Iran's Nuclear Plans

[Undertoad]

By war do you mean war, or war-war?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

By war do you mean war, or war-war?

War and Peace. Maybe I should recommend the book? Then Netanyahu would be too busy reading. Too busy to make more enemies for Israel.

[Undertoad]

No I mean there are certainly various degrees of "war" today. So, Bosnian war: was NATO's introduction justified, in your view?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

So, Bosnian war: was NATO's introduction justified, in your view?

Did we really go to war? First, what is the purpose of any war? To force the entire conflict back to a negotiation table. From earliest recorded history, that has always been the only purpose of war.

Example: how did Clinton finally step in and solve it? Dayton Accords. Milosevik was *invited* to a negotiation table in Dayton Ohio. He refused. And was *invited* again.

Clinton and Holbrook understood the strategic objective - get to the peace table. Milosevik was told he could not leave Dayton until a settlement was negotiated. Yes, the US kidnapped Milosevik. Who then negotiated himself out of a job so to leave Dayton.

Second, Bosnia was Europe's responsiblity. Europe failed. Once the massacres had been too often, too massive, and too extreme (Srebrenica, et al) then Clinton stepped in. The smoking gun was obvious. Only then was the British/French Rapid Reaction Force (and others) allowed to do their job. Clinton, et al focused only on the purpose - a peace table. He achieved a major victory using near zero military.

In WWII, mankind massacred millions to get to the peace table. People were massacred for only one purpose. To take the conflict back to a peace table. Notice how many had so little respect for human life. Welcome to reality. Only getting to the negotiation matters. If tens of millions must be masscred, then so be it.

Clinton (and smarter advisers) routinely solved wars without paying that price. Haiti. A near nuclear war between India and Pakistan. He even empowered the almost solved standoff on the Korean pennisula. And many lesser disagreements solved by negotiating long before any military action was even discussed. By solving problems using near zero military deployments. Go directly to the peace table by spending so little and never forgetting what really matters.

Why is that peace table impossible in the Middle East? Every time a negotiation approaches a conclusion, Likud (the enemy of peace) changes conditions or fails to meet commitments. Likud clearly does not want peace. As demonstrated by even their calling for the assassination of Rabin - and getting it. Likud was quite clear. The peace settlement between Israel and Egypt is considered, by Likud, a major defeat. Never again: their attitude.

Third - back to the point. This same Likud would attack Iran without any hope of a negotiated settlement? Any war that does not seek a settlement at the peace table quickly identifies fools. But then Likud is a perfect example of wacko extremists.

Only viable solution to Iran's nuclear weapons is a negotiated settlement. If military is used as Israel wants, then the only possible solution is an complete invasion of Iran. Boots must be on the ground. If Israel does not want that, then any Israeli attack is only a classic fool's errand. War fought for no purpose. Same Israeli extremists made the same mistake in Lebanon. Will they ever learn?

Only solution with Iran means a negotiated settlement. No other solution exists. So how does the world get Iran to that table? No other question is relevant.

Curiously, the powers that be in Iran are even detaining many of Ahmadinejad's people. Smarter negotiators might find a solution in that inconsistency.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

So, Bosnian war: was NATO's introduction justified, in your view?

The previous reply was from today's perspective. Let's take another perspective. Let's return to what I said back when. I did not believe a smoking gun yet existed. I worried that not enough people had yet died. Clinton knew better. If I remember correctly, he made that decision on 21 July 1996. History confirms how correct he was. A major victory achieved with near zero military action. Clinton and his people were masters of this.

[Undertoad]

What was the smoking gun in Bosnia?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

What was the smoking gun in Bosnia?

Bosnia was a difficult one to understand, for me. They have a LONG history between cultures and religious groups, there. If you don't have a good grasp of the history of the area, going back several hundred years, then you don't know enough to really understand the problem/s.

As an outsider, and not up on all that history, it seemed the leaders lead their groups toward intolerance and violence. Once THAT train of thought got rolling, it gained a lot of momentum. It's a great shame that it lead to war, and to the targeted killing of unarmed civilians.

Moving down the path, nations sometimes take a mis-step and wind up in the ditch on the side of the road. Integration of cultural/racial/religious groups within the nation, has always been a difficult task for countries to complete, without a civil war.

[ZenGum]

Adak, your statements about the amount of money spent on clean energy, and the amount of power it can produce, are as wrong as your one-sided views of the middle east.

I don't mind.

But for the love of all that is decent, stop using apostrophes with plurals.

Please, think of the children.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Adak, your statements about the amount of money spent on clean energy, and the amount of power it can produce, are as wrong as your one-sided views of the middle east.

I don't mind.

But for the love of all that is decent, stop using apostrophes with plurals.

Please, think of the children.

Yeah, a bad habit I've picked up somewhere along the way. Careful about becoming a grammar Nazi, however!

We've put a huge amount of money into green energy projects. Our national green energy output as a percentage, has increased by about 2-3 %, over a space of a decade.

What really ticks me off about the liberals on this, is that when we DO have a great solar energy project ready to go, they instantly sue to have it stopped, because (in this case), it might impact the desert tortoise!

First, if you can't put a solar energy farm in the Mojave desert (which is practically devoid of wildlife), then WHERE are we going to put them? It is one of the sunniest area's in the entire country.

Second, there is no confirmation that the area proposed even has ONE desert tortoise in it.

Third, the desert tortoise is not an endangered animal, and might benefit from having some shade, under the solar arrays. This is unknown.

But we know the solar project, is stopped! Hooray for the liberals.

Since I haven't yet expressed my views on much of the Middle East, it is impossible for you to say that they are one-sided.
I believe you'll be surprised at how "un one-sided", they really are, once you read them.

The Liberty was impossible to accept as an accident, but I do believe it was criminal on our part to send in a "spy" ship so close to another country, without anything protecting it. We had another intelligence ship seized off the coast of North Korea. Same problem! Stupid Admiral/President, somewhere in Washington. I hope they learned something from these incidents.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

What really ticks me off about the liberals on this, is that when we DO have a great solar energy project ready to go, they instantly sue to have it stopped, because (in this case), it might impact the desert tortoise!

How the fuck do you turn the turtle issue with the government into a "liberal" problem?

First, if you can't put a solar energy farm in the Mojave desert (which is practically devoid of wildlife), then WHERE are we going to put them? It is one of the sunniest area's in the entire country.

I agree this turtle thing is overblown, and not where our priority should be.

Second, there is no confirmation that the area proposed even has ONE desert tortoise in it.

Sigh, and you were doing so well.

At Ivanpah today, 166 adult and juvenile tortoises have been collected and moved to a nine-acre holding facility. The objective is to release them into the "wild," on the other side of the fence from the solar facility.

Third, the desert tortoise is not an endangered animal, and might benefit from having some shade, under the solar arrays. This is unknown.

You're right, not endangered.

The subheadline on an earlier online version of this article erred in describing the desert tortoises as "endangered creatures." As the article notes, the species is classified as threatened.

Both sides knew they were there and negotiated how to work around that from the gitgo, as the dune buggys had already been chased out. It turned out there is a shitload more of them than anyone thought, but a bunch have been run over by trucks and killed by bulldozers.

But we know the solar project, is stopped! Hooray for the liberals.

[Reagan] Now there you go again[/reagan] It ain't liberals, son, get your facts straight.

The Liberty was impossible to accept as an accident, but I do believe it was criminal on our part to send in a "spy" ship so close to another country, without anything protecting it. We had another intelligence ship seized off the coast of North Korea. Same problem! Stupid Admiral/President, somewhere in Washington. I hope they learned something from these incidents.

Would you suggest that our "James Bonds" each take a platoon of Marines with them on missions?
A freighter, clearly flagged American, in international waters, is not fair game. They are no better than the Somali pirates. I've read testimony that they knew it was American, saying so over the radio, at least very shortly after the first attack, but continued to attack, concentrating on the communications antennae.

No, this was a blatant and deliberate attack on the USA, but we still give them $Billions every year, put up with their military/industrial espionage/theft,
and them acting like petulant teenagers. I think they need a time out.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

How the fuck do you turn the turtle issue with the government into a "liberal" problem?

I agree this turtle thing is overblown, and not where our priority should be.
Sigh, and you were doing so well.

The hard core conservation groups are NOT far-left liberal groups? They haven't been anything BUT far left liberal groups, for decades. They didn't start out that way, but they have attracted the hard core lefties, and now they own them.
[quote]
You're right, not endangered. Both sides knew they were there and negotiated how to work around that from the gitgo, as the dune buggys had already been chased out. It turned out there is a shitload more of them than anyone thought, but a bunch have been run over by trucks and killed by bulldozers.

[Reagan] Now there you go again[/reagan] It ain't liberals, son, get your facts straight.

Well son, it's damn sure not the conservatives, stopping a much needed multi-million dollar project to bring in more electrical power!

Would you suggest that our "James Bonds" each take a platoon of Marines with them on missions?
A freighter, clearly flagged American, in international waters, is not fair game. They are no better than the Somali pirates. I've read testimony that they knew it was American, saying so over the radio, at least very shortly after the first attack, but continued to attack, concentrating on the communications antennae.

No, this was a blatant and deliberate attack on the USA, but we still give them $Billions every year, put up with their military/industrial espionage/theft,
and them acting like petulant teenagers. I think they need a time out.

I know our spy friends will disagree, but I believe we do NOT need to have close in signal analysis done for Israel, especially when it is on a war footing.

I also don't believe we need to have close in signal analysis done by "freighters", unprotected. Marines? No, I was thinking a cruiser, a sub, and a couple of destroyers, should do the trick.

Ships are closely tracked, and that includes freighters. The idea that a "freighter", will be able to work covertly, is laughable.

If it has a great cover story, like the old Glomar Explorer did when it grabbed part of a sunken Russian sub in a CIA op, then MAYBE if it stays far from the coast, and most of the work is done beneath the waves.

Cultural Jews are typically petulant, imo. It is a strength and a bit of a curse, of their culture. If they're complaining, but not too loudly, then you know everything is A-OK.

[Ibby]

All power that isn't geothermal or nuclear is solar (well, ALL power is solar, or rather stellar - we are star stuff!) (tidal energy and hydroelectric dams are more about gravity and lunar cycles, but it's the sun's energy powering the water cycle that creates the rivers...). It's just that plants harness that power so efficiently and well, that digging up ancient plants (and ancient animals that ate them and the animals that ate them) and burning them is actually more efficient than trying to harness solar energy ourselves.

In theory, there should be some way to harness solar power more effectively than trying to dig up dead stuff to burn. We might get there eventually. But not if we give up on it, and not if we don't keep working harder and harder to use what we have effectively and to research even more efficient ways to use it.

[Adak]

I agree with you hawkeye, except the improvements we will see in wind power, will not be large. Quite small, actually.

The Iranian leaders have already threatened to close/attack the oil tankers in the Gulf of Persia. No mystery or disagreement there.

Already, almost every tanker serving the area, has been re-flagged by it's owner, as an American ship, to allow the US Navy to protect it.
We can't protect other ships, to the same degree, by law.

Soldiers would be needed to set charges in the underground facilities, if the bunker buster bombs couldn't handle it. It wouldn't be a huge ground force like the invasion of Iraq, but it might take a few hundred and LOTS of support from the air, before they went in.

Your note about the probable increase in nuclear weapon proliferation, is well taken. I can't imagine that countries near Iran, would not feel compelled to have them, "since Iran does". Especially the countries that are largely Suni, and traditionally disliked by the Shiite Muslims .

[piercehawkeye45]

Just a quick few notes:

We have known a long period of peace, only because we are one of the reigning super powers, and we are not trying to take over anyone's country.

We are currently in the longest war in our nation's history: Afghanistan. We did take over the country...along with Iraq.

War is inevitable in the Middle East, as long as the Muslims are intent on starting one - yes. The Jews can't run, they have to fight - that's clear.

The world is easier to digest with sweeping generalizations but they rarely hold up to reality.

If the Iranian rial continues falling in value, the resulting economic crisis may help force a shift in opinion, away from the nuclear effort. Finally, Iran may be forced to negotiate, and allow inspections of it's nuclear plants.

There are inspectors of Iran's nuclear facilities. That is why we haven't attacked them. We know where they are what they are doing.


Adak, does Urbane Guerrilla mean anything to you?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Just a quick few notes:
We are currently in the longest war in our nation's history: Afghanistan. We did take over the country...along with Iraq.


The world is easier to digest with sweeping generalizations but they rarely hold up to reality.


There are inspectors of Iran's nuclear facilities. That is why we haven't attacked them. We know where they are what they are doing.


Adak, does Urbane Guerrilla mean anything to you?

We have not annexed or put in our own leaders, into power in Iraq. The Iraqi people are voting for their leaders. Kicking out Saddam and his ruling party, is not the same as taking over the country, and making it ours.

Same with Afghanistan. We are leaving soon, and everyone knows it.

We didn't ask for the war with in Afghanistan. They provided support and protection for Al Qaeda, and chose to fight with them.

Yes, Urbane Guerrilla means you misspelled Urban. Sounds like a new runway fashion trend. I can see it now - designer camo for the latest Paris fashions.

Without a firm treaty however, they are free to kick the inspectors out of any of their sites, whenever they wish.