Page 23 of 80 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 796

Thread: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

  1. #221
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    It always amuses me when people have talks about having talks. I would be more impressed if they just had talks about the salient points and get it over with.
    From what I have seen of such "talks" about having talks, one side wants to swerve public opinion that they will be reasonable while actually stalling the real talks until they have completed what they want to get done.

    Ho Chi Minh's negotiaters spent years arguing about the tabe to be used and wouldn't let the real talks start until it was settled.

    Of Course, when Nixon took office, he simply sent B-52 Bombers into North Vietnam and started hitting the targest that Johnson forbade. Shortly after that, Ho Chi Minh decided that the size, shape and color of the table didn't matter, heck, he no longer cared if there was a table, just as long as he could get the bombs to stop.

    Personally, I think Teddie Roosevelt had it right "Talk softly and carry a big stick". Talks always seem to come out better for your side if you have good military strength and the otherside does not doubt your will to use it. If the military option is taken off the table or is not credible, then the otherside has no incentive to negotiate in good faith.

    In the case of the negotiations with Iran, there is not really a credible military option. Most of Europe has shown that they will not back military operations, The French will probably block any UN actions, not to mention the Russian Federation which shares a border with Iran (and has recently been trending back towards it's Soviet ways). So of the larger Players, that leaves the US and Britain, both of which currently have internal problems and "leaders" who are considered unlikely to actually use military force. That leaves Israel, they have the guts and determination to do it, but it is really questionable if they have the means if going it alone. Israel has a very fine military, but it is small and thus it is questionable if they could actually but together a force large enough to get the job done and project it that far from their border. I personally believe that they will try at some point. Saudi Arrabia has worked for years to try to curb and reduce Iranian influence in the Region, but since it is believed that Israel is the primary target for Iran, SA will do nothing. They want to bring down Iran, but they will not do anything that even remotely could be viewed as helping Israel (well that and the fact that although they have some of the best military equipment available, their military still sucks).

    So without a credible military threat, Iran has no real interests in negotiating. Sanctions are also not a credible path. They sound good, but just like times in the past, France, Russia and China (as well as a few others) will talk out of one side of their mouth and turn around a violate the sanctions anyway. Although, France does have it's first president that is not from the socialist, so he might just buck that historical trend.
    Last edited by DVSentinel; 02-22-12 at 12:27 PM.

  2. #222
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,129

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    From what I have seen of such "talks" about having talks, one side wants to swerve public opinion that they will be reasonable while actually stalling the real talks until they have completed what they want to get done.

    Ho Chi Minh's negotiaters spent years arguing about the tabe to be used and wouldn't let the real talks start until it was settled.

    Of Course, when Nixon came took office, he simply sent B-52 Bombers into North Vietnam and started hitting the targest that Johnson forbade. Shortly after that, Ho Chi Minh decided that the size, shape and color of the table didn't matter, heck, he no longer cared if there was a table, just as long as he could get the bombs to stop.
    and how did that work out? a lost war
    weak attempt at revising history

    Personally, I think Teddie Roosevelt had it right "Talk softly and carry a big stick".
    here is the actual quote:
    Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far
    Talks always seem to come out better for your side if you have good military strength and the otherside does not doubt your will to use it.
    if this were actually the case, then we would not have lost the war in viet nam

    If the military option is taken off the table or is not credible, then the otherside has no incentive to negotiate in good faith.
    we see this today. the Palestinians recognize if they stand down they will be run over. only by exercising their military options can they cause israel to want to negotiate to return the land it took and upon which it is now building

    In the case of the negotiations with Iran, there is not really a credible military option. Most of Europe has shown that they will not back military operations, The French will probably block any UN actions, not to mention the Russian Federation which shares a border with Iran (and has recently been trending back towards it's Soviet ways). So of the larger Players, that leaves the US and Britain, both of which currently have internal problems and "leaders" who are considered unlikely to actually use military force.
    anybody think india and especially china - our creditor - will be pleased with an assault on its trading partner. a partner who oils their nations' industry

    That leaves Israel, they have the guts and determination to do it, but it is really questionable if they have the means if going it alone. Israel has a very fine military, but it is small and thus it is questionable if they could actually but together a force large enough to get the job done and project it that far from their border. I personally believe that they will try at some point.
    from the rising drumbeats i fear you may be right on this point. israel has no reservations about making unprovoked strikes. and where does israel, a nuclear power which, unlike iran, has NOT signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, get its standing to take our the nuclear capacity of another sovereign nation?

    Saudi Arrabia has worked for years to try to curb and reduce Iranian influence in the Region, but since it is believed that Israel is the primary target for Iran, SA will do nothing.
    nothing publicly
    they WILL allow overflights and they WILL provide refueling of israeli strike aircraft on their 1000+ mile flight to iranian targets
    that the backward house of saud is opposed to iran is one reason we should instead consider opening diplomatic talks with iran to forge cooperative agreements with that nation, populated by citizens who appreciate western culture and ideas ... unlike the saudis

    They want to bring down Iran, but they will not do anything that even remotely could be viewed as helping Israel (well that and the fact that although they have some of the best military equipment available, their military still sucks).
    their help will be covert, not overt. but they will help israel take out iranian facilities

    So without a credible military threat, Iran has no real interests in negotiating.
    here is why iran has no interest in negotiating: a threat in their region - israel - has nuclear weapons and is a very willing nation when it comes to using its arms against others. iran needs nuclear capacity to prevent israel from taking unprovoked military actions with impunity

    want to get iran to stop making nuclear weapons. get israel to eliminate its nuclear capability

    Sanctions are also not a credible path. They sound good, but just like times in the past, France, Russia and China (as well as a few others) will talk out of one side of their mouth and turn around a violate the sanctions anyway. Although, France does have it's first president that is not from the socialist, so he might just buck that historical trend.
    the price of oil, due to these sanctions, has already risen to the point that the increased oil revenues to iran more than offset the financial losses intended by the sanctions
    that has worked out well, hasn't it [/s]
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  3. #223
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    08-09-13 @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,600

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post


    Saudi Arrabia has worked for years to try to curb and reduce Iranian influence in the Region, but since it is believed that Israel is the primary target for Iran, SA will do nothing. They want to bring down Iran, but they will not do anything that even remotely could be viewed as helping Israel (well that and the fact that although they have some of the best military equipment available, their military still sucks).

    Iran has been the enemy of Saudi Arabia since 1950 because of the British Operation Ajax and the fact that Iran was getting screwed by what is now BP while Ibn Saud had negotiated a 50-50 revenue split...

    The British tried to undermine US Saudi relations for decades.. because they were so ticked off that they had lost the Saudi oil concession in the 1930s.

    The Saudis have NO ambitions with regard to Iran.. They don't want their land, their oil or to dominate and convert the Shia.

    They want the Iranians to stay off the Arabian Peninsula..
    Last edited by sharon; 02-22-12 at 12:55 PM.

  4. #224
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    from the rising drumbeats i fear you may be right on this point. israel has no reservations about making unprovoked strikes. and where does israel, a nuclear power which, unlike iran, has NOT signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, get its standing to take our the nuclear capacity of another sovereign nation?

    here is why iran has no interest in negotiating: a threat in their region - israel - has nuclear weapons and is a very willing nation when it comes to using its arms against others. iran needs nuclear capacity to prevent israel from taking unprovoked military actions with impunity
    Israel has a vested interest in stopping Iranian nuclear weapons because Israel doesn't want to be the "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut".

    When was the last time Israel took, "unprovoked military actions with impunity," against Iran? I don't seem to remember any. And don't try to claim the killings of Iranian nuclear scientists. Those were intelligence operations not military operations. It's not even proven it was done by Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    want to get iran to stop making nuclear weapons. get israel to eliminate its nuclear capability
    And I suppose if you asked a mugger to not take your money, "pretty please," he'd do it, right?
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  5. #225
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,647

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Isn't Israel in UN violation having nukes? What's the dealio on that?

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  6. #226
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    Isn't Israel in UN violation having nukes? What's the dealio on that?
    No they aren't. Israel never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They had nukes before it was created.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  7. #227
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,313

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    we see this today. the Palestinians recognize if they stand down they will be run over. only by exercising their military options can they cause israel to want to negotiate to return the land it took and upon which it is now building
    Wait. Are you justifying 'military action' by Hamas against Israel.

  8. #228
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,129

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    No they aren't. Israel never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They had nukes before it was created.
    yes, israel wants the UN to enforce against iran a treaty that israel refuses to sign
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  9. #229
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    yes, israel wants the UN to enforce against iran a treaty that israel refuses to sign
    So should the whole treaty (with its many signatories) be null and void because Israel refuses to sign it?

    I don't think worldwide treaties should revolve around what only Israel agrees or disagrees with, do you?
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  10. #230
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    So should the whole treaty (with its many signatories) be null and void because Israel refuses to sign it?

    I don't think worldwide treaties should revolve around what only Israel agrees or disagrees with, do you?
    No, but international pressure should have been placed on Israel to sign it. I.e. no support from the U.S. unless the treaty is signed.

Page 23 of 80 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •