What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

FreshFish said:
The best idea I've seen is to negotiate directly with the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard. They have quite a good deal going for themselves, with all the business interests they own. "We'll spare your property from damage if in return you toss aside the person that is endangering the safety of said property with his recklessness."
Click to expand...

You mean talk with the enemy? Why don't you just move to France you surrender monkey!
 
Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

FreshFish said:
The best idea I've seen is to negotiate directly with the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard. They have quite a good deal going for themselves, with all the business interests they own. "We'll spare your property from damage if in return you toss aside the person that is endangering the safety of said property with his recklessness."
Click to expand...

Similar to what we did in Egypt. We have been subsidizing the military. Its worked more or less. A new democratic Egypt and budget restraints may change that.
 
Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

5mn_Major said:
Similar to what we did in Egypt. We have been subsidizing the military. Its worked more or less. A new democratic Egypt and budget restraints may change that.
Click to expand...
Easier to do in Egypt because the Mubarak govt was just a glorified junta so the army could get rid of him with some internal politics. Iran has the clerics -- for the army to overthrow them could cause a full-on civil war.
 
Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Kepler said:
Easier to do in Egypt because the Mubarak govt was just a glorified junta so the army could get rid of him with some internal politics. Iran has the clerics -- for the army to overthrow them could cause a full-on civil war.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, there is substantial disagreement among the clerics about Khamenei, some of them think he has become too egotistical and unbalanced. Many of them think the crackdown during the popular uprising was too harsh and too brutal.

Check out the writing of a journalist named Amir Taheri; I've been reading his work for years now and he seems to have good insight and great connections for sources. Many of his forward-looking columns have turned out to be spot on as the situations played out.

Unfortunately, it seems quite likely that if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon, they almost certainly will use it in a first strike. Even if they don't, I wouldn't be surprised if a few other "players" try to launch an attack that looks like it came from Iran, so that retaliation will then ensue.

This is too eerily similar to the situation in Europe in the mid- to late-1930s for my comfort!
 
Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

FreshFish said:
From what I've read, there is substantial disagreement among the clerics about Khamenei, some of them think he has become too egotistical and unbalanced. Many of them think the crackdown during the popular uprising was too harsh and too brutal.

Check out the writing of a journalist named Amir Taheri; I've been reading his work for years now and he seems to have good insight and great connections for sources. Many of his forward-looking columns have turned out to be spot on as the situations played out.

Unfortunately, it seems quite likely that if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon, they almost certainly will use it in a first strike. Even if they don't, I wouldn't be surprised if a few other "players" try to launch an attack that looks like it came from Iran, so that retaliation will then ensue.

This is too eerily similar to the situation in Europe in the mid- to late-1930s for my comfort!
Click to expand...
Think it may be more intune with Europe 1912-14. The Balkans were a powder keg ready to go - and then stupidity took over and slaughtered an entire generation. Then they did it all over again 20 years later.
 
Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

And vice-versa.

Israel appears to be trying to strong-arm the United States into doing something completely against our national interest. If it was any other ally, with the possible exception of the UK, we would tell them to pound sand. Imagine the French using us as a pawn in their domestic politics this way.
 
Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Kepler said:
And vice-versa.

Israel appears to be trying to strong-arm the United States into doing something completely against our national interest.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand, are you trying to imply that it IS in the US national interest to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons??
 
Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

FreshFish said:
Not sure I understand, are you trying to imply that it IS in the US national interest to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons??
Click to expand...
Wrong question. The real question has to carry all the consequences of war.

This is the same drive to war (by the same people) that gave us Iraq. They made the case: which is better, Iraq with Saddam or Iraq without Saddam? You don't really think it's in the United States' national interest for Saddam to stay in power, do you?

The real choice was: which is better, Iraq crippled by sanctions vs a US war of choice followed by an occupation, a generation of free recruiting for AQ, the undying enmity of half the Muslim world, 4k US casualties, somewhere between 100k and 500k Iraqi civilian casualties, the removal of the only regional counterweight to Iran, and a $2T price tag.

It is possible that we have a national interest in hemming in the Iranians, especially when it comes to their support of client terrorist groups. But let's be smart about it for once, and not reduce everything to, well, a New York Post editorial.
 
Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Kepler said:
It is possible that we have a national interest in hemming in the Iranians, especially when it comes to their support of client terrorist groups. But let's be smart about it for once, and not reduce everything to, well, a New York Post editorial.
Click to expand...

Mr. Taheri is an esteemed international syndicated journalist whose work regularly appears in many publications around the world. He does not write "editorials" for the NYPost.

Also, either you have a short memory or [redacted]. It seems to me that we very clearly have a strong vested interest in making sure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons; the concept of mutually-assured destruction does nothing to deter martyrdom!! Do you really have any doubts that Iranian fanatics would love to unleash nuclear weapons against the US, probably smuggled by sleeper cells already many years in place?? if so, I have a bridge for sale, please buy it!

By threatening destruction by conventional weapons, we may well convince the Revolutionary Guard (whose leaders are living a very comfortable secular lifestyle!) to split off from the fanatics; thereby obviating the actual use of any weaponry at all. However, the threat must be severe and serious enough to convince them that we really do mean it.

It is a "catch-22" situation in reverse.


Regarding Iraq, it seems to me that if Saddam did not try to bluff and pretend he still had WMDs, and instead let weapons inspectors into the country to verify same, the US "pretext" to go to war would have been taken away. I blame Jacques Chirac more than anyone else for the coalition's invasion; documents seized from the Iraqi oil ministry clearly showed that high-level officials in the French government were on Saddam's payroll. Had Chirac not blocked UN action (which Russia and China were willing to allow!!) in order to try to kept these bribes hidden, then a UN force would have gone into Iraq, not a US-led coalition. People forget that there were multiple UN resolutions which Saddam defied, and that a majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress initially voted in favor of the US-led coalition. It is only in revisionist history that people forgot all of these contemporary events. The US approached the UN twice, and Chirac used the French veto, not Russia nor China, to prevent UN action. I'm not defending the US action nor am I demonizing it. I am merely regretting that Chirac vetoed the use of the UN to verify that Saddam did not have WMDs, which they would have done, and we'd have all been spared the negative consequences which you listed.
 
Last edited:
Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Kepler said:
Wrong question. The real question has to carry all the consequences of war.

This is the same drive to war (by the same people) that gave us Iraq. They made the case: which is better, Iraq with Saddam or Iraq without Saddam? You don't really think it's in the United States' national interest for Saddam to stay in power, do you?

The real choice was: which is better, Iraq crippled by sanctions vs a US war of choice followed by an occupation, a generation of free recruiting for AQ, the undying enmity of half the Muslim world, 4k US casualties, somewhere between 100k and 500k Iraqi civilian casualties, the removal of the only regional counterweight to Iran, and a $2T price tag.

It is possible that we have a national interest in hemming in the Iranians, especially when it comes to their support of client terrorist groups. But let's be smart about it for once, and not reduce everything to, well, a New York Post editorial.
Click to expand...

When did you stop using meth?
 
Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

joecct said:
You're a follower of 43's brother? AMEN!
Click to expand...

jebus%20ipod.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top