"The use of force against Iran is only an absolute last resort."

[rpgamerd00d]

Define "Last Resort".

What is "Last Resort" to you. What is your definition of when you'd go to war.

[leftchick]

1. kinda like

the last resort in March 2003. :(

[fasttense]

3. Yup, just like Iraq. n/t

[USA_1]

2. One Has To Hope That The World ...

won't soon start to say that about Bush's evil imperialism. After all, appeasement never works and eventually they will get tired of this type of Hitlerian aggression.

[tyedyeto]

4. Since you have the OP title in quotes.....

Who said that? When?

[Nite Owl]

7. Steny Hoyer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3066433

[stillcool]

5. 9/11?

Global Research, February 22, 2006
Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

While the "threat" of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This "contingency plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.

The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of readiness".
What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a "state of readiness"?

Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer, February 2006 )

Keefer concludes that "an attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian agents" (Keefer, February 2006 )

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArti...
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.
Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of nuclear war

[Robbien]

6. Pre-emptive bombing is always wrong.

In all pre-emptive situations.

The statement

"The use of force against Iran as only an absolute last resort."

is assinine.

Why not

"The use of force against New Zealand as only an absolute last resort."

?

Makes as much sense as the first statement.

[rpgamerd00d]

8. So, even if conclusive evidence existed that they were building nukes...

... you wouldn't go to war?

Got it.

[Robbien]

9. We were told there was conclusive evidence Iraq was building nukes

Everyone said so.

Pre-emptive bombing is wrong. Got it?

[rpgamerd00d]

13. OK, so when would you go to war?

A) When Iran is building the nuclear warheads
B) When Iran is aiming the nuclear warheads
C) When Iran has fired the nuclear warheads

[walldude]

16. When Iran has fired the Nukes. Period.

Of course after I proved to them that I could and would turn their entire country into a sheet of glass in less than an hours time, I doubt they would be stupid enough to risk firing off a nuke, no matter what country they threatened to destroy. You do know that Mutually Assured Destruction has worked and continues to work right? In spite of what the media and government want you to believe, this conflict is about oil. It has nothing to do with religion, Iran's posturing is no different than Pat Robertson's they use religion to whip up a frenzy in their sheep, however the motivation is not religion but money.

Let me ask you a question. If Iran was able to retaliate, if Iran had enough nukes to wipe us off the map, do you think the Neo-Cons would be so quick to want to attack them?

[treestar]

26. When did we go to war against the USSR?

When they are at point B there is a stalemate.

[walldude]

36. Did you sleep during the cold war?

MAD assured that we wouldn't go to war with Russia. It will do the same with Iran.

[rpgamerd00d]

40. Incorrect. Ahmadinejad doesn't care. The USSR did.

Ahmadinejad is willing to risk it if he can wipe out Israel.

[High Plains]

43. Any evidence for that strange opinion?

[rpgamerd00d]

44. Ahmadinejad own words.

[walldude]

60. Bullshit, he is not willing to risk his life and his country

to make good on a religious posturing threat. Like I said he's no different than any religious wack job here. And if you think there weren't crazy people who didn't give a shit in Russia during the cold war then you might be a little too young to remember Kruscheve banging his shoe on the table screaming that they will bury us.

[treestar]

66. Why would he try that when it could well have the same result?

The US would bomb him as if they had been bombed themselves.

What good is wiping out Israel to a country no longer there? Iran would be blown off the map in return.

[treestar]

65. Right. So if they got nukes, Iran would be like Russia or China or

North Korea - we would not dare nuke them, because they would retaliate.

We invaded Iraq precisely because they had WMD. If Chimpy really thought they had them, we wouldn't dare.

If Iran had them, they might nuke Israel must be the fear, but Israel has nukes too, so what would be the point?

[The Stranger]

10. Correct. "Conclusive evidence" (boy, we've heard that before) does not justify preemptive attacks.

It would not be in the U.S. national interest to attack Iran even if there were "conclusive evidence" (cue the tape of the Neonazicons Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and their thousand lies about WMD) Iran was building a weapon.

[rpgamerd00d]

14. Ah, so you would watch an enemy fleet sail to America and...

... would not attack it until it fired first then?

Got it. No positions of authority for you.

:eyes:

[walldude]

17. So using that logic you then think that it would prudent for Iran

to start bombing the fleet we have parked out in the gulf?

[The Stranger]

21. You set up a laughable little "enemy fleet" strawman/scenario and then answer with a smiley face?

At least TRY to engage the issues first.

[Beelzebud]

22. Let me know when the Iranian fleet sets sail....

Until then it's just Iraq II: The Sequel.

Pre-emptive war a.k.a. The Bush Doctrine is mass insanity.

[treestar]

30. And when they are landing on the soil of the US

we find out they want green cards rather than to invade!

IA with you, OP is living in the 19 century.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

28. So, are you saying that...

the act of Iran building nukes alone is cause enough for us to go to war? I just want to be crystal clear on what you are saying.

[Imagevision]

15. Pre-emptive Nuclear bombing is always wrong, Bush has said that he would

do what no other president, Republican Or Democrat would have the nerve to do and that is to launch a nuclear attack against Iran.

[bdamomma]

33. because bush is a sick bastard, he would rather blow people

up than talk to them.

[Junkdrawer]

11. Bush is refusing serious negotiations and it seems only a few ...

are calling him on it.

Flynt Leverett's redacted NYT OP-ED

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22leverett.html?ex=1168405200&en=c208ab9cfb77e949&ei=5070

[cool user name]

12. Where did I hear that one before ...

... oh, wait. :eyes:

[BlueStorm]

18. So where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah, before the Iraq war.

I have a feeling lots of people are going to be pissedif President Asshead decides to strike against Iran.

Then it will be "Welcome to WW3"

Blue

[sakabatou]

19. Didn't they say that same thing about Iraq?

Hmm....

[rpgamerd00d]

20. What "they" ? I asked you.

[sakabatou]

72. I think it was someone in the * admin

[rpgamerd00d]

23. It sounds to me like everyone on this board would wait to be attacked with a nuke

before acting in the defense of the US.

This is.... appalling and disgraceful.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

25. How old are you?

Are you old enough to remember a little something called the Cuban missile crisis?

Our world was on the verge of a potential nuclear war -- thankfully, cooler heads on all sides prevailed and we were spared that nightmare.

Imagine what would have happened if Kennedy had rashly decided to "preemptively" take out the missiles that were on the ground in Cuba? How would have the Soviet Union responded? And how would we have responded to their response?

Nuclear Chicken is very serious game.

IF Iran ever developed nuclear weapons, and IF Iran ever had the delivery capability, do you think that Iran would still be stupid enough to attempt a nuke attack on the US knowing that within 24 hours their entire country would be a footnote in the history books? Do you honestly think they are that suicidal??? Because you have to believe that to justify a preemptive attack on Iran. And you better be fucking ready for the fallout -- no pun intended -- if you were wrong.

The only think I find appalling and disgracful around here is some people's unwillingness to recognize and respect the line between defense and aggression.

[Beelzebud]

29. Well said!

[bdamomma]

35. there was diplomatic conversation back then, not with PNAC/neocons

maniacs they would rather blow a country up. Sick bastards they are.

[rpgamerd00d]

38. So, you're saying Castro and Ahmadinejad are the same?

Im pretty sure I never heard Castro say "Israel must be wiped off the map".

You are pretty naive.

[LanternWaste]

41. It's about as sane as Kruschev saying, "We will bury you."

It's about as sane as Kruschev saying, "We will bury you" while banging his shoe on the table.


One must always be on the lookout for the critical differences between political sanity and mere posturing.


Edited: response in reply to post #39

[Beelzebud]

61. You are the one who is naive. The name for this strategy is The Bush Doctrine.

You know, that guy you have looking like the devil in your sig line.

There is a reason he is hated by many: Pre-Emptive war doctrine, a.k.a. The Bush Doctrine

You're making the same arguments William Kristol and neo-conservatives make.

[rpgamerd00d]

62. No I'm not. Not even close.

You're just choosing to read the parts you want to read, while ignoring the others.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

63. This "quote" is a mistranslation.

Ahmadinejad never actually said this. Juan Cole had a take on it, but I have not looked yet for the cite. It appears that Ahmadinejad rather stated his belief that Israel will be wiped from the map of history.

Of course he is a fundie nutcase, but in this particvular case his words have been mischaracterized.

[windbreeze]

34. This discussion is amazing...

no other way to say it....pre-emptive attacks on another country IS IRRESPONSIBLE.....we are NOT the only people on this planet with functional nukes...our incursion into Iraq and Afghanistan has caused some of those others to wake up and take stock of their own situations...and update their military because of it...Do we feel a need to piss off the world??? what is it we do NOT seem to understand...???Do we expect them to standby and watch as we take forcible control? Do WE want a nuclear holocaust?? We all have to LIVE on this planet...and as far as I know, it IS the only planet we have to live on...sheesh!!

To me, your opinion about attacking first is appalling and disgraceful...but maybe I just prefer being dead right...instead of dead wrong...
wb

[Hell Hath No Fury]

24. If and when Iran attempts to invade us --

or take direct military action against us, or declares war against us. Then and only then then. Isn't that how it usually works with with responsible countries? :shrug:

[rpgamerd00d]

39. So, Ahmadinejad saying "Israel must be wiped off the map" is sane, to you?

You think Ahmadinejad can be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and then only once he uses them should we attack?

Wow.

[oblivious]

42. Your substitution of 'must' for 'will is interesting.

[rpgamerd00d]

46. There is no difference between the two words in meaning in this context

[oblivious]

47. "Israel will soon collapse, says Ahmadinejad"

Israel will soon collapse, says Ahmadinejad
Jan 9, 2007

TEHRAN: Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a new verbal attack against Israel on Wednesday, saying he believed it would soon collapse, state media reported.

Ahmadinejad, who has sparked international outcry by referring to the killing of six million Jews in World War Two as a “myth” and calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map”, made the comments in a speech in the southern province of Khuzestan.

“I’m sure that soon we will observe the collapse of the Zionist regime (Israel),” the official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying, without elaborating. “The Holocaust was fabricated by the West in order to reach its goals,” state television quoted him as saying.

Last month, he told delegates at an international conference in Tehran questioning the Holocaust that Israel’s days were numbered: “Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.” reuters
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C01%5C05%5Cstory_5-1-2007_pg4_14

[rpgamerd00d]

48. Iranian leader: Wipe out Israel

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/

"Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, who said that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

64. AGAIN - a mistranslation.

[Lurking Dem]

50. "Death to Israel!"

"Today, all the peoples have awoken. The Iranian people is the standard-bearer of this awakening for all the peoples. As we can see, from the southernmost point in South America to the easternmost point in Asia, all the people are shouting a single cry. With placards in their hands and clenched fists, they shout: Death to Israel."

Crowd: Death to Israel.


"Death to Israel."

http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S2#

[oblivious]

53. I have no idea what your link is supposed to show.

[rpgamerd00d]

54. Here is a better link to the same thing.

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1216

And a related link here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm

[Lurking Dem]

58. Thanks, rpgamer.

The clip I was trying to post was for #1222.

[Lurking Dem]

57. Sorry 'bout that!

[paparush]

27. Did we gunship Somalia as a last resort?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Wars, at least in modern times, have always been justified as a "last resort".

One example:

The Führer to the German People: 22 June 1941

I was forced by circumstances to keep silent in the past. Now the moment has come when further silence would be not only be a sin, but a crime against the German people, against all Europe.

Today, about 160 Russian divisions stand at our border. There have been steady border violations for weeks, and not only on our border, but in the far north, and also in Rumania. Russian pilots make a habit of ignoring the border, perhaps to show us that they already feel as if they are in control.

During the night of 17-18 June, Russian patrols again crossed the German border and could only be repelled after a long battle.

Now the hour has come when it is necessary to respond to his plot by Jewish-Anglo-Saxon warmongers and the Jewish rulers of Moscow’s Bolshevist headquarters.

German people!

At this moment, an attack unprecedented in the history of the world in its extent and size has begun. With Finnish comrades, the victors of Narvik stand by the Arctic Sea. German divisions, under the command of the conqueror of Norway, together with the heroes of Finland’s freedom and their marshal, defend Finnish soil. On the Eastern Front, German formations extend from East Prussia to the Carpathians. From the banks of the Pruth River, from the lower Danube to the Black Sea, German and Romanian soldiers are united under state leader Atonescu.

The purpose of this front is no longer the protection of the individual nations, rather the safety of Europe, and therefore the salvation of everyone.

I have therefore decided today once again to put the fate of Germany and the future of the German Reich and our people in the hands of our soldiers.

May God help us in this battle

For the full speech, here's the link: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hitler4.htm

[bdamomma]

32. your embelm says it all, that is what exactly bush is

last resort, didn't they say the same thing about Iraq.

[Reterr]

37. Whatever the idiot child i.e. the commander in chief

decides it is...
Effectively at any rate :(

[dogday]

45. "Last Resort" Translation= We are going to War..... nt

[ieoeja]

49. So when are you going to answer your own question?

You're quick to deride anyone who believes that we should only act based on others actions instead of their words. But we have yet to hear what you would call last resort.

So pony up! Your public is dying to know.

[rpgamerd00d]

51. OK.

You know all that bullshit Bush tried to make people believe was true about Iraq?
You know, that Saddam had WMDs and a WMD program, and was collaborating with terrorists?
You know, the blatent lies?

Imagine it was all 100% true.

That is my definition of "Last Resort". A real (not lie) threat from a real (not fake) terrorist group/terrorist-supporting government getting a hold of real (not a lie) WMDs.

You know, like Iran.

[oblivious]

55. OK, you advocate attacking Iran because it is "a real terrorist group...getting hold of real WMDs".

I'm glad we got that straight.

Words fail me.

[rpgamerd00d]

59. I advocate no such thing.

I advocate diplomacy and international sanctions and pressure to keep Iran from developing Nukes.

And...

... if they ignore all that and do it anyway, then we need to attack first before they perform their first test.

[ieoeja]

56. A few years ago I would have agreed with you.

I was on a jury once. A (Mexican) couple were sideswiped by a (Anglo) person's car that ran a light. Nobody disputed those facts.

One person in the plaintiff's car claimed nerve damage. He produced expert medical testimony to that effect while the defense produced ... nothing. The defense countered all the evidence presented by the plaintiff with the defense attorney saying something along the lines of, "but he doesn't look injured to me".

Nine (Anglo) people on the jury voted for the defense. Three (2 African-Americans and me) voted for the plaintiff. Our stated reasons for voting for the plaintiff:

1. Juror #1 - "I don't believe the plaintiff would have gone to trial if he wasn't really injured."
2. Juror #2 - "I think the plaintiff is faking it, but was probably conned into doing so by his attorney, and I don't think he should be saddled with the fees of a crooked attorney."
3. Me - "100% of the evidence was for the plaintiff."

This is a lot like that jury trial. Iraq (see points 1 and 2 above) was so patently wrong that nobody wants to hear about Iran (point 3).


Actually, it is worse than that. Because at this time I am all for acquital.

I believe Iran is guilty as charged. I can readily cite a timeline of Islamic Republican expansionism beginning with the Iranian Revolution. I petitioned for military intervention against the monsters in Afghanistan back in the late 90s. Yet, I can not support any action against Iran at this time because the United States, thanks to Iraq, now lacks the credibility.

Trusting us to take care of Iran is like trusting a crooked cop to get the real criminals. 90% of the time a crooked cop really does go after real criminals. But you don't ignore that 10% and let him keep his badge and gun.

So today my definition for "last resort" is an actual attempted attack by Iran.

[Nutmegger]

52. No to all preemptive war

That applied to Iraq and now to Iran.

[ddbaj]

67. Ahmadinejad is not the commander in chief or head of state...

of Iran. Why does his rhetoric matter so much?

[Rex]

68. Only for self-defence.

To Bush it means the first option!

[killbotfactory]

69. We heard that before

About the time when Bush cut short inspections, bypassed the UN, tried to bomb Saddam before the cut-off date for surrender, and then finally invaded.

[Imagevision]

70. This is an obvious indication on how stupid the government thinks this public is !!!

[Marie26]

71. Self-defense

When we are directly attacked by another country, or an imminent attack is coming. That's the standard under international law, and that's what the US needs to follow.