Why there is nothing that can be done to stop Iran. - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

UtahDan · 05-11-2006, 01:31 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051002072.html

Interesting editorial by the Washington Post this morning. You will have to read it or these comments will make no sense.

I just wanted to wonder outloud whether (and not rhetorically, I'm sincerely interested to know) progessives see any scenario where the projection of force would be appropriate.

Here we have the Washington Post editorial board correctly observing that Iran has issued an Al Queda like manifesto and that "the West" (whatever the hell that is) will have to use not just carrots but sticks and that Tehran must be disabused of the notion that there is no cost in defying the west. Though the Post doesn't say it, many believe that we need to get China and Russia on board with sanctions (which by the way is an UTTER impossibility) and that sanctions are the only way to stop the nuclear program. It is also rightly observed that the world will not support military intervention and that we are too thinly spread to go that alone.

So basically, at this point, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop a government who issues Al Queda like manifestos from acquiring nuclear arms. Does this trouble anyone else?

The way we got there is that (1) no one else in the world seems to believe in the use of force and (2) half of Americans and 99% of the press don't either.

So what do you do if you're the administration? I don't know that we can do anything. Here is what I do believe will occur: Iran will acquire nukes and will either use them or intimidate the region with them and someone down the road will accuse GWB of having allowed it to come to pass on his watch.

So I ask: is there ever at time when the projection of force is appropriate? Is it morally wrong? Is it just too difficult? Tehran counts on the answers being no, yes and yes. It knows that no one is left who has the will to stop them.

I really think the problem is that it has been so long since the world has faced an actual threat that no one really believes one is forming. Many people here wanted to know just what exactly our stake in WWII was. Even after we were attacked by Japan, many wondered why we deployed most of our armed forces to Europe. What would it have really mattered in the Nazi's controlled Europe? Or Japan the South Pacific? What imminent threat was there to the mainland? Its not like either of them could have ever invaded us. And why should we have cared is Russia and communism controlled Europe or Asia? That is a long ways from here. Who cares if Tehran gets nukes? We are half a world away. This thought process is bolstered by the fact that Iraq turned out not to have the WMD that everyone believed they did (or at least it has neve been found).

The isolationist impulse is strong and it dominates world politics outside the US (and will dominate soon here as well I believe). The only thing that tempers it, ultimately, are the acts of evil people who step into the void while we are all having an afternoon nap and feeling like these things aren't really our problem.

I don't know the solution. I don't think there is one at this point. I think that ultimately we are going to be withdrawing more and more because US and world sentiment will dictate it and eventually we will be startled from our slumber when one of these terrorist groups or rogue states does what they have been saying they will do and destroy a major western (or Israeli) city. Then we will have hearing and commissions to figure out how it occurred, to assign blame and to ask ourselves how GWB allowed it. This may be years down the road, but I think it is where we inevitably go. It is where we were in the 1930s and part of the 40s.

I just hope that when that day comes that we won't be so completely crippled by the collapse of world markets that we are unable to act.

Maybe I'm being dramatic. Maybe these are just my worst fears. I sure hope I am wrong.

Colly Wolly · 05-11-2006, 01:42 PM

Nice post. It certainly is a quandry. Situations like this make me pine for the good ol' days of Ronald Reagan. I am too young too remember, but I believe that it was very shortly after Ronald Reagan was elected that the Iranians released the US Embassy hostages.

JohnnyLingo · 05-11-2006, 05:13 PM

You've got it exactly right, UtahDan. I hope my support doesn't torpedo your position too badly.

Iran knows that it doesn't have to beat us militarily, because it's winning the political war. Like you said, the media and 50% of the US would never attack Iran for any reason regardless of what they were doing. Iran knows that when the threats coming from Europe and the US start ramping up, all they have to do it extend a small olive branch and the threat is averted for months.

In a way, a small part of me hopes Iran does nuke someone. The hope would be that those who are in denial currently would wake up to the real world and do enough to stop Iran at that point.

Of course, part of me fears even a nuclear event would not be enough unless it was on the US mainland.

We'll just have to see.

UtahDan · 05-11-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

In a way, a small part of me hopes Iran does nuke someone. The hope would be that those who are in denial currently would wake up to the real world and do enough to stop Iran at that point.

Of course, part of me fears even a nuclear event would not be enough unless it was on the US mainland.

Well, I don't want to be right quiet that badly. In fact, I would love to be wrong. I hope and pray that I am. History, however, is not on the side of those who are counting on no one doing anything violent and/or irrational.

OhioBlue · 05-11-2006, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

History, however, is not on the side of those who are counting on no one doing anything violent and/or irrational.

How true is that. Well said.

JohnnyLingo · 05-11-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Well, I don't want to be right quiet that badly.

My desire is not to be right, but if you read the part of my post you quoted, I said I hope it would awaken the world to a lively sense of the danger they're faced with. And then do something about it.

All-American · 05-11-2006, 10:03 PM

The United States is in a state of shocking apathy regarding World Events. Even the waves generated by September 11th didn't last more than a year. The death toll of the current conflict, while tragic and unfortunate, pales in comparison to any other major conflict the nation has been involved in.

Quite simply, I question the ability of the modern-day American nation to dedicate itself to the accomplishment of a major task requiring sacrifice and diligence. And that thought scares me.

Detroitdad · 05-16-2006, 07:58 AM

appropriate if we had the capability. Unfortunately that is not really a possibility at the moment, what with Iraq and the presence there. Iran is a country with more difficult terrain, three times the population, and more incentive to fight than Iraq. It would require maybe close to a million boots on the ground to do it right, and that would require an uptick in enlistment.

We could think about air strikes, but there nuclear facilities are spread out. In addition, we would be in clear violation of International law and we lose any moral high ground that we could have had. Then of course there are world oil prices which would skyrocket even more.

This is not to mention the potential for destabilization and terrorist spawning and training in Iran. The Shia in Iraq would very likely be inflamed by the happenings in Iran and make more trouble in Iraq.

Basically I think that we are stuck in a position in which none of our options are viable. If we could have a big group of nations that could share the blame, and human and monetary costs then maybe it could be a go. But that ain't going to happen.

For a short answer to your question, is the use of force ever justified in the mind of progressives? Yes, in some of their minds, at least in mine. But the cost benefit analysis in Iran makes it a no go. Of course, even undergoing that analysis ignores the virtual impossibility of the US in undertaking such an action.

05-11-2006, 01:31 PM	#1
UtahDan Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Bluth Home Posts: 3,877	Why there is nothing that can be done to stop Iran. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051002072.html Interesting editorial by the Washington Post this morning. You will have to read it or these comments will make no sense. I just wanted to wonder outloud whether (and not rhetorically, I'm sincerely interested to know) progessives see any scenario where the projection of force would be appropriate. Here we have the Washington Post editorial board correctly observing that Iran has issued an Al Queda like manifesto and that "the West" (whatever the hell that is) will have to use not just carrots but sticks and that Tehran must be disabused of the notion that there is no cost in defying the west. Though the Post doesn't say it, many believe that we need to get China and Russia on board with sanctions (which by the way is an UTTER impossibility) and that sanctions are the only way to stop the nuclear program. It is also rightly observed that the world will not support military intervention and that we are too thinly spread to go that alone. So basically, at this point, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop a government who issues Al Queda like manifestos from acquiring nuclear arms. Does this trouble anyone else? The way we got there is that (1) no one else in the world seems to believe in the use of force and (2) half of Americans and 99% of the press don't either. So what do you do if you're the administration? I don't know that we can do anything. Here is what I do believe will occur: Iran will acquire nukes and will either use them or intimidate the region with them and someone down the road will accuse GWB of having allowed it to come to pass on his watch. So I ask: is there ever at time when the projection of force is appropriate? Is it morally wrong? Is it just too difficult? Tehran counts on the answers being no, yes and yes. It knows that no one is left who has the will to stop them. I really think the problem is that it has been so long since the world has faced an actual threat that no one really believes one is forming. Many people here wanted to know just what exactly our stake in WWII was. Even after we were attacked by Japan, many wondered why we deployed most of our armed forces to Europe. What would it have really mattered in the Nazi's controlled Europe? Or Japan the South Pacific? What imminent threat was there to the mainland? Its not like either of them could have ever invaded us. And why should we have cared is Russia and communism controlled Europe or Asia? That is a long ways from here. Who cares if Tehran gets nukes? We are half a world away. This thought process is bolstered by the fact that Iraq turned out not to have the WMD that everyone believed they did (or at least it has neve been found). The isolationist impulse is strong and it dominates world politics outside the US (and will dominate soon here as well I believe). The only thing that tempers it, ultimately, are the acts of evil people who step into the void while we are all having an afternoon nap and feeling like these things aren't really our problem. I don't know the solution. I don't think there is one at this point. I think that ultimately we are going to be withdrawing more and more because US and world sentiment will dictate it and eventually we will be startled from our slumber when one of these terrorist groups or rogue states does what they have been saying they will do and destroy a major western (or Israeli) city. Then we will have hearing and commissions to figure out how it occurred, to assign blame and to ask ourselves how GWB allowed it. This may be years down the road, but I think it is where we inevitably go. It is where we were in the 1930s and part of the 40s. I just hope that when that day comes that we won't be so completely crippled by the collapse of world markets that we are unable to act. Maybe I'm being dramatic. Maybe these are just my worst fears. I sure hope I am wrong. __________________ The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo Last edited by UtahDan; 05-11-2006 at 01:44 PM. Reason: To clarify the jist of the post.

05-11-2006, 01:42 PM	#2
Colly Wolly Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,281	Nice post. It certainly is a quandry. Situations like this make me pine for the good ol' days of Ronald Reagan. I am too young too remember, but I believe that it was very shortly after Ronald Reagan was elected that the Iranians released the US Embassy hostages. Last edited by Colly Wolly; 05-11-2006 at 02:02 PM.

05-11-2006, 10:03 PM	#7
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	The United States is in a state of shocking apathy regarding World Events. Even the waves generated by September 11th didn't last more than a year. The death toll of the current conflict, while tragic and unfortunate, pales in comparison to any other major conflict the nation has been involved in. Quite simply, I question the ability of the modern-day American nation to dedicate itself to the accomplishment of a major task requiring sacrifice and diligence. And that thought scares me. __________________ εν αρχη ην ο λογος

05-16-2006, 07:58 AM	#8
Detroitdad Resident Jackass Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Roswell, New Mexico Posts: 1,846	The application of Force in Iran might have been appropriate if we had the capability. Unfortunately that is not really a possibility at the moment, what with Iraq and the presence there. Iran is a country with more difficult terrain, three times the population, and more incentive to fight than Iraq. It would require maybe close to a million boots on the ground to do it right, and that would require an uptick in enlistment. We could think about air strikes, but there nuclear facilities are spread out. In addition, we would be in clear violation of International law and we lose any moral high ground that we could have had. Then of course there are world oil prices which would skyrocket even more. This is not to mention the potential for destabilization and terrorist spawning and training in Iran. The Shia in Iraq would very likely be inflamed by the happenings in Iran and make more trouble in Iraq. Basically I think that we are stuck in a position in which none of our options are viable. If we could have a big group of nations that could share the blame, and human and monetary costs then maybe it could be a go. But that ain't going to happen. For a short answer to your question, is the use of force ever justified in the mind of progressives? Yes, in some of their minds, at least in mine. But the cost benefit analysis in Iran makes it a no go. Of course, even undergoing that analysis ignores the virtual impossibility of the US in undertaking such an action.

05-11-2006, 05:13 PM	#3
JohnnyLingo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,175	You've got it exactly right, UtahDan. I hope my support doesn't torpedo your position too badly. Iran knows that it doesn't have to beat us militarily, because it's winning the political war. Like you said, the media and 50% of the US would never attack Iran for any reason regardless of what they were doing. Iran knows that when the threats coming from Europe and the US start ramping up, all they have to do it extend a small olive branch and the threat is averted for months. In a way, a small part of me hopes Iran does nuke someone. The hope would be that those who are in denial currently would wake up to the real world and do enough to stop Iran at that point. Of course, part of me fears even a nuclear event would not be enough unless it was on the US mainland. We'll just have to see.