Volco, I’m sorry you left so soon. I still don’t understand what your point is. You’ve said Iran is a threat (with or without nukes), but you seem to oppose the notion of fighting them. You seem to think terrorism is unstoppable, and you’ve alluded to the contradictory notion that enemies will defeat themselves (presumably, again, we shouldn’t fight them). If you choose to re-enter the thread I’d like to know what course of action you would have us take, based on these scattered premises.
You made me come back, I was just digesting the nuclear wasteland thoughts. As new member Michele points out, killing civilians is not ok, it can be morally acceptable only in some circumstances; and it disturbs me to talk about it so lightly, even revel on it.
There are two things in play in what you ask me. Iran which is the topic of the thread is about to achieve nuclear capacity. We’ve known this for five years now and we’ve seen American and Israeli politicians do almost nothing about it. When Iraq was in the doubt of having WMD the reaction was much different, but in the case of Iran we know it in advance. I hope I’m right in my guess that they want a nuclear program for energy and deterrent purposes. I lament that part of those deterrent purposes might enable more terrorism.
I was pointing out also that Iran’s proxies, namely Hezbollah, is almost independent now and that they could have, and still can, acquire either WMD or other weapons secretly, not donated from the highly publicized Irani program.
I do agree that once Iran has its nuclear shield their proxy’s operations could escalate, but in the context of Islamic terrorism, or even Worldwide terrorism of different sorts, it seems like just a hair to the dog. Or it could be the stick that breaks the camel’s back.
As you can see I am thinking openly here, I am in doubt.
As for terrorism, I do believe it’s as unstoppable as war was in older times (or in Africa now). I consider it the price to pay for enjoying a system of distributed power and personal freedom. In a reign of private individuals, some private individuals will do harm. In a reign of state and country, the state will do the harm and can be held responsible. Part of the price to pay for interconnection, globalization, and particularly liberalization. That doesn’t mean security should not be of top concern!
The problem with Iran is that it plays it both ways. Even if Iran were obliterated for the dubious crime of developing their military and energy sectors, what other places would have to be destroyed to do away with the many private individuals that receive now or in the past help and sponsorship from Iran. Destroy Lebanon too, and most of Europe as well?. How many terrorist per civilians in a given area render that area apt for obliteration?
I can’t answer what I’d do (unless in a game), this deserves a lot more consideration and thankfully I’m not a Pentagon strategist. I’m willing to continue reading and learning more. This is not a clear cut situation.
I’m not interested in speculating what would have happened, and it isn’t really relevant (if you think it is, I’m willing to consider why you believe it). My purpose in mentioning veitnam was, using your chosen example, to counter your implied point that conventional war is innefectual. The factors that are relevant to both the Vietnam war and our current war with the Islamists are resolve and clarity. The NVA had them, the Islamists have them, and the West has lacked them since after the days of Churchill. Your own position is a case in point.
I’m not interest in speculative scenarios either my point was that there are wars that are better not to be fought. “Chose your battles”.
Specifically I am aware of the irony that while America failed to protect Capitalism in Vietnam, decades later it turned out not to matter, Capitalism is flourishing there anyway. not just in shoe “sweat shops”, and now Vietnam is the opposite of a nation that could do us harm.
Our enemies will be defined by an active process of identification. Once clarity is brought to the issue and those enemies are called out, pressure can be put on our allies to dismantle any Islamist networks within their own spheres of influence.
cool, let’s do that then. what an undertaking though!
