[wildman]

If we go to freaking war with Iran too I'm going to get on a plane and ask for political asylum over in Europe or the UK somewhere. Elderly parents or no elderly parents I'm so sick of this SHIZ I'm not too sure I wouldn't give up my citizenship if it came to it. We cannot just go to war with anyone who ticks us off. We can't afford it, and I'm not paying for it, period. The economy here is shot to heck already. The only way they could pay for it is to levy some ridiculous taxers we can ill afford.

Israel can fight it's own darn war if it and/or Iran insists upon going there. I'm sorry, but enough. They need to deal with it themselves. Find a way to co-exist, that's just IT. I'm hoping Iran is just posturing but if they're dumb enough to go there than it's Israel's job to defend themselves. I don't care if we are allies. This crap is never ending and I don't think any treaty should cover that kind of stupidity.

I hear you.

The only thing I have to add...

...I'm 74 years old and for that entire time my country has been, one way or the other, on a permanent war footing. I'm "sick of this shiz" as well. Who in the hell appointed us the micro managers of the worlds affairs? How many Iowa farm boys or black kids from South Chicago have to die for grand Geo-polictical and realpolitik reasons before we decide this "shiz" must stop?

Wildman

[SteveM]

These mirror my thoughts. If Israel and Iran must go to war, let them. But I wan no part in it, and do not want America involved. I do not think it is our war, and think it will worsen what little credibility we have in the middle east.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone has any control over going to war. It's interesting to look back at how WW1 started and how it was really a continuation of previous conflicts, as was WW2 and what we are seeing today (the middle east borders being drawn up on a map by foreign powers after WW1 and then WW2). If you look at the map from 1914, Persia and the Ottoman Empire obviously had influence in the world. Recent events makes me wonder if Iran is looking to return to that era.

WW1 started a small country threatened another small country with war.......but the alliances that were in place at that time, which were intended to prevent war, immediately pulled the superpowers of that era into one. A war that was a continuation of regional turmoil spread to pull in the rest of the world. We are seeing much the same situation today. Canada announced a few months ago that an attack on Israel would be an attack on Canada and we've just shut down our embassy in Iran and have pulled out our staff. I'm afraid we'll get dragged into war with little or no say, and that we'll see much more activity after the US election

[pickles]

Obama is trying to stall the Iran issue as much as possible - almost to the point of it being his number one priority. Any type of action that would involve america (even simply supplying planes) would spell the end of his chances for election - and he is well aware of this. There's also the "idea" that if america would get involved in any way that it could also quickly escalate. Just how far exactly??

The draft issue is very seriosly on the table now. It might very welll be a needed option despite any party which may be in office.

So it will be interesting to see all of the attempts at delays up until the election point. Then any and all options are on the table, but for what??

"Stall The Iran Issue"?
Well, I'm in Oz, so I don't know whether he's trying to "stall" or not.....like any other sensible person, I reckon he's hoping/trying to find a peaceful solution.
But the reason I "resurrected" this thread was because I heard that he said a couple of days ago that the time for a peaceful solution was running out..or words to that effect.
So, I suppose what I'm thinking is that, with those words, he thinks eventually, he may have to do "something"?
Cheers, Pickles.

[ihasa]

He didn't specify any time limit as such. He kind of needs to leverage the negotiations with Iran (and appease Israel) with an implied threat, but there's no way he would actually make a public commitment to attack Iran. Personally I doubt the US would go there with a pre-emptive strike, for all its sabre rattling.

[pingflood]

Yeah, I think other countries make it a lot harder to work or settle there actually. You don't have to be a rich, high level anything to come to live here. It helps, sure, but the average person is far more welcome here than elsewhere. The requirements for some of the places I'd like to live in? They're pretty brutal actually....

Having actually immigrated to the US _myself_ I can tell you that getting there is no walk in the park. Leaving is not so easy either especially if you have some money since the IRS hates seeing their precious dollars leave the country.

[Medium FormatPro]

"Stall The Iran Issue"?

Yes, very much stall the entire ran issues, almost to the point of trying to get it out of the news - or maybe a brief one paragraph summary burried in the back of some rural newpaper somewhere.

But, if anything happens with america getting involved in the Iran issue - I guarantee you that it will spell the end of the current Presidents term in office. That he would stand zero possibility of being re-elected. The current President is well aware of this.

And since Washington likes to try to play chess with real lives... One can also be sure that "throughout the beltway" all of the political people (very much seperate from the) and the military people have played out literally every possible senerio. And might I add again - that there is a very real possibility of a draft if america does get involved beyond "leasing" out our heavy bomber fleet. Might I also add - that is despite any one party which is in office or in "voting power" in actually going into a full war declaration.

Would really like to post links in on this one and perhaps a bit more insider insight; from places like Janes and such. But cannot do so just yet.

Might I also add, as far as facts and timelines go - especially to Israel... That yes time is indeed running out for any type of peaceful solution. Also time is running out by the day for a type of strategic military action. The more time that transpired, the less likely an attack against Iran is to be effective.

Bu tthen again, really hoping that the united states is able to just watch this one from the sidelines. america cannot afford another type of war action and to make countless more enemies

[Ratmagiclady]

He didn't specify any time limit as such. He kind of needs to leverage the negotiations with Iran (and appease Israel) with an implied threat, but there's no way he would actually make a public commitment to attack Iran. Personally I doubt the US would go there with a pre-emptive strike, for all its sabre rattling.

One thing the cons may not want to accept is that for all their own rhetoric about it, the US has no *interest* in attacking Iran, (Funny how they think we can suddenly afford another war adter the Iraq debacle that we also totally didn't need, and an Afghanistan that wasn't done right because of it,) ...we certainly don't *want* Iran passing out nuclear materials in the world, but there is no *state interest* in bringing the matter to blows if we don't 'have to,' ...It's also not at all guaranteed that military strikes would do anything to *help* the world situation, even if successful.

The Right trying to politicize this simply doesn't change the facts of the situation, and it seems plain that the facts of the situation are that a unilateral action of that sort is *not* the preferred option for most of the West, never mind taking what looks like a bad option in haste to appease right-wing talk radio for an election.

It seems one thing long since lost to Republican politics is that the interests of the nation and the world are about more than partisan ideology. This kind of situation is *complicated,* and it 's *supposed* to be dealt with as such. Doing the wrong thing just to appear 'decisive' is one of those proven failed policies that left us in this mess to begin with.

Same question I've asked about Iraq: 'What do you expect to happen here?' One can hardly claim that even the most-successful strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would exactly be consequence-free. It'd have been better to not have cut the program to buy up old Soviet nuclear materials that now may be in Iranian possession. As things stand, what the choices may be are a) Diplomacy and whatever delay can be imposed: this may result in Iran eventually getting 'the bomb,' but then finding themselves playing with the big kids as brinksmanship goes, ....b) Take out the facilities, and then further radicalize a lot of people, notably the Iranian regime, who, needing to respond, might just supply with non-fissible but still deadly materials for 'dirty bombs' and other terrorist actions. Particularly against Israel, who've got rather a lot more skin in the game.

It's always possible to interdict in one way or another later, it's not a bell you can un-ring, though. Sounds to me that barring other information, like about an imminent attack on another country by Iran, it's in nobody's interest to act in a hurry, certainly not for domestic political reasons.

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 09-27-2012 at 11:24 AM.

[Medium FormatPro]

Same question I've asked about Iraq: 'What do you expect to happen here?' One can hardly claim that even the most-successful strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would exactly be consequence-free

In the past... Israel has in fact had "near perfect" results in actually using jet fighter type air strikes against ground targets in Iran. Also to make it better - has done so without any type of real retaliation. Then there's the computer attack from both america and Israel that was against Iran's centrifuges. It served well as a type of delay. Might I also clearly point out that it was in fact an act of war against Iran. But so far nothing has been done or claimed because of it.

Oe of my more personal favorites is when one of our newest unmanned stealth planes was (eerrr) forced to land (btw some damage to plane) in Iran. Most of the plane and it's technology has since been reverse engineered. Some of that same tech even now being used against america

[pickles]

In the past... Israel has in fact had "near perfect" results in actually using jet fighter type air strikes against ground targets in Iran. Also to make it better - has done so without any type of real retaliation. Then there's the computer attack from both america and Israel that was against Iran's centrifuges. It served well as a type of delay. Might I also clearly point out that it was in fact an act of war against Iran. But so far nothing has been done or claimed because of it.

Oe of my more personal favorites is when one of our newest unmanned stealth planes was (eerrr) forced to land (btw some damage to plane) in Iran. Most of the plane and it's technology has since been reverse engineered. Some of that same tech even now being used against america

No worries, I hear what you say. However, there's nothing secret about that stuff, it's used commercially all over the world. In Aus, some farmers are using it for checking out their crops!
Cheers, Pickles.

[Ratmagiclady]

In the past... Israel has in fact had "near perfect" results in actually using jet fighter type air strikes against ground targets in Iran. Also to make it better - has done so without any type of real retaliation. Then there's the computer attack from both america and Israel that was against Iran's centrifuges. It served well as a type of delay. Might I also clearly point out that it was in fact an act of war against Iran. But so far nothing has been done or claimed because of it.

Oe of my more personal favorites is when one of our newest unmanned stealth planes was (eerrr) forced to land (btw some damage to plane) in Iran. Most of the plane and it's technology has since been reverse engineered. Some of that same tech even now being used against america

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, there. But 'in the past' is not necessarily where the brinksmanship stands *now.* The Iraq war and the Afghanistan/Pakistan thing not being dealt with properly destabilized the whole region: right or wrong about it, Reagan supported Saddam in the first place to keep Iran kind of balanced out, particularly in a Cold War context, Egypt and Syria are just lately not on the board in a very productive way, Pakistan's about ready to rip itself in half, Dubya already pretty much spent our big stick for the immediate future, and Iran itself has a population that's about as interested in modernity as it gets, (part of why the radical clerics are doing that much posturing to *their* base over there: so much of this is really how it plays *in Iran* just like Saddam's posturing.

None of this means that a US (Or Israeli) strike on Iran is necessarily in US or world interests right now. Certainly, GOP delays on economic recovery while screaming for more military action are the exact *opposite* of what we need right now. They're still operating out of an old playbook when it's not even the same game right now. The whole region there's gone from a bunch of dictatorships and near-dictatorships being played off each other to a bunch of lines on maps that are each internally-divided and in less shape to dictate what happens between themselves and their neighbors.


Again, try to 'see the whole board' there and instead of just spewing invective about 'evil Islam, they're all the same,' ...try getting a little into the head of the leaders of the only reasonably-strong centralized government *in* that theatre. Ahmedinejad is trying to keep the radicals associated with *his* flag while the Iranian people are actually about as 'modern' as you could ask in the region right now. He's trying to keep *internal* control and that involves posturing. A couple air strikes or cyber attacks *can* save him a little face, but that's precarious, too, past a point.

It also means *no* one's interest *but* the belligerent radical Islamist groups and Religious Right radicals over here, actually involves accelerating the tempo regarding Iran right now. It's familiar sloganeering to the Right in America, but the board's changed even since the really ill-advised Iraq wargasm.


And, frankly, this is the same damn pretense as the 'WMDs' and 'Mushroom clouds' exvuse *for* Iraq.

In this case, too, like I said, if Iran wants to make some weapons-grade uranium, right now, as long as they figure they *can,* then they've got an interest in keeping as much of that stuff under their control as they can, rather than passing out dirty-bomb materials (that could as easily be used against sitting or teetering regimes over *there* ) cause they can't.


In other words, *patience is good for us, here.* It's not 'weakness' or 'sympathizing with radicals' ... never mind chickening out of something cause Palin and McCain were wanting to bomb what's now the only reasonably-stable state in the region long before this... it's a matter of what we could expect to happen if we (or Israel, who have more skin in the game, in many ways, ) go doing something over there cause people who ain't looking want an election slogan.

See the same in 'the enemy' and tell me what timetable you really want right now.


(And as for Israel, they've got a reputation for being quite capable of playing a little discreet hardball in ways they don't need US cheerleading or sabre-rattling to do: the less the better, actually, if you want to be bloody-minded about it. Whatever your attitude, their interests and necessities may be diverging a bit from ours, and the best thing for all concerned is if America can get back to being 'Good cop' about all this. )

[Medium FormatPro]

Might I also add... It would also really be in americas best nterest on these items:

1. Start massively stockpiling crude - yesterday.
2. Start mass drilling throughout North america, but at a highly regulated manner. If something goes wrong with a well, fine the owner into bankruptcy.
3. Start seriously weighing the need to have oil imported at all. Bring back the hydrogen debate.

The longer america waits the more it will cost each and every single american. It''s no longer a choice of IF, it's just a matter of when... When american consumers will start to pay over six dollars a gallon for gasoline - and also risk rationing

[pingflood]

When american consumers will start to pay over six dollars a gallon for gasoline - and also risk rationing

When american consumers pay six dollars a gallon it is still 25% less than over here.

[Nass]

Israel would love to do something about Iran's nuclear programme but doesn't have the air force to do it. It'd be split too many ways and wouldn't guarantee success. So at the moment (and for the last couple of years) it's been a sabotage and assassination mission. Doubt US would want to get involved.

[Medium FormatPro]

When american consumers pay six dollars a gallon it is still 25% less than over here.

Observed (firsthand) and agreed.

But america also one of the larger countries geographically. Add to that; america has one of the worst infrastructure systems and mass transportation systems of any developed country in the world. If one would want to compare america to any of the other G20 countries then america comes in last in both general infrastructure and also mass transportation. Most americans are also still stuck on the idea of wanting to commute on average more than one hour each way per day and then also be the single occupant in an suv made for seven people.

So maybe this war would have an end benefit for america and would end up driving change.

I remeber living in Europe and also specifically recalling how incredible the mass transportation system was. A majority of the population of Western Europe is within short walking distance of getting public transportation that could take them most anywhere.


Also, about the military plane issue...

Yes Israel's military (almost fighter only) air force eaves much to be desired against dug in and heavily fortified positions, but... At this very moment Israel is also working to retrofit newer weapons systems to those very planes - almost maxing out the planes capabilites to a single strike plane that is barelylight enough to take off. Plus Israel is very much actively looking to "borrow" heavy bomber jets from almost anyone to use in this type of instance. And guess who very well might just either lease them one or even might sell them a few??