Speculation - why is Bush really going to attack Iran?

[phoenix_fire]

Most of the countries that I am aware of under MAD don't encourage suicide terrorism either.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Iran seems disimilar to the soviets in that the soviets didn't have many people willing to face death, plus they were atheists, so going to heaven wasn't an option. I don't think most Iranians, or even Ahmedinejad himself has a death wish, but there certainly are Iranians that see suicide attacks as romantic, and the best suicide bombing ever would be a nuclear attack on the U.S. That said, I don't think Iran having nukes would be the end of the world, it doesn't scare me any more than North Korea having the bomb.

[Enlightenee]

Yes, but an unstable and aggressive country with a nuclear bomb? you do realize that if someone stupid or overly cocky takes control of such a country we might all be screwed. .. .

[phoenix_fire]

Or suicidally fanatical.

[Enlightenee]

yes there is that..
personally i have a feeling this decade isn't too good to be in, i have plans for my lifetime; none of which include worrying about international affairs. Hope to hell Bush doesn't further antagonize the situation while he's in office.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Or suicidally fanatical.

You know, this raises another question.


In the context of the suicidal bomber percieving that they are already in a battle, is the average US Serviceman any less suicidal?


Face it, when they're in the trecnhes in the heat of battle, do you suppose that they would be any less inclined to commit the great sacrifice than your average suicidal bomber?


I tend to really have to rationalize this out for a long period before coming to the colclusion that it's mostlly about perception.


Which takes us back to US policy, and why suicidal bombers percieve that they are in a fight.

[Nono]

Here's a question that nobody (with the possible exception of Gawd) has addressed:

What are the chances that anything -- anything -- the US (or the Israelis) does at this point is going to deprive the Iranians of their bomb?

That's the undying delusion: that you can bomb your way to a successful result. The US never learns.

Once again America will be shooting itself in the foot. There is currently a great deal of opposition to the Tehran government. Thist will evaporate in a heartbeat, which is why the mullahs are earnestly praying for an attack.

Boy George an' da Neocons -- what a gang of pathetic clowns.

[Milton Bradley]

Heh, couldn't you at least attempt to answer my profound question before laying on another one. Sheesh.


You trying to steal my thunder boy?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Milton Bradley You know, this raises another question. In the context of the suicidal bomber percieving that they are already in a battle, is the average US Serviceman any less suicidal? Face it, when they're in the trecnhes in the heat of battle, do you suppose that they would be any less inclined to commit the great sacrifice than your average suicidal bomber? I tend to really have to rationalize this out for a long period before coming to the colclusion that it's mostlly about perception. Which takes us back to US policy, and why suicidal bombers percieve that they are in a fight.

I'd say the average US serviceman knows hes going into combat but expects to get out alive and feel his duty is somehow justified. US service men also protect themselves behind a wall, either solid armor, or the distance of a computer screen, or the self belief in doing their duty for a greater cause.

The fanatic doesn't have the armor. He might or not even have faith so it can't be used as his spiritual armor so to speak. The fanatic only needs the justification, because in doing that he gives himself the free pass to heaven. Or even just the act of killing as a symbol to his people. I'd bet not every suicide bomber is a true allah believer. Some could be typed as ultra nationalist rather than religous fanatics.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Helioprime The fanatic doesn't have the armor. He might or not even have faith so it can't be used as his spiritual armor so to speak. The fanatic only needs the justification, because in doing that he gives himself the free pass to heaven. Or even just the act of killing as a symbol to his people. I'd bet not every suicide bomber is a true allah believer. Some could be typed as ultra nationalist rather than religous fanatics.

That's why I specified "in the trenches", as if they were the foot soldier resigned to deal the biggest blow to the enemy that they possibly could. The typical Hollywood scenario.


When it's reduced to the level of the foot soldier, ( which is what a "terrorist" really is in most circumstances ) I seriously think that they're no more inclined towards these types of acts than anybody else, accept for their unique history of coming up against our government, and it's policies.


I'd wager if we had been subjected to the same treatment from an occupying UN, or some other such entity butting into our domestic affairs, that we would see a lot more Timothy McVeighs running around trying to blow UN stuff off of our "sovereign soil".


This is why some people scoff at the very idea that other people could refer to them as "freedom fighters". It usually just depends on the bias of the entity you're getting your information from.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Milton Bradley You know, this raises another question. In the context of the suicidal bomber percieving that they are already in a battle, is the average US Serviceman any less suicidal? Face it, when they're in the trecnhes in the heat of battle, do you suppose that they would be any less inclined to commit the great sacrifice than your average suicidal bomber? I tend to really have to rationalize this out for a long period before coming to the colclusion that it's mostlly about perception. Which takes us back to US policy, and why suicidal bombers percieve that they are in a fight.

First of all, I have never known any U.S. soldier who goes in to battle intending to die, maybe they are prepared for death, even accepting of it, but not desiring of it. I've never heard of a modern U.S. soldier killing himself to get at the enemy on purpose, jumping on a grenade is one thing, you're saving your comrades, and I'd like to think there are individuals in all strata of society that would be that heroic, but blowing yourself up is quite different.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I posted the above post without reading your other comment, Milton. Saying that americans would resort to suicide in the same position as Islamic Fundementalists is quite different from saying that current day soldiers are inclined to do the same thing. I don't think americans have the same cultural and religious influences about the glory of killing yourself, western civilisation as a whole tends to look down upon it. We certainly would use "terrorism"but suicide bombings are different from normal guerilla warfare. Plus, if we were on our own soil, we probably wouldn't target our own civilians, and would really be guerillas fighting military targets.

[Bob652]

Quote by: Technosoul The reasons for the war in Afganistan is self-evident. However the war on Iraq was for oil and the reasons Bush used to justify his attack were lies. Now Bush is saying that Iran has a secret nuclear program (just like he said about Iraq). Iran claims otherwise and with the aid of Russian contracts only wants a nuclear energy plant. Can we trust Bush or are we going to be "fooled twice"? If Bush is telling another big lie, as before, what are the real reasons he and his co-hearts want to attack Iran? Anyone care to speculate? Shell oil just signed a big contract with Iran for gas resources, is that a "clue"?

How about the Zionist lobby.

[fushigi]

Bush won't attack Iran, and here's why.

1. It would put the radicals in firm control of Iran's political system.

2. Iran's coastal defense--especially its endless number of missile batteries--would annihilate anything remotely American in the Gulf at the time.

3. al-Sadr would definitely go nuts in Iraq, encircling US forces.

4. The nuclear programs are widely dispersed and underground, making them nearly impossible to destroy all at once.

5. Support for Hezbollah would become open and full scale, putting Israel at a huge risk.

And many others. Check out the report from RAND, page 43 of this PDF:

Report

fushigi