NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran

The Nuclear Power Beside Iraq


Now that Iran unquestionably intends to build a nuclear bomb, the international community has few options to stop it—and the worst option would be a military strike

by James Fallows

.....

A year and a half ago, Iran’s nuclear ambition constituted a threat but not yet a world crisis. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had not yet been elected president of the country, nor begun his declarations that the Holocaust never occurred and that modern Israel must be “wiped from the map.” The mullah-dominated Iranian government was still evasive and uncooperative rather than flatly defiant when the United States and Europe demanded supervision of its nuclear programs by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It might even look favorably on the face-saving compromise the Russian government talked about, under which Iranians could build just about any nuclear power plant they wanted, thereby satisfying their announced desire to move beyond reliance on oil—as long as they left the reprocessing and enrichment of spent fuel, and therefore the potential for building nuclear weapons, in Russian hands on Russian soil.

It was at this time, in September 2004, that The Atlantic sponsored a “war game” to consider what choices the United States might have if the Iranian problem built to a crisis. War games are not a staple of this magazine’s operation, but in light of difficulties in Iraq, we wanted to play out the long-term implications of possible U.S. moves and Iranian countermoves. So under the guidance of Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who had conducted many real-world war games for the Pentagon, including those that shaped U.S. strategy for the first Gulf War, we assembled a panel of experts to ask “What then?” about the ways in which the United States might threaten, pressure, or entice the Iranians not to build a bomb. Some had been for and some against the invasion of Iraq; all had served in the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, or other parts of the nation’s security apparatus, and many had dealt directly with Iran.
Advertisement

The experts disagreed on some details but were nearly unanimous on one crucial point: what might seem America’s ace in the hole—the ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations in a pre-emptive air strike—was a fantasy. When exposed to “What then?” analysis, this plan (or a variant in which the United States looked the other way while Israel did the job) held more dangers than rewards for the United States. How could this be, given America’s crushing strength and wealth relative to Iran’s? There were three main problems:

* The United States was too late. Iran’s leaders had learned from what happened to Saddam Hussein in 1981, when Israeli F-16s destroyed a facility at Osirak where most of his nuclear projects were concentrated. Iran spread its research to at least a dozen sites—exactly how many, and where, the U.S. government could not be sure.

* The United States was too vulnerable. Iran, until now relatively restrained in using its influence among the Iraqi Shiites, “could make Iraq hell,” in the words of one of our experts, Kenneth Pollack, of the Brookings Institution. It could use its influence on the world’s oil markets to shock Western economies—most of all, that of the world’s largest oil importer, the United States.

* The plan was likely to backfire, in a grand-strategy sense. At best, it would slow Iranian nuclear projects by a few years. But the cost of buying that time would likely be a redoubling of Iran’s determination to get a bomb—and an increase in its bitterness toward the United States.

hat was the situation nearly two years ago. Everything that has changed since then increases the pressure on the United States to choose the “military option” of a pre-emptive strike—and makes that option more ruinously self-defeating.

About Iran’s intention to build a bomb, there is no serious disagreement among Russia, China, France, and the United States. Iran has dropped its pretense of benign intent. It refused the compromise that Russia formally proposed late in 2005 (though a new round of negotiations was announced early in March). Last year’s elections, the most democratic in that nation’s history, transformed the leadership—by making it more anti-Western and harder-edged. The attainment of an Iranian bomb might provoke Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other neighboring countries to begin nuclear programs of their own, and might make the terrorist groups Iran supports throughout the region feel they can attack with greater impunity. Dealing with Iran is now considered an international crisis.As it has watched Iran’s evolution, the United States has delivered more and more studied warnings that “all options remain open”—code to the Iranians that they should worry about an attack. In different ways, George W. Bush and two aspiring successors, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, have expressed this view. Government officials in Israel have been more explicit still, with the defense minister saying that Israel “will not accept” Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Intellectuals, activists, and out-of-power politicians from Newt Gingrich to Benjamin Netanyahu have all urged their leaders to stand firm.

The biggest change has been in what Soviet strategists used to call the “correlation of forces.” Every tool at Iran’s disposal is now more powerful, and every complication for the United States worse, than when our war-gamers determined that a pre-emptive strike could not succeed. Iran has used the passing time to disperse, diversify, conceal, and protect its nuclear centers. Instead of a dozen or so potential sites that would have to be destroyed, it now has at least twice that many. The Shiite dominance of Iraq’s new government and military has consolidated, and the ties between the Shiites of Iran and those of Iraq have grown more intense. Early this year, the Iraqi Shiite warlord Muqtada al-Sadr suggested that he would turn his Mahdi Army against Americans if they attacked Iran.

Economically, Iran also has far greater leverage than before. Through 2004, the price of a barrel of oil averaged less than $40. In 2006, it has been above $60, an increase of more than 50 percent. Rising demand from China, India, and, yes, the United States has left virtually no slack in the world’s oil markets. OPEC’s “spare” production capacity—the amount it could quickly supply beyond current demand—is about 1 million barrels a day. Iran now supplies about 4 million barrels a day. If it chose to, or had to, remove much of its oil from the market, a bidding war could send the price of a barrel of oil above $100. Eventually, everyone would adjust. Eventually, the Great Depression ended.

P erhaps the American and Israeli hard-liners know all this, and are merely bluffing. If so, they have made an elementary strategic error. The target of their bluff is the Iranian government, and the most effective warnings would be discreet and back-channel. Iranian intelligence should be picking up secret signals that the United States is planning an attack. By giving public warnings, the United States and Israel “create ‘excess demand’ for military action,” as our war-game leader Sam Gardiner recently put it, and constrain their own negotiating choices. The inconvenient truth of American foreign policy is that the last five years have left us with a series of choices—and all of them are bad. The United States can’t keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, for obvious reasons. It can’t withdraw them, because of the chaos that would ensue. The United States can’t keep prisoners at Guantánamo Bay (and other overseas facilities) indefinitely, because of international and domestic challenges. But it can’t hastily release them, since many were and more have become terrorists. And it can’t even bring them to trial, because of procedural abuses that have already occurred. Similarly, the United States can’t accept Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power, but it cannot prevent this through military means—unless it is willing to commit itself to all-out war. The central flaw of American foreign policy these last few years has been the triumph of hope, wishful thinking, and self-delusion over realism and practicality. Realism about Iran starts with throwing out any plans to bomb.

More on the wargame can be found here: "Will Iran Be Next?"
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

Wow. Not even one reply?

You're right. 2 years ago we didn't hav a clue where they were. Now we know most places and can watch where they divert reasearchers if we destroy their primary instalations[sic].

Wow. Not even one reply?

Oh no. The warmongers don't like this sort of article.

And those who know the reality of the consequences of an attack on Iran, like myself, can't really find anything further to say on an article that has stated more or less what is to say about the consequences.

I for one, appreciate you posting it, hopefully many will read it.

I suspect that if the US decides to take out Iran, they'll have learned the real lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That real lesson being, that no matter what the US does it cannot be acceptable to the critics. No matter how carefully they strike selected targets, they will be named "babykillers" and "fascists. No matter how real the reasons, their attack will be declared "illegal" and "immoral".

So why bother trying?

Don't even try to reduce civilian casualties, or go after military targets. Can't use nukes, of course; but today we don't ned to.

Drop a dozen Daisycutters on Tehran. Call Arclight missions down on every city, town or village. Keep the accurate stuff for the real military targets, and just carpet-bomb everything else.

There's no Iran problem if there's no Iran.

I suspect that if the US decides to take out Iran, they'll have learned the real lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That real lesson being, that no matter what the US does it cannot be acceptable to the critics. No matter how carefully they strike selected targets, they will be named "babykillers" and "fascists. No matter how real the reasons, their attack will be declared "illegal" and "immoral".

So why bother trying?

Don't even try to reduce civilian casualties, or go after military targets. Can't use nukes, of course; but today we don't ned to.

Drop a dozen Daisycutters on Tehran. Call Arclight missions down on every city, town or village. Keep the accurate stuff for the real military targets, and just carpet-bomb everything else.

There's no Iran problem if there's no Iran.

The problem with the Mongol solution (another name for what you propose) is
that, for that it work, it will involve such a high number of deaths (100s of millions) that you might as well be using WMDs. This is simply unacceptable.

The problem with the Mongol solution (another name for what you propose) is
that, for that it work, it will involve such a high number of deaths (100s of millions) that you might as well be using WMDs. This is simply unacceptable.

Not to mention that the whole muslim world will attack the US. And not just suicide bombings this time. No letting down. No peace. An all out war.

They won't stop till either they are dead or the US.

There's no Iran problem if there's no Iran.
Stalin once said "There is a person, there is a problem. There is no person, there is no problem."

The Nazis said the same thing about jews.

Nice to know where you stand. :)

Not to mention that the whole muslim world will attack the US. And not just suicide bombings this time. No letting down. No peace. An all out war.

They won't stop till either they are dead or the US.

That's ultimately what the Mongol solution is: kill everyone who resist, until there's no more resistance. As I said, it's unacceptable. However, it's the only method that's historically proven to stop suicide terrorism.

That's ultimately what the Mongol solution is: kill everyone who resist, until there's no more resistance. As I said, it's unacceptable. However, it's the only method that's historically proven to stop suicide terrorism.

Banning religion might help too. Though people are too scared to try it out. Mainly because it will trigger suicide terrorism.

Meh.

Actually, I've always preferred "The death of one person is a tragedy. The Deaths of a million people is a statistic." :p

More seriously, this situation is one where I'm afraid the gloves will come off and modern weaponry really will be used on civilians. The US can't occupy Iran; and if we do go in with air power, the temptation will be to hit them so hard and so totally that they'll never have the temerity to challenge us again.

To do that, at the very least they'll have to decapitate the government, and put the fear of god into the majority, doing what airpower couldn't do in 1945, but can now - destroy their capability to wage war.

And the Bush administration could very easily decide that, since they can't get good press, they will no longer try to.

Personally, I don't consider non-proliferation a concept worth going to war over. But if we do, I WOULD support that war being decisive, overwhelming and short. People get killed in wars; if war must be fought, then we have an obligation to ensure minimum casualties on our side.

no matter what the US does.. (about iraq war) No matter how real the reasons....

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

I suspect that if the US decides to take out Iran, they'll have learned the real lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That real lesson being, that no matter what the US does it cannot be acceptable to the critics. No matter how carefully they strike selected targets, they will be named "babykillers" and "fascists. No matter how real the reasons, their attack will be declared "illegal" and "immoral".

So why bother trying?

Don't even try to reduce civilian casualties, or go after military targets. Can't use nukes, of course; but today we don't ned to.

Drop a dozen Daisycutters on Tehran. Call Arclight missions down on every city, town or village. Keep the accurate stuff for the real military targets, and just carpet-bomb everything else.

There's no Iran problem if there's no Iran.


No, that's not the "real lesson of iraq and afghanistan."

Pay attention.

Now that's clever, OceanDrive2.

No, that's not the "real lesson of iraq and afghanistan."

Pay attention.

I AM paying attention. I've been paying attention since the end of Vietnam (well, almost - I was only six then).

If the US fights a justified war, international opinion condemns us.

If the US fights an UNjustified war, international opinion condemns us.

If the US REFUSES to fight in a conflict (Rwanda, early Yugoslavia), international opinion condemns us.

Should we later change our mind and get involved, international opinion condemns us.

The only logical action we can take is to stop listening to international opinion altogether.

Now that's clever, OceanDrive2.
Clever is my middle name :cool:

I AM paying attention. I've been paying attention since the end of Vietnam (well, almost - I was only six then).

If the US fights a justified war, international opinion condemns us.

If the US fights an UNjustified war, international opinion condemns us.

If the US REFUSES to fight in a conflict (Rwanda, early Yugoslavia), international opinion condemns us.

Should we later change our mind and get involved, international opinion condemns us.

The only logical action we can take is to stop listening to international opinion altogether.


I mean pay attention to the war in Iraq.

The lesson we've learned, or at least the people interested in learning lessons have learned, is that our conduct after invading iraq was a terrible mistake that will have dire consequences in the country for a long time.

If we plan on invading another country, the lessons we need to learn all come from our failures in reconstruction and especially in counterinsurgency.

Stop whining about what the europeans think about our adventures and focus on putting our own house in order.

The only logical action we can take is to stop listening to international opinion altogether.
And stay at home.

Frankly I don't see the need in the US having military bases in almost every country on the planet. How kind of it to protect us from ourselves. :rolleyes:

If the US fights a justified war, international opinion condemns us.

If the US fights an UNjustified war, international opinion condemns us.

If the US REFUSES to fight in a conflict (Rwanda, early Yugoslavia), international opinion condemns us.

Should we later change our mind and get involved, international opinion condemns us.

The only logical action we can take is to stop listening to international opinion altogether.

I want to make this into a sig..

I suspect that if the US decides to take out Iran, they'll have learned the real lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That real lesson being, that no matter what the US does it cannot be acceptable to the critics. No matter how carefully they strike selected targets, they will be named "babykillers" and "fascists. No matter how real the reasons, their attack will be declared "illegal" and "immoral".

So why bother trying?

Don't even try to reduce civilian casualties, or go after military targets. Can't use nukes, of course; but today we don't ned to.

Drop a dozen Daisycutters on Tehran. Call Arclight missions down on every city, town or village. Keep the accurate stuff for the real military targets, and just carpet-bomb everything else.

There's no Iran problem if there's no Iran.


Hey great idea, and then the President and all those who planned such an attack could be arrested and tried for war crimes and genocide, and America would become a total international pariah. :rolleyes:

The best thing western nations can do (I.e Britian and the United States) is to keep putting political pressure on Iran or Put Embargos inplace ever that or help sponcer those who want a change in leadership (I.e Coup d'état).

I'm almost certain that the US and Britain don't want to see loads of body bags and coffins being unloaded off of transport planes again, this would be the second to last resort.

The Final Resort would be a Total Nuclear Strike against Tehran, Qom, Mashhad, Bushehr, Fars ect. Leaving no chance for retaliation but we are very, very far from that option. So Far.

The best thing western nations can do (I.e Britian and the United States) is to keep putting political pressure on Iran or Put Embargos inplace ever that or help sponcer those who want a change in leadership (I.e Coup d'état).

I'm almost certain that the US and Britain don't want to see loads of body bags and coffins being unloaded off of transport planes again, this would be the second to last resort.

The Final Resort would be a Total Nuclear Strike against Tehran, Qom, Mashhad, Bushehr, Fars ect. Leaving no chance for retaliation but we are very, very far from that option. So Far.

To be honest, the population of the UK hates our government so much for supporting the USA that if they try it on with Iran then they'll be kicked out.

And I thought the USA liked democracy. Helping a coup's the opposite, and look what's happened in every country where you've ever done that, ever.

Leave the Persians to their own devices is what I think. If the USA can have nukes then anyone can.

I mean pay attention to the war in Iraq.

The lesson we've learned, or at least the people interested in learning lessons have learned, is that our conduct after invading iraq was a terrible mistake that will have dire consequences in the country for a long time.

If we plan on invading another country, the lessons we need to learn all come from our failures in reconstruction and especially in counterinsurgency.

Stop whining about what the europeans think about our adventures and focus on putting our own house in order.

You're right, of course. So, why bother with even trying to occupy? Just annihilate all resistance and then let them rebuild as they like - and can. Iran hates us anyway, so we can't lose out in those stakes.
Best of all, most of the rest of the middle east would probably applaud. Don't forget, the Iranians aren't Arabs, and are considered heretics by the Sunnis.

If you don't care what people think, many more options become available.

As for:
Hey great idea, and then the President and all those who planned such an attack could be arrested and tried for war crimes and genocide, and America would become a total international pariah.

Arrested and tried? By whom?

I hate to say it and I may be called a bad liberal for this but. . . .

I have to agree with the "no Iran, no Iranian problem" solution. With some stipulations. And yes, TG pointed out that Stalin said something like that and Hitler used it, but as much as I hate what those two stood for, they were right on that issue. If you can wipe out a people whoare causing a problem, then the problem goes away.

I would vote for the option of giving Iran one warning and one warning only. Either knock the shit off and cooperate or we start leveling cities. One city at a time. And we start with Mecca. Then Medina. Then Tehran. If they don't get the message the first time, then they won't be around long enough to try and fix the mistake.

You act like a parent punishing a spoiled child. One warning and that is it. Then you show them how serious you are. Use conventional bombs, nukes, whatever. Just totally destroy the city. The people that are causing the problems like these (the super radical muslims and the people who won't giev up on the US is satan type stuff) won't back down until we do. So, instead of granting their wishes and making the US a muslim state (yes, that was an actual demand), we simply issue an ultimatum. Work peacefully with the world, or we remove you from the world.

If they don't take it, kill them.

One major difference (TG, this is directed at you) is that Hitler and Stalin went after people who wanted to try and live peacefully. Hitler went after the jews who just wanted a place to live. Stalin killed people even if they did agree with him. By and large, the middle east is hostile to the US. They don't want to live peacefully, they want to see US citizens die. Becuase of that attitude, the US cannot afford to be nice. It has to be hard, and it just might have the take the last resort option.

-snip-
Silly Americans.

er, BLARGistania, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, not Iran...

er, BLARGistania, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, not Iran...

Yes, but its a Mulsim holy city, which would make our point very clear.

Yes, but its a Mulsim holy city, which would make our point very clear.
Well, I suppose this is the point at which you need to read these two wiki articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni

Either knock the shit off and cooperate or we start leveling cities. One city at a time. And we start with Mecca. Then Medina. Then Tehran

...simply issue an ultimatum. Work peacefully with the world, or we remove you from the world.

If they don't take it, kill them.

That's got to be the most arrogant thing I've ever read. It's right up there with the terrorism we're supposedly trying to prevent: bomb the population so that the government cooperates. Go ahead and use nukes too. Are you even serious? You think writing this crap makes you a "bad liberal?" Sounds more to me as though you're just a bored kid.

While we're talking about Iran...do you think Ahmadinejad should be allowed to come and watch his team play at the World Cup?

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,410756,00.html

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,589274,00.jpg

That's got to be the most arrogant thing I've ever read. It's right up there with the terrorism we're supposedly trying to prevent: bomb the population so that the government cooperates. Go ahead and use nukes too. Are you even serious? You think writing this crap makes you a "bad liberal?" Sounds more to me as though you're just a bored kid.

I don't think its arrogant. I think its realistic. The middle eastern population seems to insist on not living peacefully with the rest of the world. People keep talking about the moderate muslim population. Well, where are they? Why aren't there mass demonstrations to stop muslims fundamentalists? Why do they keep getting elected into power?

If you want to stop terrorism, you might just have to become the terrorist yourself.

Saying that Iran wants to be peaceful when they obviously want to be confrontational sounds about as far away from bored child as possible. And when you have a large population that insists on being violent, then how do get rid of the problem except by overwhelming violence. In Machiavllian terms, this is one of the occasions where one must use violence to take away property (i.e. cities, villages, farms, anywhere where a nuclear site could be) in order to prevent the people from striking back at you. It sounds more like one of the few real options that are left open to the US.

Well, I suppose this is the point at which you need to read these two wiki articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni
I knew a lot of that already. Whats your point?

I knew a lot of that already. Whats your point?
That bombing Mecca won't hurt Iran quite as much as bombing Karbala would.

Wait...you already bombed and now occupy Karbala. Ooops, my bad. :rolleyes:

You can't defeat a religion through violence. That is the power of religion - it doesn't need or depend on material things like shrines. All you will do is unite Islam against you (and a good number of non-Islamic countries as well).

That bombing Mecca won't hurt Iran quite as much as bombing Karbala would.

Wait...you already bombed and now occupy Karbala. Ooops, my bad. :rolleyes:

You got the idea from post. Attack what hurts them the most.


You can't defeat a religion through violence. That is the power of religion - it doesn't need or depend on material things like shrines. All you will do is unite Islam against you (and a good number of non-Islamic countries as well).
Thats why I said give them a chance in the first post. They get one warning/offer to work peacefully with everyone else. They are allowed their own beliefs as long as they don't bring violence onto others. If they fail to heed that, then comes the violence.

You got the idea from post. Attack what hurts them the most.
But you can't. Religions cannot be attacked.

But you can't. Religions cannot be attacked.sure it can. Look at the way Muslims attack christianity. Look at the way athiests attack Christianity, look at the way Christians attack both groups. Its not as effective at blowing things up as a nuke is. But sometimes, it can win te psychological war.

sure it can. Look at the way Muslims attack christianity. Look at the way athiests attack Christianity, look at the way Christians attack both groups. Its not as effective at blowing things up as a nuke is. But sometimes, it can win te psychological war.
Tell me...is anyone winning?

Tell me...is anyone winning?
In some ways yes. Look at the Dutch cartoons for example. People are scared shitless of publishing anything that could be seen as offending muslims. So when the paper published them, a lot of the world was saying that it should not have been done, the muslims were up in arms, and there wasn't much support for the "this kind of thing is necessary for freedom of speech" argument. So what if the muslims don't want pictures of mohammed published or made. I'm not muslim, why do I need to follow their rules?

In the US, we have Christmas replaced by 'happy holidays' because some people don't want to hear the Jesus reference. On the same coin, there is a lot of legislation out there to ban gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc. . . because some religious groups feel offended by those concepts existing.

So yes, there are winners and loosers. Right now, the Muslims are winning the PC battle and the Christians are winning the 'ban everything we don't like' battle.

In some ways yes. Look at the Dutch cartoons for example.
*Looks*
Can't find anything.
*Looks at Danish cartoon example instead*

People are scared shitless of publishing anything that could be seen as offending muslims. So when the paper published them, a lot of the world was saying that it should not have been done, the muslims were up in arms, and there wasn't much support for the "this kind of thing is necessary for freedom of speech" argument.
"The Muslims" weren't up in arms. Most stayed at home.

The ones that did get outta shape were radicals in Europe (and only in two countries I know of, Denmark and Britain), and poor people from oppressive Middle Eastern countries who were encouraged by their governments.

Did you know that the cartoons were published in an Egyptian newspaper only days after they first appeared in JP? And that no one bothered to get angry?

And to be honest, I don't think there is such an argument as "offending people is necessary for free speech to exist."

So yes, there are winners and loosers. Right now, the Muslims are winning the PC battle and the Christians are winning the 'ban everything we don't like' battle.
And lo and behold: No one is nuking anyone.

Which was my point - material force doesn't bother religions, because they are spiritual movements. The only thing that matters to them is what's going on inside people's heads.
Whether or not Mecca exists only matters insofar as it serves as something in people's heads. The destruction of Mecca by the West would serve a much more vile purpose even better.

I think that Iran will be attacked and it won't be a pinprick. Wether you agree or not I think it's going to happen. Iran says they can bring hell on the US. I truly don't think they understand what kind of hell the US can bring on them. The right place and the right time with the right administration. If you support the President or not I think you can agree. Bush is very capable of striking Iran. I think the corner was turned along time ago for war. So it is just a matter of time in my mind.

If you want to stop terrorism, you might just have to become the terrorist yourself.


How does that stop terrorism?
That's the arrogance. You've suggested an ultimatum where you would bomb the entire Muslim population if Iran failed to comply with your demands. Sound like the ultimatum Osama gave the U.S., where he would bomb the civilian population if the U.S. refused to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia (the Islamic Holy Land)? I don't see a difference, except that in your case the U.S. is capable of delivering millions of casualties.

Why would you want to turn into a terrorist state? How do you believe that in doing so you would eliminate terrorism? Even if the Iran situation blows up and the U.S. is on the brink of war, or the draft is reinstated, what you're saying should happen is right in line with the "Final Solution." It's unwarranted. Just because you're country may go into hard times soon - because of its self-promoted role as world controller - you think you should just take a people and "wipe them out"? Because it's one of the "few real options" you have? Iran is not going to let its uranium enrichment program go easily, but you really think one of your best options would be to bomb Mecca?

If that's true, I think your military strategists aren't getting paid enough. Or they've been getting paid too much.

I just don't think you're serious.

The interesting part is that the 'zine's wargames plan assumes unity in Iranian society. Really that's not there at all. The economic damage would be relatively short term, and would in many respects be a good thing since it would encourage the discovery and use of alternative energy sources. As for bitterness to the US, the govt. can't get more bitter than it is. As for the population, possibly. OTOH, it also may spark revolution. If Iran had never attempted to get the bomb while continuously threatening to do things like wipe israel off the map, said preemptive strike would never have ocurred. Assuming that the general population doesn't see that is extremely shortsighted.

Wow, BLARGistania's suggestion of destroying Mecca is the most arrogant and geopolitical suicide maneuver the United States could ever pull. There are billions of Muslims world wide and only a tiny (10 to 20%) of them are Islamist radicals who actively fight Western interests.

Now, if you nuke Mecca not only do you commit the penultimate declaration of war against the global Islamic community, you also end up murdering thousands if not more innocent civilians who just happen to be there on their Hajj pilgrimage and thus have absolutely nothing to do with Iranian policy.

And thanks to Bush, Cheney and Halliburton's greed, pissing off the entire Muslim world will hurt a lot:

1) Bin Ladin is transformed from a terrorist/freedom fighter into the New Prophet and becomes the leader of a massive Islamic uprising against the United States and its symbols. Legitimized completely by the destruction of Mecca, he can now count on support everywhere in the surviving Islamic world.

2) Every country that declares itself Islamic will have to turn against the United States in the face of the Ultimate Blasphemy. Musharraf will be under Jupiter-level gravity to withdraw Pakistan's support in the "War on Terror" and throw out all American interests. The same goes for Mubarrak and Egypt.

3) Saudi Arabia and not to mention practically the whole membership of OPEC will declare a much more devastating oil embargo that will make the 1970s Energy Crisis look like a 10 minute blackout in comparison. And with the wonderful advances in alternate fuel research the Bush Administration has encouraged, the price of gas will explode into the New Tulip Mania.

3) Israel can no longer count on its neighbors backing off because of its historical position as America's Favorite Stepchild. And they won't care if the Israelis use nukes. HAMAS just got a significant boost towards its declared goal of eradicating Israel thanks to Bush's utter contempt for humanity.

4) The rest of the globe will follow in the Islamic world in isolating the United States politically, economically and even militarily. China refusing to prop up the dollar or trade will merely be the biggest testicle bootstomp amongst many that cripples the United States and levels it close to Third World Status.

5) There's a substantial number of Muslim Americans in this country. The nice ones will leave for Canada or some other country. The ones who are really pissed off will likely instigate a wave of terrorist actions within our borders and because Mecca is nuked, they will all have a martyr mentality that means they won't stop.

You can't defeat a religion through violence. That is the power of religion - it doesn't need or depend on material things like shrines. All you will do is unite Islam against you (and a good number of non-Islamic countries as well).

Pshaw, tell that to the aztec priests. If you can find any.

Pshaw, tell that to the aztec priests. If you can find any.

Unlike Aztec priests, Muslims are all over the world.

Unlike Aztec priests, Muslims are all over the world.

Probably, but the principle is the same. It's not impossible to wipe out a religion.

Probably, but the principle is the same. It's not impossible to wipe out a religion.

Impossible? Maybe not. But very improbable. Aside from having to practically commit global genocide, there's also the phenomenon of oppression strengthening religious convictions. How else did the Jews survive history with all sorts of nations trying to wipe them out?

Impossible? Maybe not. But very improbable. Aside from having to practically commit global genocide, there's also the phenomenon of oppression strengthening religious convictions. How else did the Jews survive history with all sorts of nations trying to wipe them out?

I'm not saying it's at all likely.

I think the reason why the jews have survived is that - though they have been constantly persecuted - the several attempts to wipe them out have usually been localized.

Compare that to early christianity's efforts in erradicating paganism from Europe; Granted it took many centuries, but you have to admit, it was highly sucessful.

I suspect that if the US decides to take out Iran, they'll have learned the real lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That real lesson being, that no matter what the US does it cannot be acceptable to the critics. No matter how carefully they strike selected targets, they will be named "babykillers" and "fascists. No matter how real the reasons, their attack will be declared "illegal" and "immoral".

So why bother trying?
It's called war. There are always civilian casualties, and so Bush should be avoiding wars, not starting them whenever he sees *coughoilcough*

Compare that to early christianity's efforts in erradicating paganism from Europe; Granted it took many centuries, but you have to admit, it was highly sucessful.

Yes but isn't the issue whether you can destroy a religion with violence? Christianity didn't destroy the pagans, it mostly converted them and broke them up. Either way, Paganism was a term used by Christians to identify generally anyone who didn't believe in their God: people who worshiped animals, shamans, multiple dieties, or worshiped themselves or nature. Not a religion in the contemporary meaning of the word.

Well, I had a bunch of people respond so I'll do my best to answer everything that came up.

First off is the issue of arrogance that people like to point out. My first response: don't assume.

The *hypothetical* nuclear strikes on Iran are not because Iran doesn't bow to the US's ultimatium. It is in response to the fact that the radical Muslims don't seem to want to live peacefully with the rest of the world. They seem to be intent on killing every one until the only people left are muslims. Then they'll just kill each other a la sunnis and shi'ias. What the US government would issue is a the ultimatium that the Muslims stop using violence and oppression to try and get things done, especially to influence the western/non-muslim world.


As for that 10-20% of muslims who are radical and the rest aren't: every muslim who does nothing to speak against fundamentalism within their religion is as bad as one of the radicals. The same holds true for all other faiths. After all, evil flourishes where good men fail to act.

And, at the rate Bush is going, I don't think he particularly cares about what the ROW thinks about him or the US.

As for the what the Badlands has said: there is a theory in International Relations called preponderance theory. It basically states that the most stable system that can ever occur is one where one nation gains preponderance (becomes all-powerful) over the rest of the world and can therefore run the world. If the US uses nuclear weapons, or shows its willingness to do so, then it has a good chance of coming closer to gaining this preponderance. If that is ever acheived, the theory states that war can be averted because the one super-power can simply say back one side or the other, and that will end the conflict as the opposing sides now have no chance at winning.

How that realtes to the US-Iran system is that Iran is directly challenging the world superpower. In order to maintain status as the super power, the US will have neutralize the threat of Iran, give an example, so to speak, of what happens when an upstart challenges the alpha.

And yes, NL, it was the Danish cartoons, that was my mistake. Even if it wasn't EVERY muslim protesting against the publishing, you really didn't hear any voices from the muslim world saying ti was okay to publish those either.

The free speech argument stems from the protests idea that we can't ever offend anyone. If you don't follow a particular group's creedo, then why should you have to listen to their rules. That is what was at stake. The muslim world said you're not allowed to publish these. Regardless of the fact if you are muslim or not.

All that being said, I would really prefer none of this to happen for everyone to shut up and keep their religions to themselves. Then maybe for once humanity could learn to get along. But that's just me being idealistic.

I hate to say it and I may be called a bad liberal for this but. . . .

I have to agree with the "no Iran, no Iranian problem" solution. With some stipulations. And yes, TG pointed out that Stalin said something like that and Hitler used it, but as much as I hate what those two stood for, they were right on that issue. If you can wipe out a people whoare causing a problem, then the problem goes away.

I would vote for the option of giving Iran one warning and one warning only. Either knock the shit off and cooperate or we start leveling cities. One city at a time. And we start with Mecca. Then Medina. Then Tehran. If they don't get the message the first time, then they won't be around long enough to try and fix the mistake.

You act like a parent punishing a spoiled child. One warning and that is it. Then you show them how serious you are. Use conventional bombs, nukes, whatever. Just totally destroy the city. The people that are causing the problems like these (the super radical muslims and the people who won't giev up on the US is satan type stuff) won't back down until we do. So, instead of granting their wishes and making the US a muslim state (yes, that was an actual demand), we simply issue an ultimatum. Work peacefully with the world, or we remove you from the world.

If they don't take it, kill them.

One major difference (TG, this is directed at you) is that Hitler and Stalin went after people who wanted to try and live peacefully. Hitler went after the jews who just wanted a place to live. Stalin killed people even if they did agree with him. By and large, the middle east is hostile to the US. They don't want to live peacefully, they want to see US citizens die. Becuase of that attitude, the US cannot afford to be nice. It has to be hard, and it just might have the take the last resort option.

Nuking Mecca would be the single worst thing we could possibly do. It would result in our being forced into using the Mongol method just to survive. the wrath of the world's Islamic population. Even the Israelis aren't that fanatically blind.

I hate to say it and I may be called a bad liberal for this but. . . .

I have to agree with the "no Iran, no Iranian problem" solution. With some stipulations. And yes, TG pointed out that Stalin said something like that and Hitler used it, but as much as I hate what those two stood for, they were right on that issue. If you can wipe out a people whoare causing a problem, then the problem goes away.

So you happily advocate the extermination of an entire people because of their leaders?

Please don't try and make yourself to be any better than Hitler and Stalin on this, because the 'problem' would not go away, because the problem would become the problem of a nation wiping an entire people out as you advocate.


I would vote for the option of giving Iran one warning and one warning only. Either knock the shit off and cooperate or we start leveling cities. One city at a time. And we start with Mecca. Then Medina. Then Tehran. If they don't get the message the first time, then they won't be around long enough to try and fix the mistake.

If you think you have a Jihad against you now, doing what you mention above would really give you Jihad.

As of present, the majority of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world simply peacefully lead their lives. You will feel, you will see a 1.3 billion muslim Jihad.


You act like a parent punishing a spoiled child. One warning and that is it. Then you show them how serious you are. Use conventional bombs, nukes, whatever. Just totally destroy the city. The people that are causing the problems like these (the super radical muslims and the people who won't giev up on the US is satan type stuff) won't back down until we do.

The only one acting like a spoilt child is the one who sees muslims who disagree with their country's policy as a reason to wipe out those people.

Liike a child, smashing up a lego building because it does not agree with his view of the world, and how the building should be shaped.

So, instead of granting their wishes and making the US a muslim state (yes, that was an actual demand),

Too much Faux News can be bad for you.


we simply issue an ultimatum. Work peacefully with the world, or we remove you from the world.

But then, you would not be working very peacefully with the world, would you? So by your reasoning, America should have wiped out, all of it, because it's administration, it's leaders did not work peacefully with the world in invading Iraq and all it's wars in history.


If they don't take it, kill them.

Do you think that people are going to be very happy and laid back over an American threat to wipe them out?

Yeah, if it bleeds, kill it. If it worships Allah, kill it. If it has brown skin, kill it, if it wears a turban, kill it.

If it's a man, kill it. If it's a woman, kill it. If it's elderly or disabled, kill it. If it's a child, kill it. If it's a baby, kill it.

Kill them all, all of them. Every single one. Leave none alive.

May the streets and sands be saturated with the life blood.

May the air be filled with the screams.

Anything to stop the indiscriminate killing made by suicide bombers made by a small proportion of all of 1.3 billion muslims.


One major difference (TG, this is directed at you) is that Hitler and Stalin went after people who wanted to try and live peacefully.

And you think that the vast majority of 1.3 billion muslims in the world, don't?

Do you think that they all carry AK-47's and wear suicide bomb belts do you?


Hitler went after the jews who just wanted a place to live.

Hitler also went after the Jews because of an irrational train of thought that the Jews were planning to dominate the world and enslave it, what he called the "Judeo-Bolshevik" Conspiracy, and that thus, because of this, they had to themselves, be exterminated.

This is not all that dissimilar to your theory that Muslims want to make America a muslim state, leading up to your "remove them from the world" statement is it?

The vast majority of Muslims also want to live in peace, just like the Jews now, and in Hitler's time.



Stalin killed people even if they did agree with him. By and large, the middle east is hostile to the US.

The Middle East has been victim to US foreign Policy which has seen the support of the removal of leaders, the support of vile regimes, and the oppression of peoples. If there's resentment there, don't be too surprised.

There are those in the muslim world who agree with the US, kill them all, and not only can you be compared to Hitler, but Stalin too. Congratulations.

America, the light of beacon and democracy in the world, born from the peoples who fought the imperial enslavers, has become the very thing it was founded against.

To fell The Statue Of Liberty, to replace with the Pyres of the dead, to become the most genocidal and hated entity in history. The Nazis, Stalin and Mao combined would have nothing on the US.

They don't want to live peacefully, they want to see US citizens die.

Who are they? The muslim world? All 1.3 billion of them? Even if you were right, you would be no better, you want to see all muslims die, apparently.


Becuase of that attitude, the US cannot afford to be nice. It has to be hard, and it just might have the take the last resort option.

The US foreign policy has not been nice to muslims since WW2. Nice is just not a word that comes to mind.

You are already being hard. Being harder will be genocidal.

And I should remind you, the US is not the only one that reserves the 'last resort' option.

And yes, NL, it was the Danish cartoons, that was my mistake. Even if it wasn't EVERY muslim protesting against the publishing, you really didn't hear any voices from the muslim world saying ti was okay to publish those either.
Or maybe you just weren't listening?

So you happily advocate the extermination of an entire people because of their leaders?
First, this isn't really happily. Don't make things up. This is all a hypothetical last case scenario.

No, its because of the leaders and the people.

Please don't try and make yourself to be any better than Hitler and Stalin on this, because the 'problem' would not go away, because the problem would become the problem of a nation wiping an entire people out as you advocate.
First off, Godwin's law, you lose. Second, why is that such a problem is it helps prevent billions of deaths in the future.?

If you think you have a Jihad against you now, doing what you mention above would really give you Jihad.
Because the extremists definatly aren't doing anything right now to try and attack us. And because they definatly already don't think we're the white devil etc. . .

As of present, the majority of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world simply peacefully lead their lives. You will feel, you will see a 1.3 billion muslim Jihad.
and?


The only one acting like a spoilt child is the one who sees muslims who disagree with their country's policy as a reason to wipe out those people.

Liike a child, smashing up a lego building because it does not agree with his view of the world, and how the building should be shaped.
Ummm, no. This is about an entire section of the world refusing to live peacefully with the rest of the world. Not a spoiled child smashing a lego.


Too much Faux News can be bad for you.
Whoever said it was on fox news? Go to any jihadists website, or just look up the demands somewhere else. I don't watch fox news. Plus, thats just a bad argument.


But then, you would not be working very peacefully with the world, would you? So by your reasoning, America should have wiped out, all of it, because it's administration, it's leaders did not work peacefully with the world in invading Iraq and all it's wars in history.
For all of the issues in America, this nation has tried to work peacefully with both Iraq and Iran. Those other two nations refused to work back with us. Iran has shown it has no intention of ever being friendly with anyone but a Muslim state.


Do you think that people are going to be very happy and laid back over an American threat to wipe them out?
And what exactly are they going to do from Iran?

Yeah, if it bleeds, kill it. If it worships Allah, kill it. If it has brown skin, kill it, if it wears a turban, kill it.

If it's a man, kill it. If it's a woman, kill it. If it's elderly or disabled, kill it. If it's a child, kill it. If it's a baby, kill it.

Kill them all, all of them. Every single one. Leave none alive.

May the streets and sands be saturated with the life blood.

May the air be filled with the screams.
Don't be overdramatic. It doesn't help your case. First off, you're incorrect in several assumptions. I bleed, I don't advocate killing myself. I don't even advocate killing all of those who worship Allah. I am talking about wiping out a region of the world that has been trouble since pretty much the beginning. As for the man/woman/child/elderly/disabled bit - seriously, grow up. Learn how to make a decent point. And the streets wouldn't be saturated with blood, as everything would have been vaporized.

Come back and argue with me when you stop watching blues clues.

Anything to stop the indiscriminate killing made by suicide bombers made by a small proportion of all of 1.3 billion muslims.
Not anything. One, very specific thing.



And you think that the vast majority of 1.3 billion muslims in the world, don't?

Do you think that they all carry AK-47's and wear suicide bomb belts do you?
Thats an ignore. You're being overdramatic again.



Hitler also went after the Jews because of an irrational train of thought that the Jews were planning to dominate the world and enslave it, what he called the "Judeo-Bolshevik" Conspiracy, and that thus, because of this, they had to themselves, be exterminated.

This is not all that dissimilar to your theory that Muslims want to make America a muslim state, leading up to your "remove them from the world" statement is it?
Mine is actually based upon a fact though. Like I said earlier look it up. And second, you still lose because of Godwin's law. The two theories are very different, if you pay attention and have basic reasoning skills.

The vast majority of Muslims also want to live in peace, just like the Jews now, and in Hitler's time.
Then they need to start showing that they want to. Rather than protesting every little thing that offends them.


The Middle East has been victim to US foreign Policy which has seen the support of the removal of leaders, the support of vile regimes, and the oppression of peoples. If there's resentment there, don't be too surprised.
Resentment has been there since before American even existed, so don't even bother with this train of thought.

There are those in the muslim world who agree with the US, kill them all, and not only can you be compared to Hitler, but Stalin too. Congratulations.

Are you seriously 5?

America, the light of beacon and democracy in the world, born from the peoples who fought the imperial enslavers, has become the very thing it was founded against.

To fell The Statue Of Liberty, to replace with the Pyres of the dead, to become the most genocidal and hated entity in history. The Nazis, Stalin and Mao combined would have nothing on the US.

Well done, very inspiring, very vapid, not a word or real true argument in there. Or much thought for that matter. Please, wait a few years, learn how to argue, then come back and talk to me.

I've ignored the rest out of sheer boredom.

First, this isn't really happily. Don't make things up. This is all a hypothetical last case scenario.

From what I've seen, your proposal of wiping our Iran and muslim people in particular does come happily. You obviously see them as people deserving of it.


No, its because of the leaders and the people.

All of the leaders of Islam? All of the people?



First off, Godwin's law, you lose. Second, why is that such a problem is it helps prevent billions of deaths in the future.?

First off, International Law. Second, because it would be the loss of billions of lives now.

Your moral arguement is lost, not that you showed any sign of winning it.


Because the extremists definatly aren't doing anything right now to try and attack us. And because they definatly already don't think we're the white devil etc. . .

The extremists are a small percentage of what amounts to 1.3 billion people. Do as you advocate, and you will have people attacking you, and you will be the white devil in the eyes of muslims and non-muslims.



and?

You really are unhinged.


Ummm, no. This is about an entire section of the world refusing to live peacefully with the rest of the world. Not a spoiled child smashing a lego.

No, this is a section of the world that is in the minority of 1.3 billion muslims.

Not everybody in those countries wants violence.

It is showing more and more, that it is America that is refusing to live peacefully in the world.


Whoever said it was on fox news? Go to any jihadists website, or just look up the demands somewhere else. I don't watch fox news. Plus, thats just a bad argument.

So, a few nutters set up a website. You take them to represent all 1.3 billion muslims do you? Oh yes, of course you do.


For all of the issues in America, this nation has tried to work peacefully with both Iraq and Iran. Those other two nations refused to work back with us.

War On Iraq '91, '98 and '03.

That's peaceful of the US is it?


Iran has shown it has no intention of ever being friendly with anyone but a Muslim state.

And the US has never shown no intention of being anyone friendly in the muslim world unless it's lead by a dictatorship that will meet it's energy needs.

Iran has been friendly with non muslim states, China and Russia for example.


And what exactly are they going to do from Iran?

People angered, could do many things, but perhaps in asking this question, you should ask yourself what threat Iran are to the world, you ask what exactly are they going to do, I say exactly.

Don't be overdramatic. It doesn't help your case.

I am showing what the results of what you advocate would be, you are being dramatic in what you propose, and what you advocate has not helped your 'case'.

Not once.


First off, you're incorrect in several assumptions. I bleed, I don't advocate killing myself..

Yeah, just Muslims right?

I don't even advocate killing all of those who worship Allah. I am talking about wiping out a region of the world that has been trouble since pretty much the beginning.

Backpedalling are we? Wiping out a region, (which I assume beacause of your absurd mindset, you refer to The Middle East) sounds like killing alot of those who worship Allah to me.


As for the man/woman/child/elderly/disabled bit - seriously, grow up. Learn how to make a decent point. And the streets wouldn't be saturated with blood, as everything would have been vaporized. .

I've made my point as to what the consequences of what your actions would be, forgetting of course, you advocate to nuke them all. You don't like my point, of that scenario, then don't advocate what you have been advocating. Simple.


Come back and argue with me when you stop watching blues clues. .

Come back and argue with me when you get out of your padded cell and start taking your meds.


Not anything. One, very specific thing.

Yes. Genocide. Mass Murder, just to spell it out to you.



Thats an ignore. You're being overdramatic again.

Can't face the truth? overdramatic? No. Realistic to what your mindset seems to be.


Mine is actually based upon a fact though. Like I said earlier look it up. And second, you still lose because of Godwin's law. The two theories are very different, if you pay attention and have basic reasoning skills.

I pay attention and have reasoning skills, you on the other hand appear to have no reasoning skills, with an attention span that demands every five minutes "Nuke it, Nuke it, Nuke 'em all".

You lose because of International Law.


Then they need to start showing that they want to. Rather than protesting every little thing that offends them.

Who are 'they'? All 1.3 billion muslims? If they protest, carry placards, it does not mean they do not want to live in peace, perhaps sometimes they do so because they want to live in peace.


Resentment has been there since before American even existed, so don't even bother with this train of thought.

The resentment has been that America's foreign policy has continued in areas where the European Empires left off. It has caused resentment because of it.


Are you seriously 5?

Can you talk sense?


Well done, very inspiring, very vapid, not a word or real true argument in there. Or much thought for that matter. Please, wait a few years, learn how to argue, then come back and talk to me.

I've ignored the rest out of sheer boredom.

I expect it's a wonderful thing, denial and ignorance. What's the matter, can't face the truth and reality of what the consequences would be, of what the reality (Which you seemingly find tiring and boring) of the situation is?

I thought not. You are quite clearly unhinged, my dear fellow.

Cheerio.

I suspect that if the US decides to take out Iran, they'll have learned the real lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That real lesson being, that no matter what the US does it cannot be acceptable to the critics. No matter how carefully they strike selected targets, they will be named "babykillers" and "fascists. No matter how real the reasons, their attack will be declared "illegal" and "immoral".

So why bother trying?

Don't even try to reduce civilian casualties, or go after military targets. Can't use nukes, of course; but today we don't ned to.

Drop a dozen Daisycutters on Tehran. Call Arclight missions down on every city, town or village. Keep the accurate stuff for the real military targets, and just carpet-bomb everything else.

There's no Iran problem if there's no Iran.

If you see a hundred cars heading your direction on your lane, then have you considered that the one who has made a serious mistake might be yourself, not those hundred?

"Everyone is criticizing us. Obviously we're doing nothing wrong."

If you see a hundred cars heading your direction on your lane, then have you considered that the one who has made a serious mistake might be yourself, not those hundred?

"Everyone is criticizing us. Obviously we're doing nothing wrong."

Nice, Ayrwll, but you're ignoring my point. It doesn't matter what we do, we're ALWAYS wrong. To use your example, whether we are driving against the hundred cars or with them, we attract an equal amount of outrage and vitriol.

I am merely pointing out the logical end of this, which is that the US stops listening altogether. We throw out the "good guys playbook" and just hit whatever countries we feel the need to hit with absolute maximum force. Why shouldn't we? We get treated the same if we intervene in a civil war to save lives as we do if we start an unjustified war. We are rapidly ceasing to have a reason to be even moderately civilized in our foreign policy and just go to Roman-style conquest.

I live outside the US, and I can readily accept much of the criticism that has been thrown at the US over Iraq. I agree with a lot of it. But unless the US gets a bit of credit once in a while for the good things we do, we have no reason to change - 'cause the criticism is just becoming the same old same old.

First off, Godwin's law, you lose. Second, why is that such a problem is it helps prevent billions of deaths in the future.?

-snip-

Mine is actually based upon a fact though. Like I said earlier look it up. And second, you still lose because of Godwin's law. The two theories are very different, if you pay attention and have basic reasoning skills.

You don't understand Godwin's Law do you? Godwin's Law applies when you compare an opponent to Hitler on a trivial matter, such as "OMFG Hitler was a vegetarian, do you want to be like Hitler?", other subjects would be hunting, taxation, or gun control.

You however are advocating genocide. Crawl back under your bridge until you work out why comparing you to Hitler is perfectly accurate in this case.

From what I've seen, your proposal of wiping our Iran and muslim people in particular does come happily. You obviously see them as people deserving of it.
Its not happily. Thats why its called a last resort.



All of the leaders of Islam? All of the people?
The ones that don't stand up to fundamentalism, yes.


First off, International Law. Second, because it would be the loss of billions of lives now.
If you think anyone really pays attention to international law you might want to take another look.

Your moral arguement is lost, not that you showed any sign of winning it.
I never argue morals. They get in the way.

The extremists are a small percentage of what amounts to 1.3 billion people. Do as you advocate, and you will have people attacking you, and you will be the white devil in the eyes of muslims and non-muslims.
Well, I pretty much already am the white devil. And if the people you are talking about are not extremists or want to live peacefully, then they need to start acting like it and controlling their own radicals. If they don't then they are showing support of mass terror tactics.

You really are unhinged.
Quite possibly.


No, this is a section of the world that is in the minority of 1.3 billion muslims.

Not everybody in those countries wants violence.

It is showing more and more, that it is America that is refusing to live peacefully in the world.
Yes. Three wars with Israel. Protesting depictions of Muhammed that non muslims published. Calling the US the white devil. Electing terrorist organizations into government power. Electing radical fundamentalists into power. They don't violence. Obviously.

If they elect people who intend to cause trouble, then they get what is coming to them.


So, a few nutters set up a website. You take them to represent all 1.3 billion muslims do you? Oh yes, of course you do.
No, but it represents a fair chunk of the mideast.


War On Iraq '91, '98 and '03.

That's peaceful of the US is it?
And everything before Saddam came into power?


And the US has never shown no intention of being anyone friendly in the muslim world unless it's lead by a dictatorship that will meet it's energy needs.

Iran has been friendly with non muslim states, China and Russia for example.
Pakistan? India? Kuwait? Egypt? The US has working friendly relations with them. Your example is null. And China and Russia- they have oil interests just like we do. Pick some other nations.


People angered, could do many things, but perhaps in asking this question, you should ask yourself what threat Iran are to the world, you ask what exactly are they going to do, I say exactly.
What threat Iran is to the rest of the world? How about the security of the NNPT? How about state funded terrorism?


Backpedalling are we? Wiping out a region, (which I assume beacause of your absurd mindset, you refer to The Middle East) sounds like killing alot of those who worship Allah to me.
Yes. It is killing a lot of people who worship Allah. If a religion causes international instability, or furthers terrorism, or doesn't give up till everyone who doesn't believe what they do is killed, then why not remove that religion from the world?


I've made my point as to what the consequences of what your actions would be, forgetting of course, you advocate to nuke them all. You don't like my point, of that scenario, then don't advocate what you have been advocating. Simple.
I didn't say I didn't like what you were saying. I said it would be different than what you said.


Come back and argue with me when you get out of your padded cell and start taking your meds.
So now I'm crazy just because I have enough realism in me to see that it might be necessary to kill a lot of people in order to preserve greater peace? If that makes me crazy, then I guess I am.


Can't face the truth? overdramatic? No. Realistic to what your mindset seems to be.
No, still pretty much wrong.


I pay attention and have reasoning skills, you on the other hand appear to have no reasoning skills, with an attention span that demands every five minutes "Nuke it, Nuke it, Nuke 'em all".

You lose because of International Law.

Do some homework on what I said earlier. And I believe the international law concern has been addressed earlier. If it gets in the way of what a nation wants to do (any nation, not just the US), then international law is borken. No one really has the power to demand someone be brought to trial.


Who are 'they'? All 1.3 billion muslims? If they protest, carry placards, it does not mean they do not want to live in peace, perhaps sometimes they do so because they want to live in peace.
living in peace by attacking emabssies? Burning American and Dutch flags? Sponsoring terrorist training camps? Thats very peaceful.


The resentment has been that America's foreign policy has continued in areas where the European Empires left off. It has caused resentment because of it.
Or it has been there since the beginning.


Can you talk sense?

Yes. Can you?


I expect it's a wonderful thing, denial and ignorance. What's the matter, can't face the truth and reality of what the consequences would be, of what the reality (Which you seemingly find tiring and boring) of the situation is?

I thought not. You are quite clearly unhinged, my dear fellow.

Cheerio.
Denial and ignorance? Or is it simply that you don't like my proposal because it is drastic. I know what the consequences are, I know what the stakes are. I just remove emotion from it because sometimes it is necessary to not have emotion in order to do what might be needed for the greater long term good.

I might be unhinged, but then again, the US does over-disagnose those sort of things.

Its not happily. Thats why its called a last resort.

It's not a last resort. It's geopolitical suicide.

The ones that don't stand up to fundamentalism, yes.

You're trying to appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner against an entire religion based on the actions of a dispropotionately publicized minority. Not only that, your argument is based on the false premise that if all Muslims fail to make a dog and pony show out of opposing the extremists they all whole-heartedly endorse terrorism. Using that faulty logic of yours anyone could justify nuking the Vatican because Catholics as a whole do nothing about the IRA, the Lord's Resistance Army and individual acts of religiously inspired violence such as abortion clinic bombings and murders. And before you cop out with instances of a group of Catholics doing anything about the forementioned problems keep in mind you're holding Muslims to an unrealistic All or Nothing condition so it'll apply to Catholics as well.

If you think anyone really pays attention to international law you might want to take another look.

If you think nobody is going to pay attention to nuclear mass murder in the billions, then you're living in a cartoon villain's wet dream.

I never argue morals. They get in the way.

Aside from nuking an entire ethnicity and a holy site that has nothing to do with terrorism having no moral basis whatsoever, again you're dismissing how the planet would react to such an atrocity. This is much bigger and lot more noticeable than Rwanda and Sudan combined should it happen. Especially if a mushroom cloud and fallout is involved.

Well, I pretty much already am the white devil. And if the people you are talking about are not extremists or want to live peacefully, then they need to start acting like it and controlling their own radicals. If they don't then they are showing support of mass terror tactics.

Again the "If they don't all fight it they all support it" is a lazy fallacy based on an unrealistic All or Nothing condition which also throws in the Composition fallacy (assuming since the terrorists are Muslim, all Muslims are therefore terrorists.)

Quite possibly.

When you gladly talk about an option that the top military brass at the Pentagon will not even stomach being put on the table, that is very unhinged indeed.

Yes. Three wars with Israel. Protesting depictions of Muhammed that non muslims published. Calling the US the white devil. Electing terrorist organizations into government power. Electing radical fundamentalists into power. They don't violence. Obviously.

If they elect people who intend to cause trouble, then they get what is coming to them.

1) The initial protests to the Muhammad cartoons were initially low-key and peaceful, but the editor of the newspaper and the Danish prime ministers were both complete asshats who refused polite requests to have them pulled. Seeing no other recourse available, the protestors spread the cartoons through the Mid-East and somewhere along the line downright blasphemous and vulgar cartoons about Muhammad and Islam that were never actually published got added to the collection, resulting in the uproar as the world saw it. Blaming the Muslims 100% while letting the editor and the prime minister off the hook is selective, even downright biased and racist.

2) The United States is supposed to be about freedom of speech. If being called "White Devil" and "The Great Satan" somehow threatened US stability and geopolitical influence then the country has deep-rooted problems all ready.

3) HAMAS was voted in because they represented fresh bodies into a Palestinian Authority that was rife with corruption and nepotism that got the common populace nowhere and campaigned on a platform of reform. If Fatah wasn't a den of corruption and nepotism then HAMAS wouldn't have made such breakthroughs in peaceful elections.

No, but it represents a fair chunk of the mideast.

Again, considering the global Muslim population is in the billions this is an outright case of the Biased Sample fallacy.

And everything before Saddam came into power?

Funny you should say that, because the CIA help put Saddam into power and gave him all those chemical weapons because the Fundamentalist Muslim regime in Iran was scarier.

Pakistan? India? Kuwait? Egypt? The US has working friendly relations with them. Your example is null. And China and Russia- they have oil interests just like we do. Pick some other nations.

If you can call half-hearted and contrary allies like Pakistan and India "friendly." Those two are still at each other's throats and nobody seems worried that nuclear strikes are quite possible between those nations. Not only that, Pakistani intelligence has been cited as having supported Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the past, even around 9-11.

Apart from India (barely), none of those countries you mentioned as allies are democratic one bit. So much for supporting the spread of democracy and freedom eh?

What threat Iran is to the rest of the world? How about the security of the NNPT? How about state funded terrorism?

The nuclear doggie treat India is getting while Iran is being forced into a standoff sends the message that the NNPT is a farce. Don't be surprised if other nations start pulling out of it.

And it's not like the United States has never sponsored terrorism at all either. School of the Americas, anyone?

Yes. It is killing a lot of people who worship Allah. If a religion causes international instability, or furthers terrorism, or doesn't give up till everyone who doesn't believe what they do is killed, then why not remove that religion from the world?

Again your argument is flawed because of Biased Sample and an unrealistic All or Nothing expectation towards Islam. Every major religion in the world has been responsible for international instability in history, and your solution brings one rather infamous incident of religious cleansing to mind.

So now I'm crazy just because I have enough realism in me to see that it might be necessary to kill a lot of people in order to preserve greater peace? If that makes me crazy, then I guess I am.

It's not realism to support and endorse an option that will guarantee World War 3 on top of having the rest of the world shut down the United States economically and politically. Yes, you are crazy.

Do some homework on what I said earlier. And I believe the international law concern has been addressed earlier. If it gets in the way of what a nation wants to do (any nation, not just the US), then international law is borken. No one really has the power to demand someone be brought to trial.

Again, you assume the world as a whole is just going to brush off nuclear explosions that kills millions and destroys a historical religious site.

living in peace by attacking emabssies? Burning American and Dutch flags? Sponsoring terrorist training camps? Thats very peaceful.

Again you obcess with Biased Sample and Composition. Terrorists are Muslim so therefore Muslims are terrorists, yada yada yada.

Denial and ignorance? Or is it simply that you don't like my proposal because it is drastic. I know what the consequences are, I know what the stakes are. I just remove emotion from it because sometimes it is necessary to not have emotion in order to do what might be needed for the greater long term good.

I might be unhinged, but then again, the US does over-disagnose those sort of things.

Not only is it drastic, it's not a solution at all. And without emotional appeal, you ought to know that globalisation and outsourcing has made the United States no longer self-sufficient. Such a move would alienate the rest of the world and thus insure an economic collapse especially when China stops supporting the dollar like it's currently doing.

There is no long term good resulting from such a suicidal act.