Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 71 To 80 Of 246 Comments
IS WAR WITH IRAN NOW JUST A MATTER OF TIME?
"You will rarely if ever have “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.â€"
Well, I am afraid that I require it before I could support the killing of, at least, thousands, and the serious risk of kicking off world war 3.
But that's just me I suppose. I just regard these people's lives as important as those of my countrymen.
"No one who has examined the evidence, including the Senate Committee on Pre-War intelligence and the Iraq Survey Group—believes Iraq was not developing WMD. The existence of the programs, if not the weapons themselves (which is debatable given the ISG’s criteria) has been confirmed."
Don't they? Can you provide a cite for this?
"It is immoral and irresponsible for the government of the US to allow its people, protection of whom is its reason for existence, to be held hostage to protect the people of Iraq."
Two things;
1) Isn't that the exact situation that you are in now?
2) Are you seriously suggesting that Saddam was a direct threat to the US? Seriously?
"There seem to be some interesting things going on there with WMD right now, the technology for which Syria did not have a few short years ago. Wonder where they got it from."
Same place most people do. Old chemistry books in the case of Mustard gas.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 19.09.2007 @ 15:15
"busboy: the invasion of Iraq worked out fine."
But this is just the old "We never lost a battle in Vietnam" line. If you had smashed up Iraq and left then you would be looking at a very similar strategic situation, where Iran exercised great control over Southern Iraq, the Kurds split away and Saudi Arabia backed the Sunnis.
To suggest that the war went well because you smashed up an innocent country is simply shocking.
"Let us in, show us we have nothing to fear and we’ll stop making threats. But in the absence of evidence that we have nothing to fear, we’re justified in taking their comments and actions at face value and responding to the threat."
There is a reason why we require the prosecution in a court case to prove guilt rather than innocence. Look at what happened with Iraq. We said "Show us your WMDs" they said "We don't have any". We said "Document everything" they send us a complete (as best they could) list of everything that they had. We replied "Liar Liar, pants on fire" and made stuff up about aluminium tubes, yellowcake and mobile chem labs. Ultimately, it is impossible to prove innocence. Iran could open their whole country up to random unannounced inspections and a weapons inspector still couldn't guarantee that there was no nuke program. The best that they could say is "We have found no evidence of a weapons program" which is exactly what they have said.
The fact is that as far as Iran is concerned, given the evidence of Saddam, there is nothing that they can do to alter the US's course. If the US wants war then they will have one, if they do not then they will not, and it makes no difference what Iran does.
And if you are honest, you know that this is the case as well. As with Iraq, so with Iran, the reasons for war are not the stated ones, they are moves on the board of the Great Game.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 19.09.2007 @ 02:07
"We (US) tested ours over Hiroshima. (various source – the Wikipedia article is quite readable:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_test
Well, you do learn something new everyday. The first test was before Hiroshima, but was of the Nagasaki bomb type.
"According to the IAEA, Iran’s uranium enrichment is moving far beyond the 4% required to fuel a reactor and closer to the 84% weapons grade."
Have they? Do you have a cite for that fact?
"They are building a bomb and the Twelvers don’t care about the consequences."
Can you name me the last country (or leadership of a country) that committed suicide on this scale? Not one which launched a war that resulted in their destruction because they lost it, but one that did something knowing that it would lead to their guaranteed deaths within hours.
The old "But they are madmen" argument is never convincing. People so rarely are. They can be monsters, yes, but rarely mad.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 18.09.2007 @ 15:55
"Most experts – including those who are opposed to war with Iran – feel Iran is at the very least, developing the capability to build a bomb which would include a workable bomb design and delivery vehicle (there is evidence they are modifying the warhead on the Shahab 2 missile)."
I wouldn't be surprised to find that they are working to achieve threashold status, whereby a bomb could be constructed in, say, 6 months. That is a pretty common goal amongst third rate powers and can be done within NPT limitations.
There is a long way between developing threashold status and building the bombs though. One is a means of protecting your long term interests, the other is a suicidal act. To build a bomb, you have to test it (as the NKs found in their recent fizzle) and if the Iranians ever tested a bomb they would be obliterated. I state this simply as a matter of cold fact. If the US didn't do it the Israelis certainly would and if they had to they would go nuclear to achieve it.
I note that you do not present evidence, just supposition. Supposition is simply not sufficient to justify this sort of slaughter. Look where it got us last time.
Still, neither you nor I have any say in this matter so it doesn't really make any difference what we suppose, does it?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 18.09.2007 @ 09:49
"Let’s hope the diplomats can solve this thing before it gets seriously out of hand."
Is it appropriate to mention that no-one has presented any credible (or even incredible) evidence at all to show that Iran is building a nuclear weapon?
Or is that just one of those irrelevant observations?
Sorry, I'll go back in my box now.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 18.09.2007 @ 09:10
"Reuters finally does something interesting, and nobody notices."
Yes, it is remarkable how quiet places become AFTER the ethnic cleansing is finished.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 18.09.2007 @ 09:07
"I’m curious as to what authority Bush could use to attack Iran."
There are four basic alternatives;
1) If he does go he can use the AUMF(2002) originally intended to authorise the Iraq campaign. Last year a resolution to put in place a congressional amendment that would say something like "You can't use the 2002 AUMF as authority to attack Iran" was soundly defeated. The clear implication of this is that you *can* use the 2002 AUMF as authority to attack Iran.
2) You simply say that the attack on Iran is a part of the war in Iraq, Iran being the cause of all bad things in Iraq. The propeganda for this case is clearly being spread far and wide. To witness the conscious nature of the propeganda, observer the time given to weapons allegedly from Iran with the time given to weapons allegedly from Saudia Arabia.
3) You actually ask congress for authorisation, and probably get it. Let's be honest, the Dems want war with Iran as much as the Repubs. None of the major frontrunners from either party have given any hint that they are not right behind such action.
4) You just do it and damn the consequences.
I'm going with taking the Lieberman led Senate resolution condemning Iran's meddling in Iraq as fulfilling (3), Public consumption and support from (2), legalistic arguments from (1), but ultimately it all comes down to (4).
I revolve between "They can't be that stupid can they?" and "Yes, they can, look what they did in Iraq"
I'm hoping that betting on the Bush Administration's good sense and understanding of foreign affairs is a good choice.
Who knows, hope springs eternal...
Comment Posted By Drongo On 18.09.2007 @ 08:52
Since I have no influence on whether a war with Iran will happen or not, only opinions, can I just ask a question on a point of etiquette?
When, in a couple of years, the glorious Iranian advanture has gone horribly, completely, unrecoverably wrong, following in the footsteps of Iraq, will it be considered rude to say "I told you so"?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 18.09.2007 @ 08:00
"You just don’t get it. Not only does using words like “failure†to describe an on-going mission work against the “good guys†having a productive discussion/debate on forward-looking policy, but worse yet it only serves as more fodder for the enemy’s propaganda mill."
If you can't accept the word "failure" then you are not willing to look at the reality of what has happened. If you are not willing to start from there then how can we go forward.
Forget the propeganda mill, and the forward looking policy. To plan where you want to be, you must first work out where you are.
The most pervasive problem in thinking is that many people are still trying to plan a way to victory, where the options available are only a range between catastrophe and failure.
And that is why the idea of the two groups producing coherent policy by working together is a joke. If you think that the thing is lost, you are trying to minimise the loss. If you think that it can be won then you take chances to try to get to that winning position. The two approaches have no middle ground.
Think about it from, say, a retail store's perspective. The company is doing badly. Some people who think that there is a chance advocate a new, revolutionary fall fashin line, streamlining some stores and revamping the delivery system. Others who think that the company is bankrupt want to freeze the bank accounts, protect the pension fund and call in the receivers.
In this case there is no middle ground. Each starting assumption leads to completely different actions and goals.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 17.09.2007 @ 08:10
"First move would be for the Democrats to stop making political hay out of the specter of failure in Iraq."
OK. First step for Republicans would be to acknowledge the failure of this war and start to talk about what they should do to mitigate this failure. In order to do this they would have to step back from threatening Iran.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 14.09.2007 @ 16:21
