Iran: Should we go?

Can we launch a thread about the Sudan? I'm just afraid people will kill me for these kinds of topics.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Can we launch a thread about the Sudan? I'm just afraid people will kill me for these kinds of topics.

Yes, launch a thread about Sudan...

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: So Comrade, in short, are you for a war against Iran, or not?

1. I have serious reservations about the information we're being presented with. Bush has already shown once his willingness to-- let's call a spade a spade-- lie to the American people, distort intelligence, manipulate the truth, in order to gain support for going to war. This isn't speculation at this point, it's well-documented fact. So I don't trust anything I hear fromthe Bush Administration.

2. I don't believe for a nanosecond that Iran wants nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

3. It's clear that we've surrounded Iran, and it makes sense that Iran would want to have an effective deterrent to any planned U.S. military action.

4. Iran muddies the waters by calling for the annihilation of Israel every other day or so.

5. Iran is run by Islamic extremists. The United States was attacked by Islamic extremists. It's not hard to imagine secenarios in which one Islamic extremist helps another Islamic extremist detonate a nuclear bomb in the United States.

These facts don't add up to a necessity to go to war, but they do add up, in my opinion, to the necessity to destroy Iran's nuclear capability.

Good points and I understand your leaning towards possibly missile strikes on the known objects, instead of a real guerilla type of war.

Oh, I thought this thread was about going on vacation in Iran...

Boy, am I embarassed! :D

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: So Comrade, in short, are you for a war against Iran, or not?

1. I have serious reservations about the information we're being presented with. Bush has already shown once his willingness to-- let's call a spade a spade-- lie to the American people, distort intelligence, manipulate the truth, in order to gain support for going to war. This isn't speculation at this point, it's well-documented fact. So I don't trust anything I hear fromthe Bush Administration.

2. I don't believe for a nanosecond that Iran wants nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

3. It's clear that we've surrounded Iran, and it makes sense that Iran would want to have an effective deterrent to any planned U.S. military action.

4. Iran muddies the waters by calling for the annihilation of Israel every other day or so.

5. Iran is run by Islamic extremists. The United States was attacked by Islamic extremists. It's not hard to imagine secenarios in which one Islamic extremist helps another Islamic extremist detonate a nuclear bomb in the United States.

These facts don't add up to a necessity to go to war, but they do add up, in my opinion, to the necessity to destroy Iran's nuclear capability.

Good points and I understand your leaning towards possibly missile strikes on the known objects, instead of a real guerilla type of war.

Well, missile strikes are certainly an option, but they don't have to be the first choice. One can imagine other possibilities. For example, diplomatic sanctions. Economic sanctions. An embargo on Iranian oil. Fomenting ethnic unrest within Iran-- for example, encouraging the Kurds within Iran to join with the Iraqi Kurds in forming their own state. Same thing with the Armenians and other groups. Fomenting political unrest within Iran. There are lots of opportunities for fucking with 'em that don't require military actionon our part.

Taboo # 7 wrote: Oh, I thought this thread was about going on vacation in Iran...

Boy, am I embarassed! :D

Pretty nice country, Iran. Uh, pretty good sheep country...

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Well, missile strikes are certainly an option, but they don't have to be the first choice. One can imagine other possibilities. For example, diplomatic sanctions. Economic sanctions. An embargo on Iranian oil. Fomenting ethnic unrest within Iran-- for example, encouraging the Kurds within Iran to join with the Iraqi Kurds in forming their own state. Same thing with the Armenians and other groups. Fomenting political unrest within Iran. There are lots of opportunities for fucking with 'em that don't require military actionon our part.

As for sanctions, I doubt they'll work as, like I said, Ahmanedijad builds his rule not on Realpolitik but rather ideology (in his case - extremist). To set unrest in the country by inciting different ethnical minorities could bring a greater chaos in te region for the whole new century.

Taboo # 7 wrote: Oh, I thought this thread was about going on vacation in Iran...

Boy, am I embarassed! :D

Actually you might be welcome to go

I want to believe that populations are not as nasty as their leaders. In fact, I do not want to believe it, I frankly believe it.

Today's world is no more divided into two like it was in Berlin. It is like a full and single fragmented hard-drive. And defrag it, by getting rid of these nasty people using intelligence services, would be a cheaper and safer way as a process. Why letting things do and having bugs like expensive wars in matters of lives, silly costs on environment and money ?

Jiphy wrote: It is like a full and single fragmented hard-drive. And defrag it, by getting rid of these nasty people using intelligence services, would be a cheaper and safer way as a process. Why letting things do and having bugs like expensive wars in matters of lives, silly costs on environment and money ?

I used to believe it but how many examples do you know? Castro, Hussein, Milosevic, Kim Jong Il and so forth - none of them was ever taken care of by "intelligent services", so this reality doesn't support such a reasonable idea.

Plus, as you know, militaries always want a real war - in every country - such is their nature :)

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Well, missile strikes are certainly an option, but they don't have to be the first choice. One can imagine other possibilities. For example, diplomatic sanctions. Economic sanctions. An embargo on Iranian oil. Fomenting ethnic unrest within Iran-- for example, encouraging the Kurds within Iran to join with the Iraqi Kurds in forming their own state. Same thing with the Armenians and other groups. Fomenting political unrest within Iran. There are lots of opportunities for fucking with 'em that don't require military actionon our part.

As for sanctions, I doubt they'll work as, like I said, Ahmanedijad builds his rule not on Realpolitik but rather ideology (in his case - extremist). To set unrest in the country by inciting different ethnical minorities could bring a greater chaos in te region for the whole new century.

The point of sanctions is to cripple the regime. First, they have no capital for their projects-- building atomic weapons, for example. Second, at least theoretically, sanctions foment unrest within the nation, and that can lead to new leadership. Sanctions didn't foment unrest in Iraq, but they might in Iran, because Iran holds elections.

The closest thing to a democratic state in the Islamic middle east is the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq. Encouraging the formation of a democratic Kurdish state would be a positive development. So would "chaos" within enemy states.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Encouraging the formation of a democratic Kurdish state would be a positive development. So would "chaos" within enemy states.

Jeez, Comrade you're suggesting the worst scenario for the Middle East - war of all against all. Lucky if you can control those processes within that chaos. But something tells me no one will be able to gain control over it and under in the shade of these numerous chaotic inserrections, attacks etc. it'd be easier than ever to sneak nukes and make a big bang. Or you suggest US soldiers somewhere inbetween over there?

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Encouraging the formation of a democratic Kurdish state would be a positive development. So would "chaos" within enemy states.

Jeez, Comrade you're suggesting the worst scenario for the Middle East - war of all against all. Lucky if you can control those processes within that chaos. But something tells me no one will be able to gain control over it and under in the shade of these numerous chaotic inserrections, attacks etc. it'd be easier than ever to sneak nukes and make a big bang. Or you suggest US soldiers somewhere inbetween over there?

Who's going to go to war against a Kurdish state? Turkey doesn't want a Kurdish state, but it's against Turkey's interests to go against our interests. So who else doesn't want a Kurdish state? Syria and Iran. From that perspective, a Kurdish state would be a good thing, because it would keep those countries busy dealing with internal unrest. It would also be a democratic, pro-U.S. state, which exists...nowhere. Another plus for us.

Stable extremist regimes aren't "stability." The "mideast stability" you're clinging to is an illusion. The only thing that's going to bring stability in the long run is a reshuffle of the deck.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: encouraging the Kurds within Iran to join with the Iraqi Kurds in forming their own state.

No good way. For Kurds are in Iran, Iraq and Turkey. EU does everything possible to let things last with the problem of the integration of Turkey within itself. Just like if it wanted to cancel this option.

First point. W does everything possible to make Turkey join the EU, which is against most Europeans' will. He frightens us to death enough with the péril islamique that we are all afraid to live with a muslim country within us. Just remember what Fox and CNN showed you this winter with riots in France.

Second point. W's "go to war in the name of God" behavior. In Europe, at least on the Continent, we already had our religious war with Muslims. Holy Empire against Turkey... So a war against islam is not compatible with the help of Turkey in our mind, this country being the most immediate danger.

Third point. If Turkey were to be in the EU, the problem of the Kurds would be an internal affair. Can you seriously imagine a gathering of Christian countries trying to sort the problem of the Kurds with his two closest neighbors in the area which would be Iraq and Iran ?

Keep in mind that Europeans cannot see these problems as the US Foreign Office can see them. Even if they consider that Moscow still is, in a way, the enemy that it used to be as the capital city of former USSR, the average European feels that he has more in common with someone from Moscow than with someone from Ankara...

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

a Kurdish state, but

Read my earlier post in this thread about a lost opportunity of using the Kurds for invading Iraq in 2003. Hardly they will do anything of this kind this time (I mean WH).

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Plus, as you know, militaries always want a real war - in every country - such is their nature :)

the kaki brainwashing... sponsored by the Church, most of the time... as in the good old time of the Ancient Régime. The elder in the army, the second in the orders. Well, more than 200 years after the Revolution, it remains the same... surely un art de vivre...

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: I used to believe it but how many examples do you know? Castro, Hussein, Milosevic, Kim Jong Il and so forth - none of them was ever taken care of by "intelligent services", so this reality doesn't support such a reasonable idea.

Caucescu ?...

Alliende ?

Jiphy wrote: We are already living the globalization of the market... Why make an exception with the globalization of nuclear weapons ? I mean, who are we to not allow the others to play with the same toys than ours ?

I sometimes wonder how the world would look like if we were to live a new world order... a "non-Oceania" one...

well, that's been john mearsheimer's theory for decades. i've always found it a bit, oh, i don't know, dangerous. one nuclear weapon is one too many for me. i don't and never have bought into the idea of nuclear deterrence.

the arms race between the US and the USSR was meant to deter the other from the use of nuclear weapons. instead, the cuban missile crisis almost ended the world as we know it.and now, after the fall of the soviet union, russia is missing over 100 nuclear weapons. that's right. over 100 nuclear weapons it cannot account for. i believe the US was missing four at the last IAEA count i am aware of (this was in 1998--numbers may have changed).

also, india and pakistan possessing nuclear weapons hasn't prevented border clashes in kashmir. one may argue that the war in kashmir would be worse if the two countries didn't have nuclear weapons, but they've played nuclear brinksmanship too many times to justify expensive nuclear programmes.

AgentWood wrote: one nuclear weapon is one too many for me.

that is what I was thinking of typing "follow the leaders"

Jiphy wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: encouraging the Kurds within Iran to join with the Iraqi Kurds in forming their own state.

No good way. For Kurds are in Iran, Iraq and Turkey. EU does everything possible to let things last with the problem of the integration of Turkey within itself. Just like if it wanted to cancel this option.

First point. W does everything possible to make Turkey join the EU, which is against most Europeans' will. He frightens us to death enough with the péril islamique that we are all afraid to live with a muslim country within us. Just remember what Fox and CNN showed you this winter with riots in France.

Second point. W's "go to war in the name of God" behavior. In Europe, at least on the Continent, we already had our religious war with Muslims. Holy Empire against Turkey... So a war against islam is not compatible with the help of Turkey in our mind, this country being the most immediate danger.

Third point. If Turkey were to be in the EU, the problem of the Kurds would be an internal affair. Can you seriously imagine a gathering of Christian countries trying to sort the problem of the Kurds with his two closest neighbors in the area which would be Iraq and Iran ?

Keep in mind that Europeans cannot see these problems as the US Foreign Office can see them. Even if they consider that Moscow still is, in a way, the enemy that it used to be as the capital city of former USSR, the average European feels that he has more in common with someone from Moscow than with someone from Ankara...

We're losing sight of the big picture by getting bogged down in details. The point I began with is it's not necessary to invade Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program. Sanctions and fomenting unrest will derail their nuclear ambitions, in my opinion. If not, missiles are always an option. In George Bush's universe, military action is the first resort. In my universe, military action is what you resort to when your other options haven't worked out as you had hoped. Place a complete ecoomic embarge on Iran-- not a drop of Iranian oil on the world market-- and watch how long Ahmadinejad lasts. Stir up unrest in Iran and sit back and watch.

The details of exactly what to do are just that-- details.

In my own view, a Kurdish state can be created out of Iraq at a minimum, and potentially out of Iran and Syria if they're looking for a fight. Because Turkey is our ally, we can leave them out of the turmoil. How do we exert the kind of influence necessary to keep Turkish Kurds in line? Through their contrymen in Iraq, who recognize the value of having their own state, and the support of the United States in creating that state.

Anyway, those are details. The big picture is that we can play havoc with Iran without ever having to fire a shot.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

How do we exert the kind of influence necessary to keep Turkish Kurds in line? Through their contrymen in Iraq, who recognize the value of having their own state, and the support of the United States in creating that state.

i should send you a copy of my undergraduate dissertation: 'the war in kurdistan: turkish, american and european responses and solutions.' believe me, the turks have been keeping the kurds 'in line' quite well by themselves for decades--much like they did the armenians almost a century ago. now the PKK has been emasculated and ocalan captured, they're more 'in line' than ever.

AgentWood wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

How do we exert the kind of influence necessary to keep Turkish Kurds in line? Through their contrymen in Iraq, who recognize the value of having their own state, and the support of the United States in creating that state.

i should send you a copy of my undergraduate dissertation: 'the war in kurdistan: turkish, american and european responses and solutions.' believe me, the turks have been keeping the kurds 'in line' quite well by themselves for decades--much like they did the armenians almost a century ago. now the PKK has been emasculated and ocalan captured, they're more 'in line' than ever.

What I mean is this: The Turks are dead set against a Kurdistan, because they're concerned that Turkish Kurds will agitate for secession. Our response to Turkish concerns should be "don't worry, that won't happen," because the Kurds themselves will respect Turkish territorial integrity if it means gaining a state and the backing of the U.S.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

How do we exert the kind of influence necessary to keep Turkish Kurds in line? Through their contrymen in Iraq, who recognize the value of having their own state, and the support of the United States in creating that state.

i should send you a copy of my undergraduate dissertation: 'the war in kurdistan: turkish, american and european responses and solutions.' believe me, the turks have been keeping the kurds 'in line' quite well by themselves for decades--much like they did the armenians almost a century ago. now the PKK has been emasculated and ocalan captured, they're more 'in line' than ever.

What I mean is this: The Turks are dead set against a Kurdistan, because they're concerned that Turkish Kurds will agitate for secession. Our response to Turkish concerns should be "don't worry, that won't happen," because the Kurds themselves will respect Turkish territorial integrity if it means gaining a state and the backing of the U.S.

I see what you mean now. But I would worry about a mass expulsion of Kurds from Turkey if there were an independent Kurdistan. And because of America's symbiotic relationship with Turkey, I doubt the US would stop it. At least not until it was too late.

Yeah, I suspect some sort of turmoil would be a possibility. On the other hand, the Turks themselves want to behave, because they're trying to get into the E.U.

I really think that for long-term stability, the old imperial boundaries in the mideast (and in Africa, for that matter) need to undergo some sort of rationalization that recognizes nationality. That probably won't come without turmoil, but will, in my opinion, ultimately result in ethnic stability.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: We're losing sight of the big picture by getting bogged down in details. The point I began with is it's not necessary to invade Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program. Sanctions and fomenting unrest will derail their nuclear ambitions, in my opinion. If not, missiles are always an option. In George Bush's universe, military action is the first resort. In my universe, military action is what you resort to when your other options haven't worked out as you had hoped. Place a complete ecoomic embarge on Iran-- not a drop of Iranian oil on the world market-- and watch how long Ahmadinejad lasts. Stir up unrest in Iran and sit back and watch.

The details of exactly what to do are just that-- details.

In my own view, a Kurdish state can be created out of Iraq at a minimum, and potentially out of Iran and Syria if they're looking for a fight. Because Turkey is our ally, we can leave them out of the turmoil. How do we exert the kind of influence necessary to keep Turkish Kurds in line? Through their contrymen in Iraq, who recognize the value of having their own state, and the support of the United States in creating that state.

Anyway, those are details. The big picture is that we can play havoc with Iran without ever having to fire a shot.

Comrade, Completely agree with both points. Interesting thoughts on the Kurds. Agree with the trade embargo, but the only reason that won't work is mainly China. China would never go for it, and if China doesn't care, neither would India. Iran could survive quite well with only China and India buying their oil. . .I think in the end the only one we would be hurting would be ourselves.

JHC

Yeah, I thought about China when i made that post, and in order for an embargo to work, everybody, including China, would have to be on board. That might mean some horsetrading with the Chinese, but it's at least a possibility.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Yeah, I thought about China when i made that post, and in order for an embargo to work, everybody, including China, would have to be on board. That might mean some horsetrading with the Chinese, but it's at least a possibility.

You think China would go for it? They are in a bad recession over there, from what I understand. . .not sure if they could take the hit. Not to mention their lack of caring for their own citizens and enviroment, let alone others around them.

Don't get me wrong, I agree totally that it would work, but I don't think China would go for it.

JHC

Even though making up Kurdistan is a fair idea in principle, it is definitely unrealistic and therefore not worth playing with. So I wouldn't go there.

BTW, Turkey, "our friend", don't think they're all eager into the E.U. Their judicial system is not up to the European requierements yet, even though Istambul is working hard to push it. But there are also arch-nationalist movements and islamic groups that don't care about any E.U. in Turkey and Kurds are one of the most sensitive cases in the region.

I second Comrade's idealistic idea about revising the colonial borders around the world to reduce ethnical conflicts but who's gonna conduct it? UN? USA? EU? Again quite unrealistic, it'll be an Armageddon. Take the example of Western Sahara: nothing really to fight about, everything's more or less simple and yet we get violence, claims from 2 if not 3 countries and etc. and that's fomrally under the UN umbrella.

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Yeah, I thought about China when i made that post, and in order for an embargo to work, everybody, including China, would have to be on board. That might mean some horsetrading with the Chinese, but it's at least a possibility.

You think China would go for it? They are in a bad recession over there, from what I understand. . .not sure if they could take the hit. Not to mention their lack of caring for their own citizens and enviroment, let alone others around them.

Don't get me wrong, I agree totally that it would work, but I don't think China would go for it.

JHC

Details, details, details. All to be worked out in negotiations. The key is to make sure that there's an adequate supply for their needs. Get the Saudis to increase production. Get the Russians to increase production. Make some changes over here-- Impose fuel economy standards on light trucks and SUVs, finally, decades after it should have been done. Let the market work; higher gas prices will force Americans to conserve fuel, which will make more fuel available for China. All details. The big picture is sanctions will work. Just to keep things honest, we blockade the Persian Gulf to enforce the embargo. Sit back and watch the Ayatollahs fall.