Iran is almost about to reach nuclear capability

[Prometheus98876]

You think Steves (and my theory too if it would seem ) is LESS likely? Why is that?

But in any case, at least we are in agreement as to what must be done. Even if the reasons for thinking that may not be entirely the same.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Prometheus98876

[stonebuddha]

The "evidence" about Iran & nukes is flimsy: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/11/08/iran-five-minutes-to-zero-hour/

[Prometheus98876]

We do know that they have a nuclear research body do we not and that they are trying to do *something* with nuclear technology. Should we take our chances with these madmen and wait till the evidence is *not* flimsy before we take out their insane leaders and become damn sure that they are never able to pursue the production of and use of nuclear weapons?

[volco]

fact, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and they haven't been hijacked by the fundamentalists that run half that country. at least yet

qyestions,

Isn't it quiet possible, in fact more likely, that just as the mullahs chose a stirring figurehead, the same system chooses to have a stirring weapon that can provide the illusion of a shield to the population against what they clearly see as *amurican imperialism*?

Since Iran doesn't represent a risk directly to the United States of America, or New Zealand for that matter, wouldn't Ayn Rand's stance be of arming and helping the State of Israel instead of actually sacrificing American (or kiwi) blood?

And more importantly. Does anyone here consider that the middle east conflict might be a zero sum game for protection of hydrocarbons veiled by religion and politics? Just consider what just "happened" in Libya.

Edited November 9, 2011 by volco

[whYNOT]

The "evidence" about Iran & nukes is flimsy: http://original.anti...s-to-zero-hour/

Generally, I thought the author is being a little too "half-clever".

Nobody can doubt that Iran would like the world to know is at the very least playing with the idea; or, may be 'forced' to go that route to 'defend' itself from its enemies. If this is all a bluff, it is a very dangerous one.

Having already established itself as a nuclear player, why not go the whole hog?

The self-justification and motive is there, all that remains is the capability. The 'mays' have it right, I think.

[Prometheus98876]

fact, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and they haven't been hijacked by the fundamentalists that run half that country. at least yet

Another case of the argument by false analogy fallacy rearing its head. Iran is not Pakistan, nor is very comparable in this context.

I have already stated that I believe it to be illogical to assume that these mullahs etc are NOT picking a president that for the most part accurately reflects upon their fundamental political views and aspirations. In any case, do you feel like taking the risk ? Why should we?

I also think it is evasive/ignorant to try claim that Iran is not a threat to the US ( it is already one in the sense that it apparently funds terrorist acts against America and helps some of these attacks to be possible ) or that it could and would not become one if nobody stops it.

Of course, nobody said anything about sacriciing "Kiwi" blood to stop Iran. NZ has no army of sufficent strength to try such a thing and it knows that. The best NZ could do is to involve some of its SAS ( special forces ) troops in some sort of military strike/campaign. Which is arguably a reasonable step if Iran is a credible threat to New Zealands allies.

And more importantly. Does anyone here consider that the middle east conflict might be a zero sum game for protection of hydrocarbons veiled by religion and politics? Just consider what just "happened" in Libya.

Why on Earth would we think this?

Edited November 9, 2011 by Prometheus98876

[volco]

Another case of the argument by false analogy fallacy rearing its head. Iran is not Pakistan, nor is very comparable in this context.

I just stated the fact that one Third World muslim country already has nukes. Incidentally the Western part of that country borders with both Afghanistan and Iran and is governed by several chiefdoms where the government dares not enter. Those chiefdoms are/were aligned with Taliban and people who have already attacked America in the past - unlike Iran where at least there is some order.

I have already stated that I believe it to be illogical to assume that these mullahs etc are NOT picking a president that for the most part accurately reflects upon their fundamental political views and aspirations. In any case, do you feel like taking the risk ? Why should we?

I also think it is evasive/ignorant to try claim that Iran is not a threat to the US ( it is already one in the sense that it apparently funds terrorist acts against America and helps some of these attacks to be possible ) or that it could and would not become one if nobody stops it.

Even more apparently it is Saudi Arabia the financier of the groups that have killed American citizens by the thousands. And British, Indian and Spanish. The groups financed by Saudi Arabia apparently train in Afghanistan and the aforementioned border region of a country that has had nuclear missiles for decades.

Iran has funded groups that have killed some Americans in occupied Iraq (even if rightly so, it's a war or extended military engagement), and in Israel/Lebanon. In the case of Israel, I believe I heard Ayn Rand saying that the moral thing to do is to help the Israelis in any financial and moral way we can. I could not agree more.

Of course, nobody said anything about sacriciing "Kiwi" blood to stop Iran. NZ has no army of sufficent strength to try such a thing and it knows that. The best NZ could do is to involve some of its SAS ( special forces ) troops in some sort of military strike/campaign. Which is arguably a reasonable step if Iran is a credible threat to New Zealands allies.

That was a bit tongue in cheek, it struck me that you'd be so belligerent (or defensively/preemptively belligerent) when 1) the country you are a citizen of is in the situation you described and 2) your government kicked an American nuclear vessel out of your disproportionately large territorial waters weakening ANZUS.

Why on Earth would we think this?

Because oil is a vital geostrategic resource and we (all players on Earth) need time. Isn't it evasive not to think this?

[Prometheus98876]

Ok sure, Saudi Arabi is another country that I might consider to be a [potential] threat as well. However we are not talking about Saudi Arabi and other Middle Eastern nations that might need to be taken out , we are talking about Iran.

So what if "my country" takes that attitude? I am not my country nor do I generally agree with the political decisions the leaders of my country makds. Nor does my country being in the position it is , prevent me from taking a rational stand on what America ( or other countries for that matter) should do in response to the threat Iran poses.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Prometheus98876

[volco]

True, we are talking about Iran, but it's impossible to drop the geopolitical context. By your own admission (and even drudgereport's) Iran's main threat is through Hezbollah, the "foreign operations" outgrowth of the Revolutionary Guard. It's valid to note that they act mostly (if not only) in the pockets of shia islam outside Iran, like Lebanon and parts of Iraq (in the case of iraq, for longer and before American occupation). In the case of Lebanon it mixes with Israel, which in fact makes it a Middle East subject.

On the other hand, I can not see how oil is not playing a big part in this. The gulf has been enduring a "cold war" between Iran and other American allies, specifically UAE, Qatar, Bahrein, Kwait and Saudi Arabia.

The real threat to American (and to a point Worldwide) security is Iran sabotaging or occupying extensive oil fields, which would cause violence and maybe collapse back at home among compatriots.

So I fully acknowledge the threat but the moral cost of intervention can not be so easily shaken off as directly as, say, intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan in retaliation of 9/11 (and why not, the Saudi Kingdom of the two scimitars).

Even if Iran gives us a show of craziness, (much like the Soviets did for years with their religious confidence in flawed economical practices), it is still a country of millions of somewhat civilized people that have other priorities than bringing about catastrophe. Even the religious mullahs have other 6 or so pillars of faith besides jihad. They really seem to be trying to show defensive force to avoid being "intervened" by the United States. Why can't you assume that the fear is reciprocal, that preemptive attacks are also thought by both parties, and that in the end that would lead to just another MAD policy? Do you really think that the Pentagon would not be taking the necessary preemptive measures if there was an actual threat to American soil through such ridiculously conventional warfare in an age of anonymous, at least a-national terrorism?

@NZ issue. That's why I took care to say the country you are a citizen of, instead of your country. I'm not American either and I never agree with the decisions the government I'm a subject of. not of importance.

Edited November 9, 2011 by volco

[volco]

Just incidentally, unlike American, Argentine soil has been attacked twice during the 90s by Iranian funded terrorists.

[Prometheus98876]

I am not ignoiring the "geopolitical' situaton. I simply want us to confine ourselves to Iran or facts clearly relevant to Iran and whether or not it is a [potential] nuclear threat. Pakistan really has nothing / little to do with it.

Care to prove the speculation about oil or to provide a reason to think oil has much to do with it?

If you know I am not my country, then how does what my country thinks in this regard have anything to do with this discussion? Beyond the fact that we are unlikely to want to be of much help, even if NZ was able to (though we have one of the best SAS forces in the world apparently, and this could potentially be a big help).

[volco]

Care to prove the speculation about oil or to provide a reason to think oil has much to do with it?

Oil is a finite resource (you'll be able to find proof of it) and a large proportion of it is split between the American-allied-Gulf States and Iran. In fact a disproportionate percentage of World reserves lies in this anti-Western, pro China and Russia, country.

Our civilization ultimately needs this resource to keep the wheels of life moving until the infrastructure is re built to work on another fuel (just as it's happened a couple of times since the beginning of the industrial revolution) .

Even if we don't want to repeat threads about the Iraqi invasion of 2003, it is still WELL within reasonable doubt that oil has a lot to do with this. Just consider that the Iranians think of protecting their oil as one of their reasons to develop a nuclear shield (the other being that two/three(paki) out of the six countries it borders by land has already been occupied by their foe).

[Prometheus98876]

That is why in your hypothetical situation, it might be about oil. I wanted evidence for why in reality this *is* largely about oil.

And no, it is not withing reasonable doubt that the Iraqi invasion was about oil. The fact that the Iranians worry about protecting their oil is certainly not a reason to think this.

Even though if Iran is invaded, the invaders might decide to take advantage of the oil resources there anyway. But that will not a primary motvating factor behind the conflict. / invasion.

[EC]

God, I wish they would just nuke the whole middle east so that people wouldn't make the silly argument anymore that this has to do with oil instead of terrorism. The point is to kill and eliminate, terrorists, anybody that can potentially support the terrorists including any friends, family, religious supporters, governments that support it or might potentially support it, etc. None of this has to do with walls of words about "geopolitical situations" and definitely absolutely nothing to do with oil.

Edited November 9, 2011 by EC

[volco]

That is why in your hypothetical situation, it might be about oil. I wanted evidence for why in reality this *is* largely about oil.

I was the one who was asking the question following question.

And more importantly. Does anyone here consider that the middle east conflict might be a zero sum game for protection of hydrocarbons veiled by religion and politics? Just consider what just "happened" in Libya

I see yours is no. And Eric is also no.

interesting.

Also interesting EC's absolute evasion of 1) my proposal that oil is finite and essential for at least a window of time, and a disproportionate part of it is in Iran, and Iran's neighbours.

2) I repeatedly acknowledged Iran's threat as a sponsor of terrorism.

Iran's main threat is through Hezbollah, the "foreign operations" outgrowth of the Revolutionary Guard. It's valid to note that they act mostly (if not only) in the pockets of shia islam outside Iran (...) In the case of Lebanon it mixes with Israel, which in fact makes it a Middle East subject

- and therefore more complicated as Israel already has nuclear capability and has not preemptively struck Iran yet as it did with Iraq before. Israel seems more preoccupied with the distributed character of "post-modern" warfare (terrorism) which clearly can't be eradicated by occupying countries ad infinitum. Edited November 9, 2011 by volco

[Prometheus98876]

Of course terrorism cannot be stopped that way. State sponsorship of terrorism can however be stopped by oblierating the ability of any State that does so attempts to do so. Invade, destroy any infrastructure required to do this and generally wreck unlimited havoc , until that State realizes that if they do not stop this, they will not only fail, they will die. But of course the prospect of death will not stop all of them. The prospect of the utter destruction of their nation / political structure might. If it doesnt? Oh well, they will be too dead to do much.

Rinse and repeat until there are no such States left and until nobody dares try set up another one.

[volco]

Of course terrorism cannot be stopped that way. State sponsorship of terrorism can however be stopped by oblierating the ability of any State that does so attempts to do so. Invade, destroy any infrastructure required to do this and generally wreck unlimited havoc , until that State realizes that if they do not stop this, they will not only fail, they will die. But of course the prospect of death will not stop all of them. The prospect of the utter destruction of their nation / political structure might. If it doesnt? Oh well, they will be too dead to do much.

Rinse and repeat until there are no such States left and until nobody dares try set up another one.

If only that worked. Do you actually have any evidence of any country resolving terrorism that way? Ireland, Spain, India, any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims, not that it would be moral (Peikoff already did that) but that it would actually work?

[volco]

The attacks on America back in 2001 were, as far as we can know, carried out using Saudi sponsorhip, some Sudanese, Pakistani, I believe some other countries, and actually German infrastructure. That's a lot of turf to cover.

[Prometheus98876]

Yes. Evidence that supports the claim that is how you end *state-sponsored* terrorism. Read "Nothing Less Than Victory" by John David Lewis ( there are other books that help with this, cannot remember the names off the top of my head, I think one is "Winning the Unwinnable War " by [ I forget the name]).

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0691135185

What I am talking about here is how to wage a war which has the long-term effect of removing the will of the people of a nation ( this includes the leadership by t he way ) to engage in such actions. You know, like what was done to Germany at the end of WW2. Different situation I know, but I see every reason why the principles discussed in the book would apply here.

The book talks about in the context of starting wars etc, but if you read the book you can easily see how this applies here too.

If anyone has failed to make such nations do this in the past, I bet its because they did not do it properly. As detailed in the book.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Prometheus98876

[volco]

I am familiar with that content, both the essays you refer to and the books, and in fact it does not provide evidence of a real world scenario where it actually happened, it always falls back to World War II and the obliteration of Japan and the will of the Jap Purist zealots. The Germans Fascists and the Japanese were logistically the opposite of a distributed guerrilla-like warfare like modern day terrorism is.

By the 1960 warfare had changed and Vietnam was not won by destroying the country as you described but by withdrawing and making them manufacture our shoes 30 years later.

By 2010 conventional warfare as you described does not promise to curb terrorism, at least no evidence of it. Ireland and Spain resolved terrorism in other ways. India tries to squash the Maoist and Tamil terrorist through many measures (like distributed attacks, typical counter insurgence attacks) not by obliterating, say, the state of Orissa.

Edited November 9, 2011 by volco

[Prometheus98876]

Of course it often falls back to WW2, it is one of the BEST wars which can be used to provide evidence for the thesis of the book.

Sorry, warfare has not changed such that t he lessons of the book become invalid when appliede to modern warfare. If you think that, then you dont understand the nature of warfare, its root causes, how to morally and properly end a war and did/do not understand the book.

I never said warfare of any sort "curbs terrorism". However I did say that waging war against *state-sponsored* terrorism would if done properly, be an effective way to eventually stop this happening. Obviously terrorism is not completely stopped, but at least states would not be knowingly funding it anymore.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Prometheus98876

[volco]

. State sponsorship of terrorism can however be stopped by oblierating the ability of any State that does so attempts to do so. Invade, destroy until that State realizes that if they do not stop this, they will not only fail, they will die. But of course the prospect of death will not stop all of them. The prospect of the utter destruction of their nation / political structure might. If it doesnt? Oh well, they will be too dead to do much.

You seem to be confusing State and their subjects. Who is going to be much too dead? the state that sponsors terrorism?

Terrorism is carried out increasingly by private individuals who can move, reside and be citizens of different and multiple countries. That's what I meant by the complete opposite situation as in WWII.

[Prometheus98876]

You seem to be confusing State and their subjects. Who is going to be much too dead? the state that sponsors terrorism?

Terrorism is carried out increasingly by private individuals who can move, reside and be citizens of different and multiple countries. That's what I meant by the complete opposite situation as in WWII.

*rolls eyes*. You seem to entirely miss the point, I am talking aboug STATE-SPONSOERED TERRORISM, NOT ALL ACTS OF TERROISM. In which case we obviously want to stop them doing that ( amongst all the other things they want to do , like invade Isreal, nuke places etc ). That is the context I am talking about. Stop evading / trying to change the context or I will not continue to argue this with you.

Read the damn book, if you have : Read it again and think until you understand. Else this is a futile debate.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Prometheus98876

[volco]

Maybe in the case of Israel vs Iran some of those wars among nations could apply (ony that Iran always uses proxy groups by now probably independent from their source)

But it certainly wont help, as you admitted, to curb terrorism or "post modern warfare". Both Pakistan and the UK would have to be destroyed to be saved.

[FeatherFall]

You think Steves (and my theory too if it would seem ) is LESS likely? Why is that?

Iran has a proven history of fighting proxy wars. All other things being equal, if they have a nuclear sheild I am completely certain that they would step up those proxy wars. I think it is plausible that they would use a nuke if they had one, but I don't regard it as anything close to completely certain. Either way, plausible is certain enough to justify full-scale military action when the result in question is a nuclear firestorm directed at the US or its allies.

By the 1960 warfare had changed and Vietnam was not won by destroying the country as you described but by withdrawing and making them manufacture our shoes 30 years later.

By some accounts, the US won the Vietnam war as a result of the Tet Offensive, which was a collosal failure. Only weak American resolve allowed the NVA to win. It is true that nobody has stopped Islamist terrorism by brutally waging a war to crush Islamist resolve. But the biggest reason for this is because nobody has tried, it isn't because the strategy lacks merit. In any case, Islamism has generations of infrastructure that must be dismantled. That means years of uncompromising action, the type of which we haven't yet seen, toward clearly defined enemies.

Edit: perhaps instead of, "the US won the war," I should have written, "was in a position to win it."

Edited November 9, 2011 by FeatherFall