should the West invade and/or bomb the fuck out of Iran?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (316 of them)
Aimless OTM... In March, Iran is going to change it's oil valuation from the dollar to the euro. Kos has the details.

Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Thursday, 19 January 2006 01:42 (eighteen years ago) link

I read that Kos article. The idea that the Euro went up solely because of that maneuver is really, really tenuous. You'd think someone would have considered it before coming up with the variety of conclusions that have been reached previously.

There's other issues like the article, like its claim that the IAEA has been consistent in finding Iran to be in compliance with their rules. This, of course, is ridiculously false. The IAEA found Iran to be in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which they happened to sign, several months prior to this article's publishing. In fact, that's why Iran is going through the process of tearing those IAEA seals off and restarting their reactors, which is why this is such a big story right now.

Alan Conceicao (Alan Conceicao), Thursday, 19 January 2006 05:10 (eighteen years ago) link

Meanwhile, if you want to have some real fun, watch Ledeen descend into conniptions. (I kinda predict that by the end of this year he'll want to impeach Bush, which would be entertaining.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 19 January 2006 05:49 (eighteen years ago) link

only kind of related, and obviously alarmist/overblown, but ...

http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm

literalisp (literalisp), Saturday, 21 January 2006 02:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Anyone who was paying attention during the Falkland War knows that anti-ship missiles are extremely effective weapons and one whole hell of a lot cheaper than the targets they destroy. That war was an unbeatable advertisement for Exocet missiles and I have no doubt France has sold a shitload of them around the world.

That Russia has even better ship-killers is not a surprise, either. Nor that they would sell them to generate cash. Our current navy is an expensive bauble that would die quickly against any especially well-equipped foe. But, just how many of these Russian missiles the Iranians own is a secret the author of that article didn't know and couldn't say. So he guesses they own gobs and gobs of them. Right.

His imaginative scenario for a decisive American military defeat by Iran in the Persian Gulf seemed like a lot of hand waving to me. If we lost that many lives and that much treasure in that short a time, the pressure to obliterate Iran would be overwhelming. Only the assurance that the USA would suffer equally in the exchange would deter a massive, explosive response.

The idea that Putin would underwrite the mullahs' adventure and put Russia's nuclear umbrella over Iran makes no sense at all. None. Zero. The scenario's picture of Putin sipping cocktails and deciding to teach the USA a lesson is, well, utter silliness from a crappy James Bond script.

Aimless (Aimless), Saturday, 21 January 2006 04:18 (eighteen years ago) link

There's a lot of ridiculousness in that article, matter of fact, starting with the very idea that there's widespread opinion that the US' carrier fleet should be "mothballed". I've seriously never heard anyone claim that the US would be better off mothballing their carrier fleets. Its damn near madness.

In fact, come to think of it, its as if nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the US owns submarines. There's also the fact that if the US feels the carriers are so threatened, they don't need to drive them into the Persian Gulf. What, the commanders aren't going to think of that beforehand?

Alan Conceicao (Alan Conceicao), Saturday, 21 January 2006 09:38 (eighteen years ago) link

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1525856

Israel Says It Has Proof That Iran Financed Tel Aviv Bombing, and That Syria Carried It Out

,,, Monday, 23 January 2006 14:15 (eighteen years ago) link

two weeks pass...
They should bomb them for things like this:

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/4701/17_Year_Old_Girl_Sentenced_To_Death_By_Hanging

Islamic/Sharia law rules!

petlover, Friday, 10 February 2006 14:34 (eighteen years ago) link

Horrible food for thought.

Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Friday, 10 February 2006 14:44 (eighteen years ago) link

Surely US courts kill more people every year?

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 10 February 2006 15:04 (eighteen years ago) link

um, injustice is injustice.
m.

msp (mspa), Friday, 10 February 2006 15:53 (eighteen years ago) link

rape victims tho Tracer? and by hanging? point taken though.

Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Friday, 10 February 2006 17:39 (eighteen years ago) link

US courts kill more people for "acts incompatible w/ chastity"?

vahid (vahid), Friday, 10 February 2006 18:02 (eighteen years ago) link

when i said they should bomb qom, this is why

vahid (vahid), Friday, 10 February 2006 18:03 (eighteen years ago) link

this theoretical bombing sort of takes "kill them to show why killing people is wrong" to a whole new level

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 10 February 2006 18:05 (eighteen years ago) link

Good thing you're not a woman in Iran, Tracer.

petlover, Friday, 10 February 2006 18:24 (eighteen years ago) link

Are you?

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 10 February 2006 18:46 (eighteen years ago) link

According to Amnesty, China, Iran and Vietnam all executed more people than the US did in 2004. (China 3,400 [yes, you read that right], Iran 159, Vietnam 64, USA 59.)

As an American I don't think we should have a death penalty at all, but the fact that we do doesn't mean we can't point out pure injustice when we see it.

phil d. (Phil D.), Friday, 10 February 2006 18:49 (eighteen years ago) link

No, but I'm not the one trying to make the case that the US justice system is just as bad or even remotely close to it. Or how should I have understood "Surely US courts kill more people every year?"?

petlover, Friday, 10 February 2006 18:50 (eighteen years ago) link

One should also consider population in those figures, for instance Iran's population is estimated at around 68,000,000, while the U.S.A. is nearing 300,000,000 - and China of course dwarfs them all at around 1,300,000,000!

Jeff LeVine (Jeff LeVine), Friday, 10 February 2006 18:56 (eighteen years ago) link

I mentioned that the US courts kill more people every year simply because they do. We certainly jail a larger percentage of our population. I think our laws are more egalitarian than Iran's, but implicit racism isn't all that much better than explicit sexism, by my lights.

I question this story as a pretext for "bombing" anyone. And I especially question it in light of the US's ramping-up of propaganda intended to soften up public opinion for a possibly imminent invasion. Ask yourself how many women were killed by state or quasi-state machinery LAST WEEK alone. Why is it this one we're hearing about?

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 10 February 2006 19:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I'm sorry but I was just being sarcastic when I suggested that they should be bombed for things like this. However, I think the West should put a whole lot more pressure on governments who treat their population like Iran does, and I couldn't care less if that comes of as condescending, smug and racist etc to do so. When people are suffering that does not matter to me.

petlover, Friday, 10 February 2006 19:03 (eighteen years ago) link

I mentioned that the US courts kill more people every year simply because they do.

Well, clearly not, at least not according to Amnesty, who tends to get this sort of thing right.

phil d. (Phil D.), Friday, 10 February 2006 19:12 (eighteen years ago) link

um, injustice is injustice.

Yup. And Saddam Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant who killed his opponents, his detractors, or just about any old person he happened to find irritating. But look how wonderfully our invasion of Iraq has gone. Up for another experiment in occupation?

Aimless (Aimless), Friday, 10 February 2006 19:16 (eighteen years ago) link

NB I do not support the bombing of Iran for this or any other reason currently on offer.

phil d. (Phil D.), Friday, 10 February 2006 19:17 (eighteen years ago) link

me neither but i'm still angry as hell about what petlover linked to. maybe i'll go read up on the deaths caused by US state machinery to increase that anger although i can't think of what situations would be comparable or equivalent to hanging young women for manslaughter in self-defence (not to say they aren't out there in numbers and i'm just being dumb here).

Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Friday, 10 February 2006 19:26 (eighteen years ago) link

I mentioned that the US courts kill more people every year simply because they do. We certainly jail a larger percentage of our population.

That has a lot to do with the fact that the drug traffic in the eastern parts of Iran aren't really regulated and because of Iran's rather arcane system of punishment. I'd guess that there's a lot more people in the Iranian system who don't serve time, but happen to be missing substantial portions of their body.

Alan Conceicao (Alan Conceicao), Friday, 10 February 2006 19:34 (eighteen years ago) link

xpost: on that note, I have a feeling that there aren't really good statistics on the number of people who've died of staph infections following amputation over there.

Lemme also repeat this for the thousanth time: there will not be a invasion of Iran in the forseeable future. Maybe bombing, and if so, probably by Israel, since they have the most to lose to a nuke empowered Iran. But no invasion.

Alan Conceicao (Alan Conceicao), Friday, 10 February 2006 19:39 (eighteen years ago) link

"Yup. And Saddam Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant who killed his opponents, his detractors, or just about any old person he happened to find irritating. But look how wonderfully our invasion of Iraq has gone. Up for another experiment in occupation?"

is our unjust system of law an excuse for theirs? no.

that was my ONLY point above.

iraq is a better example. pointing out our hypocrisy tends to only get your point ignored. as much as we need a nationwide intervention ... for all these people that don't mind being spied on or think torture is okay... or who believe in religious freedom for themselves but not anybody else... or free speech as long as it's what they want to hear... etc etc... DENIAL is too everpresent.

it let's them focus on your negativity, not on OUR problem.
m.

msp (mspa), Friday, 10 February 2006 21:19 (eighteen years ago) link

seriously, how long is it going to take until women in that part of the world are treated like human beings and not like second class citizens? has there been any improvements in the last 10 years?
stuff like this makes me so angry and makes me appreciate that I was born into another part of the world.

almaa, Friday, 10 February 2006 21:52 (eighteen years ago) link

It is good to notice problems on the other side of the world. It is good to call them by their right names. It is good to want to help solve them. But it is better to wait until we are invited.

It is difficult to solve other people's problems, msp. One can offer aid and assistance, but without a desire in the people you aid and assist to solve their own problems, the assistance is unavailing.

If, however, Iran wishes to cause problems for us, then they become our problems to solve and an invitation is not needed.

Aimless (Aimless), Saturday, 11 February 2006 02:09 (eighteen years ago) link

But it is better to wait until we are invited.

How would we know whether or not we're invited? Do remember, the fairly liberal reform parties in Iran were shut out of the election and the country ended up getting run by a guy some think was a terrorist/kidnapper. There were a lot of gains in Iran in the last decade and we may be on the edge of losing all of them.

Alan Conceicao (Alan Conceicao), Saturday, 11 February 2006 02:59 (eighteen years ago) link

not too long ago i would have thought it was unlikely to impossible that we'd bomb iran anytime in the near future, but the momentum now really seems to be going that way, doesn't it? you've got people like mccain and lieberman saying "the only thing worse" than military action against iran is them having a nuclear weapon, you've got the referral to the security council. ahmadinejad is sure playing his part. and i understand why he is, too. the standoff has already fueled nationalism in iran even among people who don't support the hardliners, and like that very good article ned pasted above says, a bombing or two would just heighten that and give him more support for whatever agendas he has in mind. and of course with the midterm elections coming up in the u.s. and everything else totally going to hell for the bushies, it would be a nice political boost. so if it's in the interests of the leaderships of both countries for it to happen, that sure makes it a lot more likely.

but hopefully they'll just all rattle a lot of sabers, iran will keep slowly trying to get a bomb, the u.s. and europe will keep squeezing it to try to stop it, russia and china will keep playing both sides...i mean, the current situation, as unsatisfactory as it is all the way around, might be the best option for the near future.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 12 February 2006 08:28 (eighteen years ago) link

but hopefully they'll just all rattle a lot of sabers, iran will keep slowly trying to get a bomb, the u.s. and europe will keep squeezing it to try to stop it, russia and china will keep playing both sides...i mean, the current situation, as unsatisfactory as it is all the way around, might be the best option for the near future.

I think the biggest difference between this and, say, Iraq (with which this episode is inexorably linked) is that Iran really does have a nuclear program that no one doubts (and that they admit) and really does have very close ties to terrorism. A stall tactic probably would work, given that most observers think that their production capability is currently near zero with no likelihood it'll progress much in the immediate future.

Alan Conceicao (Alan Conceicao), Sunday, 12 February 2006 21:30 (eighteen years ago) link

one month passes...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/31/iran.missile.ap/index.html

please to place bets as to when the airstrikes will start.

i would say ... june at the latest.

vahid (vahid), Saturday, 1 April 2006 06:54 (eighteen years ago) link

Not gonna happen.

There's no proof that this is true -- the only source of info seems to be the Iranian govt and it wouldn't shock me if they're greatly exaggerating the capabilities of their weaponry.

This is nothing but a power play by Iran to get the UN off its back. You think it's a coincidence that Iran released this information the day after the UNSC passed a resolution giving them 30 days to suspend uranium enrichment and cooperate with the IAEA? Screw the earthquake, this took precedence.

The biggest potential losers here are the UN. They gave a similarly meaningless ultimatum to Sudan and choked that time too but a lot more people are paying attention this time. Be prepared to say goodbye to whatever little credibility the Security Council has left.

NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Saturday, 1 April 2006 18:45 (eighteen years ago) link

Count their bodies like sheep
To the rhythm of the war drums

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 5 April 2006 05:04 (eighteen years ago) link

They also, apparently have flying boats and the world's fastest torpedo.

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 April 2006 05:11 (eighteen years ago) link

five months pass...
Ok, so we're being primed for war, right? I mean that's the feeling I get everytime I'm somewhere that has CNN playing, which is why I can't even fucking stand to watch five minutes of it, even to forget about WABC which plays in one of the offices I go to for work.

We're just being primed and primed, and then there's going to be some trigger event, perhaps staged, perhaps provoked, and then boom, draft. My brother had better stay in college if he knows what's good for him.

A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Thursday, 21 September 2006 02:13 (seventeen years ago) link

I heard a guest on a radio show today say the most likely strategy Bush will take IF he foregoes UN involvement and proceeds unilaterally would be to erect a naval blockade(an act of war as described by the UN) and then wait for an attack from Iran which would then be characterized as 'unprovoked' to a credulous US populace if no one else. She seemed to have her shit together.

tremendoid (tremendoid), Thursday, 21 September 2006 02:25 (seventeen years ago) link

i can't even begin to fathom the possibility of this happening. if it does it will be the last nail in the coffin of american democracy--checks and balances my ***

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 21 September 2006 02:50 (seventeen years ago) link

i mean if a sitting president w/a 35-40% approval rating and with members of his own party in congress defecting from his agenda can start a SECOND unpopular, unwinnable, war with a major power well...

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 21 September 2006 02:51 (seventeen years ago) link

no way this would happen. neither he nor congress have enough capital.

a name means a lot just by itself (lfam), Thursday, 21 September 2006 02:57 (seventeen years ago) link

your what?

xpost

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 21 September 2006 02:58 (seventeen years ago) link

this 'expert' didn't think this was especially probable either fwiw, in fact her main evidence(i think) for this was that Bush administration had not been sabre-rattling which would make this gambit even more effective when the time comes. Yep. Shit. Together.

tremendoid (tremendoid), Thursday, 21 September 2006 03:04 (seventeen years ago) link

all bush needs is a catalyst and he'll get his war. worked before, and america's practice of never admitting mistakes means america never learns from mistakes.

GOD PUNCH TO HAWKWIND (yournullfame), Thursday, 21 September 2006 03:23 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't know if it's going to happen or not, but it sure feels like they're trying.

A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Thursday, 21 September 2006 03:56 (seventeen years ago) link

If they're serious about ensuring that Iran doesn't obtain nukes, invading would do the trick, and bombing wouldn't do jack. too bad the latter is more politically feasible than the former.

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:36 (seventeen years ago) link

Right, cause if it was politcally feasible, it'd be really awesome to invade Iran! Right?

A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:38 (seventeen years ago) link

We're just being primed and primed, and then there's going to be some trigger event, perhaps staged, perhaps provoked, and then boom, draft.

a draft is not that likely, I do not think the USA will ever fight another meatgrinder war again. Or at least, not one where it's meat is being ground.

as to war with Iran... I don't really see it. Iraq is such a fuck up, and the Iran dress rehearsal in Lebanon did not go that well, so it is hard to see bombing Iran accomplishing anything and hard to see the USA invading.

I wonder will the world just have to learn to live with Iranian nuclear weapons, like it has had to live with those of the USA, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel?

DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:41 (seventeen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.