main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Iran - the next war?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Valkor, Nov 19, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Valkor

    Valkor Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2002
    It looks like Iran is trying to develop WMD's.

    What will the US do?

    Economic Sanctions?
    Military Action?

    They are a part of what Bush called the Axis of Evil. I just hope the world doesn't end anytime soon.

    //givepeaceachance
     
  2. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    By the time sanctions fail, (as I assume they'll do) we should be about done in Iraq and it's on!

    If Iraq isn't finished I believe we'll stall. I don't believe we'll do Iran at the same time we are in Iraq.
     
  3. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    It looks like Iran is trying to develop WMD's.

    It looks like Iran is trying to develop WMD's?

    Iran has been developing nuclear power for decades, although their program was set back when their 2 nuclear reactors along the Persian Gulf were destroyed by Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.

    After the war, in 1987-8, Pakistan supplied a Dutch-based centerfuge, which served as the basis for Iran's uranium enrichment program.

    Then in 1993, Iran was supposed to have acquired 2 nuclear warheads, although they did not contain any nuclear material. The warheads were to be used as models for future production.

    Soon after(around 1996), Iran actually bagan its enrichment program.

    The key is to cut through Iran's legitimate civilian nuclear program, and limit its parallel, but prohibited military program.

    It's not a "new" problem.

     
  4. poor yorick

    poor yorick Ex-Mod star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Iraq's attempts at building the bomb weren't "new" either. Officially, that was the problem.

    At this point, I think we're more or less locked into using military power if sanctions fail. The "Bush doctrine" of military interventionism has gotten so much worldwide attention and has been linked so closely (by Bush himself) to America's response to terrorism, that I don't think we can back down from it at this point without sending the message that we're losing the will to go after terrorists. (Never mind that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In the international fable we've created, it does.)

    Had we not re-elected Bush, I think there's a chance we could have backed away from such an unsustainably belligerent foreign policy, saying in effect, "Uh, well, that was a Bush thing . . . after 9/11 we were upset, etc . . ." But now that he's been re-elected with 51% of the popular vote, I think we're stuck for the forseeable future. Exactly where this will leave us, especially if we don't have strong international support, I don't know.

    The situation as I see it:

    1) We are in this for the long haul. Terrorists, WMDs, and "rogue nations" aren't going anywhere.

    2) If you want your enemies to back off when you start making threats, you need to show that you're willing to follow up on them. If you have as many people itching to take a piece out of you as we do, and you say, "Why, I'm gonna . . . ! Oh, nah, never mind," you're SOL. Your word won't be good for anything ever again, and even if you make threats, people will figure that maybe this time you don't mean it. As I wrote in the "I'm Condi Rice--Really!" thread, there are people who would cheerfully take those odds.

    3) This leaves us in a position of having to bomb the ever-living crap out of any nation that starts scratching together uranium and refuses to quit when we tell it to. We must also be willing to do this in perpetuity, or at least until someone abolishes terrorism, or WMDs, or rogue nations, or us.

    4) We're going to go broke a long time before "in perpetuity" rolls around, especially if most of the world's countries think we're being idiots and refuse to help.

    You can argue that sooner or later, the rogue nations will start to get it, and they'll quit trying to build nuclear programs. However, this is like saying that if we never give into hostage-takers' demands, no one will ever take American hostages again. I think our refusal to deal with hostage-takers has *discouraged* the practice, and that if we'd started giving them things they wanted we'd see a lot more of it. But the fact of the matter is, people still take Americans hostage. Likewise, the "bomb the ever-living crap out of them" policy will deter some nations from trying to build nuclear programs, but not all of them. That still leaves us in the position of having to bomb the ever-living crap out of people on a fairly regular basis.

    This brings up several problems:

    1) Bombing the ever-living crap out of people is expensive. Where are we going to get the money from, especially with a solid Republican majority that swears up and down it won't raise taxes?

    2) Bombing the ever-living crap out of people leaves us without many places to go from there. Say insurgency-connected Iraqi terrorists somehow manage to perpetrate a 9/11-scale terrorist act on American soil while we're still "fighting the peace" over in Iraq. What kind of response can we make? Bomb the ever living crap out of them? We already did that. How scary a threat is this: "You better stop that, or we'll do the same thing that didn't work last time!!" Do we nuke them? Are we prepared to nuke any country on earth that ticks us off twice? Are we prepared to alienate every other nation on the planet, who collectively have a lot more nukes than we do?

    3) Americans do not like long wars with no attainable objective or end in sight. How many successive Iraq wars do we have to fight before the people back home demand we get out? Where does that leave us with regard to all the rogue nati
     
  5. Hades2021

    Hades2021 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 29, 2003
    Is there an oil for food program? If not, maybe the UN will actually help us this time.
     
  6. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2002
    A war with Iran would be 10x more difficult than the current situation in Iraq. Let's go for it!
     
  7. CitizenKane

    CitizenKane Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Unless the situation reaches critical mass, I think the next four years will see less war on terror and more domestic concerns.

    Im all for Bush and his war on terror, but I think he needs to realize that a big reason he won the election was the joke of an opponet John Kerry. Iraq is not candyland; we need to fight terror one centralized battle at a time, and I don't think Iraq will be done in the next four years.

    More than likey, Bush will play it smart and (again, unless it reaches dire) finish what he can in Iraq, and then leave it up to the next (Republican) administration to handle Iran.
     
  8. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    I don't think anyone is really considering charing into Iran rigth now. The administration's hands are more than full with Iraq as is.
     
  9. Nightowl

    Nightowl TFN Timetales Writer star 4 VIP

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Yeah -- and no one's more aware of that than the Iranian leaders. The Americans are spread too thin, the EU and the UN are cowards, and Israel is within range of the missiles they've got. Once they have the warheads (which, if matters continue as they are, will be as soon as next year), all they have to do is load 'em up and launch 'em.

    "They are vulnerable. There will never be a better time..."
     
  10. Darth_Michael

    Darth_Michael Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Aug 24, 2002
    The EU ain't cowards. We are just not running around and meddling with the internal affairs of sovereign nations and launching an invasion every three years when those nations turn around to bite back.
     
  11. Shroom

    Shroom Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Is the general principal that countries aren't allowed to develop modern weaponry if the US disagrees with their politics?

    Personally if I lived in a country that didn't have some sort of nuclear arsenal at the moment, I would be asking the leaders of my country what they were playing at, and why they were dragging their feet. I don't think I would want to rely on anyone else on the planet to protect my country, and if I accepted the argument that nuclear weaponry deters people from invading, it would seem obvious that having them would be a good thing.

    I quite understand that this would be unwelcome news for other countries. It seems that the ideal position for the US would be for them to have all the nuclear weapons, because they are really the only people that can be trusted to use them nicely! In fact it would be quite handy if no other countries were allowed to develop anything more dangerous than a sling-shot. Then we'd live in a much safer world, with the US looking benignly over us all like the great, and well armed, father figure it is.

    Unfortunately it is too late for that. The US is spending billions on ever more impressive weaponry, but wants to freeze the clock on the rest of the world to make sure they can't keep up with anything too scary of their own.

    I can sympathise. I'd rather no one else had these weapons. But I don't think we've got any moral right to stop them. A nuclear capability is progress (if you can call it that). Just because it is dangerous doesn't mean we can deny other countries that same development without violating their sovereignty. You'd basically be invading people for getting ideas above their station.
     
  12. GRAND_MOFF_KEVIN

    GRAND_MOFF_KEVIN Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 4, 2004
    If we go to war I think we have to be out of Iraq first. If not our troops will be too overwhelmed. Plus that also could mean a draft which can't be allowed to happen.
     
  13. Darth_Smileyface

    Darth_Smileyface Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Shroom,

    I see yopur point, however there's this thing called the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, which most of the planets countries have signed therefore promising not to develop Nuclear weaponry. I think that most people would agree that this is a good thing.

    Darth Michael,

    You are right, the EU are not cowards. They are hypocrites. They do not support the war in Iraq because it was far more economically advantageous for them to allow Saddam to remain in power. They condemn the US for acting out of economic interests when that is what they are doing themselves.
     
  14. Dath_BigGAME

    Dath_BigGAME Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Aug 21, 2001
    Iraq will drag on for years. Those guys are fighting us tooth and nail, and we cannot leave or risk everything falling apart. The terrorist have us between a rock and a hard place because of Iraq.

    Yes, Iran will continue because we are stretched so thin. Yes we will go to war with them. Yes, this will spurn a draft.

    Every time lil Bush says no draft, I see images of old Bush saying no new taxes. That same smirk. He knows where we are headed. He either planned it all this way, or was manipulated by UBL. Kerry may have been a liberal, but atleast he wasn't stupid.

    We have bitten off more than we can chew.
     
  15. Darth_Michael

    Darth_Michael Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Darth_Smileyface
    You may of course believe what ever you wish to believe. But might want to consider that the EU has yet to start a war out of economic reasons instead of just adapting to political realities.
    Oh and you might also want to remember, that Iraq was a mercanary for the US during the Iran/Iraq war. It only turned rouge once the US stopped paying Saddam. But that's probably a topic best suited for another thread. One about Iraq instead of Iran.
     
  16. Vaderbait

    Vaderbait Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Sep 26, 2001
    They are a part of what Bush called the Axis of Evil. I just hope the world doesn't end anytime soon.

    //givepeaceachance


    It won't. And as for "give peace a chance", the problem with that theory is that you can't just stand by and do nothing. Ever hear that quote, I think Churchill said it, somethign about "the worst thing for good people to do is do nothing"?

    Now, give peace a chacne works for industrialized nations, but nations like Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea are violently "crazy" if you will. To give peace a chance, we would have to stop regulating, stop everything, and just let Iran do what they want. See, the problem many people have with that is: that's what led to WW2. I think most people think if we have to force sanctions, or take military action once in a while, it's better than launching into a full scale world war.

    But don't worry about the end of the world or another world war, I don't see a world war happening ever again.


    EDIT: And also, kyou have to look at it from a tactical (or is it strategic?) standpoint. We're not just randomly fighting wars. There is a grand strategy. Some Democrats have complained that there was no point in fighting in Iraq. But there is, that was the big bully of th emiddle east. Now it's not. Next, in order for Iraq to be successful, you need to shut down Iran and Syria, because those countries, aside from being huge US enemies and obstructionists to world peace, are funneling terrorists, money, etc. to Iraq and Afghanistan and other places.

    Now, the strategy for combating Iran will be different. It seems we have some smart leaders in the military right now (thank God), in that they don't do the same thing twice. Afghanistan was a wholly new kind of war, because Tommy Franks realized that you can't risk fighting a conventional war. The Taliban would know how to counteract that. In Iraq, yet another new strategy was used. Overwhelming SPEED. We were outnumbered going into Iraq, simply because Tommy Franks believed that if you could move fast enough, you could decapitate the regime without overhwhelming force. It worked for the war. Now, in the aftermath, someone messed up somewhere, and despite everything the Democrats try to say, more troops would not have changed anything. First off, the ports were were entering launching points from were backed up as it is. We've been sending more and more troops over there, and I think that was the overalls trategy. IT would not have worked to send more troops initially. I think the mistake was waiting so long to get aggressive.

    Now, in Iran, it's a MUCH bigger country. Our advantage their is, there is a MASSIVE active movement of idealistic young people who want to take out the tyrannical government there. That's an advantage we didn't have in Iraq. We only had the Iraqi National Congress, which wasn't a viable organization. Also, we need to get people on the ground NOW in there, if we haven't already. Special Ops and spies. We need good intel. Mainly on where to find their nuclear factories and find as many leadership positions as possible. We need to secure ways to get in to Iran through Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and I'm not sure, but doesn't Russia or Turkey touch Iran?

    Then, if war i slooming. Don't wait. Launch massive airstrikes taking out their air defense systems, their nuclear facilities, and shut down the electrical grids in the cities containing factories. You dont' want to destroy them, because you may need them later to rebuild the country. Then, while these massive airstrikes are happening as quickly as possible, you also drop special ops around the cities edges and start bombing leadershpi places. Deploy troops on the outskirts of the country to make sure very few people escape. That was the problem in Iraq, there was such a public buildup to war that Iraq slid all their weapons out of the country, as witnessed by the massive exodus of trucks carryign unknown materials into Syria.

    Once the airstrikes are done, start taking out the city ou
     
  17. MILK-HANDS

    MILK-HANDS Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    You are right, the EU are not cowards. They are hypocrites. They do not support the war in Iraq because it was far more economically advantageous for them to allow Saddam to remain in power. They condemn the US for acting out of economic interests when that is what they are doing themselves.


    First off, the EU did not act in concert when it came to the war in Iraq.

    Secondly, why would a country not consider the economic advantages of allowing a dictatorship to remain in power? That is what nations do. But that doesn't mean economic interests exclude all other considerations; I don't believe the United States went to war against Iraq for purely economic reasons, and I don't believe that France, Germany, et. al., stayed out because keeping Saddam in power was their best economic interest, and nothing else mattered.

    As to the topic, I honestly can't conceive of anything besides an expensive bombing campaign against Iran. Everyone here knows that Iran would be a far more disastrous situation than Iraq to deploy troops. There would be dozens of deaths each day at the minimum when if it were to come to that kind of fighting. Tehran alone would see hundreds of American deaths.
     
  18. Darth_Michael

    Darth_Michael Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Now, give peace a chacne works for industrialized nations, but nations like Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea are violently "crazy" if you will. To give peace a chance, we would have to stop regulating, stop everything, and just let Iran do what they want. See, the problem many people have with that is: that's what led to WW2. I think most people think if we have to force sanctions, or take military action once in a while, it's better than launching into a full scale world war.
    You have to insert a break in history after WW2.
    WW2 was the result of WW1. WW1 was the result of centuries of inner-european wars. And most of the later wars can be more or less traced back to the US.

    EDIT: And also, kyou have to look at it from a tactical (or is it strategic?) standpoint.We're not just randomly fighting wars.

    Yeah right...
    There is a grand strategy.
    That I actually believe: World domination

    aside from being huge US enemies and obstructionists to world peace
    Shouldn't that actually read:
    aside from the US being an obstruction to world peace

    About the cost of destroying Iran:
    Just buy couple o' black market russian nukes. Probably cheaper than what's in the US inventory and flatten Iran. I mean, it would serve the goal for G ****** B.
     
  19. rogue_wookiee

    rogue_wookiee Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Iraq would make a great base of operations to go into Iran...

    But I wish some others would step up. Iran isn't just a threat to the US. With nuclear weapons they are a threat to everyone else as well. I would love to see European and Middle Eastern nations help in the war on terror. Will they? A few will. Some will not oppose us and others will try to hinder us as much as they can.
     
  20. Darth_Michael

    Darth_Michael Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Aug 24, 2002
    And exactly why is Iran a threat to any nation but Isreal and the US? Espacially Europe? We don't meddle with them. We have quite good relations with them, accepting their way of life. Perhaps we are not happy about it, talk to them about it on a diplomatic level. But we don't behave like the new millineas crusaders.
     
  21. rogue_wookiee

    rogue_wookiee Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Apr 24, 2004
    I guess the terrorists in Spain weren't a threat to Europe either.

    I guess the attacks on British troops in Baghdad weren't aimed at Europe.
     
  22. Darth_Michael

    Darth_Michael Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Aug 24, 2002
    The attacks in Spain were a result on Spains involvement in Iraq. An isolated incident.

    If you lash out, you are responsible for what comes back. And then you can say ok, I accept taht reminder that the other side is there as well and just go after individuals that are in my reach, or I can launch an invasion on another sovereign nation state or two.

    And Brits in Baghdad. Well they were in Baghdad, not at home watching TV.
     
  23. rogue_wookiee

    rogue_wookiee Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Apr 24, 2004
    What is going to stop them from lashing out at "allies" of America? If we tighten our borders and enforce the patriot act where will they go? Israel. Sure. But they will want terror to be more widespread. Not just isolated to Israel. Europe is the logical answer.
     
  24. Darth_Michael

    Darth_Michael Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Aug 24, 2002
    The terrorists are not primitives. They have a goal. They want the western influence out of the Middle East. Perhaps they dream about Islam World Domination, but their leaders are too smart to wish for the unrealistic and actually atempt it. Especially compared to some other world leader often visually compared to chimps.
     
  25. rogue_wookiee

    rogue_wookiee Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Apr 24, 2004
    And Europe isn't the west? :rolleyes:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.