhoff, and the RAF could all legitimately be described as terrorist organizations. Why the difference? Because their aim was to create terror, in order to destabilize the political situation. Now the IRA and the PLO had legitimate political aims -- full independence of their countries -- regardless of the illegitimacy of their methods. But the other freakish leftoid groups were simply trying to up the grade of fear so as to bring down capitalism. Fat chance.

But we're in a different situation now.

The four men who blew up London, it turns out, weren't connected to Al Qaeda. Yes, Al Qaeda-style groups in Pakistan had indoctrinated them, but they weren't given orders or anything; nor did they have a particular objective. In a sense, this is even scarier -- but "terrorism" it isn't.

As for the Madrid bombing, there are even different ground rules there, too. Assuming it was Al Qaeda -- and that is an assumption -- the goal was clear: to end Spain's collusion in America's imperialist war on the Middle East. This was less an act of "terrorism" than a surgical strike intended to get Spain's troops out. Spain's troops are out. Done. So again, the word "terrorist" doesn't apply.

And with Timothy McVeigh's act of freelance nutbaggery, again, we're not looking at a political program that he was trying to advance through terrorist means; it was sheer paranoid insanity working itself out.

If we talk about the suicide bombers in Israel, again, even though it seems similar to PLO outrages, it really isn't. What we're looking at is an obscene and desperate change of tactics: guerilla war where civilians are considered principal targets. And it's clear why that happened, too; because Palestinian civilians are considerd targets; just as Iraqi civilians are considered targets, or Afghanistani civilians are considered targets.

When we talk about Bali and Indonesia, it is more like old school terrorism, even though, in this case, it's largely aimed at foreign tourists, particularly Australians. And again, as Ian reminds us, Australia is in collusion with the US invasion.

What it comes down to is, modern warfare does not distinguish between civilian and military targets. Whether it's Israel lobbing missiles over the border, or the US practicing Shock and Awe, civilians are firmly in the crosshairs. It should come as no suprise that whatever organized militias there are in the middle east, or cells in Europe, that they should now consider civilians legitimate targets.

Not that I want to let Bin Laden off the hook. On the one hand, you can certainly view the Pentagon as a legitimate target, and even see the logic of attacking the WTC, and at the deepest stretch understand using planes as a weapon. But that in no wise legitimizes any of it at all as an act of war. Bin Laden is rightfully angry that the US has corrupted Saudi Arabia and Egypt; but Bin Laden himself is no paragon of virtue by any means. And his action was not in any way a response to attacks on civilians.

We could call 9/11, then, a terrorist attack, though to me it feels like something very different; not terrorism, but war.

This too makes sense when we think of the decline of the nation state and the rise of globalized corporate activities as the defining political-economic whatzit. In answer to Haliburton's reach, we now have Al Qaeda -- essentially an international conglomerate whose aim is to destroy international conglomerates.

Talking about "terrorists" brushes all of this under the carpet. It gathers together a number of completely disparate activities and groups under the same header to muscle up support for US/British policies in the Middle East.

But it isn't the same thing at all. There's no reason to think that there's an IRA-style cell organization with definite aims -- the misfire of the London bombing alone proves that; nor is there a PLO-style autocracy calling the shots. Instead, there's something more like a memetic and viral marketing of the idea: "Hey kids! Why get together to form a band when you can get together to blow the shit out of some people?"

So shouting "terrorist" doesn't help, I think. It simply obscures the issues.

As it's intended to do.

[Fenris]

But in any case, what the hell do we mean by terrorists?

People who deliberately kill civilians, with the primary goal of shaping public opinion through fear and thus attaining a political change.

That's the best definition I can come up with, off the top of my head. The point, as the name implies, is terror- the evocation of that emotion with a political goal in mind.

Attacks on soldiers are not terrorism, because they fall within the traditional code of warfare. (I don't like it when American soldiers are attacked, obviously, but that is not terrorism; that is standard military activity.) Collateral damage is not terrorism, provided that it really is collateral and unintentional.

The bombing of Dresden in WW2 was a terrorist act. Its point was not to attain a military objective, but to terrify the Germans into surrender. Likewise the purges in Stalinist Russia, which were not about justice or even power so much as the creation of a sense of perpetual fear.

(Well, you asked!)

I mean, back in the 70s, the term meant something. The PLO, the IRA, Baader-Meinhoff, and the RAF could all legitimately be described as terrorist organizations. Why the difference? Because their aim was to create terror, in order to destabilize the political situation. Now the IRA and the PLO had legitimate political aims -- full independence of their countries -- regardless of the illegitimacy of their methods. But the other freakish leftoid groups were simply trying to up the grade of fear so as to bring down capitalism. Fat chance.

I don't see the difference. "Bringing down capitalism" may be a pretty odd idea, but it's undoubtedly political. Do you mean that it doesn't count as terrorism unless the political goal is practical?

That seems like a really weird addition to the definition. Why can't there be impractical, lunatic terrorists as well as pragmatic ones?


...As for the Madrid bombing, there are even different ground rules there, too. Assuming it was Al Qaeda -- and that is an assumption -- the goal was clear: to end Spain's collusion in America's imperialist war on the Middle East. This was less an act of "terrorism" than a surgical strike intended to get Spain's troops out. Spain's troops are out. Done. So again, the word "terrorist" doesn't apply.

Ummm... okay, now I'm lost completely.

Generally, a "surgical strike" refers to a military operation in which a very few specific people are targeted. An assassination is a surgical strike. Like a surgeon, who goes into the body after one particular organ and then withdraws.

The bombing in Madrid wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. (Unless there's news that I've missed, which is certainly possible.) It was meant to kill any civilians who happened to be in range; very broad, indiscriminate violence.

But leaving that aside; they had a clear political goal, and they used violence and its attendant fear to gain political change. Why is this not terrorism?

Because Spain shouldn't have been in Iraq, and therefore it doesn't count as terrorism because its political goal was a "good cause"?

I don't follow your reasoning at all here.


And with Timothy McVeigh's act of freelance nutbaggery, again, we're not looking at a political program that he was trying to advance through terrorist means; it was sheer paranoid insanity working itself out.

Right. McVeigh was anti-government, which is at least vaguely political; but I don't know of any testimony that he'd meant the bombing to terrify the citizenry. I think he just meant to kill lots of federal employees; which is horrible, obviously, but not terrorism in the formal sense.


If we talk about the suicide bombers in Israel, again, even though it seems similar to PLO outrages, it really isn't. What we're looking at is an obscene and desperate change of tactics: guerilla war where civilians are considered principal targets. And it's clear why that happened, too; because Palestinian civilians are considerd targets; just as Iraqi civilians are considered targets, or Afghanistani civilians are considered targets.

Ummm... that's not particularly clear to me. Do you mean that the bombers don't have any political goals to their bombing? Or, more precisely, that the men who recruit and train them don't have any political goals in mind?

That seems unlikely.


...What it comes down to is, modern warfare does not distinguish between civilian and military targets. Whether it's Israel lobbing missiles over the border, or the US practicing Shock and Awe, civilians are firmly in the crosshairs.

That is false.

World War II was the nadir of civilian warfare: bombing was possible, but not targetable. So both sides made it work by dropping tons of bombs indiscrimately all over the enemy's cities. (And, later on, freely admitted that killing civilians was the explicit goal, since they ran the factories that made war goods.)

Modern bombs and missles- with their backup infrastructure of satellite and radar guidance- are vastly more targetable. We don't want or need to kill civilians- what we want are to kill military leaders, and to disable particular strategic sites so as to paralyze the enemy's military.

Collateral damage is horrific, but it is collateral. It is not the goal of the process. It is actually grossly counterproductive, which is why we've put great effort into devising military technology that's tightly targeted.


It should come as no suprise that whatever organized militias there are in the middle east, or cells in Europe, that they should now consider civilians legitimate targets.

Because modern media technology have made that into an effective tactic. Not because they're just responding to the evils of western oppression.

Terrorists are not Batman. They're not wounded third-world innocents who just return our well-earned violence back upon our own heads. That is a completely romantic view of some very dangerous sociopaths.


Not that I want to let Bin Laden off the hook. On the one hand, you can certainly view the Pentagon as a legitimate target,

As I do. There are other complications, but if the Pentagon had been his only target I would not call him a terrorist.


and even see the logic of attacking the WTC, and at the deepest stretch understand using planes as a weapon.

Hm. The logic? I can see the brilliant symbolic theatre of it all: those towers crumbling, slowly, amidst the fire and smoke, and then falling to the ground. It was very dramatic. Which I think was the point.


But that in no wise legitimizes any of it at all as an act of war. Bin Laden is rightfully angry that the US has corrupted Saudi Arabia and Egypt; but Bin Laden himself is no paragon of virtue by any means. And his action was not in any way a response to attacks on civilians.

We could call 9/11, then, a terrorist attack, though to me it feels like something very different; not terrorism, but war.

That's a distinction I do not draw. War can coexist with terrorism, and often has. But there are nonterroristic methods of waging war, and they are far better than the alternative.


This too makes sense when we think of the decline of the nation state and the rise of globalized corporate activities as the defining political-economic whatzit. In answer to Haliburton's reach, we now have Al Qaeda -- essentially an international conglomerate whose aim is to destroy international conglomerates.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda):

According to statements broadcast by al-Qaeda on the Internet and on satellite TV channels, the ultimate goal of al-Qaeda is to re-establish the Caliphate across the Islamic world, by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow secular or Western-supported regimes.

It's an international conglomerate whose goal is a unified Middle East, operating under Al Qaeda's values.


Talking about "terrorists" brushes all of this under the carpet. It gathers together a number of completely disparate activities and groups under the same header to muscle up support for US/British policies in the Middle East.

I really don't think the Comm Board is in danger of being swept up in robotic, unthinking obedience to George W. Bush. We can talk about terrorism without losing our minds- at least, not in that particular way.

And the most obvious thing to note about terrorism is that it does exist; that there are, in fact, actual terrorists; and that the whole thing has not been invented by neocons.


But it isn't the same thing at all. There's no reason to think that there's an IRA-style cell organization with definite aims -- the misfire of the London bombing alone proves that; nor is there a PLO-style autocracy calling the shots. Instead, there's something more like a memetic and viral marketing of the idea: "Hey kids! Why get together to form a band when you can get together to blow the shit out of some people?"

That is a new and interesting wrinkle, yes. But it doesn't invalidate the old definition; and at any rate, most terrorism does in fact require an infrastructure of some kind to proliferate. This is why Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers- there really aren't that many wild-eyed suicides willing to do it all on their own.


õ
If there were, civilization would never have started in the first place!

[Drew Van T.]

Modern bombs and missles- with their backup infrastructure of satellite and radar guidance- are vastly more targetable. We don't want or need to kill civilians- what we want are to kill military leaders, and to disable particular strategic sites so as to paralyze the enemy's military.

Collateral damage is horrific, but it is collateral. It is not the goal of the process. It is actually grossly counterproductive, which is why we've put great effort into devising military technology that's tightly targeted.

And the only thing that this has accomplished is reducing the number of civilian casualties somewhat. There are always civilians who die, that hasn't changed one bit. It is not counterproductive, it is productive in the sense that it produces an ethical dimension. It produces the idea in all of our minds that this is more than a war game, more than just playing around with high-tech toys. We suddenly have to grapple with the notion that civilians are people just like us, that it could have been us, and that maybe we shouldn't instantly adopt the way the military thinks about these things.

"Smart bombing" is more PR than anything practical: "hey look, we put some effort into avoiding killing civilians, so now it's completely okay, right? There's no longer an ethical dilemma, right? It's just a game. Only the bad people suffer. That means we can play it whenever we want, right?"

"Thank goodness for civilian casualties!", you might almost say, because otherwise bombing runs would be a daily business that everyone's subjected to and that every nation wants to be playing at, and a soldier's life (the ones on the receiving end of the bombs) would be worth nothing at all. And just think: the ammunition factories would be making 10 times as much profit as today!

[FBHthelizardmage]

yeah, but it's not AIMED at killing civilians. It's aimed at the enemies infrustructure, command and control, and goverment. Unlike world war two when it was aimed squarely at civilians.

This is not necessarily ok. And I for one have quiet a few problems with bombing campaigns. But there IS a moral diffrence between it and world war two bombing.

[jaguarshark]

To quote the President in 'American Dreamz' (which is actually pretty ordinary, I thought)...
"I've been learning things. For starters, Iran and North Korea are NOT just like Dr. Octopus and Magneto."
Sorry, I just saw Iran in the thread title... Easily amused...

[Hoss]

Not to mention the fact that when the times comes that Israel thinks Iran is a legitimate threat to their national security, they're probably going to handle it themselves.


Ding. Ding. Ding.

I don't need read any further because somebody finally got it. If there is a war to be fought somewhere down the line, it is Israel's war. Israel has proven time and time again that they can handle fighting their own battles. If they need help and it gets to the point were they feel they need to go to war, then it would not be insane for the US to consider helping them. However, the current course of actions is completely and totally insane.

[Charles RB]

But in any case, what the hell do we mean by terrorists?

People and/or organisations who try to use terror, generally via indiscriminate murder of civilians, to provoke a state/populace into doing what you want them to do. Deliberately bombing the Pentagon is an act of guerilla warfare, as the target is a governmental one; deliberately bombing an office building full of people and using a commercial aircraft as a bomb is terrorism, as the target is civilian and you're doing that to scare other civilians in order to provoke a specific response.

Assuming it was Al Qaeda -- and that is an assumption -- the goal was clear: to end Spain's collusion in America's imperialist war on the Middle East. This was less an act of "terrorism" than a surgical strike intended to get Spain's troops out. Spain's troops are out. Done. So again, the word "terrorist" doesn't apply.

Yes it does. The bombers achieved their aims by killing a large number of people to scare & provoke the rest of the populace. That is blatant terrorism.

guerilla war where civilians are considered principal targets.

So, terrorism.

When we talk about Bali and Indonesia, it is more like old school terrorism, even though, in this case, it's largely aimed at foreign tourists, particularly Australians. And again, as Ian reminds us, Australia is in collusion with the US invasion.

Still not seeing how that stops it being terrorism.

Talking about "terrorists" brushes all of this under the carpet.

No, talking about terrorists is using an existing term to describe what something is.

[Wesley Dodds]

"I've been learning things. For starters, Iran and North Korea are NOT just like Dr. Octopus and Magneto."
Because Dr. Octopus has tentacles of terrorism and Magneto wants to remake the world in the image of an evil ideology!

Saddam was Doctor Doom: he just wanted to rule his country with an iron fist.

[Adam Crocker]

No, talking about terrorists is using an existing term to describe what something is.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around much of Paul's post, mostly because as you stated terrorism is a tactic and that can easily describe the suicide bombings in Israel, the bombing of the Spanish train, and Al-Qaeda since all had political objectives through the use of terror to acheive political objectives. On the other hand let's go back to the original statement you quoted in full.

Talking about "terrorists" brushes all of this under the carpet. It gathers together a number of completely disparate activities and groups under the same header to muscle up support for US/British policies in the Middle East.

In this part I think he's making some sense. As many have pointed out the "War on Terror" sounds like declaring war on a tactic. Moreover, its goals and objectives are rather nebulously defined. A good deal of the rhetoric around it casts terrorism in regards to the mid-East and radical Islam in the logic of a war between democracy and some barbaric force, at which civilization is at stake. Yet it treats these groups as almost entirely monolithic and sweeps under the table the fact that they are in part, a product of U.S. policies in the Middle East. It was this logic that was partly used to justify the invasion of Iraq. After 9/11, the objective should have been kicking out the Taliban because they were deeply connected to Al-Qaeda, stabilizing and cleaning out Afghanistan, and getting governments in the region to work more on dismantling terrorist support structures. Ideally it should have also included reorienting U.S. foreign policy away from the careless support for dictatorships that has made the country a target of some of their extremist opponents, but that's wishful thinking when you stop to consider U.S. foreign policy as a whole since the end of the second World War.

Instead we get Bush pointing to Iraq because it was assumed that since Saddam was the U.S.' enemy*, he must be in cahoots with Al-Qaeda. Look he even gives money to suicide bombers in Palestine! (Which has absolutely nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.) No doubt he'll give WMDs to terrorists irregardless of the lack of underlying logic for such a supposition! Ooooohhh, and Iran might do it too!

We get the insurgents in Iraq all referred to as being foreign terrorists in order to cover-up the fact that the invasion was illegitimate and the occupation a cock-up. We get the U.S. going along with Russia's murderous counter-insurgency campaign in Chechnya because some of the insurgents are Islamic radicals even though they are a direct product of what Russia has done to that country. We get Spain being called appeasers because they pulled out of Iraq after the train bombing, so clearly they don't want to stand up to terrorists. This even though the Socialist Party would have done that anyways if they were elected in circumstances there was no bombing and the war was never popular in Spain. The PP got voted out because they were seen as lying about the bombing.

In short, it depoliticizes the differing circumstances of different terrorist groups and uses it as a justification for neo-conservative foreign policy while writing off criticisms of its application, both past and present. Granted I still think Paul casts his net a too wide by claiming this is grounds to write off any use of the term 'terrorism' but I think he has a point regarding how it has been used in recent years.

(* In this case "enemy" means "cause the President said so!" Was Saddam anything more than a castrated nuisance after the first Gulf War?)

[Charles RB]

Was Saddam anything more than a castrated nuisance after the first Gulf War?)

That all depends on who you ask and what political affiliation they have...

[Adam Crocker]

That all depends on who you ask and what political affiliation they have...

I'm not sure political affiliation or who the person is particularly relevant. Sure if I asked the right person I'd get claims that Saddam was a threat that had to be eliminated (such as the National Post's editorial and commentary editor Jonathan Kay claiming during the lead-up to the war that Saddam was preparing to roll over the Middle East like Stalin did to Eastern Europe), but all of the arguments that I have seen for this claim have been incredibly shakey if not out right baseless.

[Dennis K]

What it comes down to is, modern warfare does not distinguish between civilian and military targets. Whether it's Israel lobbing missiles over the border, or the US practicing Shock and Awe, civilians are firmly in the crosshairs. It should come as no suprise that whatever organized militias there are in the middle east, or cells in Europe, that they should now consider civilians legitimate targets.


I think you're pretty much correct here, but I would like your definition of modern warfare. I'm not a military history expert or anything, but it seems to me that civilians have been, for lack of a better word, legitimate targets for more than a hundred and fourty years.

[Drew Van T.]

yeah, but it's not AIMED at killing civilians. It's aimed at the enemies infrustructure, command and control, and goverment. Unlike world war two when it was aimed squarely at civilians.

It's aimed, but fully conscious of the fact that civilian casualties are inevitable no matter how accurate the aim would like to be. The difference between now and 50 years ago is minimal. It's just varnish for the sake of the home crowd.

[gary bolt]

The bombing of Dresden in WW2 was a terrorist act. Its point was not to attain a military objective, but to terrify the Germans into surrender. Likewise the purges in Stalinist Russia, which were not about justice or even power so much as the creation of a sense of perpetual fear.

If the bombing of Dresden qualifies as a terrorist act then so must the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America doesn't have a problem with terrorism it has a problem with terrorism directed at America.

[Shellhead]

I think you're pretty much correct here, but I would like your definition of modern warfare. I'm not a military history expert or anything, but it seems to me that civilians have been, for lack of a better word, legitimate targets for more than a hundred and fourty years.

Military historian Basil Liddell Hart called General William Sherman the first modern general, and other historians have identified him as the father of modern warfare, due to his scorched earth tactics in Georgia and the Carolinas.

[Dennis K]

Military historian Basil Liddell Hart called General William Sherman the first modern general, and other historians have identified him as the father of modern warfare, due to his scorched earth tactics in Georgia and the Carolinas.


Wow, the Civil War was what I was thinking of when I came up with my 140 years figure.

[Shellhead]

Wow, the Civil War was what I was thinking of when I came up with my 140 years figure.

While Sherman has been reviled for being so ruthless, his real genius was for attacking infrastructure, consuming enemy supplies and undermining morale. I found an interesting quote from Sherman today:

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country."

[FBHthelizardmage]

It's aimed, but fully conscious of the fact that civilian casualties are inevitable no matter how accurate the aim would like to be. The difference between now and 50 years ago is minimal. It's just varnish for the sake of the home crowd.

And it's done in a way that attempts to limit civilian casualities while still achieving the objective.

There are good military reasons to avoid reducing cities to rubble, but still, we do generally avoid mass scale bombardment of civilain homes. To compare modern bombing to dresdan is utterly insane. Dresdan was destroyed with far more completeness than were either of those cities hit with atomic weapons.

This is industralized warfare. Cold as it may sound, those few thousand who die in modern bombing are really a pretty tiny number.

[FBHthelizardmage]

If the bombing of Dresden qualifies as a terrorist act then so must the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America doesn't have a problem with terrorism it has a problem with terrorism directed at America.

lot of water under the bridge since WW2. But yes, they do. Though Dresdan killed more as did Tokyo.

[king mob]

And it's done in a way that attempts to limit civilian casualities while still achieving the objective.

There are good military reasons to avoid reducing cities to rubble, but still, we do generally avoid mass scale bombardment of civilain homes. To compare modern bombing to dresdan is utterly insane. Dresdan was destroyed with far more completeness than were either of those cities hit with atomic weapons.

This is industralized warfare. Cold as it may sound, those few thousand who die in modern bombing are really a pretty tiny number.
The number killed over the last 16 years by US and UK bombings is estimated to 100,000 plus. Thats not really tiny, in fact the only definition of 'tiny' in this case is zero.

[FBHthelizardmage]

The number killed over the last 16 years by US and UK bombings is estimated to 100,000 plus. Thats not really tiny, in fact the only definition of 'tiny' in this case is zero.

compared to the number of people killed in equivlent WW2 operations, yes, it is in fact insignificant. A significant portion of that would have been made up in a single WW2 raid.

I'm not saying that the bombing of civilians is morally perfect. Hell, I was as horrifed by some of the scenes of post air bombardment Iraq as anyone. However their clearly is a diffrence between what we do now and what was done in WW2.

[Hoss]

compared to the number of people killed in equivlent WW2 operations, yes, it is in fact insignificant. A significant portion of that would have been made up in a single WW2 raid.


I'm not agreeing with or disagreeing with your point. But words have power and meaning. In American English, "Insignificant" is mostly used to denote something being so small that it is trivial or has no meaning. 100,000 dead - even in comparison to 1,000,000 dead - would never be considered trivial or meaningless.

[FBHthelizardmage]

I'm not agreeing with or disagreeing with your point. But words have power and meaning. In American English, "Insignificant" is mostly used to denote something being so small that it is trivial or has no meaning. 100,000 dead - even in comparison to 1,000,000 dead - would never be considered trivial or meaningless.

Yeah, but world war two didn't go on for 16 years. And their were large portions of it when their wasn't significant strategic bombing. (before anyone points out that we've also not been strategic bombing for all of that sixteen years)

Edit: For instance, t