Man, has this thread-drifted. My history teachers told us, as most here believe, that the sinking of the Lusitania drew the US into WWI. True students of the period downplay that. The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915. The US did not enter the war until two years later, April 1917.
What the Lusitania event did is swing the American public against Germany, what with their dastardly use of that sneaky weapon, the submarine (a US invention). Germany backed down on using subs in an unrestricted manner, but the Zimmerman telegram revealed that they would resume unrestricted sub warfare, and coupled with the loss of several merchant ships, Wilson did finally call for war. But it was the resumption of sub strikes that provided the official motivation.
US Condemns Bomb Attack on Iran Nuclear Scientist
I will continue to remain unusally quiet on this military history topic about why I think the US entered WWI. I would like to point out that it is all in context, and one should also consider the previous 100 hundred years of developed nations history, as well as the US's entry to the world stage as a global player.
One should also consider how well it all went for the Ottomans and Russians.
I will continue to enjoy watchign the discourse on this topic.
But, as Tom said, this was about the Iranian Conjecture.
And back on target. Once again, the Iranian Government has demonstrated idiocy in escalation on two counts. One is delivering Official Letters to the US and UK stating that they have definative evidence that the US (in one letter) and the UK (in the other letter) were clearly behind the attack on Rosham, while in the media continue to make multi-axis statements that it was Mossad and Israel. Then, just to further indicate how lost they are mentally, they officially warn the Arab countries not to up production to make up for Sanctions against Iran to replace Iranian oil volume. They will consider this an "Act of Aggression" and "Act accordingly".
Are these nut job complete idiots or what? They really are beggin for a fight. And somehow, they think that they will come out of it better off. What freaking lunacy. They will be crushed, and a portion of the Iranian people as well, and they do not get it. They will also further drive a wedge between them and the Arabs, not that they could not get much further apart...
Every time I see a news article from or on Iran, it convinces me further that they really want to fight. Stupid asses. When will they get it that no one really wants to fight them, and that it is a function of the continued idiotic behaviour on their part that is driving the whole topic.
Morons who more than likely will soon be mostly dead morons.
The sooner oil becomes irrelevant the better. It is the only real lever any of these idiots have to pull on.
One should also consider how well it all went for the Ottomans and Russians.
I will continue to enjoy watchign the discourse on this topic.
But, as Tom said, this was about the Iranian Conjecture.
And back on target. Once again, the Iranian Government has demonstrated idiocy in escalation on two counts. One is delivering Official Letters to the US and UK stating that they have definative evidence that the US (in one letter) and the UK (in the other letter) were clearly behind the attack on Rosham, while in the media continue to make multi-axis statements that it was Mossad and Israel. Then, just to further indicate how lost they are mentally, they officially warn the Arab countries not to up production to make up for Sanctions against Iran to replace Iranian oil volume. They will consider this an "Act of Aggression" and "Act accordingly".
Are these nut job complete idiots or what? They really are beggin for a fight. And somehow, they think that they will come out of it better off. What freaking lunacy. They will be crushed, and a portion of the Iranian people as well, and they do not get it. They will also further drive a wedge between them and the Arabs, not that they could not get much further apart...
Every time I see a news article from or on Iran, it convinces me further that they really want to fight. Stupid asses. When will they get it that no one really wants to fight them, and that it is a function of the continued idiotic behaviour on their part that is driving the whole topic.
Morons who more than likely will soon be mostly dead morons.
The sooner oil becomes irrelevant the better. It is the only real lever any of these idiots have to pull on.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Reason is simple. The poor man working in enrichment plant. He does not work alone. Was he so irreplaceable?Starboard wrote:I see no reason why they need kill a lot of people simultaneously. Just methodically taking out the ones with the scientific and technical know how would slow the project down, until the U.S. a builds up the political willpower needed for a physical attack on the infrastructure.
So, for stopping that plant you should neutralize all people making at least one operation on which those people are responsible. Etc.
And if Iran has two o three plants?
Then Iran can purchased already enriched fuel from Russia. So, you should kill people who able to design and create the bomb. Etc., etc., etc.
So, about 100, 200...500 people should be assassinated (100, 200...500 black motor cycles with 100, 200...500 specially trained men equipped with 100, 200...500 magnet mines)
But another option is to bomb three (two existing and one projected underground plant), all radars, all air defense assets, reconnaissanced missile launching sites, you can break their backbone.
And Israel and USA together can send not less than 300 attack jets. Also Tomahawks, from warships and may be strategic bombers B-2 and B-52.
F-16 equiped with 4 JDAM bombs can destroy 4 targets in a single flight.
Iran can have a time to launch some missiles from mobile launcher which then will be destroyed after launching. Some people in Israel will dead.
Joseph,
I do not think that anyone thinks the fight will last long when it happens. The Iranian Rev Gaurd and Military will cease to be viable entities very quickly.
I think the point to date, is that nobody on the not-Iranian side really wants to fight, and that is why instead of taking the short road, we persist with the long political road.
You are entirely correct, The US or Israel could act tomorrow and be done with it. But then, it would need to probably be re-visited in a few more years. Like Saddam in Iraq. If you are going to finish it, it needs to be done completely.
If we take down the sites and military, then the Government must be permanently boxed, or be taken down as well at the same time.
When this fight happens, Persian Pride is going to take a big shot in the Jimmy. The trick is to do it in a way that the Average Joe Persian does not assign blame and ideas of revenge (which is a cultural imperative) to the folks that "Jam the Jimmy". They need to be positioned to understand that the fault and blame lays with the Idiots currently in charge in Iran (The Government at Large, and The Revolutionary Guard).
Or, we could make a big glass parking lot and move on. Maybe not the worst approach.
I do not think that anyone thinks the fight will last long when it happens. The Iranian Rev Gaurd and Military will cease to be viable entities very quickly.
I think the point to date, is that nobody on the not-Iranian side really wants to fight, and that is why instead of taking the short road, we persist with the long political road.
You are entirely correct, The US or Israel could act tomorrow and be done with it. But then, it would need to probably be re-visited in a few more years. Like Saddam in Iraq. If you are going to finish it, it needs to be done completely.
If we take down the sites and military, then the Government must be permanently boxed, or be taken down as well at the same time.
When this fight happens, Persian Pride is going to take a big shot in the Jimmy. The trick is to do it in a way that the Average Joe Persian does not assign blame and ideas of revenge (which is a cultural imperative) to the folks that "Jam the Jimmy". They need to be positioned to understand that the fault and blame lays with the Idiots currently in charge in Iran (The Government at Large, and The Revolutionary Guard).
Or, we could make a big glass parking lot and move on. Maybe not the worst approach.
An idea that I've used a couple of times in stories over the years, which I thought up on my own but I'd bet I'm not the first, is the true cause of wars.
I'll start with a few things that do not in themselves cause wars, although some people say they do.
Bilateral arms buildups (an arms race). This did preceed WWI, but WWII followed a rather lopsided arms buildup, and there have been many wars not preceeded by arms buildups.
Popular sentiment. There are, on occasion, wars in which the general population is spoiling for a fight, but they tend to be rare and the people doing the spoiling expect a quick, cheap war. Almost never does a public war fever cause a war. What it may cause is quick approval of a call for a declaration of war, and it does aid recruitment so it may enable a war.
When you get down to the basics, only one thing causes a war. The leadership of at least one side thinks it sees an advantage in starting a war. That is all it takes. That is the thing that must be understood when attempting to understand the causes of war.
Until our pullout of Iraq, we had Iran hemmed in on two sides. Understand the situation that put their leadership in ... the public was well aware of how easily we'd toppled their greatest enemy just to the west, and then dominated their eastern border. We had been demonstrating our power in their waters essentially since the Iranian Revolution. This made their goverment look powerless (kind of hard to deny that much truth staring in you in the face). Can't have that, so you bluster to make yourself look powerful. And you use that and a historical (if curious) dislike of Israel to point the public attention outside.
Basically, Iran's leaders are doing this because they are in serious trouble and it is the only way to maintain power. Do understand that it makes them quite dangerous. But the causes of this outward aggression are almost entirely internal politics. And this is usually the case in aggression.
Iranians (just not their leadership) individually want peace. Iranian ex-pats living here are inclined to fear that the US is warmongering, and are defensive of their home country, even if they hate the current leadership.
I'll start with a few things that do not in themselves cause wars, although some people say they do.
Bilateral arms buildups (an arms race). This did preceed WWI, but WWII followed a rather lopsided arms buildup, and there have been many wars not preceeded by arms buildups.
Popular sentiment. There are, on occasion, wars in which the general population is spoiling for a fight, but they tend to be rare and the people doing the spoiling expect a quick, cheap war. Almost never does a public war fever cause a war. What it may cause is quick approval of a call for a declaration of war, and it does aid recruitment so it may enable a war.
When you get down to the basics, only one thing causes a war. The leadership of at least one side thinks it sees an advantage in starting a war. That is all it takes. That is the thing that must be understood when attempting to understand the causes of war.
Until our pullout of Iraq, we had Iran hemmed in on two sides. Understand the situation that put their leadership in ... the public was well aware of how easily we'd toppled their greatest enemy just to the west, and then dominated their eastern border. We had been demonstrating our power in their waters essentially since the Iranian Revolution. This made their goverment look powerless (kind of hard to deny that much truth staring in you in the face). Can't have that, so you bluster to make yourself look powerful. And you use that and a historical (if curious) dislike of Israel to point the public attention outside.
Basically, Iran's leaders are doing this because they are in serious trouble and it is the only way to maintain power. Do understand that it makes them quite dangerous. But the causes of this outward aggression are almost entirely internal politics. And this is usually the case in aggression.
Iranians (just not their leadership) individually want peace. Iranian ex-pats living here are inclined to fear that the US is warmongering, and are defensive of their home country, even if they hate the current leadership.
You don't necessarily have to take out the brains of the operation. There's an old joke that when the human body was first formed, the different parts had an arguement about who would be boss. The brain made the case that since it coordinated the workings of the other body parts, and did all the critical thinking, it should lead. The eye's claimed they should lead, since the body couldn't move safely without their input. The hands claimed they should lead, since they did all the work. The heart claimed it was critical to life, and so on. Finally the rectum said that it would be boss, to which the other parts laughed at it so much that the rectum shut itself off and refused to open for three days, afterwhich the other body parts, in great distress, relented and declared the rectum was the boss. The moral of the story is that the boss is usually some @$$h0!=.
I've suggested before that the best way to stop the nonsense out of Iran would be to target the Anniversary of the Revolution ceremony in Tehran. All the religious leaders, suicide bombers, republican guardsmen and generals are standing on parade surrounded by the most fanatical supporters, all in one small area. It would be like taking out the Nuremburg Rally in its entirety.
I've suggested before that the best way to stop the nonsense out of Iran would be to target the Anniversary of the Revolution ceremony in Tehran. All the religious leaders, suicide bombers, republican guardsmen and generals are standing on parade surrounded by the most fanatical supporters, all in one small area. It would be like taking out the Nuremburg Rally in its entirety.
CHoff
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
Tom, I would say that your idea is essentially Clausewitzian. Clausewitz basically suggests that wars are started and continued by political leaderships which see some opportunity for gain in them. He also suggests that one's strategy in warfare should always take account of this and pursue a rational end.
Some scholars define "total war" of the twentieth century as a period in which public sentiment allowed, even pushed, political leaderships into pursuing warfare to irrational ends, even when those ends were hurting all sides involved. It's debatable. It's really difficult to sort out the attitudes of certain political and military leaders from the public sentiment in historical analysis of WW I and WW II. Nonetheless, we're probably out of the "total war" period and back into a period when states behave in a more Clausewitzian manner, with an uptick in insurgencies thrown in as a joker. So, I pretty much agree with your analysis of what is going on in Iran.
(As an aside, many people in the social sciences like to define both nationalism and total war as completely "modern" (ie. post 17th century) phenomena. I disagree with this - I think that Rome vs. Carthage and the Rome vs. Persia wars which occured over a number of centuries, especially the last 30 year long one featuring Heraclius' counter-offensive just before the Islamic invasions, were both effectively nationalistic and examples of total war. The 30 years war was another total war, although there were few clearly defined national blocks apart from France, which came in near the end... religion was the driving ideological excuse in that one. The concept of total war is also iffy on a theoretical basis - for example, WW II was much more "total" for Europe, western Russia, and Japan than it was for the U.S., Canada and Australia, whose core territories were never really touched, and which probably mobilized less of their populations than the U.K. or the Axis countries.)
Also, re. Ladajo's comment, I will add that turning a country into a glass parking lot isn't really acceptable in my view. Apart from the innocent people who get killed, you also set a dangerous precedent for future generations. I accept that there is collateral damage in war and that maybe you even kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in extreme situations, ref. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, Hamburg... but deliberately hitting a country so hard that it effectively ceases to exist is genocide, which destroys any moral authority you may have for decades, if not centuries, to come. It's not Clausewitzian realpolitik - it backfires on you.
Some scholars define "total war" of the twentieth century as a period in which public sentiment allowed, even pushed, political leaderships into pursuing warfare to irrational ends, even when those ends were hurting all sides involved. It's debatable. It's really difficult to sort out the attitudes of certain political and military leaders from the public sentiment in historical analysis of WW I and WW II. Nonetheless, we're probably out of the "total war" period and back into a period when states behave in a more Clausewitzian manner, with an uptick in insurgencies thrown in as a joker. So, I pretty much agree with your analysis of what is going on in Iran.
(As an aside, many people in the social sciences like to define both nationalism and total war as completely "modern" (ie. post 17th century) phenomena. I disagree with this - I think that Rome vs. Carthage and the Rome vs. Persia wars which occured over a number of centuries, especially the last 30 year long one featuring Heraclius' counter-offensive just before the Islamic invasions, were both effectively nationalistic and examples of total war. The 30 years war was another total war, although there were few clearly defined national blocks apart from France, which came in near the end... religion was the driving ideological excuse in that one. The concept of total war is also iffy on a theoretical basis - for example, WW II was much more "total" for Europe, western Russia, and Japan than it was for the U.S., Canada and Australia, whose core territories were never really touched, and which probably mobilized less of their populations than the U.K. or the Axis countries.)
Also, re. Ladajo's comment, I will add that turning a country into a glass parking lot isn't really acceptable in my view. Apart from the innocent people who get killed, you also set a dangerous precedent for future generations. I accept that there is collateral damage in war and that maybe you even kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in extreme situations, ref. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, Hamburg... but deliberately hitting a country so hard that it effectively ceases to exist is genocide, which destroys any moral authority you may have for decades, if not centuries, to come. It's not Clausewitzian realpolitik - it backfires on you.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
I am not seeking approaches. But am only saying that the way of killing of separate people would not be effective for stopping the programs. As I am sure that technician in enrichment plant is not so irreplaceable. Also sure that if someone really wants to stop Iranian nuclear program he should use only military approach. Positions of Israel and USA differ in this case. As for Israel that is the question of death or life, while for USA - only politics and oil supply stability.ladajo wrote:Joseph,
I do not think that anyone thinks the fight will last long when it happens. The Iranian Rev Gaurd and Military will cease to be viable entities very quickly.
I think the point to date, is that nobody on the not-Iranian side really wants to fight, and that is why instead of taking the short road, we persist with the long political road.
You are entirely correct, The US or Israel could act tomorrow and be done with it. But then, it would need to probably be re-visited in a few more years. Like Saddam in Iraq. If you are going to finish it, it needs to be done completely.
If we take down the sites and military, then the Government must be permanently boxed, or be taken down as well at the same time.
When this fight happens, Persian Pride is going to take a big shot in the Jimmy. The trick is to do it in a way that the Average Joe Persian does not assign blame and ideas of revenge (which is a cultural imperative) to the folks that "Jam the Jimmy". They need to be positioned to understand that the fault and blame lays with the Idiots currently in charge in Iran (The Government at Large, and The Revolutionary Guard).
Or, we could make a big glass parking lot and move on. Maybe not the worst approach.
Tom Ligon
Here Iran is supposed to be working on a nuclear bomb. Again there is no real proof and I doubt they are, but neocons like Max Boot are still active. Whether we bomb (with unfathomable consequences) will likely depend on some calculation of the importance of the Jewish influence/vote in the coming elections.
Meanwhile Israel will do its best to stoke the fire and hope they can provoke Iran into doing something foolish. I don’t think Israel will take on the task without assurances that the US would back them.
The reality is a farce. Iran would not attack Israel, let alone the US, and has never said they would. They know they would be vitrified if they did. The Christian fundamentalists are doing what they can to get all the Jews to Israel and for Israel to expand its borders, as they think this will lead to Armageddon and their ticket to heaven. They don’t care that part of the story is that all the Jews would be killed.
Spare us from religious nuts of all flavors. Iran is absolutely no threat to us.
That takes care of most of them. In this case, Israel doesn’t want a strong neighbor they can’t intimidate. We wouldn’t have invaded Iraq but for a handful of Jewish neocons. Remember how Saddam was supposed to have WMD? The war would only take a month or so and be paid for by Iraqi oil?When you get down to the basics, only one thing causes a war. The leadership of at least one side thinks it sees an advantage in starting a war. That is all it takes. That is the thing that must be understood when attempting to understand the causes of war.
Here Iran is supposed to be working on a nuclear bomb. Again there is no real proof and I doubt they are, but neocons like Max Boot are still active. Whether we bomb (with unfathomable consequences) will likely depend on some calculation of the importance of the Jewish influence/vote in the coming elections.
Meanwhile Israel will do its best to stoke the fire and hope they can provoke Iran into doing something foolish. I don’t think Israel will take on the task without assurances that the US would back them.
The reality is a farce. Iran would not attack Israel, let alone the US, and has never said they would. They know they would be vitrified if they did. The Christian fundamentalists are doing what they can to get all the Jews to Israel and for Israel to expand its borders, as they think this will lead to Armageddon and their ticket to heaven. They don’t care that part of the story is that all the Jews would be killed.
Spare us from religious nuts of all flavors. Iran is absolutely no threat to us.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
All countries having large oil deposits try to improve their influence on world politics. Such as Russia, Iran, Saddam's Iraq, etc. Saddam really tried to get nuke bomb till Israel not bombed his nuclear center as I remember correctly in 90s. And influence on oil prices by regimes not being under control of US is dangerous for US and also world economics. I do not think that one or several Jews in Senate or Congress can make such decisions.parallel wrote:In this case, Israel doesn’t want a strong neighbor they can’t intimidate.
Occasion to war: "they have a nuclear weapon" is very ridiculous itself. If recall that by the present moment only USA is the country really used that. By the way against the peace population.
You may have a point; "magic bullets" http://www.economist.com/node/21542716?frsc=dg|Diogenes wrote:I fear the time is coming where an Armed citizenry will be no match for a despotic dictator. See my thread "Skynet is coming."
Oh well maybe "john connor" will come along and save us
Joseph Chikva
If Israel bombs Iran, they will certainly bomb their nuclear power plant (built at the suggestion of the US) and that will lead to who knows what.
See http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/201 ... look-like/ for one scenario.
You don't remember correctly. Israel bombed Iraq's commercial nuclear power plant and it was only after that, that Saddam toyed with the idea of getting nuclear weapon to prevent that sort of thing happening again.Saddam really tried to get nuke bomb till Israel not bombed his nuclear center as I remember correctly in 90s.
If Israel bombs Iran, they will certainly bomb their nuclear power plant (built at the suggestion of the US) and that will lead to who knows what.
See http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/201 ... look-like/ for one scenario.
Parallel,
You do understand that Saddam was going to use that power plant to make weapons fuel?
In regards to the above discussion:
Of course wars are fought by leaders. Without leaders, it would not be war. It would be a bar-brawl. Even Clauzwitz recognizes this in his opening discussions.
The ideas of Total War and Limited War are obvisouly the core of Clauswitz' framework. He argues that most of the time Limited War is appropriate due to the balance of objectives to effort. He even goes so far as to argue it can be advantageous to pick a fight you know you will "lose" but will allow you to achieve your objective(s). While he does argue that Total War is not really practically achievable or neccessary, he does admit it can happen.
When planning for war it is essential as well in his view to not only understand your objectives, but also the objectives of the other party(s). In the case of Iran this is where the calculus gets fuzzy. They do not seem to have any rational objectives.
While I commented on glass parking lots, it was not my preferred solution, nor do I believe in total annihilation. I posted it as a subtle reference to the levels of war and as a pointer to how extremism in war can produce extreme results. I did this in context to counterpoint Iran's own stated objectives. While the West seeks rational behaviour and objectives, Iranian leadership remains irrational in behaviour and objectives. Given the ability, unlike the West, they indicate they would glass parking lot folks that annoy them. Their behaviour indicates they do not get the after part at all.
You do understand that Saddam was going to use that power plant to make weapons fuel?
In regards to the above discussion:
Of course wars are fought by leaders. Without leaders, it would not be war. It would be a bar-brawl. Even Clauzwitz recognizes this in his opening discussions.
The ideas of Total War and Limited War are obvisouly the core of Clauswitz' framework. He argues that most of the time Limited War is appropriate due to the balance of objectives to effort. He even goes so far as to argue it can be advantageous to pick a fight you know you will "lose" but will allow you to achieve your objective(s). While he does argue that Total War is not really practically achievable or neccessary, he does admit it can happen.
When planning for war it is essential as well in his view to not only understand your objectives, but also the objectives of the other party(s). In the case of Iran this is where the calculus gets fuzzy. They do not seem to have any rational objectives.
While I commented on glass parking lots, it was not my preferred solution, nor do I believe in total annihilation. I posted it as a subtle reference to the levels of war and as a pointer to how extremism in war can produce extreme results. I did this in context to counterpoint Iran's own stated objectives. While the West seeks rational behaviour and objectives, Iranian leadership remains irrational in behaviour and objectives. Given the ability, unlike the West, they indicate they would glass parking lot folks that annoy them. Their behaviour indicates they do not get the after part at all.
choff wrote:You don't necessarily have to take out the brains of the operation. There's an old joke that when the human body was first formed, the different parts had an arguement about who would be boss. The brain made the case that since it coordinated the workings of the other body parts, and did all the critical thinking, it should lead. The eye's claimed they should lead, since the body couldn't move safely without their input. The hands claimed they should lead, since they did all the work. The heart claimed it was critical to life, and so on. Finally the rectum said that it would be boss, to which the other parts laughed at it so much that the rectum shut itself off and refused to open for three days, afterwhich the other body parts, in great distress, relented and declared the rectum was the boss. The moral of the story is that the boss is usually some @$$h0!=.
I've suggested before that the best way to stop the nonsense out of Iran would be to target the Anniversary of the Revolution ceremony in Tehran. All the religious leaders, suicide bombers, republican guardsmen and generals are standing on parade surrounded by the most fanatical supporters, all in one small area. It would be like taking out the Nuremburg Rally in its entirety.
Excellent idea. If we are going to go to war, that would be the time and place to do it. Those are exactly the people that need to be killed.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
ladajo,
Possibly they thought that because that was exactly what Israel did, lying to the US/France and breaking their promise that they wouldn't.
Of course you will probably claim that every one knew that Saddam was building WMD. Proof was a "slam dunk" according to our head of intelligence.
Pity no actual WMD were found, not even evidence that Iraq was working on things like this. Yet now you are certain that Iran is building nukes? You must swallow propaganda for breakfast or be pathologically paranoid.
Remember Iraq was and Iran is under international inspection that would certainly detect fuel diverted from their nuclear power plant.
It was just Israel and the neocons that claimed that: without any proof.You do understand that Saddam was going to use that power plant to make weapons fuel?
Possibly they thought that because that was exactly what Israel did, lying to the US/France and breaking their promise that they wouldn't.
Of course you will probably claim that every one knew that Saddam was building WMD. Proof was a "slam dunk" according to our head of intelligence.
Pity no actual WMD were found, not even evidence that Iraq was working on things like this. Yet now you are certain that Iran is building nukes? You must swallow propaganda for breakfast or be pathologically paranoid.
Remember Iraq was and Iran is under international inspection that would certainly detect fuel diverted from their nuclear power plant.