Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Do you want war with Iran?
Options
-
24-09-2006 4:33am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Priorities my good man. Iran is a much higher on Bush's wish list than even North Korea. Also, he only has a short window to attack Iran before they develop a nuclear capability (well, it's 10 years according to most estimates, but if the democrats win the next 2 elections then by the time the republicans get back in they could already have a credible deterrent)Bob the Unlucky Octopus wrote:If that were true, we'd be at war with Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, North Korea, Yemen and half a dozen central Asian countries excluding Afghanistan. There are four major restrictions on the President at this current time that severely limits most forms of effective military action.
Bush is planning billions of dollers worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. He clearly doesn't think he is short of spending money. However, with the petro doller at risk from Iran's Euro oil Bourse, it could actually be cheaper for the U.S. economy to bomb them into submission than it would be to allow them kill their cash cow. http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html1) Iraq. It's draining our already deficit-ridden coffers, and has cost the lives of more servicemen than civilians on 9/11. That's a critically important psychological milestone, and it becomes harder and harder for the 9/11 drum to be thrashed every time our government needs a show of support for ongoing military ventures and misadventures.
That's where the 'No Child Left Behind act" comes in. They're increasing the 'poor draft' by making it impossible for disadvantaged kids to graduate highschool while at the same time making it manditory for all public schools to allow Army Recruiters unprecedented access to their students. http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2002/11/ma_153_01.htmlThe army is having a near-impossible time maintaining its recruitment drive despite a raft of new measures (expanding the GI bill, two pay-grade increases for all new enlisted men who've picked their MOS, a removal of stop-loss). Despite the raft of benefits and pay, people just aren't volunteering any more.
That's why they're not planning a ground invasion. This is an administration world famous for it's lack of long term military planning. They are over optimistic about their military ability in the short term, and they can always rely on their last resort, the draft, if things get too hairy. Don't worry about bad PR, the U.S. media will play along as usual.Mid-level NCOs and junior officers are quitting at a faster rate since the fall of Saigon- the effects of our error of policy in Iraq will occupy the attention of our military long after the last boot leaves Iraqi soil. If Pat Tillman were still alive, even he probably wouldn't volunteer at this stage. With 18 of our infantry battalions in the field and in desperate need of rotation/relief every 6 months, it is inconceivable that another ground campaign could take place as much as the neocons and possibly even the President wished we could.
I know that, You know that, every sane person in the military knows that, But the American government have been operating on the principle that they can control everything with violence for the last 6 years. They are gambling, with other people's lives, that the Iranian regime wouldn't escalate the war beyond it's own borders because to do so might invoke the nuclear wrath of Israel or the United States.2) Strategic considerations. Attacking North Korea, a nuclear-capable nation with over a hundred batteries of artillery and rockets aimed at Seoul, is strategically unworkable. At the slightest hint of military action, our closest ally in NE Asia would summarily become toast, to say nothing of what Japan, China and Russia would do.
Attacking Iran will inflame the whole of Shia Islam, which now occupys a large crescent shape in the Middle East- stretching from Hezbollah in S. Lebanon, through Iraq, through Iran and as far as Afghanistan/W. Pakistan. Iran could make things damn near impossible for us and our allies in Iraq. The only thing that's stopping them from completely screwing us in Iraq are two big incentives- that Iraq will wind up a Shia state friendly to Iran, and that Iran can avoid pariah status by finding a peaceful way out of the nuclear connundrum. The latter being more important, they'd gladly sacrifice or dent the former for the sake of their security. The same goes for attacking Hezbollah, in addition to screwing Israel even further, our interests would hardly be served by the government of Iran passing along weapons-grade plutonium from their breeder reactors to Hezbollah's military arm.
Wag the dog. the American voting public are about as indoctrinated as any people in the world. As soon as the bombs start to fall the 'Support our troops' banners will begin to wave.3) Domestic political considerations. I've gone from being in an insignificant minority of 21% to a comfortable majority of 57% of Americans that think the Iraq war isn't worth fighting. I'd be extremely surprised if that doesn't affect the November mid-terms at all. If the Dems can wrest control of just one of the two Houses back, it'll mean subpoena power, and then it's all over. Just look at what a Republican Congress managed to use their subpoena power for with Clinton (Whitewater, Lewinskygate and Paula-gate) and imagine what that power would do to the raft of errors, miscalculations and misjudgements that this administration has tallied during its war on terror.
As it stands, the republicans are looking at losing control of the House anyway, so they have very little to lose. (by the way, in american politics, the re-election rate is consistantly above 90% for congress, and above 80% for senators.
So the individual politicians are unlikely to be too worried about their own jobs being put at risk.
Are you sure a war against Iran would be unpopular from the start? In american politics, all wars start out as popular, and then most of them become unpopular when the truth starts to filter through to the public. Polls carried out this year indicated that 6 out of 10 americans favoured military intervention against Iran http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAS20060217&articleId=1998Fighting an unpopular war means that bland assurances of victory are no longer enough, oversight will ensure that the right policy will be forced down the throat of the executive. As bitter a pill as that would be for the White House, I very much doubt that any further military action will even be on the table- to say nothing of how it will affect ongoing interventions
And if the entire U.S. media were in support of an invasion, such public support would almost certainly be sustained. But even if the Public was against an attack, that wouldn't stop the government from proceeding. In the Iraq war, No member of the Coalition other than america or Israel had public support above 11% for participation.
4) Legal/international concerns.
That is why Internationally an American attack against Iran would be Extremely unpopular. But Bush doesn't care about what the international community thinks, and most American citizens don't know about international opinion or facts that have been accepted everywhere but in america.Internationally, the effect of the Iraq war has been well documented. It has radicalised a far larger number of people than would otherwise have been so affected and has distanced or alienated us from allied Islamic nations that will be essential to finally defeat terrorism. Even Pervez Musharraf, our own little pet dictator in Pakistan has started distancing himself from policy he once considered indispensable to his nation's global position. Inflaming the situation further would only make matters worse.
Bush doesn't have to be finished in 90 days (although he would probably expect to be, 3 months is actually plenty of time to hit all of his identified targets from the air and with long range cruise missiles). If america is committed to a conflict then congress would probably believe they have no choice but to continue and 'stay the course'. It is unlikely Bush would have any workable exit strategy and Americans hate the idea of pulling out of anywhere unless they can claim comprehensive victory.Yes, the President can take military action for up to 90 days without Congressional authority. However, even assuming none of the above reasoning I've outlined is true, a sustained bombardment period of 90 days just simply wouldn't be enough to get the job done. Even if our bombers were refueled around the clock, it's doubtful we'd be able to find or contain all of the nuclear sites. Moreover, once the bombing begins, a threshold will have been crossed, one that will spell the end for any potential of repairing relations with Iran. Strategically, legally and politically, 90 days just doesn't give the President anything worth using it for.
Try telling him what?Try telling that to Arlen Specter or the Senate Judiciary Committee. If they are utterly hostile to his plans for Gitmo, wiretapping and executive authority over a legal process, why do you think on the eve of a mid-term election they would blithely sign off executive authority for military action? The only bigger stick of dynamite Bush could drop is reinstating the draft.
The senate judiciary committee are opposed to those Bush programs, but that opposition has done nothing to stop Bush from continuing with them. Bush is still supportive of torturing people even though the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional, and the so called 'Compromise' the international media were talking about last week still allows Bush to continue kidnapping terrorist suspects and using 'non traditional interrogation techniques = torture)
The draft would be a bombshell, but he would just have to follow Herman Goering's tried and trusted method of Declaring a national emergency and then criticising opponents for their lack of patriotism. The American people will allow it to happen. I have talked to many americans about this. they simply don't believe protesting works and they have already grown accustomed to state repression at political protests.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Wow, this post is going to be too long. Oh well, suck it up politics fans! :eek:
Not even close if you look at it carefully. Iran is a potential nuclear threat, North Korea is an existing one. Iran will be a VITAL partner in ensuring that Iraq's Shia-dominated government remains stable- they are already facing significant threats from a Sunni insurgency- it would be utter child's play for a nation with the resources, regional expertise and know-how of the Revolutionary Guard to tip the country into civil war. The only reason they haven't yet is because they also want certain things from us- eg, Iraq not to interfere in Iranian politics, a piece of our huge trade pie, defence concessions and freedom to operate in international waters near sensitive trade routes (denied to them since 1979). It is therefore HUGELY advantageous to both us and them that we sit down, negotiate, and talk this through.Akrasia wrote:Priorities my good man. Iran is a much higher on Bush's wish list than even North Korea.
I didn't make it clear in my original post, but Iran is going to get a deterrent of some kind, that is pretty much inevitable. They are not a cash-strapped North Korea that we can simply buy off one piece at a time, nor are they a nation in need of a good-will manouevre to disarm willingly (a la South Africa or Caucasus republics).Also, he only has a short window to attack Iran before they develop a nuclear capability (well, it's 10 years according to most estimates, but if the democrats win the next 2 elections then by the time the republicans get back in they could already have a credible deterrent)
Consider things from an Iranian point of view for a moment. You have to the west, Israel with a nuclear deterrent. To the north, Turkey- for all intents and purposes a NATO country, from the Iranian position a European country and barely an Islamic one, sitting underneath NATO's nuclear defence shield (France, the UK, the USA). To the immediate west you have an occupied Iraq with WMD-capable warships, submarines and aircraft stationed there or thereabouts. To the east you have Afghanistan, also western-occupied with similar capabilities present. Further east you have Pakistan, a nuclear capable Sunni nation ruled by a unitary military dictatorship with a horribly suppressed Shia minority (and given the recent pogroms in Waziristan on behalf of the West to find bin Laden you could be forgiven for thinking, if you were an ayatollah that you could be next on Mad Musharraf's list). East of that still you have India, a majority Hindu nation, a secular power and also nuclear-capable on the border of Pakistan. The nearest ally to the east is China, an economic ally of convenience, only an ally because their economy somewhat depends on your oil which has to trickle out through tightly controlled trade routes by sea, or through occupied Afghanistan and its Caspian oil pipeline. To the west, the only thing that coudl be called an ally is Hezbollah, hardly a state power with much influence.
Seen that way, an Iranian nuclear deterrent seems not only inevitable, but from their point of view necessary. The main and over-riding challenge for us (mainly the US, but also the EU, Russia and China) is to convince the Iranians that their security can be provided without nuclear weapons and without humiliating concessions or a perception that they need us infidels to protect their Islamic Revolution's survival. If we can accomplish that, then we've done well, and as I said before, military action is the last thing we need to be contemplating when our government and theirs know that a nuclear-capable Iran is a virtual certainty- not exactly the best way to start off as friends is it?
It doesn't matter what *he* thinks any more, Congress has to approve his next budget or his sum total of supplementaries this political season will be nil. If he can't even pass a budget, I very much doubt he'll avoid a Congressional veto over any military intervention he's planning for Iran. Remember why Carter lost his second term- he lost Congress first and that lead to him losing the people. On the cuts themselves, he's already made some of those ill-conceived tax cuts permanent, but I haven't seen any evidence that he's planning more.Bush is planning billions of dollers worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. He clearly doesn't think he is short of spending money.
You're not talking about simple military degradation here, you're talking about bombing a country the size of the MidWest into dust just to get at their oil. Now if history has taught us anything it's that you can't bomb people into submission. Everything from the RAF's sputtering Handley-Paige bi-planes bombing, you guessed it, Iraq, in 1920- all the way through the Blitz, to Dresden, Yokohama and perhaps best of all Hanoi/Vietnam; all of this tells us that bombing alone accomplishes little save uniting the population against you.However, with the petro doller at risk from Iran's Euro oil Bourse, it could actually be cheaper for the U.S. economy to bomb them into submission than it would be to allow them kill their cash cow.
Plus, I very much doubt it would be "cheaper to bomb them into submission" either. A single week of sustained heavy bombing would be enough money to double our national reserve of crude. A month would be enough to *quadruple* our refined V6 gasoline stockpile. In other words, for less than a third of the cost a third of the time the President is allowed (90 days), we could achieve energy security without dropping a paperclip never mind an LGB. As an aside, even the Iraq war wasn't about oil. If we wanted Saddam's oil, all we had to do was promise to veto any and all resolutions and sanctions passed against him at the Security Council in exchange for him selling us cheap oil, or just giving it to us (which he offered to do, he made the same offer to France and Germany). For more information on the matter and how Saddam manipulated the oil for food programme to try and ensure he remained in power- it's worth checking this out: http://www.acepilots.com/unscam/archives/000744.html
I'm not sure how much you've read or heard about "No Child Left Behind", but the bill essentially provides a system of unified national standards for schools, something European education systems have taken for granted for so long. In fact, that's one of the main reasons our public secondary education is amongst the worst on average in the developed world, because every school district does as it sees fit with only a shrug and a nod at county authorities, barely a wink at state authorities and without even a glance at federal authorities. The bill is a *good* thing, one of the few good things President Bush has done for our country. In fact if I had to name 3 things he's done to make the world a better place, it would be No Child Left Behind (because I'm sure the world is tired of us dumb unedjumacated Americans), the $15 billion AIDS rescue package for Africa (Clinton talked a good deal but never dug deep for more than pocket change), and being the first *EVER* President in the history of our nation to call for a sovreign Palestinian state free within its own discrete national boundaries.That's where the 'No Child Left Behind act" comes in.
I don't see how it's impossible for *anyone* to graduate highschool. Sure it's harder if you're disadvantaged, but that has nothing to do with the bill in question. If what you're trying to say is that it's mainly kids from a disadvantaged background who are recruited to the military, then that's the price you pay for a volunteer army. I challenge you to show me a SINGLE volunteer force in the world that is mostly made up of the privileged or middle-class. I support the idea of a volunteer army unreservedly- serving and protecting your country should be a matter of choice, commitment and duty- not coercion.They're increasing the 'poor draft' by making it impossible for disadvantaged kids to graduate highschool
Speaking as an ex-serviceman and ex-infantryman, I can tell you from experience that the army takes kids from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds and gives them opportunities they might otherwise only dream of. College, a degree through the GI bill, traveling to other countries, a life of honor and dignity rather than rotting away in a suburb sniffing glue or eking out a life on minimum wage. Now it's easy to sit here at our computers and talk about "those poor exploited kids", but until you go to the suburbs of Detroit, or Huntsville, or Philly (I visited my mens' families a few times) and see the misery that these kids got themselves out of, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Think of the number of poor and disadvantaged kids that might well have turned to crime if they hadn't put on the uniform, or the number of them that would have found jobs that weren't outsourced to a dime a day corporate shell call center- and it's a lot harder to think of them as exploited.
In a free society, why shouldn't I be allowed to advertise whatever I want provided it isn't racist or againt a social interest? The restrictions against any type of of recruitment on a public school campus also apply to religious clubs of any kind, and also to any and all employment solicitation. They don't apply however, to sporting scouts or even to the ROTC (reserve officer training corps) programmes.while at the same time making it manditory for all public schools to allow Army Recruiters unprecedented access to their students.
So a kid can be scouted for a college team, have huge pressure heaped upon him to win a state championship, that same kid can join the ROTC programme and carry a rifle + hunt deer, join a political party, have junior membership of a trade union, but isn't allowed to even speak to an army recruiter on campus? That makes zero sense to me in a free society. Recruiters are allowed full access to schools in all European countries with a volunteer force. No one says much when British army recruiters from the Royal Irish Rangers walk into schools in Belfast during a career day for instance, yet the same thing is even proposed in the United States and people *overseas* get in a huff. You have to admit, from our point of view it does look a bit odd. Not to mention, your source for the ordo mandamus of recruiters in public schools is motherjones.com - hardly a newsworthy source I'm sure you'd agree? I hate questioning sources in good faith, but I'm sure you'd rightly put my a$s in the brig if I linked something from Fox News (aka Rupert Murdoch's "find a crowd and tell them what they want to hear" brand of news reporting).
Speaking now as a *cynical* ex-soldier, I'd be grateful if you could point me in the direction of an administration in our nation's *ENTIRE* history that was world famous for an *abundance* of long term military planningThat's why they're not planning a ground invasion. This is an administration world famous for it's lack of long term military planning. Sarcasm aside, to put it bluntly- despite the radical strategic failures at a DoD overseen by arguably the most incompetent SecDef we've had since Robert MacNamara, I'm assured by friends and former colleagues on the inside that it was no more than a blip. Bad apples, like great visionaries, only come along once in a while. I judge it next to impossible that Rumsfeld will be given anything like as much control over his department as he had pre-Iraq. You can see the marked difference in the way our forces are positioning in Iraq and with the levels of multi-lateral (albeit halting) involvement in Afghanistan.
You really don't know our country that well if you think any president would even think about mentioning the "D" word or that it's even on the table in all but the most dire of national survival emergencies. At a political level, it's dynamite. At a strategic level, it won't work- a coerced force will *never* fight as hard or as long as a well-trained volunteer army. Compare WWII and Vietnam- all the American GIs in WWII were volunteers. To this day the people they liberated speak with pride, joy and gratitude of the young men who volunteered to travel half-way around the world to fight against Axis oppression. Now look at Vietnam in comparison- a drafted volunteer force- ill-trained and under-equipped, and hamstrung politically/strategically, and the differences couldn't be clearer. I'm not talking about the success or failure of the war but the way in which it was fought and remembered. To this day, atrocities like Mai Lai, Agent Orange, mustard gas, napalm and the Phoenix programme are remembered with fear, aversion and for many Americans, lasting shame. A large part of the disaffection of those who lived through the Vietnam era and fought in it, stems from the fact that they were coerced to go and fight.They are over optimistic about their military ability in the short term, and they can always rely on their last resort, the draft, if things get too hairy.
You really think so? I was back home when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. CBS's 60 minutes, the New Yorker's Seymour Hirsch and the Washington Post were fighting tooth and nail to get the story on the air and in print as quickly as possible. The post-9/11 honeymoon truly ended there- all news organizations were asked to suppress this and countless other scandalous stories- if they had complied, you can be sure we'd never have heard a peep about Abu Ghraib. Or indeed about domestic surveillance/wiretapping, or Harriet Myer's neat little stich-up for the Supreme Court nomination, or the whole Scooter Libby + Valerie Plame incident either. In all those cases our media have performed admirably well in exposing scandal and the truth, and the US media has a better history than any I can think of in terms of taking in whistle-blowers and being willing to print/broadcast what they say.Don't worry about bad PR, the U.S. media will play along as usual.
Now you're going off the rails a bit. Iraq was sold as a quick, cheap and relatively painless way to rid ourselves of a tyrant that was a threat to us, with minimal loss of life and a minimal cost of reconstruction paid for by their own oil production. To say that our entire defence policy rests on controlling people through violence is just absurd. Our military spends more on humanitarian assistance than the next ten countries do COMBINED. When the tidal wives hit Aceh it was Marine Force Evac helicopters that took people to safety and brought in more than 2/3 of the vital supplies. It was US Army engineers that built shelters for more than 50,000 displaced persons in the region and US aid money that fed and clothed many of those affected. If we wanted to control the region with violence, what better opportunity would we have to establish bases, good forward operating bases in SouthEast Asia? It's been a holy grail of the PACFLT (our pacific fleet) ever since the Phillipines made us close Subic Bay and the Japanese told us to get out of Okinawa. Why pass up such a golden opportunity if as you say, our defence policy rests on controlling people through violence?I know that, You know that, every sane person in the military knows that, But the American government have been operating on the principle that they can control everything with violence for the last 6 years.
The only thing that would provoke a nuclear response would be an attack in kind by WMDs. We, like the Israelis have a no first-use policy, the only two countries in the world to have put that policy in writing. If what you say is true then not only would we be completely scrapping our MidEast diplomatic protocols, but all of our strategic nuclear ones as well. That assertion is dangerously close to a conspiracy theory.They are gambling, with other people's lives, that the Iranian regime wouldn't escalate the war beyond it's own borders because to do so might invoke the nuclear wrath of Israel or the United States.
Nothing wrong with supporting your troops, no matter how spotted the cause. Supporting your troops and supporting the policy or government that sent them are two hugely different things. 94% of the American public currently support our troops, yet only 31% support the cause they fight for. For an indoctrinated sheep-like public(of which I am a member), I think that those poll-figures show that remarkably, the much maligned American public have drawn a subtle distinction between the two. I very much doubt you'd find the same distinction let's say...for the UDF or IRA if you polled *their* supporters. If, heaven forbid, there was another attack and it was on Iran- then of course we'll support our troops- their duty forbids them from questioning their task and they will be acting in our name and risking their lives- the least we can do is support them. That's not to say the government would survive though.Wag the dog. the American voting public are about as indoctrinated as any people in the world. As soon as the bombs start to fall the 'Support our troops' banners will begin to wave.
On the contrary, they have a hell of a lot to lose. Read my last post again- subpoena power is HUGE. The reason that we've heard so little about the inner workings of the failing policies we're talking about is because the Republican Congress is choosing NOT to subpoena documents or submissions that would undermine their party's president or make them look bad for putting their name to things such as Rumsfeld's pre-emptive strike doctrine, or Alberto Gonzales' torture memo. John McCain aside, no Republican senator has ever publicly commented about their position on these matters, but it's all been documented and sealed at the relevant civil departments. A Democratic Congress would surely subpoena the documents, files and persons in abundance to try and embarass the unholy hell out of the Republicans.As it stands, the republicans are looking at losing control of the House anyway, so they have very little to lose.
They don't just have a lot to lose, they have a HELL of a lot to lose. A sexual indiscretion and a moment of infidelity was nearly enough to get Clinton on the track to impeachment with subpoena power. What do you honestly think the Special Prosecutor's Office is going to do when presented with the CIA's PDB on Osama bin Laden, or the Scooter Libby leak, or the wiretapping memos, or the minuted meeting with the Saudi ambassador being informed of the Iraq invasion before SecState Colin Powell was ever informed? I'm not talking about a book being published, or leaked bits and pieces + speculation in the newspapers, I'm talking about hard documented evidence of all these events and their inevitable conclusions. Still think they have nothing to lose?
A handful of seats seperate the parties in the Senate, and an even smaller percentage seperate them in the House. Roughly a 2.5% swing in seats is needed to carry the House, and about 4% to carry the Senate. Even a 95% re-election rate would mean that Congress could easily change hands with a substantive majority(by the way, in american politics, the re-election rate is consistantly above 90% for congress, and above 80% for senators. So the individual politicians are unlikely to be too worried about their own jobs being put at risk.
I'm glad you mentioned that poll, because I was in LA at the time and I remember reading it in the LAT it quite clearly. The article you quote utterly misrepresents the LA Times/Bloomberg polling question. The question put to the American public was- "If Iran developed nuclear weapons, would you favour military intervention?" Given that only 57% said yes, I'd say that shows remarkable restraint. If a rogue state within easy range possessed WMD, I daresay you might just support military intervention also.Are you sure a war against Iran would be unpopular from the start? In american politics, all wars start out as popular, and then most of them become unpopular when the truth starts to filter through to the public. Polls carried out this year indicated that 6 out of 10 americans favoured military intervention against Iran
Again, the fact that the author of the article misrepresented the poll deliberately doesn't suprise me because of the source. A well known anti-globalization site, and an article written by an Egyptian national, Ghali Hassan who consults for Al-Jazeera television from Australia, also a well-documented apologist for Saddam Hussein. Moreover, the website itself is filled with bias and left-wing bile, not to mention conspiracy theories, some of which doubt Osama bin Laden's very involvement with Al Qaeda and 9/11 (despite the fact he's ADMITTED as much). Glance if you would at the left panel of the page, and you will see "US War Agenda" in the list of links. It reminded me of Fox News' "Terrorist Watch" button they had on their site a while back- even *they* had the decency to take that down when they realized you can only be so biased and sell your product.
If our media has been unflinching about Haditha, Abu Ghraib, Bagram Airbase and other stories that portray our troops (sometimes unfairly in that it gives the impression all soldiers behave this way)- then I very much dobut they'll go any easier if yet another conflict is initiated.And if the entire U.S. media were in support of an invasion, such public support would almost certainly be sustained. But even if the Public was against an attack, that wouldn't stop the government from proceeding. In the Iraq war, No member of the Coalition other than america or Israel had public support above 11% for participation.
On the popularity question, it matters now because it's an election year. 2006 midterms, 2007 state elections, 2008 the presidential race. There's no escaping popular opinion during an election.
If we cared nothing for the opinion of the international community, we'd just de-fund the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and any one of a half-dozen super-state structures that only run because we fund and host most of it. We spend more on international obligations and super-state structures than the entire EU government structure budget + the Council of Europe budget put together. I doubt we'd do any of it if our government truly cared nothing for what others thought. Some Americans do indeed think that this is a big fat waste of money. If billions of your taxpayer's money was being thrown at superstate structures and international aid while New Orleans drowned, you might occasionally wonder from time to time yourself! As it happens, a majority of Americans support the idea, and it doesn't look like we're going to be pulling the plug, despite the odd paradox like Katrina's aftermath.That is why Internationally an American attack against Iran would be Extremely unpopular. But Bush doesn't care about what the international community thinks, and most American citizens don't know about international opinion or facts that have been accepted everywhere but in america.
What's your source for this? Unless you used to be a BDA or TargSpec in a national airforce somewhere of course... That is wholly inaccurate. The sustained Desert Shield bombing campaign lasted over 60 days from start to finish, and that was just to degrade the military capability of Iraq. Iran is a larger, more densely populated country and it certainly wouldn't just be military targets being struck if the goal was to shut down the nation's power-grid. You're talking about every single oil-fired power-plant, every potential large power-structure capable of handling the load on multiple nuclear reactors, to say nothing of the risk of fall-out and all hell breaking loose. That's why all this "war with Iran" nonsense is just that- nonsense.Bush doesn't have to be finished in 90 days (although he would probably expect to be, 3 months is actually plenty of time to hit all of his identified targets from the air and with long range cruise missiles)
If that were true you wouldn't have Joe Biden and Jack Murtha calling loudly for a pull-out or redeployment of our forces from Iraq. Biden heads the Foreign Relations committee, Murtha is the senior-most member of the House Armed Services Committee, arguably the most powerful defence commitee on the Hill. "Staying the course" is something we've honestly heard quite enough of, at least those of us old enough to remember having heard that crap before Iraq :PIf america is committed to a conflict then congress would probably believe they have no choice but to continue and 'stay the course'.
Even though this bombing idea is entirely theoretical, even if it did go ahead...Aerial bombardment by definition requires no exit strategy, that's the point of air power. So the need to "pull out" never arises. As for not pulling out of a place without being victorious, it's worth remembering that part of the reason Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 is that they believed that we were vulnerable and didn't have the stomach for a long fight. In one of their training manuals they cite Mogadishu and our withdrawal from there, in another they talked about our "feeble" responses to the attacks on the USS Cole and on our embassies in Africa. The bitter fact of the matter is that while pulling out or having an exit strategy is meaningless when talking about a bombing campaign, the stark truth is that retreat is not an option when dealing with true extremists of this type. It is imperative that we kill or capture their leadership and cut away their grass-roots support with hearts and minds. Part 1 is going excellently, our problem is part 2- ie, winning hearts and minds with ideas rather than physically removing them with cluster bombs.It is unlikely Bush would have any workable exit strategy and Americans hate the idea of pulling out of anywhere unless they can claim comprehensive victory.
Try telling him the President can simply invent legal reasons for military action and see what he says :P Bear in mind, most countries don't even require a vote in Parliament before declaring war. In the UK and Ireland, declaring war is a prerogative power exercised by the executive. In other words, Tony Blair's vote on the war was an utter sham, he could have done it anyway without even asking Parliament. The same is true of any country with elements of the Westminster model. No president has attempted to expand the powers of the executive this much in the last century, and Arlen Specter is no one's fool- he's famously said that as a lawyer he serves the Constitution first, the Senate second, and his party third.Try telling him what?
Of course the oppostion (Dems) haven't done anything Akrasia, they're not in power (yet). His own party however, have done a hell of a lot to hinder him- the recent detention bill was watered down to almost nothing because of rebellion within the Republican party, an organization known for its iron-clad discipline. That tells me that our system, however fraught, is slowly but surely getting the job done.The senate judiciary committee are opposed to those Bush programs, but that opposition has done nothing to stop Bush from continuing with them.
Whether or not he personally supports torture is of no consequence if the Supreme Court has ruled against it. More to the point, I haven't found a statement yet where he explicitly endorses torture. Granted, bellicose members of his cabinet have tried to find loopholes here and there, but nothing that would stand up in court. We are a nation of laws first and foremost, it is inconceivable that a President would contravene a Supreme Court ruling, I doubt I'll ever live to see it happen.Bush is still supportive of torturing people even though the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional, and the so called 'Compromise' the international media were talking about last week still allows Bush to continue kidnapping terrorist suspects and using 'non traditional interrogation techniques = torture)
As for kidnapping terrorist suspects- if you truly believe our intelligence services are the only ones doing this, that's a naive point of view to take. The reality is that arrest and trial within a legal framework is impossible if you want to protect your sources and methods. This is why in the UK wiretap evidence is not admissible in court- not to protect the accused, but to protect the sources that put him in the dock. Intelligence services by and large, operate outside normal legal frameworks, much of their work is plausibly deniable or simply undetectable. Where I agree with you is that a due process of law needs to be adhered to, which is where this President has gone so badly wrong.
This isn't 1930s Germany, there hasn't been a fire in the Reichstag and we aren't on the brink of desolation or desperation. There is exploitation of fear to achieve wider political goals, but if you can find me a country whose government doesn't exploit the public's fears to expand its authority, let me know, I want to move there. As far as I know, such a place does not exist- the best we can do is to observe facts for ourselves and come to our own conclusions, and thank our lucky stars that we live in a free society where we are allowed to do so.The draft would be a bombshell, but he would just have to follow Herman Goering's tried and trusted method of Declaring a national emergency and then criticising opponents for their lack of patriotism.
Many Americans are filled with apathy, but that's no different to most other places. If you look at the numbers, we have larger turnout over our election cycles than all but a handful of European countries. Of course popular protest doesn't work unless it's on a huge scale. A couple hundred thugs throwing petrol bombs at an anti-globalization rally isn't going to halt globalization. If however, those self-same thugs got jobs, incomes and engaged in the political process, that's a kind of protest that *does* yield results. As for state repression at political protests, I've been to several, and the only "repression" I've seen is where the authorities have been forced to step in to control violent elements in the crowd. I'd be careful about using the phrase "state repression" too- the right to protest in public is better protected in constitutional law in the United States than in any other country, including the UK and Ireland.The American people will allow it to happen. I have talked to many americans about this. they simply don't believe protesting works and they have already grown accustomed to state repression at political protests.
The only relatively unfettered right protected by the European Convention of Human Rights are the rights to be free from torture and freedom of expression. Freedom of association and assembly are actually far more tightly controlled by legislation/common law in both the UK *and* Ireland. It's the reason why we still haven't been able to ban the American Nazi Party, the KKK or Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, and the UK is able to ban groups like Combat 18, White Wolves and Al-Mujahirun. Granted some of our rights are eroding, but a temporary erosion of rights is the norm in times of crisis.
If however, you think we'll simply allow another war to happen, you couldn't be more wrong- it is strategically, politically and economically unworkable and we won't support it. A simple series of mistruths and political manipulation was enough for us to demand Nixon's resignation as head of state, government and of the armed services. I doubt you could find me a British sovreign or an Irish President that abdicated or resigned unless they were forced to by procedure rather than their people.
To conclude, all of this is just theoretical mumbo to be honest. We're rattling our sabers by repositioning a few troops, Ahmedinejad is mouthing off here and there, but that's all for show too. He has no real power in Iran, the political structure of Iran is largely a cypher- real power is wielded by a council of ayatollahs who broadly dictate the policy ground he occupies, he's just reading from the playbook he's been given. Which is to stall, negotiate and delay until he's negotiating from a position of greater strength. Our role simply seems to be trying to resolve this diplomatically, and when (not if) they go nuclear, we'll already have started a constructive dialogue and have ourselves positioned to deal the next hand in a game where Iran's joined the nuke club.well, I hope you guys are right. But if you are, how do you explain this "Prepare to deploy Orders" Command? And what does america need Minesweepers and aircraft carriers in the persian Gulf for?
As for why we need forces in the region- if Iraq, the instability of the Middle East and other problems weren't reason enough, there simply isn't another nation that has the resources to provide a credible deterrent in the region. The last time we down-graded our fleet deployments, it emboldened Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. The last time we did the same for PACFLT, North Korea tested a missile. The sad truth is, without a military presence capable of giving nations a moment of serious pause, the stability many regions enjoy would rapidly degrade.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Frederico wrote:If there is such a thing as "winning" internet arguments, I think Bob would take the biscuit.. Bob that is some post, I couldn't make it all the way through, good points but dear god just too long.
And to make it worse, the Boards: The Gathering card has gone missing
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement