Biden & Graham Debate Iraq: 1/7/07 on Meet the Press

[Art]

Iran has never invaded anyone and imo the constant references to them becoming a major threat to ME security is an exercise in transference by powers who have themselves between them invaded just about every country on the planet at least once. (Britain, Germany, France and the US)

Following it logically the fear is not if a country has nuclear weapons but rather would they use them and under what circumstances.

It would be interesting to see a poll on which country people in the world worry most would be the first since WW2 to use a nuclear weapon and so should be most feared having them. Personally my money would be on the US topping the poll because of the political and military ethos of 'the end justifies the means'

 

[EnumaElish]

It would be interesting to see a poll on which country people in the world worry most would be the first since WW2 to use a nuclear weapon and so should be most feared having them. Personally my money would be on the US topping the poll because of the political and military ethos of 'the end justifies the means'

The U.S. and Russia are mature nuclear powers. They placed and practiced control mechanisms over decades. They also developed powerful conventional tactical arsenals in part so that they will not have to use nuclear bombs. None of these can be said for the newbie nuclear powers; for them nuclear may be more of a practical, tactical option -- because their conventional forces are weak and have difficulty to deal with what the rest of the world throws at them, which scares me.

 

[BobG]

Iran has never invaded anyone and imo the constant references to them becoming a major threat to ME security is an exercise in transference by powers who have themselves between them invaded just about every country on the planet at least once. (Britain, Germany, France and the US)

Following it logically the fear is not if a country has nuclear weapons but rather would they use them and under what circumstances.

It would be interesting to see a poll on which country people in the world worry most would be the first since WW2 to use a nuclear weapon and so should be most feared having them. Personally my money would be on the US topping the poll because of the political and military ethos of 'the end justifies the means'

The U.S. and Russia are mature nuclear powers. They placed and practiced control mechanisms over decades. They also developed powerful conventional tactical arsenals in part so that they will not have to use nuclear bombs. None of these can be said for the newbie nuclear powers; for them nuclear may be more of a practical, tactical option -- because their conventional forces are weak and have difficulty to deal with what the rest of the world throws at them, which scares me.

I wouldn't say the US and USSR qualified as mature nuclear powers. Being the first, both were in uncharted territory in figuring out just how nuclear weapons would change the world. In a world where nuclear weapons are spreading to more and more countries, it's fair to say there's no guarantee each new nuclear power will come up with the same approaches the US & USSR did.

And, it is true that "constant references to them becoming a major threat to ME security is an exercise in transference". Just about every major power in the history of human civilization has proceeded to expand that power even further using military means. Are there reasons to expect Iran would be different? (Well, yes, because of the preceding paragraph, but how different and what does different look like and mean?)

Being the first nuclear powers, the US & USSR simply applied them more or less the same way every other power in world history has applied a military advantage with the exception that they recognized that the threat of nuclear weapons was even better than actuallly using them. In fact, topping a poll on the country "most likely to use nuclear weapons" is an asset. It reduces any opposition you get when you apply traditional military power.

If Iran or China find a better way to use nuclear weapons to their advantage or resist the temptation to try to expand their 'empire' militarily, then I guess they'd become the first truly modern superpowers (or else become examples of countries that let the opportunity to become a superpower pass them by). It's not a completely unreasonable possibility. The USSR nearly started backing out of its European buffer states once it had a functional nuclear weapons system. Austria started out the post-war years divided the same way as Germany (divided into US, USSR, UK, and French zones) and the USSR backed out of Austria. Then Hungary immediately started pushing for it's own independence and the USSR suddenly felt that backing out of the buffer states just made them look weak.

I think it's still entirely reasonable to be very worried about what a nuclear Iran would mean since the particulars are practically completely unknown and the only thing left to go on is a pretty bleak historical record of human history.

 

[EnumaElish]

See https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1487726&postcount=37. Now extrapolate.

I (tactically) rest my case.

 

[Art]

See https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1487726&postcount=37. Now extrapolate.

I (tactically) rest my case.

Yes, if Iran had nuclear weapons too Israel wouldn't be contemplating nuking them.

 

[EnumaElish]

Yes, if Iran had nuclear weapons too Israel wouldn't be contemplating nuking them.

That's beside my point, which is "relatively recent nuclear military powers have a relatively higher probability of using those weapons."

 

[Art]

That's beside my point, which is "relatively recent nuclear military powers have a relatively higher probability of using those weapons."

If Israel uses bunker buster nuclear bombs then it will be because the US supplied them to her specifically for this purpose.

 

[Astronuc]

F.B.I. Says Guards Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/world/middleeast/14blackwater.html
By DAVID JOHNSTON and JOHN M. BRODER

F.B.I. agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians found that all but three of the shootings were unjustified.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — Federal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case.

The F.B.I. investigation into the shootings in Baghdad is still under way, but the findings, which indicate that the company’s employees recklessly used lethal force, are already under review by the Justice Department.

Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to seek indictments, and some officials have expressed pessimism that adequate criminal laws exist to enable them to charge any Blackwater employee with criminal wrongdoing. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the F.B.I. declined to discuss the matter.

The case could be one of the first thorny issues to be decided by Michael B. Mukasey, who was sworn in as attorney general last week. He may be faced with a decision to turn down a prosecution on legal grounds at a time when a furor has erupted in Congress about the administration’s failure to hold security contractors accountable for their misdeeds.

Representative David E. Price, a North Carolina Democrat who has sponsored legislation to extend American criminal law to contractors serving overseas, said the Justice Department must hold someone accountable for the shootings.

“Just because there are deficiencies in the law, and there certainly are,” Mr. Price said, “that can’t serve as an excuse for criminal actions like this to be unpunished. I hope the new attorney general makes this case a top priority. He needs to announce to the American people and the world that we uphold the rule of law and we intend to pursue this.”

Investigators have concluded that as many as five of the company’s guards opened fire during the shootings, at least some with automatic weapons. Investigators have focused on one guard, identified as “turret gunner No. 3,” who fired a large number of rounds and was responsible for several fatalities.

Very sad.

 

[LightbulbSun]

So is it really doomsday yet? Is our survival rate as a species down to 40% currently? How legit of a nuclear threat is Iran and North Korea right now? I don't mean to turn a political thread into a philosophical one, but is it reasonable to think that nuclear fallout is inevitable and that we're doomed as species? Cause quite frankly, I'm pretty scared about nuclear fallout.

 

[chemisttree]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/12/iraq/main3489316.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_3489316"

Last month saw 369 "indirect fire" attacks - the lowest number since February 2006. October's total was half of what it was in the same month a year ago. And it marked the third month in a row of sharply reduced insurgent activity, the military said.

The U.S. command issued the tallies a day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said suicide attacks and other bombings in Baghdad also have dropped dramatically, calling it an end of sectarian violence.

Things are looking up.

Total rocket and mortar attacks rose steadily from 808 in January 2007 to a peak of 1,032 in June, before falling over the next four months, a U.S. military statement said Monday. That decline also was seen in Baghdad, where such attacks rose from 139 in January to 224 in June, and then fell to only 53 attacks in October, it said.

The Iraqi spokesman for a U.S.-Iraqi push to pacify the capital said the decline in violence would allow the government to reopen 10 roads later this month.

"This will help reduce traffic jams and citizens will feel life returning to normal," Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi told Iraqi state television.

Associated Press figures show a sharp drop in the number of U.S. and Iraqi deaths across the country in the past few months. The number of Iraqis who met violent deaths dropped from at least 1,023 in September to at least 905 in October, according to an AP count.

The number of American military deaths fell from 65 to at least 39 over the same period.

Before the arrival of nearly 30,000 U.S. reinforcements this past spring, explosions shook Baghdad daily - sometimes hourly. Mortar and rocket fire were frequent as was the rhythm of gunfire.

"If we didn't have so many people coming forward to help, I'd think this is a flash in the pan. But that's just not the case." - Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, U.S. Commander south of Baghdad

Now the sounds of warfare are rare. American troops have set up small outposts in some of the capital's most dangerous enclaves. Locals previously lukewarm to the presence of U.S. soldiers patrol alongside them. And a historic lane on the eastern banks of the Tigris is set to reopen later this year, lined with seafood restaurants and an art gallery.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of U.S. forces south of the capital, said Sunday he believed the decrease would hold, because of what he called a "groundswell" of support from regular Iraqis.

It sounds as if we are winning hearts and minds. Don't you just love it when a plan comes together (finally)?

 

[Yonoz]

This could be artificial - I'd wait and see what happens in the few weeks before the US elections.

 

[vanesch]

but is it reasonable to think that nuclear fallout is inevitable and that we're doomed as species? Cause quite frankly, I'm pretty scared about nuclear fallout.

The fallout from Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the several tens of atmospheric nuclear weapon tests in the 50-ies and 60-ies is far more important than what would result from a few weapons from Iran or N-Korea, and contributes as of now to about 0.1-0.5% of the background radiation (the 99% remaining is natural background). A few nuclear weapons would only have regional impact. So no, we're not doomed yet because of that.

 

[chemisttree]

This could be artificial - I'd wait and see what happens in the few weeks before the US elections.

Now that would truly be artificial!

 

[chemisttree]

So is it really doomsday yet? Is our survival rate as a species down to 40% currently? How legit of a nuclear threat is Iran and North Korea right now? I don't mean to turn a political thread into a philosophical one, but is it reasonable to think that nuclear fallout is inevitable and that we're doomed as species? Cause quite frankly, I'm pretty scared about nuclear fallout.

I would be more worried about the heat and pressure wave effects...

 

[Yonoz]

Now that would truly be artificial!

I don't get it.

 

[chemisttree]

I don't get it.

What isn't to get? The good numbers have been rolling in for 3 months now. You say that situation might be artificial? And not something done immediately before an election aimed at influencing the result? I argue that that short term goal (if it comes to pass) is the artificial situation instead.

 

[Yonoz]

There's a while before the elections, people have a short memory span.
If someone can bring in figures not just relating to numbers of attacks but to the underlying infrastructure, such as a tonnage of intercepted weapons and munitions, the picture can be made clearer.
EDIT: By artificial I meant the "good numbers" aren't necessarily the result of effective action by coalition forces. There are alternative causes.

 

[chemisttree]

There's a while before the elections, people have a short memory span.
If someone can bring in figures not just relating to numbers of attacks but to the underlying infrastructure, such as a tonnage of intercepted weapons and munitions, the picture can be made clearer.
EDIT: By artificial I meant the "good numbers" aren't necessarily the result of effective action by coalition forces. There are alternative causes.

Blah, blah, blah... WHAT? Perhaps they should also bring in figures related to tonnage of oranges delivered or numbers of art galleries opened or hours of continuous electrical service provided or numbers of Iraqis out at night as well? Yes, let us study this in detail...

 

[Yonoz]

Yes, let us study this in detail...

I would imagine a war in which your compatriots are fighting is good reason for doing so, but they're your compatriots (I assume), not mine. I was merely speculating anyway.

 

[t-money]

I find it interesting that people with little understanding of military affairs and lack the proper information believe they can actually input a reasonable strategy to deal with Iraq. This is a complex issue that very intelligent people are working on, besides liberal media portrays this very dark and negative outlook on Iraq, check out the BBC they have a slightly brighter view on the war of Iraq, at least on the planned troop surge effectiveness.

 

[mheslep]

September 19, 2007
Migration Reshapes Iraq’s Sectarian Landscape
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/world/middleeast/19displaced.html
By JAMES GLANZ and ALISSA J. RUBIN

This may be the unfortunate legacy of the Bush administration and it will be a sore spot to many Iraqis and many in the Middle East for decades to come. Of course, the US will get the blame.

I was listening to interviews with young men in Jordan, and they are angry at the US. Al Qaida and other groups are using that anger to encourage a continuing jihad against the west, although the focus seems to be on the US.

"Iraqi officials say thousands of refugees return home"

Some 46,000 Iraqi refugees returned to their war-torn country last month, a sign of hope that the massive population flight since the 2003 U.S. invasion could be reversed

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/07/iraq.main/

 

[Plastic Photon]

wars are not won and fought because joe bizzle was elected el jefe of the name-the-section of the government. von clauseqitz says war is policy by other means, but america's action against iraq was proof that there is an international law. there is an international judge, jury and executioner.

 

[BobG]

... america's action against iraq was proof that there is an international law. there is an international judge, jury and executioner.

Whichever country is most powerful is judge, jury, and executioner?

In that case, I guess it's a good thing the US is the most powerful. If the judge, jury, and executioner were of some other culture than ours, we probably wouldn't have a very high opinion of international law.

In fact, that's pretty much the definition of lawlessness, not law.

Your logic really comes unglued. The international community imposed sanctions on Iraq and established requirements Iraq had to meet. Iraq didn't adequately comply with international law since they didn't meet all the requirements spelled out in the sanctions against them. The international community (the jury) decided the violations weren't serious enough to warrant military action at this time. The US didn't feel the sentence was severe enough, so the US imposed its own verdict in place of the verdict the international community passed.

Saying that is an example of international law is about equivalent to a jury sentencing a criminal to 2 years in prison when the prosecutor thinks the sentence should be death - and then the prosecutor pulling out a gun and shooting the criminal himself.

 

[chemisttree]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/chi-iraq_slynov19,0,4327007.story"

Attacks in Iraq have fallen 55 percent, to a level not seen since January 2006. Violence has fallen in some areas to its lowest levels since the summer of 2005. The number of Iraqi civilian casualties has fallen 65 percent, and Baghdad has witnessed a 75 percent drop since June.

Its looking better and better.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16452549"

Morning Edition, November 20, 2007 · Nine months after the start of the U.S. troop surge in Baghdad, signs of life are slowly returning to some neighborhoods of the Iraqi capital. In the Sunni enclave of Amriya on the west side of the city, shops are reopening, and the economy is picking up.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=22970"

BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has gone on a rare walkabout in central Baghdad in the latest sign of the improving security situation in the war-ravaged Iraqi capital.

During his stroll around the landmark Abu Nuwas street, Maliki inspected newly-renovated gardens and chatted to residents and young soccer players, the premier's office said on Tuesday.

Maliki was accompanied by Interior Minister Jawad Bolani and other senior officials on Monday's tour of the riverside Abu Nuwas, named after a renowned poet and once Baghdad's most prominent street.

The premier, dressed in a suit, was surrounded by bodyguards and the area around Abu Nuwas was sealed off during the tour, a security official said.

More than four years of violence has virtually closed the once-bustling street, with its lines of cinema halls, restaurants and shops now standing empty and deserted.

But Baghdad municipal authorities are now reviving Abu Nuwas and have already given the gardens a makeover.

Baghdadis are slowly returning to the gardens and officials say they expect shops to start reopening soon.

 

[chemisttree]

Whichever country is most powerful is judge, jury, and executioner?

In that case, I guess it's a good thing the US is the most powerful. If the judge, jury, and executioner were of some other culture than ours, we probably wouldn't have a very high opinion of international law.

In fact, that's pretty much the definition of lawlessness, not law.

Your logic really comes unglued. The international community imposed sanctions on Iraq and established requirements Iraq had to meet. Iraq didn't adequately comply with international law since they didn't meet all the requirements spelled out in the sanctions against them. The international community (the jury) decided the violations weren't serious enough to warrant military action at this time. The US didn't feel the sentence was severe enough, so the US imposed its own verdict in place of the verdict the international community passed.

Saying that is an example of international law is about equivalent to a jury sentencing a criminal to 2 years in prison when the prosecutor thinks the sentence should be death - and then the prosecutor pulling out a gun and shooting the criminal himself.

I think his point was that the US deems itself the Law, Judge, Jury and Executioner.

 

[Plastic Photon]

The US dollar is our foreign policy, and any nation holding the US dollar should know by now they are declaring their affairs to be inline with US policy or else suffer the consequences. Obviously something Saddam or some in Iraq did was not sitting well with the US policy at the time. It would seem now that care has been taken.

 

[chemisttree]

How do you deal with Terrorists? #1, Don't Run!

Quote from http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/desires-of-the-human-heart-part-ii.htm" reportage of the early phase of the Surge.

The Iraqi commanders tend to want to tell Americans what they think. Video from this meeting was instructive. The Iraqi Police Colonel conveyed his ideas on how to handle terrorists. Idea number #1: Don’t run.

One police station nearby had just been flattened days before, and he said the station had become a graveyard, and he had walked amid the carnage. As this meeting progressed, a sharp firefight could be heard going on nearby.

What to do about Iraq? How about "Don't Run?"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No one is talking about running - that is a strawman and an example of why I don't trust the Republicans anymore and probably never will again. The goal is to turn control over to the local authorities. They need to run their own country.

I have been very encouraged by some of the recent reports coming from Iraq. Bob Gates is a good man.

 

[WheelsRCool]

No one is talking about running - that is a strawman and an example of why I don't trust the Republicans anymore and probably never will again. The goal is to turn control over to the local authorities. They need to run their own country.

I have been very encouraged by some of the recent reports coming from Iraq. Bob Gates is a good man.

True, but withdrawal too soon would lead to disaster. Remember, Iraq is a counter-insurgency war and on average, those last about ten to twenty years to complete.

Also, we do not want Ahmedinejad to go in and take over the place.

 

[Astronuc]

True, but withdrawal too soon would lead to disaster. Remember, Iraq is a counter-insurgency war and on average, those last about ten to twenty years to complete.

Yeah - just look at the success in Vietnam!

 

[Skyhunter]

Also, we do not want Ahmedinejad to go in and take over the place.

Ahmadinejad is not even in control of Iran. He is just a politician, Iran is ruled by a theocracy.

Here is an interview with http://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/20927/stephanie-miller-show/recent" He says Iraq is going to go away next year, because the Iranians want a quiet spell.

He always has great insight.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The other issue is that if this region is so critical to the entire ME, then everyone has an interest in keeping things under control as much as possible.

So then why is just about everyone else leaving? Maybe this is just a matter of getting rid of Bush and his cowboy diplomacy.

Of course this goes right back to the other paradox: If the very future of our way of life is on the line, then where is the draft?

Sometimes I do have a hard time deciding which lie to believe.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Btw, Gates can at any moment tell you how long he has remaining as Sec of Defense. He is counting the hours. I can't say that I blame him either.

 

[baywax]

Any political, cultural or industrial concerns about the Iraqi people and their natural resources can only be addressed by becoming an Iraqi citizen or by serving as a desirable model at home.
Any other methods of influencing outcomes in that country are undemocratic, interventionist and will be and are met with heavy, unrelenting resistance. "Surprise surprise" said Pvt. Pile.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Yeah - just look at the success in Vietnam!

Vietnam was not any counter-insurgency war. It was a one year war that was fought about ten times over. The entire thing could've been won easily within one year, without any need whatsoever for the draft. The reason Vietnam was lost was because of the politicians. It's kind of hard to win a war when the government tells you you can't bomb the enemy.

When the U.S. finally DID bomb the enemy, the North Vietnamese suddenly turned to wanting to negotiate again. Had they just done that back in 1965, when the U.S. won the war in the Idrang Valley, the WHOLE THING, all those dead Northern Vietnamese, Southern Vietnamese, and American soldiers, could have been avoided completely.

For Iraq to be like Vietnam, George Bush would literally have to have ordered the military to invade Iraq and specifically prohobited them from bombing any of Saddam Hussein's infrastructure or military.

The President no longer has this authority, and when the Gulf War happened, the military went in and did it their way, the way they should've done it in Vietnam, which was to completely destroy the enemy's infrastructure and military, then invade.

They did it again with the current War in Iraq, but it is now a counter-insurgency war, which are fought a bit differently.

The French Revolution was ten years. The Chinese Communist Revolution lasted twenty-three years. The American Revolutionary War was about eight years. The Protestant-Catholic Thirty Years War lasted, well, as the title says. Counter-insurgency wars tend to take longer than conventional wars, which last over average about four years.

The other issue is that if this region is so critical to the entire ME, then everyone has an interest in keeping things under control as much as possible.

So then why is just about everyone else leaving?

Because keeping the Middle East under control is not as important to the Chinese or Russians. They would prefer the Middle Eastern dictatorships control the region, not have the United States have any influence in the area. Those countries do not want a strong United States.

Maybe this is just a matter of getting rid of Bush and his cowboy diplomacy.

They tried ordinary diplomacy with Saddam Hussein and it didn't work. The United States had plenty of reason to invade Iraq. I agree though that it was rather ridiculous to just invade and not consider that anarchy would break out with all authority gone and no police.

Of course this goes right back to the other paradox: If the very future of our way of life is on the line, then where is the draft?

Sometimes I do have a hard time deciding which lie to believe.

Because the government forced a social experiment on the United States military that involved forcing it to accept women into all sorts of positions, for equality. If they enact the draft, it will have to include equal numbers of men and women.

The only kicker is that the point of a draft would be for troops needed for combat purposes to police the country, something women cannot do.

A draft would create a whole bunch of crazy adverse affects in the country right now. If they could just draft men, things would be different, but they cannot.

Also, no politician has the guts to even try something like this right now. Politicians tend to put themselves before the country.