Would you attack Iran?

NotConvinced · 11-20-2007, 01:31 AM

Would you favor military action against Iran if proof were given they were reasonably under a year away from producing nuclear weapons, and all diplomatic means available had been attempted?

If I don't provide a few assumptions, I fear there will be a smaller chance of worthy answers...

Assume other primary UN countries were divided quite equally on the matter. Some promising their military support, some not.

Assume the American public is not overwhelmingly favoring either side.

Assume US military forces are moderately capable of waging such military action.

Assume Ahmadinejad is still in power, and the Iranian people display reasonably as much dislike for their government as they do now.

While attacking the assumptions is perfectly game (try to give an answer based on the assumptions regardless), I believe they're reasonable enough to have a decent debate on the topic.

oh, and assume the year is 2010, so it isn't "ol' Cowboy Bush up to his old tricks again."

Og · 11-20-2007, 06:36 AM

We helped Israel gain nuclear weapons behind the non-proliferation treaty for years and are now beating Iran with the treaty and demanding that they don't proceed with nuclear weapon development.

"Pre-emptive war" is nuts. We need to disassemble our military. The world is such that economics create a continuous unit. For example, if China invaded Taiwan, China's stock market would crash and they'd enter a massive economic depression.

Same would go for anyone attacking us. Attacking another country is like stabbing yourself in the foot these days.

Also, the use of money for these things is absolutely absurd. NIH budget is being slashed. We give more money in support to Israel than the ENTIRE National Science Foundation.

Our priorities are absolutely screwed up. There is a diplomatic solution. Saying that there isn't is the last resort of the incompetent.

pseudonous · 11-20-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Also, the use of money for these things is absolutely absurd. NIH budget is being slashed. We give more money in support to Israel than the ENTIRE National Science Foundation.

Can you give proof of this? The reason I ask is I once heard the numbers and mentioned it to other people but they did not believe me.

Og · 11-20-2007, 04:15 PM

NSF Budget for 2007 5.91 Billion (see NSF entry on wikipedia)

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Jan_Feb_2001/0101015.html
This seems to indicate 5.5 billion plus some funds that are hard to track because they're not directly labeled as israeli foreign aid. Couldn't find a specific number.

**Skepticologist** · 11-20-2007, 05:05 PM

I just finished reading "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA" by Tim Weiner, and I'd recommend it highly to anyone even thinking about supporting another pre-emptive war based on so-called "intelligence" developed by the agency. Due to the almost virtual absence of human, vs. electronic and signals, intelligence, the CIA has been dead wrong in well over 95% of its assessments since World Wat I. It seems the only successes they've enjoyed have been the result of blind, stumbling luck.

I considered it ludicrous that this country went to war in 2003 on such nebulous intelligence, given the relatively recent (1975) debacle of the "domino theory" that justified American intervention in South Vietnam. We lost 58,002 young Americans in that fiasco, which saw us get our butts thoroughly kicked, yet not even one single additional domino fell. I guess we should feel good that the Iraq war has claimed "only" a little over 3,000 American lives, but even one life lost constituted a gross injustice given the flaky justification for the war, which has morphed from weapons of mass destruction, to weapons of mass destruction related programs, to ties with Al Qaeda which were categorically refuted, to salvation of a poor little old oil-producing country from a cruel dictator, to the tired old "making the world safe for democracy" diatribe. And now we're even thinking quasi-seriously about invading Iran? Puh-leese!

Haven't you tuned in for even a few seconds to the Congressional testimony of the Army chief of staff within the last few days? Our military is stretched to the breaking point by the combined actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. To even fleetingly think that we could mount a credible third offensive is patently absurd.

I don't know exactly what to think about Iran's nuclear program. Maybe it really is only for the purposes of producing energy. Would that be as surprising as the fact that Saddam Hussein's assertion that he had destroyed his chemical, biological and (non-existent) nuclear weapons turned out to be absolutely true?

As far as Ahmadenijad, anyone who seriously thinks that he's not completely controlled by the high-ranking ayatollahs calling the shots in that country is seriously deluded. He's not the source of the threat, if there is one. It's the theocratic hierarchy pulling his strings.

But let's say, for argument's sake, that there is a legitimate nuclear threat from Iran. Even if they have the capability of producing a nuclear weapon, which is a dubious assumption at best, they have no viable means of delivering it, with the exception of planting it in the suitcase of some islamic nut case, and that would be a seriously huge suitcase, which would very likely be detected. A better case can be made for importing such a weapon in cargo, which is notoriously subject to only cursory inspections, but someone would still need to deliver a significantly bulky package to the site of its intended detonation.

All the foregoing conjecture ignores the well-established principle of MAD (mutually assured destruction), which served us very well during the Cold War. Iran, or Iraq, or any number of countries wanting to do us harm, has to know that for every deliverable atomic weapon they could hope to produce, the U.S. has a couple of thousand that are already, or could be instantly, targeted at them.

So don't try to play the fear card that the neocons have played to their considerable advantage over the past four years with me. It'll take a whole lot more 'actionable intelligence" than has been produced to date to make me even mildly concerned.

NotConvinced · 11-21-2007, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

We helped Israel gain nuclear weapons behind the non-proliferation treaty for years and are now beating Iran with the treaty and demanding that they don't proceed with nuclear weapon development.

Although true, it doesn't pose any weight on the proposed situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

"Pre-emptive war" is nuts. We need to disassemble our military. The world is such that economics create a continuous unit. For example, if China invaded Taiwan, China's stock market would crash and they'd enter a massive economic depression.

Same would go for anyone attacking us. Attacking another country is like stabbing yourself in the foot these days.

Curiously interesting economic link, but disassembling the military? Also, if Iran gives nuclear weapons to terrorists, which isn't too far fetched, who's stock market would crash? Al Qaeda's? Like you said, when "attacking another country," Iran isn't likely to attack anyone out right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

Also, the use of money for these things is absolutely absurd. NIH budget is being slashed. We give more money in support to Israel than the ENTIRE National Science Foundation.

Our priorities are absolutely screwed up. There is a diplomatic solution. Saying that there isn't is the last resort of the incompetent.

Yeah the money is quite an issue, but would I be in favor of spending it IF it meant a much lesser chance of being randomly nuked? Sure. Would I be in favor of spending it if it meant another Iraq? That's a different question. Going into Iran would most definately have to involve the majority of the people there being on our side to begin with, we're already part of the way there in that respect. And saying a problem Always has a diplomatic solution, and that solution is always attainable, is ignorant at best. So if I understand you correctly, you believe there's always a diplomatic way out, so we can rule out any military action, and further more, disband our entire military. I admit I respect most of what you have to say regarding other issues, but this one seems to be apt to misguided views. What if "the diplomatic solution" involved a willing Russia, Germany, and China all working together to put the most harsh sanctions on the country, and those countries aren't willing, or even 2 of 3. Sure there's a diplomatic solution, will it solve the problem? Not in that case. Somehow I don't see diplomatic solutions working against Hitler, I could be wrong, but that's my view.

NotConvinced · 11-21-2007, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skepticologist

I just finished reading "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA" by Tim Weiner, and I'd recommend it highly to anyone even thinking about supporting another pre-emptive war based on so-called "intelligence" developed by the agency. Due to the almost virtual absence of human, vs. electronic and signals, intelligence, the CIA has been dead wrong in well over 95% of its assessments since World Wat I. It seems the only successes they've enjoyed have been the result of blind, stumbling luck.

I considered it ludicrous that this country went to war in 2003 on such nebulous intelligence, given the relatively recent (1975) debacle of the "domino theory" that justified American intervention in South Vietnam. We lost 58,002 young Americans in that fiasco, which saw us get our butts thoroughly kicked, yet not even one single additional domino fell. I guess we should feel good that the Iraq war has claimed "only" a little over 3,000 American lives, but even one life lost constituted a gross injustice given the flaky justification for the war, which has morphed from weapons of mass destruction, to weapons of mass destruction related programs, to ties with Al Qaeda which were categorically refuted, to salvation of a poor little old oil-producing country from a cruel dictator, to the tired old "making the world safe for democracy" diatribe. And now we're even thinking quasi-seriously about invading Iran? Puh-leese!

Haven't you tuned in for even a few seconds to the Congressional testimony of the Army chief of staff within the last few days? Our military is stretched to the breaking point by the combined actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. To even fleetingly think that we could mount a credible third offensive is patently absurd.

I don't know exactly what to think about Iran's nuclear program. Maybe it really is only for the purposes of producing energy. Would that be as surprising as the fact that Saddam Hussein's assertion that he had destroyed his chemical, biological and (non-existent) nuclear weapons turned out to be absolutely true?

As far as Ahmadenijad, anyone who seriously thinks that he's not completely controlled by the high-ranking ayatollahs calling the shots in that country is seriously deluded. He's not the source of the threat, if there is one. It's the theocratic hierarchy pulling his strings.

But let's say, for argument's sake, that there is a legitimate nuclear threat from Iran. Even if they have the capability of producing a nuclear weapon, which is a dubious assumption at best, they have no viable means of delivering it, with the exception of planting it in the suitcase of some islamic nut case, and that would be a seriously huge suitcase, which would very likely be detected. A better case can be made for importing such a weapon in cargo, which is notoriously subject to only cursory inspections, but someone would still need to deliver a significantly bulky package to the site of its intended detonation.

All the foregoing conjecture ignores the well-established principle of MAD (mutually assured destruction), which served us very well during the Cold War. Iran, or Iraq, or any number of countries wanting to do us harm, has to know that for every deliverable atomic weapon they could hope to produce, the U.S. has a couple of thousand that are already, or could be instantly, targeted at them.

So don't try to play the fear card that the neocons have played to their considerable advantage over the past four years with me. It'll take a whole lot more 'actionable intelligence" than has been produced to date to make me even mildly concerned.

You're 1st 3 paragraphs go against my assumptions in the problem statement, so for arguments sake I can disregard them. The CIA book sounds interesting, however I get extremely impatient with books in general.

Delivery....well I wouldn't understimate terrorism, again it's probably not Iran itself but some rogue orginization. The MAD thing doesn't seem to apply, cuz it's prolly not Iran itself attacking us.

Playing the fear card can be highly related to being realistic. Though I'll admit the republicans have mastered a few political tactics, I wouldn't deem an entire set of solutions unavailable just because of a political stance. I'm afraid of Iran having the capability of making nuclear weapons, that's just how I feel personally, does that mean I've been duped by "the fear card?" Hardly.

I'll pose it like this: Name the details of the situation in which You would authorize military force against Iran.

pseudonous · 11-21-2007, 01:23 AM

Quote:

I'll pose it like this: Name the details of the situation in which You would authorize military force against Iran.

When Iran declared war on us.
When Iran began destroying American commercial properties (sinking ships, etc...) outside their territory.
When Iran provided direct support to an organization which declared war on us or destroyed American commercial properties.
Basically, when Iran committed hostile acts toward us which could not be considered self defense. This does not include them improving their defense capabilities in any way other than in such instances when it involved a direct threat to our country.
I can't think of any other just reasons to declare war on another country.

NotConvinced · 11-21-2007, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudonous

Quote:

I'll pose it like this: Name the details of the situation in which You would authorize military force against Iran.

When Iran declared war on us.
When Iran began destroying American commercial properties (sinking ships, etc...) outside their territory.
When Iran provided direct support to an organization which declared war on us or destroyed American commercial properties.
Basically, when Iran committed hostile acts toward us which could not be considered self defense. This does not include them improving their defense capabilities in any way other than in such instances when it involved a direct threat to our country.
I can't think of any other just reasons to declare war on another country.

Although these situations seem reasonable, under those conditions, we'd already be authorized to use military force against Iran. Seems Bush held back on military force more than you would.

**Skepticologist** · 11-21-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotConvinced

Seems Bush held back on military force more than you would.

He's held back so far because it's a moot point. In order to exert military force, you have to use military forces, and the Iraq war has stretched ours to the breaking point.

It's literally astounding to me that any American who has witnessed the events of the last 4-1/2 years, and knows a little somewhat-less-recent history, would advocate another preemptive war.

As categorically proven by the aftermath of the fall of Saigon, there was no line of Southeast Asian "dominoes" waiting to fall and set the stage for communist domination of the region.

As categorically proven by the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad, there were no weapons of mass destruction; there were no ties to Al Qaeda.

So our record of preemptive wars has been dismal. We have fought them for no legitimate reasons and achieved nothing except the disdain of the international community and a robust trade in body bags.