Logistically though its impossible to strike Iran's nuclear program. They learned from Iraq and decided not to keep all their equipment and developments in one area. A lot of there stuff is spread out and underground meaning there's no way we could take out their program.
Agree, you would really be hard-pressed to find a group of people (religious group, ethnic group) that has been more persecuted the Jewish people, that's hard to argue against. Ironically, it seems like the powers that helped bring Israel into being and sustain it today (i.e. the West) were the ones responsible for most of their suffering (Romans 2000 years ago, The Spanish Inquisition, Nazis 50 years ago).
Arguing that Israel stole all their land and doesn't have the right to exist is ridiculous. The UN gave them their own state decades ago, because of centuries of oppression all over the western hemisphere. Throughout Europe Jews were looked down upon, attacked, murdered, threatened, and oppressed. They were given a piece of land where they could rule, hopefully free from all the prejudice that plagued societies throughout Europe for hundreds and hundreds of years. Israel does have the right to exist. Now what zionists did in their effort to gain statehood and expand their boundries regressed into terrorism. Their apartheid like rule over an occupied people is unjust, a crime against humanity, and opression itself. However, that doesn't excuse terrorism, nor does it mean that Israel shouldn't exist. It should exist but in a more just manner. The Palestinians should fight Israeli oppression, but terrorism isn't a weapon they should use. When someone points out that Palestinians shouldn't use terrorism, everyone should agree. One side shouldn't say well the ISraelis are guilty of this nad that. Terrorism is no way, or at least no righteious way to handle the problems that face Palestinians. By the same token the pro-Israel side shouldn't pretend like the only reason for their oppression of Palestinians is because of terrorism. It went on before Israel was a state, and has as much to do with expanding the jewish state as it does with a purely security rationale. There is plenty of blame, hurt, pain, and suffering on both sides.
Great post. I couldn't have said it better myself. However, my problem is that what is presented in the media and prevails in conventional wisdom is that ONLY the Palestinians are at fault. This perception that the only thing holding back peace negotiations is Palestinian agression. Isreali crimes go largely unnoticed or worse, are justified simply in the name of "fighting terrorism." Subhuman living conditions for the Palestinians are largely unnoticed or it is simply said, as seen in this thread, that neighboring Arab countries should help them out, letting Isreal off the hook for their crimes. The Jewish people were the most persecuted in worldwide history but that in no way justifies opression and apartheid against the Palestinian people.
I would beg to disagree. We are busy, in my opinion, figuring out just where those facilities are. Just once, because we are stuck with the idiot for President, I hope Bush lets the professionals run the ops, listens to what they have to say, and lets them do their jobs without his, and Cheney's cabal, sticking their noses into the mix and totally screwing things up, ala Iraq. Sorry, fellow liberals, but I can't see us allowing Iran to have atomics... not considering where they are, and the history of their government. Something will have to be done about it, and for political reasons alone, it is better us than the government of Israel. In my opinion. Of course, the ruling theocracy in Iran could suddenly get some brains, and allow the international community to insure that they are not busy developing, with North Korea's help, the bomb(s). Keep D&D Civil.
That's a great post. Sadly i don't see it as a resolveable situation. When you have nuts on one side trying to create a "greater" Israel, and on the other those who seek to wipe Israel off the map - there isn't much room for compromise. Each side believes it's the oppressed and victims here. Jews are the victims of the world - 2000 years of oppression. Muslims are oppressed by everyone as well, even though Islam spread mostly by conquest - and you have these lunies who was any state that has some history of Islam to become a radical theocracy (From Spain to Indonesia). Some thing will have to break soon. Something big. I'm not sure if we're headed for great conflict, or some sort of amazing epiphiny - but clearly we can't prevent nukes from being acquired..and the day will come with a suicide bomber will be strapping plutonium on himself. Not anytime soon, but in our lifetime for sure. Some thing has to give...
You do understand that using our airforce and navy is an act of war and that a preemptive strike on Iran may lead to them taking military action against our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given our presence in the Mideast we can't presume we can bomb them and have no repurcussions. I'm not ruling out pre-empitve strikes and agree with Deckard that it wouldn't be a good thing for Iran to have nukes what I am against though is a rush to judgement and a call to military action. We're in a very precarious position with our military fighting on two fronts and our alliances shaky. Now isn't the time to take on another war. Iran is and should be a matter of concern but we need to be very careful about how we proceed. I agree its different but it was New Yorker's analogy not mine. Anyway Iran doesn't posess the technology to strke the US with any missile.
i know this is being picky but i think this point is extremely important. iran is not an arab country. infact the whole iran iraq war showed the schism between the arabs and persians. and the assumption that the 'mid east' and the 'islamic world' is somehow one homogenous group of people and viewpoints is extremely telling. that false universal is the reason why 'the west' approaches the 'islamic world' in the way it does...and at the very least the reasoning behind peoples misunderstanding about the whole conflict.
Good point. So what you are saying is that Iran may never have any WMDs within 10 years or any time soon thereafter?
I guess my line of thinking is different than most, but I just do not believe in pre-emptive attacks against a sovereign nation that has no history of aggression against its neighbors. Just my 2 cents.
You're right, what was I thinking? The CIA does always exaggerate intel. Forget what I said, it's 20 years.
On reflection, Sishir, I think it's worth waiting until we have a different President to take action against their nuclear program, assuming they don't allow the international community full access to it to insure they are not developing atomics, which, of course, I hope the theocratic government has the sense to do. Sadly, with the theocracy increasing their grip on Iran by pushing the reformers, who I believe represent the great majority of Iranians, further from their position in the power structure, the outlook is grim during the next several years. I wouldn't trust George W. Bush to help an old lady cross the street without making a mess of it. Regardless of our capabilities, he has proved how grossly incompetent leadership can have an incredibly negative impact on what we do, regardless of our military might, and has likewise proved the incompetence of his foreign policy. We need to hope that the next administration can clean up some of the mess he's made, and bring sanity both to our use of our armed forces, and our political power in the world... what he hasn't already tossed away has to be preserved and strengthened. It will be up to a new President and Congress to do what they can. We can only hope that who we elect in '06 and '08 have the competence to repair George W. Bush's idiocy. Time is not on our side. Keep D&D Civil.
I'm not saying it should be done tomorrow - but the statements should mean now that we stop playing games. As soon as Iran stop co-operating with the UN then the response should be strikes against nuke facilities. What upsets me most about this whole thing is that everyone claims terrorists have nothing to do with Islam and is a response to the west. But ya know - here you have the head of a state calling for the unequivical destruction of another state. Isn't that sponsoring terrorism fairly directly? Isn't he basically saying to his people - go destroy Israel? We should not accept a nation preaching peace to the outside and hate/violence inwardly.
I'm not defending Iran and certainly don't agree with what its President says. What I am saying though is that we need to be very careful before we advocate military considering how stretched our forces are. Right now we have a lot of speculation and bluster but few solid facts and given the debacle with WMD in Iraq I don't trust our own intel and especially the Admin. to be clear about what is going on in Iran. If anything that we have learned from Iraq is that caution is called for before going to war.
Generally I think most people here arent advocating straight up regime change. They're specifically talking about military strikes on Iranian nuclear rsearch facilities like the Israeli strike on Iraq years ago. That being said, targeted strikes are impossible. The Iranians learned from iraq and spread their research facilities throughout Iran and some of them are underground. Its pretty much impossible to take out their research programs. Also, at this point striking Iraq now in the politically charged environment in the Middle East could set the whole region on fire. At least wait it out for a little while. Eventually the UN will probably impose sanctions on Iran once the situation becomes a little more clear. And then it might b tim to valuate th idea of striking Iran.
Iran seems to be emboldened by its new allies and US failures in Iraq, but their leadership seems to be more interested in 'rallying the masses' with such inflammatory rhetoric, although I am not sure it has widespread appeal among the largely young, reform-minded population (most of whom are increasingly frustrated with the failures of the elite theocrats in providing jobs and opportunities for them and addressing theor social/political concerns). I am confident Iran will see internal change sooner or later, but I am afraid that if we push too hard the masses will only rally around the leadership and it will instead turn the young people against us, which is what will happen in a country that's been historically very nationalistic and proud of its independence from outside forces. Let's not forget that a large reason as to why the "Islamic Revolution" in Iran took place was due to our interventions in that country and our support of a despotic Shah regime.
