BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 May 06 - 09:23 AM

Teribus,

I have not written that letter only linked to it so I'm not in a position to respond for the authors. But as I see it:

They are right to state that the support for a war from Europe will be close to nonexistent.
You see (in my eyes) the dichotomy war-useless talking when there are far more alternatives. The Mullahs (some of them) seem to be more rational than Ahmadinejad. There is a lot of internal dissatisfaction with the regime why stop that movement by a war?

The problem I have with the threat of force in this case is not a general problem I would have with waging war. I'm not a pacifist. I think it has not been thought through:
- will the outcome of a war prevent what it means to prevent (for a considerable time?
- are there not better methods to achieve the wished outcome (see above)?
- If one considers it likely that a war achieves what it means to, what are the negative consequences?

I'm afraid that the US government started the threats without a clear plan (the Bush administration doesn't look really thoughtful in their past actions) and that at some moment in time the dynamics and rhetorics of the situation will leave the US government with only the choice between war and losing face. They might then start a war that achieves its objective only for a quite short period, has a lot of negative consequences for the USA and other allies and threatens the long term security more than any Iranian WMDs could. Or they might paddle back and the next villain will openly laugh at them and their hugh arsenal of useless weapons.

In the new asymmetric warfare of the present century the USA have much less power than their superior arsenal seems to give them.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 May 06 - 10:08 AM

Published on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 by the New York Times
Iran Urges United Nations to Oppose American 'Threats'
by Warren Hoge

UNITED NATIONS - Iran asked the United Nations on Monday to take a stand against American threats that it said included possible nuclear strikes on its territory and that were "in total contempt of international law." In a letter to Secretary General Kofi Annan, Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, pointed to recent comments by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on ways to halt Iran's nuclear program and to news reports of Pentagon planning for possible nuclear attacks on nuclear facilities in Iran.

He said the comments by the United States were "matters of extreme gravity that require an urgent, concerted and resolute response on the part of the United Nations, and particularly the Security Council."
Mr. Zarif also faulted the United Nations for remaining silent on "these illegal and inexcusable threats" and said the lack of action had "emboldened senior United States officials to go further and even consider the use of nuclear weapons as 'an option on the table.' "

American officials have said they are pursuing a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, but they have repeatedly said that all options, including military ones, are being considered. Iran says its nuclear program is only for producing energy, but the United States and its European allies contend that Iran is preparing to build weapons.

Mr. Bush, asked at the White House on April 18 if the United States was considering military action against Iran, said, "All options are on the table."

Two days later, Ms. Rice echoed the president in a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. In his letter, Mr. Jarif made specific mention of both comments.

..

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 May 06 - 01:23 PM

So, let me see...

Iran says it wants to destroy another nation, and that is ok...

The US refuses to rule out the use of force if diplomacy fails, and that is wrong....


NOW I understand.