PDA

View Full Version : If your friends Email you about the Bill O interview...




micahnelson
09-10-2007, 08:45 PM
The Factor is a crappy show about yelling. We can debate the merits of the wisdom of going on and getting yelled at to not getting yelled at and being unseen later.

This is how to answer Bill's line of questioning.

Assuming our intelligence is accurate, which is a major assumption to make considering our prewar intelligence...

Yes, Iran is funding terrorists in Iraq. This is only a problem for the Region. Iraq and Iran have been fighting for decades, so it is no more a national security issue in the United States today than it was 20 years ago.

Yes, Iran proved they could fight wars by supporting Hezbollah's attacks against Israel. It also proved some other things, mainly, Israel can handle itself. We don't need to babysit them over there. Strategically they have a superior army, and "The Bomb". They have said they will not allow a nuclear Iran. We don't have to worry about a nuclear Iran as long as Israel is there- because Israel faces a far greater threat from middle eastern terrorism than we do. They don't seem to believe there is a need for invasion, and no one could argue they are at less risk than we are.

And Finally, Iran has no serious military of which to speak. If they have "The Bomb" that would be worrisome, but we dont need troops in the theater to deal with an immediate threat. Our bombers can fly around the world. Our cruise missile armed submarines can be there in a moments notice.

If politicians were REALLY concerned with a threat from Iranian weapons, they would seal the borders and remove our troops from the region.

The strongest weapon Iran has against us at this time is suicide terrorism, and by leaving the region we neutralize it. Perhaps having Iran as a common enemy would unite the Iraqi people. No one can say, but its no longer our place to decide. Israel will stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. If we need to be there to knock a missile off a launch pad, we have the global reach to accomplish that task. Securing the border meets the threat of a nuclear hand-off to terrorist cells.

The best way to neutralize Iran is to allow the people to revolt against the unpopular leadership. That CANNOT happen if we are in the region, as our presence and continual threat is the only thing propping up the current administration in Tehran. The Iranians have a history of revolutions, and are very pro western. The just war doctrine doesn't mean we just use war to solve problems.

micahnelson
09-10-2007, 08:49 PM
Does anyone have a problem with this line of reasoning?

SewrRatt
09-10-2007, 08:52 PM
Does anyone have a problem with this line of reasoning?

It's not sufficiently stupid to be taken seriously in modern American politics?

freedomsoundmoney
09-10-2007, 08:55 PM
good points.

micahnelson
09-11-2007, 06:28 AM
good points.

Yeah, its hard to keep a level head when asked complicated questions by a hostile interrogator. There ARE answers, however. They just aren't really soundbytes.

apropos
09-11-2007, 06:32 AM
To those that would have us attack Iran, I would just add that we need to win the two conflicts we are in right now before even thinking about taking on another country. We're already borrowing millions of dollars from foreign countries to fund our current wars. All the while our bridges in Minnesota are collapsing. A two front war is never a good idea, but a three front war is lunacy. I don't care who the country is.

This is precisely why the founding fathers warned us against involving ourselves in international politics. You really set yourself up for no-win situations.

The question about Iraq (and even Iran) is: is it worth it? Is it worth the trouble, the soldiers, and the treasure it requires? Are our daily lives going to be so much better if and when we win outright?

micahnelson
09-11-2007, 06:54 AM
The question about Iraq (and even Iran) is: is it worth it? Is it worth the trouble, the soldiers, and the treasure it requires? Are our daily lives going to be so much better if and when we win outright?

I put my response on my blog in case you want to direct people that way:

http://www.micahnelson.com/?p=115

I completely agree, especially about the borrowing money issue. Since we are borrowing money for Iraq- and most people don't seem to care, I didn't use it as an argument against Iran.

Most hawks will say that it IS worth it if Iran gets a nuke. We should probably position the arguement around "What is the most effective way to prevent an Iranian nuclear detonation in a US city"? I would say that allowing Israel to deal with the nuclear threat, while defending our borders and keeping our rapid response military units at the ready is the best way to achieve this goal. What if they DO have a weapon? An invasion FORCES them to hand it off. We are safer letting Iran implode under the weight of an unpopular leader.

wsc321
09-11-2007, 07:10 AM
Great post! There are a number of other points O'Reilly argued (explicitly or implicitly):

1) That Iran only needs to acquire a single nuke and pass it off to "a surrogate" to threaten us.

1.2) That "mutually assured destruction" won't deter Iran

2) That Ron Paul was incorrect in the 10-year estimate for Iran acquiring a nuke. O'Reilly stated it was 5 years.

2.1) That Iran's timetable for getting a nuclear weapon would shorten (i.e. quicken) if we leave the region.


I don't have strong answers to any of this yet. Do you?

micahnelson
09-11-2007, 07:22 AM
1) It is true that Iran would pass off a nuke, but only under certain conditions. Building a nuke is an element of national pride. While Iran employs terrorists, they are very unlikely to give them their "greatest" weapon unless they are desperate. If they are under threat of immediate invasion they are much more likely to make the risky move of handing off a nuke. We should allow the political unrest to overthrow the government instead of our military. Military force would only galvanize the Iranians. Consider the leadup to the Iraq war. If they did have WMD they had plenty of time to cart them away- an Iranian Invasion would do the same. Handoffs are unlikely, unless we invade.

2) MAD won't likely deter the leadership, but it certainly puts a fire under those opposed to the Iranian government. It will motivate the rank and file Iranians who are young and VERY pro western.

3) Does it matter? 5-10 years? It doesn't really change our method of response.

4) There is no reason to believe this. Are we to believe that if we leave the region, Iran will invade Iraq, Destroy Israel, AND get their nuke faster? They are working on building the bomb as fast as possible. You have to assume that currently it is their singular focus. Leaving the area would make the citizens less likely to justify this military expenditure. They are being told they NEED the bomb because of the threat of US force. If that threat is greatly diminished, this mad rush to the bomb will become unpopular and harder to continue.

Hope those help.

micahnelson
09-11-2007, 07:24 AM
Oh... and another thing. This is an EARLY nuke. This isnt the suitcase nuke nightmare scenario. If they DID sneak it off to terrorists I see no way of them getting it to the US if we had remotely decent cargo searching and border security.

wsc321
09-11-2007, 07:38 AM
Yep - those are outstanding points. The only one I disagree with is the 5-10 year bit... my guess is it's enough of a time difference to matter strategically, but I'm more confident it matters in the world of debate (i.e. goes to credibility).

That aside, I particularly appreciated this point:

"MAD won't likely deter the leadership, but it certainly puts a fire under those opposed to the Iranian government. It will motivate the rank and file Iranians who are young and VERY pro western."

Also, in addition to everything in your point #4, just tactically it doesn't make sense to me that our presence deters acquisition of a nuke. What I hear our military discussing is bombing strategic locations - I'm no expert (not even close), but doesn't seem we need boots on the ground to accomplish that.

So net/net: unless we're missing something here, O'Reilly's fundamental arguments don't seem to be reasonable.

Feel free to copy my questions over to your blog if you are inclined. :)

micahnelson
09-11-2007, 07:57 AM
Sounds like a plan. Thanks!