141 replies to this topic

[Triskele]

http://www.washingto...5772.php?page=1\


Note this guy's credentials at the bottom of the page.  This is a bit lengthy, but it's well worth it.

It seems like a great deconstruction of some of the pro-war arguments that we are hearing and attempts to respond to them in kind.  Whether you agree with this writer's conclusions on how great all of these supposed threats are, I think that it's undeniable that most of the media talk has just been bluster and political BS with far too little analysis of what the Iranian bomb really means and what strikes from Israel or the US would actually mean.  Those are the things we should be debating to death; not just repeating things like "Iran getting the bomb is unacceptable."

Enjoy and discuss.

[Twelve Angry Nonmen]

5 pages? ARe yo ucraczzzzys.

[IheartTesla]

Well, I like the part where he states that Iran does not face existential threats the way Pakistan did, and hence their behavior will be not be fundamentally altered as a result of obtaining the bomb.

However, since I skimmed the article, I missed whether he talked about the reasons for Iran obtaining the bomb. I think its an important question. To bring it back to India-Pakistan, the reason India went for it wasnt so much for self protection (although that was important), but for entry into the League of Extraordinary Nations. I know Madeline Albright scoffed at such reasons in the 90s, but damned if they werent treated with more respect after that.

I suspect there might be some of that at play here.

[The Anti-Targ]

The USA didn't bomb the hell out of Nth Korea when they got da Bomb. And they are a way more scary lot than Iran.

Funny I was just reading an article (sorry can;t find the link any more) where Netanyahu is quoted as saying Israel needs to be the master of it's own fate, and it needs to be able to defend itself by itself. Conveniently both statements forget that fact that US aid helped and continues to help Israel pursue its chosen fate, and its ability to defend itself. If nothing else I think that buys the USA the right to tell Israel whether it can push the big red button or not. If israel actually attempts to destry Iran's Nuclear infrastructure that will set off a fire storm, and the USA will have no choice but to commit men, machinery and money to help Israel defend itself.

If the USA said to Israel (which it never will): "You started it against our express wishes, so you're on your own on this one." Israel would soon find itself in a rather dire situation.

Bush couldn't stop Nth Korea, Obama won't be able to stop Iran.

I'd be less worried about Iran actually lobbing a Nuke at Israel the USA or any other American ally, than I would be that terror groups have a dirty bomb in their toolkit right now. Uranium sufficiently enriched for electricity generation purposes puts out enough radiation to make a pretty scary dirty bomb.

I'm really not worried about Iran launching a nuke, except in retailiation to a direct attack on its sovereign turf. Even then, Iran knows the response to launching a nukular strike would be swift and terrible. I don't think the Iranian leaders are crazy enough to think there's a positive cost-benefit to being the initiatior of a nuclear exchange.

[Ser Robin Hill]

From my viewpoint, the best scenario is one where Israel lunches a pre-emptive strike, destroys Iran's nuclear capability and absolutely no other country gets involved, allowing the two to neutralize each other.  Unfortunately, even I know the "no other country gets involved" part will never work.

[snake]

It was a well reasoned article but not the first I've seen putting forward those ideas.  Pepe Escobar(who is a bit out there) has been saying these things for quite a while now.  Personally I like Robert Grenier's take on things and he pretty much comes to the same conclusions, although he seems to think that some sort of conflict is starting to look inevitable.  Here's his latest thoughts on that.  The Asia Times also has several decent articles that  discuss how foolish the talk of bombing Iran is.  Here is one by M K Bhadrakumar that basically states that Obama knows what needs to be done to engage Iran but is constrained by allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel plus domestic politics.

The problem lies in Western media.  I find they are not concerned with fair and balanced reporting but with sensationalism.  All you have to do is look at what they say about what's going on in Russia to know that they are not often concerned with facts and are willing to exaggerate things in order to make headlines.

[mor2]

The Sinister Kid, on 05 March 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

http://www.washingto...5772.php?page=1\


Note this guy's credentials at the bottom of the page.  This is a bit lengthy, but it's well worth it.

It seems like a great deconstruction of some of the pro-war arguments that we are hearing and attempts to respond to them in kind.  Whether you agree with this writer's conclusions on how great all of these supposed threats are, I think that it's undeniable that most of the media talk has just been bluster and political BS with far too little analysis of what the Iranian bomb really means and what strikes from Israel or the US would actually mean.  Those are the things we should be debating to death; not just repeating things like "Iran getting the bomb is unacceptable."

Enjoy and discuss.

maybe it so great, but after reading half through the first page I am not going to continue reading it, I see such articles almost every week and usually they are far more professional and not some story time.

[mor2]

snake, on 05 March 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

The problem lies in Western media.  I find they are not concerned with fair and balanced reporting but with sensationalism.  All you have to do is look at what they say about what's going on in Russia to know that they are not often concerned with facts and are willing to exaggerate things in order to make headlines.

I too think that news, has become too sensationalized, but I hope that you dont try imply that none western media is in anyway better or as balanced.

[Serious Callers Only]

The Anti-Targ, on 05 March 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

The USA didn't bomb the hell out of Nth Korea when they got da Bomb. And they are a way more scary lot than Iran.

That's exactly why they didn't bomb them.

[snake]

mor2, on 05 March 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

I too think that news, has become too sensationalized, but I hope that you dont try imply that none western media is in anyway better or as balanced.

It depends on the story.  I find that Western media seem to have a political agenda with regards to certain countries or topics and they are far from fair or balanced when reporting on them.

[mor2]

snake, on 05 March 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

It depends on the story.  I find that Western media seem to have a political agenda with regards to certain countries or topics and they are far from fair or balanced when reporting on them.

sure they all have the same agenda, more rating... but if you think that (taking your example) russia and it's state nationalized media (who iirc was given few guide lines on what to report) dont have agenda or in anyway more balanced, than you probably live there. because to the rest of us russia is still seem to be stuck in the cold war.

Edited by mor2, 05 March 2012 - 10:35 PM.

[Horza]

Serious Callers Only, on 05 March 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

That's exactly why they didn't bomb them.

Eh, more that there's just no upside to another Korean war, for the US, South Korea or China.

[snake]

mor2, on 05 March 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

sure they all have the same agenda, more rating... but if you think that (taking your example) russia and it's state nationalized media (who iirc was given few guide lines on what to report) dont have agenda or in anyway more balanced then you probably live there. because to the rest of us russia is still seem to be stuck in the cold war.

I'm not talking about Russian media.  But lets not derail this thread by getting into a discussion about media and Russia.  This is about Iran and the misconceptions surrounding the actual threat they pose to their neighbours and the world.

[Angeleyes]

The Anti-Targ, on 05 March 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

I'd be less worried about Iran actually lobbing a Nuke at Israel the USA or any other American ally, than I would be that terror groups have a dirty bomb in their toolkit right now. Uranium sufficiently enriched for electricity generation purposes puts out enough radiation to make a pretty scary dirty bomb.

Scary, but not inherently dangerous.  Just evacuate the area and commence clean up.  Uranium sufficiently enriched for nuclear reaction is just not much of a health concern.  It will be throwing neutrons out there, but those mostly pass harmlessly through humans because they are uncharged and we just aren't dense enough to warrant their affection.  I mean in the Good Ol Days couples in the Western US could go out to the desert and pan for Uranium to sell to the US Government like Aluminum prospectors.

Now put that same Uranium in a reactor, take it out 2 years later and blow it up, and you'll start to be worried about long term damages.

[mor2]

snake, on 05 March 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

I'm not talking about Russian media.  But lets not derail this thread by getting into a discussion about media and Russia.  This is about Iran and the misconceptions surrounding the actual threat they pose to their neighbours and the world.

I am ok with it, as long as you bring facts and your conclusion, rather than going about "western media". So, what are the supposed misconception that we are discussing?

[The Anti-Targ]

Serious Callers Only, on 05 March 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

That's exactly why they didn't bomb them.

Perhaps I should have said before they got the bomb, but of course Nth Korea got the bomb when America wasn't really paying attention.

So, Iran did do it all wrong. They should have taken a lesson from Nth Korea and done it while America wasn't looking. That and they clearly need to act more crazy, like North Korea.

Obama is also hamstrung by the fact that they can't hope to get a resolution through the UN allowing pre-emptive military action (China might only abstain, but Russia will veto their way to an Iranian nuke I'm prettty sure). If he goes in without a UN military mandate he's going to be committing a worse crime against international law than Bush jnr did with his Iraq fig leaf. Obama would find himself with arrest warrants in more countries than Bush jnr, which would be a turn up for the books.

Israel, on the other hand, routinely thumbs its nose at international law, so they are more than capable of going pre-emptive without anyone's approval, even the USA's; knowing that the USA has their back and will veto any counter-resolutions in the Security Council. Netanyahu might find he has arrest warrants out on him in most continental EU countries, but he would care about that about as much as he would care about an arrest warrant for him in Iran itself.

End of the day, if Iran wants the bomb, they will get the bomb. Anything the US and Israel try to do militarily to prevent it will simply harden their resolve, and shorten the timeframe. If iran really doesn't have ambitions towards the bomb (unlikely IMO, but not every nation intent on using nuclear energy is also intent on having the bomb so it's possible) then Israel and the USA's actions are certainly a major incentive for getting one ASAP, to shut them the hell up, or at least move the animosity to a different, and more comfortable, level for Iran.

[snake]

mor2, on 05 March 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

I am ok with it, as long as you bring facts and your conclusion, rather than going about "western media". So, what are the supposed misconception that we are discussing?

It was laid out quite nicely in the article in the article Tiskele/The Sinister Kid had linked too.  There is no hard evidence that Iran is trying to get a bomb and even if they were, there is no evidence that the first thing they would do is use it.  They are often called irrational and fanatics but there actions for the most part have shown that to be false as well.  The regime in charge is worried more about holding on to power rather than starting wars that would end with their ruinous defeat.  So they can be counted upon to act in their own best interests.  Which would certainly mean not starting any direct conflict with Israel or the US.

[Roose Bolton's Pet Leech]

Iran will not bomb Israel for the very simple reason that Israel has a forty year head start in the development of nuclear weaponry. At most, Iran wants to achieve a Middle-Eastern MAD.

[The Anti-Targ]

Angeleyes, on 05 March 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Scary, but not inherently dangerous.  Just evacuate the area and commence clean up.  Uranium sufficiently enriched for nuclear reaction is just not much of a health concern.  It will be throwing neutrons out there, but those mostly pass harmlessly through humans because they are uncharged and we just aren't dense enough to warrant their affection.  I mean in the Good Ol Days couples in the Western US could go out to the desert and pan for Uranium to sell to the US Government like Aluminum prospectors.

Now put that same Uranium in a reactor, take it out 2 years later and blow it up, and you'll start to be worried about long term damages.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good terror campaign. We all know that if a terror group set off a dirty bomb it would send the public into a crazy spin, even if in reality the dirty bomb doesn't create the sort of radioactive contamination people think it would. And no one will believe the government or nukular experts when they say "trust us, there's really nothing to worry about, we'll clean up the area and then you can go about your business like nothing happened". everyone knows the govenrment will be trying to cover up how bad it really is.

[Commodore]

Bibi at AIPAC tonight

setting the stage for bombing Iran