L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now! - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 02:10 PM Thread Starter
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Shangri-La
Posts: 35,376
                     
Thumbs up L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Quote:
Bomb Iran

Diplomacy is doing nothing to stop the Iranian nuclear threat; a show of force is the only answer.
By Joshua Muravchik, JOSHUA MURAVCHIK is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
November 19, 2006

WE MUST bomb Iran.

It has been four years since that country's secret nuclear program was brought to light, and the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere.

First, we agreed to our allies' requests that we offer Tehran a string of concessions, which it spurned. Then, Britain, France and Germany wanted to impose a batch of extremely weak sanctions. For instance, Iranians known to be involved in nuclear activities would have been barred from foreign travel — except for humanitarian or religious reasons — and outside countries would have been required to refrain from aiding some, but not all, Iranian nuclear projects.

But even this was too much for the U.N. Security Council. Russia promptly announced that these sanctions were much too strong. "We cannot support measures … aimed at isolating Iran," declared Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov.

It is now clear that neither Moscow nor Beijing will ever agree to tough sanctions. What's more, even if they were to do so, it would not stop Iran, which is a country on a mission. As President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad put it: "Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen…. The era of oppression, hegemonic regimes and tyranny and injustice has reached its end…. The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world." There is simply no possibility that Iran's clerical rulers will trade this ecstatic vision for a mess of Western pottage in the form of economic bribes or penalties.

So if sanctions won't work, what's left? The overthrow of the current Iranian regime might offer a silver bullet, but with hard-liners firmly in the saddle in Tehran, any such prospect seems even more remote today than it did a decade ago, when students were demonstrating and reformers were ascendant. Meanwhile, the completion of Iran's bomb grows nearer every day.

Our options therefore are narrowed to two: We can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it. Former ABC newsman Ted Koppel argues for the former, saying that "if Iran is bound and determined to have nuclear weapons, let it." We should rely, he says, on the threat of retaliation to keep Iran from using its bomb. Similarly, Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria points out that we have succeeded in deterring other hostile nuclear states, such as the Soviet Union and China.

And in these pages, William Langewiesche summed up the what-me-worry attitude when he wrote that "the spread of nuclear weapons is, and always has been, inevitable," and that the important thing is "learning how to live with it after it occurs."

But that's whistling past the graveyard. The reality is that we cannot live safely with a nuclear-armed Iran. One reason is terrorism, of which Iran has long been the world's premier state sponsor, through groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Now, according to a report last week in London's Daily Telegraph, Iran is trying to take over Al Qaeda by positioning its own man, Saif Adel, to become the successor to the ailing Osama bin Laden. How could we possibly trust Iran not to slip nuclear material to terrorists?

Koppel says that we could prevent this by issuing a blanket warning that if a nuclear device is detonated anywhere in the United States, we will assume Iran is responsible. But would any U.S. president really order a retaliatory nuclear strike based on an assumption?

Another reason is that an Iranian bomb would constitute a dire threat to Israel's 6 million-plus citizens. Sure, Israel could strike back, but Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president who was Ahmadinejad's "moderate" electoral opponent, once pointed out smugly that "the use of an atomic bomb against Israel would totally destroy Israel, while [the same] against the Islamic world would only cause damage. Such a scenario is not inconceivable." If that is the voice of pragmatism in Iran, would you trust deterrence against the messianic Ahmadinejad?

Even if Iran did not drop a bomb on Israel or hand one to terrorists, its mere possession of such a device would have devastating consequences. Coming on top of North Korea's nuclear test, it would spell finis to the entire nonproliferation system.

And then there is a consequence that seems to have been thought about much less but could be the most harmful of all: Tehran could achieve its goal of regional supremacy. Jordan's King Abdullah II, for instance, has warned of an emerging Shiite "crescent." But Abdullah's comment understates the danger. If Iran's reach were limited to Shiites, it would be constrained by their minority status in the Muslim world as well as by the divisions between Persians and Arabs.

But such ethnic-based analysis fails to take into account Iran's charisma as the archenemy of the United States and Israel and the leverage it achieves as the patron of radicals and rejectionists. Given that, the old assumptions about Shiites and Sunnis may not hold any longer. Iran's closest ally today is Syria, which is mostly Sunni. The link between Tehran and Damascus is ideological, not theological. Similarly, Iran supports the Palestinian groups Islamic Jihad and Hamas, which are overwhelmingly Sunni (and as a result, Iran has grown popular in the eyes of Palestinians).

During the Lebanon war this summer, we saw how readily Muslims closed ranks across the Sunni-Shiite divide against a common foe (even as the two groups continued killing each other in Iraq). In Sunni Egypt, newborns were named "Hezbollah" after the Lebanese Shiite organization and "Nasrallah" after its leader. As Muslim scholar Vali Nasr put it: "A flurry of anti-Hezbollah [i.e., anti-Shiite] fatwas by radical Sunni clerics have not diverted the admiring gaze of Arabs everywhere toward Hezbollah."

In short, Tehran can build influence on a mix of ethnicity and ideology, underwritten by the region's largest economy. Nuclear weapons would bring regional hegemony within its reach by intimidating neighbors and rivals and stirring the admiration of many other Muslims.

This would thrust us into a new global struggle akin to the one we waged so painfully with the Soviet Union for 40-odd years. It would be the "clash of civilizations" that has been so much talked about but so little defined.

Iran might seem little match for the United States, but that is not how Ahmadinejad sees it. He and his fellow jihadists believe that the Muslim world has already defeated one infidel superpower (the Soviet Union) and will in time defeat the other.

Russia was poor and weak in 1917 when Lenin took power, as was Germany in 1933 when Hitler came in. Neither, in the end, was able to defeat the United States, but each of them unleashed unimaginable suffering before they succumbed. And despite its weakness, Iran commands an asset that neither of them had: a natural advantage in appealing to the world's billion-plus Muslims.

If Tehran establishes dominance in the region, then the battlefield might move to Southeast Asia or Africa or even parts of Europe, as the mullahs would try to extend their sway over other Muslim peoples. In the end, we would no doubt win, but how long this contest might last and what toll it might take are anyone's guess.

The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of force. Not by invading Iran as we did Iraq, but by an air campaign against Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets. If we hit a large fraction of them in a bombing campaign that might last from a few days to a couple of weeks, we would inflict severe damage. This would not end Iran's weapons program, but it would certainly delay it.

What should be the timing of such an attack? If we did it next year, that would give time for U.N. diplomacy to further reveal its bankruptcy yet would come before Iran will have a bomb in hand (and also before our own presidential campaign). In time, if Tehran persisted, we might have to do it again.

Can President Bush take such action after being humiliated in the congressional elections and with the Iraq war having grown so unpopular? Bush has said that history's judgment on his conduct of the war against terror is more important than the polls. If Ahmadinejad gets his finger on a nuclear trigger, everything Bush has done will be rendered hollow. We will be a lot less safe than we were when Bush took office.

Finally, wouldn't such a U.S. air attack on Iran inflame global anti-Americanism? Wouldn't Iran retaliate in Iraq or by terrorism? Yes, probably. That is the price we would pay. But the alternative is worse.

After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917, a single member of Britain's Cabinet, Winston Churchill, appealed for robust military intervention to crush the new regime. His colleagues weighed the costs — the loss of soldiers, international derision, revenge by Lenin — and rejected the idea.

The costs were avoided, and instead the world was subjected to the greatest man-made calamities ever. Communism itself was to claim perhaps 100 million lives, and it also gave rise to fascism and Nazism, leading to World War II. Ahmadinejad wants to be the new Lenin. Force is the only thing that can stop him.
Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,1681154.story

It is time.

Light of the Seven: Himalayas, Gobi, Baikal, Taiga, Steppe, Alps, Aurora
Sam L is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 02:45 PM
double-dog daredevil
 
griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: self-imposed exile
Posts: 12,053
                     
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Lets see, unless you take out their nuclear facility, all you do is piss them off - because it's not like we have enough troops available for an invasion.

If you do hit their nukes, you have a major nuclear catastrophe, the fallout from which will impact the entire region (and not in a good way, in case you were wondering)

Of course both will succeed in converting even more people into radical Islamists, and in further destabilizing the region. Making us less safe, not more.

But hey, it will feel good to bomb someone, right? We'll FEEL like we're doing something, who cares what the results are?

Why am I not surprised you approve?
griffin is offline  
post #3 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 02:54 PM
Senior Member
 
kabuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In denial
Posts: 6,176
                     
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Well, Sam, I hope you are ready to enlist and fight in um, less than hospitable conditions, as in war on a scale unseen in a couple of generations.
kabuki is offline  
post #4 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 02:57 PM Thread Starter
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Shangri-La
Posts: 35,376
                     
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by griffin View Post
Lets see, unless you take out their nuclear facility, all you do is piss them off - because it's not like we have enough troops available for an invasion.

If you do hit their nukes, you have a major nuclear catastrophe, the fallout from which will impact the entire region (and not in a good way, in case you were wondering)

Of course both will succeed in converting even more people into radical Islamists, and in further destabilizing the region. Making us less safe, not more.

But hey, it will feel good to bomb someone, right? We'll FEEL like we're doing something, who cares what the results are?

Why am I not surprised you approve?
I just think that this will bring about a safer and better world, griff. Honestly, I don't feel comfortable with axis of evil countries owning nuclear weapons. We've invaded Iraq and now we should take care of Iran and N.Korea.

Light of the Seven: Himalayas, Gobi, Baikal, Taiga, Steppe, Alps, Aurora
Sam L is offline  
post #5 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 02:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 21,972
                     
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

according to some sources Cheney-robot is pushing this idea and it is not a surprise that this crap above came from American Enterprise Institute... After all robot's wofe is a scholar there

Vassilissa is my girl............
tenn_ace is offline  
post #6 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 03:00 PM Thread Starter
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Shangri-La
Posts: 35,376
                     
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kabuki View Post
Well, Sam, I hope you are ready to enlist and fight in um, less than hospitable conditions, as in war on a scale unseen in a couple of generations.
I'm becoming a nurse and I was going to get sponsored by the Australian Defence Force but I think I might just work for them when I finish. I am interested in things like military strategy too.

Light of the Seven: Himalayas, Gobi, Baikal, Taiga, Steppe, Alps, Aurora
Sam L is offline  
post #7 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 03:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 21,972
                     
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kabuki View Post
Well, Sam, I hope you are ready to enlist and fight in um, less than hospitable conditions, as in war on a scale unseen in a couple of generations.
don't hold your breath... they (if you know who I mean) only send ppl to die - they don't rush themselves to do it.

Vassilissa is my girl............
tenn_ace is offline  
post #8 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 03:02 PM
double-dog daredevil
 
griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: self-imposed exile
Posts: 12,053
                     
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam L View Post
We've invaded Iraq and now we should take care of Iran and N.Korea.
In case you hadn't noticed, Iraq isn't going so well. And THAT was a country without military strength to speak of and without nuclear capability. Do you "honestly" think Iran and/or North Korea would go any better? Or that fucking up the situation on two new fronts would make us SAFER?
griffin is offline  
post #9 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 03:24 PM
Veelieve!!!
 
Infiniti2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 28,340
 
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenn_ace View Post
don't hold your breath... they (if you know who I mean) only send ppl to die - they don't rush themselves to do it.
One of the main reasons Rangle is calling for the draft pal
Infiniti2001 is offline  
post #10 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 03:26 PM
Veelieve!!!
 
Infiniti2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 28,340
 
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by griffin View Post
In case you hadn't noticed, Iraq isn't going so well. And THAT was a country without military strength to speak of and without nuclear capability. Do you "honestly" think Iran and/or North Korea would go any better? Or that fucking up the situation on two new fronts would make us SAFER?
It's so easy for SamL to sit in Australia and say we this, we that . If he were to meet family members of those killed or hurt in Iraq, he would be singing a different tune
Infiniti2001 is offline  
post #11 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 03:58 PM
Senior Member
 
mykarma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 29,506
                     
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by griffin View Post
Lets see, unless you take out their nuclear facility, all you do is piss them off - because it's not like we have enough troops available for an invasion.

If you do hit their nukes, you have a major nuclear catastrophe, the fallout from which will impact the entire region (and not in a good way, in case you were wondering)

Of course both will succeed in converting even more people into radical Islamists, and in further destabilizing the region. Making us less safe, not more.

But hey, it will feel good to bomb someone, right? We'll FEEL like we're doing something, who cares what the results are?

Why am I not surprised you approve?
mykarma is offline  
post #12 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 04:01 PM
Senior Member
 
mykarma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 29,506
                     
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam L View Post
I just think that this will bring about a safer and better world, griff. Honestly, I don't feel comfortable with axis of evil countries owning nuclear weapons. We've invaded Iraq and now we should take care of Iran and N.Korea.
The U.S. and Israel have weapons of mass destruction and history shows that we'll use them. If I was a country in the middle east, you're damn right that I'd want them just to protect myself if needed.
mykarma is offline  
post #13 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 04:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 21,972
                     
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infiniti2001 View Post
One of the main reasons Rangle is calling for the draft pal
well that's because his kids (if he has any) won't go to die in Iran if the war happens... really nothing to counter my post

Vassilissa is my girl............
tenn_ace is offline  
post #14 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 04:03 PM
Senior Member
 
mykarma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 29,506
                     
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam L View Post
I'm becoming a nurse and I was going to get sponsored by the Australian Defence Force but I think I might just work for them when I finish. I am interested in things like military strategy too.
Does that mean you plan on using some of that military stategy on the battle field?
mykarma is offline  
post #15 of 22 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 2006, 05:34 PM
Senior Member
 
timafi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,480
                     
Re: L.A. Times: Bomb Iran now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by griffin View Post
Lets see, unless you take out their nuclear facility, all you do is piss them off - because it's not like we have enough troops available for an invasion.

If you do hit their nukes, you have a major nuclear catastrophe, the fallout from which will impact the entire region (and not in a good way, in case you were wondering)

Of course both will succeed in converting even more people into radical Islamists, and in further destabilizing the region. Making us less safe, not more.

But hey, it will feel good to bomb someone, right? We'll FEEL like we're doing something, who cares what the results are?

Why am I not surprised you approve?

If one of Trump's racist domestic terrorist THUGS tries to stop you from voting, STAY in line, take their picture, call the police and call 1-866-OUR-VOTE. Spanish: 866-Ve-Y-Vota. Asian Languages: 866-API-Vote. Lawyers will be ready.
timafi is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome