Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Iran is almost about to reach nuclear capability

Rate this topic


Black Wolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

I look at it this way: America is a large community of people living in house A, and Iran is the same, living in house B.

If you are the leader of house A, and have lots of evidence to support the claim that the leader(s) of house B are going to set your house on fire, you need to make a decision. You can either 1) kill the leader(s) of house B, and by doing so, kill the brains of their plan, or 2) kill everyone in house B and try to fool yourself into thinking that the blame lies with the leaders of house B for coming up with the plan in the first place. If you choose 1, there is always possibility that some members of house B will want to continue the original plan to burn down house A; If you choose 2, the fact is that you "pulled the trigger," and the blood of the men you killed is on your own hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you choose 1, there is always possibility that some members of house B will want to continue the original plan to burn down house A;

Very good synthesis.

only that house A is Israel and we know for a fact that with or without Iran (house B ) Muslims of both inclinations who comprise 1/3 of the alphabet will continue to try to burn down house A.

It is reasonable enough to think that Iran will use its newly gained leverage to ask for more concessions to Israel and to assert itself regionally which, let's hope, wont clash directly with the US presence in the area.

After all Iran would not have this program without Russian support. They are not madmen, they just act like that as the spearhead or scapegoat of the non Western World.

Edited by volco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think that they are not mad, but just the scapegoat of the non Western world? Umm..what? I have not read everything in this thread since I last posted, so maybe this has been covered : What you clear to explain that rather absurd assertion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this is addressed, but what is the best way to deal with Iran, if we're to use retributive force on them, without screwing ourselves over?

A direct attack from the U.S. Military? What if Iran decides to attack us in a way that could severely screw our economy up? That's all they'd need to do to make us very vulnerable. And, if everyone's right about them being willing to die for religious causes, I doubt it would be too much of a strech that they'd try to curse us before they go out.

Pay mercenaries? Same problem... if the U.S government is the one paying them. If Iran figures out we put them up to it, they'll attack us.

Letters of marque and reprise? That's usually called for tiny, non international conflicts.. but it could work. If several people were applying for them

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quotes taken from

“Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense

Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein

in The Objectivist Standard

here~~~> http://www.theobject...-war-theory.asp

It is important to note that a proper morality does not require that one be directly attacked in order to retaliate. We need not sit idly by as Iran builds nuclear weapons and missile launchers; we need not wait to respond until they have destroyed an American city. A preemptive strike is justified if the nation involved is an objective threat—that is, if it has shown, in action or in official statements, its willingness to initiate or advocate force against us. For America to identify a nation as an objective threat does not mean to identify exactly when or how that threat will materialize (that is impossible); rather, it means to identify that a nation or regime has the will and means to attack or support an attack against the United States. A nation that threatens innocent nations thereby forfeits its right to exist and deserves whatever consequences innocent nations visit on it. There is an analogy here to domestic criminals. When a government establishes that a man is making death threats against his wife, or has hatched a plot to kill her, it properly throws him in jail—it does not wait until her corpse is found, on the grounds that he might change his mind and not carry out the threat.

To fight and win a proper war of self-defense requires two basic courses of action: (1) objectively identify the nature of the threat and (2) do whatever is necessary to destroy the threat and return to normal life, with minimum loss of life and liberty on the part of the citizens of the defending nation.

and

Given that a nation's civilian population is a crucial, physically and spiritually indispensable part of its initiation of force—of its violation of the rights of a victim nation—it is a morally legitimate target of the retaliation of a victim nation. Any alleged imperative to spare noncombatants as such is unjust and deadly.

That said, if it is possible to isolate innocent individuals—such as dissidents, freedom fighters, and children—without military cost, they should not be killed; it is unjust and against one's rational self-interest to senselessly kill the innocent; it is good to have more rational, pro-America people in the world. Rational, selfish soldiers do not desire mindless destruction of anyone, let alone innocents; they are willing to kill only because they desire freedom and realize that it requires using force against those who initiate force. Insofar as the innocents cannot be isolated in the achievement of our military objectives, however, sparing their lives means sacrificing our own; and although the loss of their lives is unfortunate, we should kill them without hesitation.

Any true freedom fighter caught in America's fire understands the nature of the situation his nation has put us in, supports our cause, hopes for the best, and blames his government and fellow citizens for the danger he is placed in. He recognizes the principle that any innocent deaths in war are the sole moral responsibility of the aggressor nation.

Doing whatever is necessary in war means doing whatever is necessary. Once the facts are rationally evaluated, if it is found that using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear facilities or flattening Fallujah to end the Iraqi insurgency will save American lives, then these actions are morally mandatory, and to refrain from taking them is morally evil.

All the above has been my exact argument except that I am not as gifted in writing.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also read this ~~~~> http://www.theobject...for-victory.asp

This is the strategy we used on Japan and is the one that should be used today. Taken from this article by Dr. John Lewis

One of our generals announces his personal goal: to “kill the bastards.” We name our final drive against the enemy, “Operation Downfall.” A force of overpowering magnitude amasses on the enemy’s borders, as thousands of American bombers pulverize his cities. The President and two foreign allies issue an ultimatum that includes these words:

The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the enemy armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the enemy homeland. . . .

The time has come for the enemy nation to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought them to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason. . . .

Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay. . . .

There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world. . . .

Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established. . . .

We call upon the enemy to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative is prompt and utter destruction.

When the enemy balks at the ultimatum, atomic bombs are dropped on his cities. He surrenders, thus acknowledging the reality of his defeat and making a political decision to cease fighting. He orders his reluctant soldiers to lay down their arms. The American military occupies the defeated nation. We censor the media, impose reforms on schools, dismantle economic cartels, efface militaristic language from discourse at all levels, and write a political constitution which they are forced to accept. We tell them, pointedly and publicly, that they are defeated, and that we have no obligations to them. When they face starvation, we remind them that their miseries are their own fault. We charge them for many of the costs of the occupation. Not one dime of aid arrives until they demonstrate their complete surrender, in word and in action, including their repudiation of the militaristic ideology that motivated their attacks.

This principled, all-out merciless offense is one possible response to the sneak attack.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of ground has been covered since my last post, so I won't be addressing anyone directly. I apologize if I fail to answer any questions that were directed toward me. If anyone wants my answers after reading this post, please ask the questions again.

Until now I've avoided discussion of nuclear weapons in this thread because the topic has been covered at length elsewhere (Thanks for the links, EC). I regard their hypothetical use as moral in situations where they will minimize casualties of the US and our allies. I am thankful they were used on Japan in 1945, as my granduncle Reiny may have had to fight a ground war the following years instead of occupying a subdued nation. Emotionalism aside, I regard any advocacy or opposition to their use at this time as premature. The rest of the thoughts I present here are conclusions I've made based on my own limited knowledge.

Iran seems to me to be the one nation in the Middle East where a popular uprising could lead to real good. Killing these potential allies seems to me to be a mistake. It also seems to me that dismantling the leadership of Iran will cause the tragic deaths of some of these good people (all the more reason to hate Kahmenei and his regime). If military action were to be taken, I don't believe long-term occupation would be necessary. Short term occupation would be required to secure any weapons, sensitive material, and any data about the terrorist networks that Iran supports. Action should be taken immediately to prosecute the war on those networks, even hunting them down in any nation that harbors them. For non-allies, this means entering their borders without permission. If those nations are unable or unwilling to do the job, their sovereignty is irrelevant. For allies, it means providing them with the information necessary to do the dirty work themselves. I suspect our allies' work will appear more like criminal justice than war (I hope this assuages any fear that we might need to eradicate Germany).

I see no reason that this initial flurry of activity should need nuclear weapons, or take less than a year. Iran's proxies will have less access to money and supplies with the cancellation of their state sponsorships. Once it is apparent that we will no longer respect the national borders they hide behind, their resolve will begin to erode as well. After that, we hunt down the remnants of these shattered networks the old fashioned way (the way we are doing it now). In the meantime, we make it clear that these wars actually help muslims. We publicly support any groups like Muslims Against Sharia, in the hopes of providing an outlet for any Islamic fence-sitters and to grow potential alliances.

Based on some of the comments in

(I can't remember which segment), Iran's young population is not growing, and Iranian support for liberalization is likely to decline over time. I think we should take that as evidence that action should be taken sooner, rather than later. Edited by FeatherFall
corrected typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are nice thoughts but unrealistic. It is comparing apples and oranges. 1940s Japan and Germany with not even 2001 but 2010 Islam.

If we restricted our case strictly to Iran, while I can see how the Islamic Republic could share some semblance to the aforementioned Nationalist countries, I still find this a wrong analogy.

As everyone here knows Islam is, for political simplification, divided mainly into sunni and shia. sunni Islam is spread throughout a third of the World, from Africa to China to London and Detroit. Salafists, or something like that, are part of the sunni World and those are the ones who attacked America in 01 and Israel constantly. They rule Saudi Arabia, one of America's allies in need of protection from Iran.

Shia Islam is conveniently concentrated in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iraqi Shia triangle now occupied by the US, as well as many pockets around the World, the biggest one being in Syria and Lebanon (from where they extract poppy money from the Bekaa valley not Iran to fund Hezboallah).

The plan outlined before might have a chance of working if applied to Lebanon, Syria and Iran, in the swift manner described.

If America and Israel survive the World outcry and boycott that would ensue (the sort that killed bright nations like Rhodesia), then we'd still have to deal with sunni Islam, that is the bombers of New York, Madrid, London, Bombay, Bombay, Bombay. But fortunately for me the bombers of Buenos Aires would have been destroyed.

Rather than going for a type of warfare that has been shunned since honorable Mac Arthur was pulled out of Korea, I'd say that what our European and American strategist have in mind would be to foster more orange, or arab or in this case, Persian revolutions of "democratization". Since the result of the last Arab spring has not been very clear, I'd doubt what measures are being planned on Iran.

I certainly hope, and to a point bet, it wont escalate to a Nuclear Spring.

The bottom line is that if we talk only about Iran and not Islam and terrorism at large, then we'll have to talk about the one American ally that is in actual danger from those Iranian weapons (since they don't have enough range to attack American or even Western European soil), Israel.

Israel is in actual danger from this. The moral action for Western governments would be to immediately issue 6 million passports (maybe the US could privatize 0.5% of their Federal Wastelands to create a territory as big as Eretz Israel is today! and more sacred as "God Bless America...", but I'm sure Wisconsin will do just as well)

But Europeans hate Jews and the American gov use the State of Israel as very convenient excuse for military presence, and to intertwine religion with politics with strategic resource protection for the benefit of media confusion.

The moral action for Israel is however, to try self defense by all means necessary.

Is it moral for America to try defense of its occupied territories in Iraq, however... I don't know. Even if moral, how long can it be kept up.

Even if the destruction and demoralization plan worked, Once Iran is done with, along inevitably with Lebanon and Syria, and maybe North Yemen too, the same approach wont work with the other 30something countries that will see America as worse of a menace than before, and that, excuse me for being so cliche, could fertilize the ground for vengeance.

Some countries where Muslims reside are in the EU which still clearly protects them sometimes surpassing the will of the integrating nations.

this will be a fun new year!

Edited by volco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volco, I am a little unsure of who you were responding to. Because I was the last to have posted, I assume your response was to me.

Just to clear the air, the only comparisson I made between the 1940's and today was about will and clarity. This point is timeless. It was true for the cave men and it will be true until the end of time. The paragraph I wrote about nuclear weapons concerned the morality of the weapon, not similarities between then and now.

You said my plan was unrealistic. If you mean the US won't take steps necessary to make it happen then fine, I agree its not likely. But who cares? I wasn't making a prediction. If you mean that it won't work if tried, then you haven't presented a convincing case. Even right now, America is incomparably more powerful than Rhodesia ever was. If you want to convince me, please lay out some specific actions (by specific bodies) that you think are likely to happen in response to my plan. Make sure to explain how those actions will pose existential threats to the US.

You also said you believe Israel is threatened, and that the US should issue 6 million passports (I think your numbers are off, BTW). I find it hard to believe that you really think inviting retreat is the only moral response to a threat. I'm all for open borders, but I'm unclear on your position. Do you believe it is immoral to take military action in defense of an ally?

Lastly, you seem to think every muslim is a threat, which is false. We won't really be able to tell who is and who isn't until high-profile support is given to muslims who reject Sharia, but you need not worry that war must be waged on Deerborn, Michigan.

Edited by FeatherFall
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most dangerous course of action: Iran builds the bomb, then hands it over to one of their many terrorist proxies (Hezbollah, Mahdi Army, etc). The terrorist proxy detonates the nuke in Tel-Aviv, a major US military base in the middle east, or a major US city. The US doesn't retaliate against Iran because Iran has plausible deniabiliy (it wasn't Revolutionary Guards, after all). We launch a police action against the terrorist proxy and build a lame memorial, possibly getting entangled in building sewers and bringing electricity to another underprivelaged country while we're at it.

Edited by SkyTrooper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I was replying to you, Jacob, in respect of the plan as being unrealistic, the rest of the post was for everyone to see.

Also, since this is geopolitical problem, rather than a more abstract or reducible one, I'm not so much interested in convincing you as much as I am about thinking and hopefully exchanging information to understand this better. so,

---------

I didn't say it was unlikely, I said it was unrealistic. It is also unlikely but ca va sans dire.

The plan as outlined in post 83 would not work to a smooth outcome and it is unrealistic to think such a thing would work.

Yes, destroying an enemy instead of helping one side while attacking the other is surely true now, back then and in the time of the cavemen. The problem however is that it's more complicated to define the enemy. I'm not defending Iran for pointing out their sneakiness in using proxies, as described in the hellish scenario by SkyTrooper, last post.

More specifically there are some flaws in what you outlined,

- you say a short term occupation would be possible. Why in itself. Why in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan. How can you imagine this to be possible, an American occupation from China to the Mediterranean that can be short lasted and then, what.

- that moderate islam, such as muslims against sharia, can be propagated; and I assume that such a thing could be the equivalent of "denazification"

The reality is that American strategists don't do things that way anymore, maybe with reason. Libya is a good example of how they evolved from the moral and financial bleeding of an actual invasion and prolonged occupation (Iraq), to a proxy war in which the locals are allowed to have their petty civil war to an outcome favorable to the West.

My analogy of Rhodesia is doublefold. It resembles Israel's situation (already being boycotted by the almost muslim majority united nations and beginning to be abandoned by its sponsor) but it is also the symbol of the last of the British Empire collapsing, not because of lack of military strength, but because it could not be accommodated anymore. As Isabel Paterson would say, the flux of energy was reverting.

I also earlier said that the Iranians weren't madmen. Well, what I'm trying to relay is that ultimately they are peons, or spearheads, of higher powers such as Russia and the Shanghai Group. The World power is re accommodating.

My mention of issuing passports was as a preventive measure. If human life was actually valued by governments then individual citizens should be able to escape in time from a situation and conflict that might not be worth fighting. The number came by subtracting the many Israelis who already have access to a second residence via relatives in the New World, the arabs who might want to stay, and the fundamentalists jews who value more the soil than their children (not too many considering how much Judaism values life and how little it values totems and false idols). But of course no one will consider this seriously for a number of reasons that make perfect sense now and that in the worse of circumstances might fill the pages of a booklet of a new holocaust museum. Israel is the biggest concentration camp for jews that's ever existed. Now it would be a good time to leave it much like the white population of Rhodesia and South Africa benefited from emigrating before the storm than afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel is the biggest concentration camp for jews that's ever existed. Now it would be a good time to leave it much like the white population of Rhodesia and South Africa benefited from emigrating before the storm than afterwards.

Well, not quite yet. South Africa is becoming gradually more unpleasant for lighter-skinned people. Whites have been leaving, but various factors keep many here still. I experienced similar when my family left Rhodesia - for South Africa, thinking it was stable here. Oh, well, that didn't last.

I also know Israel pretty well, and find your analogy interesting, but not completely accurate.

There is a difference between your own government turning on your racial group, and the entire world condemning one.

I notice that you do not underestimate Israel's will to exist, but you have to see it as a combination of things to fully realise it: the "Never again!" of the Jews who survived the camps; the pride of self-sovereignty they have for the first time in history; the distrust for a growing swell of anti-Semitism in the world; the incredible investment of ability and energy to create a modern country from nothing; and, the lesser factor of historic return to 'God-given' land by the minority of Orthodox Jews. (There is a large number of secular Jews.)

Make no mistake, Israel will not go down easily.

(Population at a recent census: 7.8 million, including 1.6 million Israeli Muslims.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most dangerous course of action: Iran builds the bomb, then hands it over to one of their many terrorist proxies (Hezbollah, Mahdi Army, etc). The terrorist proxy detonates the nuke in Tel-Aviv, a major US military base in the middle east, or a major US city. The US doesn't retaliate against Iran because Iran has plausible deniabiliy (it wasn't Revolutionary Guards, after all). We launch a police action against the terrorist proxy and build a lame memorial, possibly getting entangled in building sewers and bringing electricity to another underprivelaged country while we're at it.

The first part is what will happen within the next five to ten years if nothing is done. The second part is also likely if we don't work to change the mindset of people with regard to these issues, which I'm trying to do a small part of in this thread. But, that is more for the writer's of the articles I've linked to since someone like me possesses neither the prestige nor the ability to debate those who are quick and slick speakers that promote the inferior alternative ideas that they have only half considered the consequences of based on their incorrect implicit philosophies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, not quite yet. South Africa is becoming gradually more unpleasant for lighter-skinned people. Whites have been leaving, but various factors keep many here still. I experienced similar when my family left Rhodesia - for South Africa, thinking it was stable here. Oh, well, that didn't last.

I also know Israel pretty well, and find your analogy interesting, but not completely accurate.

There is a difference between your own government turning on your racial group, and the entire world condemning one.

I notice that you do not underestimate Israel's will to exist, but you have to see it as a combination of things to fully realise it: the "Never again!" of the Jews who survived the camps;

the pride of self-sovereignty they have for the first time in history;

the distrust for a growing swell of anti-Semitism in the world; the incredible investment of ability and energy to create a modern country from nothing; and, the lesser factor of historic return to 'God-given' land by the minority of Orthodox Jews. (There is a large number of secular Jews.)

Make no mistake, Israel will not go down easily.

(Population at a recent census: 7.8 million, including 1.6 million Israeli Muslims.)

Thanks for the input, your personal experience obviously contributes much. When the population of Israel is added to the territories it controls and is entangled to, that is Palestine, the ratio becomes a bit closer to Southern Africa during the latter part of the 20th century. I believe Rhodesia was worth defending, but as you might tell us, sometimes it's better to pack up and leave.

The comparison can't be accurate but I chose Rhodesia/Zimbabwe instead of South Africa to give it a sort of finality. Guilty of that, but do you, living there, see any other outcome for SA. The good thing is that you count on other British Commonwealth countries to accept you almost automatically - I believe.

The Antisemites' only excuse is Israel. How convenient to have to deal with anti zionists instead of anti semites!

It would seem that it serves a purpose for one third of the Jews to be a scapegoat or punching bag for the other two thirds that happily resides elsewhere.

The pride of sovereignty, Nationalism, and what it entails, is a concept contrary to Jewish traditions and Jewish identity. God gave and God took away. We've lived in the diaspora for time immemorial. The ones who believe should not return until called. The ones who don't have very reasonable reasons to make it to the New World*

I don't want Israel to go down easy or to go down at all, but I value more the life of the individuals who live in that particular spot of the World chosen for the most irrational of reasons than the real estate that would be lost (euphemism for the horrible cost of relocation)

*Using that term the way wines are classified

Edited by volco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volco, I'm having a little trouble following you. I'll respond as best I can.

The process of identification is not as difficult as you might think. I won't presume that I'm able to do it well enough to inform foreign policy, but I can direct you to people who can help you better identify the problem. Those videos I linked to in my last post are one way. Daniel Pipes (featured in one of the videos) has been blogging about this for years. In all seriousness, this isn't a very complicated issue. Right now the US government has unsurpassed clarity of specifics; what they lack is moral clarity, really. What needs to be accepted in the annals of US power is that it is ok to oppose specific brands of religious politics when adherents of those brands participate in organized violent activity.

When I suggest occupation, I'm not proposing that we enter a country, write a constitution, and then wait until violence recedes to levels we see in America. I'm suggesting that we enter, dismantle the theocratic aparati, and secure weapons or intelligence. Before we leave, we could distribute those weapons to a local group with which we feel comfortable (optional). Notice the differences between this and Iraq/Afghanistan, where we allowed the subjugated nation to write Islamist constitutions while under occupation, and are now sitting there indefinitely. The goals are different; dismantle versus rebuild. We need not rebuild, especially in Iran where there is significant support for liberal politics.

I'm surprised you don't think that steps can be taken to promote Muslim factions who oppose sharia. I guess I don't know why you think this couldn't be done, so I don't know how to address your concerns (other than to say you do it the same way you advocate any other public policy or program).

I think I understand the Rhodesia comparison now that I know you're drawing it with Israel, not the US. About those passports, by the way; For Israelis to leave Israel en masse, they'd need the law of return recognized wherever they are to go. That means issueing another six million or so passports to Jews who don't live in Israel, and accepting anyone else who converts happens to have children that want to come later. But like I said, I'm all for open borders.

Edited by FeatherFall
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volco, I'm having a little trouble following you. I'll respond as best I can.

same here, only I also realize I'm having trouble feeling comfortable with the World the way it is either way.

The process of identification is not as difficult as you might think. I won't presume that I'm able to do it well enough to inform foreign policy, but I can direct you to people who can help you better identify the problem. Those videos I linked to in my last post are one way. Daniel Pipes (featured in one of the videos) has been blogging about this for years.(...) The goals are different; dismantle versus rebuild. We need not rebuild, especially in Iran where there is significant support for liberal politics.

I have reading that sort of material for years, now I am rather inclined to think that iraq and afgh are being rebuilt while destroyed for a reason. If Iran were to be dismantled then oil production would be halted. Giving the weapons to those "comfortable"-with-West will not be optional if you want to keep the occupation short.

I'm surprised you don't think that steps can be taken to promote Muslim factions who oppose sharia. I guess I don't know why you think this couldn't be done, so I don't know how to address your concerns (other than to say you do it the same way you advocate any other public policy or program(!!!!).

I'm surprised you don't see this legal system as central to their religion, knowing that you've read what Daniel Pipes says about how holistic Islam is. Sharia sprouts in Britain and to an extent elsewhere in Europe. Saudi Arabia is also ruled by sharia but somehow they are still the good guys because they channel their operations through more sophisticated proxies. If you see the problem, you should recognize its extent, and maybe give it a chance to let it run its course while protecting your own, Switzerland style. Either that, or acknowledging that the situation is more complicated, but that would involve non kosher ideas such as the actual necessity for a World Police and how America is so far doing it better than anyone, but with increasing costs, and the other chip in the shoulder,related to costs (and thus time frame) strategic resource protection.

I think I understand the Rhodesia comparison now that I know you're drawing it with Israel, not the US. About those passports, by the way; For Israelis to leave Israel en masse, they'd need the law of return recognized wherever they are to go. That means issueing another six million or so passports to Jews who don't live in Israel, and accepting anyone else who converts happens to have children that want to come later. But like I said, I'm all for open borders.

not really that much of a hassle just an open immigration treaty with Israel while it lasts. One with, say, Czechoslovakia while it lasted, would have saved many lives and probably contributed to the American economy.

Edited by volco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volco I think you are just making the issue to complicated. It's not complicated. This is about an ideal response not all the half-assed responses that we see out there. All we have to do is take decisive action against the nation that is the greatest promoter of Islamic Totalitarianism. After everyone see's a decisive principled response they will back down and fall in line if they see that we are not screwing around and that they could be next. All these complicated, internationalist non-sense, non-"simplistic" theories would be shown as the pragmatic non-sense that they are once decisive action is taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, let's hope action is taken then, I want nothing but to be proven wrong by reality on this subject.

by the events of the last 10 years I'd bet it wont be because of you, or us propagating this position, because the wars and interventions and "springs" have not been planned and executed with the same problem in mind. "They" don't want the same kind of World as "us".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. All we have to do is take decisive action against the nation that is the greatest promoter of Islamic Totalitarianism.

By that definition (and demographics since most Muslims are sunni) you certainly mean Pakistan.

Saudi Arabia and Iran only come next competing for the second place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that petro-politics are one reason why Iran has gotten away with its activities to this point. Sometimes you've got to make short term sacrifices for long-term gain.

I understand Sharia is very important to Islam in general. One of the ways to make it less important is to provide an alternative. A "reformation" as Ayaan Hirsi Ali might put it. You provide that alternative by increasing the profile of Islam without Sharia, and by eradicating Sharia's violent and most consistent followers.

Edited by FeatherFall
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=185463 Here's a link from another thread discussing this.

And another http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=183147

And a more important one http://forum.objecti...=1

And the most important thread. http://forum.objecti...=1

Have fun.

Was that in reference to my post? Because I'm mostly asking a question of what way of dealing with Iran will result in least negative consequences for us. The topics you posted are rather old - Iranians may have more power to screw us over now.

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that petro-politics are one reason why Iran has gotten away with its activities to this point. Sometimes you've got to make short term sacrifices for long-term gain.

The argument I'm making in favor of Iran developing these weapons, is that the program was sponsored, was made possible, by the Russians, which inclines me to believe that it's for defensive, deterrent purposes, and that they are "only" trying to counter balance America's supremacy with some more leverage.

Much like Afghanistan during the Great Game, Persia was also contested without a clear winner between the Russian and British (now American) spheres.

The argument against it is that I fear for the lives of millions of Israelis and Arabs from Tel Aviv to Abu Dhabi if the Iranians decide to use that new self confidence to either directly attack Iraq and the Gulf region or Israel through their proxies.

---

now, the following is definitely OT (blame me) so if you'd like to have a long, well paused, personal conversation about it, maybe that'd be the best way to reply.

I understand Sharia is very important to Islam in general. One of the ways to make it less important is to provide an alternative. A "reformation" as Ayaan Hirsi Ali might put it. You provide that alternative by increasing the profile of Islam without Sharia, and by eradicating Sharia's violent and most consistent followers.

Another way is to let it run its course. I enjoy Ayanna's writings and she' beautiful and brave, but she acknowledges that there is no moderate Islam now, quiet the contrary. I believe she considers this outburst of Fundamentalism the first part of a Reformation.

and all the other OT points made before

(such as why not attack Iran with a revolutionary spring)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember Hiroshima, and all that negative press? It never went away; it's still being propagated in schools that nuclear warfare is bad, and that the US should not have used them. After all, it's human lives we're talking about.. not just soldiers with guns & political leaders.

The fire bombing of Tokyo, leveling of Dresden, Sherman's march to the sea, Indian wars, etc. are all seen as equally bad as Hiroshima. If self-interest were seen as moral so would the first-use of nukes.

If nukes wern't so taboo a good argument could be made tactically for their use in this situation, since open source info on the Anrak and Natanz facilities is that they are buried so deep that "none of our bunker busting bombs can reach them". Of course when the press reports that these facilities are untouchable they are ignoring the existence of our most powerful weapons.

Realistically, I'm hoping that covert action (killing Iranian nuclear scientists, sabatoging the facilities, etc.) is able to continue to slow nuclear weapons development in Iran. I don't think this will work for very long, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...