http://gamingtrend.com
October 02, 2014, 12:33:10 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How does one rattle a saber when it's bent, stuck, or otherwise engaged?  (Read 1606 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
helot2000
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 287


View Profile
« on: April 26, 2008, 02:40:16 PM »

Very carefully. 
Quote from: Star Tribune
The nation's top military officer said on Friday that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" against Iran, citing its "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq.  Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing specifically to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force."It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," he said at a news conference.  Still, Mullen made it clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution to the tensions with Iran and does not foresee any imminent military action.
 
His statements and others by Defense Secretary Robert Gates signal a new rhetorical onslaught by the Bush administration against Iran, amid what officials say is increased Iranian provision of weapons, training and financing to Iraqi groups that are killing Americans.  In a speech Monday at West Point, Gates said Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." He said a war with Iran would be "disastrous on a number of levels. But the military option must be kept on the table given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat."

The Iranians appear to have their very own Charlie Wilson(s) in the Iraq affair.   But then, we could make the same claim against Saudi Arabia, Syria and perhaps even Libya.  Each country denies that they support the flow of arms, men, money and munitions into Iraq to back their respective proxies.  If the administration is even half serious about a military solution to deal with Iran, then they should institute a draft now as we are going to need boots that we don't currently have.  I once rated the chance of this administration going to war with Iran at zero but I should probably bump that number up a bit.  And get a bus pass before oil goes to $200 a barrel. 
Logged

Saving the world one post at a time.
mikeg
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2549


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2008, 03:10:51 PM »

Other than our own inept government, I see Iran and China as the two biggest threats to America's future.  One directly and the other indirectly.  Good read.  I have little doubt that in my life time I will see a near, in magnitude, world war.

And that is all you will ever hear me say in the arena of politics.  As for religion, I have even less to say.
Logged

I am Xboxalot on Live.
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1091


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2008, 03:59:45 AM »

Quote from: mikeg on April 26, 2008, 03:10:51 PM

Other than our own inept government, I see Iran and China as the two biggest threats to America's future.  One directly and the other indirectly.  Good read.  I have little doubt that in my life time I will see a near, in magnitude, world war.

And that is all you will ever hear me say in the arena of politics.  As for religion, I have even less to say.

It is very easy to deal with Iran, ignore them and they won't be any threat at all. So they get nuclear, so what? Just make sure they know that if their nuclear somehow cause harm to Americans (directly or indirectly through terrorists) then Iran will be wiped off the face of earth.
Logged
JohnathanStrange
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 604


Noted Humanitarian


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2008, 05:43:31 PM »

Quote from: Victoria Raverna on April 28, 2008, 03:59:45 AM

Quote from: mikeg on April 26, 2008, 03:10:51 PM

Other than our own inept government, I see Iran and China as the two biggest threats to America's future.  One directly and the other indirectly.  Good read.  I have little doubt that in my life time I will see a near, in magnitude, world war.

And that is all you will ever hear me say in the arena of politics.  As for religion, I have even less to say.

It is very easy to deal with Iran, ignore them and they won't be any threat at all. So they get nuclear, so what? Just make sure they know that if their nuclear somehow cause harm to Americans (directly or indirectly through terrorists) then Iran will be wiped off the face of earth.

'Course it'd be too bad for the possible hundreds of thousands/millions of Americans harmed in an Iranian instigated nuclear attack, but at least Iran would be "wiped off the face of the earth." Ignore them and they won't be any threat at all? Great way to deal with problems, even nuclear ones, just ignore it. Sheeeeeeesh.
Logged

You just don't give up do you? You seize life by the throat and shake it like a topless bartender mixing a martini! -- Mayor Adam West
helot2000
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 287


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2008, 10:57:28 PM »

Quote from: JohnathanStrange on May 11, 2008, 05:43:31 PM

Quote from: Victoria Raverna on April 28, 2008, 03:59:45 AM

Quote from: mikeg on April 26, 2008, 03:10:51 PM

Other than our own inept government, I see Iran and China as the two biggest threats to America's future.  One directly and the other indirectly.  Good read.  I have little doubt that in my life time I will see a near, in magnitude, world war.

And that is all you will ever hear me say in the arena of politics.  As for religion, I have even less to say.

It is very easy to deal with Iran, ignore them and they won't be any threat at all. So they get nuclear, so what? Just make sure they know that if their nuclear somehow cause harm to Americans (directly or indirectly through terrorists) then Iran will be wiped off the face of earth.

'Course it'd be too bad for the possible hundreds of thousands/millions of Americans harmed in an Iranian instigated nuclear attack, but at least Iran would be "wiped off the face of the earth." Ignore them and they won't be any threat at all? Great way to deal with problems, even nuclear ones, just ignore it. Sheeeeeeesh.
As a fellow wargamer and student of history, you must know that containment worked with Stalin's USSR and Mao's China.  Containment was a work in progress with Saddam's Iraq.  We used containment on Nicaragua and still use it on Cuba.  Containment is our game when it comes to North Korea.  Steve Chapman explained it better than I can in his op-ed piece on the subject. 

The alternative to containment is what, pre-emptive war?  The Iraq war is projected to cost us trillions and I just don't see how we go down this road again even if Iran is actively pursuing nukes.  What alternative are you looking for US to deploy against Iran?  How come North Korea has nukes and we sleep at night but somehow, we must take out Iran before she develops the nuke?  Any 2nd or 3rd world dictator who watched our approach to Iraq and North Korea noticed that Kim Jong-il sleeps tight at night because he has nukes and Saddam is dead because he didn't have them. 
Logged

Saving the world one post at a time.
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2008, 12:06:49 AM »

Quote from: helot2000 on May 11, 2008, 10:57:28 PM

How come North Korea has nukes and we sleep at night but somehow, we must take out Iran before she develops the nuke?

No kidding - nukes and missiles.  Iran has IAEA inspectors investigating whether their nuclear program is peaceful - there'll be a report out this month.  It'd be insanity to start another pre-emptive war against another country with no active weapons program, but I guess El Presidente wants a legacy.
Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2008, 01:05:26 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on May 12, 2008, 12:06:49 AM

Quote from: helot2000 on May 11, 2008, 10:57:28 PM

How come North Korea has nukes and we sleep at night but somehow, we must take out Iran before she develops the nuke?

No kidding - nukes and missiles.  Iran has IAEA inspectors investigating whether their nuclear program is peaceful - there'll be a report out this month.  It'd be insanity to start another pre-emptive war against another country with no active weapons program, but I guess El Presidente wants a legacy.

North Korea isn't close to Israel.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2008, 01:28:05 AM »

Quote from: CSL on May 12, 2008, 01:05:26 AM

Quote from: Brendan on May 12, 2008, 12:06:49 AM

Quote from: helot2000 on May 11, 2008, 10:57:28 PM

How come North Korea has nukes and we sleep at night but somehow, we must take out Iran before she develops the nuke?

No kidding - nukes and missiles.  Iran has IAEA inspectors investigating whether their nuclear program is peaceful - there'll be a report out this month.  It'd be insanity to start another pre-emptive war against another country with no active weapons program, but I guess El Presidente wants a legacy.

North Korea isn't close to Israel.

That's a non sequitur. The US isn't close to Iran, yet JohnathanStrange articulated his support of war against Iran because of the purported risk of "hundreds of thousands/millions of Americans harmed in an Iranian instigated nuclear attack."  Israelis aren't Americans.  If the concern is about risk to Americans (and not Canadians or Israelis), then JS should be worried more about actual nuke-owning crazy-man Kim Jong Il.
Logged
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1091


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2008, 03:55:57 AM »

If US's government love Israel so much, maybe they should just donate a state to Israel and let them move and set up a country inside US. That'll reduce the middle east conflict.slywink

Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2008, 04:12:04 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on May 12, 2008, 01:28:05 AM

The US isn't close to Iran, yet JohnathanStrange articulated his support of war against Iran because of the purported risk of "hundreds of thousands/millions of Americans harmed in an Iranian instigated nuclear attack."

There are other ways of getting a nuclear weapon somewhere other than a long-range missile. Not that I think Iran would attack the United States with a nuclear weapon - at least not directly.

Plus, Johnathan never made any statement in support for a preemptive war against Iran. Maybe - I don't know, read his statement next time before posting.

Quote
Israelis aren't Americans.  If the concern is about risk to Americans (and not Canadians or Israelis), then JS should be worried more about actual nuke-owning crazy-man Kim Jong Il.

I'd rather view the Iranian threat more seriously. Iran is the regions undisputed power after we took out Iraq, which like it or not makes any moves towards nuclear power - whether genuinely for civilian usage - a direct threat against Israel (real or imagined) and by extension American interests in the region. The fact that Iran has in the past supported terrorist organizations, and is actively taking a hand in some of the sectarian violence in Iraq should only heighten those fears.

On the otherhand Kim Jong Ill is essentially contained with the United States, Japan, South Korea, China, and Russia looking to ease its nuclear aspirations and rather blatantly being led on in that direction by the North Korean government. It's actually rather surprising that you couldn't see that in this situation its clear which of the two nations should be directly seen as the greater potential threat with nuclear weapons.
Logged
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1091


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2008, 04:23:31 AM »

I don't know why anyone think Iran is bigger risk than NK.

I'll count on Iran's leaders' will to survive. It is easy to fund terrorists or send people on suicide bombings if there is no risk to them. You won't see those leaders strap bomb on their chest and go to Israel to blow up stuff. So to stop them, you just need to make it very clear that if their nuclear somehow cause harm to Americans, you'll kill them all.

NK on the other hand is probably a bigger risk. Unlike Iran, the leader of NK is not a sane person. This is a guy that is worshiped like a god and probably believe the propaganda.slywink Now God is immortal, so you can't threaten to kill him if he harm Americans with his nuke.




Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2008, 04:49:28 AM »

Quote from: CSL on May 12, 2008, 04:12:04 AM

Quote
Israelis aren't Americans.  If the concern is about risk to Americans (and not Canadians or Israelis), then JS should be worried more about actual nuke-owning crazy-man Kim Jong Il.

I'd rather view the Iranian threat more seriously. Iran is the regions undisputed power after we took out Iraq, which like it or not makes any moves towards nuclear power - whether genuinely for civilian usage - a direct threat against Israel (real or imagined) and by extension American interests in the region. The fact that Iran has in the past supported terrorist organizations, and is actively taking a hand in some of the sectarian violence in Iraq should only heighten those fears.

On the otherhand Kim Jong Ill is essentially contained with the United States, Japan, South Korea, China, and Russia looking to ease its nuclear aspirations and rather blatantly being led on in that direction by the North Korean government. It's actually rather surprising that you couldn't see that in this situation its clear which of the two nations should be directly seen as the greater potential threat with nuclear weapons.

You're a card, CSL

Please detail the "threat" from the Iranians to the United States.  Requirements for a decent grade:  evidence that there is a nuclear weapons program, that weaponization is imminent, and that there's a delivery vehicle to harm North Americans (see how inclusive I am?)

Just this last week, Mohammed ElBaradei said that talks with Iran about their "alleged studies of weaponization" have gone well.  Since 2003, the IAEA has been doing investigations in-country of Iran's nuclear programs.  Back in 2005, the IAEA reported that they'd found no evidence of undeclared nuclear materials, or nuclear materials to be used in "furtherance of a military purpose" in Iran.  Immediately after, he US went to the IAEA with the contents of a stolen laptop that (allegedly) contained information on this nuclear arms program.  That documentation was the basis for the UN resolutions insisting on further clarifications of Iran's nuclear status.  Flash-forward to February of this year - Iran finally gets to see the contents of the laptop.  What's on it?  Four projects, of which three are not actionable under IAEA provisions, and the fourth of which, private-sector plans for a program to (allegedly) convert uranium oxide to uranium tetrafluoride, isn't something that Iran would even have to declare under the terms of the safeguards agreement until 6 months before plant operations begun.

Meanwhile, "containment" of North Korea under the Bush administration has been a disaster.  When the boy king took over in 2000, North Korea was contained and had no active nuclear development program.  In the 8 years since, we've demanded they not develop weapons (we failed), that they not test missiles (we failed), and that they not test a nuclear bomb (we failed).  In a sad irony, we're back to the Clinton-era program, but only after NK has developed multiple warheads.  What's to stop them from selling one to insurgents in Iraq, in the exact same fictional scenario most people dreamup for Iran?  Nothing.  Nuclear bombs aren't imprinted with serial numbers allowing us to track them back to their originating country.

The credibility you're assigning to western intelligence services is badly misplaced, as evidenced by our current misadventures in the middle east, so it's not actually that surprising that your personal threat assessment is off.  But hey, presumably the Taepodong-3s won't be able to reach you.

I won't even bother with your assertions that the US is responsible for a) mitigating threats, real or implied, to Israel, and b) that we're the sole arbiter of which nations get to develop peaceful uses of nuclear power.  We went it alone in Iraq because the UN and the experts on the ground didn't believe the Hussein had chemical or nuclear weapons.  They were right.  They're currently making up their minds about Iran, and the US and allies should pay attention this time around.

Edit:  To be clear, I'm not personally concerned about the threat from either of those nations to US security.  But when considering them in relative terms, NK is a greater danger to the US than Iran.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 04:53:22 AM by Brendan » Logged
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2008, 05:25:40 AM »

I'm hoping that we get the end of Bush without any military action against Iran.  The risks are just too great.  Hopefully the next president will be smarter (though I'm worried about McCain in that regard). 

That said, Iran simply has to be dealt with via the UN and a strong legitimate alliance of countries.  Unilateral action against it is unnecessary and very unwarranted.  Israel already has its own nuclear weapons (that's the general consensus, anyway) so if Iran is stupid enough to nuke Israel, they will pay a heavy price. 

Personally, I think it's time to engage Iran on a more reasonable level than the US has since 1981.  Time to move on.
Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2008, 05:36:38 AM »

Totally agreed, Sarkus.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.266 seconds with 50 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.093s, 2q)