I do not think Iraq was about WMDs either but that was the justification to the domestic public and foreign states. My question is; am watching a little bit of history repeating itself to soften up the ground for an attack on Iran?
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.
But JJ, you just went there...Originally Posted by JJackson
(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.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).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.
What I would suggest is that if there is an attack on Iran, it also will have very little to do with WMD.
I do not think Iraq was about WMDs either but that was the justification to the domestic public and foreign states. My question is; am watching a little bit of history repeating itself to soften up the ground for an attack on Iran?
If you want to think so, then I guess it's so. Also, one might reasonably expect Iran to have learned something from Saddam's failed saber-rattling exercise.
There's been much speculation about the (supposedly) impending attack on Iran. Personally I'm not inclined to believe that one is in the offing, but I've been wrong before.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
While it's certainly possible for someone to inject false intelligence to a variety of nations all pointing one direction, I think it's quite improbable to do that and make the sourcing credible at the same time.
Your larger point about "proving a negative" is a good one, but keep in mind that confidence and transparency go along way toward erasing the doubt that creates a situation of having to prove a negative in the first place. For example, even though it was impossible to verify with complete certainty the dismantlement of South Africa's weapons and nuclear material (in fact, there were some discrepancies in South Africa's materials declaration), the fact that South Africa was completely open and transparent with the process essentially erased doubts that the discrepancies were the result of intentional deception. Contrast the conduct of South Africa or South Korea or even Egypt with that of Iran and Iraq and I think the problem more clearly becomes not one of proving a negative but providing adequate transparency and openness to resolving the issue. Had Iraq verifiably destroyed its stockpiles instead of doing so secretly and unilaterally, and had Iraq provided the kind of access and transparency to inspectors that it was required to do, there would not have been a need for it to "prove a negative" in the first place to say nothing of OIF.
The same is true with Iran and all the IAEA has asked for all along is adequate transparency to do its job. Like it or not, lack of transparency in all human endeavors, whether a nuclear program or an unfaithful spouse, tends only to raise doubts about motivation and cause ambiguous information to be interpreted negatively. In short, it's not up to the Agency or any intelligence service to prove a negative - rather its up to the member state to fulfill its obligations and provide the access and transparency the Agency says is necessary for it to do its job, which Iran is clearly not doing. This lack of cooperation does not prove Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but keeps the issue in doubt and unresolvable. It's therefore hard to have sympathy for Iran's complaints of having to prove a negative when its continuing lack of cooperation is the very thing that is keeping those doubts alive.
I don't think so.
Truly doubt it -- but like Steve Blair, I've been wrong before...
Iraq made sense (not in the way or at the time it was done but in overall context); Iran does not on many levels.
I do not want to think anything of the kind and even if I did it would not make it so. I want to be able to trust my government and yours as it is the only party I have any faith in is the IAEA.
True but which lesson. That you may get accused of trying to acquire WMDs and then get attacked regardless of validy of the charge? May as well acquire what weapons you can and dig in.Also, one might reasonably expect Iran to have learned something from Saddam's failed saber-rattling exercise.
I don't think it will happen either but not because their are not those in high places in Israel and the US who do not believe it is needed but because the don't have enough support and the NIE helped.There's been much speculation about the (supposedly) impending attack on Iran. Personally I'm not inclined to believe that one is in the offing, but I've been wrong before
I am not trying to be awkward (it just comes naturally - boom boom). 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.
Not to mention that big ass mountain range in the west of the country that will be a fairly big obstacle belt.
Example is better than precept.
It would be nice...
I'd like to do the same thing -- though I have far less faith in the IAEA than you do -- but I suspect that trusting any of the three is a step too far, IMO.I strongly doubt that would deter ANY US PresidentI don't think it will happen either but not because their are not those in high places in Israel and the US who do not believe it is needed but because the don't have enough support and the NIE helped.Huh? 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?I am not trying to be awkward (it just comes naturally - boom boom). 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.
Flown over and driven through that
Makes the moon look hospitable...
These (LINK) are almost as bad...
It conjures up images of a noticeably agitated contingency planning staff somewhere with bad hair, red eyes, coffee nerves, and a distinct tendency to staring off into the far distance...and a J-4 repeating over and over to himself, "this will never proceed beyond the .ppt Phase, this will never proceed beyond the .ppt Phase..."
Last edited by Norfolk; 06-02-2008 at 10:15 PM. Reason: Sorry, J-4, NOT a mere S-4.
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.
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...
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: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?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.
The difference is, of course, that none of those three countries signed and ratified a treaty that specifically forbade nuclear weapons, while Iran did. Is it something worth another war? Not in my opinion, but YMMV.
Talking past each other, and other things
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.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?
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.
We-e-e-l-l-ll
That presumes it was a mistake -- and it's too soon to tell. As to a salutary lesson, that was the intent; to provide one for the ME to consider. I believe they are in process of doing so; also too soon to tell how effective it was...
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
Dispel that feeling...
Not at all necessary for us to agree so long as we avoid beinf disgreeable.Perfectly understandable and I know many agree with you; I and others have different views on some of those aspects; most notably in my case on the matter of justification.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 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.I fear too happy an ending lest it become an excuse for further similar ventures.True on the thread, probably also on the line location though I can and do respect where you draw yours. On Somalia, interesting conundrum; that too, we'll have to wait and see.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
Thats going to excuse you from having to be around to help with the next cycle
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
Hey, I told you
I was supremely lazy...Thats going to excuse you from having to be around to help with the next cycle
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks