Iran In Sights?

[cbird02]

Hey all, newbie here. Been lurking. I think there is way to much criticism here and not enough actual opinion on what you would do if you were the president and maker of policy on terror. This is a bit more big picture than the current thread, but covers both Iraq and Iran. I would be interested in hearing other's plan...

My two cents for policy on terror:

1) Remove ourselves from Iraq in phased withdrawal in 2007-2008, with small presence left well outside of Bagdad that can work with Iraqi forces for critical missions along with air support.
- We need these troops so that we have a military option for the real threat in the gulf: Iran, although this will be last resort (which may be the only resort with the mullahs)
- Iraqi's need to settle their difference amongst themselves. Yes it will be chaos, but the birth of a nation usually is. If country divides, so be it. That may be the only way the sunni's and shiites can exist in iraq. With the US out of the picture, there is no way they will tolerate the foreign forces (aka terrorists) in their borders. (as they gladly tolerate today) Terrorists will stay to establish a strict Muslim nation and will be crushed by the Iraqi's.(not necessarily quickly though)

2) Accelerate the conversion to a renewable energy economy, with emphasis on transportation first. Abolish(ok wishful thinking...maybe cripple) the oil lobby as we know it.
- Energy Security = National Security (why you ask? see #3) If you don't see this right now...it's ok I understand...some day, you will
- Renewable energy for electricity market will come along, but power plants don't use oil. (thats more for the global warming thread then national security)

3) Put serious pressure on the arab governments for serious reforms to open up their societies (free press, individual freedoms) and advance their economies.
- These governments are not really effected by western pressure, because they know we need them too much (oil). Once #2 is accomplished we will have much more leverage and the gulf states will need US. Why do you think diplomacy fails? (whose always going to have the upper hand, the dealer or the junkie?)
- Islamic fundamentalism is rampant because of these failed states which royal families take all the money and their piss ass economies are running at 25% unemployment. I'd be pissed off at the world to. If your government couldn't provide basic services and jobs, would you care what the organization does that provides them to you? Yeah, they would start becoming your friend too.

4) Increase our intelligence capability, especially in regards to infiltrating the islamic establishment.

5) Funnel money into border security, especially port security and nuclear screening.
- Let's face it folks, if someone wants to blow up a small scale bomb that kills 100 people, we can not stop them no matter what our strategy is...live with it. Your more likely to get killed on the way home from work or die in a plane crash. If this happens, let's not go rambo and start dropping bombs, it won't help.
- We need to worry about the big one and we need to spend a lot of money in our ports.

6) Pressure Isreal to completely abandon Gaza and the entire West Bank while defending its right to exist. Yes, pack up the outposts.
- This is a big one.

7) Hit known terrorist organizations hard when the opportunity presents itself through intelligence. This will also involve increasing pressure on governments where the terrorists hide out. We have been successful in this to a degree and can accelerate our efforts once our resources are freed up.

8) Work within the auspices of multinational organizations UN, NATO etc. Strengthen our alliances with other western countries and moderate arab states. Let's face it...we f'd this up pretty good.

I think the basis of our strategy has to consider the source of the terrorist problem. It is not one nation. Fundamentalists are spread across entire populations. The only way to stop that is to remove the condition that is creating it. This revolves around reform in the arab states. You can not force reform via military intervention. As for identified terrorist cells..bring out the boys and their big toys.

Unlike many pacifists think, there are situations where we may have to intervene, such as Iran. This IS a grave security threat. Do you think the mullahs would sell nuclear technology to a terrorist organization? Your damn right they would. Is that their plan? Maybe, but maybe not. Right now diplomacy does not work on Iran because we have no leverage. The world desperately needs Iran. Are you seeing the importance of #2 yet?

 

[Annie]

Hey all, newbie here. Been lurking. I think there is way to much criticism here and not enough actual opinion on what you would do if you were the president and maker of policy on terror. This is a bit more big picture than the current thread, but covers both Iraq and Iran. I would be interested in hearing other's plan...

My two cents for policy on terror:

1) Remove ourselves from Iraq in phased withdrawal in 2007-2008, with small presence left well outside of Bagdad that can work with Iraqi forces for critical missions along with air support.
- We need these troops so that we have a military option for the real threat in the gulf: Iran, although this will be last resort (which may be the only resort with the mullahs)
- Iraqi's need to settle their difference amongst themselves. Yes it will be chaos, but the birth of a nation usually is. If country divides, so be it. That may be the only way the sunni's and shiites can exist in iraq. With the US out of the picture, there is no way they will tolerate the foreign forces (aka terrorists) in their borders. (as they gladly tolerate today) Terrorists will stay to establish a strict Muslim nation and will be crushed by the Iraqi's.(not necessarily quickly though)

2) Accelerate the conversion to a renewable energy economy, with emphasis on transportation first. Abolish(ok wishful thinking...maybe cripple) the oil lobby as we know it.
- Energy Security = National Security (why you ask? see #3) If you don't see this right now...it's ok I understand...some day, you will
- Renewable energy for electricity market will come along, but power plants don't use oil. (thats more for the global warming thread then national security)

3) Put serious pressure on the arab governments for serious reforms to open up their societies (free press, individual freedoms) and advance their economies.
- These governments are not really effected by western pressure, because they know we need them too much (oil). Once #2 is accomplished we will have much more leverage and the gulf states will need US. Why do you think diplomacy fails?
- Islamic fundamentalism is rampant because of these failed states which royal families take all the money and their piss ass economies are running at 25% unemployment. I'd be pissed off at the world to. If your government couldn't provide basic services and jobs, would you care what the organization does that provides them to you? Yeah, they would start becoming your friend too.

4) Increase our intelligence capability, especially in regards to infiltrating the islamic establishment.

5) Funnel money into border security, especially port security and nuclear screening.
- Let's face it folks, if someone wants to blow up a small scale bomb that kills 100 people, we can not stop them no matter what our strategy is...live with it. Your more likely to get killed on the way home from work or die in a plane crash. If this happens, let's not go rambo and start dropping bombs, it won't help.
- We need to worry about the big one and we need to spend a lot of money in our ports.

6) Pressure Isreal to completely abandon Gaza and the entire West Bank while defending its right to exist. Yes, pack up the outposts.
- This is a big one.

7) Hit known terrorist organizations hard when the opportunity presents itself through intelligence. This will also involve increasing pressure on governments where the terrorists hide out. We have been successful in this to a degree and can accelerate our efforts once our resources are freed up.

8) Work within the auspices of multinational organizations UN, NATO etc. Strengthen our alliances with other western countries and moderate arab states. Let's face it...we f'd this up pretty good.

I think the basis of our strategy has to consider the source of the terrorist problem. It is not one nation. Fundamentalists are spread across entire populations. The only way to stop that is to remove the condition that is creating it. This revolves around reform in the arab states. You can not force reform via military intervention. As for identified terrorist cells..bring out the boys and their big toys.

Unlike many pacifists think, there are situations where we may have to intervene, such as Iran. This IS a grave security threat. Do you think the mullahs would sell nuclear technology to a terrorist organization? Your damn right they would. Is that their plan? Maybe, but maybe not. Right now diplomacy does not work on Iran because we have no leverage. The world desperately needs Iran. Are you seeing the importance of #2 yet?

Welcome cbird02! Glad you posted instead of lurking. You've got some valid points. I'm a bit tired, but I'll respond tomorrow, if others don't beat me to it.

 

[glockmail]

.... Are you seeing the importance of #2 yet?

One poster here said once that we should use up all their oil before we use ours. There's a lot of merit in that stategy.

I also think that we are oing to be in Iraq a long time, just like in Germany and Japan.

Other than that how does the current Bush plan differ with what you wrote?

 

[cbird02]

One poster here said once that we should use up all their oil before we use ours. There's a lot of merit in that stategy.

Please enlighten me on the merit. Is there anything in your household that is plastic? Do you use detergent? Need tires for your car? How about everything in your house? I think these things are going to be needed for more than several decades. Kind of be nice to have oil around for a bit longer than it takes to burn it all up.

Other than that how does the current Bush plan differ with what you wrote?

Our government has put no pressure on Isreal to abandon the west bank.

White house and congress (dems and reps) are starting to see the light on alt fuels, but ethanol from corn needs to be abandoned and that is their main focus now.(from switchgrass is ok but funding is anemic, although did get a slight bump in Bush's recent budget proposal) They are doing nothing to address the infrastructure needed for delivery. The gov't is dabbling...so the difference basically is the level of funding for research and for incentives.

The current policy is to force democracy, which obviously will not work. We still may leave Iraq with some stability but I think the democratic oasis in the middle east will never happen. Other than that, have we put significant pressure on Arab states for reform other than in speeches and media bites? Even if we did, do they have any incentive to? (#3)

 

[trobinett]

Please enlighten me on the merit.

The merit, if you understand whats being said here, should be quite clear. Use the oil in the Middle East before using OUR oil, which makes perfect sense to me.

Is there anything in your household that is plastic? Do you use detergent? Need tires for your car? How about everything in your house? I think these things are going to be needed for more than several decades. Kind of be nice to have oil around for a bit longer than it takes to burn it all up.

My point exactly!

Our government has put no pressure on Isreal to abandon the west bank.

Could you supply links to back that statement up?

White house and congress (dems and reps) are starting to see the light on alt fuels, but ethanol from corn needs to be abandoned and that is their main focus now.(from switchgrass is ok but funding is anemic, although did get a slight bump in Bush's recent budget proposal) They are doing nothing to address the infrastructure needed for delivery. The gov't is dabbling...so the difference basically is the level of funding for research and for incentives.

The move toward alternate fuel sources never seems to win a consensus among those advocating it, why is that?

The current policy is to force democracy, which obviously will not work. We still may leave Iraq with some stability but I think the democratic oasis in the middle east will never happen. Other than that, have we put significant pressure on Arab states for reform other than in speeches and media bites? Even if we did, do they have any incentive to? (#3)

Well of course, that's YOUR OPINION. I think democracy WILL work, and that's MY OPINION.

How would you suggest that we apply pressure to Arab countries?

 

[dilloduck]

I think we need to do a better job of forcing Capitalism on them. Get em addicted to consumerism so they think twice before the risk what they have.

 

[James Plack]

Switchgrass or Corn, it doesn't matter. Ethanol is NOT an alternative fuel.

Ethanol absorbs moisture and becomes a jelly.

A local marine mechanic informed me that over 75% of marine engine repairs, he did last year, were due to ethanol in the fuel tanks, which clogged the fuel systems.

Corn is a food crop, for goodness sake. If farmers can get a higher price for corn to be burned in our gas tanks, who is going to go hungry?

When the U.S. burns food while others starve, we have crossed another line.

 

[glockmail]

[1]Please enlighten me on the merit. Is there anything in your household that is plastic? Do you use detergent? Need tires for your car? How about everything in your house? I think these things are going to be needed for more than several decades. Kind of be nice to have oil around for a bit longer than it takes to burn it all up.

[2]Our government has put no pressure on Isreal to abandon the west bank.

[3]White house and congress (dems and reps) are starting to see the light on alt fuels, but ethanol from corn needs to be abandoned and that is their main focus now.(from switchgrass is ok but funding is anemic, although did get a slight bump in Bush's recent budget proposal) They are doing nothing to address the infrastructure needed for delivery. The gov't is dabbling...so the difference basically is the level of funding for research and for incentives.

[4]The current policy is to force democracy, which obviously will not work. We still may leave Iraq with some stability but I think the democratic oasis in the middle east will never happen. Other than that, have we put significant pressure on Arab states for reform other than in speeches and media bites? Even if we did, do they have any incentive to? (#3)

1. The merit of the strategy is that you use up all of the Mideast oil in 20-30 years, eliminating their funding to do dirty deeds in the future. At the same time US resources are in the bank, so to speak.
2. Sure they have. He’s just one example:

U.S. President George W. Bush has demanded Israel stop expanding Jewish settlements, as a plan to extend the largest West Bank settlement threatened to cloud his upcoming meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newsw...06/world/bushpressuresisraeloverwestbank.html The fact is, the stated goal of Iran is to destroy Israel, so no matter what the Jews do it won’t appease Islam. And the Koran tells Muslims to kill all infidels.
3. The only alternate fuel worth discussing is hydrogen from electricity, generated by nuke plants. Anything else is near total BS and a waste of time. Since everyone is taking about it this simply lends credence to the theory discussed in my number 1 above.
4. Why use the word “force”? This strategy worked in Germany and Japan, one run by a dictator and the other by a king. Democracy is a natural method of government and the Arabs are no different that anyone else with respect to that.

 

[Avatar4321]

Switchgrass or Corn, it doesn't matter. Ethanol is NOT an alternative fuel.

Ethanol absorbs moisture and becomes a jelly.

A local marine mechanic informed me that over 75% of marine engine repairs, he did last year, were due to ethanol in the fuel tanks, which clogged the fuel systems.

Corn is a food crop, for goodness sake. If farmers can get a higher price for corn to be burned in our gas tanks, who is going to go hungry?

When the U.S. burns food while others starve, we have crossed another line.

This is exactly why I dont see ethanol as an alternative solution. Welcome to the board.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why exactly should we pressure Israel to abandon the west bank? I see no strategic reason for doing so. Its not like terrorism in Israel is going to stop at all. Why should they give up anything if they aren't going to get anything in return?

 

[Annie]

Why exactly should we pressure Israel to abandon the west bank? I see no strategic reason for doing so. Its not like terrorism in Israel is going to stop at all. Why should they give up anything if they aren't going to get anything in return?

Not to mention that the Palis of either Fatah or Hamas have proven they are capable of a country. Seriously.

 

[cbird02]

Originally Posted by Avatar4321 View Post
Why exactly should we pressure Israel to abandon the west bank? I see no strategic reason for doing so. Its not like terrorism in Israel is going to stop at all. Why should they give up anything if they aren't going to get anything in return?

Not to mention that the Palis of either Fatah or Hamas have proven they are capable of a country. Seriously.

Well this didn't have to do with Isreal's strategic interest, although I think it is in their best interest. My plan was for the US policy on terror and the reason we would pressure them to do this is easy. Remove one of the largest reasons for tension in the middle east. (and extremism for that matter - I know you don't have to tell me, the extremists want the whole thing, but they are not going to get it, ALL arabs and muslims do not want Isreal destroyed but they think it is bullshit that Palestine doesn't have their own country)

Why should Isreal give it up? Well there is a reason it is called "occupied" territory. There is also a reason that Isreal has not annexed it. That may have something to do with the fact that 90% of the population is Palestinian Arab. (10% outposts, so really it is 100%)

One more reason? They took 77% of Palestine when Britain left in '48. No problem, this was up for grabs and both populations have a stake in this land, rightfully so. Taking the other 23% in '67 crossed the line. Final thought - west bank 4,000 people/sq km, Isreal 294/sq km. Throw them a frickin bone for christ sake...

As for the problems with Fatah and Hamas? That's their problem, let them figure it out in their country..oh wait they don't have a country..kinda sucks to be them eh?

 

[cbird02]

The merit, if you understand whats being said here, should be quite clear. Use the oil in the Middle East before using OUR oil, which makes perfect sense to me.

I understand exactly what you are saying an no it does not make perfect sense. I am saying remove the need for so much oil use now so that they have no cash to stuff in their pockets, removing the reason why diplomacy and pressure for reform do not work in the gulf states. If transportation is removed from the equation, we never need oil from them. It reverses the role from we must buy oil from them, to we will buy oil from you if you do this or that. (US energy for transportation is 28% of the entire worlds energy consumption in trans sector) The entire earth needs all of its oil for a very long time, not just to fill your tank so we can get rid of the arabs oil. There are other ways to reduce their drug dealer mentality.




Our government has put no pressure on Isreal to abandon the west bank.


Could you supply links to back that statement up?

Um, no I can't find links that we have put pressure on Isreal to abandon the entire west bank....that's kind of my point...

 

[cbird02]

Corn is a food crop, for goodness sake. If farmers can get a higher price for corn to be burned in our gas tanks, who is going to go hungry?

When the U.S. burns food while others starve, we have crossed another line.

That line has been way crossed. Corn is so overproduced due to subsidies in this country that we could feed all of africa. Why is it overproduced - Because the government gives corn farmers $22.7 billion of your money to grow corn that we do not need. What do they use a lot of this excess corn for - high fructose Corn Syrup(think soft drinks and tons of other crap) and ethanol. Do we need HFCS - no you can use cane sugar cheaper if it were not for the government giving away your money. And here comes another wave of cash from the Ethanol lobby and genius lawmakers. And finally, why does this matter in this thread - it takes the equivalent of a half gallon of gas to make one bushel of corn. We make 11.8 billion bushels of the stuff. Corn is an important export, but I think we can do without 16 billion lbs of HFCS and now the ethanol non-sense....

 

[Bullypulpit]

This is exactly why I dont see ethanol as an alternative solution. Welcome to the board.

There's always HYDROGEN.

 

[glockmail]

There's always HYDROGEN.

Made how?

 

[cbird02]

There's always HYDROGEN.

Hydrogen is a very long term solution, but will be the eventual replacement for oil as an energy carrier.(think second half of this century) There has to be interim solutions to take us to the hydrogen stage and that will be a mix of bio-fuels, hybrids, and electrical vehicles.
We just need to make these vehicles powerful and not shaped like an egg, so more than just Mr. Green Jeans buys them.
Can't wait to get my hands on the new clean diesel engine from Mercedes that is going in the Grand Cherokee.- 215 hp, 376 lb-ft torque, 20/25 mpg and I will run bio-diesel in it.

 

[Darwins Friend]

I figure in about twenty-five years or so we’ll have ‘slot-cars’ running in the slow lane on the freeway system. Electric motors are the answer - in the very long term. Electricity can be generated from the widest variety of sources. Heavy trucks and light commuter vehicles will probably be first - running on battery until they can access buried cables in the far-right lanes of highways.

The easiest way to facilitate the research to accomplish this is to have the government match the private sector, dollar-for-dollar and add some more to the fossil fuel taxes. GWB has authorized a whole 1% (adjusted for inflation) increase in such funding in the 2007 budget.

Now there’s a forward thinker.

Adjusting for inflation, that’s 40% less than the same purpose in the 1979 budget. Guess we need yet another oil crisis to put us back in the correct frame of mind.

 

[glockmail]

I figure in about twenty-five years or so we’ll have ‘slot-cars’ running in the slow lane on the freeway system. Electric motors are the answer - in the very long term. Electricity can be generated from the widest variety of sources. Heavy trucks and light commuter vehicles will probably be first - running on battery until they can access buried cables in the far-right lanes of highways.

The easiest way to facilitate the research to accomplish this is to have the government match the private sector, dollar-for-dollar and add some more to the fossil fuel taxes. GWB has authorized a whole 1% (adjusted for inflation) increase in such funding in the 2007 budget.

Now there’s a forward thinker.

Adjusting for inflation, that’s 40% less than the same purpose in the 1979 budget. Guess we need yet another oil crisis to put us back in the correct frame of mind.

As usual, the looney left wants the guv'mint to fund what private indusrty can do better.

And just how are "slot cars" going to work in the real wold of traffic, rain and snow?

And just how do you propose to generate all this electricity?

 

[Darwins Friend]

As usual, the looney left wants the guv'mint to fund what private indusrty can do better.

Like NASA?

Of course there’s been zero technological advancements from the inception of that institution. I’m sure IBM and Bell Laboratories could have eventually come up with a few rather important devices and been able to economically produce them, on their own…………eventually.

And just how are "slot cars" going to work in the real wold of traffic, rain and snow?

"Slot Cars" was just a visual - think of a magnetic field device embedded in the pavement - that might make it a little easier to grasp. Nothing actually has to make an electric contact, but as an engineer I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that. Other than those differences - they would operated just the same as their counterparts presently.

And just how do you propose to generate all this electricity?

Nuclear power generation, wind power generation, hydro-thermal generation, water-driven hydro-electric, tidal-power-generation, solar-power-generation, etc., etc., etc.

Remember when everyone said that all forms of solar power panels would NEVER be able to be produced economically? Close co-operation between the American government and private industry proved that DEAD WRONG.