What? No war !

[shmogie]

As a diversion, yes, Moscow Mitch is a classic example of someone who won't negotiate.

Talk about a diversion.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's another bomb in the U.S. military arsenal designed for the purpose of destroying underground bunkers, this being the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which is a precision-guided, 30,000-pound (14,000 kg) "bunker buster" bomb used by the United States Air Force. These bombs can be effectively delivered on target by stealth bombers.

Stealth technology doesn't make planes invisible.
It only makes them harder to detect by radar.
There's still a risk of their being shot down.
What potential for escalation do you think there is
if Iran takes a $billion plane of ours?

Wrong thinking abounds.
It shouldn't be how to crush Iran militarily.
(That has gone poorly for us in past wars.)
Consider how Iran might want peace.

 

[shmogie]

Never presume the other side won't negotiate.

And every Iranian attack has been preceded by one of ours.
If we're to justify everything in this manner, we're doomed to endless conflict.
The goal should not be automatic retaliation.

Sincere negotiation.

Religion is critical here.
I've had many discussions with hawks who base their position on religion.
We also have US predilection for preemptively attacking Muslim countries.
Religion is also a good explanation because of the irrationality of pursuing
a needless conflict. It also explains our callousness towards life of those
not like us. We agonize over a few hostages because they of our tribe,
but there's nary a peep about our aiding Iraq with biological & chemical
weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians from 1980-1988.
This kind of division between the righteous & the wicked is religious thinking.
Trump's invoking God rings true with millions.
Note that religion doesn't serve Iranians well either.
We need cooler heads, unencumbered by hatred or dysfunctional
beliefs about one people being better than another..

A peaceful country with a nuclear weapon is better than war with a non-nuclear country.

I certainly challenge a number of your premises here. The first being that iranian warlike acts have been predicated upon acts by the US, that simply isn't true. Hijacking oil tankers in international waters was not predicated by any act of the US, the same for attaching mines to them, and detonating them. When they captured a US gunboat that was in international waters, under orders not to defend itself, there was no predication, no response.

You are going to have to provide proof that the US provided assistance with poison gas to saddam in the Iran /Iraq war, I simply don't believe it.

My callousness, to use your term, toward the lives of folk in the middle east is based upon their view of the value of there own lives. The killing of civilians in less than all out war is deplorable, yet it has been the signature act of conflict within the middle eastern cultures for over a thousand years. Apparently to them, human life is an easily expended commodity, and dealing death is an appreciated trait. In other words, wholesale slaughter is expected and accepted. In that thousand years, they have not changed this characteristic, if anything, they have made slaughtering a more refined process.

As I stated, one cannot negotiate if there is no one with whom one can negotiate. Trump has said numerous times that he would sit down at the table to talk with the Iranians, with no preconditions. Preconditions is what they are all about, give them what they want at the beginning, and they will talk, with out guaranteeing any kind of an outcome. That will not happen. What they want, sanctions relief, is part of which is to be discussed, not given away beforehand. Obama tried bribing them regarding the nuclear agreement, which was a joke. He admitted that the money given to them would fund terrorism, yet he did it anyway. In return, he got an agreement that was worthless.

You apparently believe that nuclear proliferation is a good thing, as long as the new nuclear power is peaceful. I am sorry, but that is ludicrous. Peaceful is a term relating to one period of time that could change in an instant. Further, there are such things as the security of of the installations, the security of the peaceful government, and the control of launch procedures. The US and the USSR, each almost accidentally launched nukes on the other. Each had the best trained people, failsafe systems in place, and the best communication systems related to nukes.

Iran just accidentally shot down a jetliner, what if they had nukes ??? No, a peaceful Iran with nukes is insanity compared to a non nuclear terrorist Iran. The latter can be contained or destroyed if necessary, the former can destroy many, many millions within reach of it's missiles.

Iran acts up with it's attacks because it wants us to believe that the only way to stop them is to give them what they want. The democrats are all in on appeasement. I guess you would call me a hawk because I think that approach is asinine, and certainly not in our national interest. Which, by the way, is the criteria for any involvement internationally. As a neo con, I was convinced that giving the people in the middle east the opportunity to be free and adopt democracy was a gallant role of the US. They do not want to be free, and overthrowing their oppressors just creates more of them. I now believe we should allow them to live a they choose, no matter their suffering, we can only make it worse. The only thing to consider in foreign policy is our national interest. I felt this way long before Trump. Our failures in Iraq and Libya showed the harm in playing this game to me.

As long as they oppress and kill one another within their own countries, without threat to us, or our allies, they should be left to it. Iran is a threat to virtually everyone, their wings need to be clipped.

When they ante was upped in the poker game between they and us, they essentially folded in response. We will see if they try to get back in the game. They are very jangled because they miscalculated.

 

[shmogie]

Stealth technology doesn't make planes invisible.
It only makes them harder to detect by radar.
There's still a risk of their being shot down.
What potential for escalation do you think there is
if Iran takes our a $billion plane of ours?

Wrong thinking abounds.
It shouldn't be how to crush Iran militarily.
(That has gone poorly for us in past wars.)
Consider how Iran might want peace.

With a lot of luck, they might be able to take down a B-2, but it is very, very unlikely. Even if they saw the aircraft on radar after all the jamming of their systems as well as stealth, and they launched missiles, the B-2 has highly classified evasion systems that it would employ.

Escalation is stopped when when one side sees the danger in escalating further. Iran saw it's escalation result in it's #2 man being obliterated. What will happen if they seriously try to top that ? In response to this point, they were careful to ensure that no Americans were harmed (the red line) in their face saving attack.

They do not want a cruise missile up the robe of their ayatollah, and they clearly, much more clearly than many of us, know that our overwhelming responses are not in their national interest. If you are in a fight, and you punch your opponent in the jaw, and he pulls a gun and shoots you in the knee, you are likely to think about punching him again very seriously. They are thinking very seriously now.

The Iranian government has one primary goal, to survive. They know that if their actions cost a lot, the cost to be born by the people, the already angry at them people will turn on them when they realize their own government is responsible for the losses.

The people have been protesting the various costs of Iran's military excursions, they will not appreciate higher costs.

 

[Revoltingest]

I certainly challenge a number of your premises here. The first being that iranian warlike acts have been predicated upon acts by the US, that simply isn't true.

"Untrue" doesn't apply when the parties attack tit for tat.
One cannot pick an offense, & deny those which precede it.

Hijacking oil tankers in international waters was not predicated by any act of the US, the same for attaching mines to them, and detonating them. When they captured a US gunboat that was in international waters, under orders not to defend itself, there was no predication, no response.

We've extensively covered the US vs Iran conflict history on RF.
You & I both know that US, Israel & allies have waged overt &
covert war against Iran. It's reasonable for me to see this as
provocative, rising to the level of inspiring their want for nukes.

Note: This does not mean that I want them to have nukes.
But you must recognize this consequence of our actions.

You are going to have to provide proof that the US provided assistance with poison gas to saddam in the Iran /Iraq war, I simply don't believe it.

I've given evidence before....is it that you didn't see it, or that you reject it?
Granted, I have no first hand involvement in verifying it, but we do have...
Iraqi chemical attacks against Iran - Wikipedia
Iraq chemical attacks against Iran refers to chemical attacks used by the Iraqi armed forces against Iranian combatants and non-combatants. The Iraqi armed forces employed chemical weapons against combatants and non-combatants in border cities and villages and more than 30 attacks against Iranian civilians were reported. There were chemical attacks against some medical centers and hospitals by the Iraqi army.[1] According to a 2002 article in the Star-Ledger, 20,000 Iranian combatants and combat medics were killed on the spot by nerve gas. As of 2002, 5,000 of the 80,000 survivors continue to seek regular medical treatment, while 1,000 are hospital inpatients.[2][3] According to the Geneva Protocol, chemical attacks were banned, but in practice, to prevent an Iranian victory, the United States supported the Iraqi army in their use of chemical weapons.[4][5]

Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons' | Daily Mail Online
Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'
By WILLIAM LOWTHER, Daily Mail
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.

As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.

The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.

At the very least, it is highly embarrassing for 70-year-old Mr Rumsfeld, who is the most powerful and vocal of all the hawks surrounding President Bush.

He bitterly condemns Saddam as a ruthless and brutal monster and frequently backs up his words by citing the use of the very weapons which it now appears he helped to supply.

My callousness, to use your term, toward the lives of folk in the middle east is based upon their view of the value of there own lives. The killing of civilians in less than all out war is deplorable, yet it has been the signature act of conflict within the middle eastern cultures for over a thousand years. Apparently to them, human life is an easily expended commodity, and dealing death is an appreciated trait. In other words, wholesale slaughter is expected and accepted. In that thousand years, they have not changed this characteristic, if anything, they have made slaughtering a more refined process.

There's a big problem with your approach to determining the value of human life.
While there are terrible people there, the same could be said of Ameristanians.
Yet we'd both agree that we shouldn't be preemptively attacked & defeated.
And it's not just that indefensible double standard.....
War would kill vast numbers of people who are not terrible. To be sanguine about
killing them because they're included in the other group is immoral.
And even killing the terrible people should be a last resort if negotiating a peaceful
relationship fails, & they become an existential threat.

As I stated, one cannot negotiate if there is no one with whom one can negotiate. Trump has said numerous times that he would sit down at the table to talk with the Iranians, with no preconditions.

Were I in their position, I wouldn't trust him. Moreover, even if I did, I'd have
to sell it to the rest of the country. That would be politically very difficult.

I have an observation...an uncomfortable one...
When someone says "we can't negotiate with those people", it's said by
people who won't negotiate because they're obsessed with their own
moral superiority, refuse to understand the other side, & don't value
the lives of others.

Preconditions is what they are all about, give them what they want at the beginning, and they will talk, with out guaranteeing any kind of an outcome. That will not happen. What they want, sanctions relief, is part of which is to be discussed, not given away beforehand. Obama tried bribing them regarding the nuclear agreement, which was a joke. He admitted that the money given to them would fund terrorism, yet he did it anyway. In return, he got an agreement that was worthless.

Obama had his problems, but his approach was better than Trump's
twice flirting with war against Iran. And even under Obama, threats
were made towards Iran & it's people by both Ameristanian & Israeli
politicians. It was still very much a cold war with hot spells.

You apparently believe that nuclear proliferation is a good thing....

If you're not being histrionic, & really believe that, then you've
not been reading carefully.

....as long as the new nuclear power is peaceful.

What I have said is that peace with a nuclear power is better than
war with a non-nuclear power. Do you disagree?

I am sorry, but that is ludicrous. Peaceful is a term relating to one period of time that could change in an instant. Further, there are such things as the security of of the installations, the security of the peaceful government, and the control of launch procedures. The US and the USSR, each almost accidentally launched nukes on the other. Each had the best trained people, failsafe systems in place, and the best communication systems related to nukes.

I'm well aware of those accidents, & have posted about them before.
This is why it's best to avoid hostilities.

Iran just accidentally shot down a jetliner, what if they had nukes ??? No, a peaceful Iran with nukes is insanity compared to a non nuclear terrorist Iran. The latter can be contained or destroyed if necessary, the former can destroy many, many millions within reach of it's missiles.

Iran acts up with it's attacks because it wants us to believe that the only way to stop them is to give them what they want. The democrats are all in on appeasement. I guess you would call me a hawk because I think that approach is asinine, and certainly not in our national interest. Which, by the way, is the criteria for any involvement internationally. As a neo con, I was convinced that giving the people in the middle east the opportunity to be free and adopt democracy was a gallant role of the US. They do not want to be free, and overthrowing their oppressors just creates more of them. I now believe we should allow them to live a they choose, no matter their suffering, we can only make it worse. The only thing to consider in foreign policy is our national interest. I felt this way long before Trump. Our failures in Iraq and Libya showed the harm in playing this game to me.

As long as they oppress and kill one another within their own countries, without threat to us, or our allies, they should be left to it. Iran is a threat to virtually everyone, their wings need to be clipped.

When they ante was upped in the poker game between they and us, they essentially folded in response. We will see if they try to get back in the game. They are very jangled because they miscalculated.

If we continue attacking Iran, & this inspires them to acquire nukes,
there's a good chance that they'll be able to do so, no matter how
many times we & Israel attack them overtly, covertly & by proxy.
There are too many nuclear countries who could supply them,
especially if we sour our relations with them.
So this raises a question....
What kind of nuclear power would you have them be....
1) A dedicated enemy who see us & our allies as an existential threat, or.....
2) A country with no need to use the nukes they have?

 

[Revoltingest]

With a lot of luck, they might be able to take down a B-2, but it is very, very unlikely. Even if they saw the aircraft on radar after all the jamming of their systems as well as stealth, and they launched missiles, the B-2 has highly classified evasion systems that it would employ.

I'm aware that we have fell capabilities.
But do we know what counter-measures the Iranians have acquired?

Escalation is stopped when when one side sees the danger in escalating further. Iran saw it's escalation result in it's #2 man being obliterated. What will happen if they seriously try to top that ? In response to this point, they were careful to ensure that no Americans were harmed (the red line) in their face saving attack.

Escalation can also happen due to error & inflamed passions. We've
escalated wars without seeing the danger, & had to retreat after failing.

They do not want a cruise missile up the robe of their ayatollah, and they clearly, much more clearly than many of us, know that our overwhelming responses are not in their national interest. If you are in a fight, and you punch your opponent in the jaw, and he pulls a gun and shoots you in the knee, you are likely to think about punching him again very seriously. They are thinking very seriously now.

Your premise is that there is punching & shooting.
I don't buy that this is the necessary path to reconciling differences.

The Iranian government has one primary goal, to survive. They know that if their actions cost a lot, the cost to be born by the people, the already angry at them people will turn on them when they realize their own government is responsible for the losses.

The people have been protesting the various costs of Iran's military excursions, they will not appreciate higher costs.

Our hard line policies over the past decades haven't worked to
stop perception of them as a terrible threat yet. You believe
that doing the same thing will be different this time?

 

[shmogie]

I'm aware that we have fell capabilities.
But do we know what counter-measures the Iranians have acquired?

Escalation can also happen due to error & inflamed passions. We've
escalated wars without seeing the danger, & had to retreat after failing.

Your premise is that there is punching & shooting.
I don't buy that this is the necessary path to reconciling differences.

Our hard line policies over the past decades haven't worked to
stop perception of them as a terrible threat yet. You believe
that doing the same thing will be different this time?

Our weakness in responding to them has empowered them in their minds. Making sure they are burned thoroughly when they put their hand on the stove burner, every time, will stop the behavior.

Sometimes differences cannot be reconciled, but an action guranteed to be followed by a more serious action in return, eventually reaches a status quo, or very serious harm to the weaker. The Iranians aren't stupid, and know this.

IF the Iranians actually wanted to resolve the differences, it could be done. They haven't reached that point, yet.

 

[Revoltingest]

IF the Iranians actually wanted to resolve the differences, it could be done. They haven't reached that point, yet.

It's time we stopped discouraging them.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Many democrats are no doubt disappointed, the killing of Iran's terrorist general has not resulted in WW3.

I am not disappointed. I am greatly relieved, though I remain concerned. This is clearly a big optical win for Trump, however the facts turn out.

We have a drunk pilot. But I absolutely do want him to land the plane successfully.

I just hope we can replace him with someone sober, before he changes his mind and goes airborne again.

Iran is confused, Americans have for years let them do as they chose, suddenly they got whacked for their killing, and they have absolutely no desire to be sliced up.

They appear to have acted rationally and with restraint. I hope this convinces our implacable deal-maker-in-chief to, you know, make deals, rather than simply ripping them up.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are some democrats who wanted Americans to be killed, to prove their narrative of fear of Iran, and a serious error on the part of Trump.

I hope that isn't true but would be glad to join you in condemning any Democrat who insinuated such a thing. Can you cite a specific example please?