Support NeoGAF

[Firest0rm]

If Iran starts jumping into military action, I think we can safely say that we would be just a hop, skip, and a jump away from a full-on world war. A few weird twists here, perhaps an ironic turn there, and boom, the whole world in a war of ideologies. Way to make the world a safer and more peaceful place, guys.

Who the hell gave them the idea that we're just going to randomly attack them anyway? I don't remember even this administration being that crazy.

Hopefully this is just another case of Iran simply talking the talk to try and put themselves in a power role as the leader of the Arab nations. Sound defiant in the face of the American invaders without actually committing to anything and there's little the US can do about it while the anti-American forces will rally behind you. It's a rather shrewd political/ideological power play on their part...at least, so long as it just remains a ideological manuver and doesn't become a military campaign. The consequences of Iran jumping into the fray at this point in time would be extremely dangerous for the US military, the Middle East, and the world as a whole.

So yeah, hopefully this is Iran just making noise and nothing more.

err, they're not part of the arab nations. Infact Arabs and Persians in the middle east kinda like to stay apart. The only Arab nation that Persians (the citizens not the government officials) actually have a connection to is Iraq because they share alot in common.

edit: thanks for the correction

 

[Wolfy]

They're, not their.

 

[Mandark]

My point is that there are millions of people around the world who would be eager to take the side of the religious fascists currently in charge of Iran against the United States (e.g. Drinky)

Again, you're responding to something made up, instead of something he actually said.

PS I'm firmly against your proposal to use the social security surplus to fund a national nun-rape program. It's just not right.

 

[MetatronM]

err, they're not part of the arab nations. Infact Arabs and Persians in the middle east kinda like to stay apart. The only Arab nation that Persians (the citizens not the government officials) actually have a connection to is Iraq because they share alot in common.

edit: thanks for the correction

Well, that's true. I really just meant in more in a "Middle Eastern" sort of way and not meaning specifically "Arabs" in the exact sense. Sloppy word choice on my part. It's 1 in the morning after all.

The general point remains, though.

 

[Guileless]

Mandark, I'm not following you. I'm not making up arguments to refute, I'm using Drinky as an example of someone who would be predisposed to siding with the Iranian mullahs against the US government. There are many other like-minded people who would offer moral support to Iran, but their predisposition to do so would be lessened if Iran struck first. I'm not responding to what he specifically said in this thread about Regan and Nixon killing South Americans and putting them in mass graves.

 

[Mandark]

I'm using Drinky as an example of someone who would be predisposed to siding with the Iranian mullahs against the US government

Yeah, and I'm using you as an example of someone who wants to spend my hard-earned tax dollars on the sexual violation of nuns. With the exact same standard of evidence.

Capisce?

 

[sc0la]

What the hell? The Kurds were gassed by Chemical Ali under Saddam's command. The Kurds were gassed INSIDE of Iraq.

In the simple GI Joe view of war where one man, conviniently named, is responsible entirely for one form of combat.

There are some who will steadfastly assert that in the closing exchanges of the iraq iran war (as Iraq retreated from Iran burning oil fields on the way) both Iraq and Iran volleyed chemical weapons at each other and the collaterall damage was the Kurdish population in between. These people differ on who's gas killed the Kurds, and to what degree it was intentional. It didn't help matters any that both parties didn't really give a fuck about the Kurds anyway.

Not that the event's taking place in the confusion of retreat and war excuses anything, it is still a tragedy and a crime. But to think that the event took place in isolation after saddam phoned his buddy Ali one calm sunny afternoon is misguided.

I am of the camp that we have no idea what the fuck happened and that diametric views are probably both heavily spun.

 

[Guileless]

I don't understand what you're saying. I'm trying to correct your misunderstanding of my post, and you're still rephrasing what you originally said. I don't understand what purpose that serves. Do you not think that there are many people on this forum who would instinctively side with Iran, but less so if Iran attacked first? That's my point. Anything else you are saying is irrelevant.

 

[xsarien]

Preemptive war is nothing new, and is easily justified. It's preventive war, a la Iraq, that has some countries concerned. The fact that they haven't done anything wrong yet, but stand to be attacked nonetheless, is dangerously intimidating.

As far as the United States is concerned, a pre-emptive strike is a very new concept. We went to war with a sovereign nation that, previous to that, had not done a single thing to us. All we had was extraordinarily - grotesquely - flawed intelligence that Bush wouldn't allow to be double-checked, and a Vice President who was VERY eager to topple Saddam.

That sets a bad precedent, and no manner or amount of spin can hide that. It'd "allow" India and/or Pakistan to start something over Kashmir.

Iran is going to have to be taken care of regardless if we ever went into Iraq. Please don't insinuate that the Iraq war is the reason for this brewing crisis with Iran because you and I know it simply isn't true.

I'm no linguist, but when the language of their statement is careful to include the word "preventive" and reference America's lack of monopoly on the tactic, it may be a back-handed swipe at our military planning over the past couple of years. Bush and the overall Neocon philosophy speaks of a stable middle east 10-20 years from now. That's arrogant beyond words, and regardless of what the outcome is, the short term cost may be too high.

 

[Chrono]

In the simple GI Joe view of war where one man, conviniently named, is responsible entirely for one form of combat.

There are some who will steadfastly assert that in the closing exchanges of the iraq iran war (as Iraq retreated from Iran burning oil fields on the way) both Iraq and Iran volleyed chemical weapons at each other and the collaterall damage was the Kurdish population in between. These people differ on who's gas killed the Kurds, and to what degree it was intentional. It didn't help matters any that both parties didn't really give a fuck about the Kurds anyway.

Not that the event's taking place in the confusion of retreat and war excuses anything, it is still a tragedy and a crime. But to think that the event took place in isolation after saddam phoned his buddy Ali one calm sunny afternoon is misguided.

I am of the camp that we have no idea what the fuck happened and that diametric views are probably both heavily spun.

If Iran had chemical weapons they would've gassed Iraq's soldiers and they did NOT. On the other side, we have hospitals to this day full of Iranian soldiers suffering from the chemical weapons attacks of the war with Iraq. It's not just the kurds that were gassed.

I'm sure many people in the U.S. would like to paint it in that "GI Joe view of war" to make Saddam look more evil for their agenda (and vice versa… ) but that doesn't change the facts about what happened.

 

[Minotauro]

Let's first note the absurdity of trying to predict what medieval religious types are thinking or planning. They certainly don't think like most of us.

 

[Drinky Crow]

I would side with the mullahs? That's news to me. Just because I think that the US hasn't been a paragon of international diplomatic decency doesn't mean I think an act of horrendous violence against the US/Israel perpetrated by the mullahs would be JUSTIFIED. Quite the opposite, in fact. Just because I understand WHY someone might choose to do something doesn't make me a supporter of it, wingnut.

You right-wing nutjobs and your wacky, wacky strawmen.

 

[xsarien]

Do we have hundreds of thousands of mass graves that are sponsored by our government?

Refuted; thoroughly debunked, even:

http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modu...e=article&sid=810&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?ao=118905

http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=1840&blz=1

2004-07-30 | In November 2003, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, of Iraq, “We’ve already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.”
This oft-repeated claim has been challenged by the Observer newspaper. A July 18 article reveals that the government massively exaggerated the number of bodies found. Blair has, according to the newspaper’s investigations, inflated the actual number of bodies discovered by occupation forces tenfold. A spokesman for the prime minister was forced to admit that the number of bodies he had quoted as being found was untrue.

The Observer stated, “Of 270 suspected grave sites identified in the last year, 55 have now been examined, revealing, according to the best estimates that the Observer has been able to obtain, around 5,000 bodies.”

 

[Guileless]

Minotauro, comparing the the US government to the Iranian theocracy is absurd. They are wholly, completely different forms of government. If you disagree, feel free to persuade me otherwise.

What do we have in this very thread? People explaining away mass graves and the gassing of villages, and the incomparably ridiculous statement that Iraq was a sovereign government that never did anything to us. In the words of Chris Hitchens,

"Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge."

People (I can see the threads now, with the incoherent ramblings of Che popping up every 3 or 4 posts) would be falling over themselves to give Iran a collective blow job at the injustice of being attacked by the US. (Perhaps not Drinky Crow. If I offended you, I aplogize. That was just a prediction.) The mullahs know this, that no matter how backward and poorly they govern their own people, they will have a ton of international support. This would be lessened if they attacked first.

 

[sc0la]

If Iran had chemical weapons they would've gassed Iraq's soldiers and they did NOT. On the other side, we have hospitals to this day full of Iranian soldiers suffering from the chemical weapons attacks of the war with Iraq. It's not just the kurds that were gassed.

I'm sure many people in the U.S. would like to paint it in that "GI Joe view of war" to make Saddam look more evil for their agenda (and vice versa… ) but that doesn't change the facts about what happened.

According to the viewpoint, they were attacking Iraqi soldiers as they left Iran, hitting the Kurds occupying the land at the border in Iraq in the process; or the Iraqi army doing the same. I don't totally buy it, like I said, but it was certainly not an isolated incident. But I don't think we have been presented significant evidence about what really happened there. Perhaps if the Saddam trial is not all rhetoric and bravado (as I suspect it will be) we may get some clear information on the incident.

And it is not so surprising for Iran to have had or to have chemical weapons, mustard gas and other simple chemical weapons are not exactly the paramount of modern weapons technology. Hell we likely helped outfit both nations with some of the weapons.

 

[Minotauro]

Minotauro, comparing the the US government to the Iranian theocracy is absurd. They are wholly, completely different forms of government. If you disagree, feel free to persuade me otherwise.

I wasn't comparing the US government to the Iranian theocracy. In your post, you referred directly to their leaders. While it's not a 100% comparison or anything, to suggest that they think nothing like our leaders is a bit absurd...especially considering how much Bush mentions God during political discourse.

 

[ghostface]

Iran will not attack Israel or the U.S. Take these words from Iranian officials as "Don't fuck with us, we've got weapons too", nothing more.

Ripclawe, Iran WOULD get ripped apart against the U.S/Israel, but with Israel's geographical size, how hard do you think it would be for the Iranian government to inflict serious damage to it in a "If I'm going down I'm taking you with me" scenario? Israel will NOT attack Iran, pre-emptively or otherwise, nor would the U.S allow them to do so, because of this very reason. Iran is nothing like Iraq.

And Cooter, you are the epitome of why absurdely retarded phrases like "If you're doing/not doing so-and-so, you're helping the terrorists" and "we will install democracy and give peace-loving insert_nationality_here the tools they need to self-govern" work.

 

[Socreges]

As far as the United States is concerned, a pre-emptive strike is a very new concept. We went to war with a sovereign nation that, previous to that, had not done a single thing to us. All we had was extraordinarily - grotesquely - flawed intelligence that Bush wouldn't allow to be double-checked, and a Vice President who was VERY eager to topple Saddam.

That sets a bad precedent, and no manner or amount of spin can hide that. It'd "allow" India and/or Pakistan to start something over Kashmir.

Huh? What you're talking about is preventive war, but addressing me about preemptive war.

Preemptive war would be attacking Russian bombers heading directly for the US, whereas a preventive war is more imaginary.

 

[xsarien]

Huh? What you're talking about is preventive war, but addressing me about preemptive war.

Preemptive war would be attacking Russian bombers heading directly for the US, whereas a preventive war is more imaginary.

No, pre-emptive war is precisely what we did in Iraq. Attack because what might happen.

 

[Shompola]

According to the viewpoint, they were attacking Iraqi soldiers as they left Iran, hitting the Kurds occupying the land at the border in Iraq in the process; or the Iraqi army doing the same. I don't totally buy it, like I said, but it was certainly not an isolated incident. But I don't think we have been presented significant evidence about what really happened there. Perhaps if the Saddam trial is not all rhetoric and bravado (as I suspect it will be) we may get some clear information on the incident.

And it is not so surprising for Iran to have had or to have chemical weapons, mustard gas and other simple chemical weapons are not exactly the paramount of modern weapons technology. Hell we likely helped outfit both nations with some of the weapons.

There is no document or proof that Iran has ever used chemicals against the Iraqi's, but there are a lot of documents and proof that Iraq used them against Iran and later on on the kurds. The west simple ignored whatever Saddam was doing because face it more or less the entire world was against Iran back then. They didn't care that Saddam used chemical weapons. But they would most likely put even more sanction against Iran if it was found out that Iran was using chemical weapons.

I don't understand why people still to date question what Saddam did to the kurds. The kurds themself pretty much agree that it was Saddam who did it. And yes I believe it was as easy as a phone call to do it. It wasn't and accident. Saddam did it in knowledge of the west ignoring it, and pretty much that was what happened, the west ignored the incident altogether.

 

[Socreges]

No, pre-emptive war is precisely what we did in Iraq. Attack because what might happen.

Nope, that's preventive. Preemptive is far more immediate - such as an enemy mobilized for war, about to attack, and you acting before they do.

 

[Phoenix]

Would be somewhat stupid for Iran to gas the Kurds who were involved in the overthrow of Saddam.

 

[Phoenix]

Nope, that's preventive. Preemptive is far more immediate - such as an enemy mobilized for war, about to attack, and you acting before they do.

When did someone come up with a doctrine of preventive warfare? Attacking an enemy before they can attack you has always been referred to as a doctrine of preemptive warfare.

 

[Socreges]

When did someone come up with a doctrine of preventive warfare? Attacking an enemy before they can attack you has always been referred to as a doctrine of preemptive warfare.

The National Security Strategy.

 

[Phoenix]

The National Security Strategy.

You sure? I have the latest revision of the NSS here at the office (September 17, 2002) in .pdf form and did a search for preventive and find 0 hits.

 

[Socreges]

By any chance do you have access to a book called "War with Iraq" by Carl Kaysen et al?

At any rate, from the NSS, the US draws up an imperial grand strategy, correct? From this a distinction was drawn between preemptive war and a new concept: preventive war. It's possible that they did not define it as "preventive", but political scientists did afterwards.

 

[MrPing1000]

Every fucking year I swear

 

[SteveMeister]

You sure? I have the latest revision of the NSS here at the office (September 17, 2002) in .pdf form and did a search for preventive and find 0 hits.

This is the Bush administration. Search for "preventitative strategery."

 

[Phoenix]

By any chance do you have access to a book called "War with Iraq" by Carl Kaysen et al?

At any rate, from the NSS, the US draws up an imperial grand strategy, correct? From this a distinction was drawn between preemptive war and a new concept: preventive war. It's possible that they did not define it as "preventive", but political scientists did afterwards.

Yes. I have talked to my folks here at the office and this is a new policy but not a military doctrine.

President Bush declared in an introduction to the “National Security Strategy of the United States,” published in September 2002, that the United States will act against “emerging threats before they are fully formed.” The document states that:

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

Thus the statement implied that the United States in this new posture is willing to act beyond the constraints of international law and even beyond limits it has observed in the past. The distinction between ‘preventive war’ and preemption in the new Bush doctrine was described in a Brookings Institute report as follows: “The concept is not limited to the traditional definition of preemption—striking an enemy as it prepares an attack—but also includes prevention—striking an enemy even in the absence of specific evidence of a coming attack. The idea principally appears to be directed at terrorist groups as well as extremist or "rogue" nation states; the two are linked, according to the strategy, by a combination of "radicalism and technology.

So in other words this a policy that allows you to attack anyone you don't like? Smell like bullshit to me and should be made illegal by the populace of this country. If you don't have any evidence of an attack that doesn't give you the right to start blowing the crap out of people/countries because you're paranoid that they MIGHT do something to you.

To even call going to war with someone a 'preventive' measure is the height of both ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Socreges]

There we go.

Where do you work, Pheonix?

 

[Phoenix]

Within the bowels of Time Warner is the most I tell anyone

 

[Socreges]

Within the bowels of Time Warner is the most I tell anyone

Oh. So having a copy of the NSS has nothing to do with your job then?

[edit] I guess that's not fair to say. I have no idea how far Time Warner reaches.

 

[Phoenix]

Oh. So having a copy of the NSS has nothing to do with your job then?

[edit] I guess that's not fair to say. I have no idea how far Time Warner reaches.

I will say that it has nothing to do with my specific job (I'm a software architect), but that it is something that would be readily available to me within 5 minutes of asking.

 

[Mandark]

Guileless said:
I don't understand what you're saying. I'm trying to correct your misunderstanding of my post, and you're still rephrasing what you originally said. I don't understand what purpose that serves. Do you not think that there are many people on this forum who would instinctively side with Iran, but less so if Iran attacked first? That's my point. Anything else you are saying is irrelevant.

There is no misunderstanding of your post. You said that Drinky would root for Iran if they were up against the US, with absolutely no evidence to back it up, from this thread or anywhere else. No, I don't think there are a lot of people who would instinctively side with Iran, and your example of Drinky is particularly laughable (which is why I was responding the way I was).

Think about it. Drinky is an atheist, a feminist, and a civil libertarian. In this very thread, he points out that the Iranian government may have committed some crimes that are not generally attributed to it. It's beyond obvious that he wouldn't support them.

Which means there are two possibilities.

The first is that you are so tribal, so incredibly blinded by your partisan allegiance, so Manichean in your worldview, that you can't imagine anyone disagreeing with you without supporting your enemies. Domestic dissidents get lumped in with terrorists, because if they're not part of the (one and only) solution, they're part of the problem.

The other is that you know very well that he would never favor Iran and instead of responding to him on the substance of his beliefs, you feel you have to smear him personally by lying.

My money's on the first one, for what it's worth.

 

[FightyF]

It's all Bush's fault.

That's the way I see it, and let me back it up with some facts we should be considering during this discussion.

During the Clinton Administration, Iran was opening up diplomatic relations with the United States. They were really opening up to the United States, and American culture. There was a common understanding on many issues, security being one of them.

It wasn't until after Bush's rhetoric regarding Iran when things took a turn for the worse.

You may slag me for slagging Bush, but I'm not making this up. Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that this is the case.

The first is that you are so tribal, so incredibly blinded by your partisan allegiance, so Manichean in your worldview, that you can't imagine anyone disagreeing with you without supporting your enemies. Domestic dissidents get lumped in with terrorists, because if they're not part of the (one and only) solution, they're part of the problem.

This is often the case on GA, and this isn't the first time that very poster you are referring to has done so.

My theory on why it occurs is because the person does not want to discuss the issue at hand, and feels that the last resort is to throw insults and ridiculous accusations. Let's stick to the discussion, Guileless.

 

[sc0la]

There is no document or proof that Iran has ever used chemicals against the Iraqi's, but there are a lot of documents and proof that Iraq used them against Iran and later on on the kurds.

Iran researched, developed, captured, and used chemical weapons in response to Iraqs use of those same weapons during the 8 year Iraq Iran war. Fact.

Since there was no immediate, severe, international price to pay for the use of these weapons by Iraq, it likely encouraged Iran to develop its program, though it was bound not to.

I don't understand why people still to date question what Saddam did to the kurds.

Because there are some people who feel that it is more complex than that. I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam did it because he could get away with it under the circumstances. It is the simplist answer after all, and he is a sick being. If Saddam was not the only involved party (ie Iran as well) his gas was definately still an impact, don't get me wrong I am not trying to defend him. I don't fully agree with the assertion that Iran was jointly culpable for the incident I simply don't have enough knowledge to judge that myself. But I am open to the possibility.

The kurds themself pretty much agree that it was Saddam who did it.

Did he drive out and wave at them before the gassed them? The have their own set of biases and beliefs about what occurred, and those who did survive are working with an incomplete set of knowledge just as we are.

And yes I believe it was as easy as a phone call to do it.

I agree it would have been as easy phone call away, what I I wanted to caution against earlier was that imagining it as such could have led to an oversimplified and unrealistic view of the tragedies that occur in war. We should always be seeking out the most complete answers, not just a poster monster that satisfy initial inquery.