Law School Discussion

.

Phanatic

.
« on: April 25, 2005, 09:12:46 AM »
 .

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2005, 11:24:14 AM »
iran will call u.s. bluff because we can't fight real war there.  that silver bullet shot at iraq so time magazine warmonger of year president bush could salvage election by pretending to fight terrorism (during which time iran, like north jorea, was pretty much ignored).

you gotta love leadership.  enjoy!

LaneSwerver

Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2005, 11:27:47 AM »
iran will call u.s. bluff because we can't fight real war there.  that silver bullet shot at iraq so time magazine warmonger of year president bush could salvage election by pretending to fight terrorism (during which time iran, like north jorea, was pretty much ignored).

you gotta love leadership.  enjoy!

See, when they try diplomacy, as they have in N. Korea through Europe, you're still critical.

Iran won't call anyone's bluff because they lack a military apparatus with which to fight a war. The Syrian exit from Lebanon doesn't look good to Iran...they don't like it at all, and it worries them.

LaneSwerver

Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2005, 11:34:59 AM »
Israel won't strike without (back channel) permission from the US this time. They like what they're seeing in Lebanon, too, and believe it or not, don't want to dong it up.

Diplomatic pressure will eventually pay off in Iran, they just have to have a suitable way to save face.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2005, 12:14:45 PM »
iran will call u.s. bluff because we can't fight real war there.  that silver bullet shot at iraq so time magazine warmonger of year president bush could salvage election by pretending to fight terrorism (during which time iran, like north jorea, was pretty much ignored).

you gotta love leadership.  enjoy!

See, when they try diplomacy, as they have in N. Korea through Europe, you're still critical.

Iran won't call anyone's bluff because they lack a military apparatus with which to fight a war. The Syrian exit from Lebanon doesn't look good to Iran...they don't like it at all, and it worries them.

julie all for diplomacy.  but it undeniable that north korea was basically ignored for first yuear or two of iraq war.

america not have army for that war, and the international fallout from it would be absolutely incredible.  wad shot.  now we wadless.

LaneSwerver

Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2005, 12:17:56 PM »
julie all for diplomacy.  but it undeniable that north korea was basically ignored for first yuear or two of iraq war.

america not have army for that war, and the international fallout from it would be absolutely incredible.  wad shot.  now we wadless.

Letting N. Korea run their mouth and blow off steam was diplomacy! It was practiced by everyone with the exception of China. Not talking is sometimes just as diplomatic as talking.

The US military could pull it off, but that's not the point. They won't because they don't have to. When the time comes, as I said earlier, Iran will back down...they just can't do it and look like weenies.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2005, 12:24:19 PM »
julie all for diplomacy.  but it undeniable that north korea was basically ignored for first yuear or two of iraq war.

america not have army for that war, and the international fallout from it would be absolutely incredible.  wad shot.  now we wadless.

Letting N. Korea run their mouth and blow off steam was diplomacy! It was practiced by everyone with the exception of China. Not talking is sometimes just as diplomatic as talking.

The US military could pull it off, but that's not the point. They won't because they don't have to. When the time comes, as I said earlier, Iran will back down...they just can't do it and look like weenies.

you mean like talking while north korea was acquiring improved nuclear capability from pakistan (our "ally")?

it would take enormous callup of troops to wage war in iran.  for one thing, shiites in iraq going to go ballistic, and so insurgency there get completely out of control.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2005, 12:28:08 PM »
wadless, no.  Stretched thin, yes.  If we HAD too, we could fight another front right now (essentially abandoning Europe.

I would disagree that international fallout would be heavy.  Hegemony comes with perks, most state's leaders would turn a blind eye.

yes, hard to imagine that world's muslims would complain.

LaneSwerver

Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2005, 12:29:37 PM »
you mean like talking while north korea was acquiring improved nuclear capability from pakistan (our "ally")?

it would take enormous callup of troops to wage war in iran.  for one thing, shiites in iraq going to go ballistic, and so insurgency there get completely out of control.

What do you suggest? We go in with guns blaazing in Pakistan to prevent the transfer? Even allies take action of which the other may not approve. Sometimes, the best route in diplomacy is to stand idly by. You'll notice our European allies (who arguably would have been in a better position to open talks with N. Korea than the US) chose to stick to this position, as well.

Your second point is moot because it simply will not happen. But as our Asian friend pointed out, redistribution of troops in Europe would result in an adequate force.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2005, 12:36:00 PM »
you mean like talking while north korea was acquiring improved nuclear capability from pakistan (our "ally")?

it would take enormous callup of troops to wage war in iran.  for one thing, shiites in iraq going to go ballistic, and so insurgency there get completely out of control.

What do you suggest? We go in with guns blaazing in Pakistan to prevent the transfer? Even allies take action of which the other may not approve. Sometimes, the best route in diplomacy is to stand idly by. You'll notice our European allies (who arguably would have been in a better position to open talks with N. Korea than the US) chose to stick to this position, as well.

Your second point is moot because it simply will not happen. But as our Asian friend pointed out, redistribution of troops in Europe would result in an adequate force.

you right.  what julie thinking?

we run much bigger risk from iraqi insolence than north korean nukes.  and absolutely, america can invade all muslim countries it wants with impunity.  no problem with reenlistment and rest of it, either.  and hey--who not like record deficits?

this just kind of thinking that probably will lead to war with iran.  let all poisons rise to surface!