Not being a great worrier about non-proliferation --
that cat being out of the bag long ago, I don't see that as an actual casus belli for us in spite of all the rhetoric.
Though I acknowledge it could be used as a pseudo case. :wry:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JJackson
Ken the 'so' is we are already fighting one war because Iraq could not prove a negative and I don't want to go there again.
But JJ, you just went there... ;)
(Rhetorically, I mean. If you meant you don't want to go there again, physically, that's understandable though it may not be your decision that makes the determination)
Suffice to say I'm extremely doubtful that WMD / proliferation had much of anything to do with our attack on Iraq in spite of the politically inspired double speak or obfuscation on the issue.
Quote:
I took Ron's post to imply they were not declaring materials (sorry Ron if it was not your intention to sow that seed of doubt) which I wanted to challenge. If anyone has evidence great, else show me the aliens.
Dunno. Don't care. Both sides will maneuver and lie while seeking advantages and leverage; way of the world. We have been playing intel and verbal games with the Iraniha since 1979 and I suspect we'll continue to do so for some time. Not concerned with Aliens, either (immigrants or extraterrestials).
What I would suggest is that if there is an attack on Iran, it also will have very little to do with WMD.
Flown over and driven through that
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RTK
Not to mention that big ass mountain range in the west of the country that will be a fairly big obstacle belt.
Makes the moon look hospitable... ;)
These (LINK) are almost as bad...
Don't Look For The Political Will To Attack Iran...
, because it's just not there (See caveat below). The NIE initially took the winds totally out of those sails, and there's also an additional (different) factor at play these days.
The Iranian economy is literally on the verge of experiencing Argentinian style hyper-inflation in their economy (some would say they are already there), in particular with the vast increase in the money supply (almost a tsunami) pushed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
It's literally creating such vast internal inflation that Iran is being crippled financially, the Persian "street" looks to be highly unhappy, and if oil prices do top and then fall back, they are in big trouble. In this light, why should we do anything stupid (like attacking Iran)? We couldn't possibly do a better job of crippling the Iranian economy than they are doing right now. Just keep enforcing (and tightening, if possible) the economic sanctions, and let Iran do the rest (to themselves). Now if they pissed us off bad enough, well then all bets would be off (Hint to President Ahmedinejad: NEVER, EVER give a bunch of pissed off rednecks a really good reason to go out looking for a fight).
Besides, it's an election year on this side of the pond, so the remainder of 2007 is hereby officially dedicated to general election foolishness by all concerned parties, so Iran is just going to have to wait their turn. We can't have anything serious get in the way of our electioneering. Just the way it is.
Sorry Iran, just going to have to wait your turn. Besides, we need a good International Econ case study over how a nation can destroy their own economy through rampant, uncontrolled inflation. Iran as a case study will do just fine.
I do believe we're talking past each other...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JJackson
I am not sure we can/should get overly self righteous if Iran wants a nuclear weapon if we did not do so for Israel, India, Pakistan etc. The Hostile Intent was the thing I would view as a cause for war.
Agreed. Which is why I said ""Not being a great worrier about non-proliferation -- that cat being out of the bag long ago, I don't see that as an actual casus belli for us in spite of all the rhetoric."" and ""Though I acknowledge it could be used as a pseudo case.""
However, I think you missed my point.
I asked "If you agree that WMD were not the true reason for the invasion of Iraq, and I think you did, then isn't this a dichotomy?" in relation to your comment agreeing with me that WMD were likely not the real reason for invading Iraq followed by this:
Quote:
If there is a genuine problem with Iran and they have hostile intent then fine lets go coalition building and I hope the UK signs up but please this time lets be sure they are guilty of the crime before we meter out punishment.
Point being that I thought we sort of agreed that Iraq was not guilty and we invaded anyway. Ergo, why should Iran have to be guilty to be invaded? :wry:
Talking past each other, and other things
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
However, I think you missed my point.
I asked "If you agree that WMD were not the true reason for the invasion of Iraq, and I think you did, then isn't this a dichotomy?" in relation to your comment agreeing with me that WMD were likely not the real reason for invading Iraq followed by this:Point being that I thought we sort of agreed that Iraq was not guilty and we invaded anyway. Ergo, why should Iran have to be guilty to be invaded? :wry:
I am sure your are right and I see your point. I was just hoping Iraq would be viewed as a mistake/salutary lesson rather than a setting of precedent.
Entropy re post #184. Great post and you are quite right I have no idea how difficult it would be to make disinformation look credible. I have eventually finished reading the latest IAEA report and, having read a few of these now, felt it was more pessimistic about Iran’s compliance than before – without actually accusing them of anything specific. I also agree that Iran are not doing themselves any favours in doing the minimum they can get away with. I have some sympathy for their position regarding the APs but am mainly fighting double standards which seems to have put me in their corner.
I note in a number of reports that from the Iranian point of view the UK are actually the bad guys and the US also rans.
I have a nasty feeling ...
... we are not going to agree about this Ken, but.
For me the mistake has already been made and is not dependent on the outcome. The invasion without adequate justification and an adequate mandate was the mistake and that makes me have mixed feelings about the outcome. While I hate the destruction, loss of life (on all sides) and the general increase in hatred and mistrust, I fear too happy an ending lest it become an excuse for further similar ventures. This is not the disagreement for this thread and we have been around this bush a few times in other threads and I am not sure either of is going to wholly convince the other about where the line should be drawn. I see Ethiopia/Somalia in the same light, I am rooting for the Islamic Somalis because I don't want the invasion to work and be rolled out as a template
Just as long as you don't think
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I truly do not foresee that as a problem; things go in cycles and I suspect that interventions will be avoided for some time. A generation at least.
Thats going to excuse you from having to be around to help with the next cycle:D