Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please review my 5+ pages of facts, sources, and critiques. I simply cannot repeat myself over and over and over. Specifically with Micea, if he refuses to acknowledge Iranian wrong doing, their is no basic ground to discuss anything.
Maybe you can prove your comment in bolded? No where in Bibi speech did he ask the U.S to go to war.
Yeah, you let me know when Israel will fix this themselves. Thats like believing that Iran is enriching uranium for only peaceful purposes.
Don't bother repeating yourself over and over. I'm not buying that we need to go fight Iran. Your arguments are not persuasive to me.
The MSNBC crowd on television says that. The CNN crowd may be as well as there is a substantial overlap between the two.
According to them, there are two and only two alternatives. Either we do what Barack Obama wants, or we go to war. That's it. There are no other options on the table. And according to them, since Republicans oppose Barack Obama, it follows that Republicans are eager to go to war in Iran. Of course it is not true and there is no factual basis for this, but they and their audience apparently don't seem to care much for truth, as evidenced by their cheer-leading for Barack Obama, especially when he is in the middle of one of his many lying episodes.
The MSNBC crowd on television says that. The CNN crowd may be as well as there is a substantial overlap between the two.
According to them, there are two and only two alternatives. Either we do what Barack Obama wants, or we go to war. That's it. There are no other options on the table. And according to them, since Republicans oppose Barack Obama, it follows that Republicans are eager to go to war in Iran. Of course it is not true and there is no factual basis for this, but they and their audience apparently don't seem to care much for truth, as evidenced by their cheer-leading for Barack Obama, especially when he is in the middle of one of his many lying episodes.
and precisely how do you think you're going to force a sovereign country who has
signed international treaties and allowed inspectors to forego its nuclear energy programme ?
how are you going to do that, big boy ? sanctions are not going to work and many countries
that Iran trades with will not honor them anyway. when the Israeli jets bomb Iran's plants
what do you think will happen ? Israel wants to drag the USA into another unprovoked
war and Israel wants to overthrow/ruin/handicap the last remaining powerful nation in the
region which it has no influence upon geopolitically, culturally, or financially, and that is Iran.
Yeah, you let me know when Israel will fix this themselves. Thats like believing that Iran is enriching uranium for only peaceful purposes.
Don't bother repeating yourself over and over. I'm not buying that we need to go fight Iran. Your arguments are not persuasive to me.
Please oh Please cite where I said we need to fight Iran? I am beginning to think the loony left with its Netanyahu warmongering rhetoric is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty and wishful thinking.
There is nothing to persuade. The leaders amongst the world refuse to accept a nuclear Iran as it would draw us to conflict willingly or unwillingly. There is however, a more viable option. A better deal.
Please oh Please cite where I said we need to fight Iran? I am beginning to think the loony left with its Netanyahu warmongering rhetoric is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty and wishful thinking.
There is nothing to persuade. The leaders amongst the world refuse to accept a nuclear Iran as it would draw us to conflict willingly or unwillingly. There is however, a more viable option. A better deal.
Quote:
We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror.
Quote:
In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone. So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.
-Netanyahu in speech to congress
Yeah...that sounds friendly.
But I find the argument that "Israel isnt trying to get us to fight Iran for them" about as reasonable as Iran saying "we are enriching uranium for peaceful purposes". Both statements might be technically true. Both are false. Dont be obtuse.
Yeah, you let me know when Israel will fix this themselves.
Israel cannot.
It's a matter of physics.
And resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Thats like believing that Iran is enriching uranium for only peaceful purposes.
But, they are enriching for peaceful purposes.
The IAEA Report is irrefutable proof.
If......if Iran was enriching uranium to 5%, then you could possibly argue that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons purposes.
However, the IAEA Report says Iran is enriching uranium to 15% which is proof Iran is engaged in peaceful nuclear energy production.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Don't bother repeating yourself over and over. I'm not buying that we need to go fight Iran.
But you do.
Speaking objectively, without judgment, in a manner most-Machiavellian, you either invaded Iran, or invade Pakistan or suffer a stagnant economy with declining Standard of Living and Life-Style. The issue is best shown with these maps (which aren't the best).
Remember Enron?
Enron invested $Millions in natural gas processing and refining facilities in Pakistan and India.... ...100% dependent upon completion of the CentGas Pipeline...through Afghanistan.
Enron suffered losses at the failure of CentGas, and so started cooking its books to hide the losses,... ...on belief the US would take military action at any moment to resolve the issue.
That does not justify what Enron did, but it does explain why they cooked their books. Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations led Enron executives to believe that military action was imminent (see court documents). If Enron could hold on long enough, they could skate.
Anyway, Chevron-BP/Amoco own 75% of the rights to all minerals and petroleum in the 5 Central Asian States (thanks to Clinton).
There's 5x-7x more oil and natural gas there then in the whole entire Middle East & North Africa.
Those resources must be sold on the World Market in US Dollars, or your suffering will be legendary.
Russia sells resources in Rubles and Euros; China in Yuan; and Iran in basket currencies.
Unless you can get those resources to Pakistan, you got zilch.
Clinton illegally overthrew the governments in Central Asia and set up military bases, but that was premature and the US has lost nearly all of them.
That's because you cannot exercise any hegemony over the 5 Central Asian States.
But you could.....if......if you had sea, air, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean to Central Asia.
So, when any one of the 5 Central Asian States steps out of line and thumbs their nose at you, you just launch F-18s from your carriers and they ramble across an Iran --- that you would control unimpeded -- and threaten and intimidate the government of the Central Asian State committing whatever offense offends the US's sense of dignity, you know, like Declaring Neutrality While Non-White or Nationalizing While Non-White.
If you cannot invade Iran, then the only option left is Baluchistan.
The Baluchs are an ethnic group occupying an ancient kingdom that straddles the Iran-Pakistan border --- and why, yes, you can thank the Brits for drawing the border to set up this future conflict.
09-06-2008, 01:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Maybe the US is getting ready to play the Baluchistan Card.
If the US is unable to gain control of Iran, then supporting the independence of Baluchistan is the next best option.
09-27-2008, 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That isn't Obama, that's neo-con Tony Lake who is Obama's foreign policy advisor and will probably become White House Chief of Staff or National Security Advisor if Obama is elected.
What you can interpret from that is McCain would likely invade Iran, while Obama would likely back an independence movement by Baluchistan so that the US can have road, rail and air access to Central Asia.
Having US troops in Waziristan would allow the US to quickly shift troops to "peace-keeping duties." As an added bonus, the US could kick the Chinese out of their naval base in Baluchistan.
10-12-2008, 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Right now Obama's understanding and perspective on things is based on his lack of information. When Obama gets "clued in" and becomes part of the "circle of trust" and he understands the real reason why the US is in Iraq, he might have to eat some crow or flip-flop on these issues.
We shouldn't forget that Obama is being guided on foreign policy issues by neo-con Tony Lake. Lake does have a special affinity for Iran, and if you wanted an excuse to invade Iran, Lake could certainly create it.
However, given Obama's harsh rhetoric toward Pakistan, his claim that he wants more US forces in Afghanistan, and his association with neo-con Lake, I have to wonder if the focus isn't going to be shifted from Iran to Pakistan.
The US must have air, road and rail access to the Central Asian states, and soon, and whether that's through Iran from the Persian Gulf or through the Baluchistan Province in Pakistan from the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean makes no difference.
Lake's modus operandi is clandestine conflicts, and I can see Obama publicly denying support for an independent Baluchistan while behind-closed-doors dumping money and weapons into Baluchistan to support their revolution, which is exactly how the US handled Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo-Metohija.
In that case, Lake was buying weapons from Iran to ship to Bosnia, Croatia and later to Kosovo-Metohija.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to see weapons flowing from Iran into Baluchistan. The sticking point is that Balochs also live in Iran and occupy a fairly large area in the southwest. Obama/Lake would have to find a way to appease Iran, maybe by allowing them to have nuclear energy under supervision of a neutral country.
US putting Pressure on Pakistan to allow bases in Balochistan for espionage on Iran
JNN 22 Feb 2012 : An Indian newspaper says the United States is putting pressure on Pakistan to allow Washington to establish espionage bases in the country’s Balochistan province to gather intelligence on Iran.
According to a report published by The Times of India on Monday, the U.S. Congress has been discussing a resolution to recognize the right of Baloch people to self-determination as a means of putting pressure on Islamabad to give in to the U.S. demands.
Note that the facilities in Baluchistan can also be used to spy on India.
I'm not psychic, but I was at the planning meetings for Southwest Asian Strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Mixed, Iran has stated repeatedly that they are in compliance, as they can enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. I don't believe that is their intent for a second.
But it is. The economic advantages for Iran are enormous.
Iran has a water problem. One of the dual-reactors at Bushwehr is dedicated to supplying power to energy intensive desalinization plants along the Persian Gulf Coast. This water will be transported to the Iranian Plateau for irrigation and that will create tens of thousands of jobs in agriculture and related fields (like transporting crops, processing crops etc etc etc),
The other reactor will provide electrical power for residential, commercial and industrial use, allowing Iran to export more oil and natural gas, and to also divert oil and natural gas to refining facilities for the production of petro-chemicals, creating 10s of 1000s of jobs.
A stable Middle Class lends itself to democracy, but that makes it unlikely the US would ever again regain control over Iran and interfere in the State's political, social and economic processes.
You can see why the US would want to keep Iran down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
The other side of that is...neither are we really. Article VI of the treaty
Article VI of the treaty which “obligates the nuclear weapons states to liquidate their nuclear stockpiles and pursue complete disarmament." Funny...none of the nuclear armed countries are really in compliance with that.
I'm not seeing that.
This is what the Treaty says...
Quote:
Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control
Please review my 5+ pages of facts, sources, and critiques.
Which are garbage. All slanted, bigoted, fallacious nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Specifically with Micea, if he refuses to acknowledge Iranian wrong doing, their is no basic ground to discuss anything.
Iran has not done anything wrong.
The pursuit of nuclear energy and the developing and testing of ballistic and non-ballistic missiles is not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Iran signed the NPT agreement and has violated the NPT by researching military venues.
Again, peaceful research on nuclear energy and the development and testing of ballistic and non-ballistic missiles is not mutually exclusive, nor is it a violation of the NPT.
And really, military venues?
ven·ue
ˈvenˌyo͞o/ noun
noun: venue; plural noun: venues
the place where something happens, especially an organized event such as a concert, conference, or sports event.
You don't even understand the words you use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
This has nothing to do with approval from Israel.
Of course it does.
If Israel either approved or did not object, it wouldn't be an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Not relevant!? Who are you again?
Someone who is intimately familiar with nuclear weapons.
And military tactics and strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
When one person threatens my life, I will take it seriously. Israel will also take threats seriously.
Save the miss translation speech, a simple google search will provide Iranian leadership threatening Israel.
We could discuss all of the threats made by the Soviets, by Russia, by Israel and many other States, but then we'd waste 798 TRILLION terabytes of band-width on how it was just rhetoric and never followed through.
States do not telegraph their intentions to the whole world.
Historically, when the Soviets or Russians or Israelis or Iranians, threatened to do something, it means they have no intention of doing it......since that violates their tactical doctrine of surprise and speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Please become up to date with the past 10 years of issues with Irans nuclear program.
I am up-to-date.
When is the last time you looked for a nuclear weapons infrastructure in Iran using real-time satellite?
Never.
I periodically check. November was the last time I looked.
Why don't we start with Iran telling the Bush Administration that it intended to pursue a nuclear energy program?
That was in 2003.
Okay, so Iran goes to the Bush Administion in 2003 -- at the same time they filed the appropriate documents iwth the UN in compliance with the NOT, announcing their intention to pursue nuclear energy.
Knowing the compliance provisions of the NPT, and knowing in advance that some States might object to Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy,...
...Iran will pursue nuclear weapons anyway.
Are you not seeing how your argument makes no sense?
These are Iranians, not Iraqis. Your average Iranian is about as smart as any 10 Iraqis combined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Lol... Ok buddy.
You have all the answers.
It's not my fault you don't get the crux of the matter.
Non-nuclear ballistic and non-ballistic missiles are a threat to US hegemony in the region....period.
Please oh Please cite where I said we need to fight Iran? I am beginning to think the loony left with its Netanyahu warmongering rhetoric is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty and wishful thinking.
There is nothing to persuade. The leaders amongst the world refuse to accept a nuclear Iran as it would draw us to conflict willingly or unwillingly. There is however, a more viable option. A better deal.
A better deal? And what, exactly, would that entail?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
And the role of China?
China and Pakistan are allies.
China and Pakistan are allies, and the US and India are allies. And sometimes the US and Pakistan are pretend allies. I do think those relationships built the increased stability in India/Pakistan relations. I don't think the nuclear weapons hurt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
It is for the US.
Nothing in the NPT addresses delivery systems such as tubed field artillery, missile artillery or aircraft.
The specific wording is "...nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices..."
You're saying that the conventional military power of Iran matters to the US. I agree. And I think you are pointing out that the "Iran nuclear issue" has, at least in part, been a smokescreen for obtaining intel on Iran's conventional capabilities and forcing it into a position where it must accede to the US's strategic demands. I think that's likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The situation is this:
The US abandoned the Pacific Plan circa 1968-1974 in favor of the its new Geo-Political Strategy.
The new Geo-Strategy calls for the US to control the petroleum/mineral crescent running from Libya to the Kamchatka Peninsula....imagine being able to drive from Tripoli to Vladivostok via Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Tashkent and seeing nothing but US flags and McDonald's and Starsux.
To achieve that, the US must have air, sea, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean to the 5 Central Asian States (Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan & Uzbekistan).
The only routes are through Iran or Afghanistan (with Pakistan as ally).
After 15 years, the US failed in Afghanistan.
The only two options left are Iran or the Baluchistan Gambit
US geo-strategy certainly recognizes the importance of energy, and petroleum is relatively compact and cheap. Iran is important for energy reasons--mainly for its crucially important Gulf Coastline. Iran is also important for non-energy reasons.
It's a good bet that the US has attempted to intimidate Iran into compliance with its strategic interests with its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The first backfired by dramatically enhancing Iranian influence in Iraq, especially in the most strategically important region of Iraq. The second is more difficult to measure.
I think that there are a few holdouts to Washington's global colossus. The big ones are China and Russia. China is far more important, but far less confrontational. In the next tier, Iran is probably the most important.
The US tried to neutralize Iran by surrounding it with US troops and US-friendly regimes (not to mention sanctions and espionage). That effort failed, so the US is using the
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
US military superiority is smoke-n-mirrors, based entirely on its satellite and aerial recon capabilities. If Iranian missile capabilities are such that:
Iran can launch satellites negating the US technological advantage, then US loses
Iran has anti-satellite capabilities, then US loses
Iran has massed ballistic or non-ballistic conventional weapons, then US loses
Ultimately, going to war with Iran is not in the interest of the United States. The United States military has advantages--logistics, experience, air power, and reconnaissance chief among them. But it is certainly true that those advantages can be greatly diminished through assymetric measures, including anti-satellite capabilities or ballistic missiles. The reports I have read on Iranian missiles suggest that they are not sophisticated/accurate enough to achieve anything like parity.
That is all beside the point, however, because even if the US were able to militarily dismantle Iran's government, it would create a Gordian knot. By invading, the US validates Iran's security concerns, pushing its successors to obtain true deterrence. Occupation of Iran would not work, and invasion would push Iranians further away from America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Accurately assessing Iran's military capabilities is important, since Americans will not tolerate a large number of casualties.
If the Iranian option is out, then the US has no choice but to arm the Baluchs and foment revolution for an independence movement. An independent Baluchistan would give the US the access it needs, plus allow the US to operate at will in a renewed conflict in Afghanistan, without interference from the Pakis.
Some people don't understand the importance of being rhetorical....
Mircea
I agree that Americans will not tolerate large casualties, and I would add that they will not tolerate long-term occupation. Iran is nearly 4 times as large as Iraq. It is much more mountainous and dry. It has more than double Iraq's population. It has a more representative government than Iraq's was pre-invasion, and is less restive. In terms of religion, it is more homogeneous than Iraq, and likely less prone to sectarian strife (read: more likely to focus violence on occupying force).
Using the Baloch as a proxy will only draw Iran and Pakistan together to fight them. Pakistan has even more to fear from a "free Balochistan" than Iran.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's incorrect.
It is the Senate that approaches and advises the president on Treaties.
The States originally appointed Senators.
Why?
Your Constitution is a power-sharing arrangement between three groups: the People, the States and the federal government.
The people have the power to tax: all revenues bill must originate in the House.
What do the States get in return?
The power to approve/reject treaties and approve/reject appointments to The Cabinet (not the President's Cabinet....sorry...wrong).
It is the States who tell the President to go negotiate a treaty, not the President just goes and does it. The States tell the President they want a Friendship, Commerce & Navigation treaty with a foreign State; the President puts on his Chief Diplomat hat and goes to negotiate the basic framework; then the Secretary of State hammers out the details; and the Congress either approves or rejects it.
The difference between treaties and agreements is the enforcement mechanisms.
Treaties are government international laws, and have the same weight as a federal law, and generally specify punishments for violating the Treaty.
Agreements may or may not be government by international law; have no real weight; no mechanism of enforcement; and no punishment.
For example, Carter reached an agreement to deploy the Pershing II and BGM-109G GLCMs with certain Euro-States, but Reagan could have voided the agreement, with no penalty.
Executive agreements can be ended at US law, but there is a penalty under international law. Watch what happens to the P5+1 if there is a deal and a future US President decides to repudiate it (actually, don't watch it, because it would not happen).
As to your broader points about US Treaty law & government, you may view the House as the People, but that is not a view I share. The Constitution treats the House and Senate largely the same, as "a Congress of the United States." While you are correct that revenues originate in the House, they must also pass the Senate to become law. The House has no role in the making of treaties. You may view Senators as States, but I do not share that view, either.
Treaties do have the same status as federal law (well, self-executing treaties do--others need enabling legislation). Executive agreements are governed by international law, which is sometimes prescriptive and sometimes normative. You don't see States breaking them very often for a reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's off base.
There is no difference.
The Pershing I, IA and II were intended to be nuclear only. No conventional warhead was ever built (and you can ignore the Federation of Ass-Clown Scientists and their silly nuclear, conventional or chemical classifications).
On the other hand, the Lance was intended to be both nuclear and conventional, but Congress (controlled by Democrats over the period in question) refused to allocate funding to build a conventional warhead.
The ACLMs, SLCMs and GLCMs were all originally intended to be conventional only, and were retro-fitted later with a modified PII warhead.
Not every missile design can be retro-fitted. The Nike-Ajax was originally conventional. The Army was unable to retro-fit any existing warheads, and all new warhead designs altered the performance specifications and characteristics of the missile, so the Nike-Hercules was built as a replacement.
The reports I have read indicate that Iran's missiles are not capable of carrying a nuclear warhead that Iran is capable of designing in the remotely near future. Of course, the technical capability to build advanced rockets certainly enables a country to design other advanced rockets, including rockets that can carry nukes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Iran's true capabilities are unknown with respect to its ballistic and non-ballistic missiles.
The US is greatly concerned with Iran's conventional capabilities, not its potential possible maybe perhaps nuclear capabilities.
Go look at seafloor charts for the Persian Gulf.
You got two carrier battle groups, plus an amphibious assault group, plus a British surface group in the Persian Gulf and the missiles start flying?
Them ships would run aground or collide or take the hit and sink. Doesn't really matter which.
Blackened charred bodies of US sailors floating around the Gulf won't go over too well on US TV...
Mircea
I agree that conventional capabilities could prevent an invasion. That's, frankly, a good thing. It just stops Washington from doing the idiotic--regime change in Iran.
Iran is also a sponsor of terrorism...case opened and closed !
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
