Comments on: What’s To Be Done About Iran? http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: mtl http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-8660 mtl Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:07:56 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/#comment-8660 worried about unintended consequences...but "A show of force outside North Korean territorial waters might have been a wiser use of power." (That is a 180...) To what end on the show of force off NK? Would that alienate China, who is the agency of 'change'-if one is to come? What would be our response if we showed force, and NK lobbed a few shells across their southern border? Kim is crazy Iran is breaking from within. The selection of amjdflakldjdj is another sign. They are now the last nuclear threat in the ME. The moderate people of Iran hold far more influence over their government, then in Iraq. Iraq would never have a chance without direct US intervention. Iran does... Iraq makes Syria leave Lebanon, the Russian back down in Ukraine, Lybia give up its weapons, Israel move towards the acceptance of Palestine... Not invading Iraq makes a very different world. I have never heard a democrat state a worst case scenario for failure to invade Iraq, but without the invasion the world would have continued to drift into apathy. If democrats would like to submit the idea that the US should not be involved in any conflict that does not involve them directly, they could have Pat Buchanan make their argument (I love Pat, but on this we disagree). Another aside- If I hear one more dem semantical argument that terrorism is a tactic and you can't defeat it... It means we wasted our time fighting fascism, nazism, communism, racism, sexism, ... All of those 'isms' had state sponsors who advocated and furthered the isms. Iraq was a sponser of State terrorism that affected the whole region. Will we defeat terrorism-probably not-will we make infinitely more difficult to flourish...yes. worried about unintended consequences…but
“A show of force outside North Korean territorial waters might have been a wiser use of power.”
(That is a 180…)

To what end on the show of force off NK? Would that alienate China, who is the agency of ‘change’-if one is to come? What would be our response if we showed force, and NK lobbed a few shells across their southern border? Kim is crazy

Iran is breaking from within. The selection of amjdflakldjdj is another sign. They are now the last nuclear threat in the ME. The moderate people of Iran hold far more influence over their government, then in Iraq. Iraq would never have a chance without direct US intervention. Iran does…

Iraq makes Syria leave Lebanon, the Russian back down in Ukraine, Lybia give up its weapons, Israel move towards the acceptance of Palestine…

Not invading Iraq makes a very different world. I have never heard a democrat state a worst case scenario for failure to invade Iraq, but without the invasion the world would have continued to drift into apathy.

If democrats would like to submit the idea that the US should not be involved in any conflict that does not involve them directly, they could have Pat Buchanan make their argument (I love Pat, but on this we disagree).

Another aside-
If I hear one more dem semantical argument that terrorism is a tactic and you can’t defeat it…
It means we wasted our time fighting fascism, nazism, communism, racism, sexism, …

All of those ‘isms’ had state sponsors who advocated and furthered the isms. Iraq was a sponser of State terrorism that affected the whole region. Will we defeat terrorism-probably not-will we make infinitely more difficult to flourish…yes.

]]> By: bindare4u http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-8654 bindare4u Tue, 06 Dec 2005 05:17:59 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/#comment-8654 I guess I could say I didn't blame the Democrats but the Defeatocrats but them we both know who they are, don't we Peter? If you don't believe how political division at home encourages our enemies then read up on what Ceneral Giap of North Vietnam had to say after the war. Saadam and AlQueda are banking on our shamfoul political dissension to save their butts. I guess I could say I didn’t blame the Democrats but the Defeatocrats but them we both know who they are, don’t we Peter? If you don’t believe how political division at home encourages our enemies then read up on what Ceneral Giap of North Vietnam had to say after the war. Saadam and AlQueda are banking on our shamfoul political dissension to save their butts.

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-8653 peter Tue, 06 Dec 2005 04:57:36 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/#comment-8653 I think he would have soiled his pants -- and clearly he would have tried harder -- however there are, I think, better levers to use to prevent nuclear proliferation than military invasion -- finding and disabling nukes in Russia chief among them - I think he would have soiled his pants — and clearly he would have tried harder — however there are, I think, better levers to use to prevent nuclear proliferation than military invasion — finding and disabling nukes in Russia chief among them -

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-8652 Mark Tue, 06 Dec 2005 04:55:20 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/#comment-8652 Fair enough...we obviously have a disagreement on Iraq (I'm going out on a limb, aren't I?), but you've made your argument clearly. I'm still curious as to how you think Saddam would have reacted to a nuclear Iran - I think clearly he'd have redoubled his efforts... Fair enough…we obviously have a disagreement on Iraq (I’m going out on a limb, aren’t I?), but you’ve made your argument clearly. I’m still curious as to how you think Saddam would have reacted to a nuclear Iran – I think clearly he’d have redoubled his efforts…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-8651 peter Tue, 06 Dec 2005 04:44:07 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/#comment-8651 We should not have invaded Iraq for lots of reasons, but among them is the unintended consequence of strengthening Iran's hand. If your question is "what should we have done instead," then I would answer that several options would have led to better results than invading Iraq. A show of force outside North Korean territorial waters might have been a wiser use of power. Doing nothing in Iraq and using all of our resources on Al Qaeda may have been a wiser choice. If your question is "what should we do about the Iranian nuclear situation," then I don't have a clear answer. I recall when China got the bomb, there were many voices urging us to pre-emptively strike their facilities. We chose not to, which was the right choice. Sometimes doing nothing is the best option. On the other hand, it is hard not to support the Israeli strike against Osiruk. If you put a gun to my head to force me to make a decision, I would say that absent any clear evidence that Iran was going to use nuclear weapons offensively, it would be wrong to use military force even if they are successful in getting nuclear weaponry. We should not have invaded Iraq for lots of reasons, but among them is the unintended consequence of strengthening Iran’s hand.

If your question is “what should we have done instead,” then I would answer that several options would have led to better results than invading Iraq. A show of force outside North Korean territorial waters might have been a wiser use of power. Doing nothing in Iraq and using all of our resources on Al Qaeda may have been a wiser choice.

If your question is “what should we do about the Iranian nuclear situation,” then I don’t have a clear answer. I recall when China got the bomb, there were many voices urging us to pre-emptively strike their facilities. We chose not to, which was the right choice. Sometimes doing nothing is the best option. On the other hand, it is hard not to support the Israeli strike against Osiruk. If you put a gun to my head to force me to make a decision, I would say that absent any clear evidence that Iran was going to use nuclear weapons offensively, it would be wrong to use military force even if they are successful in getting nuclear weaponry.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-8649 Mark Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:57:51 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/#comment-8649 I think the harsher rhetoric has more to do with the ascension of an extreme hardliner to the presidency of Iran, but for argument's sake, assume you're right - are you saying that, to avoid inflaming Iran, we should have NOT invaded Iraq, thereby handing a nuclear capability to all three Axis of Evil nations? After all, surely even the most ardent opponent of the invasion doesn't believe Saddam would not reconstitute his nuclear program if it became evident that Iran had the bomb... I think the harsher rhetoric has more to do with the ascension of an extreme hardliner to the presidency of Iran, but for argument’s sake, assume you’re right – are you saying that, to avoid inflaming Iran, we should have NOT invaded Iraq, thereby handing a nuclear capability to all three Axis of Evil nations? After all, surely even the most ardent opponent of the invasion doesn’t believe Saddam would not reconstitute his nuclear program if it became evident that Iran had the bomb…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-8647 peter Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:49:21 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/#comment-8647 Well, if you look at the past ten or even fifteen years, it certainly seems to me that Iran has been much more belligerant now than they were pre-invasion. You imply as much in your post. Since the Ayatollah died, we had something of a detente with Iran. Now they don't even seem to make a pretense about the nuclear program and, as you note, the public statements of their leader are far more bellicose than before. While none of us has insight into how the mullahs really think, it seems certain to me that there is a cause and effect between the Iraqi invasion and Iranian belligerance, and this is principally due to the spectable of American troops being clearly unable to control the insurgency next door. Combine this with the fact that we lack the resources to fight two simultaneous wars in the gulf, as well as the opportunities for cross-border hanky panky by supporting terrorists within Iraq. We handed the Iranians the opportunity to have a proxy war with us. And bindare is blaming the Democrats? Well, if you look at the past ten or even fifteen years, it certainly seems to me that Iran has been much more belligerant now than they were pre-invasion. You imply as much in your post. Since the Ayatollah died, we had something of a detente with Iran. Now they don’t even seem to make a pretense about the nuclear program and, as you note, the public statements of their leader are far more bellicose than before.

While none of us has insight into how the mullahs really think, it seems certain to me that there is a cause and effect between the Iraqi invasion and Iranian belligerance, and this is principally due to the spectable of American troops being clearly unable to control the insurgency next door. Combine this with the fact that we lack the resources to fight two simultaneous wars in the gulf, as well as the opportunities for cross-border hanky panky by supporting terrorists within Iraq. We handed the Iranians the opportunity to have a proxy war with us. And bindare is blaming the Democrats?

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-8644 Mark Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:42:20 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/#comment-8644 peter, I question the assumption that the invasion has made Iran more belligerant - how much more bellicose can you be than holding Americans hostage for 400 some-odd days?... peter, I question the assumption that the invasion has made Iran more belligerant – how much more bellicose can you be than holding Americans hostage for 400 some-odd days?…

]]> By: bindare4u http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-8643 bindare4u Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:41:23 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/#comment-8643 Wanting to develop their nuclear technology for peaceful energy uses is just an excuse, so offering to provide nuclear fuel will not stop irans weapons developement program. Also, it is not the fact that we are bogged down in Iraq that has emboldened the mullahs. It is our political division at home instigated by the Defeatocrats that encourages them. Wanting to develop their nuclear technology for peaceful energy uses is just an excuse, so offering to provide nuclear fuel will not stop irans weapons developement program. Also, it is not the fact that we are bogged down in Iraq that has emboldened the mullahs. It is our political division at home instigated by the Defeatocrats that encourages them.

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-8641 peter Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:28:13 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/05/whats-to-be-done-about-iran/#comment-8641 I think it is worth noting here that Iran was far less beligerant before we invaded Iraq. Now that they have seen how the insurgency in Iraq has bogged us down, we lack the credibility we had before (as well as the forces need to mount a credible threat). Moreover, having Shiites in ascendancy in Iraq has doubtless emboldened the mullahs further. Of all of the unintended consequences of the Iraqi invasion, this may be the most ominous. I think it is worth noting here that Iran was far less beligerant before we invaded Iraq. Now that they have seen how the insurgency in Iraq has bogged us down, we lack the credibility we had before (as well as the forces need to mount a credible threat). Moreover, having Shiites in ascendancy in Iraq has doubtless emboldened the mullahs further. Of all of the unintended consequences of the Iraqi invasion, this may be the most ominous.

]]>