Strange things happen... - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Joe · 10-30-2009, 09:06 AM

If you bomb Iran's nuclear capacity and you don't capitulate the theocracy, you open yourself up to state-sponsored nuclear terrorism. Make no mistake, the Iranians will retaliate if attacked so long as there is continuity with respect to command and control. In the real world, the military answer brings with it the baggage of occupation and nation building. Our military is stretched as it is now - even if we were so inclined as to attack, logistically, we're not in a position to conduct such operations.

Also, Iran is overwhelmingly Shia where Afghanistan and Iraq are Sunni - so how you treat each nation and the progress each makes will be held up for comparison. This could also spell trouble as we could be seen as being more for one arm of Islam than the other.

justplugit · 10-30-2009, 09:32 AM

I agree Joe, but we all learned a long time ago you can
only negotiate from strength or there is nothing to be gained.

This "making nice" stuff gets you nowhere with crazies like him.

He is sitting in the catbird seat.

RIROCKHOUND · 10-30-2009, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justplugit

I agree Joe, but we all learned a long time ago you can
only negotiate from strength or there is nothing to be gained.

This "making nice" stuff gets you nowhere with crazies like him.

He is sitting in the catbird seat.

So what is the other option?
War? Invade Iran? Bomb the sh-t out of them?

justplugit · 10-30-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So what is the other option?
War? Invade Iran? Bomb the sh-t out of them?

Start with more sanctions and blockade.

Our Commander in Chief needs to step up and be just that.

We need a leader, his indecision on Afghanistan makes him look weak,
and now that he is looking at sending 1/2 the troops his General asked
for, it is making him look more like an appeaser again.
Either send what they need or get out.

JohnnyD · 10-30-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justplugit

Start with more sanctions and blockade.

Our Commander in Chief needs to step up and be just that.

We need a leader, his indecision on Afghanistan makes him look weak,
and now that he is looking at sending 1/2 the troops his General asked
for, it is making him look more like an appeaser again.
Either send what they need or get out.

When you put it that way, it sounds quite easy, but....

Sanctions will immediately lead to war, and require international support to enforce. A blockade would lead to war immediately after the first vessel headed for Iran was stopped or boarded.

Iran would not hesitate to retaliate to such measures.

The Bush Administration started petitioning for sanctions and Obama continued that sentiment after taking office.

If it were that easy, why wasn't this situation resolved in the 6 years following Bush's January 29, 2002 declaration that Iran was assisting terrorism and potentially was developing nukes? (For once, this isn't a knock on Bush) In the last 4 years of his presidency, Bush and Co. tried to get sanctions on Iran once there were obvious signs they were attempting to refine nuclear material.

justplugit · 10-30-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

When you put it that way, it sounds quite easy, but....

Sanctions will immediately lead to war, and require international support to enforce. A blockade would lead to war immediately after the first vessel headed for Iran was stopped or boarded.

Iran would not hesitate to retaliate to such measures.

The Bush Administration started petitioning for sanctions and Obama continued that sentiment after taking office.

If it were that easy, why wasn't this situation resolved in the 6 years following Bush's January 29, 2002 declaration that Iran was assisting terrorism and potentially was developing nukes? (For once, this isn't a knock on Bush) In the last 4 years of his presidency, Bush and Co. tried to get sanctions on Iran once there were obvious signs they were attempting to refine nuclear material.

JD, I'm not saying it's easy, but to wait around until Israel takes it to them, which I'm surprised they haven't already, or Iran to get the bomb, is allowing others to make decisions for us.

While our actions may be precarious now, they are less dangerous then they will be.

Joe · 10-30-2009, 11:04 AM

The options are always the same: diplomacy, economic incentives or sanctions, or military action be it overt or covert. Usually, a combination of all three.

Diplomacy is not synonymous with weakness. Diplomacy often entails allowing the other party to take enough rope with which to hang themselves. (I.E.: The Cold War ending as a result of the Soviets inability to match us economically during an accelerated arms race.) Personally, I think that eventually Iran will come around and the theocracy will fall as a result of domestic insistence.

justplugit · 10-30-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe

Personally, I think that eventually Iran will come around and the theocracy will fall as a result of domestic insistence.

That would be the ideal solution. However, when the people took the demonstrations
to the streets, Obama did nothing to give them encouragement or
moral support.

JohnnyD · 10-30-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justplugit

That would be the ideal solution. However, when the people took the demonstrations
to the streets, Obama did nothing to give them encouragement or
moral support.

Formal endorsement of a civilian uprising won't win any battles. That would make it easy for Iran to further demonize the West to their people who are ignorant due to censoring of the internet.

Iranian government controls all media in that state. Just what they would need is the American President hailing civil unrest.

Obama did come out and condemn the actions of the Basij when arresting people during their peaceful protests.

justplugit · 10-30-2009, 03:25 PM

Your right, it won't win any battles, but how much more can they do to demonize us? It gets to a point where it doesn't matter any more.

BTW-always good throwing ideas around with you, JD.

buckman · 10-30-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So what is the other option?
War? Invade Iran? Bomb the sh-t out of them?

YES, but it won't be us doing it

JohnnyD · 10-30-2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman

YES, but it won't be us doing it

Good. You didn't want to pay for teachers to keep their jobs in the town you live in, I can't imagine you want to pay for fighting wars on 3 separate fronts.

buckman · 10-30-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Good. You didn't want to pay for teachers to keep their jobs in the town you live in, I can't imagine you want to pay for fighting wars on 3 separate fronts.

I pay and pay and pay JD. My son's "History of Rock and Roll " teacher is still there. What the hell are you talking about?