erynthered Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 What should happen when the UN imposed economic and political sanctions on Iran fail? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...4OXg&refer=asia The link I supplied was broken. Replaced with a link RTB supplied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 What should happen when the UN imposed economic and political sanctions on Iran fail?http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060131/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl 590913[/snapback] Pass another resolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 Pass another resolution? 590920[/snapback] <sarcasm> Gee, wouldn't that give them time to finish making nuclear bombs? Why would they lie to the world? <done> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Link is broken. Here's another: from Bloomberg instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 Link is broken. Here's another: from Bloomberg instead 590931[/snapback] Sorry about that, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 What should happen when the UN imposed economic and political sanctions on Iran fail?http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060131/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl 590913[/snapback] I think the proper solution is to treat them with compassion and kindness, with an emphasis on joy and humor. That'll solve the problem. This public service announcement was brought to you by CODEPINK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 I think the proper solution is to treat them with compassion and kindness, with an emphasis on joy and humor. That'll solve the problem. This public service announcement was brought to you by CODEPINK. 590940[/snapback] AHAA!! So Cindy Sheehan is really CTM!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 No problem. Seriously, what are our options here? Our military is overextended as it is. Since there would seem to be real mounting evidence here is there more of an opportunity for a multilateral action? I am not super-familiar with the geopolitical implications of any sort of engagement with Iran, other than the obvious inflammation of the Muslim world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 No problem. Seriously, what are our options here? Our military is overextended as it is. Since there would seem to be real mounting evidence here is there more of an opportunity for a multilateral action? I am not super-familiar with the geopolitical implications of any sort of engagement with Iran, other than the obvious inflammation of the Muslim world. 590944[/snapback] Land marines on the islands and platforms along Iran's Persian Gulf coast and disrupt the hell out of their economy with a de-facto blocade. Though I forget if the source I got the from was a credible one or not. Bombing the sh-- out of their nuclear sites is an option as well...particularly in combination with IAEA, which I'd suggested in lieu of invading Iraq (simply, back up inspections with some teeth. "Anything you don't let us inspect will be bombed to destruction. Complete transparancy or complete annihilation.") It's very easy to underestimate the US military...but the truth is, we have some really scary capabilities, particularly when it comes down to precisely targeted destruction. The current capabilities of even one upgraded stealth bomber are pretty spectacular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 No problem. Seriously, what are our options here? Our military is overextended as it is. Since there would seem to be real mounting evidence here is there more of an opportunity for a multilateral action? I am not super-familiar with the geopolitical implications of any sort of engagement with Iran, other than the obvious inflammation of the Muslim world. 590944[/snapback] Inaction I fear, will have worse consequences. What are they? Not sure. I also think Israel wont wait to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Land marines on the islands and platforms along Iran's Persian Gulf coast and disrupt the hell out of their economy with a de-facto blocade. Though I forget if the source I got the from was a credible one or not. Bombing the sh-- out of their nuclear sites is an option as well...particularly in combination with IAEA, which I'd suggested in lieu of invading Iraq (simply, back up inspections with some teeth. "Anything you don't let us inspect will be bombed to destruction. Complete transparancy or complete annihilation.") It's very easy to underestimate the US military...but the truth is, we have some really scary capabilities, particularly when it comes down to precisely targeted destruction. The current capabilities of even one upgraded stealth bomber are pretty spectacular. 590957[/snapback] But the world seems to forget this, thus the reason why this maroon in Iran and Jim Jong Haircut and even Chavez pull the crap they do. Just ONCE, Id like to see GWB or someone else "pull a Reagan" and remind the world what will happen if they even TRY to eff with us. These people need to be reminded that even THINKING about dropping a nuke on Israel or us will result in their pretty shithole of a country becoming a parking lot. We werent afraid to tell the Soviet Union as much, but for some reason, were now "afraid" to make this statement to these pissants. Maybe its an attempt at "compassion and kindness"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Hamilton Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 But the world seems to forget this, thus the reason why this maroon in Iran and Jim Jong Haircut and even Chavez pull the crap they do. Just ONCE, Id like to see GWB or someone else "pull a Reagan" and remind the world what will happen if they even TRY to eff with us. These people need to be reminded that even THINKING about dropping a nuke on Israel or us will result in their pretty shithole of a country becoming a parking lot. We werent afraid to tell the Soviet Union as much, but for some reason, were now "afraid" to make this statement to these pissants. Maybe its an attempt at "compassion and kindness"? 591049[/snapback] That was a different enemy. When the US faced down the USSR, we knew where to find them and what to blow up. We've clearly sent the same message to AQ, but finding them and blowing them up is not as easy. Oh, and don't forget: invading every country that pisses the US off is not as easy as writing it in your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 That was a different enemy. When the US faced down the USSR, we knew where to find them and what to blow up. We've clearly sent the same message to AQ, but finding them and blowing them up is not as easy. Oh, and don't forget: invading every country that pisses the US off is not as easy as writing it in your post. 591063[/snapback] Im not speaking of Al Qaeda. Sure, Iran could (will) give them a nuke, they could hit us and we coudnt prove it was them, but the answer there would be for GWB to say if we get hit, we will assume its from a hostile country. Im not speaking of invasion or even taking actual military action. Im speaking of talking tough. If the Cold War taught us anything, its that sometimes simply saying "Bring it, mother!@#$er!" can go a long way. The fall of the U.S.S.R. was due, in part, to us saying those words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 According to Bush all we need to do is encourage democracy in the Middle East and everything will be OK. It's working in Iraq and Palestine, and they just elected their president in Iran. He's just getting settled in with some saber rattling. So relax. Voters in democracies always make the right decisions, just like we did in the U.S. (End sarcasm). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Im not speaking of Al Qaeda. Sure, Iran could (will) give them a nuke, they could hit us and we coudnt prove it was them, but the answer there would be for GWB to say if we get hit, we will assume its from a hostile country. Im not speaking of invasion or even taking actual military action. Im speaking of talking tough. If the Cold War taught us anything, its that sometimes simply saying "Bring it, mother!@#$er!" can go a long way. The fall of the U.S.S.R. was due, in part, to us saying those words. 591070[/snapback] It was as much, if not more, brought on by the collective efforts in many of the satellite nations who were not happy with life under the Soviet regime. I'm more than a little disappointed to see Reagan touted as the main reason for the crumbling Soviet hold on Eastern Europe, when there were so many movements that were instrumental in helping bring this about. Problem is, Iran's aware of that and has been pretty handily keeping its opposition down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 That was a different enemy. When the US faced down the USSR, we knew where to find them and what to blow up. We've clearly sent the same message to AQ, but finding them and blowing them up is not as easy. Oh, and don't forget: invading every country that pisses the US off is not as easy as writing it in your post. 591063[/snapback] Shhh.......We are invincible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Land marines on the islands and platforms along Iran's Persian Gulf coast and disrupt the hell out of their economy with a de-facto blocade. Though I forget if the source I got the from was a credible one or not. Bombing the sh-- out of their nuclear sites is an option as well...particularly in combination with IAEA, which I'd suggested in lieu of invading Iraq (simply, back up inspections with some teeth. "Anything you don't let us inspect will be bombed to destruction. Complete transparancy or complete annihilation.") It's very easy to underestimate the US military...but the truth is, we have some really scary capabilities, particularly when it comes down to precisely targeted destruction. The current capabilities of even one upgraded stealth bomber are pretty spectacular. 590957[/snapback] What would be the reaction of the people of the middle east first, and second, the reaction of their governments to US military action against Iran? What would the blocade do to our own economy and that of our allies? No set up Tom, I would just like to know what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Im not speaking of Al Qaeda. Sure, Iran could (will) give them a nuke, they could hit us and we coudnt prove it was them, but the answer there would be for GWB to say if we get hit, we will assume its from a hostile country. Im not speaking of invasion or even taking actual military action. Im speaking of talking tough. If the Cold War taught us anything, its that sometimes simply saying "Bring it, mother!@#$er!" can go a long way. The fall of the U.S.S.R. was due, in part, to us saying those words. 591070[/snapback] Speculation built on speculation. Why on earth should Iran give one of it's precious nukes (when and if it manages to make one) to Al-Qaeda? Where is the evidence that Iran is allied to Al-Qaeda? Why should Iran (overwhelmingly Shiite) ally itself with an organisation which regards them as heretics and has slaughtered Shiites by the thousand in Iraq? How could Al-Qaeda actually hit the US? Does it have intercontinental ballistic missiles? Are you assuming that they could just sneak one into the US in a suitcase or something? Even assuming that technology exists, how easy would it be to get an atomic bomb through customs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I an fearful about this. I grew up up in the days of the scourges of tuberculosis, polio, and the horror of nuclear war with the Soviets. As Albert Einstein once remarked, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 What would be the reaction of the people of the middle east first, and second, the reaction of their governments to US military action against Iran? What would the blocade do to our own economy and that of our allies? No set up Tom, I would just like to know what you think. 591107[/snapback] The people? They'd be up in arms over it. There is a slight possibility that they'd collectively shrug and say "So what? They're Shi'ias.", but I doubt it, as public opinion is pretty much filtered through either the idea that the US is an Israeli stooge, or that Israel is a US stooge, which has a definite unifying effect between Islamic factions. Their governments would express public outrage, but privately would probably be thankful (save probably the Syrians, who'd look at such things as a distinct threat to their own CW program). It's hard to believe that anyone in the region would want to see a nuclear Iran (particularly when they already have a nuclear Israel to worry about), and most of the governments tend to be at least somewhat realistic in world politics. Given the whole Arab-Israeli conflict is now relatively stable, Iranian nukes could only destabilize things, which no one else I can think of is really crazy enough to want...but they still have to placate their populations, thus will at least publicly express outrage. The economic ramifications...basically, it drives the price of oil up, at the very least for taking Iranian oil off the market (Which is the best case. Worst case is that the plan is implemented stupidly, leaving Iranian shore-based anti-shipping installations intact, and the Iranians start lobbing missiles at everybody else's tankers and close the Straits of Hormuz. That's unlikely...the people who do the operational planning aren't that stupid.) Ultimately, though, anyone who's a net importer of oil gets their economy smacked around some by increased energy prices (though consistent supply isn't likely to be a problem...maybe for Europe or China, but we get a small enough portion of our oil from Iran that our biggest problem will likely be pricing, not supply.) But I'm not much of an economist...and things usually have a nasty habit of unrolling in ways nobody expects... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts