RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1494 times:
It doesnt say anything about gaining the permission of the country of residence, so would this mean the US will conduct military action within a country without such permission? Wouldnt that be rather dangerous?
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1490 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1): It doesnt say anything about gaining the permission of the country of residence, so would this mean the US will conduct military action within a country without such permission? Wouldnt that be rather dangerous?
While the local U.S. ambassador will be merely informed, rather than given a veto, over such action, it remains possible that local governments (with the possible of those that are complicit) will be required to grant permission before military action is taken. However, the issue is not clear.
The use of a Predator drone in countries such as the Sudan, for example, might not require the prior approval of local governments, which in any event may be lacking.
Doona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3706 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1440 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 4):
It could, yes. Which means that we'd better not take out terrorists in major countries without securing prior permission, or else risk the consequences to our international reputation -- or more.
Well, it would be [correctly] interpreted by many nations, and any lawyer specializing in international law for that matter, as an act of war.
Give us a call first, please.
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
TomTurner From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 247 posts, RR: 20 Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1432 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 4): Imagine taking out a camp in isolated areas of the Russian frontier, for example, without getting Putin's blessing in advance. That would be, to say the least, rather dangerous.
Which is why that will never happen. Elsewhere, however, it might.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1351 times:
Klaus, I would like to know what your response would be to the policies of a country -- let's say its name begins with the letters, "I", "R", and "A", but does not end with "Q" -- that seeks nuclear technology, but whose leadership repudiates legal sanctions by the United Nations?
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20850 posts, RR: 55 Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1294 times:
Oops - my auto debunk mode has apparently kicked in before I recognized that this time it wasn't the usual justification of the Iraq invasion for a change...!
Sorry, I'm a bit too busy to be thorough these days.
Iran has become rather difficult - after the Iraq invasion has managed to convince the iranian population that only actually having nuclear weapons could be a viable deterrent, Ahmadinejad has it much easier getting domestic support for his confrontation course.
A military invasion is neither justified nor would it have any conceivable chance of success. The worst consequence of the Bush administration is that they have indeed convinced many among their supporters that military force was the only viable option in any conflict, instead of a last resort.
After the damage has been done already, I don't really see a nice and easy way out of it. Nuclear proliferation must be contained as strictly as possible - and that includes a worldwide termination of fission-based power generation as well to cut off the stream of resources that can - and already has been - diverted to weapon programs. Proliferation of civilian nuclear technology always implies proliferation of nuclear weaponry sooner or later.
More directly, Ahmadinejad needs to be countered firmly and his propaganda-based power needs to be undermined. It will take a combination of offering new options for cooperation - primarily politically and economically - with the threat of serious disadvantages on both levels.
Ahmadinejad had been elected mostly to counter corruption and economic problems as far as I know; His posturing is not least connected to his failure to deliver on those promises. The worst that could be done to him would be taking the "fun" out of his provocations. The last thing he wants is people remembering his promises before the election.
Reacting calm but determined to his frothing-at-the-mouth ramblings is a much better counter-tactic than stepping up the rethoric to the same level of lunacy.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1291 times:
Klaus, that's a very impressive answer. And it's the type of answer you don't see much of, outside of academic and other expert circles -- certainly not very much in popular culture.
I do think that Bush is trying to exercise all the diplomatic options he has left, although admittedly they are much fewer than he had prior to the Iraq invasion. The prestige of the United States internationally isn't what it used to be.
They key here, it seems to me, if we are to avoid military confrontation is to find some way of persuading Russia and China to cut a secret deal with us to contain Iran. Either this, or the military option, seems to me to be the dilemma before us. Do we have the bargaining power to achieve this kind of arrangement? Do we have the skill to impose a de facto condominium of great powers, all without further alienating Iran in the process? Sadly, I'm not sure we do.
Your last point, emphasizing the need to calm the waters, is one that Gen. Wesley Clark also made a few days ago. This seems to be wise advice, but I'm afraid that more has to be done if we are to avoid the necessity of dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran -- one that may be in the words of the Iranian leader, a global superpower -- that is both actively hostile and unremittingly destructive to American interests.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20850 posts, RR: 55 Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1281 times:
I don't think the military option has much teeth as a threat at this point. Even an isolated strike (with very questionable benefits) could very well be an opportunity for Iran to declare war - and invade Iraq. They've got more than enough scores to settle, much opportunity for gain and they have a much larger and much better trained and equipped military (and a much larger population) than Saddam had. The shiite domino in Iraq is already tilted in Iran's favour when it's between the USA and Iran.
And Ahmadinejad (and his backers among the high clergy) are very much aware of the situation.
Saber rattling is pointless when your opponent knows you're bluffing.
So the concrete threat with economic and political discomfort is a less spectacular but probably more realistic approach.
In the end the essential point not just regarding Iran but in international relations as a whole is the replacement of unilateral interests with a system of common interests. US, german or even EU interests have no credible moral or political value in the long run.
Only credible shared interests can be the basis for long-term improvements. Europe has had to learn about this principle the hard way, but we've come to recognize that there is no viable alternative in the end; Meanwhile many US politicians still make grand speeches to their local constituencies pretending that US interests were somehow more blessed than anybody else's and that the whole world just had to be modeled to serve those particular interests.
That simply can't work any more than it didn't work with soviet or european national interests.
Problems like Ahmadinejad (and many related ones in the middle east) can only be really resolved when all players commit to a common framework under which all the respective interests will be recognized.
There have been numerous chances which were simply wasted to get going into that direction; And even though the Bush administration has recently done by far the most damage in that regard, pretty much everybody else has their own share of blame to carry as well.
I couldn't care less about the constant whining about presumable or real shortcomings of the EU, the UN or other collaborative structures; Fact is that such structures are a necessity if we want to overcome the tedious and idiotic egoism and shortsighted thinking that's been prevalent through almost all the history of mankind. The UN and other cooperative structures need much less whining and much more sincere commitment.
Iran has justified interests and rights as a community among other communities - whether the possession of nuclear technology is a rightful part of those interests or not is far less clear than western commentators and politicians make it out to be.
But in the larger picture the malicious idiocy of Ahmadinejad is more related to the state of mind of a Bush administration driven by the likes of Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld than anybody could desire. International affairs are not just a primitive zero-sum affair (which both sides apparently believe; that both make heavy use of religious pretenses is another striking similarity).
Iran's transgression is not in counteracting perceived US interests; Their transgression is in screwing up the development potential of the whole region. And that is where a pressure point arises which can be used; But it won't do any good in the long run if the entire architecture of the region isn't changed fundamentally. And that will require some tough choices for many of the acting powers with "interests" there... (yes, the Israel/Palestine conflict is and remains one of the main issues)
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1263 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 16): Please remind yourself of the very similar hubris prior to the Iraq invasion and how that one turned out, under much easier(!!!) preconditions.
Klaus, your comprehensive response prior to the post in which the above appears requires that I spend some time reviewing it and formulating a reply. Since I have to leave the computer in a couple of minutes, I cannot provide that reply until I return.
However, let me say, for now, that it is as inappropriate to underestimate the United States military as it is to over-rate our success in Iraq. The armed forces of the United States and our allies destroyed and routed Iraqi army units in a matter of days. American casualties were, for a war of this nature, extremely low. The mismatch of forces between the world's largest armed forces and the world's fourth-largest was never clearer: It was a superpower's military against a Third World army, and the outcome was never in doubt. There is little doubt that our military victory, considered as such, against virtually every unit of the formal Iraqi armed forces was complete and total within a few weeks. The President was not entirely in error when he declared shortly after our incursion that major military operations against Iraq were complete.
Thus, the lesson of Iraq is that a full frontal attack by Iran against American forces in the former would result in a similarly quick and devastating victory.
Further, it is untrue that the U.S. has no current military option against Iran, as it remains possible to engage in highly destructive aerial attacks upon a few hours' notice using advanced cruise missiles and bombs.
It is worth adding, however, that the President at no time denied, even during his declaration of the end of major military operations in Iraq, that the road ahead toward the completion of American policy goals there was long and difficult. In fact, he announced that the opposite was true. As events since then have proved, the risk lies in non-military, guerilla, and terror-centered retribution, which we are seeing in Iraq, and might very well see if the West attacks Iran.
The United States won't do this because they would lose far more than they would gain.
In oder to 'target' terrorists, they need intelligence. A large amount of that intelligence is from foreign sources.
If you piss off other countries, they will no longer cooperate with sharing intelligence, and in the the United States will be left literally in the dark and 10 times worse off.
Remember that before the terrorists attacks in New York, British, Italian, German, Jordanian, Indian, Russian, Argentine, Israeli, Egyptian, French intelligence warned Washington of rumours of a 'large attack' (Complete 911 Timeline), and even then the US did nothing. Imagine if that cooperation was lost.
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20850 posts, RR: 55 Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1247 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 17): However, let me say, for now, that it is as inappropriate to underestimate the United States military as it is to over-rate our success in Iraq.
I have no doubt about the amount of damage the US forces are capable of inflicting (although isolated strikes may not be really effective since at least some of the iranian facilities appear to be bunkered) - the question is whether any constructive objectives can be achieved that way. And that's the tricky part.
Especially when everything's falling apart in Iraq behind you when you're in the process of opening up the next bigger can of worms next door...!