4 ms·

All an echoed Official Condemnation will do is make the US more likely to invade Iran. It won't make Iran's behaviors less frequent. So I don't think an Officia

by Jach 15y ago

All an echoed Official Condemnation will do is make the US more likely to invade Iran. It won't make Iran's behaviors less frequent. So I don't think an Official Condemnation by the country is a good thing, and I don't think it should happen unless we intend to start something; though others think this time will be different and we would be greeted as liberators if we invaded...

afterburner 15y ago
The US won't invade Iran. They might bomb it, but never invade. Too many people, terrain too difficult. 2.5 times more people than Iraq, and 10 times more rugged terrain. Also, they've never been there before, so operationally it's a far more daunting prospect even without considering the already huge challenges. People might think "oh it could just turn into another Iraq." But, really, it can't. Not that pushing back isn't a bad idea. But, really, it can't. If anything happens, it'll be all bombs.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  People said the same thing about Afghanistan, and Iraq too. Just because something is difficult doesn't rule out it happening at some future date. It's even more challenging to try to deal with North Korea militarily, but it would be silly to rule out the possibility entirely. The future of Iran, and of Pakistan too, is crucially important to the future security or insecurity of the entire world. Who can say what future developments may bring?
  - afterburner 15y ago
    About Afghanistan: the CIA had been involved in Afghanistan for decades. They had volumes of information, and allies. Russian involvement made a lot of information available (spies) and set the country up for interventionist scenarios. With Iraq, the entire military had been there 10 years before. Those are not the case in Iran. It's much more of an unknown. And frankly, Afghanistan really is easier to invade, so I'm not sure invading was such a shock as you claim, especially coming a mere 20 years after the Russian invasion. It's a country divided into self-interested warlord factions. Achieving any kind of lasting effect, that's another thing entirely... but sitting around having pot-shots taken at you, no problem. Especially if you can back it up with cash. Sure, who knows what can happen. But it would practically have to be a new world order, slanted towards that possibility. So that's not a good reason for keeping a lid on any talk of Iran being unjust or unfair, just out of fear that such talk now would somehow contribute some fraction of a fraction towards intervention in some unknown, completely removed event in the distant future.
- shingen 15y ago
  I agree. An invasion of Iran would be a real war, the likes of which we haven't seen since the Korean war. It would very likely involve a draft, and require at least 500,000 troops on the ground. We'd lose 20,000 soldiers in the first year of combat (obviously all the fighting after the first wave of battles would be guerrilla style). Iran is absolutely nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan, in any way shape or form. It's not that we can't 'win' in an invasion style conflict with Iran - we can certainly flatten the entire country - but the cost would be far beyond anything the American public could stomach. The things we'd have to do to Iran in order to get them to capitulate would be beyond horrendous. I don't believe we can actually afford the cost that would be involved. Unless Ben Bernanke is willing to monetize $3 trillion to fund it over the next few years. Maybe they're willing to do that and are that stupid, I'd just like to think not. Bombs, no-fly zones, naval skirmishes - that's all we're going to see. Unless our leaders are really really really stupid.
peterwwillis 15y ago
Both the Canadian government[1], the Inter-Parliamentary Group for Human Rights, and Amnesty International[2] have condemned this fast-track conviction/execution. I don't think the US government echoing an ally nation and a human rights organization will spark a war. However, it does help put international pressure on them which might make them hesitate to perform the same action again. In any case, if you believe it's wrong you should speak out against it, no matter the consequences. Staying silent only allows the abuses to continue. [1] http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jskeJOMweZF8tVnrLUVnDcI1qT-Q?docId=CNG.4100c76d04bbec9094cd4dc90805a56d.7c1 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jskeJOMwe... [2] http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/iran-must-halt-execution-of-web-programmer http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/iran-must-halt-exec...
- Jach 15y ago
  I didn't say it would spark a war, I said it would make it more likely. Maybe it would only make it a tiny bit more likely, I don't think the amount matters so much in this case. There's already a shitstorm of anti-Iran propaganda being spewed by the major media outlets, I think all but Ron Paul on the GOP presidential line up don't publicly admit any problems with having a war with Iran--a few even think Iran is sneaking in terrorists over the US-Mexican border... We're constantly sabre-rattling about nukes (or doing more than rattling if you believe we're in cahoots with (most likely) the Israeli government ordering the killing of Iran's nuclear scientists (imagine if Germany/Japan had Feynman, Oppenheimer, Fermi, Bohm, and Bohr killed)). We threaten sanctions or bombing their nuclear facilities, Iran threatens right back with all-out war (only if we do certain sanctions or bomb them first). So condemning them over this relatively minor action all things considered, just adds to the total amount of anti-Iran propaganda already out there (some of it warranted, most of it not), if it keeps growing then eventually it will be enough that the American Public demands war. I agree that regardless of what politicians chest-beat about they would have to be really really stupid to actually do it, but I wouldn't put it past this administration and this congress let alone with who might be coming up in the next few election cycles. Meanwhile Canada et al. are free to do as they wish since they're not in the position to actually start something with Iran, and their words are just words.

by Jach 15y ago

afterburner 15y ago

The US won't invade Iran. They might bomb it, but never invade. Too many people, terrain too difficult. 2.5 times more people than Iraq, and 10 times more rugged terrain. Also, they've never been there before, so operationally it's a far more daunting prospect even without considering the already huge challenges. People might think "oh it could just turn into another Iraq." But, really, it can't. Not that pushing back isn't a bad idea. But, really, it can't. If anything happens, it'll be all bombs.

InclinedPlane 15y ago
People said the same thing about Afghanistan, and Iraq too. Just because something is difficult doesn't rule out it happening at some future date. It's even more challenging to try to deal with North Korea militarily, but it would be silly to rule out the possibility entirely. The future of Iran, and of Pakistan too, is crucially important to the future security or insecurity of the entire world. Who can say what future developments may bring?
- afterburner 15y ago
  About Afghanistan: the CIA had been involved in Afghanistan for decades. They had volumes of information, and allies. Russian involvement made a lot of information available (spies) and set the country up for interventionist scenarios. With Iraq, the entire military had been there 10 years before. Those are not the case in Iran. It's much more of an unknown. And frankly, Afghanistan really is easier to invade, so I'm not sure invading was such a shock as you claim, especially coming a mere 20 years after the Russian invasion. It's a country divided into self-interested warlord factions. Achieving any kind of lasting effect, that's another thing entirely... but sitting around having pot-shots taken at you, no problem. Especially if you can back it up with cash. Sure, who knows what can happen. But it would practically have to be a new world order, slanted towards that possibility. So that's not a good reason for keeping a lid on any talk of Iran being unjust or unfair, just out of fear that such talk now would somehow contribute some fraction of a fraction towards intervention in some unknown, completely removed event in the distant future.
shingen 15y ago
I agree. An invasion of Iran would be a real war, the likes of which we haven't seen since the Korean war. It would very likely involve a draft, and require at least 500,000 troops on the ground. We'd lose 20,000 soldiers in the first year of combat (obviously all the fighting after the first wave of battles would be guerrilla style). Iran is absolutely nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan, in any way shape or form. It's not that we can't 'win' in an invasion style conflict with Iran - we can certainly flatten the entire country - but the cost would be far beyond anything the American public could stomach. The things we'd have to do to Iran in order to get them to capitulate would be beyond horrendous. I don't believe we can actually afford the cost that would be involved. Unless Ben Bernanke is willing to monetize $3 trillion to fund it over the next few years. Maybe they're willing to do that and are that stupid, I'd just like to think not. Bombs, no-fly zones, naval skirmishes - that's all we're going to see. Unless our leaders are really really really stupid.

peterwwillis 15y ago

Both the Canadian government[1], the Inter-Parliamentary Group for Human Rights, and Amnesty International[2] have condemned this fast-track conviction/execution. I don't think the US government echoing an ally nation and a human rights organization will spark a war. However, it does help put international pressure on them which might make them hesitate to perform the same action again. In any case, if you believe it's wrong you should speak out against it, no matter the consequences. Staying silent only allows the abuses to continue. [1] http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jskeJOMweZF8tVnrLUVnDcI1qT-Q?docId=CNG.4100c76d04bbec9094cd4dc90805a56d.7c1 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jskeJOMwe... [2] http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/iran-must-halt-execution-of-web-programmer http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/iran-must-halt-exec...

Jach 15y ago
I didn't say it would spark a war, I said it would make it more likely. Maybe it would only make it a tiny bit more likely, I don't think the amount matters so much in this case. There's already a shitstorm of anti-Iran propaganda being spewed by the major media outlets, I think all but Ron Paul on the GOP presidential line up don't publicly admit any problems with having a war with Iran--a few even think Iran is sneaking in terrorists over the US-Mexican border... We're constantly sabre-rattling about nukes (or doing more than rattling if you believe we're in cahoots with (most likely) the Israeli government ordering the killing of Iran's nuclear scientists (imagine if Germany/Japan had Feynman, Oppenheimer, Fermi, Bohm, and Bohr killed)). We threaten sanctions or bombing their nuclear facilities, Iran threatens right back with all-out war (only if we do certain sanctions or bomb them first). So condemning them over this relatively minor action all things considered, just adds to the total amount of anti-Iran propaganda already out there (some of it warranted, most of it not), if it keeps growing then eventually it will be enough that the American Public demands war. I agree that regardless of what politicians chest-beat about they would have to be really really stupid to actually do it, but I wouldn't put it past this administration and this congress let alone with who might be coming up in the next few election cycles. Meanwhile Canada et al. are free to do as they wish since they're not in the position to actually start something with Iran, and their words are just words.