Text 15286, 347 rader
Skriven 2007-06-05 16:13:18 av Josh Hill (1699.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: unions
==================
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 04:56:22 GMT, "Vorlonagent"
<nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message=20
>news:ehqr43tr0jh8a85um0gn5qv0uaqgbu3u0f@4ax.com...
>> But, in the end, it doesn't make a difference. Even if there were only
>> a 25% chance that a second North Korean bomb would take out Seoul or
>> New York, it's more than enough, because we aren't going to take that
>> risk if we can possibly avoid it.
>
>Agreed. Unfortunately diplomatic constraints make the simple solutions=20
>(bombing the crap out of NK reactors and known fissionables storage)=20
>somewhat problematic.  Neither the SKs nor the Chinese are thrilled with=
 the=20
>prospect of military force used against the NKs.

The North Koreans would take out Seoul, perhaps Tokyo. China could
depose the regime without force, but they don't want to deal with the
resulting mess.

>On the other hand, the chinese, at least, aren't thrilled at the prospec=
t of=20
>a nuclear Japan either and the NK threat pushes Japan in that direction.=
=20
>Japan can have a nuke very very easily if they want one.
>
>But the fact of the matter is that the NKs DO NOT have a workable bomb.=20
>They may have ideas on how to build a workable bomb based on their test.=
=20
>Without another test, they have a halfway nuke and nobody, not even the =
NKs,=20
>will know better until/unless they test.
>
>They're only probationary members of the nuclear club at this point.  Th=
ey=20
>don't get the full prestige of being a nuclear power.  Nor implied the=20
>invulnerability that comes with having a bomb.

I don't think the last is true, given that no one wants North Korea to
hold their next nuclear test in Tokyo. They have their data: the
probability of a second dud is fairly low.

>>>'In the master document, Iran talks about ensuring "full transparency"
>>>and other measures to assure the U.S. that it will not develop nuclear
>>>weapons. Iran offers "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization."
>>>Iran also contemplates an end to "any material support to Palestinian
>>>opposition groups" while pressuring Hamas "to stop violent actions
>>>against civilians within" Israel (though not the occupied
>>>territories). Iran would support the transition of Hezbollah to be a
>>>"mere political organization within Lebanon" and endorse the Saudi
>>>initiative calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
>>>conflict.
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>...and you believe them?
>>
>> I don't think that's the real question. Iran isn't a monolith: they
>> have doves and hawks, reformers and conservatives just as we do. We're
>> popular with the Iranian public, and we know that there are voices in
>> the Iranian elite who have been asking why they're still at odds with
>> the United States when we've taken care of their worst enemies, Saddam
>> and the Sunnis and Al Quada and the Taliban. And Iran took /our/ side
>> after 9/11.
>
>Who talked about "full transparency"?  The iranian government?  The best=
 use=20
>for the paper it's printed on would be either wiping one's butt or=20
>firestarter (make sure you know which use you prefer and print on=20
>appropriate stock)

We don't know that, and we won't know that if we don't negotiate.

>The fact that the Iranian took our side after 9/11 means nothing really.=
  We=20
>were attacked by sunni extremists who are heretics in shia eyes.  We rem=
oved=20
>a sunni stronghold from one of their borders.  The fact that iran took i=
n=20
>Al-Queda leadership refugees and now appear to be training and funding t=
hem=20
>sheds much more light on their true sympathies.

Unfortunately, experience has shown that we can't trust the
Administration's claims about intelligence or who supports Al Qaeda,
so we're in the dark as to what's actually happening. Which being
said, why would Iran support Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda is fighting against
the side they favor in Iraq, the Shites.

If they think it suits their interests, Iran may reach this or that
accommodation with one or another Al Qaeda operative, Middle Eastern
style (we ever-provincial Americans tend to forget that Middle Eastern
society is better defined by Scheherazade's scheme than by western
notions of forthright action). But that's not the same as saying that
Iran supports Al Qaeda.

Bottom line: I think you're overlooking Iran's self-interest, the
regime's sensitivity to pressure, and the diversity of opinion within
the Iranian elite, a diversity that was present even in the days
following the revolution, when an anti-American course was not a
given. We have what appears to be a real opening. But as so often the
Administration chose to overlook the signs of a thaw and set
unrealistic requirements for opening negotiations, thus undercutting
the progressive elements within Iran.

This Administration never gets the carrot and stick thing right. They
bluster rather than applying measured pressure. They refuse to
compromise, they refuse to talk, and so eliminate the possibility of
progress. They overplay our hand, turn a position of overwhelming
strength and strong support into one of weakness and isolation. And as
the failed consequences of their hubris have become increasingly
obvious, they've been retreating like Napoleon's troops from Moscow,
settling in every case for less than we could have had at the start.
Iran is a good deal less afraid of us than they were a few years ago,
before we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq and
stretched the army to the breaking point.=20

>Regardless of factins in Iran, the goivernment is in the hands of just o=
ne:=20
>shia extremists.  Saying they have doves and hawks like we do would give=
 the=20
>very false impression that the presence of these groups makes a differen=
ce=20
>in how Iran forms its policy.  By and large it does not.  Iran is a true=
=20
>theocracy and a very authoriatrian one.

But the theocracy isn't monolithic, immune to public pressure, or
without self-interest.

>That said, there are large factions in the Iran that prefer a more toler=
ant=20
>society and ties to the US.  What they have to say is of import.  That w=
hy=20
>bombing the crap out of Iran is unpalatable, because it drives undecided=
s=20
>into the arms of the shia clerics.  You will note back up this thread wh=
en I=20
>answered what I would do in Bushs place, I did NOT advocate abombing run=
 on=20
>iran from the get-go and this was why.
>
>Iran is vulnerable economically.  they need to sell oil far more than th=
e US=20
>needs them to sell it (the US does not buy iranian oil itself but its=20
>presence on the market factors into the price we pay nontheless).

Unfortunately, it isn't true that we don't need the oil. Iran is a
huge producer, and current oil supplies are, as we know, extremely
constrained -- the Saudis can no longer just turn up the tap to take
up the slack as they could have a few years ago. The Europeans,
Indians, and Chinese are directly dependent on Iranian oil and would
never agree to a boycott. But even if that weren't the case, Americans
probably wouldn't be willing to face the economic consequences of a
serious cut in the world's oil supply -- not just soaring prices at
the pump, but the possibility of a serious worldwide economic
downturn.

I agree that oil is our best bargaining chip against the Iranians, and
that if we /could/ use it, it would give us the upper hand. The thing
is, to do that, we need to move the world away from oil, to provide
alternatives. And the Administration has refused to do that, despite
its overwhelming strategic, economic, and environmental advantages.
It's another example of how this Administration's myopia has weakened
us.

>You talk as if iran were a democracy where power could be handed over=20
>peacefully.  That's very wishful thinking.  If anyone wants to wrest con=
trol=20
>from the clerics they will have to fight to do it.  And the way mideast=20
>culture works, nobody will jump on the bandwagon until they are sure the=
y=20
>know who's going to win.
>
>Nor can I think of any US action that has seriously jeopardized the chan=
ces=20
>of a second Iranian revolution, up to and including the invasion of Iraq=
.
>
>I've seen it put forward that the iranian seisure of a british ship was =
an=20
>attempt to provoke a military reprisal specifically because the clerics =
are=20
>having internal problems.  If true, it puts the kibosh on any notion tha=
t=20
>the US has messed up chances of a moderate revolution in Iran.

A revolution shouldn't be necessary to shift the balance, just a new
consensus among the elite. See forex the selection of Gorbachev after
military expenditures threatened to bankrupt the Soviet economy or the
alliance of convenience between Mao's China and the US.

>> Like we denied them to North Korea? We can't deny them the weapons,
>> because we aren't willing to take the steps that would be necessary to
>> do that -- stop the world from buying their oil or invade.
>
>Point of order: the US does NOT buy Iranian oil.  Not a drop.  Europe do=
es,=20
>as does india and china.

Hence "stop the world from buying their oil" rather than "stop buying
their oil."

>We can bomb their (european-made) centrefuges.  That's all we need do to=
=20
>keep them from getting a nuke.

Unfortunately, they'd just rebuild the centrifuges underground. The
one estimate I've seen said that an attack would delay their
activities by only a few years. And in doing so, we'd pretty much end
to any diplomatic possibilities, as well as ending the popular support
that may one day lead to regime change or liberalization.

It would make much more sense I think to destroy their oil
infrastructure or interdict shipments, but we've managed to close off
that possibility by failing to reduce consumption and develop
alternatives.

>But you're right.  the Left in the US and the world has done its level b=
est=20
>to erode any will to take that kind of action.

The left has little if anything to do with that. The military options
just aren't very good.

>> We do have
>> a chance to persuade them that they don't need those weapons, that the
>> threat of limited military action and the limited sanctions we can
>> manage outweigh any advantages the weapons would provide. All we have
>> to do is make them feel secure. And that's what this proposal allows
>> us to do. It gives us most of what we want -- hell, it's a wet dream
>> of a proposal -- and that would allow us to let them off the hook.
>
>You are completely misundertanding Iran.  They think we don't have the g=
uts=20
>to do what it takes to stop them.  That certainly was what Al-Queda took=
=20
>away from "Black Hawk Down".

>You are making the classic Neville Chamberlain mistake of looking for wh=
at=20
>will "satisfy" an enemy.  They'd take all the bennies we offer and wait =
a=20
>few years and start developing nukes again.  NK just got through doing=20
>exactly this to us.

North Korea did what it did because of the Bush Administration's
backpedaling.

>As long as the clerics are in power iran **is** a member of the Axis of=20
>Evil.  NOT just A member but THE PRINCIPAL member.

Thanks to right-wing saber-rattling, it took us years and a President
with a history of red baiting to recognize that Communism was no
longer a monolith and that we could play Russia off against China. The
Axis of Evil is even more nonsensical than Global Communism.

The Communists had, at least, been allies in the days of Stalin. But
neither history nor philosophy nor on-the-ground reality suggest that
Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were ever an axis of anything, evil or
otherwise. The North Koreans aren't Muslims. The Iranians and Iraqis
were dominated by Shites and Sunnis respectively and had fought a
bloody war for God's sake. And none of them were allies of Al Qaeda.

This particular bit of jingoistic nonsense led to one senseless,
unnecessary, and strategically disastrous invasion. It led to a
country that was gradually opening to the West and had back-burnered
its nuclear program resuming it and testing a bomb, then agreeing to
the same terms it had already reached with Clinton. It led to a
country that had, after years of unfailing enmity, sent a very clear
signal by cooperating with us to drop everything and hasten to join
North Korea in the nuclear invulnerability club. In short, it's been a
disaster.

>>>But -- and this is where I think the Adminstration let us down:
>>>
>>>'Instead, Bush administration hard-liners aborted the process. Another
>>>round of talks had been scheduled for Geneva, and Ambassador Zarif
>>>showed up - but not the U.S. side. That undermined Iranian moderates.
>>>
>>>My jaw fairly dropped when I read that.
>
>The US has been letting the Europeans take the lead in dealing with Iran=
.=20
>For all the good it has done.

Right, it's a failed policy. Bush used the same failed policy in North
Korea. In both cases, he refused to talk one-on-one. Didn't work.
Nothing he ever does works. It's astounding.

>>>You could only be disappointed if you thought the Iranians were being
>>>genuine.
>>>
>>>You're projecting your own viewpoint onto the Iranians.
>>
>> No, see above. And if the Iranians weren't genuine, so what? We'd be
>> no worse off than we are today.
>
>Yes we would.  By playing useless diplomatic games we let Iran play its=20
>not-so-diplomatic games, such as through hezbollah, last summer against=20
>Israel.
>
>I see no point in useless talking since it delays what needs to be done=20
>instead of working toward it.

It costs nothing to talk: the worst that can possibly happen is that
the Iranians say no, and we're back where we were.

>> That's one of the reasons this administration makes me cringe. They're
>> so arrogant that there's no possibility of success, no possibility of
>> progress. We alienate our allies, we lose opportunities to reach
>> agreements with our enemies, and as a result, we keep ending up on the
>> losing end of the stick. They've taken an overwhelming military,
>> economic, and moral advantage, and left us treading water in the
>> middle of the Atlantic. It's like Caligula sending the Roman legions
>> to conquer a marsh. It's like a tyrannosaur sinking in a tar pit. It's
>> like whaling with Ahab.
>
>Better that that letting Hitler and Stalin divide Poland.
>
>Better that than blaming ourselves for Pearl Harbor.
>
>Better that than backing down from the Barbary Pirates when they decided=
 to=20
>prey on US merchant ships.
>
>This is a time to fight.

Except that Roosevelt and Churchill knew damn well that one fought the
most important enemy and sought help where you could get it. Roosevelt
decided to concentrate initially on Germany rather than the
less-threatening Japan. Both he and Churchilll made alliances with
Stalin; as Churchill put it, =93If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least
make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.=94

Bush, by way of contrast, decided to make war on everyone we didn't
happen to like with little regard for priorities and capabilities. It
was a shameful mistake that created far more headaches than it solved
and detracted from our ability to address the real threat, Al Qaeda
and its allies.

--=20
Josh

"See spot run. Run, spot, run." - William S. Gray
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)