Petraeus works to halt foreign fighters. (1 Viewer)

[blackadder]

Iran good.

US bad.

Roger that.

BD out.

This is great, deep, profound analysis of the situation. Fantastic.

Sounds just about like the depth of analysis used to decide to invade Iraq.

Who needs to know anymore? Perfect basis for all decisions moving forward.

Jesus. Wake me up from this nightmare.

 

[ra]

...........

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.

 

[BullDawg]

I could be reading more than there is but I expected a response like this.

I wasn't discussing the US bad/Iran good thing at all. You sound like the people who throw around the "you hate America" line if you don't agree with the war.

I also can understand that your point of view would be vehemently pro soldier. Mine is too. In , fact, mine is so pro-soldier that I think it is an amazing waste of life to be there and our soldiers have no business there.

We should not look at it from a boots on the ground point of view because a soldier has little choice in the matter. It skews things too much and does not anyone to reason through a crappy situation that has nothing to do with the war on terror or national defense.

It is possible to be pro-soldier but not pro-war.

I completely agree with your last statement. And I don't buy into the "you hate America if you don't agree with the war". That's not my style. However, if you re-read this thread you'll notice the tone and verbage of many posts are such that one could easily get the impression that Iran=good, US=bad.

Now, where I seriously disagree is where you think the "boots on the ground" POV is skewed. There are too many things that occur and too many pieces of the puzzle that are put together at this level that most folks back home either aren't made aware of or simply don't have a "need to know". I know my own perspective has changed significantly on some matters even though I still don't personally agree with many things that have happened, both leading to and post-invasion.

 

[blackadder]

However, if you re-read this thread you'll notice the tone and verbage of many posts are such that one could easily get the impression that Iran=good, US=bad.

No.

That's what you want to hear because you refuse to see the shades of gray.

You refuse to accept that there are people acting in the name of the United States who are trying to maneuver us into another needless war.

I've never said the Iranian government is pure. I merely present this in terms of national interests. They have security concerns too whether you like the Iranian governemnt or not. Actions inspire reactions.

The appearance of an army and three carrier battle groups on their doorstep, accompanied by overt threats of attack is bound to produce a series of steps on their part to deal with the possibility of conflict. Likewise with our support of ethnic separatists and Sunni jihadis attacking the Iranian government.

In reading the intent of Iran's responses it's up to you to decide if what is behind them is a defensive or offensive rationale. I simply argue that Iran, like Saddam's Iraq previously, is sufficiently contained because we own the skies and we own the seas, and they are probably smart enough to understand these basic facts of life.

They can not project force in a sustained fashion beyond their borders and if they attempt to, you get your wish because they provide the opportunity to remove the regime with a clear conscience. So, to me, most of the actions are aimed at self-preservation, not world domination.

Iran's current government may not be very good, but neither is it good for a government to lie to its people and seek out an unecessary war.

How is our government lying?

They are floating the idea that everything wrong in Iraq is Iran when the problem is much more complex than that. This misleads voters into believing a war against Iran is part of the sequence of events necessary to ultimately get out of Iran when that is not the case. This is a deliberate spin that amounts to a half truth, which is as good as a whole lie.

If you remove Iran from the equation you still have a Sunni problem. You still have thousands of foreign fighters being transported and supported via Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE etc. But all we can do is chant Iran, Iran, Iran.

This is why Petraeus had to secretly visit the Arab and Turkish neighbors of Iraq to discuss their transiting/funding of insurgents into Iraq.

Because we are not looking to attack any of those countries the issue is treated with "nuance" and "sensitive diplomacy." But in the case of Iran, we are looking for confrontation so we focus blame for all the difficulties in Iraq there.

They take every opportunity to beat the drum against Iran and to miscast facts. Take for example the seizure of the British sailors awhile back.

You remember how that was spun initially right? Naked agression by the Iranians, right?

Well the UK government has just released its official post-mortem on the incident. Read it and weep:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3761058.ece

Does any of that sound like what you were told initially?

What they said initially:

“There is no doubt that HMS Cornwall was operating in Iraqi waters and that the incident itself took place in Iraqi waters . . . In the early days the Iranians provided us with a set of coordinates, and asserted that was where the event took place, but when we told them the coordinates were in Iraqi waters they changed that set and found one in their own waters. I do not think that even they sustain the position that the incident took place anywhere other than in Iraqi waters”

Des Browne, Defence Secretary, House of Commons, June 16, 2007
“Since the outset of the Iraq-Iran War there has been no formal ratified TTW [territorial waters] agreement in force between Iraq and Iran . . . In the absence of any formal agreement, the coalition tactical demarcation (the Op Line) is used as a notional TTW boundary. It is a US NAVCENT [US Naval Forces Central Command] construct based on an extension of the Algiers accord demarcation line beyond the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab [waterway] into the NAG [northern Arabian Gulf]. While it may be assumed that the Iranians must be aware of some form of operational boundary, the exact coordinates to the Op Line have not been published to Iran.”

Conclusions in the report from the UK MoD:

— The arrests took place in waters that are not internationally agreed as Iraqi;

— The coalition unilaterally designated a dividing line between Iraqi and Iranian waters in the Gulf without telling Iran where it was;

— The Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ coastal protection vessels were crossing this invisible line at a rate of three times a week; It was the British who apparently raised their weapons first before the Iranian gunboats came alongside;

— The cornered British, surrounded by heavily armed Iranians, made a hopeless last-minute radio plea for a helicopter to come back and provide air cover.

I don't know how much of these shenanigans you can put up with.

 

[BullDawg]

This is great, deep, profound analysis of the situation. Fantastic.

Sounds just about like the depth of analysis used to decide to invade Iraq.

Who needs to know anymore? Perfect basis for all decisions moving forward.

Jesus. Wake me up from this nightmare.

And your analysis of our situation with Iran is any better? We've been in a proxy war with Iran since the late 70's. Does that in itself justify their involvement? We toppled what Iran once saw as the two greatest threats to their own national security. If anything, we did them a favor. And they know we aren't going to invade them with the current troops levels in either Iraq or Afghanistan. So the argument that they are only taking defensive measures is lacking.

 

[blackadder]

And your analysis of our situation with Iran is any better? We've been in a proxy war with Iran since the late 70's. Does that in itself justify their involvement? We toppled what Iran once saw as the two greatest threats to their own national security. If anything, we did them a favor. And they know we aren't going to invade them with the current troops levels in either Iraq or Afghanistan. So the argument that they are only taking defensive measures is lacking.

That I guess is where we differ.

I would argue that there are a lot of people in Iran who believe -- and who act in accordiance with the belief that -- the proxy war started in 1953 when a secular nationalist Iranian government was overthrown and a bloody despot put in its place at the behest of Western oil interests.

But I understand that reflexively we must adjust the timeline of *** for tat to our own favor. Unfortunately doing so does not allow us to fully understand our own history.

 

[varanook]

Now, where I seriously disagree is where you think the "boots on the ground" POV is skewed. There are too many things that occur and too many pieces of the puzzle that are put together at this level that most folks back home either aren't made aware of or simply don't have a "need to know". I know my own perspective has changed significantly on some matters even though I still don't personally agree with many things that have happened, both leading to and post-invasion.

It's skewed because you should not be there in the first place.

It's skewed because a soldier can't really have another view other than being pro-soldier and by extension pro-administration imo.

I know you see Waaaaaaaaaay more than I do because you are there but I don't see how you can honestly tell me we should be there for any national security purpose.

 

[varanook]

And your analysis of our situation with Iran is any better? We've been in a proxy war with Iran since the late 70's. Does that in itself justify their involvement? We toppled what Iran once saw as the two greatest threats to their own national security. If anything, we did them a favor. And they know we aren't going to invade them with the current troops levels in either Iraq or Afghanistan. So the argument that they are only taking defensive measures is lacking.

I am pretty sure it wa started when we installed a governement there they did not like before the 70's.

 

[DavidM]

And they know we aren't going to invade them with the current troops levels in either Iraq or Afghanistan. So the argument that they are only taking defensive measures is lacking.

Being bordered by Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think they know they aren't going to be invaded. In fact, with US troops positioned to their left and right, if I'm Iranian, I probably have concerns. If (pick any country) had taken up positions in Canada and Mexico, I don't think we'd be too comfortable.

 

[RebSaint]

We've been in a proxy war with Iran since the late 70's. Afghanistan. So the argument that they are only taking defensive measures is lacking.

We're going to disagree here too. I would argue that our foreign policy regarding Iran needs to change. Obviously this proxy war hasn't done much of anybody any good--explain to me outside of funding terrorists--which several nation-states are guilty of, and the nuclear threat--really, what real threat does Iran pose?

The current policy in the Middle East is broken and flawed. All it's created is culture based on hate and Anti-western sentiment which has manifested itself in terrorism. We can choose to continue pursuing the same broken policies of unconditional support of Isreal, continued meddling, nation building and diplomatic antagonism hasn't worked.

Iran has no army capable of a sustainable offense. Iran has no navy save for a bunch of converted speedboats with some anti-aircraft guns. Save for pursuing a nuclear program, which I agree is disturbing and certainly a real threat, I would argue a more antagonistic policy will push Iran further to develop a nuclear weapon.

The same PNAC supporters are the ones clamoring for a "harder" policy to confront Iran; the same ones who argued that Iraq was such a threat are saying the same thing about Iran. Enough is enough. This country is BROKE and overextended militarily. Not only would inciting a war with Iran be foolish, it makes no sense to me that the United STates can broker a deal with North Korea regarding nukes, but Iran is a no-go.

BA is exactly right about the historical events in 1953. The overthrow of a democratically-elected leader was done in the name of business rather than national interests. And some wonder why foreign relations with Iran and west, for that matter are bad.

 

[blackadder]

Actually, being bordered by Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think they know they aren't going to be invaded. In fact, with US troops positioned to their left and right, if I'm Iranian, I probably have concerns. If (pick any country) had taken up positions in Canada and Mexico, I don't think we'd be too comfortable.

And the danger is, middle eastern temperaments what they are, that Iran's own hawks will overplay a hand and do something stupid that makes everything self fulfilling.

Bureacratic politics happen in every country. Just as the Pentagon was able to muscle forward and drive policy and propaganda on Iraq after 9/11 despite the fact that there were many opponents to the idea of attacking Iraq, including people of the stature of Colin Powell and and Brent Scowcroft, one worries that the Revolutionary Guard or some other combination of radicals in Iran will also muscle forward and welcome a confrontation that gets out of control.

People often miscalculate when they feel threatened and there are a lot of powerful people in Washington and in our media who are really hoping for Iran to overstep or miscalculate and provide the pretext for the airstrikes.

Indeed, if anything, our policy choices in the last 8 years have actually empowered the nuts and the hawks in Iran, including Ahmadinejad.

This can not be lost on the foreign policy genuises in Washington.

 

[BullDawg]

You know what? You're all absolutely correct. I don't know what I was thinking. I had some time to think this all through while I was donning body armor and taking cover during the latest Alarm Red of the day (I'm in full battle rattle while I type...how's that for live?). While the percussions of multiple explosions were reverberating through the air I thought to myself...you know Nate, Iran is the victim here. They wouldn't be supplying the arms, manpower, training, and money to these guys if I just weren't in this part of the world.

Well folks, I'm going to try to make it to my pod without having to dive for cover. With the heavy dust storm the <STRIKE>bad guys</STRIKE> victims were quite active today (over 10 attacks, multiple hits) and I'm pretty tired. Goodnight all.

 

[RebSaint]

You know what? You're all absolutely correct. I don't know what I was thinking. I had some time to think this all through while I was donning body armor and taking cover during the latest Alarm Red of the day (I'm in full battle rattle while I type...how's that for live?). While the percussions of multiple explosions were reverberating through the air I thought to myself...you know Nate, Iran is the victim here. They wouldn't be supplying the arms, manpower, training, and money to these guys if I just weren't in this part of the world.

Well folks, I'm going to try to make it to my pod without having to dive for cover. With the heavy dust storm the <STRIKE>bad guys</STRIKE> victims were quite active today (over 10 attacks, multiple hits) and I'm pretty tired. Goodnight all.

No, no. Your right. Iran bad. America good. Sorry, I assumed we were having a learned, analytical foreign policy discussion. Sorry we offended you.

 

[blackadder]

You know what? You're all absolutely correct. I don't know what I was thinking. I had some time to think this all through while I was donning body armor and taking cover during the latest Alarm Red of the day (I'm in full battle rattle while I type...how's that for live?). While the percussions of multiple explosions were reverberating through the air I thought to myself...you know Nate, Iran is the victim here. They wouldn't be supplying the arms, manpower, training, and money to these guys if I just weren't in this part of the world.

Well folks, I'm going to try to make it to my pod without having to dive for cover. With the heavy dust storm the <STRIKE>bad guys</STRIKE> victims were quite active today (over 10 attacks, multiple hits) and I'm pretty tired. Goodnight all.

I hope you are put out of reach of ALL the "bad guys" shooting at you, not just the select few the administration chooses to emphasize.

Really, stay safe and get home.

As for the debate, at this point we are just talking past each other, so let's just wrap it up.

 

[varanook]

You know what? You're all absolutely correct. I don't know what I was thinking. I had some time to think this all through while I was donning body armor and taking cover during the latest Alarm Red of the day (I'm in full battle rattle while I type...how's that for live?). While the percussions of multiple explosions were reverberating through the air I thought to myself...you know Nate, Iran is the victim here. They wouldn't be supplying the arms, manpower, training, and money to these guys if I just weren't in this part of the world.

Well folks, I'm going to try to make it to my pod without having to dive for cover. With the heavy dust storm the <STRIKE>bad guys</STRIKE> victims were quite active today (over 10 attacks, multiple hits) and I'm pretty tired. Goodnight all.

I hope you are ok and stay as such until you come home.

This is why "boots on the ground" have no business in the debate. I will try not to broach the topic again with you and I don't mean that badly so don't take it that way.