Law School Discussion

.

LaneSwerver

Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2005, 02:22:18 PM »
julie always say to always attempt diplomacy.  problem is knowing quite where we stand.  do we have truly reliable proof than iran is making nuclear weapons?  (of course, we must consider extent to which dubya and his minions telling analysts what to conclude, as was case with iraq.)  if not, then there absolutely no basis for violence, and diplomacy should continue.

if there is good proof of nuclear weapon program, then that proof should be offered to world.  (of course, now we have to contend with how accurate we were last time we did that.)  we should seek international consensus.  (of course, we also bear burden of our insincerity about that last time around.)  then, who knows?  if this clearly not solving and iran truly threat, limited airstrikes might be enough.

OK, since you're "playing my game," let's keep playing. Let's say there is reliable proof from outside sources (French intel, say) that Iran is making nuclear weapons. Then what?

What if Europe said, "Let's get in there and stop that militarily." Do we concur? How about NATO?

Airstrikes are not effective without collateral military action.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2005, 02:31:53 PM »
hey, julie didn't address my last post. Quite out of character.

oops.  reply #24 meant for your post.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2005, 02:32:55 PM »
so you believe war inevitable.  that explain why you not so interested in preventing it.

please, tell julie again why you not interested in fighting war yourself.

For the first time I'm having trouble with the lack of articles! ;) When you say "so you believe war inevitable" do you mean to say I believe the war we are currently fighting was inevitable or that an eventual war with Iran is inevitable?

When you say I'm not interested in fighting war yourself, do you mean me personally enlisting in the military and fighting?

Sorry to seem dense, here, but I'm a little lost.


this reply meant for phanny.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2005, 02:37:43 PM »
julie always say to always attempt diplomacy.  problem is knowing quite where we stand.  do we have truly reliable proof than iran is making nuclear weapons?  (of course, we must consider extent to which dubya and his minions telling analysts what to conclude, as was case with iraq.)  if not, then there absolutely no basis for violence, and diplomacy should continue.

if there is good proof of nuclear weapon program, then that proof should be offered to world.  (of course, now we have to contend with how accurate we were last time we did that.)  we should seek international consensus.  (of course, we also bear burden of our insincerity about that last time around.)  then, who knows?  if this clearly not solving and iran truly threat, limited airstrikes might be enough.

OK, since you're "playing my game," let's keep playing. Let's say there is reliable proof from outside sources (French intel, say) that Iran is making nuclear weapons. Then what?

What if Europe said, "Let's get in there and stop that militarily." Do we concur? How about NATO?

Airstrikes are not effective without collateral military action.

julie already said "then what?"--which is to offer proof to world.  seek international consensus.

and airstrikes may be enough to take out nuclear facilities.  we not trying to also occupy iran, are we?

julie not claim to have all this work out in great detail.  much of problem is what happened with iraq, and julie not to blame for that.  she do know, however, that more breast-beating not likely to work.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2005, 02:40:15 PM »


What if Europe said, "Let's get in there and stop that militarily." Do we concur? How about NATO?



of course, it passed the GLOBAL TEST

then at least there some sort of reasonable consensus.  that confers many benefits:  we get help, we not seen so much as world's biggest bully, and there better chance that we not kidding ourselves about anything.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2005, 02:41:31 PM »
Yes Julie, I do believe war (in general) is inevitable.

-as for why I haven't enlisted:  If the need arises (beyond volunteer) , I'll be there.

those who expect trouble usually find it.

get your boots polished.

BraveheartDC

  • ****
  • 404
  • Go Tribe!
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2005, 05:33:32 PM »
To comment on some points made.

1) The US could invade Iran on a large scale, if needed, but it is HIGHLY unlikely.  If you think occupying Iraq is tough, occupying Iran is likely to be 50 times worse.  The fundamentalist Shia from present day Iran were the first to use suicide attacks--hundreds of years ago.  See the Iran-Iraq war for evidence (specifically the "human wave attacks") that Iran would throw tens of thousands of terrorists at us.  They'd also be able to activate Hizbollah and Hamas (the latter currently does not intentionally attack Americans, but would if we attacked Iran).  For these reasons and more, I would not invade Iran.

2) Nuclear mullahs is also not a good option.  If North Korea, Iraq, and Iran were the axis of evil, Iran is the engine of evil.  They are the number one state sponsor of terror in the world--no question.  They cannot be allowed to have the bomb.  If they had it, they could continue to destabilize the middle east with impunity. 

3) Economic sanctions may work over time if the IAEA and Europeans quit dragging their feet and refer this matter to the UN Security Council soon.  Honestly, I am not confident that this will work before the Iranians have made too much progress, as it will take years. 

4) A blockade (both naval and land) may be beneficial in limiting the flow of technology and parts related to the nuclear program.  However, it is a short-term fix.  We can't get away with a long-term intervention politically.

5) The option that I think carries the highest possibility of success is covert.  We need to get some HUMINT out of Iran.  We need some people in there talking to their scientists, etc NOW.  If setting certain buildings on fire or disrupting certain shipments or disappearing certain key players in the scientific process is what's needed, I would support that course of action.  Anything to delay the program.

6) Meanwhile, we must continue to develop the evidence so that the Euro-3 will refer this to the UN with us.

7) Surgical airstrikes are a real possibility (either by the US or Israel), but I don't like it.  I think terrorist attacks would happen against Israel and the US and would lead to further destabilizing the mideast.  Last resort for me.

BraveheartDC

  • ****
  • 404
  • Go Tribe!
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2005, 05:36:56 PM »
To comment on some points made.

1) The US could invade Iran on a large scale, if needed, but it is HIGHLY unlikely.  If you think occupying Iraq is tough, occupying Iran is likely to be 50 times worse.  The fundamentalist Shia from present day Iran were the first to use suicide attacks--hundreds of years ago.  See the Iran-Iraq war for evidence (specifically the "human wave attacks") that Iran would throw tens of thousands of terrorists at us.  They'd also be able to activate Hizbollah and Hamas (the latter currently does not intentionally attack Americans, but would if we attacked Iran).  For these reasons and more, I would not invade Iran.

2) Nuclear mullahs is also not a good option.  If North Korea, Iraq, and Iran were the axis of evil, Iran is the engine of evil.  They are the number one state sponsor of terror in the world--no question.  They cannot be allowed to have the bomb.  If they had it, they could continue to destabilize the middle east with impunity. 

3) Economic sanctions may work over time if the IAEA and Europeans quit dragging their feet and refer this matter to the UN Security Council soon.  Honestly, I am not confident that this will work before the Iranians have made too much progress, as it will take years. 

4) A blockade (both naval and land) may be beneficial in limiting the flow of technology and parts related to the nuclear program.  However, it is a short-term fix.  We can't get away with a long-term intervention politically.

5) The option that I think carries the highest possibility of success is covert.  We need to get some HUMINT out of Iran.  We need some people in there talking to their scientists, etc NOW.  If setting certain buildings on fire or disrupting certain shipments or disappearing certain key players in the scientific process is what's needed, I would support that course of action.  Anything to delay the program.

6) Meanwhile, we must continue to develop the evidence so that the Euro-3 will refer this to the UN with us.

7) Surgical airstrikes are a real possibility (either by the US or Israel), but I don't like it.  I think terrorist attacks would happen against Israel and the US and would lead to further destabilizing the mideast.  Last resort for me.

8) The best way to fix it is to covertly destabilize the regime in Iran and help, through funding and OPS bolster the reform movement in hopes of an overthrow before the nuke program is complete.  This, in conjunction with developing intelligence in an effort to convince the E-3 to refer it to the UN, working to interdict select shipments of nuke technology, and using cover ops to slow down the program, is the best bet.

dividebyzero

  • ****
  • 1546
  • Motherf*ckin' Snakes On A Plane!
    • MSN Messenger - daedelus_rex@msn.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2005, 05:43:32 PM »
The more we rattle our sabers and suggest that we'll simply launch an airstrike, the more the Iranians have been steadily hardening their facilities against it.
If we go in, it won't be like the Osirak strike in Iraq, it'll have to be a relatively protracted bombing campaign before we could be sure.

Also, consider the logistics of such a strike...how would our aircraft even make it
there? You can forget about the muslim countries allowing us access to their airspace to strike yet another one of their countries, so that rules out everyone
but Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Armenia...

Now, omit Russia, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan because Russia will certainly say "No" to having our planes bomb facilities where their scientists are currently working. Armenia's probably the only option, but they have their own problems right now...

But all that ignores the fact that even if we managed to destroy their nuclear facilities, there's still the hundreds, if not thousands of chemical and biological
weapons they've been whording for just this kind of scenario. You can basically expect all hell to break loose in Iraq and Europe. Incidentally, I imagine the reason that Europe has been so keen on resolving the nuclear issue with Iran is that, unlike ourselves, the whole of Europe all the way to the U.K., is well within the strike ranges of the Shahab II missles.

Whee, what a conundrum our boys in Washington have to contend with now! Almost makes me want to laugh about how Dubya and friends totally dropped the ball when President Khatami was still in power and extended something of an olive branch. If we'd at least responded, it would have given the moderates more credibility, tempered the hardliners at least enough to stop them on  their mad rush to weaponization.

Between this fun little issue and the increasingly likely prospect that Iran is to thank for the bulk of our current troubles in Iraq (Mahdi Army, anyone?), I totally believe we have at least a limited war coming with them.

BTW, "Special Forces"?! Doubt it...remember the ill-fated embassy rescue? There's no way in hell they'd put themselves through that again.

Neither would a blockade work...you're looking at the world's fourth largest stockpile of anti-ship cruise missiles.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #29 on: April 25, 2005, 05:46:25 PM »
yes, dubyah not up to job.