20-07-2004 00:26									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

It's time for some serious journalism on the subject, not inane opinions from Polytubby riffraff.

http://www.onion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4028

	20-07-2004 01:24									#62
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Pekka --- And I'd say that fight we can't do, unless we're really prepared for, with strong alliance of our own, plus then it's up to many other questions too like what are the reasons, is this necessary etc. --- Not worth it unless they are really threatning us and I think they're not threatning us. --- and if it should be us who started the aggression.. that's just not good. We can say terrorism here terrorism there, but if there are casualties up to those numbers from their side, assuming mostly innocents or their soldiers, us starting it, well.. it's a question of one of ours means 1000 of yours, and that's just too ****ing biblical to make any sense. If we want to call them the Axis of Evil and what not, we better make sure we don't become the evil. And at the end, there would be more terrorists than in the beginning and as a bonus our own allied wouldn't be so strong anymore if there would be feelings we're not doing the right thing here anymore. The bottom line is, we can't contain that war. I mean it's a possibility, but the cards are in the hands of Iran. And this wouldn't stabilize the area at all. Except if we think that sending our officials to be our puppets and we'd be the masters, that just won't work. It would be a plan, but I think that's just a bad plan. What I think we could do is to support some kind of resistance in there if there was one, or try diplomatic ways. Threatning wouldn't get us nowhere. Except to a factory with full of **** and we'd all need to swim in it.

I agree with your points and think it applies to Iraq as well, but the use of "We, us and our" make you a European traitor, Pekka! (not to mention that you wrote "soccer" in a post some weeks ago.

	20-07-2004 01:28									#63
	Full PM-box? Change here!

as long as it's not north korea, i fail to be sufficiently riled about the event to join any sort of loud argument.

	20-07-2004 01:29									#64
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by GePap Well, why would a moderate Iranian government not go for nukes itself? Iran has plenty of strategic reasons to go nuclear regardless of regime. To a certain degree, we can;t do more about iran becoming nuclear than we have about NK getting there- as long as we allow for the NPT framework and do everything we can to keep our right to nukes, our ability to deny them to others is limited.

to your first question
1. Some would say that given that, we should hit Iran regardless, since its just as unacceptable for a moderate Iran to have nukes
2. Some, arguing on the same basis, would support a rapprochement with the current regime
3. Some would argue that a moderate Iran with nukes is less threatening than the current regime with nukes
4. Some would argue that in the case of a moderate regime it would be more possible to deal with the security concerns that would drive Iran towards nukes.

	20-07-2004 01:29									#65
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Chemical Ollie, I'm sorry about the soccer. Won't happen again .

	20-07-2004 10:48									#66
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: "Remember the good old days when Iran and Iraq were always at war with each other, and nobody else gave a **** who won or lost?"

	20-07-2004 13:17									#67
	Remove this text

quote: The incompetence of Shrub has caused average Americans to lump moderates like Mohammad Khatami with radical fundamentalists like Ali Khamenei and Hashemi Rafsanjani.

PLEASE, PLEASE tell me what the Iranian reform movement has actually done. Ever. Before Bush, after, at ALL.
For that matter, the moderates that you speak of are still quite extreme on the political scale. They're definitely on the same side of the fence.

	20-07-2004 14:35									#68
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Zevico PLEASE, PLEASE tell me what the Iranian reform movement has actually done. Ever. Before Bush, after, at ALL. For that matter, the moderates that you speak of are still quite extreme on the political scale. They're definitely on the same side of the fence.

78 or none.

	21-07-2004 11:11									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Leave the poor Iranians alone

	21-07-2004 11:45									#70
	Inflate your Upload Space

The world would be better off if Bush went for North Korea next. Best part is no occupation. We get the job done and leave. South Korea handles the unification details.

	21-07-2004 15:11									#71
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark to your first question 1. Some would say that given that, we should hit Iran regardless, since its just as unacceptable for a moderate Iran to have nukes

I fail to see why it would be unacceptable. I live in a country which has only its nukes to thank for its independence, and I think that most modern democracies should have nukes, to avoid being bullied.

Iran with nukes is only unacceptable if the regime remains a theocracy (= possibility of being unreasonable with the weapons), or if you see it from an American perspective: "damn this country that dares not obeying us".

	21-07-2004 15:18									#72
	Increase the size of your Attachments

While I support soft means for regime change in dictatorial countries, I am worried about what the Bush admin would consider "soft".

Striking on a Nuclear Plant is definitely not soft IMHO. So is the active support to armed opposition, which can easily use terrorist methods.

There's propaganda, trade and diplomatic restrictions, the (indirect and secret) funding of the opposition etc. These soft ways definitely don't pay in short term, and they must be used wisely to be useful at all. I don't think Bush has the patience nor the wisdom to make anything out of it.

	21-07-2004 15:36									#73
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Vince278 The world would be better off if Bush went for North Korea next. Best part is no occupation. We get the job done and leave. South Korea handles the unification details.

Please please don't. I'm within range of North Korean artillery Whatever else that can be said of North Korea, they've got plenty of guns and people who know how to shoot 'em.

	21-07-2004 15:51									#74
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Why not just persuade a ME country with a previous successful record of destroying a nuclear plant before it went on line to do Iran as well. This time Iraq would not be hostile airspace (maybe even a clandestine mid air refuelling could be arranged).

There is a critical phase in the construction just before the nuclear fuel arrives when the maximum damage can be done so it is all about timing.

	21-07-2004 16:02									#75
	Tired of ads?

dont even think about it

	21-07-2004 16:44									#76
	Suffering from ads?

Jesus, apart from loony Zionists and people who think that the US can actually accomplish this without painting a target on US civilians and interests in the rest of the world, who really thinks any of this is a good idea?

	21-07-2004 17:28									#77
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Apocalypse Can't go for Iran now...gotta leave something for Bush III.

First female president?

	21-07-2004 19:27									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I fail to see why it would be unacceptable. I live in a country which has only its nukes to thank for its independence, and I think that most modern democracies should have nukes, to avoid being bullied. Iran with nukes is only unacceptable if the regime remains a theocracy (= possibility of being unreasonable with the weapons), or if you see it from an American perspective: "damn this country that dares not obeying us".

Im not sure about the significance you attribute to the "force de frappe", but I doubt anyone thinks it would be a good idea for everyone from Belgium to Australia to Japan to have nukes.

As for the moderate Iranians - let me make clear that I am not advocating that position, and I cant offhand cite anyone who does. I think the argument would be that even a post-mullah Iranian regime would not be stable, either internally or externally. It takes more to make a modern democracy than overthrowing a dictatorship, as we are learning so well. I think many who would NOT accept a preemptive attack on a moderate Iran, would still want to see Iran peacefully swear off nukes, much as Ukraine and South Africa did. This all raises the question of Pakistan, which is also not a modern democracy. The hope would be that Pakistan will disarm in conjunction with India, but the India - China rivalry complicates that. Obviously a moderate Iranian regime would likely insist on Israeli nuclear disarment (analogous to Pakistan - India). Presumably a "moderate" Iranian regime would be one that would be willing to sit down and negotiate with Israel, unlike the current regime.

	21-07-2004 19:33									#79
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor While I support soft means for regime change in dictatorial countries, I am worried about what the Bush admin would consider "soft". Striking on a Nuclear Plant is definitely not soft IMHO. So is the active support to armed opposition, which can easily use terrorist methods. There's propaganda, trade and diplomatic restrictions, the (indirect and secret) funding of the opposition etc. These soft ways definitely don't pay in short term, and they must be used wisely to be useful at all. I don't think Bush has the patience nor the wisdom to make anything out of it.

Of course trade restrictions dont work all that well when done unilaterally, as is currently the case.

As for time, the Mullahs are as aware as you are that soft methods take time. Which gives them a powerful incentive to do their own preemption, especially if they see new regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan as the ultimate soft weapons (note that Iraq, with its alternative sources of Shiite leadership, its shrine cities that Iranians visit in large numbers, etc is a particular source of democractic "infection") Given that, and that Iran MAY be using what you call hard methods (support to armed insurgents) in Iraq, its not clear that endless patience is a good idea.

	22-07-2004 09:31									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Boshko Please please don't. I'm within range of North Korean artillery Whatever else that can be said of North Korea, they've got plenty of guns and people who know how to shoot 'em.

I feel your pain. I was there 10 years ago. A peaceful solution is always preferable.

	22-07-2004 09:33									#81
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by GePap The opposition in Iran is, as Ramo said, weaker today than four years ago. The state has plenty of oil money to keep itself going, and military action vs. Iran short of full scale invasion and regime change would only encourage Iran to make a mess for us in Afghanistan and Iraq, something Iran can do. IN the end, striking at Iran now save for a full scale invasion, wich the US simply can't do, owuld only serve to make our "sucess" in Afghanistan and Iraq even more perilous.

They need encouragement?

	22-07-2004 09:34									#82
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap Except the whole "strike at the nuclear facilities bit", which the admin. must be insane to think it would do it. My guiess on the "source", if its someone up high, would be Feith.

That's not regime change.

	22-07-2004 09:36									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I fail to see why it would be unacceptable. I live in a country which has only its nukes to thank for its independence, and I think that most modern democracies should have nukes, to avoid being bullied.

The Germans were going to invade you again?

	22-07-2004 09:37									#84
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Jesus, apart from loony Zionists and people who think that the US can actually accomplish this without painting a target on US civilians and interests in the rest of the world, who really thinks any of this is a good idea?

How would there be any more of a target than we have already?

	22-07-2004 09:40									#85
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I hope Bush does **** to Iran just so itll make everything FUBAR and a republican wont be elected for the next 24 years

	22-07-2004 09:47									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

You're the same guy who was hoping that lots and lots of American soldiers died so that Bush wouldn't be reelected, right?

:vomit:

	22-07-2004 09:56									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

no i wasnt.

	22-07-2004 10:45									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Was that MOBIUS, then?

	22-07-2004 17:06									#89
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker The Germans were going to invade you again?

Nope, but we never know about what the future holds. Maybe the EU will collapse, as a wide economic crisis wakes up the nationalism. Maybe the EU-US relations will become extremely strained and inimical at some point, maybe the US will end up being best buddies with an extremely aggressive and bullying Chinese hyperpower...

And so far, our nuclear power simply made us free of American tutelage when it comes to our protection. Only the countries that have developed their own nuclear technology (Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and of course Russia) know they don't have to rely on the US to avert invasions.

It's good to have, when you know the US is self-interested, like any other country, and will protect you only if it fits its interests.

	22-07-2004 17:08									#90
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker How would there be any more of a target than we have already?

Many shia groups show some restraint so far. You are being attacked mostly by sunni groups. Besides, State sponsored terrorists lie low for the moment. If you declare war to Iran, or Syria, you bet they'll use their terrorist networks to strike at home.