Just like to say that there is a Star Wars “Risk” edition.
Perhaps I could swap some FW190 from my AA1941 to Tie Fighters?
Why are we at war?
-
I am going to put this “20 year” thing to bed NOW:
When I first posted that the Iran/Iraq ware was 20 years ago, it was in response to Chengora saying “It is doubtful that Saddam would have sent any materials to the Iranians. He did fight a war with them after all.” and to CC’s statement “Why then, would he send nuclear material to Iran if he felt they were a constant threat?” I even excerpt quoted CC when I posted the “20 year” comment.
You, F_alk, are the one who misinterpreted that “20 year” comment when you posted your reply to me after I posted the second means of POTENTIAL transfer of materials to Iran: the lack of central control of Iraq by Saddam during the interim period.
My “Of course…” response was frustration directed toward you for not putting 2 and 2 together… the Iran/Iraq war WAS 20 years ago, thus there was NOT a state of war between Iran and Iraq in the 1991-2003 time frame that would have allowed for the transfer of materials.
Sorry if I did not spell that out clearly enough for you after you misinterpreted the initial post and what I responding to (despite having included a quote reeference). Not my fault that you started the argument from a false position.
-
the Iran-Iraq war may have been 20-ish years pre-invasion, but as i said - your own intelligence showed that Iran was the biggest threat in SH’s mind.
Or are we ignoring this as it is not a pretext for war as the other intelligence was . . . ? -
If i was SH and i knew i was gonna get my arse kicked… id send as much contraband stuff to any enemy who would take it as along as they also hated and wanted war with my enemies. After WW2 germany sent a bunch of “heavy water” to Japan with current plans for other experiments. Yes they were allied. In the Iraq/ Iran case they had a war many decades ago, but after all they both view the Americans with far more greater threat to their own power structures than the possibility of another Iraq/ Iran war. Sending the “goodies” to Syria is not safe enough because after all they are puny and weak compared to Iran. We allready established that he sent his air force to Iran in 1991 even though its also true that they kept it. But for Saddam to even trust this “enemy” shows some protocol or at the very least the possibility of additional items were also sent. It is not an implausible idea.Again History is replete with major changes of who is on who’s side.
-
@Imperious:
It is not an implausible idea.
TY, that is all I was trying to get across.
-
@Imperious:
… After WW2 germany sent a bunch of “heavy water” to Japan with current plans for other experiments. Yes they were allied.
After WW2 ?
Do i have to go through all of this again?So, “after WW2” or “late in WW2”?
I can not imagine that any occupying ally would have allowed the export of heavy water and plans. Heavy water was damn expensive, they would have conficated that right away (like they confiscated all rocket technology). -
i ACTUALLY DIDNT MEAN AFTER WW2 . What i meant was after it was clear that Germany lost the war (spring 1945) they sent the following to Japan:
A newly-designed breathing and exhaust mast, the Schnorchel,
permitted the U-234 to travel submerged for extraordinary distances.
U-234 departed Kiel on its maiden voyage on 25 March 1945, bound for
Kristiansand, Norway. There it loaded important cargo and personnel
and departed on 15 April for a submerged voyage which was to take
them around the Cape of Good Hope, eventually concluding in Japan.
That transit was never completed.Among the three hundred ton cargo was three complete Messerschmitt
aircraft, a Henschel HS-293 glider-bomb, extra Junkers jet engines,
and ten canisters containing 560 kg (1,235 lbs.) of uranium oxide
(U235). The uranium oxide was to be used by the Japanese as a
catalyst for the production of synthetic methanol used for aviation
fuel. Other cargo consisted of one ton of diplomatic mail and 6,615
pounds of technical material including drawings of ME 163 and ME 262
aircraft, plans for the building of aircraft factories, V-1 and V-2
weapons, naval ships (destroyers of classes 36C and Z51, and M and S
boats), and submarines (Types II, VII, IX, X, XI, XXI, and XXIII).
German fire-control computers, Lorenz 7H2 bombsights, Lufte 7D
bombsight computers, FUG 200 Hohehtweil airborne radars and bomb
fuses were also included in the manifest along with other military
equipment and personal luggage.So it looks like they tried to send some high end plans to their allies to carry the torch.
They didnt send “heavy water” sorry my mind needed a refresh on what i read a long time ago. But the point being that when nations feel the end is near its quite plasible like in germanys case that Iraq too sent some goodies to Iran. At least its not without some merits. You have to grant me that. Well then you probably wont, but maybe this will help you anyway. -
Well, the thread has moved on, but I couldn’t help responding to this (from IL from Friday):
This is the first time i disagreed with this point FYI.
I wrote on Dec. 5:
For any Bush supporters writing on this:Â you do realize that if such a policy were implemented, most of the red states would be disenfranchised
You wrote:Â "I dont agree…"Â There’s another post as well, but I am too lazy to make a more concerted search (and I should get back to work!)Â :-)Â Sorry, couldn’t help it.
In any event, the more substantive point is that Iran and Iraq have never been on good terms following the desposition of the Shah and the rise of the Baath party in Iraq. Both sides tried to destabilize the other, because each embodied the “devil” for the other. Saddam, recall, was a secular nationalist with some limited pan-Arab aspirations (but only on the leadership score, not a UAF appeal). Khomeini was an Islamist who pretty clearly wanted a return to the caliphate, and who didn’t have a problem destablizing regimes through encouraging internal elements. Moreover, don’t forget that their ethnic bases of power were entirely different and at times antagonistic.
In addition, it’s more useful to look at what happened after the 1980-88 war. Yes, it’s been many years since then, but prior to 2003, Iran and Iraq never made the rapprochement that the US and UK did following the 1812 war. Someone had mentioned that Iraq and Iran had similar non-political ties. This is patently absurd, and displays a marked lack of understanding of the region’s politics and the facts on the ground. The Persian-Arab tension has always remained, as had the Shiite-Sunni divide and the secular-nationalist v. radical-Islamist point I mentioned earlier. The intervening years have not been marked by cooperation in oil transport, for example, or burgeoning cultural exchange. Rather, Iran has on several occasions attempted to foment disruption in Iraq by encouraging Shiites and Kurds, as they did during the first Gulf War (1980-88).
Like I said, Saddam sent his planes to Iran because they were getting destroyed, but he did so because he had little choice. It wasn’t an agreement, it was a gamble, and a mistaken one at that. In this war, the force deployment was more conducive to shuttling materials to Syria (if they went there) rather than Iran. Also, don’t forget that Bush had lumped Iran into the Axis of Evil. Why, then, does anyone think that Syria was less safe than Iran? Finally, suggestions that Shiites in the south transfered weapons to Iran are not entirely plausible. Saddam’s military structure kep power and critical material tightly controlled by the Republican guard, who mostly hailed from Sunni tribes loyal to him. It is unlikely that the Shiites, who Saddam was suppressing, would have access to any significant materials, including jets. It is even more unlikely that they would be able to effect a transfer of large-scale weapons given the no-fly zone and US surveillance during the 91-03 period, and because there would be a strong incentive to hold onto to any weapons for themselves. Given all this, and the fact that even the Israeli general was pointing to Syria and not Iran, you need something stronger to make a plausible case for the Persians.
-
does anyone think that Syria was less safe than Iran?
Sryia is not a good place to stash WMD because it can easily be overrun and because Syria is nothing compared to the strength of Iran. Its like the difference of Israel going into Lebanon vs going into Egypt. WE (the willing) could probably go into jordan or Sryia without too much pretext because they would fall under our might in hours rather than days, while Iran is a substantial proposition and the american public wont support any action unless they themselves engaged in combat actions into iraq. Also its not really clear that SH sent those planes to iran " because he had nothing more to lose" or rather he may have some ties to his neighbor that we may not be aware of. I presented this idea as a plausible explanation it is not the facts by any stretch, but speculation. Your ideas are just as plausible in any case.
On the other points well have to agree to disagree. The sunnis will have to let the Shite majority control Iraq and that alone will speak volumes of Iraq/Iran reeapproachment. It if wasnt true before it will soon.
-
@Chengora:
Rather, Iran has on several occasions attempted to foment disruption in Iraq by encouraging Shiites and Kurds, as they did during the first Gulf War (1980-88).
Thank you Chengora. You just validated one of MY two points: that Iran was assisting the Shites in southern Iraq for more than a decade, and that perhaps those same Shites (you know the ones that have no ties to Iran culturally despite both being Shite…) returned the favor.
@Chengora:
Like I said, Saddam sent his planes to Iran because they were getting destroyed, but he did so because he had little choice. It wasn’t an agreement, it was a gamble, and a mistaken one at that. In this war, the force deployment was more conducive to shuttling materials to Syria (if they went there) rather than Iran.
Question: How DID those additional fighters get to Iran in 2003 then? Did David Copperfield do it?
@Chengora:
It is unlikely that the Shiites, who Saddam was suppressing, would have access to any significant materials, including jets. It is even more unlikely that they would be able to effect a transfer of large-scale weapons given the no-fly zone and US surveillance during the 91-03 period, and because there would be a strong incentive to hold onto to any weapons for themselves.
Another question:
The IAEA says all that “stuff” was there in '03. When we went in, we went in from the South primarilly, with the 3rd Division (or was it the 4th?) racing up the western border of Iraq after a rapid re-deploy from their aborted Turkish landing. Forces from 82nd and 101st were air-dropped into northern and western areas (those two zones out near the Syrian border that held the SCUDS that needed to be secured at zero hour). So we had forces south, west, and north. That means that to go to Turkey, Syria, Jordan or Saudi, they would have had to go THROUGH US forces.But west… west we did not have forces coming in, since Iran didn;t sign off on the war plan. We had to work our way across the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to get over that way, several days into the fight as I recall.
So um, WHICH direction was open and available for the transfer of material? Was it through the 3rd INF? Maybe the 4th INF let them through? I know, the 82nd let them slip by!
Because we all know that all of those materials tagged by the IAEA certainly did NOT go to Iran. Saddam hated Iran, he would never send Iran things like chemical weapons or fighter jets…
-
Quote from: Chengora on Today at 10:03:09 AM
Rather, Iran has on several occasions attempted to foment disruption in Iraq by encouraging Shiites and Kurds, as they did during the first Gulf War (1980-88).Thank you Chengora. You just validated one of MY two points: that Iran was assisting the Shites in southern Iraq for more than a decade, and that perhaps those same Shites (you know the ones that have no ties to Iran culturally despite both being Shite…) returned the favor.
I think this is a good point. As far as I know, there could have been elements within Saddams army that had ties to Iran. Is it possible that they could have been dealing with Iran without Saddams knowledge?
Quote from: Chengora on Today at 10:03:09 AM
Like I said, Saddam sent his planes to Iran because they were getting destroyed, but he did so because he had little choice. It wasn’t an agreement, it was a gamble, and a mistaken one at that. In this war, the force deployment was more conducive to shuttling materials to Syria (if they went there) rather than Iran.ÂQuestion: How DID those additional fighters get to Iran in 2003 then?
I think it is more likely that the pilot who has been told to engage the much superior and more numerous US pilots and planes, once clear of the airfield, decided to take their chances in Iran. By heading that direction as quickly as they could, they could avoid being shot down by the US.
-
@ncscswitch:
Another question:
The IAEA says all that “stuff” was there in '03. …Why is it so hard for you to consider the possibility that they were wrong there.
I myself can’t remember reports of the IAEA about “stuff” that went missing from before to *after the invasion. I remember that there was a report covering the time after the invasion and during the occupation that deals witrh “missing stuff”, suspected that it was transporeted out of Iraq by the US.
But that is just me and my memory. I won’T do the work to look either statement up, just claim that mine is correct. -
Thank you Chengora. You just validated one of MY two points: that Iran was assisting the Shites in southern Iraq for more than a decade, and that perhaps those same Shites (you know the ones that have no ties to Iran culturally despite both being Shite…) returned the favor.
Not quite enough still. You’re forgetting the nature of the assistance. Iran could very rarely afford to send weapons over to Iraq, even small arms. In fomenting disruption, they chiefly provided political incentives and some economic/fiscal ones too. And the fact that Iraqi Shiites and Iranian Shiites are both Shiites didn’t mean they didn’t kill each other from 1980-88. That’s the other cultural/ethnic dimension that you keep missing: Arabs and Persians have not coexisted well since 1979, and their tribes certainly don’t get along. It’s a much more delicate situation than you acknowledge, and the loyalties don’t always work in the way you’re thinking.
This is important because you’re making a very strong claim: that Shiites in Iraq actually transfered weapons material to Iran, likely independent of Saddam Hussein’s knowledge and authority. This assumes that they had access to those weapons (generally no, that was kept by Saddam loyalists), they had the capability to move it undetected, and that they would choose to do so. The question of course is why? They like Iran? They feel that Iran can put the materials to better use? Why would the Shiites, who are receiving protection from the U.S., choose to piss off the U.S. in a huge way by transfering weapons? And especially when they realize that their political futures depend on working with invading forces? And what about Saddam’s police and spy network? They weren’t hampered from operating by the no-fly zone, and Saddam maintained up to half a million people in his police and security services. Why do you place so much importance on the no-fly zone as if it curtails all Iraqi state action? Big questions that your idea needs to resolve.
My idea, however, is much more plausible. If Saddam did in fact transfer weapons (and I’m not sure he did), then it would make more sense to look for them on the Syrian border. You’re right, US troops were in that area. But that is a highly unprotected and porous border, and you’re asking two divisions to immediately scout an entire province. And this assumes that Saddam didn’t effect a transfer before troops arrived. This position avoids all the problems that plague your analysis, maintains the chain of command that Saddam personally oversaw regarding his weapons and his efforts to conceal them from inspectors, and coincides more with regional politics. Of course, there are problems with this, one being your argument about US troops in the region. But that isn’t a crippling point in the way that prior relations between Iran and Iraq are, nor in considering the interests of the Shiites, nor in ignoring the efficacy of Saddam’s police force.
And in the end, I’m not certain that weapons were transferred or, better stated, that they actually made it out. In addition, I must confess ignorance as to Iraqi planes suddenly appearing in Iran in 2003. Do you have a link?
-
@F_alk:
@ncscswitch:
Another question:
The IAEA says all that “stuff” was there in '03. …Why is it so hard for you to consider the possibility that they were wrong there.
I myself can’t remember reports of the IAEA about “stuff” that went missing from before to *after the invasion. I remember that there was a report covering the time after the invasion and during the occupation that deals witrh “missing stuff”, suspected that it was transporeted out of Iraq by the US.
But that is just me and my memory. I won’T do the work to look either statement up, just claim that mine is correct.Even Bush et al is finally acknowledging that they made mistakes w.r.t. WMD’s. I’m not sure why members on this board are still so certain that they existed.
-
@cystic:
@F_alk:
@ncscswitch:
Another question:
The IAEA says all that “stuff” was there in '03. …Why is it so hard for you to consider the possibility that they were wrong there.
I myself can’t remember reports of the IAEA about “stuff” that went missing from before to *after the invasion. I remember that there was a report covering the time after the invasion and during the occupation that deals witrh “missing stuff”, suspected that it was transporeted out of Iraq by the US.
But that is just me and my memory. I won’T do the work to look either statement up, just claim that mine is correct.Even Bush et al is finally acknowledging that they made mistakes w.r.t. WMD’s. I’m not sure why members on this board are still so certain that they existed.
I can’t speak for everyone, but for myself - the reason I believe they existed is directly related to the difficulties the UN Weapon’s Inspectors had in the performance of their duties in Iraq. If they had been witness to the destruction of weapons that were supposed to be destroyed, then I don’t think there would have been any problem. Actually, if that had happened, I imagine that Saddam would still be in power, but the nation would be under sanctions for human rights violations.
But as I said, that’s my imagination and thought process, nothing factual.
-
@Chengora:
This is important because you’re making a very strong claim: that Shiites in Iraq actually transfered weapons material to Iran, likely independent of Saddam Hussein’s knowledge and authority.
Actually, no, I am floating a hypothesis, tis being one of two hypoteses actually, to account for A: “missing” WMD’s that most of the world acknowledges that Saddam HAD (at least at one time) and B: why Iran may be so beligerant recently.
This particular hypothesis is supported by an initial review of the known facts: material is missing, Saddam was not in total control in this area from 91 to 03 and had NO control over it after 03, area is adjacent to Iran, area received assistance from Iran for more than a decade, area is majority population of same religious element as rules Iran, it is known that some types of materials (notably jets) did leave this area for Iran (possibly wihtout orders based on other’s posts in this thread), etc.
@Chengora:
Why would the Shiites, who are receiving protection from the U.S., choose to piss off the U.S. in a huge way by transfering weapons? And especially when they realize that their political futures depend on working with invading forces?
Um, perhaps because Saddam was still able to wield SOME influence in portions of this area from 91 to 03 and killed a lot of them in retaliation for their aid to the US the first time? Perhaps because they no longer trusted the US to stick around and protect them (since we didn;t the first time) and Iran was the big-dog on the block that WOULD be there afterwards? Just a few idle thoughts…
@Chengora:
And what about Saddam’s police and spy network? They weren’t hampered from operating by the no-fly zone, and Saddam maintained up to half a million people in his police and security services. Why do you place so much importance on the no-fly zone as if it curtails all Iraqi state action? Big questions that your idea needs to resolve.
Not really. The Shite assisted moves could have all occured 03 and later. I simply said they could have started as early as 91 when Saddam’s control was weakened.
@Chengora:
My idea, however, is much more plausible. If Saddam did in fact transfer weapons (and I’m not sure he did), then it would make more sense to look for them on the Syrian border.
You’re right. Let’s just ignore the known fact that jets went to Iran and assume that anything else went to Syria (which got no jets, either in 91 or 03). Also, your statement “and I’m not sure he did”… do you dispute the jets being moved both in 91 and in 03? Do you not consider Mirage Jets, et.al. to be weapons?
@Chengora:
You’re right, US troops were in that area. But that is a highly unprotected and porous border, and you’re asking two divisions to immediately scout an entire province.
Yes, it is so much LESS porous of a border when you have NO US troops in the way, and border guards that would WELCOME the materials you were bringing to their nation.
-
sigh It’s always got to be harsh criticism with you, huh? Fine, let me put it this way: I agree that Iraqi fighters fled to Iran in 1991, as I’ve said and posted links for. However, I do not know of any similar action in 2003. If you post a link, I’ll judge that on it’s merits, but I have been unable to find any references to it, not that I was searching that hard. Also, I agree that Iran is a plausible destination for arms.
However, I contend that Syria is a better destination and more likely to have occurred. This, however, is assuming that Saddam moved his WMDs to another country, which I am not certain he did. Scott Ritter, who was a top inspector in Iraq, contends in his book that the IAEA had catalogues of destroyed and preserved equipment and weapons.
(This is in a small response to Jen - btw, glad to have you back and that you’re safe!) :-)
So, we’re dealing with quite an amount of hypotheticals here. And, I believe you mischaracterize the situation on the ground between 1991 and 2003, and are using the penumbra of action to justify your argument, rather than articulating something more in line with ground-level realities of interest and power in that period. For example, Saddam was denied air capability and the ability to enact an atrocity in the southern no-fly zone, this is true. However, he still had an extensive police and security presence right up to the US invasion in 2003. In the records that inspectors uncovered, that police system was as advanced as any in the world, perhaps not in terms of technological capability, but certainly in terms of information on each individual in the country. However, you are ignoring this fact to assert that Saddam had little control over the weapons in the area, which is not the case.
And this is because of the Iraqi military’s force structure, and in particular the WMD program. After all, I am not concerned with the transfer of conventional arms, and I don’t think that’s what we were really talking about. Critical weapon systems - WMD, airforce - were staffed and controlled by people directly loyal to Saddam, either through the Republican Guard as opposed to the regular army, or more generally based on tribal affiliations with direct familial ties to Hussein. And those people did not come from the Shiite tribes in the south. Remember, the inspectors concentrated their efforts in and around Baghdad, precisely because those were Saddam’s power bases and he hid his weapons there. Shiites therefore did not have access to critical weaponry, and as a result, I find your assertion of a transfer of arms doubtful.
In addition, we still have the question of Shiite motivation to transfer arms. First you argue that Saddam had relatively less control in the south, which I take as a partial concession to my point. Then you say he is still able to kill a wide number of Shiites in the south. These aren’t necessarily contradictory statements, but they should give some pause to your assertions. Secondly, you keep missing the Arab-Persian dimension of relations. As stated in the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Shiites in Iraq have not always liked Shiites in Iran. In fact, most are generally hostile. I said that Iran tried to foment disruption, not that it was successful. Indeed, success has most often come from working with the Kurds, not the Shiites. Again, just because certain people share a common religion, doesn’t mean they don’t kill each other or hate each others’ guts.
I have to go, but I’ll finish this up a bit later.
-
@Chengora:
sigh It’s always got to be harsh criticism with you, huh?
I remember when i admired Chengora’s stamina at being very polite in the discussion and repeating and explaining his points over and over. I told him that by that time i already had lost that faith in some people, that these people would actually listen/read and then think over what they just have heard/read. I fear he is going a similar way. If he is, then all i can do is hope that those (three? four?) of the right wingers who do listen will come to the conclusion that it is not the “liberals” fault if he gets tired and disheartened by the stubborness of others, but that it is that stubborness that needs to be changed.
-
@F_alk:
@Chengora:
sigh It’s always got to be harsh criticism with you, huh?
I remember when i admired Chengora’s stamina at being very polite in the discussion and repeating and explaining his points over and over. I told him that by that time i already had lost that faith in some people, that these people would actually listen/read and then think over what they just have heard/read. I fear he is going a similar way. If he is, then all i can do is hope that those (three? four?) of the right wingers who do listen will come to the conclusion that it is not the “liberals” fault if he gets tired and disheartened by the stubborness of others, but that it is that stubborness that needs to be changed.
I take this to imply myself is included…given our past arguements. To which I shall retort that I always read what is said and try to do so with as open a mind as can be possible in an educated mind. Unfortunately education leads an individual to formulate his or her own opinions and those opinions will color all other ideas regardless of how open you try to make your mind.
The problem is not with us “right wingers” so much as it is with your “left wingers” being unable to make your points in a persuasive manner. Perhaps if you were more eloquent in your dialogues you would be able to convert us to your opinions much like missionaries do when converting “heathens” to their religions. Then again, perhaps you should also come to the realization that your opinion may also be wrong and try to open your own mind to that possibility as well. Not that I’m saying you are wrong, F_alk (or anyone else who is devoutly entrentched on one side of the discussion or the other) but rather that perhaps you should consider if you are wrong, and if you decide you are not, then figure out why you are right and then think of a diplomatic way of telling those who you think are wrong how they are wrong.
-
Jen…
look at the sentence i quoted. Then look at your last sentence.
Please explain why i should make the effort of being diplomatic (your last sentence) when it doesn’t help anyway (the sentence i quoted)?
I personally have come to the conclusion that some people here hold most to all of their opinions on the level of believe/faith. No rational will ever convince them. (I too have two opinions that i hold like that: (a) start nice, (b) follow a tit-for-tat strategy. This means if someone is a follower of an ideology that would not grant me a specific right/politeness … then IMHO that person should be denied that right/politeness as well.) And note that i used the word “convince”, and not “convert” …Anyway, Chengora has tried to explain his point. Over and over. With different words. Very eloquent, very precise (an important point for me as you might remember).
I hope he is not that disheartened as i am to stop that behavior. I doubt he will continue for very much longer though, as it leaves the feeling of “pearls before the swines”. -
To continue:
Shiite motivations: I still find your comments hard to accept because I cannot see any motivation for Shiites as a loose group to transfer weaponry to Iran. Given their mutual hostility, lack of capability to locate, obtain, and transport those materials, and the sheer lack of justification for action, I find your argument to be not as plausible. Let me unpack the last point. I am unaware of any reason for Shiites pre-2003 to feel animosity towards the U.S. or think that Iran would somehow give them a better deal, whatever that might be. You’ll have to supply some concrete evidence to support that critical contention. Given the insecurity of the run-up to war, the various Shiite factions should and did work more closely with the U.S., not against it. Consequently, you’re going to need some substantiation of your points that directly shows why trade with Iran (to which most Shiites are hostile) is more appealing than political control following an invasion.
Moreover, you point to 1991 as a sign of a transfer of weaponry between Iraq and Iran, and that that point should give credence to some collusion between the two. Again, though, the circumstances were entirely different, and Saddam had those planes go there because it was the only option available, limited as it was. It wasn’t a transfer and it wasn’t a deal: it was a desparate gamble. This points to exactly the opposite conclusion that you want to make. Hussein would be less inclined to send material to a country where previous equipment was stolen. As I also mentioned, there has been no rapprochement between Iran and Iraq, and therefore no cause for thinking that 20 years of animosity have evaporated.
In addition, Saddam thought of nuclear weapons as his final crutch against other regimes, and chief among them was Iran. He is highly unlikely to transfer exactly that technology to Iran. In addition, Iran wouldn’t necessarily be able to integrate that technology in a manner that would allow a quick turnaround (and hence the current belligerence). They do not have the factories scaled to that kind of missile technology, and they are still acquiring the equipment to conduct some of the enrichment process. The recent belligerence has much more to do with Ahmadinejad trying to bolster his power internally, particularly after a contentious election and what he feels is a slide into immorality (i.e. liberalizing reforms).
For these reasons, Syria is a much more plausible destination, if weapons even went there. Think: the Israelis, who have the most to lose from an nuclearized Iran, even they don’t claim it went in that direction. You’re talking about two US divisions patrolling an enormous area, and you haven’t responded to my statement about a possible transfer before the invasion. Turkey is definitely out, and Jordan is highly unlikely. Syria shares political and foreign policy orientation, similar internal problems, and a history of positive relations (with some fits and starts of course). It does not have a history of war or theft with Iraq, and has oftentimes allied with Iraq in some critical wars. Two units are simply not enough to patrol that border, as U.S. troops are realizing now. Consequently, while I think your idea is interesting, I find the Syria dimension to be significantly more plausible. And from what I have heard informally in the intelligence community, they tend to hold with this assessment as well.
As for Falk’s point, it is not so much the argument that has me riled, but the way it is presented. There is no need for polemics in this debate. There is no need to ridicule another poster or use language that implies they have not thought through issues carefully enough. As I’ve said, the points made here have been plausible, but not enough. I believe there is a way to have a respectful disagreement that does not attack the other person. However, it is difficult when posters on all sides take the absolutist, derogatory stance to have that kind of conversation. For example,
The problem is not with us “right wingers” so much as it is with your “left wingers” being unable to make your points in a persuasive manner. Perhaps if you were more eloquent in your dialogues you would be able to convert us to your opinions much like missionaries do when converting “heathens” to their religions.
This, I think, has it wrong. It’s not the speaker’s fault if he can’t convince. Likewise it’s not the listeners fault if he can’t accept. It’s a dialogue, and it involves both sides. As a result, this
Not that I’m saying you are wrong, F_alk (or anyone else who is devoutly entrentched on one side of the discussion or the other) but rather that perhaps you should consider if you are wrong, and if you decide you are not, then figure out why you are right and then think of a diplomatic way of telling those who you think are wrong how they are wrong.
has it much better. It’s the lack of respect and discipline in thinking and argumentation that has me riled, and I will let my posts speak for themselves in terms of who in this debate has the balance of civility.
Suggested Topics
