WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

[LargoWinch]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080710/.../iran_missiles

I am sick and tired of countries not minding their own business. LEAVE IRAN ALONE.

All Iran is doing is "talk and talk" but they are not doing anything. Missile tests? Who cares? All the frikin countries on this planet have daily military exercice/test. What is so different with Iran so that they cannot have any tests?

However, if they do attack Israel or any other country without provocation, then let the countries directly involved deal with it: USA should NOT participate unless attacked.

[GRG55]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

I am sick and tired of countries not minding their own business. LEAVE IRAN ALONE.

All Iran is doing is "talk and talk" but they are not doing anything. Missile tests? Who cares? All the frikin countries on this planet have daily military exercice/test. What is so different with Iran so that they cannot have any tests?

However, if they do attack Israel or any other country without provocation, then let the countries directly involved deal with it: USA should NOT participate unless attacked.

Far, far too late for that. Several generations too late...

...Roosevelt fought long and hard with those who wanted to cling to isolationism. Senators with isolationist tendencies held a grip on the foreign relations committee. [Guinsburg p.215] There were those who wanted to avoid the painful experience of the post-WWI boom and bust. A compromise was worked out in through their support for the Lend-Lease Program and Neutrality Act. This was regarded hypocritically as 'staying out of danger but willing to take the cash.' [Ibid p.218]

Within ten days of Germany's invasion of Poland there was the worry that Roosevelt wanted the armed forces to 'follow the guns into the trenches'. Senator Vandenberg declared that the U.S. had to be '- either all the way in or all the way out.' Isolationist Senators like Wallace White had a 'fervent hope that Britain and France would prevail in their righteous cause'. [Ibid pp.221,230]

In an attempt to woo the middle ground Roosevelt sought to repeal the arms embargo but not the actual Neutrality Act. Despite the continued bitter infighting some began to believe that the governmental policies of isolation and non-intervention were dead issues. Nonetheless, on December 7th 1941 the great debate was silenced, it was now too late to consider the alternatives. [Ibid pp. 238,274]

The propaganda machine quickly swung into action. The U.S. was the inventor of liberty, it had the highest standard of living, the best way of life. Everything was good in America, its lifestyle, food, travel, clubs, and freedom of worship and the press. Hitler was laughing at America. A victory for the Axis powers would plunge subjugate 7/8 of the world into slavery. America did not want this war but was ready to respond. [Why We Fight : War Comes to America]

The thought that rules American foreign policy to this day was introduced - Only America could save the world for democracy. The published opinions built a consensus that the war was just and right. The 'Just War' clause has been pulled out continually to justify U.S. intervention. The danger to the U.S. was outside, not inside. The depression and internal conflicts of the 1930's were supposedly to be forgotten.

The War Production Board set to its job in haste. It intervened in the allocation of resources and underwrote industry incentives, whilst the army and navy offered 'cost plus' contracts. Competitive bidding and anti-trust regulations were discarded. Around 2/3 of military contracts went to 100 firms, around 1/2 to just 36. This established the huge military industrial complex which was to become a powerful and independent political force in coming years.

A retired Navy Admiral later reflected,
'World War Two changed everything. Our military runs our foreign policy. The State Department has become a lackey of the Pentagon. Before WWII this never happened. - The ultimate control was civilian. WWII changed all this.'...
Essay: The U.S. - From Isolation to Intervention

[Andreuccio]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

The European dimension starts with the idea that you can divert attention by starting a war against the Chechen's and to build up the case, someone gets the idea of blowing up a few buildings in Russia. Problem was, a journalist came across someone that described very clearly that the explosives left in the basement of a block of apartments full of innocent Russian citizens were Russian Army equipment .... just before one of the explosions.

Time passes and the journalist is now more than one and they all keep doggedly following the story to the point where, suddenly the journalists start to disappear in strange circumstances. The story surfaces and the finger of suspicion points directly at the Kremlin. That part finishes with a dissident being poisoned by the use of Polonium, a substance only available to the Russian Government. The UK objects to the murder of someone on British soil and by now all sorts of things have ramped up.


The Russians have:

• re-introduced regular bomber intrusions into British air space.
• made it clear that they now dislike normal large company and institutional ownership of Russian assets, using every trick in the book to slide foreign ownership of Russian industry back into Kremlin hands.
• Apparently, so we are told just a week or so ago, have flooded the UK with what are euphemistically described as "spys".

So, right now, we have a ramped up "situation" in the middle East that might lead to a possible local war between Israel and Iran into which the US will almost certainly get drawn. and another rising "little difficulty" with Russia and the siting of rockets and radars in Europe.

No, we are still in the debate phase, but surely, we should not discount the potential for the hammer to fall ... in more than one situation, ....... unexpectedly?

Thank God for the US press. I wouldn't be sleeping very well at night if I had to read about this stuff on a daily basis.

[Chris Coles]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Far, far too late for that. Several generations too late...

I have to say I profoundly disagree with the above statement. It is not about getting involved, but the manner of involvement. Thus it is not too late. A true democracy always prevents war by bringing into the debate the small detail of the need for a complete agreement before starting.

Sending in special forces, effectively starting the process of going to war, without the small detail of public debate, is in fact un-democratic. So even this small thread here on iTulip is helpful as it is public debate.

We may not like the current leader of Iran, but there is much evidence to suggest that the majority of the young population of Iran are not his supporters at all. So anything that provokes war is never going to be to our advantage. If war was the answer, we would all go to war against our own government every time we found ourselves disagreeing with them. It is precisely the idea that we instead debate and stick to the rules of debate that has made us free. We set no example at all to anyone if at the first hurdle, we set off to war instead of creating every opportunity for dialogue.

Our freedom is not based upon the idea that we solve our problems by getting into any situation that demands we end up going to war.

No, I am not saying we should not be prepared to defend our peaceful way of life. Nor, that I would not do so if faced with an attacker, but we are not faced with any such. Yes, rhetoric, yes, posturing, yes, we could improve things, if we wish to. But there is no basis for starting a war.

Iran poses no threat. Others perceptions of a threat pose the greatest risk of war as an unintended consequence of an imagined risk.

[Chris Coles]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Thank God for the US press. I wouldn't be sleeping very well at night if I had to read about this stuff on a daily basis.

Exactly the opposite. It is because you have a bad press that you cannot rely on to tell you the truth of what is actually going on that has brought your fine nation to the brink of this stupidity. The only way this can continue is for the American people to be kept in the dark, fed rubbish about perceived threats and kept from hearing the truth of what your own leadership has set into motion.

[Andreuccio]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Exactly the opposite. It is because you have a bad press that you cannot rely on to tell you the truth of what is actually going on that has brought your fine nation to the brink of this stupidity. The only way this can continue is for the American people to be kept in the dark, fed rubbish about perceived threats and kept from hearing the truth of what your own leadership has set into motion.

I guess I really do need to include my disclaimer:

"The stupid thing you are about to read by Andreuccio is meant only in jest. It means the opposite of what is written. Please don't flame me unless you actually agree with what I appear to be saying."


Please refer to this thread for a more complete explanation:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...38767#poststop

[ASH]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

One "might happen" is that the US has underestimated the intent of the Russians and their visible discomfort about the radar and rockets being based in Eastern Europe.

That's a very good example of an unlooked-for threat. I think the American government may indeed be underestimating the degree to which this irritates the Russians. Broadly speaking, the Americans figure that since the Russians have more than enough missiles to saturate any defense we can erect, our missile defense systems don't represent a "real" threat to Russia. We're acting like it is just Russian pride which is hurt, because we're making military arrangements with former Soviet satellites, and we tend to interpret their complaints as posturing. On the other hand, an article appearing a few years ago in Foreign Affairs pointed out that our limited missile defense system -- while being useless against a Russian first strike -- might be adequately effective against a Russian retaliation for an American first strike. I think there's something to what you say...

... However, I have also read that Russia has not yet reconstituted its conventional forces. I admit I could be misjudging them, but I don't think they are anywhere near ready to attack NATO.

We may not like the current leader of Iran, but there is much evidence to suggest that the majority of the young population of Iran are not his supporters at all. So anything that provokes war is never going to be to our advantage.

...

Iran poses no threat.

You're right about Iranian public opinion, but the problem is timing. Plan A was to let the young, moderate majority who backed President Khatami replace the revolutionaries and improve Iran's relations with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, Iran is a theocracy -- not a democracy -- and the moderate President was unable to push through any meaningful reforms because they were blocked by the revolutionary council. The young moderates became discouraged, and their political movement has decreased in relevence. Plan A failed.

Plan B is to shrug and wait a few decades for the revolutionaries to die off. The problem is that Iran will get the bomb before then. That's why Israel and the United States are contemplating Plan C.

I think you should qualify the assertion that "Iran poses no threat." I don't think Iran poses an existential threat to any country other than Israel, and although President Ahmadinejad seems a bit batty, he's not running the show. Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the one calling the shots, and I have read that he's somewhat more pragmatic. Anyway, I think that a nuclear Iran is deterable from attacking others with nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, Iran IS a threat to the balance of power in the Persian Gulf, to peace in the Middle East, to American hegemony, and to vital commercial interests. The question is not whether Iran is a threat or not -- the question is whether the interests it threatens are worth fighting about.

[LargoWinch]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Ash, I disagree with your last comment when you say:

"On the other hand, Iran IS a threat to the balance of power in the Persian Gulf, to peace in the Middle East, to American hegemony, and to vital commercial interests. The question is not whether Iran is a threat or not -- the question is whether the interests it threatens are worth fighting about."

Again, who cares if they are a treat in the Middle East? If not them someone else will. Then what? If they are a treat to someone, let that someone deal with it.

Since when is it necessary to go to war for "American hegemony" or "vital interests"? "interest ...worth fighting about"??? This is pardon my French, complete B*lls***.

The only reason to go to war in my view, is if you are delibarately attacked without provocation. Even in that case, you should try not to go to war. Being attacked, does not mean having your ships/planes just accross the other guy's frontier and being shot at while taunting them.

[LargoWinch]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

"Iran poses no threat. Others perceptions of a threat pose the greatest risk of war as an unintended consequence of an imagined risk."

... very well said indeed GRG55.

I completely agree with the fact that any population under attack will rally around its leaders against the invaders/attackers, despite the aforesaid leaders being completely irrational or worse.

[Chris Coles]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

I guess I really do need to include my disclaimer:

"The stupid thing you are about to read by Andreuccio is meant only in jest. It means the opposite of what is written. Please don't flame me unless you actually agree with what I appear to be saying."


Please refer to this thread for a more complete explanation:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...38767#poststop

In the world I live in, disagreeing is not flaming, but there you are, no doubt you will never be able to agree with that point of view either...

[Andreuccio]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

In the world I live in, disagreeing is not flaming, but there you are, no doubt you will never be able to agree with that point of view either...

Sorry, I know you weren't flaming me. (Using the word "flaming" was another literary device: hyperbole. )

But you weren't actually disagreeing with me, either. You were agreeing with me, you just seemed not to know it at the time.

Now I need to reword my disclaimer.

[ASH]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Ash, I disagree with your last comment...
"On the other hand, Iran IS a threat to the balance of power in the Persian Gulf, to peace in the Middle East, to American hegemony, and to vital commercial interests. The question is not whether Iran is a threat or not -- the question is whether the interests it threatens are worth fighting about."

Since when is it necessary to go to war for "American hegemony" or "vital interests"? "interest ...worth fighting about"??? This is pardon my French, complete B*lls***.

The only reason to go to war in my view, is if you are delibarately attacked without provocation. Even in that case, you should try not to go to war. Being attacked, does not mean having your ships/planes just accross the other guy's frontier and being shot at while taunting them.

I think we are talking at cross purposes, Largo. You just answered -- very emphatically and in the negative -- the question of whether American hegemony or commercial interests are worth fighting for.

Also, perhaps you will agree that since I said Iran doesn't present an existential threat to the United States, it's not fair to suggest that I think it is "necessary" to go to war for these things.

I'm just asking for a little sophistication here. If national survival is at stake, then war is fairly uncontroversial -- not much point in weighing its merits. I was pointing out that although national survival is not at stake, there are reasons why an elective war might be fought. There are plenty of valid objections -- both moral and practical -- to elective war, but unless you are a Manicaean like President Bush, it is valid to debate policy decisions on their merits. I find the black-and-white absolutists on both sides of the issue intellectually equivalent.

[Chris Coles]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

I find the black-and-white absolutists on both sides of the issue intellectually equivalent.

Wow! Having just been plagiarised on the one hand and now I am either Black or White. Wow!

I have never claimed to be an intellectual.

[ASH]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Wow! Having just been plagiarised on the one hand and now I am either Black or White. Wow!

I have never claimed to be an intellectual.

Whoa. To the extent that my comment was directed toward any particular person, it was Largo (whose post I quoted) -- not you. Ever since you clarified that you're not talking about World War III I've been on basically the same page. No offense to you was intended.

Oh -- and although you were plagiarized, I'd think it an honor to be misattributed to GRG55. ;-)

[Chris Coles]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Whoa. To the extent that my comment was directed toward any particular person, it was Largo (whose post I quoted) -- not you. Ever since you clarified that you're not talking about World War III I've been on basically the same page. No offense to you was intended.

Oh -- and although you were plagiarized, I'd think it an honor to be misattributed to GRG55. ;-)

Ash, as we say here in the UK, I was pulling your leg. Cool man.

The honour was discovering the words on the page in the first place, if you can figure that out? and having a joust with a sharp brain like yours. Now buss off, the weekend has started. Enjoy!