This may not end well

Anyone can post and discuss breaking news that interest them (please respect posting guidelines and be sure to reference properly).
Forum rules
Please be sure to check our forum's Rules & Guidelines

This may not end well

Postby ronjanec on February 2nd, 2017, 2:27 pm 

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/top-khamenei- ... 49295.html You have Israel sounding like they wanted to take out Iran's nuclear program for years but were previously stymied by the last two US Presidents, and now you have President Trump who may not be so adverse to sending in the "Bunker Busters" in a coordinated attack with Israel. And then you again have an even scarier situation with North Korea;

The previous administration has basically looked the other way and has in the process encouraged both countries to pursue objectives that with a new administration here in the US may force military action to be started against one or even both of them. This is really scary!

I should have voted for Hillary? Hillary would have probably continued to look the other way until it was too late and both had ICBM's with deliverable to the US mainland nuclear warheads on top, and she may have also gotten us into a war with Russia which is even worse than either posible scenario here. Hopefully, I am just being paranoid here, but I am still glad that I am no longer draft age!
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: This may not end well

Postby Lomax on February 2nd, 2017, 2:40 pm 

Far be it from me to defend a theocracy, but is there really any plausible pretext for military action against Iran? It wants to become the 51st - not the first - nuclear state. I disapprove of this, but would we invade the other fifty? Beside sponsoring terrorism, Iran has a long history as one of the least aggressive countries in the world. Which is more than can be said for Israel, which gradually annexes its neighbour, or the US, who pays for it to do so, and has actually used nuclear weaponry on civilian populations, and in the Iranian regime's living memory encouraged Iraq to invade to Iran, costing a six-or-seven-digit number of lives.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: This may not end well

Postby ronjanec on February 2nd, 2017, 2:50 pm 

If I was the US President, there is no way that I would or could live with either regime possessing an ICBM with a deliverable nuclear warhead to Washington D.C. And if I thought they were getting real close to this despite all negotiations to the contrary, they would definitely learn why we have the most advanced military in the world.
Last edited by ronjanec on February 2nd, 2017, 2:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: This may not end well

Postby Lomax on February 2nd, 2017, 2:52 pm 

I understand your concern, but I think we should learn from 1962. And also consider the consequences for the long-suffering people of Iran if we invade with no pretext. I cannot imagine there would be any mention of democracy this time around.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: This may not end well

Postby ronjanec on February 2nd, 2017, 3:00 pm 

Again, we cannot allow either scenario to happen Lomax, and the people of Iran and North Korea would unfortunately suffer the consequences.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: This may not end well

Postby Lomax on February 2nd, 2017, 3:04 pm 

I may have misunderstood your position. When you say that Iranian objectives may "force" the US to "take action" against them, what do you mean?
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: This may not end well

Postby ronjanec on February 2nd, 2017, 3:15 pm 

Lomax » Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:04 pm wrote:I may have misunderstood your position. When you say that Iranian objectives may "force" the US to "take action" against them, what do you mean?


Again, them appearing to being close to having an ICBM with a deliverable nuclear warhead to Washington D.C cannot be allowed to happen period. Them just acquiring nuclear weapons after saying they would not, and continuing to constantly advance their missle program? This is probably the same red line for the US, and I believe Israel will attack them for this no matter what we do.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: This may not end well

Postby Lomax on February 2nd, 2017, 3:25 pm 

It's deviant behaviour from Iran. But your country's attempts to stop Cuba having what everybody else had, by military and pre-emptive means, drove them far to the Left and into the arms of the Soviet Union. In the process it very nearly blew up the world, and the president's means of saving face led to Khrushchev - a fairly malevolent dictator - being replaced by Brezhnev, an extremely malevolent one.

Your link suggests that the purpose of the already-existing missiles is to target Israel. You mentioned North Korea - the reason we leave North Korea alone is because to do otherwise would be to sign an immediate death warrant for millions of South Koreans. For that reason, any Israeli decision to bomb Iran now would amount to a suicide pact. In other words I think it's already too late - anything we do will just make things worse for everybody. The point of Mutually Assured Destruction is that it mutually assures destruction - in a Mexican stand off the last thing you do is pull the trigger. Pun intended.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: This may not end well

Postby ronjanec on February 2nd, 2017, 4:04 pm 

I was talking to some people at a dinner party about my concerns about North Korea and they asked me "Well what would you do about it?"(I was also complaining about President Obama basically doing nothing about this) in a somewhat snarky way and I told them that I am not qualified to give them a decent answer...and I am not.

It's too late? Is it? I again honestly do not know what we can do about either situation, but if we just keep ignoring this it will just get worse and then create an even more untenable situation for our national security interests. Millions of people may die? You do not know that for certain, and our military capabilities are probably a lot scarier and even a lot more effective than people like ourselves realize.

Hopefully President Trump can finally get China to literally give North Korea the riot act and stop this self destructive policy. And I have also read(this from a very high ranking defector from the North) that the North Koreans were willing to work with us on this to get on much better terms, but the previous administration really played hard ball with the North Koreans on them keeping any of their nuclear weapons.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: This may not end well

Postby Lomax on February 2nd, 2017, 4:22 pm 

ronjanec » February 2nd, 2017, 9:04 pm wrote:It's too late? Is it? I again honestly do not know what we can do about either situation, but if we just keep ignoring this it will just get worse and then create an even more untenable situation for our national security interests. Millions of people may die? You do not know that for certain, and our military capabilities are probably a lot scarier and even a lot more effective than people like ourselves realize.

North Korea entirely controls the 38th parallel, and is a short drive away from Seoul, the capital of South Korea. It has the biggest (albeit poorly equipped) army in the world, and nuclear weapons or not, it could saturate the city with gunfire well before Pyongyang could be made to fall. Israel's anti-missile defense system, Iron Dome, is 90% effective. That's very effective, but not enough to stop millions of people from dying. They won't necessarily be Americans, but I hope that's not all you care about.

Your proposal to conduct diplomacy through China is a better one. I don't mean to say it's too late to do anything; but it is too late to do anything which involves bunker-busters. I do not think we can solve these problems by military means, nor that we have any right to do so in Iran. And if we do it by diplomatic or economic means it will be slow, and rely on others, who will want something in exchange. Before we get too upbeat.

It may be that, like the Soviet Union, North Korea will eventually collapse from the inside out. If the boot stamps on the human face for long enough, both the boot and the face will wear away.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: This may not end well

Postby Braininvat on February 2nd, 2017, 6:31 pm 

I can't find evidence, either in the Reuters story you (Ron) cited in the OP, or other postings, that Iran has restarted the weapons-grade plutonium program it ended in its 6-nation agreement brokered by the UNSC. Like many nations, they have medium-range missiles, not ICBMs as you referred to them, Ron, and want to have them for a defense. I find no evidence they will carry nuclear warheads. Given Israel's aggressive stance, and other aggressor groups in their corner of the world, this seems not all that unreasonable. There are more volatile nations which have both MRBMs and nukes to tip them with, Pakistan and India spring to mind, so what's the special focus on Iran?
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5080
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: This may not end well

Postby ronjanec on February 2nd, 2017, 6:55 pm 

Biv,

What's the special focus? Iran's government has threatened to completely destroy another nation(Israel) a number of times in the past and also our nation. That's just talk? That's what almost everyone said about Hitler in regards to the Jewish people and look at how that turned out(Pakistan and India only threaten each other)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: This may not end well

Postby Lomax on February 2nd, 2017, 7:03 pm 

The Israeli government would never threaten to destroy another country, of course. And if it did, we'd worry about the fact it has nukes. Right?

Look, I don't mean to throw in my lot with the creeps who change every subject to "Israel does bad things" because we know what those people are really trying to say. But Iran has not invaded another country for centuries, and has been on the receiving end of American or American-backed invasions several times. We possibly have the right to try and stop its government, whose rhetoric is vitriolic, from gaining nuclear technology or flouting UN resolution 2231. We by no means have the right to invade. Actions speak louder than words, and regardless of Iran's words - and unlike Germany's - its actions have never been particularly aggressive.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: This may not end well

Postby BadgerJelly on February 2nd, 2017, 9:31 pm 

What did Chomsky bring to light about the actions of the US regarding condemnation of something they proposed to Brasil? Brasil went ahead with proposal to Iran regarding nuclear materials and Iran accepted. The US then attacked Brasil for such an action when they asked them to make the proposal in the first place. What the US didn't expect was an agreement being met. It was merely a ploy to look good and probably backdoor south america. South america has grown strong and the US fear losing footholds there (they already have). I imagine that Trump has been told to focus attention on central and south america to destablise their economies so the US can regain control over them.

It appears these countries have grown wise to the actions of the US though so I doubt they'll have much luck. Which will mean the US will most likely start some kind of "invasion" in south america probably to stop an act of "terrorism".

At the moment it looks like the US is fighting with itself amd using a divide and conqier attitude. Ironically it may very well lead to states vying for independence so civil war in the US is most likely a more likely situation than a nuclear strike from Iran.

In Israel the solution seems fairly obvious to me. Have both peoples live under the same flag. Create a combined Israel/Palestine country. We are after all talking about two peoples who've been displaced and suffered similar problems. Think Sinn Fein amd Northern Ireland. Although I admit such a comparison is silly there is something to be said for a nonviolent agreement.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3884
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: This may not end well

Postby ronjanec on February 3rd, 2017, 11:07 am 

Lomax and any others,

Again, I am not saying we should attack Iran or North Korea: I again want our new government to work with them both before they possibly cross some red lines where we must then attack them and eliminate a very serious threat to our national security interests.

(A really scary story just from today that also talks about their potential ICBM program that could hit anywhere in the US with a nuclear warhead) http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/asia/matt ... index.html
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: This may not end well

Postby ronjanec on February 3rd, 2017, 11:34 am 

3 carrier battle groups, 150 F-18's and two B-2's taking out all communication and artillery pointed at Seoul. The big problem of course is where are the nuclear weapons and can we take them out in time?
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: This may not end well

Postby Braininvat on February 3rd, 2017, 12:03 pm 

North Korea nevertheless continues to make bellicose statements, including one from leader Kim Jong Un on New Year's Day in which he said his military is on the brink of testing its first intercontinental ballistic missile -- a rocket that could be equipped with nuclear weapons and is powerful enough to reach any part of the United States.

Analysts point out, however, that Kim's bluster is often more for internal consumption than an actual threat to South Korea and the US...
-- from the CNN article linked above.

Kim maintains party loyalty by promoting the fantasy that we and SK are about to attack them. Makes it easier to manipulate citizens and keep them from noticing who their real enemy is.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5080
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: This may not end well

Postby ronjanec on February 3rd, 2017, 12:25 pm 

True, but now we have a new President Biv, and I believe a much more hawkish administration than "the peace in our time" former President and his previous administration. A fantasy? Again, maybe so: The article talks about a new defensive missle defense system? That would certainly come in handy if you were already making contingency plans to attack North Korea if talks fail.

I really hope our new President and his administration can sit down and talk with North Korea, before things really start to spiral out of control here. The North Koreans really need to realize that the game has again radically changed here.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: This may not end well

Postby ronjanec on February 3rd, 2017, 12:51 pm 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... sile-tests The Iranians also need to realize that the game has radically changed here.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: This may not end well

Postby Lomax on February 3rd, 2017, 2:22 pm 

I suppose I just don't understand the fear of Iran. Why can an Israeli statesman threaten the elimination of Pakistan (to whom the US is also allied) but an Iranian statesman cannot say the same thing of Israel? For no reason I am able to parse, while the US refused to station troops in Bosnia or Darfur or Nigeria during their respective genocides, it has been eager to completely surround Persia with military bases and forces for decades. The CIA put the Ayatollah's regime into power, then encouraged a fascist neighbour to invade and take a million lives, and now towers over Iran as if it were the aggressor all along. It's time we became a little more sceptical of this constant scapegoating, and this psychopathic, paranoid, divide-and-never-allow-to-conquer mentality. It costs brown Islamic lives by the million.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: This may not end well

Postby Lomax on February 3rd, 2017, 2:34 pm 

As for the Israel-Palestine question, I think one would have to know little about the situation in order to think that any one particular solution is obvious. Suggesting a secular Palestine-Israel state in which Jews and Arabs all live happily side by side is just suggesting that this problem never came about in the first place. A single state would condemn the people of Israel to become an ethnic, religious and cultural minority in a nation, much of the population of which hates them with both a religious and a historical fervour. Unfortunately, the two-state solution no longer seems viable either. For my part I think it would be a good start if America stopped funding the occupation of the West Bank - the difference between what Israel spends on defense, and what it spends on annexing its neighbours, is exactly equal to what the US gives it, year-on-year.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: This may not end well

Postby ronjanec on February 3rd, 2017, 4:05 pm 

Lomax,

If you were also living in a country that has been repeatedly called "the Great Satan" by the government and the people of another country that may be in the process of trying to acquire offensive nuclear weapons for the first time, you might be better able to understand our concerns about this.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: This may not end well

Postby Lomax on February 3rd, 2017, 4:56 pm 

Luckily for you, the US is now only the "Great False Idol".

Meanwhile Britain, which Iran has repeatedly called "evil", has received no such amnesty. If your hawkish Israeli friends are to be believed, the director of Iran's Europe and U.S. department recommended that, if Israel or the US should threaten Iran, Iran should start off by nuking London. That's the country I live in. So spare me the victim complex.

I have to say that, if Iran had invaded the UK in 1907 and carved it up according to its own interests, if it had overthrown our democratically elected prime minister in 1953, if it had encouraged a fascist country to invade us in 1980 and kill between 800,000 and 1,500,000 people, many of whom were children, deliberately prolonging the war by repeatedly switching sides, I would not be surprised if my country's leader decided to in return to call it some mean names. As things happen, it was the UK and US who did those things to Iran. Let's not pretend Iran started this with its descriptions of us, which are probably milder than we deserve given what we've done. Let's not pretend it gives us the right to single it out as a special, subordinate enemy subject to our micromanagement (Pinochet's thugs set off a bomb in Washington D.C., by the way, but Republicans continue to overlook this. Why not? He was white, Christian, free market), or to build a wall of tanks and guns around its border.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: This may not end well

Postby ronjanec on February 3rd, 2017, 5:20 pm 

nuneaton on map of uk It looks like the "other victim" lives a very long way from London. :)

(oops, the link won't work)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: This may not end well

Postby BadgerJelly on February 4th, 2017, 12:37 am 

The US military is actively contesting borders where? In eastern europe and waters around China. In the middle east.

Note the only threat to the security of the US is from within the US government not some foreign power. Also note the accelerated military spending of the US that dwarfs every other nation on Earth. The US don't want nations to have nuclear weapons because then they can actually fight back (a little) if attacked.

Of course I am over simplfying the situations around the globe. I am not saying that US military presence doesn't do some good. I am saying Iran is not a threat to the US any more than China or Russia is. Paranoria spread in the US allows the public to back military spending and keep the US as the only super power and thus the US does not need to worry about foreign threats (good or bad you decide).

I do wonder if China, Russia, Iran, India, etc., all had a more equivical military global presence would the world be a better or worse place? More or less stable? Very hard to say. It would mean that nations would take each other more seriously and be more open to negotiations and discussions. Of course the US doesnt want this. The US wants things their way and no nation is in much of a position to say or do a great deal about it.
Met a tourist from the US the other day. She said it was very hard for her to get visa for Brasil ... do a little digging and you will understand why this is. Obama tried to manipulate the Brazilian government and got caught out.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3884
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: This may not end well

Postby Lomax on February 4th, 2017, 1:10 am 

Not to mention the US-backed coup d'état in Brazil in 1964, which overthrew a democratically elected president and replaced him with a military junta.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: This may not end well

Postby jocular on February 4th, 2017, 6:34 am 

BadgerJelly » February 4th, 2017, 12:37 am wrote: The US don't want nations to have nuclear weapons because then they can actually fight back (a little) if attacked.



Are they not right in this? "a little" = more like "a lot" to my mind.

I agree the question is fraught(and self serving/hypocritical) but have we forgotten about non proliferation? Has the horse bolted? Can I have one too?

Of course with a Trump "administration" such questions are perhaps theoretical ;(
jocular
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: 29 Feb 2016


Re: This may not end well

Postby Forest_Dump on February 4th, 2017, 9:22 am 

I think what we are seeing is the predictable and inevitable jockeying that will continue as the US slowly fades from being a significant player on the world scene. In the Middle East, the US may retain some position through its ability to direct air strikes but since it is increasingly unlikely the US will be willing or able to do anything significant or lasting on the ground, the balance of power will need to readjust. I would expect Russia well certainly be increasing its presence and power, of course with Syria but also with Iran. I wouldn't be surprised if Russian influence was rapidly extended to the Strait of Hormuz which, with Russian control of Crimea, would give Russia a hugely significant strategic and economic hold over eastern Europe and western Asia.

As to North Korea, of course that is just a threat to South Korea and Japan but easily curbed by China. If the US maintains its isolationist rhetoric I would expect a lot of new trade around the Paciic rim drawing South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, Australia, etc. together economically. If I were at ay of the key tables I would be advising Canada to jump into this to some degree as the doorway into North America (and route out for a lot of natural resources). Given the isolationist stance and increasing willingness to tear up or ignore deals, I think more and more the US is just going to be left out of the important discussions. But then, who in the US will even know that?
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8669
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: This may not end well

Postby ronjanec on February 4th, 2017, 10:47 am 

"as the US slowly fades from being a significant player on the world scene"? Maybe the reports of our eventual "demise" have just been wishful thinking by others who are in possibly much worse shape than we are Forest? :)

The EU possibly on the verge of collapse: China on very shaky ground economically and Japan still in trouble: Russia and the Gulf States having serious economic issues because of the very low oil prices. India in chaos with their new monetary policy. Brazil and South America also doing very poorly. And let's not forget Justin being in charge of poor Canada.

I remember how many thought Japan would supplant the US a number of years ago. How did that all work out? Then the EU, and now China.

"easily curbed by China"? I sure hope you are right about this Forest.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: This may not end well

Postby Lomax on February 4th, 2017, 12:18 pm 

jocular » February 4th, 2017, 11:34 am wrote:
BadgerJelly » February 4th, 2017, 12:37 am wrote: The US don't want nations to have nuclear weapons because then they can actually fight back (a little) if attacked.



Are they not right in this? "a little" = more like "a lot" to my mind.

I agree the question is fraught(and self serving/hypocritical) but have we forgotten about non proliferation? Has the horse bolted? Can I have one too?

I know this was aimed at Badger but since I'm advocating a similar stance I'll throw in my loose change. I think non-proliferation is extremely important but needs to be multilateral - since the UK and US are the only two countries I know of to have knowingly dropped nuclear bombs on civilians, I certainly don't trust them to be the gatekeepers of apocalyptic weaponry. Ron's link is not evidence that Iran has a nuclear arsenal or even that it's trying to get one - the missile in question violates UN resolution 2231 because it would be capable of delivering a warhead. If they had one. Meanwhile, as Braininvat points out, more volatile states than Iran get a free pass to worse weapons. It's weird to me that the US spends decades hounding and haranguing Iran, and then, in fear they might bite back, decides the only solution is to keep hounding. Perhaps if we (the West) are worried about tripping over Iran, we could stop stamping on its face.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Next

Return to News Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests