PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security All this tough talk against Iran is just talk...


Taco John
02-05-2012, 05:18 AM
Generals try to stop an Iran war:

It has leaked that US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen. Martin Dempsey warned the Israelis that if they launched a strike on Iran that spiralled into a war, they would be on their own.

http://www.juancole.com/2012/02/the-generals-try-to-stop-an-iran-war.html

BigMeatballDave
02-05-2012, 05:23 AM
Good.

We need a drastic Foreign Policy change.

The main reason I'm voting for Paul.

Cheater5
02-05-2012, 08:11 AM
Here's a link to an assessment (14 slides) done by GEN McCaffrey (ret) on Iran and its capabilities. You can breeze through it in just a few minutes-

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/images/pdf/mccaffrey-nbc-iran-nukes-and-oil-january-122012.pdf

I'd attach it, but the file is too large.

Bowser
02-05-2012, 02:37 PM
Good.

We need a drastic Foreign Policy change.

The main reason I'm voting for Paul.

Foreign policy is Paul's weakness, imo. The world's countries are inexorably tied to one another in a way that we never have been in history. Pulling back inside our borders just isn't an option anymore. Not saying having a worldwide imperical presence is, either, but I'm just not encouraged by what little I've heard from him on the subject.

Bowser
02-05-2012, 02:50 PM
And I'll just throw this in here, instead of making a new thread....


TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will target any country used as a launchpad for attacks against its soil, the deputy Revolutionary Guards commander said, expanding Tehran's range of threats in an increasingly volatile stand-off with world powers over its nuclear ambitions.

Last week, Iran's supreme clerical leader threatened reprisals for the West's new ban on Iranian oil exports and the U.S. defense secretary was quoted as saying Israel was likely to bomb Iran within months to stop it assembling nuclear weapons.

Although broadened and sharpened financial sanctions have begun to inflict serious economic pain in Iran, its oil minister asserted Saturday it would make no nuclear retreat even if its crude oil exports ground to a halt.

Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian energy purposes. But its recent shift of uranium enrichment to a mountain bunker possibly impervious to conventional bombing, and refusal to negotiate peaceful guarantees for the program or open up to U.N. nuclear inspectors, have thickened an atmosphere of brewing confrontation, raising fears for Gulf oil supplies.

"Any spot used by the enemy for hostile operations against Iran will be subjected to retaliatory aggression by our armed forces," Hossein Salami, deputy head of the elite Revolutionary Guards, told the semi-official Fars news agency Sunday.

The Guards began two days of military maneuvers in southern Iran Saturday in another show of force for Iran's adversaries associated with tensions over its disputed nuclear program.

Sunday Israel appointed a new air force chief who last month, in his position as top military planner, warned publicly that Israel could not deal a knock-out blow to its enemies, including Iran, in any regional conflict.

The United States and Israel, Iran's arch-enemies, have not ruled out a military strike on Tehran if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear stalemate. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to visit Washington next month, his office said Sunday, and Israeli political sources said he is likely to meet U.S. President Barack Obama while there.

Iran's Salami did not identify which countries he meant as possible hosts for military action against it.

The six, U.S.-allied Arab states in the Gulf Cooperation Council, situated on the other side of the vital oil exporting waterway from Iran, have said they would not allow their territories to be used for attacks on the Islamic Republic.

But analysts say that if Iran retaliated for an attack launched from outside the region by targeting U.S. facilities in Gulf Arab states, Washington might pressure the host nations to permit those bases to hit back, arguing they should have the right to defend themselves.

The Gulf states that host U.S. military facilities are Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.

THREAT TO SHUT VITAL OIL CHANNEL

Iran has warned its response to any such strike will be "painful," threatening to target Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, along with closing the Strait of Hormuz used by one third of the world's seaborne oil traffic.

Betraying nervousness about possible blowback from any military strike on Iran, two of its neighbors - Qatar and Turkey - urged the West Sunday to make greater efforts to negotiate a solution to the nuclear row.

Speaking at the annual Munich Security Conference attended by top world policymakers, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said an attack would be a "disaster" and the dispute over Iran's nuclear program could be ended very rapidly.

"If there is strong political will and mutual confidence being established, this issue could be resolved in a few days," he said. "The technical disputes are not so big. The problem is mutual confidence and strong political will."

He added: "A military option will create a disaster in our region. So before that disaster, everybody must be serious in negotiations. We hope soon both sides will meet again but this time there will be a complete result."

Turkey was the venue of the last talks between Western powers and Iran a year ago which ended in stalemate because participants could not even agree on an agenda.

Qatari Deputy Foreign Minister Khalid Mohamed al-Attiyah said an attack "is not a solution, and tightening the embargo on Iran will make the scenario worse.

"I believe that with our allies and friends in the West we should open a serious dialogue with the Iranians to get out of this dilemma. This is what we feel in our region."

Tehran has warned several times it may seal off the Strait of Hormuz, throttling the supply of Gulf crude and gas, if attacked or if sanctions mean it cannot export its oil.

A military strike on Iran and Iran's response, which might include an attack on the oilfields of No. 1 exporter Saudi Arabia, would send oil prices soaring, which could seriously harm the global economy

(Additional reporting by William Maclean in Munich and Michael Holden in London; Writing by Mark Heinrich; Editing by Sophie Hares)

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-attack-country-used-strike-soil-124225174.html

alnorth
02-05-2012, 03:07 PM
Iran will target any country used as a launchpad for attacks against its soil, the deputy Revolutionary Guards commander said, expanding Tehran's range of threats in an increasingly volatile stand-off with world powers over its nuclear ambitions.

That isn't exactly a crazy policy.

If China were to use Mexico as a launching pad for attacks against the US and we repelled the attack, I doubt Mexico could get away with wide-eyed innocence saying "what? We didn't attack you guys, go to China!"

BigMeatballDave
02-05-2012, 03:15 PM
Foreign policy is Paul's weakness, imo. The world's countries are inexorably tied to one another in a way that we never have been in history. Pulling back inside our borders just isn't an option anymore. Not saying having a worldwide imperical presence is, either, but I'm just not encouraged by what little I've heard from him on the subject.

He's not an Isolationist. And I'm not in favor of that. We need to remove ourselves from the ME.

I didn't like our actions in Libya.

And we need to stay the fuck away from Iran.

Also, I think military personnel are in favor of his foreign policy change, because he gets more donations from them than the other candidates, combined.

go bowe
02-05-2012, 03:25 PM
Foreign policy is Paul's weakness, imo. The world's countries are inexorably tied to one another in a way that we never have been in history. Pulling back inside our borders just isn't an option anymore. Not saying having a worldwide imperical presence is, either, but I'm just not encouraged by what little I've heard from him on the subject.

does he want to pull back inside our borders?

bringing large numbers of troops home from europe and japan and cutting back deployments to other overseas bases doesn't necessarily entail pulling back within our borders...

he also says he would go to war and win it if declared by congress, and he didn't say we won't send troops overseas in a war situation...

he's a little extreme in his views on the matter, but essentially, as interpreted by me for myself, i agree with his foreign policy ideas...

ah, now if he could just win the nomination and discover the fountain of youth i would be glad to vote for him without hesitation...

mostly...

Pawnmower
02-05-2012, 11:20 PM
Good.

We need a drastic Foreign Policy change.

The main reason I'm voting for Paul.

oh, the irony

Foreign policy is the main reason Paul won't be president.

Direckshun
02-05-2012, 11:21 PM
I've been pretty much saying this for a year.

Taco John
02-05-2012, 11:32 PM
Foreign policy is Paul's weakness, imo. The world's countries are inexorably tied to one another in a way that we never have been in history.


Yeah? How so? I'm curious to hear about these inexorable links that can't be tinkered with without destroying the world.

|Zach|
02-05-2012, 11:33 PM
Generals try to stop an Iran war:

It has leaked that US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen. Martin Dempsey warned the Israelis that if they launched a strike on Iran that spiralled into a war, they would be on their own.



As it should be.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-05-2012, 11:40 PM
That isn't exactly a crazy policy.

If China were to use Mexico as a launching pad for attacks against the US and we repelled the attack, I doubt Mexico could get away with wide-eyed innocence saying "what? We didn't attack you guys, go to China!"

Exactly, we act like it's some horrible atrocity a country would dare defend itself against aggression.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-05-2012, 11:41 PM
Yeah? How so? I'm curious to hear about these inexorable links that can't be tinkered with without destroying the world.

Globalism is inevitable, blah blah blah.

Bowser
02-06-2012, 12:13 AM
Yeah? How so? I'm curious to hear about these inexorable links that can't be tinkered with without destroying the world.

Is this sarcasm? I think it's sarcasm.

Taco John
02-06-2012, 01:25 AM
Is this sarcasm? I think it's sarcasm.

LOL

I thought your post was sarcasm. You seriously believe there are problems we have that only subsidizing Germany and France's military will solve?

No, I'm not being sarcastic at all. I wish you would pour your wisdom on us. This could be good for sum lulz. I mean you used the word "inexorable" which implies to me that this wisdom is somewhat obvious - that we'd be gobsmacked to consider anything else but dumping our economy into theirs because of how terrible things would be if we didn't.

Please, do tell...

wazu
02-06-2012, 06:26 AM
Foreign policy is Paul's weakness, imo. The world's countries are inexorably tied to one another in a way that we never have been in history. Pulling back inside our borders just isn't an option anymore. Not saying having a worldwide imperical presence is, either, but I'm just not encouraged by what little I've heard from him on the subject.

How about this - we pull back inside our borders just long enough to get out of debt. Once that's done and we find ourselves with a budget surplus we don't know where to spend, we can celebrate by declaring war on whatever insignificant third world country is scaring us the most at that time.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-06-2012, 09:35 AM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lGuR7FvGMqk?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:57 AM
Foreign policy is Paul's weakness, imo. The world's countries are inexorably tied to one another in a way that we never have been in history. Pulling back inside our borders just isn't an option anymore. Not saying having a worldwide imperical presence is, either, but I'm just not encouraged by what little I've heard from him on the subject.

If the world is tied together, why not just have a world govt with one army then?

If this is true, then we need our military less because you are advocating top down change using the force and violence of govt. Trading with other countries is going to lead to communication which leads to an exchange of ideas which leads to change anyway. If not change, cooperation, as trade is mutually advantageous to each side.

Your premise is based on the idea that our govt's use of the military is handling valid issues, when it's more that mercantile interests just want to seize resources.

Bowser
02-06-2012, 02:08 PM
LOL

I thought your post was sarcasm. You seriously believe there are problems we have that only subsidizing Germany and France's military will solve?

No, I'm not being sarcastic at all. I wish you would pour your wisdom on us. This could be good for sum lulz. I mean you used the word "inexorable" which implies to me that this wisdom is somewhat obvious - that we'd be gobsmacked to consider anything else but dumping our economy into theirs because of how terrible things would be if we didn't.

Please, do tell...

If the world is tied together, why not just have a world govt with one army then?

If this is true, then we need our military less because you are advocating top down change using the force and violence of govt. Trading with other countries is going to lead to communication which leads to an exchange of ideas which leads to change anyway. If not change, cooperation, as trade is mutually advantageous to each side.

Your premise is based on the idea that our govt's use of the military is handling valid issues, when it's more that mercantile interests just want to seize resources. LOL. You Paul supporters are a bit touchy, no? I should have disclaimered that my knowledge of the man is passive at best, but I think I did throw in "what little I've heard" at some point. Maybe he would have the best foeign policy of any president in the last 100 years, who knows. But again, from "what little I've heard", he sounds like he really just wants to make the US about the US, and I just think we've reached a point where that just isn't feasible. If I'm wrong in that opinion, feel free to educate.

How about this - we pull back inside our borders just long enough to get out of debt. Once that's done and we find ourselves with a budget surplus we don't know where to spend, we can celebrate by declaring war on whatever insignificant third world country is scaring us the most at that time.

I like it. This needs to happen.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 02:23 PM
LOL. You Paul supporters are a bit touchy, no?
What on earth is even remotely "touchy" about clarifying a position? It was said just as a matter of fact not because we're touchy or over sensitive.

I should have disclaimered that my knowledge of the man is passive at best, but I think I did throw in "what little I've heard" at some point. Maybe he would have the best foeign policy of any president in the last 100 years, who knows. But again, from "what little I've heard", he sounds like he really just wants to make the US about the US, and I just think we've reached a point where that just isn't feasible. If I'm wrong in that opinion, feel free to educate.



I like it. This needs to happen.

Paul advocates robust trade and discourse with other nations because such things facilitate cooperation making the need for using the military less. It's not just Paul's stand it is the stand of those who believe trade and markets bring other benefits. So the world coming closer together means less war. Otherwise, the people in those lands would be killing off their customers or markets.

This is the opposite of isolationism. What is isolationist is using bombs to manage the world which alienates other peoples.

La literatura
02-06-2012, 02:27 PM
Paul advocates robust trade and discourse with other nations because such things facilitate cooperation making the need for using the military less. It's not just Paul's stand it is the stand of those who believe trade and markets bring other benefits. So the world coming closer together means less war. Otherwise, the people in those lands would be killing off their customers or markets.

This is the opposite of isolationism. What is isolationist is using bombs to manage the world which alienates other peoples.

That isn't just Paul's plan. That's word-for-word the Washington Consensus. During and after the Cold War, America was and remains the voice for free market ideology: trade + democratic institutions = net positive for all parties.

Of course, America also acts alongside the WTO and World Bank to implement the Washington Consensus, which Ron Paul is not a fan of.