Political Theory

Re: An attack on Iran

auctionguy10 — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:38:42 GMT

Autolykos:
In all honesty, I have no idea where you get this notion that the Obama administration wants to relocate US troops to Southeast Asia in order to "contain" China. Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? (Please note that Australia is not the same as Southeast Asia.)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/us-obama-asia-idUSTRE7AF32X20111117

http://www.cfr.org/south-asia/us-military-eyes-southeast-asia/p9744

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/02/gates_to_unveil_plans_to_increase_us_military_involvement_in_se_asia

http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/nation/22092-us-seeks-stronger-military-ties-with-phl-other-asian-countries

http://online.wsj.com/video/leon-panetta-us-troop-focus-shifting-to-asia/B23F3530-AA36-4F79-99E1-ABA9ED90029E.html

Re: An attack on Iran

auctionguy10 — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:33:10 GMT

I had a conversation with an Iranian acquaintence, now living in Kurdistan Iraq, who personally told me he wished McCain was elected because Obama was too "soft". I asked him what he meant. The acquaintence told me he wanted a regime change.

What's this supposed to mean? There's plenty of americans you can find that want regime change and want another government to take over- doesn't mean it makes any sense to support an invasion of major capitals in the US.

Re: An attack on Iran

Autolykos — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:09:12 GMT

Kakugo:
Very simple: the Obama administration is mostly made up of suckers. Well meaning suckers, but suckers nonetheless. They want to avoid a confrontation with Iran by relocating troops to South-East Asia (to "contain" China) but at the same time they have given in to pleas by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others to increase military presence in the Gulf while Iran is carrying out military maneuvers in the area. As I said they are being played like puppets: most of them don't remember the Gulf of Tonkin Incident ("nerves and shooting at shadows" as somebody said). In a crowded environment the chances of an accident are much higher. Israel, the hawks and Saudi Arabia want the Iranians to draw first blood, and first blood must be American.

The Obama administration and US intelligence agencies are also being exposed as being much weaker politically as previously thought. Mossad agents hired Iranian nationals to act as saboteurs by passing themselves off as CIA operatives... without the faintest protest from the US. Had, say, the Bulgarians tried to pass themselves off as KGB operatives during the Cold War they would have not seen another dawn once Moscow found out. I wouldn't be too surprised if Israel had a hand in the downing of that US drone.

In all honesty, I have no idea where you get this notion that the Obama administration wants to relocate US troops to Southeast Asia in order to "contain" China. Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? (Please note that Australia is not the same as Southeast Asia.)

Additionally, do you have any evidence to support the notion that the US government isn't acting in that region to protect its own interests first and foremost? Why would it put the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. above its own?

Kakugo:
The big mistake Obama did was to allow his own vanity to take control and run for president.

I see. Something tells me that Obama himself wouldn't agree with you that that was a mistake, but I could be wrong.

Re: An attack on Iran

Kakugo — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:55:57 GMT

There's another thing that popped into my mind.

I am pretty sure you are all aware of the so-called "Samson Option", meaning Israel's nuclear doctrine. Far from being a last resort self-immolation doctrine Israel has always intended it to be a bargaining chip, both with other Middle East countries and with the world superpowers.

So far it has paid handsomely, far outweighing the enormous costs of the nuclear program. In 1973 the Shin Bet discovered a Soviet spy ring at the highest levels. Instead of simply dismantling it, the operatives were either fed false information or simply made aware Israel had "suitcase nukes" and the means to smuggle them inside the USSR. It paid itself as the Soviet Union didn't directly intervene in the Yom Kippur war, as Brezhnev had promised his Arabian allies. In 1991 the Israeli government threatened that if a single chemical tipped Scud fell on Israel "Iraq would be left without Baghdad, are we clear?". George Bush was forced to bribe Israel on industrial scale. This bribery took the form of massive financial and military "aid" and, more critical to Israel, a list of 100 targets inside Iraq for Coalition forces to attack.

One of the basic tenets of the "Samson Option" is to deny other Middle East countries possession of a nuclear deterrent. It's easy to imagine Israeli politicians have made this point about a million times to all supposed "allies". Decision makers are hence left with a hard choice: either attack Iran themselves, with dreadful consequences (especially on Europe and Turkey), or sit back and see if Israel makes good of its threats. There's no way to know if the Israelis are serious about launching a nuclear attack on Iran: Israel is one of the most difficult countries in the world for foreign intelligence agencies to operate in (even the KGB got caught and double crossed) and its leader have made a point of adopting a posture that makes it impossible to know whatever they are bluffing or not.

As I said before the Obama Administration is much weaker than it wants to show and is effectively held ostage by both Israeli lobbyists and US hawks of various kinds. George Bush had the guts to ask Israel "What's your price?" and haggled his way out of a difficult situation, though it wasn't cheap. Obama doesn't even have the guts to ask for a price and the Israeli know how weak he truly is. They are laughing at his "resolve" to get troops out of the Middle East and already maneuvered him and the Pentagon in a very awkard position.

There's also the question of Israeli allies in the Muslim world. Though they will never admit it in the open, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar all have strong ties with Israel. Oman even has a standing agreement to harbor Israeli nuclear armed submarines. According to an USAF paper all three countries were offered the protection of the Israeli "nuclear umbrella", mostly to guard against Saudi Arabia. All three countries have been very vocal in both requesting an increased US military presence in the Gulf and a strike against Iran...

Re: An attack on Iran

Vladimir Ulyanov — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:48:12 GMT

Is that not what I was saying? But maybe hero is a bit too strong of a word. I doubt they have as short a memory to forget be gassed because the US allowed the Iraqis too. I know this was Bush Jr but they are probably smart enough to be skeptical of any American by now.

Re: An attack on Iran

Al_Gore the Idiot — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:41:10 GMT

Kurdistan Iraq was unscathed during Iraq War II. The people there consider Bush Jr a hero.

Re: An attack on Iran

Vladimir Ulyanov — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:26:45 GMT

Well that would explain it wouldn't it. He probably want Turkey and Iraq bombed too.

Re: An attack on Iran

Al_Gore the Idiot — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:39:43 GMT

Marko,

Yes, he is an Iranian Kurd. A young bachelor in his mid-20s, has a degree in microbiology, and is an atheist.

Re: An attack on Iran

Marko — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:08:40 GMT

samr's post disappeared when the forum experienced a hiccup a minute ago, but I had the time to see it, paraphrazing:

If no one were hurt, what principle would this be based on?

The principle that as long as there are states, they should be as restricted in their actions as possible. We as libertarians want to ultimately scale down the state, but in the interim are also happy to shackle it with regulations if we can. One set of restrictions on state action that has had some success in restricting it has been the international law (which should really be called interstate law), which spells out what states may not do in the international arena.

Seeing that erasing the nuclear weapons of a rival power would be an act of war and would undermine international law (aggressive war is against international law) we should therefore oppose it. Even if in the immediate some good may come from this act (albeit I doubt it, in fact I think it is much more likely to lead to war or at least frenzied rearmament than anything good) in the long run many more negative results will result from the further unshackling of the state from the bonds of international law.

(The principle is similar as to why we would oppose intervention of the federal government into state affairs and the scaling down of state rights in favor of greater federal powers even if in the short run the federal government intended to address some legitimate grievance the state has been ignoring.)

Re: An attack on Iran

Marko — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:37:04 GMT

If there was such a magic eraser that could eliminate all nuclear weapons without damage to any person that would be great.

Also there is a difference for an otherwise powerless private person to use such a magic eraser to eliminate all the nuclear weapons in the world, and for a nuclear power to use such a magic eraser to eliminate just the nuclear weapons of a rival state. The latter would be an act of war, would be seen as an attack, would raise alarm and panic in the targeted country and would be extremely dangerous. Doing so could not really be defended by libertarians even if it cost nothing and hurt no one.

Re: An attack on Iran

Marko — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:40:29 GMT

My answer :

Not intentionally, just didn´t think about what I heard on the news.

Thing is talk about a strike on Iranian nuclear weapons programme is highly speculative since such a thing as of jet does not exist. IAEA continues to verify the non-diversion of Iranian nuclear material. The only nuclear facilities Iran has are civilian.

It would be a terrible thing for the nuclear non-proliferation if a country that adheres to the non-proliferation treaty and all its safeguards and inspections were to be attacked for setting up a civilian nuclear programme (a guaranteed right under the treaty). Not just Iran and but other nations may be moved to exit the treaty. If you want a world as free of atomic weapons as possible the best course of action is to lower tensions not to raise them.

Re: An attack on Iran

Marko — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:31:26 GMT

I had a conversation with an Iranian acquaintence, now living in Kurdistan Iraq, who personally told me he wished McCain was elected because Obama was too "soft". I asked him what he meant. The acquaintence told me he wanted a regime change.

Probably an Iranian Kurd.

Re: An attack on Iran

samr — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:09:52 GMT

Marco :

Are you intentionally using obscuring language?

My answer :

Not intentionally, just didn´t think about what I heard on the news.

Re: An attack on Iran

Kakugo — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:37:56 GMT

Autolykos:

Kakugo:
Now, it must be said there's very strong resistance to an attack on Iran in both the Obama administration and the Pentagon.

Really now? That's why the Obama administration and the Pentagon keep sending more ships through the Straits of Hormuz? It sounds to me like they're trying to provoke Iran into "attacking first", which will then be used to justify everything they want to do.

Kakugo:
President Obama himself is not stupid (in fact he's a very smart man who made just one big mistake in his life) and perfectly aknowledges the risks.

Since you brought it up, what do you think his one big mistake was?

Very simple: the Obama administration is mostly made up of suckers. Well meaning suckers, but suckers nonetheless. They want to avoid a confrontation with Iran by relocating troops to South-East Asia (to "contain" China) but at the same time they have given in to pleas by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others to increase military presence in the Gulf while Iran is carrying out military maneuvers in the area. As I said they are being played like puppets: most of them don't remember the Gulf of Tonkin Incident ("nerves and shooting at shadows" as somebody said). In a crowded environment the chances of an accident are much higher. Israel, the hawks and Saudi Arabia want the Iranians to draw first blood, and first blood must be American.

The Obama administration and US intelligence agencies are also being exposed as being much weaker politically as previously thought. Mossad agents hired Iranian nationals to act as saboteurs by passing themselves off as CIA operatives... without the faintest protest from the US. Had, say, the Bulgarians tried to pass themselves off as KGB operatives during the Cold War they would have not seen another dawn once Moscow found out. I wouldn't be too surprised if Israel had a hand in the downing of that US drone.

The big mistake Obama did was to allow his own vanity to take control and run for president.

Re: An attack on Iran

Al_Gore the Idiot — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:07:34 GMT

I had a conversation with an Iranian acquaintence, now living in Kurdistan Iraq, who personally told me he wished McCain was elected because Obama was too "soft". I asked him what he meant. The acquaintence told me he wanted a regime change.