There's no reason to believe Iran acts any less rationally or more terroristically (if that's a word) than we do. They're just another geopolitical entity that we deal with through whatever combination of force, persuasion, and indifference we happen to choose. The question is what we're trying to achieve and why.
War with Iran?
139,232 Views |
2180 Replies |
Last: 4 mo ago by whiterock
Sam Lowry said:FTR I'm pretty sure "people" includes Palestinians.Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Porteroso said:The_barBEARian said:OsoCoreyell said:
If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.
Did you say the same about North Korea?
Ultimately we didnt go to war with North Korea. They've had nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US for about a decade now and the world keeps on spinning.
Iran is less of a threat to the US homeland than North Korea is/was.
Only on paper. Their delivery systems are a total unknown, but it is likely that if they launched 5 nukes at the U.S., none would make it halfway.
And I don't understand why you'd say Iran is less of a threat than N. Korea. The most likely to glass the planet is not any current dictator, but religious fanatics.
Mainly because of proximity and the fact that Iran's leadership has said nuclear weapons are haram.
The only country that truly terrifies me is Israel. They are a rogue ethnosupremacist state who refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and have complete control over my government and have committed hostile acts towards Americans and the American government over and over again for the last 60 years.
There are religious zealots in this thread who would do anything and sacrifice anyone to support Israel. They are the ones pushing this new movement to destroy the constitution and bill of rights over "anti-semitism" which is really just saying or doing anything Jews don't like.
The good and bad news the majority of the non-Jewish Christian zealots are boomers. This is good bcs they won't be around in 10-20 years. But bad bcs we live in a Geriatocracy where boomers have all the power and are literally dying on the floor congress despite having the least amount of stakes in our nation's future.
lol. Of course.
If Israel has as many nukes as you say, I'd say they've been pretty restrained in their use of them.
Hilarious to me that someone would be more afraid of Israel than the Islamist nuts in Iran .
Which country has killed more people over the last several years?
Iran hands down.
I hear it also includes Ukrainians.
Iran and its proxies have killed far more people than Israel. It's not even close.
Sam Lowry said:
There's no reason to believe Iran acts any less rationally or more terroristically (if that's a word) than we do. They're just another geopolitical entity that we deal with through whatever combination of force, persuasion, and indifference we happen to choose. The question what we're trying to achieve and why.
Of course I'm not at all surprised with your response. Your sympathies typically lie with despots and tyrants.
I don't vote for them, but I'm willing to deal with them. Agree to disagree on both counts.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:
There's no reason to believe Iran acts any less rationally or more terroristically (if that's a word) than we do. They're just another geopolitical entity that we deal with through whatever combination of force, persuasion, and indifference we happen to choose. The question what we're trying to achieve and why.
Of course I'm not at all surprised with your response. Your sympathies typically lie with despots and tyrants.
Yet you constantly defend and advocate for them, and even argue their aggressive acts are morally just.
The U.S., on the other hand, is always your bad guy.
Same song, millionth verse.
The U.S., on the other hand, is always your bad guy.
Same song, millionth verse.
ya, were still funding lots of piratesSam Lowry said:
There's no reason to believe Iran acts any less rationally or more terroristically (if that's a word) than we do. They're just another geopolitical entity that we deal with through whatever combination of force, persuasion, and indifference we happen to choose. The question is what we're trying to achieve and why.
If you'd cool down that Pharisaic fervor of yours for a minute, you might note that I've often been right in my criticism of US foreign policy. We both know occupying Afghanistan was a bust. You've acknowledged I was right about the Iraq war, even though you lobbed all the same insults at the time. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, I didn't love tyrants but we were actually in the wrong? You don't even claim to support the Ukraine war, though I suspect the more Trump enables it, the more that will change. Have you ever considered putting down the pom-poms and having a real talk about the game?Mothra said:
Yet you constantly defend and advocate for them, and even argue their aggressive acts are morally just.
The U.S., on the other hand, is always your bad guy.
Same song, millionth verse.
Sam Lowry said:If you'd cool down that Pharisaic fervor of yours for a minute, you might note that I've often been right in my criticism of US foreign policy. We both know occupying Afghanistan was a bust. You've acknowledged I was right about the Iraq war, even though you lobbed all the same insults at the time. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, I didn't love tyrants but we were actually in the wrong? You don't even claim to support the Ukraine war, though I suspect the more Trump enables it, the more that will change. Have you ever considered putting down the pom-poms and having a real talk about the game?Mothra said:
Yet you constantly defend and advocate for them, and even argue their aggressive acts are morally just.
The U.S., on the other hand, is always your bad guy.
Same song, millionth verse.
But the problem is you actually haven't. Outside of the Iraq invasion, you've been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue of the last 20 years. You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.
On Ukraine you've been wrong since the get go in defending the invasion as moral. You've propagated nothing but Russian propaganda for the last 3 years. You've ignored numerous human rights abuses and Putin's obvious bad acts. Hell you even defended his persecution of Christians. In short you're pretty much morally bankrupt when it comes to that issue, even if we agree that we shouldn't been lending the kind of support to Ukraine that we have.
You were wrong in your defense of Iran, despite their numerous violations of the safeguards agreement, and remain wrong on Iran.
Again, when it comes to despots and tyrants, you pretty much always take their side. Who knows - maybe it's because you share a common enemy. So let's slow down on patting yourself on the back. You've been right on a grand total of one issue and wrong on pretty much everything else.
The irony of your pharisetical comments is you're perfectly willing to pass moral judgment on your country and its allies.
I never said we shouldn't strike Afghanistan or take out Al Qaeda. Iran's alleged violations weren't enough to scuttle the JCPOA; what's happened since is on us. Russia is doing no different than we would do if they took over Mexico or Canada.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you'd cool down that Pharisaic fervor of yours for a minute, you might note that I've often been right in my criticism of US foreign policy. We both know occupying Afghanistan was a bust. You've acknowledged I was right about the Iraq war, even though you lobbed all the same insults at the time. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, I didn't love tyrants but we were actually in the wrong? You don't even claim to support the Ukraine war, though I suspect the more Trump enables it, the more that will change. Have you ever considered putting down the pom-poms and having a real talk about the game?Mothra said:
Yet you constantly defend and advocate for them, and even argue their aggressive acts are morally just.
The U.S., on the other hand, is always your bad guy.
Same song, millionth verse.
But the problem is you actually haven't. Outside of the Iraq invasion, you've been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue of the last 20 years. You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.
On Ukraine you've been wrong since the get go in defending the invasion as moral. You've propagated nothing but Russian propaganda for the last 3 years. You've ignored numerous human rights abuses and Putin's obvious bad acts. Hell you even defended his persecution of Christians. In short you're pretty much morally bankrupt when it comes to that issue, even if we agree that we shouldn't been lending the kind of support to Ukraine that we have.
You were wrong in your defense of Iran, despite their numerous violations of the safeguards agreement, and remain wrong on Iran.
Again, when it comes to despots and tyrants, you pretty much always take their side. Who knows - maybe it's because you share a common enemy. So let's slow down on patting yourself on the back. You've been right on a grand total of one issue and wrong on pretty much everything else.
The irony of your pharisetical comments is you're perfectly willing to pass moral judgment on your country and its allies.
no, here's the flawed premise right here:The_barBEARian said:OsoCoreyell said:
It's really a pretty simple bit of calculus - A world where a nation that is dedicated to the destruction of the US and its allies cannot be allowed to possess a usable "ultimate" weapon. The cost of preventing it will almost certainly be better than the alternative.
Your premise is flawed because that world already exists.
We have experienced "the cost" of not preventing North Korea from producing nuclear weapons capable of striking the US and its allies.
"Is there anyone here willing to explain your support for initiating a war with Iran when Iran has made no credible threats toward the US homeland? Please raise your Israeli flags high and explain why Americans being financial slaves to Israel isnt enough for you... we actually need to go fight their wars and die for them too."
I mean, you are just a complete loon on foreign policy, and a disingenuous one at that. You scream until you're purple in the face about Israel being our enemy because of a friendly-fire incident over 50 years ago that took the lives of 34 American sailors, yet say Iran has made no credible threats against us? I mean, what planet have you been living on? Iranian trained & armed & commanded proxies have killed thousands of Americans over the last 40 years. Their regime conducts orgiastic Tatbir demonstrations chanting "death to America" and you will happily let them have nuclear weapons?
I mean, you just shape the whole g-dam*ed world to fit your irrational anger.
Look what Ukraine did to Russia last week with simple conventional weapons launched from shipping containers mounted on trucks driven within close range of the targets. What could such tactics do in ship-borne containers with one or more Iranian nuclear weapons? You really think there's no chance they'd be prepared to do it? Why should we have to face such a threat?
How many shipping containers are there in our ports at any given time?
How do you propose to defend us against an asymmetrical nuclear attack launched from one or more of them?
Sheesh.....
False equivalence. First, we didn't take over Ukraine. Not even close.Sam Lowry said:Russia is doing no different than we would do if they took over Mexico or Canada.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you'd cool down that Pharisaic fervor of yours for a minute, you might note that I've often been right in my criticism of US foreign policy. We both know occupying Afghanistan was a bust. You've acknowledged I was right about the Iraq war, even though you lobbed all the same insults at the time. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, I didn't love tyrants but we were actually in the wrong? You don't even claim to support the Ukraine war, though I suspect the more Trump enables it, the more that will change. Have you ever considered putting down the pom-poms and having a real talk about the game?Mothra said:
Yet you constantly defend and advocate for them, and even argue their aggressive acts are morally just.
The U.S., on the other hand, is always your bad guy.
Same song, millionth verse.
But the problem is you actually haven't. Outside of the Iraq invasion, you've been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue of the last 20 years. You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.
On Ukraine you've been wrong since the get go in defending the invasion as moral. You've propagated nothing but Russian propaganda for the last 3 years. You've ignored numerous human rights abuses and Putin's obvious bad acts. Hell you even defended his persecution of Christians. In short you're pretty much morally bankrupt when it comes to that issue, even if we agree that we shouldn't been lending the kind of support to Ukraine that we have.
You were wrong in your defense of Iran, despite their numerous violations of the safeguards agreement, and remain wrong on Iran.
Again, when it comes to despots and tyrants, you pretty much always take their side. Who knows - maybe it's because you share a common enemy. So let's slow down on patting yourself on the back. You've been right on a grand total of one issue and wrong on pretty much everything else.
The irony of your pharisetical comments is you're perfectly willing to pass moral judgment on your country and its allies.
Ukraine wasn't joining NATO anytime in the near future, Biden's ridiculous rhetoric notwithstanding. Those comments merely provided Putin with the pretext he needed to try and finish the job. You know it, and I know it.
whiterock said:no, here's the flawed premise right here:The_barBEARian said:OsoCoreyell said:
It's really a pretty simple bit of calculus - A world where a nation that is dedicated to the destruction of the US and its allies cannot be allowed to possess a usable "ultimate" weapon. The cost of preventing it will almost certainly be better than the alternative.
Your premise is flawed because that world already exists.
We have experienced "the cost" of not preventing North Korea from producing nuclear weapons capable of striking the US and its allies.
"Is there anyone here willing to explain your support for initiating a war with Iran when Iran has made no credible threats toward the US homeland? Please raise your Israeli flags high and explain why Americans being financial slaves to Israel isnt enough for you... we actually need to go fight their wars and die for them too."
I mean, you are just a complete loon on foreign policy, and a disingenuous one at that. You scream until you're purple in the face about Israel being our enemy because of a friendly-fire incident over 50 years ago that took the lives of 34 American sailors, yet say Iran has made no credible threats against us? I mean, what planet have you been living on? Iranian trained & armed & commanded proxies have killed thousands of Americans over the last 40 years. Their regime conducts orgiastic Tatbir demonstrations chanting "death to America" and you will happily let them have nuclear weapons?
I mean, you just shape the whole g-dam*ed world to fit your irrational anger.
Look what Ukraine did to Russia last week with simple conventional weapons launched from shipping containers mounted on trucks driven within close range of the targets. What could such tactics do in ship-borne containers with one or more Iranian nuclear weapons? You really think there's no chance they'd be prepared to do it? Why should we have to face such a threat?
How many shipping containers are there in our ports at any given time?
How do you propose to defend us against an asymmetrical nuclear attack launched from one or more of them?
Sheesh.....
I'm not a loon or disingenuous. You are. The fact that you call the USS Liberty attack a friendly fire incident and not a false flag attack WHICH THE ACTUAL LIVING AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHO SURVIVED THE ATTACK CALL IT means you are either stupid, evil, or on the Israeli payroll.
Virtually all Islamic terrorism in the west has been committed by Sunni Islamists.
Saudi Arabia exports far more terrorism across the globe than Iran. Yet we make the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf Arabs rich so they dont threaten Israel. Look up wahhabism.
Iranians trained and armed proxies who killed Americans in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East who had no business being there! Why arent any of the politicians who lied about weapons of mass destruction in jail? I feel bad for all the guys my age who died or were maimed fighting Israel's wars. They were lied to by Netanyahu and Boomer politicians.
Your last two paragraphs read like they came straight from the IDF ministry of propaganda. The Israelis like to project their own evil ideas onto Iran to create fear and anxiety in with the American public. Israel is more likely to strap nukes onto drones and launch them at American cities in a false flag attack to get the American public to go to war with Iran.
Whatever you want to call it, it's not something we would tolerate on our border.Mothra said:False equivalence. First, we didn't take over Ukraine. Not even close.Sam Lowry said:Russia is doing no different than we would do if they took over Mexico or Canada.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you'd cool down that Pharisaic fervor of yours for a minute, you might note that I've often been right in my criticism of US foreign policy. We both know occupying Afghanistan was a bust. You've acknowledged I was right about the Iraq war, even though you lobbed all the same insults at the time. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, I didn't love tyrants but we were actually in the wrong? You don't even claim to support the Ukraine war, though I suspect the more Trump enables it, the more that will change. Have you ever considered putting down the pom-poms and having a real talk about the game?Mothra said:
Yet you constantly defend and advocate for them, and even argue their aggressive acts are morally just.
The U.S., on the other hand, is always your bad guy.
Same song, millionth verse.
But the problem is you actually haven't. Outside of the Iraq invasion, you've been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue of the last 20 years. You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.
On Ukraine you've been wrong since the get go in defending the invasion as moral. You've propagated nothing but Russian propaganda for the last 3 years. You've ignored numerous human rights abuses and Putin's obvious bad acts. Hell you even defended his persecution of Christians. In short you're pretty much morally bankrupt when it comes to that issue, even if we agree that we shouldn't been lending the kind of support to Ukraine that we have.
You were wrong in your defense of Iran, despite their numerous violations of the safeguards agreement, and remain wrong on Iran.
Again, when it comes to despots and tyrants, you pretty much always take their side. Who knows - maybe it's because you share a common enemy. So let's slow down on patting yourself on the back. You've been right on a grand total of one issue and wrong on pretty much everything else.
The irony of your pharisetical comments is you're perfectly willing to pass moral judgment on your country and its allies.
Ukraine wasn't joining NATO anytime in the near future, Biden's ridiculous rhetoric notwithstanding. Those comments merely provided Putin with the pretext he needed to try and finish the job. You know it, and I know it.
Sam Lowry said:Whatever you want to call it, it's not something we would tolerate on our border.Mothra said:False equivalence. First, we didn't take over Ukraine. Not even close.Sam Lowry said:Russia is doing no different than we would do if they took over Mexico or Canada.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you'd cool down that Pharisaic fervor of yours for a minute, you might note that I've often been right in my criticism of US foreign policy. We both know occupying Afghanistan was a bust. You've acknowledged I was right about the Iraq war, even though you lobbed all the same insults at the time. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, I didn't love tyrants but we were actually in the wrong? You don't even claim to support the Ukraine war, though I suspect the more Trump enables it, the more that will change. Have you ever considered putting down the pom-poms and having a real talk about the game?Mothra said:
Yet you constantly defend and advocate for them, and even argue their aggressive acts are morally just.
The U.S., on the other hand, is always your bad guy.
Same song, millionth verse.
But the problem is you actually haven't. Outside of the Iraq invasion, you've been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue of the last 20 years. You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.
On Ukraine you've been wrong since the get go in defending the invasion as moral. You've propagated nothing but Russian propaganda for the last 3 years. You've ignored numerous human rights abuses and Putin's obvious bad acts. Hell you even defended his persecution of Christians. In short you're pretty much morally bankrupt when it comes to that issue, even if we agree that we shouldn't been lending the kind of support to Ukraine that we have.
You were wrong in your defense of Iran, despite their numerous violations of the safeguards agreement, and remain wrong on Iran.
Again, when it comes to despots and tyrants, you pretty much always take their side. Who knows - maybe it's because you share a common enemy. So let's slow down on patting yourself on the back. You've been right on a grand total of one issue and wrong on pretty much everything else.
The irony of your pharisetical comments is you're perfectly willing to pass moral judgment on your country and its allies.
Ukraine wasn't joining NATO anytime in the near future, Biden's ridiculous rhetoric notwithstanding. Those comments merely provided Putin with the pretext he needed to try and finish the job. You know it, and I know it.
We would not have behaved the way Russia has behaved in the first place.
Oh, BTW…another position of your debunked:
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/28/nx-s1-5379436/north-korea-russia-ukraine-troops-putin-kim
No, we'd have been far more aggressive.
Sam Lowry said:
No, we'd have been far more aggressive.
Speaking of hogwash. Lying again.
Sam Lowry said:
No, we'd have been far more aggressive.
Let's dance.Mothra said:1) [......]DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:You're bringing up conflicts from more than 250 years ago to try and claim that we are in danger of getting nuked by the UK in the future? Really??? My God, man.DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?
If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.
Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.
They won't act rationally.
Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.
Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.
Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.
We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.
You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.
Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.
JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?
I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.
That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?
It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.
Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.
As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.
Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.
My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.
Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.
The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.
Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?
I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?
Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.
Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.
As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.
Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.
If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.
As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.
Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?
It's post like these that scare the **** out of me. Some of you conservative wingnuts are bat **** crazy.
You claimed the UK had no history of exporting terrorism around the world. If you are that careless with your own words it is no wonder you are so cavalier about American lives and think throwing some misiles around will fix the problem.
Again, if missile strikes would fix the problem then why did Obama, Trump and Biden fail to order the strikes? You are running away from the most important question because you know the answer is that missile strikes will not stop Iran or else the strikes would have already happened.
As for the missile strikes, you're making lots of unwarranted assumptions. There are plenty of motivations for not striking Iran, including the idea that the US could bring them back to the table through sanctions and incentives. I actually agree with Sam that the best way to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomacy. I would employ missile strikes only as a last resort. And I don't think at any point we've reached that stage. I suspect our past and current president feel the same.
But if the choice is between doing nothing, as you suggest, or trying to prevent them from nuking another country, I take my chances on a precision strike.
So it is my fault that you are making factually incorrect statements and we need to read deeper meaning into what you are saying? Sure, we'll all just read your mind for your intended meaning instead of you actually typing out what you mean. Give me a break. Just own your own carelessness. And FYI, it was 50 years ago that the British Army was running roughshod in Northern Ireland during the troubles.
Re: "last resort" I find your approach to be unrealistic and immature. You don't strike as a last resort. The problem isn't the physical capability. That can always be rebuilt and improved on. You strike to prevent the development of technical expertise and experience. That is the actual hard part. As long as the Iranians are taking good notes and backing up their files, then your last resort missile strike is only delaying the inevitable until they build their facilities deep enough and far enough underground in a secure enough place that we can't reach.
Recall, we have military installations designed to withstand nuclear strikes because of how deep they are buried underground. Do you think Iran is not capable of doing the same? Do you think we have some magic bunker buster bomb that can do a job a nuclear strike cannot? Do you think Iran cannot just build back deeper and further isolated? The scary thing is not the physical capacity but the technical expertise. And if you're going to strike, you do it to prevent technical expertise. Otherwise, all you are doing is kicking the can down the road.
I don't think that the missile proponents have actually thought of the technical feasibility of their desired plan of action.
Re: failure to launch strikes during the past 16 years. Your explanations are already violating your key assumption: that Iran is not rational. Your explanation for failing to strike their facilites is that perhaps Obama, Trump and Biden were hoping to get Iran to engage like a rational actor by coming to the negotiating table? Sam can assume that Iran will behave rationally (perhaps he's right or weong), but your whole schtick is that Iran is not rational so they cannot get a bomb. Who is hoping and crossing their fingers now?
Look, I just want people to be honest. Ideological commitment to preventing Iran from getting nukes almost certainly ends with American boys and girls in country on the ground for years and years. I'm not willing to go there.
Buddy, you've made the argument that we need to be concerned about a longtime ally having nukes because of things that happened 250 plus years, and now you want to argue semantics? Cut the bull***** It was a ridiculous position on its face, which you're a smart guy and should well know.
The position that Iran having nukes is inevitable ignores what Israel has been able to do with far less than bunker busting bombs (though they seem to have some pretty good ones if their recent strikes are any indication). Intelligence reports state that it significantly set back the program. As Atl alluded to, those clandestine operations have been pretty effective.
No, like you, I don't trust Iran to act rational with a nuke. Does that mean we don't exhaust all diplomatic efforts before we decide on a military strike? Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand.
Ironically, like Sam, I simply don't accept your false dilemma between a ground war and a nuclear armed Iran. I'm also not so incredibly naive as to believe we can fortify our country from a nuclear attack. I'm just not willing to throw up my hands and give up as you are.
You said you would only worry when the UK had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world, I pointed out they have a centuries long-history of terrorism and included an example from less than 50 years ago (Her Majesty's Army's actions in Northern Ireland). Disappointing that you are incapable of owning your oversight, but so be it.
More important is the substance of your positions: You simultaneously seem to take the positions that:
A. "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything."
B. "Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand."
A is part of your position that we must do all that is possible to stop Iran from getting a nuke because they are not rational.
B is your position that we can negotiate with them because they can be rational ("incentivized").
A and B are facially irreconcilable, unless you have some magic way of understanding them to be rational but also conclude that they are not rational. Please reconcile for the best of us.
Additionally, please stop lying. I have already said in this thread that Iran is not going to be rational with a nuke, yet you keep accusing me of believing otherwise. How much clearer could I be?
When I first got started professionally a dear mentor hammered home the following lesson with regard to portfolio composition: "when you are long commodities, you are short human ingenuity. Be very careful betting against humanity." I'm going to borrow from him here. To believe that we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes is to be short human ingenuity. Throughout all of history humans have shown new and clever ways for getting around prohibitions of all kind. Humanity is sort of undefeated in that regard. The Romans, of course, eventually found the only solution I am aware of to this problem: they salted the earth after complete military victory over their adversaries when the Romans concluded their vanquished enemies were incapable of living peacefully with Rome.
So let me try it this way: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a dozen or so nuclear bombs. The only way to stop them is through a ground war that will necessarily entail hundreds of thousands of troops in theater for decades to come as you try to rebuild the country ala the Marshall plan or Japan. It will be much nastier than W. Bush's Iraq engagement. Are you ready to go there politically? Are you ready to send your sons and daughters to the middle East in those circumstances?
So, what's the plan, big guy?
A. X. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Y. "As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world then you might have a point."
Does the UK have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world or not? It is a straightforward question.
B. You seem to not understand (or at least ignore) second- and third-order effects. JD Vance made the provocative joke last summer just days before being nominated as VP by Trump that the UK already is the the first Islamist nuclear power because of Labour.* The joke contains a strand of truth which makes it impactful. A member of the House of Lords caused a row over there about a year ago by claiming that the UK would become Islamist through the power of the womb. For about 10 to 15 years demographers have believed that the UK will be majority Muslim somewhere between 2050 and 2080 (UK Islam is heavily inline with the variety of Pakistani Islamists beliefs). The Labour party is CURRENTLY extremely responsive to its Muslim constituency because of the UK's first past the post parliamentary system already makes voting Muslims an important bloc to Labour (see today's raging debate about the banning of Halal practices in the slaughter of animals). That constituency will be a more important bloc by the year until they become an outright majority. Dismiss the trends there at your own risk.Quote:
I will reiterate the more pertinent point which you've failed to address: when you have to go back centuries to make the case that a longtime ally who we've fought alongside in ever major world war should be disarmed, you might consider that your position is completely and totally ridiculous.
In the early 1980s, once the Afrikaners saw the writing on the wall, they sort of voluntarily chose to get rid of their nukes and shut down their program (BDS heavily influenced the Afrikaners, so I hesitate to call it a purely voluntary disarmament). I think SA is a relevant example to the UK. If the UK is really heading toward an Islamist-majority population in the next 25 to 50 years (according to demographers) and if Islamists must never be allowed to get nukes (according to you) and if we have the precedent of a disarmament by SA, do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"? At bare minimum, UK demographic trends are a contingency that must be game-theorized out by any prudent world power: so tell me, what is your war game plan there if Islamists do achieve outright political control in the UK? I know, I know, they are an ally, I'm sure that will ensure their future Islamist overlords are restrained. But just game-theory this out for me and keep this all in the abstract. What do you do if and when Islamists achieve outright political control in the UK?
C. You said: "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything." You are now also suggesting that they can be rational before attaining a nuke. Responding to incentives as *one* understands them to be is the very textbook definition of rational behavior in economics. Psychology has similar principles. When you suggest that Iran can be incentivized, you are implicitly taking the position that they are rational. Which stands in direct contrast to your position that you have "never known Islamists to be reasonable". So which is it: Are Islamists capable of behaving reasonably or not? Yes, having nukes will change the equation, but your unequivocal statement was that these are people incapable of being reasonable *even before* they have attained nukes. I find your positions to be idiosyncratic and irreconcilable and you really have not tried to harmonize your positions.
D. I have offered a plan and solution: Fortress America or ground war. I do not support the latter, but it is the obvious solution if we are going to play offense. I do not believe we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes (short of a ground invasion/nation building) and I do not believe they will step back from pursuing nukes. I do not favor a ground invasion. So that leaves Fortress America.
My bigger issue is that this posturing of "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuke" is clearly setting the predicate for an eventual ground war. Tucker Carlson believes at minimum that influential people are agitating for war/regime change with Iran as we speak. Does that not in the least make you question what may be happening here?
I'll repeat my question to you and make it simpler: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a half dozen or so nuclear bombs. You have ideologically committed yourself to the idea that Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes. Now what do you do?
I respect Sam a lot, especially on civil liberties where he is very thoughtful, though I disagree with him on much. He does not need my help. But the above Monday morning quarterbacking from you shows that you are way too cavalier and lack deliberate thought about this topic.Quote:
You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.
***THE*** defining military/strategic lesson of the 20th Century was that the Treaty of Versailles punishing Germany economically and diplomatically was a major blunder and important contributor that led to WWII. Failure to economically and diplomatically redevelop Germany after World War One was a massive mistake that allowed something far more evil and sinister to rise in Germany in the form of nationalist socialism/fascism.
Hence, post-WWII, you have the Marshall Plan in Europe and MacArthur in Japan doing everything possible to reindustrialize and integrate into the west both Europe and Japan. The post-WWII redevelopment was such a massive American success that the playbook at both Defense and State demands nation building after the overthrow of a government. The idea that we could have ever simply deposed of the Taliban, gotten OBL and then left Afghanistan (or Iraq after getting SH) is just inconceivable within the halls of power in this country. Our military and diplomatic officials would all be in consensus in their advice to POTUS that the overthrow of the Taliban and SH each required nation building on our part or we would run this risk of something more evil replacing the deposed government.
No PTOUS would stake his legacy on the risk of repeating the mistakes from the end of World War One. Even if a POTUS had the guts to go in a different direction, it would break the brains of all senior level officials at Defense and State and there would be constant second guessing and leaks to the media if an Executive pursued the plan of action you retrospectively propose. It just does not work the way that you want. You may want to rethink the inputs in your internal model as you consider the posture we are taking with Iran.
*I like Vance a lot, but his joke was in the same realm of VP Harris and Sec. Blinken's comments about NATO expansion--just a really bad idea to put your foot in your mouth like that.
1) Does the UK have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world or not? It is a straightforward question?
No, I would not call the UK's actions throughout the world terroristic in nature - certainly not on par with what we've seen out of Iran. Does it mean they didn't engage in illicit conduct at times in their long history? Of course not. But I don't believe their actions by and large fit within the definition you've posited. Moreover, most of their dark history occurred more than a century ago. So it simply isn't the apples to apples comparison you're trying to make it.
2) Do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"?
While I appreciate your point about the UK demographics, at this point, yes. Call me when the Muslims do as you predict, but let's be honest - you are speculating at this point, and in fact, wildly so. Perhaps the Muslims residing in the UK will liberalize in the coming years - westernize, kind of like you're hoping for Iran. I would say that they have a much better chance of doing it in the UK than Iran. But the idea they are going to follow in Iran's footsteps is widely speculative at this point.
3) Again, we simply have a fundamental disagreement regarding "rational." Can Iran act in a self-preservatory manner? Certainly, in the same way that any animal can. Does it mean they will act rationally with a few nuclear warheads at their disposal. Nope. Will incentivizing the Islamists through carrots work? No, clue, but I think it's worth trying as opposed to merely "fortressing America" (a concept you still haven't explained BTW).
4) Sam is for civil liberties until he's not. See COVID. See mandates.
5) With respect to Afghanistan, you're once again making an apples to bowling balls comparison in comparing Afghanistan to Japan and Germany. Afghanistan had long since given up attempting to function as a productive, industrialized member of the world when we decided to strike. The Taliban made sure of that, returning most of the country to the Stone Age in the decades prior to our invasion. So what was there to rebuild? It was starting from scratch, unlike post-WWII Germany and especially Japan.
Nation building is almost always a bad idea, especially when dealing with a part of the world that adheres to an ideology that shuns the freedoms you and I hold dear. We should have learned that after the myriad of failed nation states we attempted to prop up, only to see them come crashing to the ground. Afghanistan is one in a long list of examples. We had no cogent exit strategy, and it came back to bite us.
Now, let me point out a few questions you've failed to answer, and ask a few questions about your "fortress America" strategy. Hopefully you'll answer this time.
1) Again, since you believe Iran will not act rationally, do you give up all attempts to incentivize a resolution before they get a nuke? I take it you think Trump and his team are foolish for trying to negotiate with them at this point, based on your previous comments? So is your strategy to just let them be - let them pursue whatever nuclear technology and weapons they want and hope they don't use them?
2) I am intrigued by "fortress America" as a viable strategy post 19th Century. What does that look like in your book? We just gonna hope that we can out-technology the competition when it comes to missiles and missile defense shields? The tyrants and despots start aiming their nukes at us, and are we just gonna hope they miss their mark? What evidence do you have that we have the ability to do so? Do you believe that strategy is truly going to prevent nuclear subs parked on our coast from reaching American cities?
Would appreciate you attempting to respond to my questions before you ask more of your own. Thanks.
No, I would not call the UK's actions throughout the world terroristic in nature - certainly not on par with what we've seen out of Iran. Does it mean they didn't engage in illicit conduct at times in their long history? Of course not. But I don't believe their actions by and large fit within the definition you've posited. Moreover, most of their dark history occurred more than a century ago. So it simply isn't the apples to apples comparison you're trying to make it.
2) Do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"?
While I appreciate your point about the UK demographics, at this point, yes. Call me when the Muslims do as you predict, but let's be honest - you are speculating at this point, and in fact, wildly so. Perhaps the Muslims residing in the UK will liberalize in the coming years - westernize, kind of like you're hoping for Iran. I would say that they have a much better chance of doing it in the UK than Iran. But the idea they are going to follow in Iran's footsteps is widely speculative at this point.
3) Again, we simply have a fundamental disagreement regarding "rational." Can Iran act in a self-preservatory manner? Certainly, in the same way that any animal can. Does it mean they will act rationally with a few nuclear warheads at their disposal. Nope. Will incentivizing the Islamists through carrots work? No, clue, but I think it's worth trying as opposed to merely "fortressing America" (a concept you still haven't explained BTW).
4) Sam is for civil liberties until he's not. See COVID. See mandates.
5) With respect to Afghanistan, you're once again making an apples to bowling balls comparison in comparing Afghanistan to Japan and Germany. Afghanistan had long since given up attempting to function as a productive, industrialized member of the world when we decided to strike. The Taliban made sure of that, returning most of the country to the Stone Age in the decades prior to our invasion. So what was there to rebuild? It was starting from scratch, unlike post-WWII Germany and especially Japan.
Nation building is almost always a bad idea, especially when dealing with a part of the world that adheres to an ideology that shuns the freedoms you and I hold dear. We should have learned that after the myriad of failed nation states we attempted to prop up, only to see them come crashing to the ground. Afghanistan is one in a long list of examples. We had no cogent exit strategy, and it came back to bite us.
Now, let me point out a few questions you've failed to answer, and ask a few questions about your "fortress America" strategy. Hopefully you'll answer this time.
1) Again, since you believe Iran will not act rationally, do you give up all attempts to incentivize a resolution before they get a nuke? I take it you think Trump and his team are foolish for trying to negotiate with them at this point, based on your previous comments? So is your strategy to just let them be - let them pursue whatever nuclear technology and weapons they want and hope they don't use them?
2) I am intrigued by "fortress America" as a viable strategy post 19th Century. What does that look like in your book? We just gonna hope that we can out-technology the competition when it comes to missiles and missile defense shields? The tyrants and despots start aiming their nukes at us, and are we just gonna hope they miss their mark? What evidence do you have that we have the ability to do so? Do you believe that strategy is truly going to prevent nuclear subs parked on our coast from reaching American cities?
Would appreciate you attempting to respond to my questions before you ask more of your own. Thanks.
Governments have emergency powers. Covid lockdowns were far less onerous than the military drafts that our parents and grandparents had to deal with. I might disagree with it, but only the most fanatical of ideologues would say a person was "against civil liberties" or "not a conservative" for supporting the draft. You shouldn't let your emotional aversion to vaccines lead you to make such silly statements.Mothra said:
Sam is for civil liberties until he's not. See COVID. See mandates.
You can't nation build those who are antithetical to the nation you're trying to build. That is unless you're willing to get your hands incredibly dirty, which sullies the credibility of your efforts.DallasBear9902 said:Let's dance.Mothra said:1) [......]DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:You're bringing up conflicts from more than 250 years ago to try and claim that we are in danger of getting nuked by the UK in the future? Really??? My God, man.DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?
If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.
Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.
They won't act rationally.
Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.
Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.
Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.
We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.
You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.
Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.
JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?
I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.
That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?
It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.
Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.
As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.
Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.
My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.
Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.
The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.
Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?
I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?
Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.
Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.
As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.
Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.
If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.
As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.
Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?
It's post like these that scare the **** out of me. Some of you conservative wingnuts are bat **** crazy.
You claimed the UK had no history of exporting terrorism around the world. If you are that careless with your own words it is no wonder you are so cavalier about American lives and think throwing some misiles around will fix the problem.
Again, if missile strikes would fix the problem then why did Obama, Trump and Biden fail to order the strikes? You are running away from the most important question because you know the answer is that missile strikes will not stop Iran or else the strikes would have already happened.
As for the missile strikes, you're making lots of unwarranted assumptions. There are plenty of motivations for not striking Iran, including the idea that the US could bring them back to the table through sanctions and incentives. I actually agree with Sam that the best way to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomacy. I would employ missile strikes only as a last resort. And I don't think at any point we've reached that stage. I suspect our past and current president feel the same.
But if the choice is between doing nothing, as you suggest, or trying to prevent them from nuking another country, I take my chances on a precision strike.
So it is my fault that you are making factually incorrect statements and we need to read deeper meaning into what you are saying? Sure, we'll all just read your mind for your intended meaning instead of you actually typing out what you mean. Give me a break. Just own your own carelessness. And FYI, it was 50 years ago that the British Army was running roughshod in Northern Ireland during the troubles.
Re: "last resort" I find your approach to be unrealistic and immature. You don't strike as a last resort. The problem isn't the physical capability. That can always be rebuilt and improved on. You strike to prevent the development of technical expertise and experience. That is the actual hard part. As long as the Iranians are taking good notes and backing up their files, then your last resort missile strike is only delaying the inevitable until they build their facilities deep enough and far enough underground in a secure enough place that we can't reach.
Recall, we have military installations designed to withstand nuclear strikes because of how deep they are buried underground. Do you think Iran is not capable of doing the same? Do you think we have some magic bunker buster bomb that can do a job a nuclear strike cannot? Do you think Iran cannot just build back deeper and further isolated? The scary thing is not the physical capacity but the technical expertise. And if you're going to strike, you do it to prevent technical expertise. Otherwise, all you are doing is kicking the can down the road.
I don't think that the missile proponents have actually thought of the technical feasibility of their desired plan of action.
Re: failure to launch strikes during the past 16 years. Your explanations are already violating your key assumption: that Iran is not rational. Your explanation for failing to strike their facilites is that perhaps Obama, Trump and Biden were hoping to get Iran to engage like a rational actor by coming to the negotiating table? Sam can assume that Iran will behave rationally (perhaps he's right or weong), but your whole schtick is that Iran is not rational so they cannot get a bomb. Who is hoping and crossing their fingers now?
Look, I just want people to be honest. Ideological commitment to preventing Iran from getting nukes almost certainly ends with American boys and girls in country on the ground for years and years. I'm not willing to go there.
Buddy, you've made the argument that we need to be concerned about a longtime ally having nukes because of things that happened 250 plus years, and now you want to argue semantics? Cut the bull***** It was a ridiculous position on its face, which you're a smart guy and should well know.
The position that Iran having nukes is inevitable ignores what Israel has been able to do with far less than bunker busting bombs (though they seem to have some pretty good ones if their recent strikes are any indication). Intelligence reports state that it significantly set back the program. As Atl alluded to, those clandestine operations have been pretty effective.
No, like you, I don't trust Iran to act rational with a nuke. Does that mean we don't exhaust all diplomatic efforts before we decide on a military strike? Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand.
Ironically, like Sam, I simply don't accept your false dilemma between a ground war and a nuclear armed Iran. I'm also not so incredibly naive as to believe we can fortify our country from a nuclear attack. I'm just not willing to throw up my hands and give up as you are.
You said you would only worry when the UK had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world, I pointed out they have a centuries long-history of terrorism and included an example from less than 50 years ago (Her Majesty's Army's actions in Northern Ireland). Disappointing that you are incapable of owning your oversight, but so be it.
More important is the substance of your positions: You simultaneously seem to take the positions that:
A. "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything."
B. "Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand."
A is part of your position that we must do all that is possible to stop Iran from getting a nuke because they are not rational.
B is your position that we can negotiate with them because they can be rational ("incentivized").
A and B are facially irreconcilable, unless you have some magic way of understanding them to be rational but also conclude that they are not rational. Please reconcile for the best of us.
Additionally, please stop lying. I have already said in this thread that Iran is not going to be rational with a nuke, yet you keep accusing me of believing otherwise. How much clearer could I be?
When I first got started professionally a dear mentor hammered home the following lesson with regard to portfolio composition: "when you are long commodities, you are short human ingenuity. Be very careful betting against humanity." I'm going to borrow from him here. To believe that we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes is to be short human ingenuity. Throughout all of history humans have shown new and clever ways for getting around prohibitions of all kind. Humanity is sort of undefeated in that regard. The Romans, of course, eventually found the only solution I am aware of to this problem: they salted the earth after complete military victory over their adversaries when the Romans concluded their vanquished enemies were incapable of living peacefully with Rome.
So let me try it this way: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a dozen or so nuclear bombs. The only way to stop them is through a ground war that will necessarily entail hundreds of thousands of troops in theater for decades to come as you try to rebuild the country ala the Marshall plan or Japan. It will be much nastier than W. Bush's Iraq engagement. Are you ready to go there politically? Are you ready to send your sons and daughters to the middle East in those circumstances?
So, what's the plan, big guy?
A. X. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Y. "As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world then you might have a point."
Does the UK have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world or not? It is a straightforward question.B. You seem to not understand (or at least ignore) second- and third-order effects. JD Vance made the provocative joke last summer just days before being nominated as VP by Trump that the UK already is the the first Islamist nuclear power because of Labour.* The joke contains a strand of truth which makes it impactful. A member of the House of Lords caused a row over there about a year ago by claiming that the UK would become Islamist through the power of the womb. For about 10 to 15 years demographers have believed that the UK will be majority Muslim somewhere between 2050 and 2080 (UK Islam is heavily inline with the variety of Pakistani Islamists beliefs). The Labour party is CURRENTLY extremely responsive to its Muslim constituency because of the UK's first past the post parliamentary system already makes voting Muslims an important bloc to Labour (see today's raging debate about the banning of Halal practices in the slaughter of animals). That constituency will be a more important bloc by the year until they become an outright majority. Dismiss the trends there at your own risk.Quote:
I will reiterate the more pertinent point which you've failed to address: when you have to go back centuries to make the case that a longtime ally who we've fought alongside in ever major world war should be disarmed, you might consider that your position is completely and totally ridiculous.
In the early 1980s, once the Afrikaners saw the writing on the wall, they sort of voluntarily chose to get rid of their nukes and shut down their program (BDS heavily influenced the Afrikaners, so I hesitate to call it a purely voluntary disarmament). I think SA is a relevant example to the UK. If the UK is really heading toward an Islamist-majority population in the next 25 to 50 years (according to demographers) and if Islamists must never be allowed to get nukes (according to you) and if we have the precedent of a disarmament by SA, do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"? At bare minimum, UK demographic trends are a contingency that must be game-theorized out by any prudent world power: so tell me, what is your war game plan there if Islamists do achieve outright political control in the UK? I know, I know, they are an ally, I'm sure that will ensure their future Islamist overlords are restrained. But just game-theory this out for me and keep this all in the abstract. What do you do if and when Islamists achieve outright political control in the UK?
C. You said: "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything." You are now also suggesting that they can be rational before attaining a nuke. Responding to incentives as *one* understands them to be is the very textbook definition of rational behavior in economics. Psychology has similar principles. When you suggest that Iran can be incentivized, you are implicitly taking the position that they are rational. Which stands in direct contrast to your position that you have "never known Islamists to be reasonable". So which is it: Are Islamists capable of behaving reasonably or not? Yes, having nukes will change the equation, but your unequivocal statement was that these are people incapable of being reasonable *even before* they have attained nukes. I find your positions to be idiosyncratic and irreconcilable and you really have not tried to harmonize your positions.
D. I have offered a plan and solution: Fortress America or ground war. I do not support the latter, but it is the obvious solution if we are going to play offense. I do not believe we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes (short of a ground invasion/nation building) and I do not believe they will step back from pursuing nukes. I do not favor a ground invasion. So that leaves Fortress America.
My bigger issue is that this posturing of "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuke" is clearly setting the predicate for an eventual ground war. Tucker Carlson believes at minimum that influential people are agitating for war/regime change with Iran as we speak. Does that not in the least make you question what may be happening here?
I'll repeat my question to you and make it simpler: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a half dozen or so nuclear bombs. You have ideologically committed yourself to the idea that Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes. Now what do you do?I respect Sam a lot, especially on civil liberties where he is very thoughtful, though I disagree with him on much. He does not need my help. But the above Monday morning quarterbacking from you shows that you are way too cavalier and lack deliberate thought about this topic.Quote:
You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.
***THE*** defining military/strategic lesson of the 20th Century was that the Treaty of Versailles punishing Germany economically and diplomatically was a major blunder and important contributor that led to WWII. Failure to economically and diplomatically redevelop Germany after World War One was a massive mistake that allowed something far more evil and sinister to rise in Germany in the form of nationalist socialism/fascism.
Hence, post-WWII, you have the Marshall Plan in Europe and MacArthur in Japan doing everything possible to reindustrialize and integrate into the west both Europe and Japan. The post-WWII redevelopment was such a massive American success that the playbook at both Defense and State demands nation building after the overthrow of a government. The idea that we could have ever simply deposed of the Taliban, gotten OBL and then left Afghanistan (or Iraq after getting SH) is just inconceivable within the halls of power in this country. Our military and diplomatic officials would all be in consensus in their advice to POTUS that the overthrow of the Taliban and SH each required nation building on our part or we would run this risk of something more evil replacing the deposed government.
No PTOUS would stake his legacy on the risk of repeating the mistakes from the end of World War One. Even if a POTUS had the guts to go in a different direction, it would break the brains of all senior level officials at Defense and State and there would be constant second guessing and leaks to the media if an Executive pursued the plan of action you retrospectively propose. It just does not work the way that you want. You may want to rethink the inputs in your internal model as you consider the posture we are taking with Iran.
*I like Vance a lot, but his joke was in the same realm of VP Harris and Sec. Blinken's comments about NATO expansion--just a really bad idea to put your foot in your mouth like that.
Sam Lowry said:Governments have emergency powers. Covid lockdowns were far less onerous than the military drafts that our parents and grandparents had to deal with. I might disagree with it, but only the most fanatical of ideologues would say a person was "against civil liberties" or "not a conservative" for supporting the draft. You shouldn't let your emotional aversion to vaccines lead you to make such silly statements.Mothra said:
Sam is for civil liberties until he's not. See COVID. See mandates.
The draft isn't COVID mandates. Not even close.
This is another one of your false equivalences.
The only aversion I have to vaccines is being forced to take one - something you fully endorsed.
Indeed.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Governments have emergency powers. Covid lockdowns were far less onerous than the military drafts that our parents and grandparents had to deal with. I might disagree with it, but only the most fanatical of ideologues would say a person was "against civil liberties" or "not a conservative" for supporting the draft. You shouldn't let your emotional aversion to vaccines lead you to make such silly statements.Mothra said:
Sam is for civil liberties until he's not. See COVID. See mandates.
The draft isn't COVID mandates. Not even close.
Sam Lowry said:
There's no reason to believe Iran acts any less rationally or more terroristically (if that's a word) than we do. They're just another geopolitical entity that we deal with through whatever combination of force, persuasion, and indifference we happen to choose. The question is what we're trying to achieve and why.
Apparently, "we" are trying to achieve whatever AIPAC wants us to achieve.
OsoCoreyell said:
If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.
Why? Seems to me that nukes keep superpowers honest.
Glad we can agree that your analogy was terrible.Sam Lowry said:Indeed.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Governments have emergency powers. Covid lockdowns were far less onerous than the military drafts that our parents and grandparents had to deal with. I might disagree with it, but only the most fanatical of ideologues would say a person was "against civil liberties" or "not a conservative" for supporting the draft. You shouldn't let your emotional aversion to vaccines lead you to make such silly statements.Mothra said:
Sam is for civil liberties until he's not. See COVID. See mandates.
The draft isn't COVID mandates. Not even close.
Terribly inconvenient for you.Mothra said:Glad we can agree that your analogy was terrible.Sam Lowry said:Indeed.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Governments have emergency powers. Covid lockdowns were far less onerous than the military drafts that our parents and grandparents had to deal with. I might disagree with it, but only the most fanatical of ideologues would say a person was "against civil liberties" or "not a conservative" for supporting the draft. You shouldn't let your emotional aversion to vaccines lead you to make such silly statements.Mothra said:
Sam is for civil liberties until he's not. See COVID. See mandates.
The draft isn't COVID mandates. Not even close.
Sam Lowry said:Terribly inconvenient for you.Mothra said:Glad we can agree that your analogy was terrible.Sam Lowry said:Indeed.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Governments have emergency powers. Covid lockdowns were far less onerous than the military drafts that our parents and grandparents had to deal with. I might disagree with it, but only the most fanatical of ideologues would say a person was "against civil liberties" or "not a conservative" for supporting the draft. You shouldn't let your emotional aversion to vaccines lead you to make such silly statements.Mothra said:
Sam is for civil liberties until he's not. See COVID. See mandates.
The draft isn't COVID mandates. Not even close.
Reports now from several other media outlets in Israel appear to confirm last night’s article from Haaretz, discussing a “heated” phone call between U.S. President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, in which Netanyahu stated the Iranians are purposefully stalling the… pic.twitter.com/0mjmBLxrY0
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) June 10, 2025
LIB,MR BEARS said:Reports now from several other media outlets in Israel appear to confirm last night’s article from Haaretz, discussing a “heated” phone call between U.S. President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, in which Netanyahu stated the Iranians are purposefully stalling the… pic.twitter.com/0mjmBLxrY0
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) June 10, 2025
Despite his many flaws, thank god DJT is President again.
1. You are right: we will not agree on the UK's history.Mothra said:
1) Does the UK have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world or not? It is a straightforward question?
No, I would not call the UK's actions throughout the world terroristic in nature - certainly not on par with what we've seen out of Iran. Does it mean they didn't engage in illicit conduct at times in their long history? Of course not. But I don't believe their actions by and large fit within the definition you've posited. Moreover, most of their dark history occurred more than a century ago. So it simply isn't the apples to apples comparison you're trying to make it.
2) Do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"?
While I appreciate your point about the UK demographics, at this point, yes. Call me when the Muslims do as you predict, but let's be honest - you are speculating at this point, and in fact, wildly so. Perhaps the Muslims residing in the UK will liberalize in the coming years - westernize, kind of like you're hoping for Iran. I would say that they have a much better chance of doing it in the UK than Iran. But the idea they are going to follow in Iran's footsteps is widely speculative at this point.
3) Again, we simply have a fundamental disagreement regarding "rational." Can Iran act in a self-preservatory manner? Certainly, in the same way that any animal can. Does it mean they will act rationally with a few nuclear warheads at their disposal. Nope. Will incentivizing the Islamists through carrots work? No, clue, but I think it's worth trying as opposed to merely "fortressing America" (a concept you still haven't explained BTW).
4) Sam is for civil liberties until he's not. See COVID. See mandates.
5) With respect to Afghanistan, you're once again making an apples to bowling balls comparison in comparing Afghanistan to Japan and Germany. Afghanistan had long since given up attempting to function as a productive, industrialized member of the world when we decided to strike. The Taliban made sure of that, returning most of the country to the Stone Age in the decades prior to our invasion. So what was there to rebuild? It was starting from scratch, unlike post-WWII Germany and especially Japan.
Nation building is almost always a bad idea, especially when dealing with a part of the world that adheres to an ideology that shuns the freedoms you and I hold dear. We should have learned that after the myriad of failed nation states we attempted to prop up, only to see them come crashing to the ground. Afghanistan is one in a long list of examples. We had no cogent exit strategy, and it came back to bite us.
Now, let me point out a few questions you've failed to answer, and ask a few questions about your "fortress America" strategy. Hopefully you'll answer this time.
1) Again, since you believe Iran will not act rationally, do you give up all attempts to incentivize a resolution before they get a nuke? I take it you think Trump and his team are foolish for trying to negotiate with them at this point, based on your previous comments? So is your strategy to just let them be - let them pursue whatever nuclear technology and weapons they want and hope they don't use them?
2) I am intrigued by "fortress America" as a viable strategy post 19th Century. What does that look like in your book? We just gonna hope that we can out-technology the competition when it comes to missiles and missile defense shields? The tyrants and despots start aiming their nukes at us, and are we just gonna hope they miss their mark? What evidence do you have that we have the ability to do so? Do you believe that strategy is truly going to prevent nuclear subs parked on our coast from reaching American cities?
Would appreciate you attempting to respond to my questions before you ask more of your own. Thanks.
2. I do not believe that Iranian or UK Islamists will westernize or liberalize. I do not know where you got that idea.
3. Yes, we have a different view on rational/reasonable behavior. But you are moving the goalposts as you originally unequivocally said that they are not reasonable but now seem to be suggesting it is worth trying as they may be reasonable. I can't harmonize the two positions, and you don't seem interested in harmonizing them. You are just ignoring the tension in your own positions.
4. Nobody is perfect, but Sam is very thoughtful on the legal mechanics of civil liberties. He was wrong on Covid lockdowns, but I believe he was motivated by the common good (a phrase with a very important meaning in the Catholicism that informs Sam's world views).
5. Re: Nation building. You seem to be struggling with abstract thought. Of course nation building is a terrible idea in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it does not matter what you or I think. Metaphorically step out of your body and place yourself in the shoes of people who rise to the top of bureaucratic systems. Hint: they are not brave or heterodox thinkers. They reach their positions through conforming to the system, not by upsetting it.
The only thing that matters is what they think at Foggy Bottom and at the Pentagon. Do not think about what opinion is correct, think about what the people in power giving advice and executing on POTUS's direction believe. For those people it is correctly universally accepted that the Treaty of Versailles was a massive blunder and therefore nation building must follow the toppling of any government or you run the risk of something far more sinister and dangerous rising to fill the void of a toppled government (Noriega being a notable exception, but that wasn't really the toppling of a government, just the apprehension of one man). Not only is nation building the accepted playbook in the halls of power in this country, it is unchallengeable group think.
There is no universe in which American-led regime change in Afghanistan or Iraq is not followed by nation building, regardless of what you or I know to be the correct answer. The consensus advice from Defense and State Departments to POTUS will be that nation building must happen and no POTUS would dare to risk a repeat of the mistakes of WWI. Stop thinking as if you are making the decisions and start thinking like the people who are actually making the decisions and apply their worldview.
To answer your questions:
1) I think negotiating with Iran is foolish and a waste of time/distraction of resources. It is in the interest of the ruling parties in Iran to attain nukes. Furthermore, "must stop Iran from getting nukes" ideologically commits us to the idea of "no nukes for Iran" which is a necessary conditioning/predicate for an eventual ground war in Iran. I suspect you keep avoiding my most important question because you know you have already committed yourself to a path which has a natural conclusion of a ground war.
My strategy would be to pursue Fortress America, let the UN, EU and KSA take the lead on Iran with passive support from us (EU and KSA each have far more to lose with Iranian nukes, IMHO). I haven't really thought about this, but if you want to be really, really provocative, you could possibly go Yalta 2.0: Give up on Crimea/Ukraine and Taiwan in exchange for Russia and China keeping Iran in check. They are far more ruthless and have greater economic incentive in a stable Iran, but I am not sure they could succeed, either. There is no rule of the universe that we have to be the world's police officer or take the lead in every worldwide effort.
Between Ghaddafi, Ukraine, the Taliban and SH, the world has created a conundrum where it would appear that having nukes is the only way to ensure national sovereignty. That is a very powerful incentive and Iran will continue to respond to that incentive. This would also remove us as a foil to Iran and give them other targets to think about first.
2) Fortress America: The focus would need to be on delivery systems and containment of Iranian proxies. The sonar nets are actually pretty good and sensitive. The Navy knew within minutes what had happened to that semisubmersible that collapsed at the Titanic wreckage site, even if they didn't share the knowledge with the civilian world. So I do not think that patrolling the waters would require massive upgrade of resources/action, but I could be wrong.
Missile defense is needed (not for China which will overwhelm any system, but for rogue actors that cannot afford the best tech). Land border and cargo delivery would be the real concern. We would really need to tighten up the land border (something that should happen anyways) and cargo would need to go through a completely different screening process that would slow down trade (screen 200 miles offshore and create bottlenecks for cargo?). This is inline with Trump's onshoring goals, so win-win? We would also need better sensitivity around radiation tracking in the atmosphere. I am unaware of America deploying drone technology in that space or advancements in radiation tracking, but it is an obvious place to start.
I have made a good faith effort at answering your questions, please give my most important question a crack:
A. Assume all else other options have been tried and failed (abstract thought), Iran does attain a handful of nukes or is on the cusp of doing so: Now what do you do?
B. Bonus question, but answer A if you can only get to one question: Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?
I think you are assuming that I have no problem with Iran getting nukes. Or I think it is not big deal. What I am trying to convey is the opposite, I think it is a big problem but you guys are not going far enough in where this all leads.
I am putting my money where my mouth is: I had not bothered to get my children recognized as citizens in the country of my birth, despite my kids being eligible. I went ahead and set an appointment with the local consulate and my kids will have two passports because I want them to have the optionality of avoiding another middle Eastern war if it comes to that.
It is obviously true that you cannot nation build in the middle East, but that is not going to stop DoD and Department of State from trying. Does not matter what you or I think. What matters is what those in power think. I have been saying that to do it properly would require us to basically salt the Earth, but there is no political will for that in the USA. And since we are not willing to do that, this whole exercise is really a predicate to a disaster.ATL Bear said:You can't nation build those who are antithetical to the nation you're trying to build. That is unless you're willing to get your hands incredibly dirty, which sullies the credibility of your efforts.DallasBear9902 said:Let's dance.Mothra said:1) [......]DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:You're bringing up conflicts from more than 250 years ago to try and claim that we are in danger of getting nuked by the UK in the future? Really??? My God, man.DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?
If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.
Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.
They won't act rationally.
Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.
Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.
Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.
We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.
You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.
Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.
JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?
I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.
That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?
It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.
Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.
As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.
Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.
My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.
Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.
The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.
Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?
I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?
Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.
Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.
As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.
Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.
If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.
As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.
Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?
It's post like these that scare the **** out of me. Some of you conservative wingnuts are bat **** crazy.
You claimed the UK had no history of exporting terrorism around the world. If you are that careless with your own words it is no wonder you are so cavalier about American lives and think throwing some misiles around will fix the problem.
Again, if missile strikes would fix the problem then why did Obama, Trump and Biden fail to order the strikes? You are running away from the most important question because you know the answer is that missile strikes will not stop Iran or else the strikes would have already happened.
As for the missile strikes, you're making lots of unwarranted assumptions. There are plenty of motivations for not striking Iran, including the idea that the US could bring them back to the table through sanctions and incentives. I actually agree with Sam that the best way to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomacy. I would employ missile strikes only as a last resort. And I don't think at any point we've reached that stage. I suspect our past and current president feel the same.
But if the choice is between doing nothing, as you suggest, or trying to prevent them from nuking another country, I take my chances on a precision strike.
So it is my fault that you are making factually incorrect statements and we need to read deeper meaning into what you are saying? Sure, we'll all just read your mind for your intended meaning instead of you actually typing out what you mean. Give me a break. Just own your own carelessness. And FYI, it was 50 years ago that the British Army was running roughshod in Northern Ireland during the troubles.
Re: "last resort" I find your approach to be unrealistic and immature. You don't strike as a last resort. The problem isn't the physical capability. That can always be rebuilt and improved on. You strike to prevent the development of technical expertise and experience. That is the actual hard part. As long as the Iranians are taking good notes and backing up their files, then your last resort missile strike is only delaying the inevitable until they build their facilities deep enough and far enough underground in a secure enough place that we can't reach.
Recall, we have military installations designed to withstand nuclear strikes because of how deep they are buried underground. Do you think Iran is not capable of doing the same? Do you think we have some magic bunker buster bomb that can do a job a nuclear strike cannot? Do you think Iran cannot just build back deeper and further isolated? The scary thing is not the physical capacity but the technical expertise. And if you're going to strike, you do it to prevent technical expertise. Otherwise, all you are doing is kicking the can down the road.
I don't think that the missile proponents have actually thought of the technical feasibility of their desired plan of action.
Re: failure to launch strikes during the past 16 years. Your explanations are already violating your key assumption: that Iran is not rational. Your explanation for failing to strike their facilites is that perhaps Obama, Trump and Biden were hoping to get Iran to engage like a rational actor by coming to the negotiating table? Sam can assume that Iran will behave rationally (perhaps he's right or weong), but your whole schtick is that Iran is not rational so they cannot get a bomb. Who is hoping and crossing their fingers now?
Look, I just want people to be honest. Ideological commitment to preventing Iran from getting nukes almost certainly ends with American boys and girls in country on the ground for years and years. I'm not willing to go there.
Buddy, you've made the argument that we need to be concerned about a longtime ally having nukes because of things that happened 250 plus years, and now you want to argue semantics? Cut the bull***** It was a ridiculous position on its face, which you're a smart guy and should well know.
The position that Iran having nukes is inevitable ignores what Israel has been able to do with far less than bunker busting bombs (though they seem to have some pretty good ones if their recent strikes are any indication). Intelligence reports state that it significantly set back the program. As Atl alluded to, those clandestine operations have been pretty effective.
No, like you, I don't trust Iran to act rational with a nuke. Does that mean we don't exhaust all diplomatic efforts before we decide on a military strike? Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand.
Ironically, like Sam, I simply don't accept your false dilemma between a ground war and a nuclear armed Iran. I'm also not so incredibly naive as to believe we can fortify our country from a nuclear attack. I'm just not willing to throw up my hands and give up as you are.
You said you would only worry when the UK had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world, I pointed out they have a centuries long-history of terrorism and included an example from less than 50 years ago (Her Majesty's Army's actions in Northern Ireland). Disappointing that you are incapable of owning your oversight, but so be it.
More important is the substance of your positions: You simultaneously seem to take the positions that:
A. "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything."
B. "Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand."
A is part of your position that we must do all that is possible to stop Iran from getting a nuke because they are not rational.
B is your position that we can negotiate with them because they can be rational ("incentivized").
A and B are facially irreconcilable, unless you have some magic way of understanding them to be rational but also conclude that they are not rational. Please reconcile for the best of us.
Additionally, please stop lying. I have already said in this thread that Iran is not going to be rational with a nuke, yet you keep accusing me of believing otherwise. How much clearer could I be?
When I first got started professionally a dear mentor hammered home the following lesson with regard to portfolio composition: "when you are long commodities, you are short human ingenuity. Be very careful betting against humanity." I'm going to borrow from him here. To believe that we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes is to be short human ingenuity. Throughout all of history humans have shown new and clever ways for getting around prohibitions of all kind. Humanity is sort of undefeated in that regard. The Romans, of course, eventually found the only solution I am aware of to this problem: they salted the earth after complete military victory over their adversaries when the Romans concluded their vanquished enemies were incapable of living peacefully with Rome.
So let me try it this way: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a dozen or so nuclear bombs. The only way to stop them is through a ground war that will necessarily entail hundreds of thousands of troops in theater for decades to come as you try to rebuild the country ala the Marshall plan or Japan. It will be much nastier than W. Bush's Iraq engagement. Are you ready to go there politically? Are you ready to send your sons and daughters to the middle East in those circumstances?
So, what's the plan, big guy?
A. X. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Y. "As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world then you might have a point."
Does the UK have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world or not? It is a straightforward question.B. You seem to not understand (or at least ignore) second- and third-order effects. JD Vance made the provocative joke last summer just days before being nominated as VP by Trump that the UK already is the the first Islamist nuclear power because of Labour.* The joke contains a strand of truth which makes it impactful. A member of the House of Lords caused a row over there about a year ago by claiming that the UK would become Islamist through the power of the womb. For about 10 to 15 years demographers have believed that the UK will be majority Muslim somewhere between 2050 and 2080 (UK Islam is heavily inline with the variety of Pakistani Islamists beliefs). The Labour party is CURRENTLY extremely responsive to its Muslim constituency because of the UK's first past the post parliamentary system already makes voting Muslims an important bloc to Labour (see today's raging debate about the banning of Halal practices in the slaughter of animals). That constituency will be a more important bloc by the year until they become an outright majority. Dismiss the trends there at your own risk.Quote:
I will reiterate the more pertinent point which you've failed to address: when you have to go back centuries to make the case that a longtime ally who we've fought alongside in ever major world war should be disarmed, you might consider that your position is completely and totally ridiculous.
In the early 1980s, once the Afrikaners saw the writing on the wall, they sort of voluntarily chose to get rid of their nukes and shut down their program (BDS heavily influenced the Afrikaners, so I hesitate to call it a purely voluntary disarmament). I think SA is a relevant example to the UK. If the UK is really heading toward an Islamist-majority population in the next 25 to 50 years (according to demographers) and if Islamists must never be allowed to get nukes (according to you) and if we have the precedent of a disarmament by SA, do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"? At bare minimum, UK demographic trends are a contingency that must be game-theorized out by any prudent world power: so tell me, what is your war game plan there if Islamists do achieve outright political control in the UK? I know, I know, they are an ally, I'm sure that will ensure their future Islamist overlords are restrained. But just game-theory this out for me and keep this all in the abstract. What do you do if and when Islamists achieve outright political control in the UK?
C. You said: "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything." You are now also suggesting that they can be rational before attaining a nuke. Responding to incentives as *one* understands them to be is the very textbook definition of rational behavior in economics. Psychology has similar principles. When you suggest that Iran can be incentivized, you are implicitly taking the position that they are rational. Which stands in direct contrast to your position that you have "never known Islamists to be reasonable". So which is it: Are Islamists capable of behaving reasonably or not? Yes, having nukes will change the equation, but your unequivocal statement was that these are people incapable of being reasonable *even before* they have attained nukes. I find your positions to be idiosyncratic and irreconcilable and you really have not tried to harmonize your positions.
D. I have offered a plan and solution: Fortress America or ground war. I do not support the latter, but it is the obvious solution if we are going to play offense. I do not believe we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes (short of a ground invasion/nation building) and I do not believe they will step back from pursuing nukes. I do not favor a ground invasion. So that leaves Fortress America.
My bigger issue is that this posturing of "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuke" is clearly setting the predicate for an eventual ground war. Tucker Carlson believes at minimum that influential people are agitating for war/regime change with Iran as we speak. Does that not in the least make you question what may be happening here?
I'll repeat my question to you and make it simpler: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a half dozen or so nuclear bombs. You have ideologically committed yourself to the idea that Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes. Now what do you do?I respect Sam a lot, especially on civil liberties where he is very thoughtful, though I disagree with him on much. He does not need my help. But the above Monday morning quarterbacking from you shows that you are way too cavalier and lack deliberate thought about this topic.Quote:
You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.
***THE*** defining military/strategic lesson of the 20th Century was that the Treaty of Versailles punishing Germany economically and diplomatically was a major blunder and important contributor that led to WWII. Failure to economically and diplomatically redevelop Germany after World War One was a massive mistake that allowed something far more evil and sinister to rise in Germany in the form of nationalist socialism/fascism.
Hence, post-WWII, you have the Marshall Plan in Europe and MacArthur in Japan doing everything possible to reindustrialize and integrate into the west both Europe and Japan. The post-WWII redevelopment was such a massive American success that the playbook at both Defense and State demands nation building after the overthrow of a government. The idea that we could have ever simply deposed of the Taliban, gotten OBL and then left Afghanistan (or Iraq after getting SH) is just inconceivable within the halls of power in this country. Our military and diplomatic officials would all be in consensus in their advice to POTUS that the overthrow of the Taliban and SH each required nation building on our part or we would run this risk of something more evil replacing the deposed government.
No PTOUS would stake his legacy on the risk of repeating the mistakes from the end of World War One. Even if a POTUS had the guts to go in a different direction, it would break the brains of all senior level officials at Defense and State and there would be constant second guessing and leaks to the media if an Executive pursued the plan of action you retrospectively propose. It just does not work the way that you want. You may want to rethink the inputs in your internal model as you consider the posture we are taking with Iran.
*I like Vance a lot, but his joke was in the same realm of VP Harris and Sec. Blinken's comments about NATO expansion--just a really bad idea to put your foot in your mouth like that.
1) If you can point me to some examples of the UK engaging in terrorism in the last, say, 100 years that is tantamount to what Iran is doing on a daily basis (and against our interests), I am willing to reconsider your moral equivalency.DallasBear9902 said:1. You are right: we will not agree on the UK's history.Mothra said:
1) Does the UK have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world or not? It is a straightforward question?
No, I would not call the UK's actions throughout the world terroristic in nature - certainly not on par with what we've seen out of Iran. Does it mean they didn't engage in illicit conduct at times in their long history? Of course not. But I don't believe their actions by and large fit within the definition you've posited. Moreover, most of their dark history occurred more than a century ago. So it simply isn't the apples to apples comparison you're trying to make it.
2) Do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"?
While I appreciate your point about the UK demographics, at this point, yes. Call me when the Muslims do as you predict, but let's be honest - you are speculating at this point, and in fact, wildly so. Perhaps the Muslims residing in the UK will liberalize in the coming years - westernize, kind of like you're hoping for Iran. I would say that they have a much better chance of doing it in the UK than Iran. But the idea they are going to follow in Iran's footsteps is widely speculative at this point.
3) Again, we simply have a fundamental disagreement regarding "rational." Can Iran act in a self-preservatory manner? Certainly, in the same way that any animal can. Does it mean they will act rationally with a few nuclear warheads at their disposal. Nope. Will incentivizing the Islamists through carrots work? No, clue, but I think it's worth trying as opposed to merely "fortressing America" (a concept you still haven't explained BTW).
4) Sam is for civil liberties until he's not. See COVID. See mandates.
5) With respect to Afghanistan, you're once again making an apples to bowling balls comparison in comparing Afghanistan to Japan and Germany. Afghanistan had long since given up attempting to function as a productive, industrialized member of the world when we decided to strike. The Taliban made sure of that, returning most of the country to the Stone Age in the decades prior to our invasion. So what was there to rebuild? It was starting from scratch, unlike post-WWII Germany and especially Japan.
Nation building is almost always a bad idea, especially when dealing with a part of the world that adheres to an ideology that shuns the freedoms you and I hold dear. We should have learned that after the myriad of failed nation states we attempted to prop up, only to see them come crashing to the ground. Afghanistan is one in a long list of examples. We had no cogent exit strategy, and it came back to bite us.
Now, let me point out a few questions you've failed to answer, and ask a few questions about your "fortress America" strategy. Hopefully you'll answer this time.
1) Again, since you believe Iran will not act rationally, do you give up all attempts to incentivize a resolution before they get a nuke? I take it you think Trump and his team are foolish for trying to negotiate with them at this point, based on your previous comments? So is your strategy to just let them be - let them pursue whatever nuclear technology and weapons they want and hope they don't use them?
2) I am intrigued by "fortress America" as a viable strategy post 19th Century. What does that look like in your book? We just gonna hope that we can out-technology the competition when it comes to missiles and missile defense shields? The tyrants and despots start aiming their nukes at us, and are we just gonna hope they miss their mark? What evidence do you have that we have the ability to do so? Do you believe that strategy is truly going to prevent nuclear subs parked on our coast from reaching American cities?
Would appreciate you attempting to respond to my questions before you ask more of your own. Thanks.
2. I do not believe that Iranian or UK Islamists will westernize or liberalize. I do not know where you got that idea.
3. Yes, we have a different view on rational/reasonable behavior. But you are moving the goalposts as you originally unequivocally said that they are not reasonable but now seem to be suggesting it is worth trying as they may be reasonable. I can't harmonize the two positions, and you don't seem interested in harmonizing them. You are just ignoring the tension in your own positions.
4. Nobody is perfect, but Sam is very thoughtful on the legal mechanics of civil liberties. He was wrong on Covid lockdowns, but I believe he was motivated by the common good (a phrase with a very important meaning in the Catholicism that informs Sam's world views).
5. Re: Nation building. You seem to be struggling with abstract thought. Of course nation building is a terrible idea in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it does not matter what you or I think. Metaphorically step out of your body and place yourself in the shoes of people who rise to the top of bureaucratic systems. Hint: they are not brave or heterodox thinkers. They reach their positions through conforming to the system, not by upsetting it.
The only thing that matters is what they think at Foggy Bottom and at the Pentagon. Do not think about what opinion is correct, think about what the people in power giving advice and executing on POTUS's direction believe. For those people it is correctly universally accepted that the Treaty of Versailles was a massive blunder and therefore nation building must follow the toppling of any government or you run the risk of something far more sinister and dangerous rising to fill the void of a toppled government (Noriega being a notable exception, but that wasn't really the toppling of a government, just the apprehension of one man). Not only is nation building the accepted playbook in the halls of power in this country, it is unchallengeable group think.
There is no universe in which American-led regime change in Afghanistan or Iraq is not followed by nation building, regardless of what you or I know to be the correct answer. The consensus advice from Defense and State Departments to POTUS will be that nation building must happen and no POTUS would dare to risk a repeat of the mistakes of WWI. Stop thinking as if you are making the decisions and start thinking like the people who are actually making the decisions and apply their worldview.
To answer your questions:
1) I think negotiating with Iran is foolish and a waste of time/distraction of resources. It is in the interest of the ruling parties in Iran to attain nukes. Furthermore, "must stop Iran from getting nukes" ideologically commits us to the idea of "no nukes for Iran" which is a necessary conditioning/predicate for an eventual ground war in Iran. I suspect you keep avoiding my most important question because you know you have already committed yourself to a path which has a natural conclusion of a ground war.
My strategy would be to pursue Fortress America, let the UN, EU and KSA take the lead on Iran with passive support from us (EU and KSA each have far more to lose with Iranian nukes, IMHO). I haven't really thought about this, but if you want to be really, really provocative, you could possibly go Yalta 2.0: Give up on Crimea/Ukraine and Taiwan in exchange for Russia and China keeping Iran in check. They are far more ruthless and have greater economic incentive in a stable Iran, but I am not sure they could succeed, either. There is no rule of the universe that we have to be the world's police officer or take the lead in every worldwide effort.
Between Ghaddafi, Ukraine, the Taliban and SH, the world has created a conundrum where it would appear that having nukes is the only way to ensure national sovereignty. That is a very powerful incentive and Iran will continue to respond to that incentive. This would also remove us as a foil to Iran and give them other targets to think about first.
2) Fortress America: The focus would need to be on delivery systems and containment of Iranian proxies. The sonar nets are actually pretty good and sensitive. The Navy knew within minutes what had happened to that semisubmersible that collapsed at the Titanic wreckage site, even if they didn't share the knowledge with the civilian world. So I do not think that patrolling the waters would require massive upgrade of resources/action, but I could be wrong.
Missile defense is needed (not for China which will overwhelm any system, but for rogue actors that cannot afford the best tech). Land border and cargo delivery would be the real concern. We would really need to tighten up the land border (something that should happen anyways) and cargo would need to go through a completely different screening process that would slow down trade (screen 200 miles offshore and create bottlenecks for cargo?). This is inline with Trump's onshoring goals, so win-win? We would also need better sensitivity around radiation tracking in the atmosphere. I am unaware of America deploying drone technology in that space or advancements in radiation tracking, but it is an obvious place to start.
I have made a good faith effort at answering your questions, please give my most important question a crack:
A. Assume all else other options have been tried and failed (abstract thought), Iran does attain a handful of nukes or is on the cusp of doing so: Now what do you do?
B. Bonus question, but answer A if you can only get to one question: Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?
I think you are assuming that I have no problem with Iran getting nukes. Or I think it is not big deal. What I am trying to convey is the opposite, I think it is a big problem but you guys are not going far enough in where this all leads.
I am putting my money where my mouth is: I had not bothered to get my children recognized as citizens in the country of my birth, despite my kids being eligible. I went ahead and set an appointment with the local consulate and my kids will have two passports because I want them to have the optionality of avoiding another middle Eastern war if it comes to that.
2) Thanks for the clarification. You said earlier on this thread that the hope of the US was that Iran would liberalize and I thought you agreed with that assessment.
3) The irony of the rational/reasonable debate is that it appears you believe the exact same thing as I do. You made very clear that you don't believe Iran will be rational/reasonable, but advocate for "the UN, EU and KSA tak[ing] the lead on Iran with passive support from us (EU and KSA each have far more to lose with Iranian nukes, IMHO)." Well, if you advocate for the UN, EU and KSA continuing to negotiate with Iran, it suggests you believe that Iran does indeed have the ability to be rational/reasonable based on the definitions you've proffered. So, which is it?
4) Sam has been wrong on a lot more things than simply COVID, when it comes to civil liberties. COVID and Trump have seemed to break him. Are you Catholic as well?
5) With regard to nation building, I would submit you have difficulty making cogent arguments, as opposed to me having an issue with abstract thought. Here is what you previously said in response to my contention we should not be engaging in nation building in Afghanistan:
But the above Monday morning quarterbacking from you shows that you are way too cavalier and lack deliberate thought about this topic.
***THE*** defining military/strategic lesson of the 20th Century was that the Treaty of Versailles punishing Germany economically and diplomatically was a major blunder and important contributor that led to WWII. Failure to economically and diplomatically redevelop Germany after World War One was a massive mistake that allowed something far more evil and sinister to rise in Germany in the form of nationalist socialism/fascism.
Any reasonable person who read this would believe you were voicing support for nation building in Afghanistan. Hell, even ATL, the poster you very much "respect," took your comments to mean as such. Yet, now you allege that isn't what you were saying? Mmmm kay. Speaking of moving the goalposts, that certainly seems to be what you're doing here.
As for your responses to my questions:
1) Not sure what question you believe me to be avoiding. I am happy to answer any question you pose. If it includes a premise I don't agree with - i.e. your false dilemma between a ground war and nukes - that does not mean I have not answered your question. But fire away.
2) RE: Fortress America, without a missile defense shield, your plan simply won't prevent Iranian nukes from eventually reaching their intended targets, especially if we stop incentivizing and allow them carte blanche access to ICMB technology. Might have worked before our enemies could strike American cities with the push of a button, but no longer. While I am perfectly fine with arming the continental United States to the teeth, I just think your position to be a foolish one that ignores 21st century technology.
A. Assume all else other options have been tried and failed (abstract thought), Iran does attain a handful of nukes or is on the cusp of doing so: Now what do you do?
Depends on the circumstances and variables, but I would definitely advocate for putting the requisite defense funding and manpower into a workable missile defense shield that could counter Iranian nukes. That's likely going to be the only way to ensure American cities are not hit by an Iranian nuke. I likely would not advocate for a ground war with Iran, regardless.
B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?
I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.
PREPARE YOUR CORN!
- el KKM
D!
- el KKM
D!
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.