# Tell Me How This Ends



## Infanteer (24 Oct 2012)

Found a neat article describing a "choose your own adventure" type game that helps illustrate a war in Iran.

http://tellmehowthisends.com/

Here's the article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2012/10/19/how-i-tried-to-bomb-iran-into-the-stone-age-part-i/

The metrics are world oil price and costs.  How did you do?


----------



## Sythen (24 Oct 2012)

Apparently, it takes 3 full carrier groups on constant rotation to enforce a no fly zone, Israel has no ability to defend itself, Iran has a limitless supply of ballistic missles to fire at Israel, the US has no ability to wipe the Iranian navy off the map... And many many other things that are left out. There are far too few options, and clicking through and choosing different paths all lead to pretty much the exact same thing.

Its obvious the author is very against an attack on Iran, and it shows.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Oct 2012)

I didn't like it. I had no 'first strike nuclear option or the ability to shoot my advisers who suggested the war wasn't going well or that we should withdraw.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Oct 2012)

> Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com)
> Domain Name: TELLMEHOWTHISENDS.COM
> 
> Registrant:
> Truman National Security Project


----------



## CBH99 (24 Oct 2012)

I truly hope we dont attack Iran, I honestly & truly hope we dont.  Is there a thread on this topic already??  I did a quick search, but the server was busy and the search function was disabled.

I know anybody here who has ever visited Iran probably feels the same way.  Completely and totally different than how CNN portrays it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Oct 2012)

Iran needs to have its nuclear facilities neutralized. For the good of the region. If they are able to produce a nuclear warhead  then no doubt they will strike Israel.


----------



## Sadukar09 (24 Oct 2012)

I thought the "game" was interesting at first, but after going through all the choices, it's pretty clear it isn't "choices" presented to you.


----------



## skyhigh10 (24 Oct 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iran needs to have its nuclear facilities neutralized. For the good of the region. If they are able to produce a nuclear warhead  then no doubt they will strike Israel.



And Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iran needs to have its nuclear facilities neutralized. For the good of the region. If they are able to produce a nuclear warhead  then no doubt they will strike Israel.




If you want to effect *real change* in the region then an Iranian nuc may be the best of all catalysts: an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel will, not might, produce a response of such violence and horror that the peoples of the region - Arabs, Persians and Jews, alike - and of neighbouring regions will want to make and keep a comprehensive, honest, useful peace.


----------



## Shadowolf (24 Oct 2012)

skyhigh10 said:
			
		

> And Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ...



I detect sarcasm, yet ask the Kurdish villages that were wiped out if they feel whether the Iraqi government had weapons of mass destruction or not.


----------



## CBH99 (24 Oct 2012)

Lets not forget, Israel isnt exactly innocent by ANY stretch of the imagination.  Not even close.

Yes, they are a strong US ally in the region.  Yes, they are a democracy.  Yes, they are the religious and spiritual birthplace of the Christian dominated west.  

But, they arent exactly the most benign country in the region by any stretch.  As someone who has been to Israel, and Iran - I felt a whole lot safer in Iran than I ever did in Israel.  (The Daily Show just had a segment where they sent their reporters to Iran to do some comical interviews - great footage and interaction with the locals, which - like in the show - was the total opposite of what the media had portrayed to me.)

The people were funny, laid back, easy going - and unlike us, they had great things to say about the west.  

Its funny.  They have every reason not to trust us, they have every reason to resent us - and yet many of them were just happily living there lives, and thought that most people in the west were "very nice people."   

Yet here is the Americans labelling them, just as they did Iraq, and a *huge national security threat* and *the country that might just start WW3!!*    What a bunch of BS.

Remember about 4yrs ago, during one of the spurts of *increased* fighting in the Gaza Strip??  Israel dropped WP rounds right in the middle of urban areas - you could even see it drifting between buildings like a cloud.  Not exactly respectable in the slightest.

Every country in the region has problems.  Some with stability, some with fanatical leadership, some with an entitlement complex, and some that are actually better off and are doing well given the part of the world they are in, i.e. Jordan.  Personally, Im glad the US basically told Israel to simmer on down a few weeks back - good call, Presidential Elections coming up or not.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Oct 2012)

Dig up the July/August edition of _Foreign Affairs_, referred to here, and the follow-on discussion, for some interesting reading sparked by Kenneth Waltz's article "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb."


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2012)

Wargaming is a very interesting art, and like so many other things, can be affected by "starting conditions" and whatever limits and restrictions that you incorporate. There was an example prior to OIF where the commander of the Red Team took on the US Navy in the Gulf using navalized insurgent tactics; approaching task forces with swarms of zodiacs and light aircraft, and (if I remember correctly) laying mines and using whatever "regular" Iraqi capabilities that existed to strike during the confusion caused by the swarming attacks. He was apparently fired for his troubles.

Farther back in time, the IJN's wargameing of the battle of Midway correctly predicted the carriers were at risk, but when the "Red Team" representing the USN did sink the carriers, the game was simply reset and replayed without the IJN carriers being attacked. Sadly for the Japanese, resets were not offered on the Pacific Ocean during the real battle.

If all the decision trees in this game lead to Iranian victory or frustrate any possibility of the Western Alliance achieving victory (regardless of what you might think about this potential conflict, victory is _always_ possible if one side should devote enough time, energy and resources to the project) then this is a propaganda project on the order of the 2011 CBC election "quiz" which pointed out that regardless of your position on campaign issues, you were actually a Liberal supporter. 

Going a bit deeper, since war is about achieving political objectives, victory against the Iranian theocracy _could_ be achieved at a low cost if the right political objectives are chosen and the proper risk management is in place to "win the peace" or at least contain the fallout. A "headshot" to decapitate the leadership and eliminate Iran as an organized State and potential hegemonic power is one of these options, the risk managment is to make sure whatever regime(s) replaces the theocracy is not able to continue the nuclear program.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Oct 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iran needs to have its nuclear facilities neutralized. For the good of the region.



For the good of mankind if you ask me.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Oct 2012)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Lets not forget, Israel isnt exactly innocent by ANY stretch of the imagination.  Not even close.
> 
> Yes, they are a strong US ally in the region.  Yes, they are a democracy.  Yes, they are the religious and spiritual birthplace of the Christian dominated west.
> 
> ...



Yes we must never forget that Israel is the greatest evil in the ME  :
Any thinking person differante between the Iranian government and people, it's pretty clear the people want peace, but the IRG and Supreme Council is suspect. They are not very nice people and have caused all sort of nasties in the region, not even counting their casual use of frontal attacks in the Iran-Iraq war. Israel is mere entertainment for them, the real show is the Sunni-Shia conflict and that is why they want nukes.


----------



## cupper (24 Oct 2012)

This reminded me of an interview I was listening to on NPR last month with Kenneth Pollack of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

Essentially the results always ended in both sides miscalculating and ending in mass military conflict.

*Simulated War Between U.S.-Iran Has Grisly End*

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/24/161706698/simulated-war-between-u-s-iran-has-grisly-end



> ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
> 
> There was another exercise in Washington last week that involved Iran, the U.S. and the impasse over the Iranian nuclear program. The Brookings Institution staged a war game. No real weapons were used, but teams playing the roles of U.S. and Iranian policymakers were presented with a hypothetical but not very far-fetched scenario, and the results were not encouraging. Kenneth Pollack is a senior fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, and he ran this exercise and joins us. Good to see you again.
> 
> ...


----------



## Robert0288 (24 Oct 2012)

I don't like it, the choices are too limited, and the play through I did never had a 'pull back' option, nor any real inter-state diplomacy.


----------



## skyhigh10 (24 Oct 2012)

Shadowolf said:
			
		

> I detect sarcasm, yet ask the Kurdish villages that were wiped out if they feel whether the Iraqi government had weapons of mass destruction or not.



Sure. The minute you ask the 100,000+ Iraqis who were turned into salsa if they support another US Led Invasion. We can play these games all day. I am not in the business of declaring what is right and wrong when it comes to foreign policy, though common sense tells me an preemptive strike on Iran would affect every single individual on this planet.  

Iran is not Iraq. Iran is not Syria. Iran is not Libya. Iran is not Afghanistan. So before you start playing the war drum maybe visit wikipedia or something (to start) ?     John Stewart did a good piece when he sent some of his workers to Iran to document how bloodthirsty and demonic these people are....  (sarcasm)


----------



## winnipegoo7 (24 Oct 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ....the real show is the Sunni-Shia conflict and that is why they want nukes.



+1

The Gulf States are the ones that need to worry, not Israel.


----------



## Redeye (25 Oct 2012)

Shadowolf said:
			
		

> I detect sarcasm, yet ask the Kurdish villages that were wiped out if they feel whether the Iraqi government had weapons of mass destruction or not.



No one ever disputed that they had them in the past.

They had long since gotten rid of them by 2003 when the Big Lie to justify that patently useless war was concocted. Interesting side effect of invading Iraq was making Iran much more influential in the region, including in Iraq.


----------



## Redeye (25 Oct 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yes we must never forget that Israel is the greatest evil in the ME  :



Greatest? No. There are far worse. But I can't stand the toadying to Israel. They like to bluster - or rather, let's not generalize, because Israelis have political opinions as diverse as any country - their right likes to bluster as though Palestinians are solely responsible for the failure to reach lasting peace when the way that Israel treats the Occupied Territories is disgusting.

Most evil? Especially evil? Not even that. But I'd want no part in any conflict started over them. Or Iran, for that matter.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Oct 2012)

>But, they arent exactly the most benign country in the region by any stretch. 

An interesting point from which to launch inquiry.  Of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Israel, and Egypt, which is the most benign?


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Oct 2012)

>They had long since gotten rid of them by 2003

Since the discussion includes chemical weapons, that statement is untrue.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Oct 2012)

I can think of a lot of mistakes the Israelis have done, however I am also aware that their country is a mere afternoon drive for us Canadians and is as wide as some Canadians commute everyday. They have a lot of people who are out to do them in for the crime of existing and are the product of a serious attempt to eradicate them completely. Hell look what has happened to all of the various Jewish communities in the North Africa, ME, many that predated Islam and Christianity and you wonder why they aren't perfect? Sheesh they got people sworn to kill them and absolutely no room for mistakes, I'm surprised the whole country is not a basket case. Despite the above you have Israelis taking the government to court about treatment of Palestinians and even restraining the routing of the walls to minimize impacts on Palestinians.
Anytime the Israelis have lightened up some twit tries to smuggle a bomb through, that sort of thing has destroyed any chance of combined Israeli-Palestinian businesses which people have tried numerous times.

When I'm in Malaysia I get asked to "help" the Palestinians because they are "Our Muslim brothers" Funny that same brotherly love does not extend to the Indonesians both in-country and next door. Also they don't seem to give a shit about their brothers the Kurds, because they are oppressed by other fellow Muslims. Sorry but I am bit annoyed at the double standard directed to the "crimes of Israel" while giving a free pass to rest of the ME and Africa.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Oct 2012)

Israel ain't perfect, but as long as other states are saying "we need to wipe them off the map", then Israel gets the benefit of the doubt in my books.


----------



## Redeye (25 Oct 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >They had long since gotten rid of them by 2003
> 
> Since the discussion includes chemical weapons, that statement is untrue.



How so, since as I recall none were found? Except for a few crates of mortar round found in the marshes that had been there since the Iran-Iraq War...


----------



## Redeye (25 Oct 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >But, they arent exactly the most benign country in the region by any stretch.
> 
> An interesting point from which to launch inquiry.  Of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Israel, and Egypt, which is the most benign?



Too easy. Jordan. Though the massive number of Palestinian refugees that have been there since the Naqba do have potential to cause problems there.


----------



## skyhigh10 (25 Oct 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Israel ain't perfect, but as long as other states are saying "we need to wipe them off the map", then Israel gets the benefit of the doubt in my books.



Using your logic, shouldn't the Jewish population of 10,000+  residing in Iran have been long destroyed by now? Funny how that's not the case. Iran really isn't that naive to start a war with the worlds largest military superpower.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Oct 2012)

skyhigh10 said:
			
		

> Iran really isn't that naive to start a war with the worlds largest military superpower.



Iran's leadership is the paragon of sanity.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Oct 2012)

skyhigh10 said:
			
		

> Using your logic, shouldn't the Jewish population of 10,000+  residing in Iran have been long destroyed by now? Funny how that's not the case. Iran really isn't that naive to start a war with the worlds largest military superpower.



Closer to 9,000, used to be closer to 100,000. Let’s just say the remaining Jews are careful not to rock the boat. As for the Iranian government, they have conducted a proxy war against the US and west for quite sometime. They feel that the US is not going to invade them anytime soon and aree hell bent on getting a nuclear umbella which will remove the threat of invasion for good. At which point they intend to flex their muscle as the big guy in the region.


----------



## kevincanada (25 Oct 2012)

"Saying wipe them off the map."  Have a read through Hamas charter.  It is full of Jew killing.


----------



## skyhigh10 (25 Oct 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Closer to 9,000, used to be closer to 100,000. Let’s just say the remaining Jews are careful not to rock the boat. As for the Iranian government, they have conducted a proxy war against the US and west for quite sometime. They feel that the US is not going to invade them anytime soon and aree hell bent on getting a nuclear umbella which will remove the threat of invasion for good. At which point they intend to flex their muscle as the big guy in the region.



Wouldn't you do the same if you were Iran? I am not endorsing their behaviour, but it's understandable.  The United States doesn't bother any other nation with a nuclear weapon. Let's say the entire political system in Iran changes, do you really think Israel would be told what to do by Muslim nation? There is plenty of blame to go around. When I see a PM at the UN calling for the escalation of conflict in the Middle East irregardless of the financial ruin we're in , I shake my head. Some serious discussions need to take place, and politics sadly is putting quite the stop tothat. 

As for the decrease in Jews in Iran, understandable. The bottom line is Synagogues still operate, and Jews still reside there.


----------



## cupper (25 Oct 2012)

skyhigh10 said:
			
		

> And Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ...





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >They had long since gotten rid of them by 2003
> 
> Since the discussion includes chemical weapons, that statement is untrue.





			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> How so, since as I recall none were found? Except for a few crates of mortar round found in the marshes that had been there since the Iran-Iraq War...



UNMOVIC had found no evidence that there was any WMD program in place after 1991, but was unable to sign off as they couldn't fully verify Iraqi claims, and would need several more months in order top do so. This did not fit into the Bush Administration's timeline to proceed with military action, so they were never given the opportunity to finalize the investigation.

The Iraq Survey Group determined that what UNMOVIC had found during it's time of operation was essentially complete, they also found small stocks of materials which were covered in previous accounts as being present prior to 1991. They did determine however that the Iraqi Government (Saddam Hussein) did intend to restart the various programs in the future when the UN sanctions were lifted.

It was Hussein's posturing to keep the various ME players off balance as to his real situation, combined with various lower level officials feeding Hussein the information he wanted to hear rather than the truth that made it difficult to separate fact from fiction. Add the agendas of the various opposition factions pushing for invasion, and you have the quagmire that what we now call Operation Iraqi Freedom.


----------



## cupper (25 Oct 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A "headshot" to decapitate the leadership and eliminate Iran as an organized State and potential hegemonic power is one of these options, the risk managment is to make sure whatever regime(s) replaces the theocracy is not able to continue the nuclear program.



Your basic "Kobayashi Maru" solution? ;D


----------



## cupper (25 Oct 2012)

skyhigh10 said:
			
		

> Iran really isn't that naive to start a war with the worlds largest military superpower.



I would think that a war with the US would more likely start due to the law of unintended consequences rather than naivety.

A terrorist incident against the US that could be directly linked to the Iranian government for instance. Retaliatory strikes lead to a spiraling increase to the point where the Third Gulf War goes full throttle.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/108015/post-1182909.html#msg1182909


----------



## skyhigh10 (26 Oct 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I would think that a war with the US would more likely start due to the law of unintended consequences rather than naivety.
> 
> A terrorist incident against the US that could be directly linked to the Iranian government for instance. Retaliatory strikes lead to a spiraling increase to the point where the Third Gulf War goes full throttle.
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/108015/post-1182909.html#msg1182909



A third Gulf War with Iran would turn into a World War. I do not think people truly understand the repercussions when it comes to a war with Iran. If a WMD is used against any NATO ally , we will have the world on our side. The retaliation effort would make said targets inhabitable for thousands of years. This is why I am not worried. Iran is not that diluted.


----------



## cupper (26 Oct 2012)

skyhigh10 said:
			
		

> A third Gulf War with Iran would turn into a World War. I do not think people truly understand the repercussions when it comes to a war with Iran. If a WMD is used against any NATO ally , we will have the world on our side. The retaliation effort would make said targets inhabitable for thousands of years. This is why I am not worried. Iran is not that diluted deluded.



And what do you base all of this on? Iran's track record on supporting human rights, fighting terrorism and promoting peace and security in the middle east? :sarcasm:

You should be worried. Delusion does not enter into the picture (except if you believe that there is no way we could stumble into another Gulf Conflict). Cultural differences play a big part in this, and it is easy for one side to misinterpret the actions or motives of the other, and escalate the tensions.

I suggest you go back and read the article I posted previously that discussed the wargaming of a potential reaction to an Iranian sponsored terrorist attack and the potential for leading to an all out military conflict in the Gulf.


----------



## CBH99 (26 Oct 2012)

When it comes to Irans behaviour towards the west, is it really any surprize that they feel paranoid, angry, and potently skepticle of anything/everything we do towards them??

Lets just look at a FEW of the incidents that have occurred in the past 20 years, and it might help explain why Iran isnt exactly rushing to appease us or our wishes.

-  In 1988, US warship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, in Iranian airspace.  All 300 people onboard were killed.  

-  In 1953, the US and UK orchestrate a coup.  Known as Operation Boot in the UK and Operation TPAJAX in the US - the democratically elected government was overthrown, and the country went from a constitutional monarchy to an authoritarian regime.  (Yes, the authoritarian regime was put in place BY THE WEST).  This, while somewhat complicated, basically started when Iran nationalized its oil program in 1951 & put Britains asset security in jeopardy.

-  In 1991, the west had cruise missiles flying over Iranian airspace to hit targets in western Iraq.  (Deep down I am sure they wouldnt have minded, but this was done without their permission and in most cases without their knowledge.)

-  Recently, within the last few years, economic sanctions.  Again, its mostly the general population that suffers from what it perceives as yet another unjustified series of acts intended to harm them from a foreign power they have done nothing to offend or aggress against.  (I distinctly remember having dinner in a family home, and the general feeling was...what have we ever done to the US to have them treat us like this over the past 50 years?)    

The politics of it dont always resonate with the average person just trying to run their barber shop or donaire shop.

In the end, I think we in the west have very short memories.  They dont.  Nobody over here could really care less that the US accidentally shot down an airliner full of people 24yrs ago.  But the people in Iran - having a civilian airliner shot down in their own airspace by a country they werent even at war with - they dont forget as quickly or as easily as we do.  And thats just one example.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Oct 2012)

>Too easy. Jordan.

Not that easy.  Black September.  When pushed, the Jordanians have behaved as badly as anyone in that region.  The fact that they don't get pushed as much as the Israelis doesn't make them more benign than Israel.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Oct 2012)

>Except for a few crates of mortar round found in the marshes

Continuing trivialization and obfuscation of simple facts doesn't make a person more credible.  Here are three useful facts:
1) Munitions existed (more than "a few crates of mortar rounds"); that implies they were either wanted or someone lost track of them.  Either is problematic - "unaccounted", and hence more liable to theft and misuse, is more worrisome with respect to risk assessment.
2) Chemical agents existed, for which no plausible excuse was supported (eg. "fertilizer components").
3) Balance of opinion indicates Hussein would have been happy to resume programs after the pressure was off.
4) Politically, some nations were trying to take the pressure off.
5) There were more casus belli cited in the war resolution than WMDs.

Capabilities and intentions existed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Oct 2012)

Now just imagine all this playing out with Saddam still at the helm, by now the US would have drawn down it's forces in the ME to a more sustainable level. Sanctions would have effectively collapsed and Russia, France and China would be looking for deals in exchange for relief from the immense debts that Iraq owed them. Iran would be worried that their Nemesis Iraq will be quickly rearming and for Iraq, the fastest way to rearm is to improve their WMD capability, so now we would have Iraq and Iran working hard to create a nuclear weapon arm and Iraq would have likely gotten a lot of help from Pakistan's Khan who would see Iraq as a effective counter balance to Iran growing power. Just imagine what a 2nd Iran-Iraq war would look like with tactical nukes?

Say what you want about the Iraq war, it effectively put Iraq out of the equation of regional politics for a generation and neutralized the US political will for a decade or so. So the 2 immediate threats to Iran are gone. This is not good for the leadership because they desperately need an external threat while they muck up the internal situation. It's pretty clear there are a lot of people that don't think Iran's nuclear ambitions are worth the price, however most of those people have zero control on the lever's of power. You have a bunch of religious back stabbing nutbars carrying an inferiority complex going back 1350 years. Supported by a militant group of zealouts wannabe Waffen SS, military-industrial tycoons slowly turning into a para-military Mafia running the place, and wanting nukes while meddling in everyone else affairs. What could possibly go wrong.......


----------



## a_majoor (26 Oct 2012)

Reposting this from the "Faling Islamic States" thread, since it speaks to the underlying strategic rational for Iran's actions. If going to war or the threat of nuclear weapons isn't able to achieve the political objectives outlined in the article, then Iran will have been wasting time, energy and resources. Sanctions and other activities have placed great stress on the Iranian regime, so it may collapse due to the inability of the brittle structure to absorb more stress (especially unexpected or unusual stressors). A preference cascade for the Green Revolution might be one of these possible triggers; unconventional militry actions might be another (I'm pretty sure the Iranian regime has been contemplating western military action and possible responses since 1979). Graphics on link:


http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NJ10Ak02.html



> *The horizon collapses in the Middle East*
> By Spengler
> 
> "In the long run we are all dead," said John Maynard Keynes. To which the pertinent response is: "What do you mean, 'we'?" For most countries, the long run is a point on the horizon that never arrives. In the Middle East, by contrast, the horizon has collapsed in upon the present. It isn't the apocalypse, but in Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Egypt it must be what the apocalypse feels like. "What some hailed as an Arab Spring," I wrote in my September 2011 book How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too), "is descending into an Arab Nightmare." The descent continues. We are a long way from hitting bottom.
> ...


----------



## skyhigh10 (26 Oct 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> And what do you base all of this on? Iran's track record on supporting human rights, fighting terrorism and promoting peace and security in the middle east? :sarcasm:
> 
> 
> You should be worried. Delusion does not enter into the picture (except if you believe that there is no way we could stumble into another Gulf Conflict). Cultural differences play a big part in this, and it is easy for one side to misinterpret the actions or motives of the other, and escalate the tensions.
> ...



I can see where you're coming from and I politely disagree with you. 

What is your definition of human rights? We will cross reference your definition with examples in the United States. Have you been to Iran? Have you met people from Iran?  What you hear or read on CNN is not always the truth. Political rhetoric on all sides is nothing short of nauseating. 

Where did I state that it is simply not possible for the entire region to be engulfed with war? I am stating that one country is not as daft as you think they are . Correct, cultural and religious differences play a huge role when it comes to Western influence in the region. This I shake my head when I hear people calling for preemptive strikes, ESPECIALLY ISRAEL! How do they think it will end? With an American dominated middle east? Israel does not want Iran gaining a Nuclear weapon, why? Pull up a map. I personally do not think it has to do with nuclear weapons. Unless of course Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all agree to lose their surrounding territories, which I think you may agree is a bit far fetched. So what is left is everything but. So I say again, any attack on Israel would cause said aggressors country to be attacked by 20+ foreign nations. You do not have to be a military strategist OR listen to Mitt Romney to agree with this. 

Do you by any chance know how Iran dealt  with captured "terrorists" in the past ? Have we forgotten that Iran refused to deal with or legitimize the Taliban prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion? Some will argue Afghanistan; but based on my own research, Iraq was the turning point. Though as I said earlier, I am not a historian. I just like to gather points from each side and try to logic out what is BS and what is not. 

Once again, there is plenty of blame to go around!


----------



## Journeyman (26 Oct 2012)

skyhigh10 said:
			
		

> Israel does not want Iran gaining a Nuclear weapon, why? Pull up a map. I personally do not think it has to do with nuclear weapons.


OK, so if it's not for them having the weaons, why do you think Israel does not want a nuclear armed Iran?


----------



## fraserdw (26 Oct 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> OK, so if it's not for them having the weaons, why do you think Israel does not want a nuclear armed Iran?



If I was the Isreali PM, I would be afraid of losing my nuclear edge more than being attacked by an Iranian weapon.  I (The PM) am well protected by my AD and AF but another nation in the region being nuclear blunts my nuclear spearpoint.  Politics is at the root of all evil!


----------



## Journeyman (26 Oct 2012)

Yes, but skyhigh10 has implied it's something to do with geography ("pull out a map") rather than Iran having a nuclear strike capability......and I just don't get his point.


----------



## skyhigh10 (26 Oct 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> If I was the Isreali PM, I would be afraid of losing my nuclear edge more than being attacked by an Iranian weapon.  I (The PM) am well protected by my AD and AF but another nation in the region being nuclear blunts my nuclear spearpoint.  Politics is at the root of all evil!



Exactly. 



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, but skyhigh10 has implied it's something to do with geography ("pull out a map") rather than Iran having a nuclear strike capability......and I just don't get his point.



I quote from my original message: 

*Unless of course Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all agree to lose their surrounding territories,*  ..aka, areas located around Israel. Do you understand what I mean now? Can Iran guarantee not one ounce of radioactive material will touch another countries soil? Of course not. So you're more or less making the assumption that Iran is stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon in the region ; at which point their country will be decimated in a matter of hours. You don't think that there quick response plans written for such an occasion ? Hell, the Yanks even had plans to invade Canada and use poison gas. Do not judge the source but this is just a rundown. Believe it or not, a bit scary don't you think? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_plan_red   

So, why does Israel not want Iran to become a nuclear power? Last I heard Pakistan wasn't too fond of Israel , and they have them. So what the hell is so special about Iran?  Tell me what you think ...


----------



## kevincanada (26 Oct 2012)

I think he implied, nuke or not a attack against Israel would be just outright stupid hence nothing to worry about.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Oct 2012)

I'm not making 'stupid assumptions' or arguing either way, and your subsequent response (increased attitude notwithstanding), as written, suggests you believe that Israel doesn't want Iran to have nukes because they're concerned radioactive fallout may reach Syria or Jordan.   ???

No, I'm merely trying to understand what you mean when you say, 





> Israel does not want Iran gaining a Nuclear weapon, why? Pull up a map. *I personally do not think it has to do with nuclear weapons*.



"Do _you_ understand what I mean now?"


----------



## skyhigh10 (26 Oct 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm not making 'stupid assumptions' or arguing either way, and your subsequent response (increased attitude notwithstanding), as written, suggests you believe that Israel doesn't want Iran to have nukes because they're concerned radioactive fallout may reach Syria or Jordan.   ???
> 
> No, I'm merely trying to understand what you mean when you say,
> 
> "Do _you_ understand what I mean now?"



Nobody else seems to have a problem reading or comprehending what i'm writing. Please consult my messages yet again. I said you're implying that "IRAN" is stupid enough ...     I did not disrespect you by saying YOU made stupid assumptions. The proof is above, please read it. 

* """"Israel does not want Iran gaining a Nuclear weapon, why? Pull up a map. I personally do not think it has to do with nuclear weapons"""".*  

I was stating aloud, Israel does not want Iran to gain a nuclear weapon, why?  I ASK.... On a completely separate note....  I say pull out a map and look at the territory. I then said I do not think it has to do with nukes at all. 

For the third time , Iran will NOT use a nuclear weapon again Israel given the consequences it would have on surrounding countries. Do you understand?  If a CF18 dropped a JDAM on my house because they were under the impression I was the Antichrist,  it may in fact damage some surrounding homes and make people a little bit upset (even though the jet and the people are on the same side) .  

So i'm stating that ....  Israel does NOT want to attack Iran because of a nuclear weapon.  So what else could they be upset about? That is my question to you. Why else would they want a war with Iran.  You tell me. 

Hope this clarifies


----------



## cupper (26 Oct 2012)

I was going to reply and try to figure out where skyhigh10 was going with his line of argument, but the last post finally convinced me that this is just like my dog chasing his tail.


----------



## fraserdw (26 Oct 2012)

Yeah, you are losing me too.  Imagine that Isreal is upset, maybe, they have decided to act like arabs and just be upset at everything!


----------



## xer0 (26 Oct 2012)

don't 99% of the articles imply this will be a surgical strike implying also that this will not be a war but simply a special force disabling the capabilities?


----------



## skyhigh10 (26 Oct 2012)

xer0 said:
			
		

> don't 99% of the articles imply this will be a surgical strike implying also that this will not be a war but simply a special force disabling the capabilities?



Wouldn't that lead to a war?


----------



## skyhigh10 (26 Oct 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I was going to reply and try to figure out where skyhigh10 was going with his line of argument, but the last post finally convinced me that this is just like my dog chasing his tail.



Was pretty simply really. Iran cannot attack Israel because the repercussions would be too great. Israel knows this. So why do they keep pulling the nuclear weapons scare card?   No , still don't get it?


----------



## fraserdw (26 Oct 2012)

OK, I get your point, lets put it in the open.  You are saying that Isreal is using Iran nuclear ambitions to suck good will and money out of the West, particularly the Great Satan!  Oui, non, yes?


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Oct 2012)

>Have you been to Iran? Have you met people from Iran?

In this kind of discussion it is best to separate the "people of X" from "the government of X".  Customarily, when people gripe about "the Iranians" or "the Chinese" or any other "people", it is the government that is the target of their criticism.


----------



## skyhigh10 (26 Oct 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Have you been to Iran? Have you met people from Iran?
> 
> In this kind of discussion it is best to separate the "people of X" from "the government of X".  Customarily, when people gripe about "the Iranians" or "the Chinese" or any other "people", it is the government that is the target of their criticism.




Absolutely! Keep in mind though that the government often says one thing but really means another. The president of Iran can run his mouth all he likes at home, but when he's in the public eye he smartens up (usually). The same can be said for the POTUS. 

FraserDW,  


I don't know where the hell you got "Israel sucks good will and money out of the west" from anything I wrote above. I think Israel thrives off being the little guy with 15 or so BIG friends.  Starting a war with Iran when your friends don't really back you isn't a smart move. So maybe instigate a little bit and try to draw them in? Why ? No idea. But the nuclear "scare" is a lie.


----------



## cupper (27 Oct 2012)

skyhigh10 said:
			
		

> I don't know where the hell you got "Israel sucks good will and money out of the west" from anything I wrote above. I think Israel thrives off being the little guy with 15 or so BIG friends.  Starting a war with Iran when your friends don't really back you isn't a smart move. So maybe instigate a little bit and try to draw them in? Why ? No idea. But the nuclear "scare" is a lie.



He got it because your arguments are all over the place and have little or no coherent thread. Hence my comment:



> I was going to reply and try to figure out where skyhigh10 was going with his line of argument, but the last post finally convinced me that this is just like my dog chasing his tail.


----------



## skyhigh10 (27 Oct 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> He got it because your arguments are all over the place and have little or no coherent thread. Hence my comment:



It almost seems like you just post for the sake of  being confrontational which is quite unfortunate. 

My  :2c:  on the matter was actually very specific and was reinforced four times. Never mind the fact other users responded in kind because they can read between the lines. Even though I clarified my original post and you now understand what i'm saying, the important thing here is to focus on something that was rectified. It's important to shout down anyone you disagree with. I asked you to prove why I was on the wrong track. In this thread we have people calling for attacks on Iran. So excuse me while I play devils advocate for a bit and question the idea of getting involved in a full scale war. 

1) If Iran ever attacked Israel, the west would respond in full force. So, my original post. Do  you really think Iran's leadership is that insane? I guess so. 

2)Israel is calling for preemptive attacks weekly. I'm asking why? I think nuclear weapons are the least of Israels concern. Makes for good media coverage though don't you think?


----------



## cupper (27 Oct 2012)

It's not me that isn't getting the argument here.

I have been pointing out that your line of reasoning that Iran isn't stupid / irrational / irresponsible / deluded enough to attack Israel / The US / Europe therefore there cannot / will not be another major conflict in the Gulf between Iran and everyone else overlooks several possibilites that could lead to direct confrontation between Iran and the West.

I gave a specific example which you either ignored or failed to comprehend. The quite real possibility of a terrorist attack on either the US or it's Allies which is directly linked back to Iran. This would call for some form of retribution on the part of the West (read The US). As was shown in the wargaming sessions I referenced, even the most minimal of retaliation by the US was considered by the Iranian side to be sufficient enough provocation to launch attacks to shut down shipping in the Gulf, which spirals into a full blown conflict. 

Stupid / irrational / irresponsible / deluded ? No. Failure to understand the actions of your opponent? Yes. Hence my discussion about cultural differences.

I never said the Iranian leadership was insane enough to make a direct attack on Israel, or any other country.

As for why Israel doesn't want Iran to have nuclear capabilities, stop over thinking it. Sometimes things really are what they seem. And sometimes paranoids are right that everyone is out to get them.

As for posting for the sake of being confrontational, I would suggest that you go back and reread your own replies to the various posts here with an open mind and consider if you may not have been just a tad bit aggressive yourself.

As for your  " :2c: " being specific, because others could "read between the lines", one should not have to read between the lines to understand what someone is trying to get across.

Several posts back, I asked you what you were basing your argument on? I will admit the sarcastic comment right after may have put you off, but my question still stands, as you failed to provide your basis. Instead you come back asking what my definition of human rights is. Had you given some basis for your line of reasoning, perhaps we wouldn't have had to "read between the lines" to figure out what your were trying to get across.

And for what it is worth, I've gone back and reread your post / replys, and still cannot figure out what you are trying to get across, who is attacking who, or isn't going to attack who and why.

I've seen my dog catch his tail, so there is hope yet.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Oct 2012)

The problem Cupper is that the Iranian leadership are zealots. They dont care what they have to do to eradicate Israel. You cant reason with zealots. On the flip side the Israelis dont doubt at all that if Iran gets nuclear weapons they will be used. Its all about survival for Israel. They will do anything to preserve the State of Israel.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Oct 2012)

skyhigh10 said:
			
		

> My  :2c:  on the matter was actually very specific and was reinforced four times.


"Simply repeated" is not the same as "reinforced," and if it had been "very specific" it would not have required clarification. 

I accept that you are unable to clarify the point you raised, and as noted, I have no dog in this fight; I'm done.


----------



## cupper (27 Oct 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The problem Cupper is that the Iranian leadership are zealots. They dont care what they have to do to eradicate Israel. You cant reason with zealots. On the flip side the Israelis dont doubt at all that if Iran gets nuclear weapons they will be used. Its all about survival for Israel. They will do anything to preserve the State of Israel.



T6, I understand that point all too well. Which makes the example I used (taken from the actual wargame run by the think tank) an all too real possibility.

I've never once doubted Iran's intent to obtain a nuke, their intent to use it, either as a threat to get what they want, or for an actual attack somewhere in the world. And I've never doubted Israel's intent to protect itself ay whatever cost.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Oct 2012)

I have participated in a few scenario's in my day. I found this computer game limiting. Its almost as if the game is rigged to achieve a certain end state.


----------



## skyhigh10 (27 Oct 2012)

:deadhorse:

I always enjoy reading a nice diatribe on Saturday morning. Never once did I insult any user by referring to them as a dog after posting my thoughts. Never once did I shout down someone I disagreed with.  You assume that my post was written in some sort of scathing dialect designed to get you when you sleep. Credible no doubt. I'm going to respond to your post one final time. I have no doubt you will comprehend where i'm coming from rather, attempt to be creative and spin it saying i'm a communist or something. 

_*Several posts back, I asked you what you were basing your argument on? I will admit the sarcastic comment right after may have put you off, but my question still stands, as you failed to provide your basis. Instead you come back asking what my definition of human rights is. Had you given some basis for your line of reasoning, perhaps we wouldn't have had to "read between the lines" to figure out what your were trying to get across.*_

Yes, your comments did put me off because they were composed  to create ill will and were full of assumptions (even though they had been clarified). You decided to tweak them and make things personal even though SOME of our positions do not appear to be that different. There were other users which responded and understood. But hey, don't focus on that. Strike out words that you think we're used incorrectly instead of focusing on the topic. You brought up human rights. You brought up a bold defence saying "I should be worried". I'm not. 

_*It's not me that isn't getting the argument here.*_

That's ironic. Ok, so you are getting the argument. It's others who are not getting it. Odd. You said you had returned to my original posts - and kind rebuttals, and still just can't seem to figure out what the "argument" is. So you get it but you don't get it. This reinforces what I said earlier. You are responding for the sake of stimulating your thyroid. You say one thing, and then another, and then another. 

_*As for posting for the sake of being confrontational, I would suggest that you go back and reread your own replies to the various posts here with an open mind and consider if you may not have been just a tad bit aggressive yourself.*_

My original posts did not have any trace of aggression. You did not like what someone else had to say so instead of clearing up your misconception, you started being nasty. 

_*I gave a specific example which you either ignored or failed to comprehend. The quite real possibility of a terrorist attack on either the US or it's Allies which is directly linked back to Iran. This would call for some form of retribution on the part of the West (read The US). As was shown in the wargaming sessions I referenced, even the most minimal of retaliation by the US was considered by the Iranian side to be sufficient enough provocation to launch attacks to shut down shipping in the Gulf, which spirals into a full blown conflict*_. 

 Contrary, I agreed to what you said about the culture, religion, etc, and nowhere did I really disagree with those points. We both appear to agree that if Iran was linked in some way to attacking the west, we would RESPOND thus leading to a full out war. Nowhere did I say the situation isn't delicate. My beef is with the reasoning behind WHY we should be making the first move. You then bring up a variety of points like human rights etc that have nothing to do with the topic and then submit that I am being distasteful in my responses.  Any attack by Iran on a US ally would call for retribution.  My only addition was that I personally do not think Iran is desperate for a war. I said earlier a nuclear weapon would help them rise as a major player in the region.  I mentioned the Israeli PM , how he keeps talking insisting that the west attacks Iran asap because of their "nuclear ambitions to destroy Israel". I say this is bs because  any nuclear attack against Israel would affect it's Islamic neighbours. You think this is flawed logic? Sure. Iran wants to nuke everyone then. I cannot disprove that they are blood sucking vampires who want to nuke anything and everything. 

_*As for your  " :2c: " being specific, because others could "read between the lines", one should not have to read between the lines to understand what someone is trying to get across.*_

Wrong terminology! Got me! Null and void! I'm sorry, what I meant to say was, people read my post the first time and knew what I was saying. So instead of calling someone a dog or putting words in their mouth, why don't you inquire specifically into their train of thought instead of being a demoting prick? Just a suggestion. After all, you stated above you knew what I was saying. 

_*I've seen my dog catch his tail, so there is hope yet.*_

Round of applause for this statement. I'm sure you're doing everything in your power to be a class act and have a productive conversation. 


[quote author=Journeyman] 
"Simply repeated" is not the same as "reinforced," and if it had been "very specific" it would not have required clarification. 

I accept that you are unable to clarify the point you raised, and as noted, I have no dog in this fight; I'm done.
[/quote]

Well, I'm happy that I do not have to converse with you on a regular basis. It was reinforced with my own reason just like countless others in this thread who called for attacking absent any justification. Nothing to say there?  My points we're ultra specific when questioned. The minute people started seeing that, two of you decided to get rude. So when I address a point you bring up something totally different and then say I am unable to clarify the point I raised ; which is " Iran does not have a hard on for Jew hating or a war against the west".  Justify this? Jews living in Iran .... No war ....  It seems as though so many of you just can't wait to get your hands dirty over this rhetoric.  Listen to other points of view? Why do that on a public forum when you can shout them down and do your own thing.  

I accept that you are unable to say what you mean or mean what you say.   :irony: 

Enjoy yourselves.


----------



## cupper (27 Oct 2012)

I'm going to suggest that the mods merge this into the Iran super thread.

Or better still, just lock it up since we just seem to be running in circles.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2012)

I should have known that a neat link would turn into a horse beating contest on Israel...locked.


----------

