Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

EagleAye · Dec 15, 2011

sangha said:
So if the US doesn't do everything that netanyahu demands, it means the US doesn't support Israel?

Seriously?

Your comment had been:

You had to go back more than 30 years to find a lack of US support for Israel

My reply was:

Seriously?
Obama and Netanyahu Clash Over Israeli Settlements - NYTimes.com

I only had to go back one year to find a lack of support, not 30 years.

sangha · Dec 15, 2011

EagleAye said:
So supplying weapons to organizations actively engaged in hostilities with Israel is not fighting a proxy war??? Really?

If it is, then we have been waging a proxy war against Iran for decades. Is it OK for us to do so, but wrong for Iran???? Really?

It seems to me that these heads of state, with access to information from their own intelligence services, who's job it is to know what's happening in their own backyard, would know more about it than you, me, or justabubba don't you think?

Arguments from authority are logical fallacies and prove nothing.

Please explain exactly what that aggression was.

Amongst other things, we help bring down a democratically elected govt in Iran, and trained the following govt how to torture its' citizens. We have also provided money, weapons and training to organizations and individuals who have attacked Iran and Iranian interests.

I'll grant you that the US screwed up prior to 1979. I don't like that either. But my question was about after 1979 and before 2003. Can you answer?

You don't get to decide which history counts, and which does not, but our govt admits that it has, and continues to, fund opposition to Iran, including military opposition, which is meddling in its affairs.

Lastly, my internet acronym knowledge is poor, sorry. What is "YMMV?"

Your Mileage May Vary, which is a way of saying "You might disagree"

sangha · Dec 15, 2011

EagleAye said:
Your comment had been:
My reply was:

I only had to go back one year to find a lack of support, not 30 years.

Only an extremist would argue that a disagreement on one issue means that we do not support Israel.

All you've shown is that we do not support EVERY Israeli position. (We never have)

EagleAye · Dec 15, 2011

sangha said:
Only an extremist would argue that a disagreement on one issue means that we do not support Israel.

All you've shown is that we do not support EVERY Israeli position. (We never have)

That's only one example. There's many more, of course. toomuchtime compiled on good list in this very thread:

In every one of Israel's wars, Israel has been restrained by US pressure. In 1949, Israeli forces were growing stronger and the Arab forces were in retreat. Had the war continued Israel would almost certainly have captured east Jerusalem, but the US backed the Arab and UK calls for a ceasefire and it was the US pressure that caused Israel to agree to the ceasefire in return for UN membership.

In 1956, Eisenhower actually threatened to use military force against Israel if it did not withdraw from Sinai. In 1967 and 1973 after Israel had destroyed the Arab air forces and Arab armor, Cairo, Damascus and Amman could have been captured within a few days, but US pressure stopped them. In the first Lebanon war, US pressure caused Sharon to allow the PLO to escape to Tunisia. It was US influence on Israel that saved Egypt, Syria and Jordan from more severe losses in their wars with Israel and that gave the Palestinian Arabs self government.

sangha · Dec 15, 2011

EagleAye said:
That's only one example. There's many more, of course. toomuchtime compiled on good list in this very thread:

Again, "not supporting EVERY Israeli position" is not the same as "not supporting Israel". Every year, we send Israel billions of dollars of support.

By your standard, we lack support for every nation, and always have. IOW, it's a distinction of no significance

EagleAye · Dec 15, 2011

sangha said:
If it is, then we have been waging a proxy war against Iran for decades. Is it OK for us to do so, but wrong for Iran???? Really?

Can you list examples?

sangha said:
Arguments from authority are logical fallacies and prove nothing.

Strawman

sangha said:
You don't get to decide which history counts, and which does not, but our govt admits that it has, and continues to, fund opposition to Iran, including military opposition, which is meddling in its affairs.

The case was made that Iran is developing nukes to defend itself from US meddling like placing the Shah in power. Iran itself overthrew him. Thus eliminating US interference. So for 24 years after the revolution the US was not an influential factor in Iran's government. Claiming that Iran's suddenly needs nukes 24 years afterward seems like a very belated response doesn't it?

Unless you can explain what "military opposition" has been used against Iran in that intervening 24 years, can you?

sangha said:
Your Mileage May Vary, which is a way of saying "You might disagree"

Okies. Thanks.

sangha · Dec 15, 2011

EagleAye said:
Can you list examples?

I already did. Twice

Strawman

You actually did argue that certain politicians must know more than I do so they must be right. That is an "argument by authority". The fact that you made the arguments means my response was not a straw man.

The case was made that Iran is developing nukes to defend itself from US meddling like placing the Shah in power. Iran itself overthrew him. Thus eliminating US interference. So for 24 years after the revolution the US was not an influential factor in Iran's government. Claiming that Iran's suddenly needs nukes 24 years afterward seems like a very belated response doesn't it?

Again, even the US gov has admitted that it helped overthrow Mossadegha (sp?) and place the Shah in power. It is dishonest to deny this fact.

Also, I mentioned continued US interference in Iranian affairs and continuing US support for individuals and orgs that have aggressed against Iran. It is also dishonest to ignore the evidence as if it hasn't been posted.

Unless you can explain what "military opposition" has been used against Iran in that intervening 24 years, can you?

Okies. Thanks.

Already done, by me and others. Continuing to ignore it is dishonest. There's no point in posting the facts to someone who ignores repeatedly ignores the posts which prove them wrong.

EagleAye · Dec 15, 2011

sangha said:
You actually did argue that certain politicians must know more than I do so they must be right. That is an "argument by authority". The fact that you made the arguments means my response was not a straw man.

I was asked for proof, I supplied it, from several sources, by "people who should know the facts." You deny this proof because, they are "people who should know the facts." That only leaves those who couldn't know the topic, where you could say "they don't know the topic." Nice little scam you got going there.

sangha said:
Again, even the US gov has admitted that it helped overthrow Mossadegha (sp?) and place the Shah in power. It is dishonest to deny this fact.

I haven't denied it and in fact I owned up to it here:

EagleAye said:
I'll grant you that the US screwed up prior to 1979. I don't like that either. But my question was about after 1979 and before 2003. Can you answer?

sangha said:
Also, I mentioned continued US interference in Iranian affairs and continuing US support for individuals and orgs that have aggressed against Iran. It is also dishonest to ignore the evidence as if it hasn't been posted.

Already done, by me and others. Continuing to ignore it is dishonest. There's no point in posting the facts to someone who ignores repeatedly ignores the posts which prove them wrong.

I have bolded what I am looking for. I am asking for examples about the continuing US support after 1979 and before 2003 when the nuclear program started. I recall none. If I'm wrong I'll own up to it. Just humor me and do it one more time. I already acknowledged placing the Shah was wrong. I'm looking for examples after that. Or if you can't provide examples, just own up to it. It's no biggee.

grip · Dec 16, 2011

EagleAye said:
Can you please explain how the US or Israel has "messed with their culture," between 1979 until 2003 (when Iran nuclear concerns arose)? I don't see how either country denied Iran freedoms or rights.

From Wiki...

1.

Commercial relations between Iran and the United States are restricted by American sanctions and consist mainly of Iranian purchases of food, spare parts, and medical products as well as American purchases of carpets and food. Sanctions originally imposed in 1995 by President Bill Clinton were renewed by President Bush, who cited the "unusual and extraordinary threat" to American national security posed by Iran. The 1995 executive orders prohibit American companies and their foreign subsidiaries from conducting business with Iran, while banning any "contract for the financing of the development of petroleum resources located in Iran". In addition, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (ILSA) imposed mandatory and discretionary sanctions on non-American companies investing more than $20 million annually in the Iranian oil and natural gas sectors.

2.

American intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in arming Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, although Bob Woodward states that the United States gave information to both sides, hoping "to engineer a stalemate. According to the American Senate Banking Committee, the administrations of Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous dual use items, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague. Secretary of Defence Frank C. Carlucci said: "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons." According to reports of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the U.S. Senate, the United States sold chemical weapons, including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever and botulism to Iraq until March 1992. The chairman of the Senate committee, Don Riegle, said: "The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think its a devastating record." In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright expressed regret for that support.

3.

In 1988, the United States launched Operation Praying Mantis against Iran, claiming that it was retaliation for the Iranian mining of areas of the Persian Gulf as part of the Iran-Iraq war. The American attack was the largest American naval combat operation since World War II. American action began with coordinated strikes by two surface groups that neutralized the Sassan oil platform and the Sirri oil platform of Iran. Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat. Damage to the oil platforms was eventually repaired. Iran sued for reparations at the International Court of Justice, stating that the United States breached the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The court dismissed the claim but noted that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on October 19, 1987 (Operation Nimble Archer) and April 18, 1988 (Operation Praying Mantis) cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."[60] The American attack helped pressure Iran to agree to a ceasefire with Iraq later that summer.

4.

On July 3, 1988, near the end of the Iran–Iraq War, the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iranian Airbus A300B2, which was on a scheduled commercial flight in Iranian airspace over the Strait of Hormuz. The attack killed 290 civilians from six nations, including 66 children. USS Vincennes was in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will. The United States initially contended that flight 655 was a warplane and then said that it was outside the civilian air corridor and did not respond to radio calls. Both statements were untrue, and the radio calls were made on military frequencies to which the airliner did not have access. According to the Iranian government, the attack was an intentional and unlawful act. Iran refused to accept the idea of mistaken identification, arguing that this constituted gross negligence and recklessness amounting to an international crime, because the aircraft was not on a trajectory that threatened the Vincennes and had not aimed radar at it. The United States has expressed regret for the loss of innocent life but has not apologized to the Iranian government.

That's a little bit of messing.

sangha · Dec 16, 2011

EagleAye said:
I was asked for proof, I supplied it, from several sources, by "people who should know the facts." You deny this proof because, they are "people who should know the facts." That only leaves those who couldn't know the topic, where you could say "they don't know the topic." Nice little scam you got going there.

The only thing you prove by quoting other people's opinion is that other people agree with you. WHen claiming that they are right because "they should know", you are making an argument by authority

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want to prove your point, you have to post the actual facts which prove your point, not claim that some authority figure has access to secret facts which prove you right

I

haven't denied it and in fact I owned up to it here:

And yet, you continue to argue that the US hasn't engaged in such behavior.

I have bolded what I am looking for. I am asking for examples about the continuing US support after 1979 and before 2003 when the nuclear program started. I recall none. If I'm wrong I'll own up to it. Just humor me and do it one more time. I already acknowledged placing the Shah was wrong. I'm looking for examples after that. Or if you can't provide examples, just own up to it. It's no biggee.

For one thing, you don't get to decide which bits of history count, and which do not. Secondly, examples of ongoing US support for such activities has been posted, several times by several posters. The Stuxnet worm is just one example of many

grip · Dec 16, 2011

EagleAye I will say this about the USA, I love my country more than any other and feel blessed to live here. And I don't bring up her mistakes to denigrate or overly criticize but in hopes of some admission when wrong. Without recognizing our errors we can never correct our policies or premature actions. I detest this new "preemptive strike policy" and "detaining enemy combatants" garbage. It's neither fair or humane and seemingly illegal IMO. This country never lost a War in the past century that it didn't start and never won one that it did. I believe right makes might.

EagleAye · Dec 16, 2011

grip said:
EagleAye I will say this about the USA, I love my country more than any other and feel blessed to live here. And I don't bring up her mistakes to denigrate or overly criticize but in hopes of some admission when wrong. Without recognizing our errors we can never correct our policies or premature actions.

Grip, don't sweat it, I never thought otherwise. This is a debate which I consider little more than an intellectual sporting event. We cannot "decide" US policy is here, only express what any of us think it "should be." This is only shooting the breeze...with fervor. I judge the "quality" of anyone's argument far more than it's "content."

I am running errands just now so I can't reply to your excellent earlier post just now. I'll return shortly and respond to you and Sangha in depth.

EagleAye · Dec 16, 2011

sangha said:
The only thing you prove by quoting other people's opinion is that other people agree with you. WHen claiming that they are right because "they should know", you are making an argument by authority
Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you want to prove your point, you have to post the actual facts which prove your point, not claim that some authority figure has access to secret facts which prove you right

Well, lets have a look at this, then. I posted the following links as proof of Iran's proxy war against Israel.
Wikileaks Revelations on – Iran – Hamas – Syria and Turkey | IsraelSeen.com
Iran and its Proxies » Center For Defense Studies
The Enduring Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Axis :: Middle East Forum
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/iran_e004.pdf

Your response was: "Arguments from authority are logical fallacies and prove nothing.," thus you deny this is acceptable proof. From your link defining the authority fallacy we get this:

The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.

The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

Since the "people" in all of the links agree on the same point we can determine there is a consensus. But Item #1 must be fulfilled for me to have a valid argument. Remember, a consensus is already reached amongst four separate sources so you must be claiming that I did not produce "legitimate experts," in order for your assertion of a fallacy to be correct. Here are the sources:

You are claiming the:
AEI Center for Defense Studies headed by Tom Donnelly knows nothing about military activities. Here's Tom Donnelly's qualitifications.

Tom Donnelly is the director of the Center for Defense Studies. He is the coauthor, with Frederick W. Kagan, of Lessons for a Long War: How America Can Win on New Battlefields (2010) and Ground Truth: The Future of U.S. Land Power (2008). Among his other recent books are Of Men and Materiel: The Crisis in Military Resources (2007), coedited with Gary J. Schmitt; The Military We Need (2005), and Operation Iraqi Freedom: A Strategic Assessment (2004). From 1995 to 1999, he was policy group director and a professional staff member for the House Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Donnelly also served as a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. He is a former editor of Armed Forces Journal, Army Times, and Defense News.

You are claiming that Michael Rubin can know nothing about Iran activities. Here are Michael Rubin's qualifications:

Michael Rubin's major research area is the Middle East, with special focus on Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Kurdish society. He also writes frequently on transformative diplomacy and governance issues. At AEI, Mr. Rubin chaired the "Dissent and Reform in the Arab World" conference series. He was the lead drafter of the Bipartisan Policy Center's 2008 report on Iran. In addition to his work at AEI, several times each month, Mr. Rubin travels to military bases across the United States and Europe to instruct senior U.S. Army and Marine officers deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan on issues relating to regional state history and politics, Shiism, the theological basis of extremism, and strategy.

Senior Lecturer, Naval Postgraduate School, 2007-present
Lecturer, Johns Hopkins University, 2010
Editor, Middle East Quarterly, 2004-2009
International Election Observer, Bangladesh, 2008
Political Adviser, Coalition Provisional Authority (Baghdad), 2003-2004
Staff Adviser, Iran and Iraq, Office of the Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs), 2002-2004
Editorial Board, Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, 2001-2002, 2004
International Affairs Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, 2002-2003
Fellow, The Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations, Hebrew University (Jerusalem), 2001-2002
Fellow, Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, 2000-2001
Visiting Lecturer, Universities of Sulaymani, Salahuddin, and Duhok (Iraqi Kurdistan), 2000-2001
Lecturer, Department of History, Yale University, 1999-2000
Assistant Editor, Iranian Studies, 1994-1997

You are claiming that the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center headed by Dr. Reuven Erlich knows nothing about the Middle-East intelligence activities. Here are Dr. Reuven Erlich's qualifications:

Dr. Reuven Erlich (Avi-Ran) was born in Poland on April 28, 1946. He served in the IDF Intelligence Corps, mainly as an analyst specializing Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian affairs. He retired in 1994 with the rank of colonel after 30 years of service in staff and operational duties.

Between 1985 and 2000 he served as deputy to Ambassador Uri Lubrani, Israel’s government coordinator for Lebanese affairs. Between 1991 and 1993 he was a member of the Israeli delegation to the Israeli-Lebanese peace negotiations in Washington.

Dr. Erlich also focused on Syrian-Lebanese issues in his academic studies. In 1998 he was awarded a PhD degree from Tel Aviv University for his dissertation on “The Policy of the Zionist Movement and the State of Israel toward Lebanon (1919-1958).” He has published five books and many articles dealing with those subjects, including a book published in the United States under the name Reuven Avi-Ran called The Syrian Involvement in Lebanon since 1975, Westview Press, 1991.

Dr. Erlich’s current duties include: Head of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies; Lecturer on intelligence and head of intelligence studies at the Lauder School of Government at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya.

I think these people qualify as experts, and they reach a consensus. So items 1 and 2 are fulfilled to make a valid argument. I find it interesting that you believe these people aren't qualified. What are your qualifications that say you have more expertise than these people?

sangha said:
For one thing, you don't get to decide which bits of history count, and which do not. Secondly, examples of ongoing US support for such activities has been posted, several times by several posters. The Stuxnet worm is just one example of many

Forget it, Sangha. I was asking about activities within a certain time frame. You failed yet again to answer correctly. The stuxnet virus was outside the time frame. But don't worry, Grip correctly comprehended my request, did not evade, demonstrated a good work ethic and talent for research, and gave an excellent answer.

EagleAye · Dec 16, 2011

grip said:
From Wiki...

That's a little bit of messing.

Excellent post, Grip. I appreciate the honest effort.

Back to it, then. These are good points but I must disregard items 1 and 4. Number 1, because when you declare yourself an enemy of a country you can hardly be surprised when they cut off trade with you. That's not messing, that's just SOP. Number 4, I remember now. The USS Vincennes was under attack at the time when the civilian airliner strayed from normal flight plans and flew directly towards the Vincennes. The Vincennes locked on and shot the airliner down. What all this means is and has been the subject of heated debate. I don't believe this was a random act of violence against civilians, rather it was a terrible and tragic mistake on the part of the Vincennes crew. So it was not an attack on Iran.

Items 2 and 3 I must accept. As I promised, I admit that there was indeed continuing efforts to disrupt Iran by the US after 1979. The US supplied arms to Iraq and thus waged a proxy war against Iran via Iraq.

My reason in asking in the first place was someone said Iran needs nukes for self-defense. I didn't think this was a valid reason because for 24 years, the US and Iran wasn't engaged in aggression against Iran. But yes, the US did via Iraq, and also conducted Operation Praying Mantis. After that, nothing. But even after your evidence I still think Iran has no valid reason for possessing nuclear weapons. Here's why:

1. If Iran wants nukes for "defense" they'll be dropping the nukes in their own region, which means poisoning the Middle-East and Iran. An impractical weapon that will only infuriate other nations not in the battle. It could severely damage the flow of oil from the entire ME and thus cripple many nations outside the ME. Bad news overall.
2. Claiming they might use them for defense because the US might use nukes on Iran is a spurious claim. Iran has provoked the US frequently with no nuclear response. If the US would've nuked Iran we would've done it by now.
3. Claiming Israel has nukes so Iran needs them too is also spurious. Iran has supplied arms, supplies, and safe haven for Israel's enemies for years with no nuclear retaliation from Israel. If they haven't done it by now, they won't.
4. Claiming the nukes will act as a deterrent is also no good. Iran has frequently antagonized two nuclear nations, USA and Israel, positively begging for a fight. If Iran is not deterred by nuclear-armed countries, why should anyone else be?

So no, Iran doesn't have a defensive need for nukes. If they want them so bad they will defy the UN, I must conclude Iran wants nukes for "offensive" purposes. And that cannot be good for anyone. So it must be stopped.

grip · Dec 16, 2011

EagleAye said:
Excellent post, Grip. I appreciate the honest effort.

Back to it, then. These are good points but I must disregard items 1 and 4. Number 1, because when you declare yourself an enemy of a country you can hardly be surprised when they cut off trade with you. That's not messing, that's just SOP. Number 4, I remember now. The USS Vincennes was under attack at the time when the civilian airliner strayed from normal flight plans and flew directly towards the Vincennes. The Vincennes locked on and shot the airliner down. What all this means is and has been the subject of heated debate. I don't believe this was a random act of violence against civilians, rather it was a terrible and tragic mistake on the part of the Vincennes crew. So it was not an attack on Iran.

Items 2 and 3 I must accept. As I promised, I admit that there was indeed continuing efforts to disrupt Iran by the US after 1979. The US supplied arms to Iraq and thus waged a proxy war against Iran via Iraq.

My reason in asking in the first place was someone said Iran needs nukes for self-defense. I didn't think this was a valid reason because for 24 years, the US and Iran wasn't engaged in aggression against Iran. But yes, the US did via Iraq, and also conducted Operation Praying Mantis. After that, nothing. But even after your evidence I still think Iran has no valid reason for possessing nuclear weapons. Here's why:

1. If Iran wants nukes for "defense" they'll be dropping the nukes in their own region, which means poisoning the Middle-East and Iran. An impractical weapon that will only infuriate other nations not in the battle. It could severely damage the flow of oil from the entire ME and thus cripple many nations outside the ME. Bad news overall.
2. Claiming they might use them for defense because the US might use nukes on Iran is a spurious claim. Iran has provoked the US frequently with no nuclear response. If the US would've nuked Iran we would've done it by now.
3. Claiming Israel has nukes so Iran needs them too is also spurious. Iran has supplied arms, supplies, and safe haven for Israel's enemies for years with no nuclear retaliation from Israel. If they haven't done it by now, they won't.
4. Claiming the nukes will act as a deterrent is also no good. Iran has frequently antagonized two nuclear nations, USA and Israel, positively begging for a fight. If Iran is not deterred by nuclear-armed countries, why should anyone else be?

So no, Iran doesn't have a defensive need for nukes. If they want them so bad they will defy the UN, I must conclude Iran wants nukes for "offensive" purposes. And that cannot be good for anyone. So it must be stopped.

Here's my last opinion on this subject and of course it's just that an opinion, not hair splitting over details. Though I believe the over arching theme is fairly accurate.

I'm not in favor of being apologists running around saying we're sorry all the time, looking idiotic. I'm not naive enough to not know that geopolitical strategy is a necessary evil. I have no doubt we're also struggling with Russia and China behind the scenes supporting Iran because they also want more than their share of the energy resources pie. We've been playing chess with those two since right after WWII but we take it too far sometimes and the little countries and peoples pay the price. The propaganda and covert ops by the military and intelligence agencies appear to have little oversight or strong enough system of checks and balances. I recently read that when Obama asked the Seal Team "who took out bin Laden", they replied "we all did" in order to protect the identity of the member from retaliation. But I think if the Commander in Chief ask "who pooped on my lawn" the dog better bark.

One of my favorite TV shows "JAG" tried to give an accurate representation of the military and Navy in particular and I've never seen a more honorable and dedicated bunch of individuals. My "beef" isn't with the people who carry out their orders it's their leaders playing political games to excess. We've secretively tried to control our energy interests in the ME with unethical manipulations causing unexpected "blowback" and a hotbed of resentment. We've underestimated their ferocity like we did with the Vietnamese. And the explanation from our leadership is "they're all religious fanatics who make no sense and hate us for no reason". I'm sorry that's simply neither believable or acceptable too me. Do I believe some of them are extreme and off their nut, definitely. But I think our approach to dealing with a whole region of peoples by ignoring their basic human rights like hypocritical bullies is sad and embarrassing. We need to use the same high standard of principles in foreign relations that we expect from others and not use the blanket excuse of "National Security" or "they do worse" out of fear and vengeance.

If we are to abide by the preamble of the Declaration of Independence from the founding fathers of this nation and hold up our heads to the peoples of this world as sincere, then we must not engage in such ridiculous subterfuge and downright dishonesty. A country is only as strong as its members convictions to their values and there can be no duplicity or we shall fail as a world leader and lose the very things we sought to gain. Holy crap I need some Tylenol and shot of Nyquil.. My self righteousness has overflowed. :doh

grip · Dec 16, 2011

Oh and as far as Iran getting nukes, unless Israel or us combined can keep knocking out their sites they'll have them in a year or so. And if we do knock them out, then whether Iran goes all out in a response depends on how well they sell it to their populace. I'm not that worried about their response alone, so much as other countries being drawn in or acting while we're distracted. And how the oil markets react to distress. They could be the thing that finally knocks the economy into a free fall, then it's gets messy.

EagleAye · Dec 16, 2011

grip said:
Oh and as far as Iran getting nukes, unless Israel or us combined can keep knocking out their sites they'll have them in a year or so. And if we do knock them out, then whether Iran goes all out in a response depends on how well they sell it to their populace. I'm not that worried about their response alone, so much as other countries being drawn in or acting while we're distracted. And how the oil markets react to distress. They could be the thing that finally knocks the economy into a free fall, then it's gets messy.

If the US or Israels restricts its strikes to nuclear facilities I think there will be little risk of other nations being drawn in. I don't think the cost of oil will be critically affected, although it probably will be temporarily. You can be sure experts are pondering that right now. I think Iran's threat to use oil as a weapon is an empty threat because they need those oil sales as much as the EU and other countries need the oil.

grip · Dec 16, 2011

EagleAye said:
If the US or Israels restricts its strikes to nuclear facilities I think there will be little risk of other nations being drawn in. I don't think the cost of oil will be critically affected, although it probably will be temporarily. You can be sure experts are pondering that right now. I think Iran's threat to use oil as a weapon is an empty threat because they need those oil sales as much as the EU and other countries need the oil.

Unless provoked otherwise they'll restrict the strikes to strictly nuke sites. The cost of oil is probably the biggest wildcard factor and our worst fear because of speculators and hoarders looking to make a killing. Investors control so much power through finances and economic impact that they are the most dangerous players in today's world. Iran's threat to use oil or other means are probably "big wind". But if we miscalculate by letting so much as fart in the wrong direction the whole ME could spin out. I think it's getting that hinky over there but sure hope I'm wrong.

toomuchtime_ · Dec 16, 2011

grip said:
Unless provoked otherwise they'll restrict the strikes to strictly nuke sites. The cost of oil is probably the biggest wildcard factor and our worst fear because of speculators and hoarders looking to make a killing. Investors control so much power through finances and economic impact that they are the most dangerous players in today's world. Iran's threat to use oil or other means are probably "big wind". But if we miscalculate by letting so much as fart in the wrong direction the whole ME could spin out. I think it's getting that hinky over there but sure hope I'm wrong.

You are. First of all, whichever country strikes first, will try to destroy Iran's air defenses for their own protection and then because of Iran's numerous threats of retaliation, Iran's missile will become targets as well. To do less would be irresponsible. If Iran were to attack shipping in the Gulf or try to block the Straits of Hormuz or launch guerrilla attacks there would have to be further actions taken against Iran's naval forces and ground troops. No one is going to give Iran a free pass to retaliate for the strike on its nuclear facilities. Whatever Iran does, if oil prices spike, it will only be for a few weeks at most. After all, all the developed economies have been preparing for this for years.

EagleAye · Dec 17, 2011

grip said:
The cost of oil is probably the biggest wildcard factor and our worst fear because of speculators and hoarders looking to make a killing. Investors control so much power through finances and economic impact that they are the most dangerous players in today's world.

Speculators helped throw the whole world into a tailspin in 2008, and those skyrocketing prices were based on nothing but smoke and mirrors. If they expect to pull bull**** like that again they better make sure their families are safely hidden in tiny villages in the Ukraine. You can be sure very "ordinary looking" people from MI6 and other services are keeping a careful watch on the players in oil speculation. These "gentlemen" from MI6 could be very "convincing" about keeping oil prices stable.

ecofarm · Dec 17, 2011

dealing with a whole region of peoples by ignoring their basic human rights

Who does that. You mean the despots of the mideast?

GreenvilleGrows · Dec 17, 2011

I don't think it's fair to criticize Obama about the "hesitancy" seen in his view on Iran. He's been very clear since prior to being elected as President that he would be hesitant to make decisions or take a stand across the board - not just in Iran.

grip · Dec 17, 2011

toomuchtime_ said:
You are. First of all, whichever country strikes first, will try to destroy Iran's air defenses for their own protection and then because of Iran's numerous threats of retaliation, Iran's missile will become targets as well. To do less would be irresponsible. If Iran were to attack shipping in the Gulf or try to block the Straits of Hormuz or launch guerrilla attacks there would have to be further actions taken against Iran's naval forces and ground troops. No one is going to give Iran a free pass to retaliate for the strike on its nuclear facilities. Whatever Iran does, if oil prices spike, it will only be for a few weeks at most. After all, all the developed economies have been preparing for this for years.

Well to be honest I've read of three options on the table for the President, Sec Defense and General Staff to consider. One is a Peenemünde option that would presuppose a narrowly focused, short duration strike largely limited to nuclear facilities. It would aim to inflict serious damage, but also to restrict the scope of conflict. Such an attack would rely on U.S. stealth systems, electronic warfare, cruise missiles and air power. U.S. allies could play a supporting role, especially in dealing with an Iranian response, but American forces would carry the brunt of the action.

Another is a submission option that would call for a sustained air and naval campaign against nuclear associated facilities, air defense systems, command centers, offensive missile forces, naval forces and the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Republic (IRGC), the regime’s praetorian guard and shock troops. This campaign would aim to severely damage the nuclear program, limit Iran’s ability to defend against the attack (and subsequent restrikes, if necessary) and reduce its capabilities for post-attack retaliation. You may be correct toomuchtime_ I've just read where the US military is prepared to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran within several hours only. Nearly 400 powerful smart bombs were sent to the base on Diego Garcia in March 2010 just for this contingency. And they are worried about Iran's new missile systems (principally the Shahab 3 variants and Sejjl types) that allow Iran to strike targets throughout the Middle East, including population centers, military facilities, infrastructure and U.S. forces based in the region.

A regime-change option would require a broad military offensive that could include nuclear facilities, air defenses, Iran’s retaliatory capabilities, leadership targets, regime supporters, and national infrastructure and economic targets. This could include putting some forces on the ground to collect intelligence and neutralize specific targets that are difficult to strike effectively with air power. No large-scale ground operations are likely, but they cannot be ruled out at some levels of conflict and in some scenarios, such as those that posit a need to open and secure passage through the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf. Though Turkey and Israel would most likely be drawn in escalating the conflict into unknown reactions from other countries and groups, especially responses from Hamas and Hizballah.

War with Iran would not be limited to military action; it will extend to the diplomatic, economic and social domains. U.S. decision-makers might prefer a limited war that would privilege U.S. military and technical advantages, but Iran can force a broader conflict, where it can employ its own political, economic and social means of waging war, including terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and against U.S. interests abroad. The challenge for the United States would be to conduct the conflict so that the longer and broader the war, the more Iran would lose. But pipelines would be damaged as well as terror strikes on neighboring oil producers causing global disruption in markets. A decapitation strategy, we know, did not fare so well in March 2003 against Iraq, and it would probably be harder to pull off against a more deeply institutionalized polity like Iran.

I've gleaned this information from several sources including Washington "think-tanks", so it's not simply talking out my ass.

grip · Dec 17, 2011

EagleAye said:
Speculators helped throw the whole world into a tailspin in 2008, and those skyrocketing prices were based on nothing but smoke and mirrors. If they expect to pull bull**** like that again they better make sure their families are safely hidden in tiny villages in the Ukraine. You can be sure very "ordinary looking" people from MI6 and other services are keeping a careful watch on the players in oil speculation. These "gentlemen" from MI6 could be very "convincing" about keeping oil prices stable.

Agreed 100% about the CDO's being 90% based on made up wealth and it's a "bubble" that never completely popped, scary. And I also agree though they are probably leery about causing another debacle it won't stop market panic or the "players" from gauging. It's too much in their nature to not dig for profits because it's all they know. You'd have to be in that game to realize how completely deluded by paper wealth that ilk has become and how much the top heads have influence in the halls of power.

ecofarm · Dec 17, 2011

grip said:
...Iran can force a broader conflict, where it can employ its own political, economic and social means of waging war, including terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and against U.S. interests abroad.

With Iran's leadership removed from power, I think we can sit back and let the profs/professionals take over. Anyway, they are already doing what you worry about above. You don't think Iran uses its political, economic and social means to wage war in Palestine/Israel, from Syria and in Iraq? You don't think Iran supports terrorist attacks as much as possible right now?

Really, refusing to act because we are scared of terrorism means the terrorists win... doesn't it?

Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

EagleAye

sangha

sangha

EagleAye

sangha

EagleAye

sangha

EagleAye

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand

sangha

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand

EagleAye

EagleAye

EagleAye

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand

EagleAye

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand

toomuchtime_

Well-known member

EagleAye

ecofarm

global liberation

GreenvilleGrows

Well-known member

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand

ecofarm

global liberation