increasingly ludicrous Iran situation

I think we have to learn that if the international community is asking that a country or region is stop performing a certain activity then it's the international community's responsibility to prevent that country or region from performing the activity, not the United States. It's why we have a UN. Is it not?

These paragraphs stick out the most for me:

Quote:

from Information ClearingHouse: The core TIRANNT effort began in May 2003, when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran. TIRANNT has since been updated using post-Iraq war information on the performance of U.S. forces. Meanwhile, Air Force planners have modeled attacks against existing Iranian air defenses and targets, while Navy planners have evaluated coastal defenses and drawn up scenarios for keeping control of the Strait of Hormuz at the base of the Persian Gulf. A follow-on TIRANNT Campaign Analysis, which began in October 2003, calculated the results of different scenarios for action against Iran to provide options for analyzing courses of action in an updated Iran war plan. According to military sources close to the planning process, this task was given to Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, now commander of CENTCOM, in 2002. The Marines, meanwhile, have not only been involved in CENTCOM's war planning, but have been focused on their own specialty, "forcible entry." In April 2003, the Corps published its "Concept of Operations" for a maneuver against a mock country that explores the possibility of moving forces from ship to shore against a determined enemy without establishing a beachhead first. Though the Marine Corps enemy is described only as a deeply religious revolutionary country named Karona, it is -- with its Revolutionary Guards, WMD and oil wealth -- unmistakably meant to be Iran.

Now the war on Iraq started March 19? And the military was already running war plans on Iran? I hoping (and this is the vibe from the article) that the Iraq War wasn't some test run for the "real" war in Iran.

I guess this is why you don't make up reasons to go to war or overinflate a threat. Now that we need a real coalition of the willing (ie. the UN) no one is willing to shed more in the name of our "cause for peace". I wonder how many Western countries will silently believe that we deserve whatever we get if we retailiate against/attack Iran....


[Edited by - Alpha_ProgDes on April 17, 2006 7:54:50 AM]

too bad, the UN has been fucked by the US so badly...

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes I think we have to learn that if the international community is asking that a country or region is stop performing a certain activity then it's the international community's responsibility to prevent that country or region from performing the activity, not the United States. It's why we have a UN. Is it not?

tried that with Iraq... US didn't like it and wanted to blow stuff up... even if the UN were involved (and I thought they were but meh) I'd expect Iran to be no different.

The problem is, even if the world wakes up and realises that the biggest threat to world peace IS the US we probably wont be able to jack about it.. I mean, would you want up go up against the only country in the world to have used a nuke?

Quote:

Original post by phantom Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes I think we have to learn that if the international community is asking that a country or region is stop performing a certain activity then it's the international community's responsibility to prevent that country or region from performing the activity, not the United States. It's why we have a UN. Is it not? tried that with Iraq... US didn't like it and wanted to blow stuff up... even if the UN were involved (and I thought they were but meh) I'd expect Iran to be no different. The problem is, even if the world wakes up and realises that the biggest threat to world peace IS the US we probably wont be able to jack about it.. I mean, would you want up go up against the only country in the world to have used a nuke?

Be careful buddy. The world sees the US and UK as butt buddies. So if we're a world threat and have to be eliminated then you're definitely on that list. Third is the rest of Western Europe.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by phantom Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes I think we have to learn that if the international community is asking that a country or region is stop performing a certain activity then it's the international community's responsibility to prevent that country or region from performing the activity, not the United States. It's why we have a UN. Is it not? tried that with Iraq... US didn't like it and wanted to blow stuff up... even if the UN were involved (and I thought they were but meh) I'd expect Iran to be no different. The problem is, even if the world wakes up and realises that the biggest threat to world peace IS the US we probably wont be able to jack about it.. I mean, would you want up go up against the only country in the world to have used a nuke? Be careful buddy. The world sees the US and UK as butt buddies. So if we're a world threat and have to be eliminated then you're definitely on that list.

Not so much...

Quote:

Now that we need a real coalition of the willing (ie. the UN) no one is willing to shed more in the name of our "cause for peace".

The Russia / China half of the UN wants Iran to get nuclear weapons to frustrate US influence in the Mid East - and will further that purpose in exchange for oil / cash.

Whether the Europeans and other countries will support an attack on Iran depends on one thing and one thing alone - their interests. To believe that these countries are like OMG Bush lied to us now we won't help with Iran is naive.

My impression is that the Europeans want Iran bombed as well and while they'll play their anti-war civilised act to not distress their voters, they'll do surprisingly little to actually oppose the US war drive.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: Now that we need a real coalition of the willing (ie. the UN) no one is willing to shed more in the name of our "cause for peace". The Russia / China half of the UN wants Iran to get nuclear weapons to frustrate US influence in the Mid East - and will further that purpose in exchange for oil / cash. Whether the Europeans and other countries will support an attack on Iran depends on one thing and one thing alone - their interests. To believe that these countries are like OMG Bush lied to us now we won't help with Iran is naive. My impression is that the Europeans want Iran bombed as well and while they'll play their anti-war civilised act to not distress their voters, they'll do surprisingly little to actually oppose the US war drive.

What CAN they do, realistically?

They don't want war, so why would they go to war to prevent a war? That doubles the amount of war, does it not?


And then, on top of that, they have to put up with all the bullshit US baby antics "WAAAAH FREEDOM FRIES WAAAAAH" too, and threats of economic repercussions.

*sigh*

Quote:

Original post by Mithrandir They don't want war

How do you test that hypothesis?

Quote:

"The Iranians need to know that the president has options," she [Condoleezza Rice] said. But she added, "I wanted people to know that we are committed to a diplomatic course. And particularly, if the international community can speak with one voice and speak strongly... it's going to get the Iranians' attention." She suggested that the next step for the Security Council when it reconvenes to discuss the issue April 28 could be to issue a Chapter 7 resolution. "Now, what that means is that there are enforcement actions. For instance, you could have freezes of assets, political isolation, you could have a number of means to make it very difficult for the Iranians to continue this policy unless they're prepared to face real isolation," she said.

Source

There is still hope for a peaceful solution. But the Iranian response wasn't very diplomatic yet. As I see it, USA will strive for a preemptive war, while the United Nations will fail to act effectively as it has happened before.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor My impression is that the Europeans want Iran bombed as well and while they'll play their anti-war civilised act to not distress their voters, they'll do surprisingly little to actually oppose the US war drive.

Of course. Most EU politicians won't give a shit about US wars in the middle east, as long as:

* They will still look like being anti-war/anti-US in the public opinion (otherwise they might be kicked out of office at the next elections)
* We don't get directly involved (with all those nasty things like dead soldiers , huge debts and terrorist attacks)
* It doesn't cost us anything or
* It costs us a little (relatively speaking), but we can profit from it through the backdoor
* Iran is kind of scary, and Ahmadinejad has a major cerebral malfunction. Nobody would really mind it disappearing from the globe, as long as we can't be blamed for it (but the Americans).

Just look at Gerhard Schröder, the German ex-Chancelor. He became head of state mostly due to his anti-war stance. Yet the German secret service, who had infiltrated Saddams HQ since quite some time before the Iraq war, supplied the US government with internal information, indirectly helping the war. This was of course kept secret from the German population, until it leaked and became a huge scandal.

Political hypocrisy is global, we have it here just as you guys have it in America (only that Americans tend to be much more open with it). The main line of thought from lots of politicians over here is: "why should we get our hands dirty ? Just let these gang-ho Americans do the dirty work, they even seem to enjoy it !".

The only really big problem will be the repercussions on oil price. But we could partially counter balance this by disallowing the US to purchase refined oil from the EU and Russia (what they are doing right now in very large amounts).

Quote:

And then, on top of that, they have to put up with all the bullshit US baby antics "WAAAAH FREEDOM FRIES WAAAAAH" too, and threats of economic repercussions.

As if we cared. Economic repercussions can go both ways. And the US is much more dependent on the rest of the world than we are dependent on the US. And the more you go into expensive wars, the more you will slide into debt, and the more you get financially dependent on us and the Chinese.

So yeah, just go for it.

Can't we all just be friends? [depressed]

Quote:

Original post by Yann L As if we cared. Economic repercussions can go both ways. And the US is much more dependent on the rest of the world than we are dependent on the US. And the more you go into expensive wars, the more you will slide into debt, and the more you get financially dependent on us and the Chinese.

Not true. I presume there's some logic at work here that China's ownership of a large portion of the U.S. debt makes the U.S. more dependent on China than the other way around... that line of thinking is false.

we should just go back to WWI and be isolationist.....
(i mean it's one thing to learn your lesson but another to ignore moderation and purposely go down the path of extremism)

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes we should just go back to WWI and be isolationist..... (i mean it's one thing to learn your lesson but another to ignore moderation and purposely go down the path of extremism)

If by isolationist you mean, not attacking other countries: sounds good. If you mean true isolationism, then I'd have to say forget it.

Well, you can't blame the military for planning for dealing with Iran, or any other Middle Eastern country that fits the religion/WMD/oil theme. It's likely to come up - if it does, we're a little more prepared. If it doesn't, then everybody can rest easy about it.

As for the rest... yeesh. It looks like Iran is trying to force the US to pre-empt a war, or at least bomb the heck out of something. I'd like to see Iran take a reasonable approach and not cause a war.

Quote:

Original post by Avatar God Well, you can't blame the military for planning for dealing with Iran, or any other Middle Eastern country that fits the religion/WMD/oil theme. It's likely to come up - if it does, we're a little more prepared. If it doesn't, then everybody can rest easy about it. As for the rest... yeesh. It looks like Iran is trying to force the US to pre-empt a war, or at least bomb the heck out of something. I'd like to see Iran take a reasonable approach and not cause a war.

No, it looks like Iran is trying to put the US in a horrible predicament.

Either the US: 1) looks weak and Iran is allowed to keep their nuclear power plants; or 2) really have the US be the Great Satan and let it bomb Iran. only to bring the greatest jihad the world has ever seen.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by Avatar God Well, you can't blame the military for planning for dealing with Iran, or any other Middle Eastern country that fits the religion/WMD/oil theme. It's likely to come up - if it does, we're a little more prepared. If it doesn't, then everybody can rest easy about it. As for the rest... yeesh. It looks like Iran is trying to force the US to pre-empt a war, or at least bomb the heck out of something. I'd like to see Iran take a reasonable approach and not cause a war. No, it looks like Iran is trying to put the US in a horrible predicament. Either the US: 1) looks weak and Iran is allowed to keep their nuclear power plants; or 2) really have the US be the Great Satan and let it bomb Iran. only to bring the greatest jihad the world has ever seen.

Funny how they weren't doing this until George W. Bush got up there and called Iran "evil" (AXIS OF EVIL!! RARRR!) and invaded their next-door neighbor with the implicit threat of "you're next!".

Gee.

It's very very sad that US attacked Iraq. Not only it flipped public image of US 180 degrees, it also demonstrated all dictators that if you don't have WMDs you may get attacked.
Iraq was the weakest of all candidate targets like say NK or Iran. It may be good to remove dictator from power, but would it be good to remove weakest so everyone else starts working on nukes as much as they can?
Even craziest dictator can understand that if he actually have nukes or other powerful WMDs he won't get attacked like Iraq. (the irony is that Iraq was attacked over WMD claims) .

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by Avatar God Well, you can't blame the military for planning for dealing with Iran, or any other Middle Eastern country that fits the religion/WMD/oil theme. It's likely to come up - if it does, we're a little more prepared. If it doesn't, then everybody can rest easy about it. As for the rest... yeesh. It looks like Iran is trying to force the US to pre-empt a war, or at least bomb the heck out of something. I'd like to see Iran take a reasonable approach and not cause a war. No, it looks like Iran is trying to put the US in a horrible predicament. Either the US: 1) looks weak and Iran is allowed to keep their nuclear power plants; or 2) really have the US be the Great Satan and let it bomb Iran. only to bring the greatest jihad the world has ever seen.

That was a much better explanation. My attempt got sidetracked and then slapped for making no sense.