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.

[Super Macho Man]

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_B]

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_B]

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_B]

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_B]

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, the Blitz, the german attack on London killed 43,000 people. This ran from September 1940 to may 1941. Almost half as many people as have died in 16 years of various bombing campaigns died in just seven months of world war two.

35,000 died in the three nights of the bombing of Dresden

[Hoss]

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)


I think I did a very bad job of explaining that my concern was with your use of the word "insignificant" to make your point rather than with the point I think you are trying to make. Even in comparison to a larger number, there is nothing "trivially small" or "meaningless" about 100,000 dead people.


The word "insignificant" is just not the appropriate word to use to make your point.

[Hoss]

This ran from September 1940 to may 1941. Almost half as many people as have died in 16 years of various bombing campaigns died in just seven months of world war two.




3,000 people died on 9/11. 168 died in Oklahoma City.

Was Oklahoma City a meaningless or trivially small terrorist attack?

[FBHthelizardmage]

3,000 people died on 9/11. 168 died in Oklahoma City.

Was Oklahoma City a meaningless or trivially small terrorist attack?

hum... point. Perhaps I choose my words badly.

Still, 100,000 people having been killed sounds a lot worse until you consider that's spread over 16 years of conflict. It's not a figure to be proud of but it compares very favourable to WW2.

I mean, it's war. The reasons may be moral or not, but civilains do unfortunately get killed. However, modern bombing operations at least attempt to minimize the numbers, rather than targeting them since they can't hit factories.

[Paul McEnery]

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!)

Right. And that's a fair way of thinking. Unfortunately, it's too broad to be useable, and too narrow to encompass the whole strategy.

We would have to include "Shock and Awe" -- which I think is fair, since we were trying to cow the population and the region. We would certainly have to include all the "freedom fighters" the US has employed. I'm not sure how we could exclude Saddam and Pinochet and all our other dictators. And perhaps we should bring in all the indirect damage done by politicians who raise the climate of fear by using terrifying people about their kids, or about Mexicans, Gays, or whoever it is this week.

Or, for that matter, against "terrorists".


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?

No, no, I'm not. In fact, in many ways, that is the 70s definition of terrorism, which was back-defined to include in the PLO and the IRA.

I'm struggling to remember Baudrillard's "arguments" about terrorism being hyperreal politics, but it's eluding me. I think it's something to do with political action being detached from real world going to civic meetings or joining a union, and becoming a purely symbolic game (albeit one with deadly consequences).

So even back in the 70s, we had two legitimate causes being conflated with a host of insane abreactions.



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?

Well, one answer is to watch the recent behaviour of the ETA and the IRA. Both have realized that the climate has changed, and their armed struggle is necessarily over.

What's important for me is to recognize that "terrorists" never defined themselves as such; it was always the government and the media who did that. For ETA and IRA, it was about armed struggle against oppression--within the appropriate nations. And for RAF and Baader-Meinhoff, it was about armed struggle against capitalist supremos -- again within their own turf.

But what happened in Madrid was a directly purposive act that had two meanings:
1) This is what you are doing to us by being involved in the war.
2) If you keep doing this to us, we'll do it to you.

It's a clear retaliatory attack -- in kind. That's a very significant difference. It's not on the same turf -- that's the insurgency. And it's not aimed at the "oppressor class" of the government. In an obscene and perverse sense, it's a recognition of democracy. In a democracy, when a country is at war, everyone is responsible. Who's the commander-in-chief? The people are the commander-in-chief.

The reason "terrorism" does us no good here is because it speaks to irrationalism and psychopathology. I'm not at all convinced this is the case here. Nor do I think the aim is to create fear. It's a direct threat of vendetta, based on the way modern wars are run.


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.

Again, I'm saying this is a generalized vendetta. What makes the suicide bombers? According to reports I've read and heard on the radio, it's having civilians, often family, from your neighbourhood blown up by indiscriminate attacks. Basically, this is the politics of the drive-by.


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.

If you say so. I don't believe a word of it. The military devised the neutron bomb which would kill people but leave the territory intact.

Let's be honest about it. The entire point of the bombing strategy, whether in Bosnia or Iraq, is to spare the lives of American troops. For some reason, people on the home team can live with foreigners being killed, whether civilians or not, but can't deal with bodybags. Crossing the 2000 mark of US troops is what turned public opinion. The hundred thousand some collateral damage, nobody cares. In fact, people will scream and shout at you if you use the hundred thousand figure, and bellyache about whether they were directly or indirectly killed. That's how much people care about civilian deaths.

But we would care a helluva lot if someone wanted to nuke a country.

Psychology is weird.


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.

If it were my view, perhaps. And it's cheap to think "Western oppression", because this isn't about the West. It's not about Germany, it's not about France, it's not about Switzerland, it's not about Ireland. It's about American capitalism, and its habit of putting property before liberty.

To return to your issue about collateral damage, it's clear that the 9/11 strikes also killed civilians as collateral damage. The civilians weren't the target. The target were structures symbolic of the military-industrial complex. In a war where economics is clearly in play, the WTC becomes target number one -- because the NYSE is a crappy visual target.

I remain convinced that Bin Laden thinks magically. His aim was at these symbols with the intent of destroying everything that goes along with those symbols. Everything that has followed has, in this, proved him right. Bush's actions have destroyed America's military and economic hegemony, not to mention its political clout.


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.

Again, I see evidence of magical thinking -- and most of us don't get it. Not that I think Bin Laden isn't megalomaniac, at least in some sense, and he might be using the symbol of the Caliphate, but his aim is to get rid of socio-economic structures that work against his idea of the will of Allah.

[Iangould]

Iran still years away from having nukes: US

WASHINGTON: US intelligence chief John Negroponte has said Iran's resumption of uranium enrichment is ‘troublesome’ but the country is still years away from having enough fissile material to make a nuclear weapon.

Negroponte on Thursday expressed concern both about Iran's claim to have resumed uranium enrichment with a cascade of 164 centrifuges in Natanz and extreme statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“The developments in Iran - clearly they're troublesome," he said in response to questions after a speech to the National Press Club.

“By the same token, our assessment at the moment is that even though we believe that Iran is determined to acquire or obtain a nuclear weapon, that we believe that it is still many years off before they are likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into, or to put into a nuclear weapon; perhaps into the next decade," he said.

[Hoss]

Another article confirming that we are being bamboozled into another Iraq. The Bushies have made up their mind about war. The nuclear threat is literally the same tired excuse they used in 2002/2003. Anyone who falls for this again should be forced to forfeit their right to vote in 2008.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008657.php


by Kevin Drum


TALKING TO IRAN....What should we do about Iran? I have a suggestion, but first I need to relate a story that's gotten suprisingly little attention from the press. Perhaps they're too bored to pick up on it.

It started on May 6, 2003, shortly after George Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. On that day the Associated Press reported without elaboration that Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman had confirmed that "Iran has exchanged messages with U.S. officials about Iraq through the Swiss Embassy, which represents U.S. interests in Tehran. He declined to give details."

What was that all about? Last January, Flynt Leverett, who worked for Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council, provided some initial clues:

In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case. Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.

In February, Newsday picked up the story:

The fax was one of a series of informal soundings that emanated from Tehran in the months after the United States invasion of Iraq. Iran's envoys to Sweden and Britain also began sending signals that the regime was ready to negotiate a deal, according to a former Western diplomat closely familiar with the messages. Iran was sending messages through other back-channels as well, according to Paul Pillar, who served as the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005.

...."No one at a senior level was willing to push Iran on diplomacy," said Leverett. "Was there at least a chance that we could have gotten something going? Yes, there was a chance."

Three weeks ago, Gareth Porter added some more details:

Realists, led by Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, were inclined to respond positively to the Iranian offer. Nevertheless, within a few days of its receipt, the State Department had rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer.

Exactly how the decision was made is not known. "As with many of these issues of national security decision-making, there are no fingerprints," [Lawrence] Wilkerson told IPS. "But I would guess Dick Cheney with the blessing of George W. Bush."

As Wilkerson observes, however, the mysterious death of what became known among Iran specialists as Iran's "grand bargain" initiative was a result of the administration's inability to agree on a policy toward Tehran.

A draft National Security Policy Directive (NSPD) on Iran calling for diplomatic engagement had been in the process of interagency coordination for more than a year, according to a source who asks to remain unidentified.

But it was impossible to get formal agreement on the NSPD, the source recalls, because officials in Cheney's office and in Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans wanted a policy of regime change and kept trying to amend it.

With that as background, here's my suggestion: quit letting Cheney's crackpots run foreign policy and talk to Iran. After all, the administration's ideologues killed an opportunity to ratchet down tensions three years ago, and since then things have only gotten worse: Iran has elected a wingnut president, they've made progress on nuclear enrichment, gained considerable influence in Iraq, and increased their global economic leverage as oil supplies have gotten tighter. So why blow another chance? If the talks fail, then they fail. But what possible reason can there be to refuse to even discuss things with Iran — unless you're trying to leave no alternative to war?

That may well be the Bush administration's strategy, but ordinary horse sense suggests it shouldn't be anyone else's.

[Drew Van T.]

I mean, it's war. The reasons may be moral or not, but civilains do unfortunately get killed. However, modern bombing operations at least attempt to minimize the numbers, rather than targeting them since they can't hit factories.

See, this is the heart of the matter. There is an increasing number of people who think that civilian casualties are unacceptable - period. That to minimize the number of civilians killed makes the deed only slightly less horribly wrong. All that cold military calculating goes right out the door - insignificant number killed, all that.

[Hoss]

See, this is the heart of the matter. There is an increasing number of people who think that civilian casualties are unacceptable - period. That to minimize the number of civilians killed makes the deed only slightly less horribly wrong. All that cold military calculating goes right out the door - insignificant number killed, all that.

My problem with such thinking from most Americans is that we really have no frame of reference by which to make those statements. You hear folks talk about acceptable loses and collateral damage as if they were anything but the slaughter of civilians.

I wonder how Americans would talk if over the past 16 years we'd lost 100,000 people to bombings? Would comparisons to WWII mean anything?

And this kind of thinking is why there are actually some folks out there that believe that nuking Iran is any kind of option. Because the civilian deaths have no real meaning to them. They use words like collateral damage and think that the fact that civilians aren't the primary targets somehow makes a tremendous difference. But the only place it makes as difference is in the mind of those that launch the attack. Those attacked will care less if 3,000 dead come as the result of the bombing of a munitions factory or the highjacking of a plane into one of the financial nerve centers of a country.

[Drew Van T.]

I wonder how Americans would talk if over the past 16 years we'd lost 100,000 people to bombings? Would comparisons to WWII mean anything?

Would 9/11 have been much more than one unusually bloody day? Or would it just be one day in a series of days that are only somewhat less f--ked-up?

And if their answer is "well, that's how we measure these things"....what makes you so important that you get to set the standard? Why doesn't present-day Iraq get to set the standard for suffering? They seem to be much more familiar with it.

[Cotton]

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

It's my opinion that no one should possess weapons of mass destruction...not Iran, not Europe, not India, not the United States.

But of course...if no one had nuclear weapons we'd be more vulnerable when Xenu's galactic army invades Earth.

[FBHthelizardmage]

See, this is the heart of the matter. There is an increasing number of people who think that civilian casualties are unacceptable - period. That to minimize the number of civilians killed makes the deed only slightly less horribly wrong. All that cold military calculating goes right out the door - insignificant number killed, all that.

Well, this is really another issue. If you want to pursue the military option, then you're going to get dead civilains. Humans fight where humans are and humans tend to be in cities.

If you believe that in fact civilian life shouldn't be risked in war, then you're going to have a very hard time conducting operations.

[Fenris]

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.

Ummm... it has changed a bit. Civilian casualties have decreased. A lot.

If that's the only thing accomplished, I'm still pretty happy with that accomplishment.


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.

I'm always interested in finding out how the military thinks.

(As Merlin says in Camelot, it doesn't happen very often.)

But I'm not sure I understand you here; or rather, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or whatnot. Do you mean that civilian casualties are good, after all, because they change American attitudes about war?

No offense, but that's kind of bizarre.

õ
But I may be misunderstanding you!

[Paul McEnery]

Ummm... it has changed a bit. Civilian casualties have decreased. A lot.

Leaving aside the casualties amongst serving Iraqis -- for which I don't know the number -- let's go with Ian's best estimate.

We're still dealing with 100 dead Iraqi civilians to 1 dead US soldier.

In my world, neither would have died.

But any world in which 100 civilians of their side to 1 dead soldier on our side is acceptable is a bloody piss poor world.

[Fenris]

My problem with such thinking from most Americans is that we really have no frame of reference by which to make those statements. You hear folks talk about acceptable loses and collateral damage as if they were anything but the slaughter of civilians.

If you can show me a practical method of waging war in which no civilians are killed, I will be very glad to hear it. Alternatively, if you are an absolute pacifist I will have to respecfully disagree with your premises.

But if your argument is simply that we don't care as much as you; well, I'm sorry you feel that way, Hoss.


I wonder how Americans would talk if over the past 16 years we'd lost 100,000 people to bombings? Would comparisons to WWII mean anything?

And this kind of thinking is why there are actually some folks out there that believe that nuking Iran is any kind of option. Because the civilian deaths have no real meaning to them. They use words like collateral damage and think that the fact that civilians aren't the primary targets somehow makes a tremendous difference. But the only place it makes as difference is in the mind of those that launch the attack. Those attacked will care less if 3,000 dead come as the result of the bombing of a munitions factory or the highjacking of a plane into one of the financial nerve centers of a country.

The fact that civilians aren't the primary targets makes a tremendous difference. That difference exists in the minds of those launching the attack; and this is important, because that affects who gets attacked, and how.

There is a real practical difference between a war policy that targets civilians, and a war policy that avoids them. The former will kill a lot more civilians than the latter. It makes a difference.

If we want to avoid civilian deaths, it's kind of weird to say that it doesn't matter whether we try to kill civilians or not.

õ
I vote "not"!

[Fenris]

Right. And that's a fair way of thinking. Unfortunately, it's too broad to be useable, and too narrow to encompass the whole strategy.

Hm? Lots of people use it quite effectively. And whose strategy?


We would have to include "Shock and Awe" -- which I think is fair, since we were trying to cow the population and the region.

No, we weren't. We were trying to cow the military into surrendering, which worked to a degree. The often-cited mistake of the Administration was that it expected whole-hearted love and gratitude from the Iraqi people- which would be a bizarre expectation, if we'd gone in trying to terrify them into submission.


We would certainly have to include all the "freedom fighters" the US has employed. I'm not sure how we could exclude Saddam and Pinochet and all our other dictators.

Why should we exclude them?

I'm not trying to invent a definition of "terrorism" that makes the US look perfect. I'm trying to invent a definition that hews reasonably close to what people generally mean by the word, which is still rigorous enough to be applied.


And perhaps we should bring in all the indirect damage done by politicians who raise the climate of fear by using terrifying people about their kids, or about Mexicans, Gays, or whoever it is this week.

Or, for that matter, against "terrorists".

You can if you want to. I think I'll stick with the "murders civilians" requirement, which is (again) what most people actually mean by the term.


I'm struggling to remember Baudrillard's "arguments" about terrorism being hyperreal politics, but it's eluding me. I think it's something to do with political action being detached from real world going to civic meetings or joining a union, and becoming a purely symbolic game (albeit one with deadly consequences).

So even back in the 70s, we had two legitimate causes being conflated with a host of insane abreactions.

Errr... okay.


[Madrid Bombing: why isn't it terrorism?]

Well, one answer is to watch the recent behaviour of the ETA and the IRA. Both have realized that the climate has changed, and their armed struggle is necessarily over.

What's important for me is to recognize that "terrorists" never defined themselves as such; it was always the government and the media who did that. For ETA and IRA, it was about armed struggle against oppression--within the appropriate nations. And for RAF and Baader-Meinhoff, it was about armed struggle against capitalist supremos -- again within their own turf.

I can appreciate the courtesy of respecting people's self-definitions. That's pretty important.

So! I will make you a deal. I will never refer to the ETA or the IRA as terrorists, since they never defined themselves as such. And you will never refer to the Republican Party or the neocons as fascists, since they never define themselves as such.

Fair enough? Let's shake on it!

If not: I have a fairly simple, commonsense definition of "terrorist" that biases neither left nor right. In most cases, it's pretty clear who it applies to and who it doesn't. That's mostly why I like it.


But what happened in Madrid was a directly purposive act that had two meanings:
1) This is what you are doing to us by being involved in the war.
2) If you keep doing this to us, we'll do it to you.

It's a clear retaliatory attack -- in kind. That's a very significant difference.

What, so we are hurting Al Qaeda by means of the War in Iraq? This is good news.

If we're not, then it's not retaliatory; it's just opportunistic violence with a lying PR spin.

But at any rate, this was not an attack in kind. And even if it were, it doesn't disqualify the attack- on civilians, for political purposes of raising fear- from the definition of "terrorism."


It's not on the same turf -- that's the insurgency. And it's not aimed at the "oppressor class" of the government. In an obscene and perverse sense, it's a recognition of democracy. In a democracy, when a country is at war, everyone is responsible. Who's the commander-in-chief? The people are the commander-in-chief.

What, so Al Qaeda is a conspiracy of misguided Thomas Jeffersons? No. They're not perverted democrats, they're bloody-handed intimidators.

If I saw some reasonable evidence for this claim (well, a lot of it) I might be able to seriously consider it. But considering how they ruled Afghanistan, I don't see much reason to give them this credit.


The reason "terrorism" does us no good here is because it speaks to irrationalism and psychopathology.

Hm? No, it speaks of a kind of ruthless violent pragmatism, joined to an awareness of how to get attention through media coverage.

I don't think that terrorists are necessarily insane, or irrational. I imagine that most of them aren't.


I'm not at all convinced this is the case here. Nor do I think the aim is to create fear. It's a direct threat of vendetta, based on the way modern wars are run.

So this is your definition. But why this?
Vendettas are no doubt a motive for violent political action, but they're not the only motive. Far from it.

Is there some reason that people without a vendetta cannot be terrorists? I mean, aside from the a priori way you've written it into the definition?


Again, I'm saying this is a generalized vendetta. What makes the suicide bombers? According to reports I've read and heard on the radio, it's having civilians, often family, from your neighbourhood blown up by indiscriminate attacks. Basically, this is the politics of the drive-by.

Are suicide bombers a worldwide phenomenon- which we'd expect, since there is no shortage of indiscriminate military activity in the world- or are they mostly limited to the Middle East?


If you say so. I don't believe a word of it. The military devised the neutron bomb which would kill people but leave the territory intact.

Yeah, we did. Which is more complicated that it appears.

Here. (http://boingboing.net/profits_of_fear.html) You'll like it, they bash Bush and the Iraq War!


Let's be honest about it.

Why is it that, when people say, "Let's be honest about it," their honesty always boils down to "You should see everything my way"?


The entire point of the bombing strategy, whether in Bosnia or Iraq, is to spare the lives of American troops.

Bosnia and Iraq were two different bombing strategies. They're not interchangable.

Sparing the lives of American troops is not the entire point, but it's certainly a very large point. But, still: if we hadn't cared about anything else, we would have slaughtered the Iraqi army from the air rather than urging them to surrender- accepting surrender is always a potentially dangerous situation, and we endangered our troops in order to keep those Iraqi troops alive.

I'm not saying that this was a sublime note of heroism: it's standard military ethics to accept surrender where possible. But it illustrates that there is more to the situation than your dismissal.


For some reason, people on the home team can live with foreigners being killed, whether civilians or not, but can't deal with bodybags. Crossing the 2000 mark of US troops is what turned public opinion. The hundred thousand some collateral damage, nobody cares.


That's not true, Paul. You care! You care enough to use their deaths as grist for your political mill.

Can we get off the whole "I care more than you do" schtick? Because, as manipulative emotional gimmicks go, it wasn't that impressive the first time.


If it were my view, perhaps. And it's cheap to think "Western oppression", because this isn't about the West. It's not about Germany, it's not about France, it's not about Switzerland, it's not about Ireland. It's about American capitalism, and its habit of putting property before liberty.

To return to your issue about collateral damage, it's clear that the 9/11 strikes also killed civilians as collateral damage. The civilians weren't the target. The target were structures symbolic of the military-industrial complex. In a war where economics is clearly in play, the WTC becomes target number one -- because the NYSE is a crappy visual target.

If that were the case, they could have piloted some nighttime flights into the WTC, and avoided... well, I don't know. Almost all of the deaths, anyway, except for the people on board the planes.

They didn't.


I remain convinced that Bin Laden thinks magically. His aim was at these symbols with the intent of destroying everything that goes along with those symbols. Everything that has followed has, in this, proved him right. Bush's actions have destroyed America's military and economic hegemony, not to mention its political clout.


Again, I see evidence of magical thinking -- and most of us don't get it. Not that I think Bin Laden isn't megalomaniac, at least in some sense, and he might be using the symbol of the Caliphate, but his aim is to get rid of socio-economic structures that work against his idea of the will of Allah.

Why do you think he's conceiving of the Caliphate as a symbol, rather than the actual thing? Is there some reason to think that he doesn't want the Middle East formed into a single, strong body that can resist our economic structures with unified action? Why wouldn't he want that?

I don't see any reason not to take him at his word here.

õ
Which is an odd kind of compliment!

[Drew Van T.]

But I'm not sure I understand you here; or rather, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or whatnot. Do you mean that civilian casualties are good, after all, because they change American attitudes about war?

They're not good - they're absolutely horrible. That doesn't change the fact that they do add a dimension that becomes a positive influence, however uncomfortable it might be to consider that an act of slaughter might have at least one positive consequence - if only in preventing future acts of slaughter perpetrated by the same nation. Think of it as a service to the dead.

Like I said, if wars can be waged without killing civilians it would also mean they can be waged more easily and without having to justify them at all before congress, the public and in the media (not like there's a whole lot of justification going on right now, but hey). Which would lead to wars becoming a daily, casual business. But this was just a hypothetical train of thought, as eliminating civilian casualties completely is impossible after all.

[FBHthelizardmage]

Well right now, your goverment is being rather to militant. It seems to have forgotten that war is a rather risky bussiness. I think it's paying for that lack of memory in Iraq.

[Mike Smith]

Just because I am cautious and like to plan ahead...a quick question for Canadians. What does it take for an American to apply for citizenship and how long does the application period take.

I know the liklihood of Bush actually nuking a "strategic site" in Iran before his term is up should be slim, but I don't want to be in the fallout of any retaliation on the US.

[Grazzt]

If that were the case, they could have piloted some nighttime flights into the WTC, and avoided... well, I don't know. Almost all of the deaths, anyway, except for the people on board the planes.

They didn't.

That's the thing, though. Why bother with the Pentagon if they weren't targets chosen for symbolic value rather than sheer population size? Why not the biggest skyscraper they could find, which would probably have more people in it? Like the Sears Tower or the Chysler Building?

[Grazzt]

Just because I am cautious and like to plan ahead...a quick question for Canadians. What does it take for an American to apply for citizenship and how long does the application period take.

I know the liklihood of Bush actually nuking a "strategic site" in Iran before his term is up should be slim, but I don't want to be in the fallout of any retaliation on the US.

Here's a link to someon to help you get started:

Apparently its a free visa eligibility assessment. (https://www.immigrationexpert.com/register.asp?fid=100036&t=e&q=Canada%20Immigration)

They mention that skilled workers are in high demand, so if you've got a trade, you're a shoe-in.

[FBHthelizardmage]

That's the thing, though. Why bother with the Pentagon if they weren't targets chosen for symbolic value rather than sheer population size? Why not the biggest skyscraper they could find, which would probably have more people in it? Like the Sears Tower or the Chysler Building?

I imagine it was a little of column A and a Little of Column B. They probably didn't care about civilian causalities much, just ease of operations and damage.

[Paul McEnery]

snip
whoof, this back and forth is becoming unmanageable.

1) If you're looking at a deliberate strategy of creating fear, and thereby doing violence to people, I don't make a distinction between bombs and propaganda, nor between governments and freelance groups. As far as the Iraq war goes, the major damage within the US is the lies told to the American people which fanned the flames of fear (ooh, purple writing) so much as to distort natural politics.

2) There's a world of difference between the Madrid bombing, the London bombing, the WTC/Pentagon attack, Hamas bombing, and the Iraqi insurgency. None of these was the same sort of attack; none of these had the same motive; none of these intended the same effect.

Madrid was brutal intimidation -- if you keep killing our civilians, we will kill yours.
Hamas is lunatic vendetta -- if you make our lives unliveable, we will make your lives unliveable.
The Iraqi insurgency is a guerilla war turning into a civil war.
London was McVeigh-style acting out.
WTC/Pentagon was an act of war from a Saudi revolutionary.

All of these have been called "terrorist" by a government that openly uses the phrase "Shock and Awe", that responds to the death of our civilians by murdering way more civilians in Afghanistan (and then Iraq), that responds to minor infrastructural damage by decimating the infrastructure of Iraq, that irrationally acts out its emotional wound by attacking an unconnected country -- and a country that continues to support the totally unpopular oligarchy in Saudi Arabia.

It doesn't make any sense to single out particular outrages against our civilians as "terrorist", when the "terrorist" acts listed above are themselves unconnected acts, except in one case alone -- the US government.

3) Perhaps Bin Laden is megalomaniac enough to believe in an Islamic Empire in the Middle East (though it has to be said, the one thing that's going to recreate Pan-Arabism is US inteference, and even then, it's led directly to sectarian violence).

What is obvious is that the US has been playing divide and conquer in the region, right from the institution of the state of Israel. As far as I can see, our geopolitical aim in the region is to pit Sunni against Shiite, Arab against Jew, rulers against people, and so on. That's unfathomable to me.










Oh, and btw, I know Charles Platt. Tried to get him to write a weird science column for me, but he was under contract to Wired at the time. Too bad.

[Fenris]

That's the thing, though. Why bother with the Pentagon if they weren't targets chosen for symbolic value rather than sheer population size? Why not the biggest skyscraper they could find, which would probably have more people in it? Like the Sears Tower or the Chysler Building?

Hm. Let me rethink and (probably) backtrack a little.

Bin Laden had a thing about the World Trade Center. He'd bombed it once before, back in 1992, though much less successfully. It's clear that the WTC was enormously significant to him.

So was it symbolic? Maybe. That really doesn't matter, in terms of collateral damage, because the concept of collateral damage is tied directly to military ethics.

Suppose I fire a missle at an army base; it explodes, sending debris far and wide. A passing civilian is hit by some of the debris, and dies.

That is collateral damage. The target- the army base- is clearly a just target in war. The civilian was not targeted in any way; nor was the army base attacked with lots of collateral damage in mind. (If it was, then we have a gross violation of military ethics.) The civilian's death is an accident- there is no reason to expect it, and it might just as easily not have happened.

The World Trade Center was not a justified military target. It was a civilian place of business, and there was absolutely nothing military about it. There's no plausible way you can expect a major commercial center not to have lots of civilians in it.

Did it have symbolic importance to Bin Laden? Yes, apparently so. That doesn't matter. He doesn't get to murder civilians just because he's found a symbolic reason for doing so.

This is a matter of military ethics developed over centuries, and codified in the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.redcross.org/services/intl/0,1082,0_448_,00.html#violation). It's not perfect- obviously- but it's an effort to limit the savagery of war.

õ
Insofar as that's possible!

[Wesley Dodds]

I agree that it's a stretch to say the Twin Towers were a legitimate target. The Pentagon and the White House (or the Capitol) would have been fair game, though.

In other words, it's not enough to be coy and say you had a legitimate target -- I've heard conservatives say Hiroshima was justified because there was a munitions plant there. No, it doesn't justify the mass murder of civilians. The importance of the target has to be proportionate to the cost in civilian casualties. Both 9/11 and Hiroshima fail that test.

[Fenris]

whoof, this back and forth is becoming unmanageable.

Too truly.


1) If you're looking at a deliberate strategy of creating fear, and thereby doing violence to people, I don't make a distinction between bombs and propaganda, nor between governments and freelance groups. As far as the Iraq war goes, the major damage within the US is the lies told to the American people which fanned the flames of fear (ooh, purple writing) so much as to distort natural politics.

I don't make a distinction between governments and freelance groups, either. So we're agreed on that. (Which is something!)

You don't make a distinction between bombs and propaganda, which is well and good for you; but I do. (More of that First Amendement Constitutional fundamentalism, I guess.) It seems plainly obvious to me that the two are so different that they belong in entirely separate categories.


2) There's a world of difference between the Madrid bombing, the London bombing, the WTC/Pentagon attack, Hamas bombing, and the Iraqi insurgency. None of these was the same sort of attack; none of these had the same motive; none of these intended the same effect.

Madrid was brutal intimidation -- if you keep killing our civilians, we will kill yours.

Does Al Qaeda consider Iraq's people to be "theirs"? Or is this more in the way of a propaganda point?

Hamas is lunatic vendetta -- if you make our lives unliveable, we will make your lives unliveable.
The Iraqi insurgency is a guerilla war turning into a civil war.
London was McVeigh-style acting out.
WTC/Pentagon was an act of war from a Saudi revolutionary.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last. Timothy McVeigh probably felt that he was at war with the United States government; that doesn't give his actions any legal or moral sanction.


All of these have been called "terrorist" by a government that openly uses the phrase "Shock and Awe", that responds to the death of our civilians by murdering way more civilians in Afghanistan (and then Iraq), that responds to minor infrastructural damage by decimating the infrastructure of Iraq, that irrationally acts out its emotional wound by attacking an unconnected country -- and a country that continues to support the totally unpopular oligarchy in Saudi Arabia.


We don't go to war to keep score. What- should we have carefully monitored the Taliban's body count, and then withdrew from Afghanistan the moment it equaled the WTC level?

If we were merely pursuing a vendetta, that would make a kind of sense. But we're not.


It doesn't make any sense to single out particular outrages against our civilians as "terrorist", when the "terrorist" acts listed above are themselves unconnected acts, except in one case alone -- the US government.

Argh. I'm not trying to present terrorism- or, rather, TERRORISM- as an all-encompassing evil, synonymous with "Anything done by anyone we don't like." I'm trying to keep to a pretty basic, straightforward definition, so that we can have a conversation that doesn't wallow forever in the interpretation of definitions.

If your point to all this is that the word "terrorism" is overused: okay, so noted. But I would much rather use it rightly than just give up on it.


3) Perhaps Bin Laden is megalomaniac enough to believe in an Islamic Empire in the Middle East (though it has to be said, the one thing that's going to recreate Pan-Arabism is US inteference, and even then, it's led directly to sectarian violence).

What is obvious is that the US has been playing divide and conquer in the region, right from the institution of the state of Israel. As far as I can see, our geopolitical aim in the region is to pit Sunni against Shiite, Arab against Jew, rulers against people, and so on. That's unfathomable to me.

Ummm... that's rather unfathomable to me, too. Do you mean that if Israel and the Arab world reached an understanding, the US would sabotage it? Why?


Oh, and btw, I know Charles Platt. Tried to get him to write a weird science column for me, but he was under contract to Wired at the time. Too bad.

Oh, you know everybody. :)


õ
You do get around!

[Fenris]

I agree that it's a stretch to say the Twin Towers were a legitimate target. The Pentagon and the White House (or the Capitol) would have been fair game, though.

Yes. There would still have been the matter of the civilians in the planes; but if Al Qaeda had only attacked military/government sites, it would have been a radically-different situation.


In other words, it's not enough to be coy and say you had a legitimate target -- I've heard conservatives say Hiroshima was justified because there was a munitions plant there.

Those darn conservatives!
(I have occaisionally heard liberals say something to that effect; but RickD is long departed from us.)

No, it doesn't justify the mass murder of civilians. The importance of the target has to be proportionate to the cost in civilian casualties. Both 9/11 and Hiroshima fail that test.

Indeed.
The use of nuclear weapons was simply World War II's logic carried to its horrible end. We'd done equivalent damage in other cities with conventional weapons- but atomic bombs were much more dramatic.


õ
And cheaper, once you paid off the R&D!

[Wesley Dodds]

Those darn conservatives!
(I have occaisionally heard liberals say something to that effect; but RickD is long departed from us.)

Well, I haven't -- did he just say it was justified because it ended the war? And, of course, Truman was a liberal.

I've only heard the munitions plant argument from conservatives who believe "my country right or wrong". Last year someone at CBR repeated it, adding this filigree: the plant had built bombs that were dropped on Pearl Harbor. As if it's relevant.

The equivalent on the left would be someone like Latuff who screams about Israeli violence but celebrates Palestinian violence. Most liberals aren't like that: we see injustice on both sides. So, we're against the Arabs wiping out Israel and we're against the atrocious way Israel has treated the Palestinians. "My country or cause right or wrong" is something lots of conservatives believe, and it's something a lot of socialists believe, but it's not something liberals believe.

I can see how a Mulsim would justify 9/11 in the way some Americans justify Hiroshima. They say it had to be done to stop the war. Well, maybe one day Osama-symps will say it was wrong but it had to be done to change US policy towards the Islamic world. Or they'll say it was the right thing to do because they weren't Muslims and all members of the out-group are evil.

[Paul McEnery]

Richard --

Many non-personal ranty things are about to be said.

If I were among bodily friends who loved me dearly, glasses would be smashed while I vented.

This is the quiet version of how I feel.

Oh, and I love you dearly. You rock.

And now for: me having a shit fit.

Too truly.

Y'know, it's irritating. Because there's value to the quote and refute in getting the detail out, but it takes a hit on actually meaning what you say.

I used to run a thing at the chaplaincy where we had a round robin where everyone said their say, and nobody got to refute. And I feel that's better. But that's not how this works.

Bah!


I don't make a distinction between governments and freelance groups, either. So we're agreed on that. (Which is something!)

You don't make a distinction between bombs and propaganda, which is well and good for you; but I do. (More of that First Amendement Constitutional fundamentalism, I guess.) It seems plainly obvious to me that the two are so different that they belong in entirely separate categories.

As someone who's put his time in in the spin mills, both as a journalist and as a marketing copywriter...

You're wrong.

A well placed word will kill many more people than a well placed bullet.

Do you really doubt that?


Does Al Qaeda consider Iraq's people to be "theirs"? Or is this more in the way of a propaganda point?

Dude!

I'm 20 years since living in England, and I'm still going to back them in the World Cup. And that's fatarse trivial.

Of course people from the Middle East are going to look at Fallujah and get their knickers in a twist. For fuck's sake, I look at Fallujah and get my knickers in a twist, and I don't even have skin in the game (except for the fact that Fallujah reminds me of Leonel Ugama).

Yeah, they're thinking: fuck off, whitey. I can't blame them.

We don't go to war to keep score.

Liar.

Yes we fucking do.

After 9/11, we bloody had to bring a body count, or Americans weren't going to be happy.

I can't express how angry I am about this, or how much I know this to be true. Because I was on bulletin boards a sight more lefty than this and still hearing that thought.

If a bunch of left San Franciscans wanted Vendetta, I can't even imagine how a bunch of red staters -- oh, that's right, they always hated New York and wanted to see it destroyed anyway because it's fucking Babylon -- felt about it.

Fuck Kansas. Nobody's ever going to waste the time to bomb Kansas. But they still determine policy.


If we were merely pursuing a vendetta, that would make a kind of sense. But we're not.

You're absolutely right. Afghanistan was Vendetta. Iraq was flat out pretedermined, malice aforethought murder.

Don't even argue with me about this. The proof is right bloody out there.


Argh. I'm not trying to present terrorism- or, rather, TERRORISM- as an all-encompassing evil, synonymous with "Anything done by anyone we don't like." I'm trying to keep to a pretty basic, straightforward definition, so that we can have a conversation that doesn't wallow forever in the interpretation of definitions.

Correct. You're not. Because you're a decent and smart guy.

Unfortunately, the President is an evil fascist dickwad, and he has done exactly that to get his way.

That's my point. You assume decency. So do I, to a point. But this bastard has gone well beyond that point.


If your point to all this is that the word "terrorism" is overused: okay, so noted. But I would much rather use it rightly than just give up on it.

You just don't get this, do you.

Random shitty violence against civilians not sponsored by the state = terrorism.

Random shitty violence against civilians sponsored by the US = what?

More people in the last five years, let alone the last 50, have been killed by deliberate US foreign policy that will ever be killed by Bin Laden.

For that matter, more Palestian civilians have been killed in the last five years than Israelis have been killed by suicide bombers.

In what way, in those circumstances, does it make sense to talk about "terrorists"?

We are the terrorists.

We've just got a better kill score, because we've got better munitions, and a better vantage point.

It is a total fucking lie to talk about terrorists.

We are far, far, far, far, far worse than any fucking suicide bomber could ever hope to be.

On the first day of bombing in Afghanistan, we already killed more civilians than the 9/11 bombers.

And they didn't kill more than a dozen non-civilians.

Christ!

Edit: To be honest, I haven't got the least idea what I meant by that lat bit either, now that I look at it; but since I believe in accountability, I'm going to leave it that way, and allow people to think i'm a nutball. That only seems fair.


Ummm... that's rather unfathomable to me, too. Do you mean that if Israel and the Arab world reached an understanding, the US would sabotage it? Why?

We deliberately sabotaged it from the getgo. That's the point of Israel.

And yes, the continual support of Israel = continual sabotage.

Not like we didn't sabotage Iran with the Shah, or Egypt with whatzisface (sorry, late at night, can't be arsed), or Lebanon by paying for Israel's bombardment, or Iraq by getting it into a war with Iran, or Saudi Arabia, by corrupting their government.

Yes. We've been total cunts. We've deliberately arsed up the Middle East to get cheap oil.

We suck.

Oh, you know everybody. :)


õ
You do get around!
Yes I bloody do.

And I get away with it because I mean no harm to anyone, except for the bastards who mean harm to people.

Think of me as a Warren Ellis hero.

And then shudder with fear. :evilsmile

[FBHthelizardmage]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1996/shock-n-awe_index.html

This might be relavant to the discussion, though I've not had time to read it through yet. (which makes me a bit silly for posting it, but *shrug* busy)

[FBHthelizardmage]

As I understand it however, Shock and Awe (wow that's a corny name) is designed to bring about rapid collapse of an enemy military by first chopping off its head, IE, it's command and control and second attacking fiercely enough to bring about psychological collapse of the enemy army as seen in 1991

[Paul McEnery]

As I understand it however, Shock and Awe (wow that's a corny name) is designed to bring about rapid collapse of an enemy military by first chopping off its head, IE, it's command and control and second attacking fiercely enough to bring about psychological collapse of the enemy army as seen in 1991
Well that fucking worked a treat, didn't it.

We're so fucking stupid we think the rest of the world sucks up to the boss just like Americans do.

Like the rest of the world doesn't have more self-respect than the average American office worker.

[king mob]

As I understand it however, Shock and Awe (wow that's a corny name) is designed to bring about rapid collapse of an enemy military by first chopping off its head, IE, it's command and control and second attacking fiercely enough to bring about psychological collapse of the enemy army as seen in 1991

The killing tousands of civillians is an afterthought then?

[FBHthelizardmage]

Well that fucking worked a treat, didn't it.

We're so fucking stupid we think the rest of the world sucks up to the boss just like Americans do.

Like the rest of the world doesn't have more self-respect than the average American office worker.

To some extent it did work. Had we been fighting Iraqi in 1991, and attempting topple the regime as it existed back them, it'd have been a decent way of doing it. In 1991 the Iraqi army did suffer psychological collapse, and pretty much folded.

The problem was that in attacking the Iraqi government apparatus, we ended up leading to the conditions that created the insurgency. Like most everything in Iraqi the problem came from the Pentagon planning staff having no clue, literally no idea of the conditions in Iraqi and how to deal with them.

Causing psychological collapse to armies isn't a new idea. We've been doing that for ages. And it has worked in the past. Though we've yet to really try it in a war against serious opposition.

[FBHthelizardmage]

The killing tousands of civillians is an afterthought then?

Not an afterthought. It's just collateral damage. We aren't trying to kill those civilians. They're just unlucky that they happened to be near a target.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a moral position, those people are still dead, but we aren't trying to kill civilians.

If we were, a lot more of them would be dead. It would have been quite within America’s power to simple remove Bagdad from existence either with nuclear air burst or with a whole bunch of conventional bombs and fuel air explosives. It'd have been flagrantly immoral but they could have done so.

[FBHthelizardmage]

I believe, (don't hold me to the exact number I'd need to look it up) that the US air force currently requires special authorization from the civilian government to bomb targets where intelligence suggests more than 30 civilians will become causalities.

Of course, it being the bush administration it allowed all the targets when this was Iraq...