Preparing the Battlefield and the Graves

[erynthered]

When I say that terrorism is war against civilization, I may be met by the objection that terrorists are often idealists pursuing worthy ultimate aims -- national or regional independence, and so forth. I do not accept this argument. I cannot agree that a terrorist can ever be an idealist, or that the objects sought can ever justify terrorism. The impact of terrorism, not merely on individual nations, but on humanity as a whole, is intrinsically evil, necessarily evil and wholly evil.

 

 

 

Terrorism is carried out purposefully, in a cold-blooded, calculated fashion. The declared goals of the terrorist may change from place to place. He supposedly fights to remedy wrongs -- social, religious, national, racial. But for all these problems his only solution is the demolition of the whole structure of society. No partial solution, not even the total redressing of the grievance he complains of, will satisfy him -- until our social system is destroyed or delivered into his hands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU

 

[Chilly]

Misconceiving Root Causes

 

A common notion in the U.S. administration and media spin on the war on terrorism is that suicide attackers are evil, deluded, or homicidal misfits who thrive in poverty, ignorance, and anarchy. This portrayal lends a sense of hopelessness to any attempt to address root causes because some individuals will always be desperate or deranged enough to conduct suicide attacks. Nevertheless, as logical as the poverty-breeds-terrorism argument may seem, study after study shows that suicide attackers and their supporters are rarely ignorant or impoverished. Nor are they crazed, cowardly, apathetic, or asocial. The common misconception underestimates the central role that organizational factors play in the appeal of terrorist networks. A better understanding of such causes reveals that the challenge is actually manageable: the key is not to profile and target the most despairing or deranged individual but to understand and undermine the organizational and institutional appeal of terrorists' motivations and networks.

 

The U.S. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism highlights the "War of Ideas" and "War on Poverty" as adjunct programs to reduce terrorism's pool of support and recruitment.19 The war of ideas is based on the premise that terrorists and their supporters "hate our freedoms," a sentiment Bush has expressed with regard to Al Qaeda and the Iraqi resistance.20 Yet, survey data reliably show that most Muslims who support suicide terrorism and trust bin Laden favor elected government, personal liberty, educational opportunity, and economic choice.21 Mark Tessler, who coordinates long-term surveys of Muslim societies from the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, finds that Arab attitudes toward American culture are most favorable among young adults—the same population that terrorist recruiters single out—regardless of their religious orientation.22 Khalil [End Page 73] Shikaki, director of the Palestinan Center for Survey and Policy Research, consistently finds that a majority of Palestinians has a favorable impression of U.S. (and Israeli) forms of government, education, economy, and even literature and art, even though about three-fourths of the population supports suicide attack.23

 

In sum, there is no evidence that most people who support suicide actions hate Americans' internal cultural freedoms, but rather every indication that they oppose U.S. foreign policies, particularly regarding the Middle East. After the 1996 suicide attack against U.S. military housing at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, a Defense Department Science Board report stated, "Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States."24 U.S. intervention in Iraq is but the most recent example. A United Nations report indicated that, as soon as the United States began building up for the Iraq invasion, Al Qaeda recruitment picked up in 30-40 countries.25 Recruiters for groups sponsoring terrorist acts reportedly told researchers that volunteers were beating down their doors to join.

 

Similarly, the war on poverty is based on the premise that impoverishment, lack of education, and social estrangement spawn terrorism.Economist Gary Becker's theory states that the greater the amount of human capital (including income and education) a person accumulates, the less likely that person is to commit a crime.26 The theory is that the greater a person's human capital, the more that person is aware of losing out on substantial future gains if captured or killed. Similar thinking applies to suicide terror: the less promising one's future, the more likely one's choice to end life. Almost all current U.S. foreign aid programs related to terrorism pivot on such assumptions, now generally accepted by the mainstream of both U.S. political parties. Although the theory has proven useful in combating blue-collar crime, no evidence indicates its bearing on terrorism.

 

Studies by Princeton economist Alan Krueger and others find no correlation between a nation's per capita income and terrorism27 but do find a correlation between a lack of civil liberties, defined by Freedom House,28 and terrorism. A recent National Research Council report finds that "[t]errorism and its supporting audiences appear to be fostered by policies of extreme political repression and discouraged by policies of incorporating both dissident and moderate groups responsibly into civil society and the political process."29 There seems to be a direct correlation between U.S. military aid to politically corroded or ethnically divided states,30 human rights abuses by those regimes,31 and the rise in terrorism,32 as initially moderate opposition is pushed into common cause with more radical elements. [End Page 74]

 

Despite these realities, the meager U.S. monies available for nonmilitary foreign aid are far too concentrated in poverty reduction and literacy enhancement. In fact, in Pakistan, literacy and dislike for the United States have increased while the number of Islamist madrassa schools grew from 3,000 to nearly 40,000 since 1978. According to a U.S. State Department report, development aid is based "on the belief that poverty provides a breeding ground for terrorism. The terrorist attacks of September 11 reaffirmed this conviction."33 Bush declared at a UN conference on poor nations in Monterrey, Mexico, that "[w]e fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror."34 Yet, study after study demonstrates that suicide terrorists and their supporters are not abjectly poor, illiterate, or socially estranged.35

 

Another misconception that implicitly drives current national security policy is that suicide terrorists have no rational political agenda and are not sane. According to Gen. Wesley Clark, unlike nineteenth-century Russian terrorists who wanted to depose the czar, current Islamic terrorists are simply retrograde and nihilist: "They want the destruction of Western civilization and the return to seventh-century Islam."36 Senator John Warner (R-Va.) testified that a new security doctrine of preemption was necessary because "those who would commit suicide in their assaults on the free world are not rational."37 According to Vice President Dick Cheney, the September 11 plotters and other like-minded terrorists "have no sense of morality."38

 

In truth, suicide terrorists on the whole have no appreciable psychopathology and are often wholly committed to what they believe to be devout moral principles. A report on The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism used by the Central and Defense Intelligence Agencies (CIA and DIA) finds "no psychological attribute or personality distinctive of terrorists."39 Recruits are generally well adjusted in their families and liked by peers and often more educated and economically better off than their surrounding population. Researchers Basel Saleh and Claude Berrebi independently find that the majority of Palestinian suicide bombers have a college education (versus 15 percent of the population of comparable age) and that less than 15 percent come from poor families (although about one-third of the population lives in poverty). DIA sources who have interrogated Al Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo note that Saudi-born operatives, especially those in leadership positions, are often "educated above reasonable employment level [and that] a surprising number have graduate degrees and come from high-status [End Page 75] families."40 The general pattern was captured in a Singapore parliamentary report on prisoners from Jemaah Islamiyah, an ally of Al Qaeda: "These men were not ignorant, destitute, or disenfranchised. Like many of their counterparts in militant Islamic organizations in the region, they held normal, respectable jobs. Most detainees regarded religion as their most important personal value."41

 

Except for being mostly young, unattached males, suicide attackers differ from members of violent racist organizations to whom they are often compared, such as white supremacist groups in the United States.42 Overall, suicide terrorists exhibit no socially dysfunctional attributes (fatherless, friendless, jobless) or suicidal symptoms. Inconsistent with economic theories of criminal behavior, they do not kill themselves simply out of hopelessness or a sense of having nothing to lose. Muslim clerics countenance killing oneself for martyrdom in the name of God but curse personal suicide. "He who commits suicide kills himself for his own benefit," warned Sheikh Yussuf Al-Qaradhawi (a spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood), but "he who commits martyrdom sacrifices himself for the sake of his religion and his nation. ... [T]he Mujahed is full of hope."43

 

Another reason that personal despair or derangement may not be a significant factor in suicide terrorism is that the cultures of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia where it thrives tend to be less individualistic than our own. These cultures are more attuned to the environmental and organizational relationships that shape behavior and are less tolerant of individuals acting independently from a group context.44 Terrorists in these societies also would be more likely to be seeking a group, or collective, sense of belonging and justification for their actions.

 

A group struggling to gain power and resources against materially better-endowed enemies must attract able and committed recruits—not loaners—who are willing to give up their lives for a cause. At the same time, the group must prevent uncommitted elements in the population from simply free-riding on the backs of committed fighters, that is, sharing in the fighters' rewards and success without taking the risks or paying the costs of fighting. Insurgent groups manage this by offering potential recruits the promise of great future rewards, such as freedom for future generations or eternal bliss in Paradise, instead of immediate gain. Only individuals committed to delayed gratification are then liable to volunteer. Insurgent groups also tend to seek out individuals with better education and economic prospects because [End Page 76] they view a person who invests resources in education and training for a better economic future as a signal that that person is willing to sacrifice today's satisfactions for tomorrow's rewards and is able to realize commitments. For this reason, the relative level of education and economic status is often higher among insurgent groups that recruit primarily on the basis of promises for the future than among traditional armies that rely more on short-term incentives.45

 

- Scott Atran, Mishandling Suicide Terrorism

[OCinBuffalo]

As far as the OP goes: yeah whatever, they are digging their own graves and they better be prepared to fill 10 times that many if they are actually stupid enough to resist us in the field. This is a propaganda move, nothing more. Our combined arms in a set piece battle would literally destroy Iranian forces 10 times larger, as they have every time we have deployed them since 1980. Between the new things we have and our air power, never mind the basic soldier w/M16 and the rest of our conventional order of battle, this Iranian general is simply blowing smoke.

 

"To be a good soldier, you must love the army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love." Gen. Robert E. Lee

 

It appears some of our commanders are struggling with this military "commandment" just as General Longstreet was when Lee said it to him. The simple fact that Lee said it to Longstreet shows this is nothing new. It's also important to remember the context of this remark: Lee was trying to end the war by sending Longstreet to attack the Union left at Gettysburg. He wanted the war to end, he was not glorifying war. He was trying to get Longstreet to commit fully to the attack, regardless of cost, because he knew that unless they won there, the war would continue, costing more lives and eventually leading to total war = what happened when Grant took over.

 

Here's my quote: Nobody wants war except the insane, or those who have never picked up a rifle while wearing a uniform. At the same time, nobody thinks war is always avoidable except the insane, or those who have never picked up a rifle while wearing a uniform. No general ever wants war, because it means that they have fundamentally failed in their primary task: to create, train, and equip such a fearsome army that no sane individual or country would dare consider fighting against it. Unfortunately, this doesn't account for insane individuals and governments, who by definition are incapable of fear and reason. They must be dealt with as with any rabid dog, until sanity is restored.

 

As further evidence about how to think about war from someone who actually knows, Lee also said: "It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it", but he also said, "Never do a wrong thing to make a friend or keep one."

We would be insane to attack Iran at this time. The upside is, no matter who is elected, we are unlikely to do so.

 

Now we just have to survive a few more months.

I refer you to what I said above. Let me be clear: only the insane, or those who have never picked up a rifle, think war with Iran is 100% avoidable. Most importantly, the last thing you ever want to do is to take war off the table as an option while you are trying to negotiate a peaceful settlement. Only an insane person, or a kitty(hey, they changed my word! ), would limit his negotiating position. The fact that we went ahead in Iraq, right or wrong and despite the limp wrists in Europe, demonstrates our resolve to Iran and every other petty dictatorship. Why in God's name would we have spent all these lives, time and money, only to throw it all away and not keep the war option firmly on the table while trying to negotiate with them, especially when our proof lies right next door?

 

We are in this for keeps, and it's time you woke up to that fact. We are talking nuclear weapons here, not a "difference of opinion" on some trade issues. The more we try to ignore that fact, the more trouble we will incur. We have been fighting a "war" against Iran since the Shah was deposed/since Jimmy Carter pussied out. As I have said since I have been on this board, I think the entire war in Iraq has been about establishing a supply line so that if a war with Iran becomes necessary our logistics are firmly in place.

We let North Korea get them, they created enough material for 6-8 nuclear weapons before dismantling their plant. Was it worth going to war over? No.

Wrong. It was worth getting China and more importantly, Japan, involved. Nobody, and I mean nobody in that part of the world, wants Japan to re-militarize. They are just recently recovered from the last time that happened. South Korea is now a real threat as well. And both represent the real deterrent for North Korea, and China for that matter. So let's not pretend that there wasn't a significant threat involved = Japan going nuclear and rebuilding it's armed forces, that got North Korea and their mommy, China, moving.

 

Oh and btw, yeah, the 6 party talks that John Kerry wanted to get rid of, actually worked. We did what we needed to do, got what we wanted, and didn't have to go "hat in hand" to a guy who wears high heels and thinks he is a god. We gave up little and retained our place as the only super power. Beats the hell out of Madeline Albright diplomacy, now doesn't it? Are you going to admit that Kerry was flat wrong on this? I won't bother holding my breath.....

It could be the October suprise to scare people into voting for McCain. But hopefully people will see through the politics of fear this time. Otherwise Iran could cut off the oil lanes through the Strait and we'll see $300 a barrel oil. Then the oil companies will scream about how we need to give them more domestic drill sites. Hmm, interesting how it all comes back to the oil companies.

Politics of fear? WTF? Are you trying to tell us that you don't fear nukes? This isn't about fear, this is about common f'ing sense. I don't fear the little kid on the block, but I do fear him if he gets his hands on a gun. Then I do whatever I have to do to take that gun away from him, because he can shoot me any time he wants to, especially when I am not looking. The first thing I would do is call the cops(call the UN and NATO), but if they won't do anything, then it's up to me. If I have to lay a severe beating on him to get that gun away, and even if I get shot in the process or even die, so be it, because the alternative - living in fear of what he might do, or having him shoot me anyway - is unacceptable, and he should have thought about that before he got the gun. Sorry if this little scenario doesn't play well in the suburbs, but this is reality, deal with it. The politics of ignoring the power of nuclear weapons gives me a hell of a lot more concern than whatever poorly executed preemptive politics does, and history proves that over and over.

 

Iran cutting off oil lanes with their speed boats is laughable. Where do you get this stuff? You apparently forgot about our Navy and Air Force air power, to say nothing of the Navy's of the rest of the civilized world. The worst thing they could do would be to play games with the Strait because that would necessarily drag the rest of NATO, at the very least their Navies, into armed conflict with Iran, never mind the rest of the Navies of all the countries in the region. You think Kuwait or the Saudis are going to let that happen? You think their own speed boat Navies won't get involved? Prices might be affected for a few months, but after the severe beating is laid down and the attacks stop, they will go right back to where they were. In all cases, this is a stupid plan for Iran and let's all hope they are that dumb, and that we are that lucky. It makes everything easier for us. You are dreaming, sir. Time to wake up.

 

We need to drill everywhere we can in this country, get oil right now, and give our alternative energy techs/plans time to develop. As soon as they can handle our energy demands, we start switching over. We should have been doing this all through the 80's and 90's, but we didn't and the Congress of the last 30 years is to blame. This is common sense and has nothing to do with the Iranian speed boat Navy. The alternative energy techs aren't ready yet and your lame attempt at holding this country hostage to prove your point is going to cost your party severely if you continue it. It's up to you, because this is your party's "Iraq war" issue. Do the right thing and learn from the Republican's mistakes. I would be shocked if you actually did, and I would be happy because it's the best thing for the country.

Jesus - this administration is incredible! This paragraph (if true, and Herch's article's are usually spot-on) shows how !@#$ up an invasion of Iran would be (people were saying the same thing about Iraq and were right):

Yeah, where exactly does it show that? Who said we are going to invade, when we can make our point with air and SF, and all we need is land bases in Iraq to do this indefinitely? "People" weren't saying any of the things that have come to pass in Iraq, at any point, ever. Surely "people" weren't saying that the surge would work, unless you are talking about me, or Senator McCain.

So, the neo-con politicians want military action, but the actual military thinks it would be disasterous - why is impeachment a bad idea? Why isn't our public in the streets like in the Vietnam era? At least the Neo-Cons are smart enough to pretend this is not war time and did not institute a draft. So average americans can still sit at home, take their kids to Soccer games and watch bad television programs.

Again, I refer you to the above comments I made about the insane wanting war vs. the insane thinking it can always be avoided. Get a clue, both are insane, and have nothing to do with one party or the other. The question is: have you exhausted all other options? If you honestly have, and if the threat is still real, then war is unavoidable and you have to make the call. This is how it goes in the big boy world. Denying that means you are a child and have no business leading this country as President or in Congress, regardless of which party you are in.

 

You are right about one thing: We need to wake up and realize that this nation is at war, and we need to start acting like it. Pretending we are on some peace-keeping mission and then being horrified when we have casualties is the mark of an insane person. We are at war with any country who supports terror or is trying to give nukes to terrorists. We will remain at war until that threat has been permanently defeated. Pretending that we aren't merely prolongs the inevitable and wastes lives on both sides.

 

Nobody is "innocent", and there is no such thing as "civilian" casualties when we are talking about nuclear war and/or terrorism. The terrorists, by definition, have taken away the term "innocent" by their very tactics and when they are supported by any government. If the Iranian government supports terrorism and/or wants to develop nukes with which to attack us or anybody else, then their citizens are no longer innocent civilians. They become enemy nationals and they risk death and destruction of their property as long as they allow their government to continue making the choices it has. These are the rules the terrorists and/or Iranians have laid out for us and our civilians, I see no reason why we shouldn't play by the same rules for them and theirs.

 

You try to win war as quickly as possible, so that it's terrible consequences are not prolonged. You don't try to pretend they don't exist. Winning means the other side quits. It doesn't mean that we deny the war is happening, and then proceed to the soccer games you mentioned.

 

Now, how we conduct the war is a separate issue, and if we do it poorly then we need to get rid of the problem people. Also separate is what kind of war we have to fight with each bad country involved. Clearly we aren't fighting openly against Russia and China, but we are fighting against their ability to supply nukes and other weapons to enemy countries, so we are fighting a covert war against them to a certain degree. For other countries like Iran, we may have to fight them openly, and now that we have a supply line through Iraq, we can if we need to.

 

I don't want that personally, nobody does, especially not a General, because he has to order people to die, and see the results of his orders first hand. But that doesn't mean that we are absolved of the difficult but necessary task of halting nuclear proliferation and/or hope that a nuclear Iran will just "go away". It'll be a little late when a nuke gets touched off in LA, or DC. We've had our wake up call = 9/11, and that should be enough for anyone to see that this is real.

It's far past time for some of you to grow up a little. This isn't about "fear", it's about accepting the realities we face. This isn't about George Bush, or Republicans, or Democrats, and it never was. It's not his fault that we are fighting a war against the clinically insane. No more than it would have been Al Gore's fault or John Kerry's or John McCain's if he had won in 2000. This is about us, all of us, against a bunch of turds. There is no doubt that this whole thing is a shitt sandwich, and none of us like it. But it's time to realize that all of us have to eat our share, and that the blame lies with the people who made the sandwich ---> the terrorists, the governments that support them, and the secret services/intelligence organizations of those countries.

[swede316]

There is no doubt that this whole thing is a shitt sandwich, and none of us like it. But it's time to realize that all of us have to eat our share, and that the blame lies with the people who made the sandwich ---> the terrorists, the governments that support them, and the secret services/intelligence organizations of those countries.

F'ing outstanding!!! Couldn't have said it better myself. Someday the tree huggers and care bears will realize the true nature of what we are up against.

[PastaJoe]

Politics of fear? WTF? Are you trying to tell us that you don't fear nukes?

 

Iran cutting off oil lanes with their speed boats is laughable. Where do you get this stuff?

 

 

No, I don't fear nukes. I grew up practicing ducking under my wood schooldesk in case of a Soviet attack. What a joke. If something happens it will be beyond my control. All I can do is vote for representatives who I think will deal with the issue in the most responsible way, and that's not Bush or McCain.

 

All Iran has to do is sink one tanker in the Strait and the price of oil will skyrocket. The odds of stopping all their attempts if they try are slim. In fact just the Bush and McCain saberrattling about the possiblity of attacking Iran has caused speculators to make the price rise in part because they're betting on higher prices if the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran.

 

And you sidestepped the fact that North Korea has proven they have nuclear weapons and the missles to deliver them, but their neighbors have decided that living with that fact is preferrable to military action. They're dismantling their nuclear plant, but after the fact.

[finknottle]

North Korea has demonstrated that they have missles that can reach Japan and possibly even Alaska, and they have demonstrated that they have nuclear weapons, yet we didn't attack them.

 

That's because they have already crossed the threshold where they can blackmail us, and they are effectively doing so. Would we be negotiating with them over exactly how much aid we will give them if they didn't have the capability and will to destroy Seoul? Would we turn a blind eye to any other country counterfeiting our money? And not just pretend it didn't happen, but credit them with 25$ million in seized assets, just to get them back to the table? Talk about taking care of their dirty laundering!

 

It's all about blackmail, and with North Korea we have already lost.

 

It is one thing to secretly pay off one regime in the interests of peace and stability. But as more and more countries line up to the secret trough, where does it end? How much have we already paid the former Soviet republics to give up their arsenals? (We are still funding 'retraining programs' for Russian scientists, believe it or not!) How much have we paid countries like Brazil and South Africa to shut down their facilities? I'd wager it's a non-negligible piece of the black budget. The problem with authoritarian countries like North Korea and Iran is that they can play hardball, their threats are more credible, and they can keep coming back for more. North Korea will certainly do so.

[PastaJoe]

That's because they have already crossed the threshold where they can blackmail us, and they are effectively doing so.

 

Of course the timeline is that Bush declared North Korea part of the Axis of Evil in 2002. North Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but withdrew in 2003, citing the failure of the United States to fulfill its end of the Agreed Framework, the 1994 agreement between the states to limit North Korea's nuclear ambitions, begin normalization of relations, and help North Korea supply some energy needs through nuclear reactors. And then they detonated a nuclear device in 2006. So they were in a similar position in 2002 as Iran is now thought to be. The time for a diplomatic solution is now, military action will only make them more determined and give them an excuse in the eyes of the world to acquire weapons to defend themselves from the offensive actions of the U.S. or its surrogate Israel.

[finknottle]

Of course the timeline is that Bush declared North Korea part of the Axis of Evil in 2002. North Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but withdrew in 2003, citing the failure of the United States to fulfill its end of the Agreed Framework, the 1994 agreement between the states to limit North Korea's nuclear ambitions, begin normalization of relations, and help North Korea supply some energy needs through nuclear reactors. And then they detonated a nuclear device in 2006. So they were in a similar position in 2002 as Iran is now thought to be. The time for a diplomatic solution is now, military action will only make them more determined and give them an excuse in the eyes of the world to acquire weapons to defend themselves from the offensive actions of the U.S. or its surrogate Israel.

 

No. There is a very simple difference between North Korea in 2002 and Iran. North Korea *already* had the means to blackmail us. They didn't need nukes. They have enough artillary poised on the border to literally wipe out Seoul and most of northern South Korea within 15 minutes. It is a cornerstone of their military doctrine.

 

And that is why no action was contemplated by Bush in 2002 - the effect on the intertwined world economy would have been devestating. It is the same reason that Clinton did not bomb when the nuclear issue first came to a head (though technically it came to a head at the end of Bush I, who punted).

 

IMO it's not about assigning blame between Clinton and Bush (*). That does nothing but avoid the simple fact that in a world of proliferation, any slimeball can hold hostage the responsible countries. North Korea already had their deterrence, a get-out-of-jail card that lets them get away with state-sponsored drug smuggling, missile trafficing, and counterfeiting. Like the cold war, all you can do is try to contain them through an embargo - you can't push them. Iran doesn't have that deterrent yet, but will soon.

 

(*) IMO. the experiences of the Clinton presidency explains Hillary's more hawkish positions, including the IRGC designation and her refusal to disavow voting for the authorization of force in Iraq. Iraq wasn't about WMD in the here-and-now, it was the likliehood that Saddam was not going to be a good citizen when sanctions were lifted, and the recognition that with pressure from Russia, France, and the left (remember the demonstrations against starving Iraq's children?) they would not remain in place much longer. For the Clintons, proliferation was the central national security threat, whether it be rogue states or loose nukes. Once the bad guys have the means to cause damage, like North Korea, you have no cards to play other than sanctions - and that's a losing position in the long run. If you are the US, you will usually wind up having to pay them off in the end.

[OCinBuffalo]

No, I don't fear nukes. I grew up practicing ducking under my wood schooldesk in case of a Soviet attack. What a joke. If something happens it will be beyond my control. All I can do is vote for representatives who I think will deal with the issue in the most responsible way, and that's not Bush or McCain.

So did I. I hardly see how doing something useless, ducking and covering, is an excuse for doing something else that's useless, only talking to Iran and not attacking them covertly/using every SF/intelligence asset we have to subvert their government or at least their nuke program.

 

I can't help but notice that you only said you wouldn't support McCain. That leaves Obama's "policy". So, which policy of Obama's do you support? The unilateral, no pre-conditional talking with Iran policy of 3 months ago, or the "I'm not sure what but certainly not what I said last time" policy he has today? You are using this as an example of "the most responsible way"? Really? You're sure this is how you want to present yourself to us?

 

Oh, and unfortunately the way the game works is: you have to pick between the paragraph above and McCain. Somehow I don't think the debates are going to help Obama on this one. He better hurry up and settle on a policy quick or it's going to be very tough for him. Kerry all over again.

All Iran has to do is sink one tanker in the Strait and the price of oil will skyrocket. The odds of stopping all their attempts if they try are slim. In fact just the Bush and McCain saberrattling about the possiblity of attacking Iran has caused speculators to make the price rise in part because they're betting on higher prices if the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran.

Um, ours and other's Navies are on station right now, right there, as we speak, as they have been for years, to make sure that doesn't happen. The main reason you have a Navy is to prevent piracy. Perhaps you have forgotten, or more likely you have been lulled into thinking that piracy has gone away. If we took our Navy away tomorrow, there would be pirates all over the place in 4 months. There still are pirates, right now. The Navy's main job is to police trade routes, and always has been. You honestly think they are going to screw up something they have been doing for the last 200 years over a couple of speed boats?

 

Iran has already been provoking action and our cooler headed commanders have prevailed. The bottom line is, since the Cole attack, the Navy is on guard and there ain't no way the Iranians get even one tanker. They'll be dead before they get anywhere close, especially since they have put our and every other Navy on alert with their recent foolishness. If they continue all they are going to get is a bombing of all the ports where their speedboats harbor. I don't see what else speculators could possibly find out of this. Besides sooner or later you hit the wall and that fear of prices dropping suddenly will end this speculation, and Iranian speedboats will have nothing to do with it.

 

I think that the fact that Iraq just put 5 contracts for oil out to bid is going to do a lot more to the price of oil, sending it down very soon.

And you sidestepped the fact that North Korea has proven they have nuclear weapons and the missles to deliver them, but their neighbors have decided that living with that fact is preferrable to military action. They're dismantling their nuclear plant, but after the fact.

Buddy, I don't sidestep ever. That's what you guys do. You want me to answer a question, I will answer it directly. N. Korea's neighbors have decided no such thing. I challenge you to provide me one link that supports what you are saying and/or that contradicts what I am saying. Edit: oh and here's the first link I found, right at the top of the list, that supports what I am saying right here.

 

Here's what happened: Japan flat out told us, and everybody else, that if North Korea doesn't kill off it's nuclear program, that they would re-militarize and might even get nukes themselves(not to say that they don't have them secretly already, but this would be the best kept state secret of all time). This is a giant step for Japan because of there super-strong opposition to nuclear weapons. They are also pissed because N. Korea has been kidnapping their citizens so that they can use them to train their spies. They've had it and they said so, their response was going to be a military build up, not talk.

 

China's, hell the whole far east's, ass still hurts from the raping Japan gave them last time they were a serious military power. Don't fool/lie to yourself, these cultures remember their history for 1000's of years, so they have no problem remembering 60 years ago. The minute Japan said this is the same minute that he Chinese said "enough" and told N. Korea to give it up immediately. If N. Korea loses Chinese support then they are truly alone and their government would topple in months. That's not to say that it won't soon anyway.

 

The N. Korean's didn't "blackmail" anybody. Japan simply said they would smack them down, and nobody in the region can afford a Japan that can do that. We gave them a few trade incentives so they could "save face", and we just sent them 38,000 tons of food, and that's only the first shipment. Yeah, once again "evil America" doing terrible things like feeding the hungry. It's all Bush's fault, though right? All we have done is stop a nut's nuclear program and fed his people, which he should have been doing in the first place. That's all, that's it. No blackmail, no BS. In all honesty it's not like we don't have the extra food, so why do we care? We gotta do something with all that peanut butter and cheese, let them eat it.

[finknottle]

The N. Korean's didn't "blackmail" anybody. Japan simply said they would smack them down, and nobody in the region can afford a Japan that can do that. We gave them a few trade incentives so they could "save face", and we just sent them 38,000 tons of food, and that's only the first shipment. Yeah, once again "evil America" doing terrible things like feeding the hungry. It's all Bush's fault, though right? All we have done is stop a nut's nuclear program and fed his people, which he should have been doing in the first place. That's all, that's it. No blackmail, no BS. In all honesty it's not like we don't have the extra food, so why do we care? We gotta do something with all that peanut butter and cheese, let them eat it.

 

So all we are giving him is some grain... How about two million tons of oil a year as has been reported? And what about dropping all the counterfeiting charges and crediting their banks with the seized money? And of course the promise to drop them from the proliferation embargo - presumably if the do it again, any attempt by the US to sanction them through reinstatement would nullify the nuclear agreement.

 

Two million tons of oil a year and diplomatic immunity buys us the statis quo. If you don't want to call it balckmail, fine. But you must at least admit that those are pretty nice trade incentives. Do all our friends get offered them?

[Helmet_hair]

For Christ sake strap a nuke on me and I'll blow Tehran myself. GOD Damn pussies!

[SD Jarhead]

So all we are giving him is some grain... How about two million tons of oil a year as has been reported? And what about dropping all the counterfeiting charges and crediting their banks with the seized money? And of course the promise to drop them from the proliferation embargo - presumably if the do it again, any attempt by the US to sanction them through reinstatement would nullify the nuclear agreement.

 

Two million tons of oil a year and diplomatic immunity buys us the statis quo. If you don't want to call it balckmail, fine. But you must at least admit that those are pretty nice trade incentives. Do all our friends get offered them?

 

Well, we won't have to worry about them counterfeiting our money anymore the way things are going these days...Just sayin'

[slothrop]

Did anybody stop and think that the Iranian citizens are the youngest, most educated, and most moderate in the Middle East? There is a popular democracy movement that was VERY active on campuses througout the nation - which cam close to altering the goverment.

 

So, here we have a population and movement we should encourage and are in the majority in IRan. So, what do you think is going to happen to this social dynamic when you start dropping bombs on them and worse, putting boots on the ground?

 

Are they going to "great us with roses" as BUsh thought they would do in IRaq. (The "IT will work this time" theory). Or, do you think they will shift and allign themselves with anti-American insurgents and shift to the right? (The we already saw this before - i.e. "learn from history" theory).

 

ANY military involvement in IRan could set that country back generations due its disproportionate youth (a legacy of the IRan/Iraq war).

[/dev/null]

For Christ sake strap a nuke on me and I'll blow Tehran myself. GOD Damn pussies!

What you do with strap ons is your own business

[Max Fischer]

"To be a good soldier, you must love the army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love." Gen. Robert E. Lee

 

It appears some of our commanders are struggling with this military "commandment" just as General Longstreet was when Lee said it to him. The simple fact that Lee said it to Longstreet shows this is nothing new. It's also important to remember the context of this remark: Lee was trying to end the war by sending Longstreet to attack the Union left at Gettysburg. He wanted the war to end, he was not glorifying war. He was trying to get Longstreet to commit fully to the attack, regardless of cost, because he knew that unless they won there, the war would continue, costing more lives and eventually leading to total war = what happened when Grant took over.

 

Lee was no doubt a great general and Longstreet while brilliant could be taciturn -- but Lee should have listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg. Lee was flat-out wrong and should have taken Longstreet's advice to go around, threaten Washington and find a much better strategic advantage. There's a lesson in that.

[Nanker]

No, I don't fear nukes. I grew up practicing ducking under my wood schooldesk in case of a Soviet attack. What a joke. If something happens it will be beyond my control. All I can do is vote for representatives who I think will deal with the issue in the most responsible way, and that's not Bush or McCain.

 

All Iran has to do is sink one tanker in the Strait and the price of oil will skyrocket. The odds of stopping all their attempts if they try are slim. In fact just the Bush and McCain saberrattling about the possiblity of attacking Iran has caused speculators to make the price rise in part because they're betting on higher prices if the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran.

 

And you sidestepped the fact that North Korea has proven they have nuclear weapons and the missles to deliver them, but their neighbors have decided that living with that fact is preferrable to military action. They're dismantling their nuclear plant, but after the fact.

 

Me too. It didn't make me hate Jack Kennedy - even though his war cost 56,000 American lives.

 

So what? You're not planning on getting a electric car?

 

I must have missed the part when Kim Jung Il repeatedly called the Japanese vermin who should be exterminated from the face of the earth.