• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bad idea on part of Netanyahu. Drawing a "red line"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
How is this clown Israel's leader? You see in serious countries when the clown gets off the stage with the same tired act again and again...a group of people give the clown the gold watch. Thanks for what you've done sir, but I think we gonna go with someone else. Thanks a bunch. Buh..buh, bye. Buh-bye!
 
stupidity on the left is overwhelming in this thread.

Once Iran has nukes and uses them, what the fuck will they say?

so sry.
 
Farang said:
How'd all the red lines drawn up in treaties turn out during World War I.. nobody could save face, and millions dead for "honor"
Click to expand...

how did your talking working out with WII?

hmm, all that talking and diplomacy resulted in what?

i missed the chapter of never ending peace.
 
IF Iran gets nukes; they will have the leverage to FORCE their policies on their neighbors; they will have the bigger stick.

Given that Iran provides support to Syria and the Palestinians/Hamas/Hezbollah that are at war and attacking Israel; what is there to stop them from allowing the anti to be upped.

Dirty weapons can be provided; after all the world does not care about Israel concerns.
How are they going to be traced back to Iran after washing through two or three groups.

After all, Iran would not have nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:
michal1980 said:
come back and talk when you have a brain.
Click to expand...

Look, I found you on the internet!

Moran.jpg
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Once upon a time there was a war. Sometimes there were those who spoke bravely as you do. So ready to take the fight to the enemy without a moments thought or hesitation. They were usually the first to fill a body bag.

Child, you do not understand of what you speak. Certainly you would be unwelcome in any planning session since you have no discernment concerning bravery or wise use of resources or an awareness of the complexities and subtleties of international affairs. You demonstrate your usefulness as cannon fodder, but I'd hold off on sending your resume to the Army War College.
Click to expand...

Heh, so true. The problem with applying the "appeasement didn't work with Hitler" is that it's very difficult if not impossible to apply what ONE person in the past did with another singular leader in the present, there's simply too many variables and personality quirks to factor in. What most historians try to do is to see what MASSES of people have done in the past, it's somewhat easier to figure out what the mob as a whole will do generally then what each individual will do.
 
ElFenix said:
there is no situation in which iran doesn't win. unless the ayatollahs are truly crazy, which i don't think they are.

if israel bombs iran first, iran wins
if the US bombs iran first, iran wins
if neither the US or israel bomb iran, iran gets the bomb, which almost ensures that neither israel or the US bomb iran. iran wins.

the only way iran doesn't win is if iran goes and uses the bomb. i just don't think they're that crazy. the world would be against them.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't believe that the USA will support a military endeavor to prevent the nuclear program from happening, the lives and money that we've spent in Iraq and Afganistan will hopefully make us more cautious now.
And trying to view it from Iran's position, perhaps they view a nuke as a deterrent to a foreign power putting boots on their soil. Not that I agree with it or want them to have nuclear weapons, trying to see it from their vantage point and watched their neighbors being invaded recently...
 
Jaskalas said:
The whole world knows they have a nuclear program and are enriching Uranium. Iran even says as much. There's nothing for you to deny except the UN's report of how far along Iran is.

Attacking Netanyahu's credibility is a deflection. You have to attack the UN's credibility.
Click to expand...

Its not a deflection to point out the NEOCon has been banging the drum since the 90s.

How far Iran is from an actual weapon is very debatable. Im sure if the United states felt the way Netanyahu did they would have taken out facilities.
 
Jaskalas said:
The whole world knows they have a nuclear program and are enriching Uranium. Iran even says as much. There's nothing for you to deny except the UN's report of how far along Iran is.

Attacking Netanyahu's credibility is a deflection. You have to attack the UN's credibility.
Click to expand...

The only possible satisfactory resolution would be to accept LEU processes and technologies which the west would offer. The condition would be that HEU be stored under direct IAEA supervision and once energy production begins the now redundant HEU is removed. Also, no more games and consequences be written into the agreement.
 
lotus503 said:
Its not a deflection to point out the NEOCon has been banging the drum since the 90s.

How far Iran is from an actual weapon is very debatable. Im sure if the United states felt the way Netanyahu did they would have taken out facilities.
Click to expand...
Iran is not considered to be a threat to the US like they are to Israel.

As such different actions and plans can be made according to perceived nationl needs.
 
Now that you're all making a fuss while we beat around the bush of the larger issue, I'd like to address that:

Nuclear proliferation. At what point do you draw a Red Line?

Many of you folks seem perfectly happy with a nuclear Iran. Who's next? Eventually you whittle it down to every single nation. Of course not every nation is stable. There are revolutions, civil wars, separatists. Splinters of nations. If the south rises again, would you be happy with a nuclear Alabama? Then perhaps some corporations and private individuals. Should some rich folks have uranium enrichment? How about me?

There comes a point where you say no. Where you will authorize the use of force. If fanatical religious zealots don't do it for you, then what does?

I don't think a discussion on how far Iran should go is warranted if you're simply drawing the line much further down the road. Our disagreement will not yield common ground.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
The only possible satisfactory resolution would be to accept LEU processes and technologies which the west would offer. The condition would be that HEU be stored under direct IAEA supervision and once energy production begins the now redundant HEU is removed. Also, no more games and consequences be written into the agreement.
Click to expand...

If one wants to bypass rules; creative interpretation can accomplish such.

Just like those that support Iran in getting rid of the Zionist governmetn of Israel; ignoring that Israel was built by Zionists.

Get rid of the government and you have no Israel; you end up with the Palestine of '47
 
michal1980 said:
how did your talking working out with WII?

hmm, all that talking and diplomacy resulted in what?

i missed the chapter of never ending peace.
Click to expand...

hmm.. great point! I guess that means every situation in history really does have its own circumstances, and requires its own approach and not a 'one size fits all,' then, huh?
 
EagleKeeper said:
If one wants to bypass rules; creative interpretation can accomplish such.

Just like those that support Iran in getting rid of the Zionist governmetn of Israel; ignoring that Israel was built by Zionists.

Get rid of the government and you have no Israel; you end up with the Palestine of '47
Click to expand...

Of course. That's why we have benchmarks. The agreement must be reached and the IAEA satisfied that it has done a complete and thorough inspection and safeguards in place. Then the carrot is given, say LEU enrichment facilities. We then start assuming control of HEU. Then we respond. Explicitly stated are timelines which violated result in more sanctions that will not be lifted until the situation is corrected to our satisfaction plus a putative time out. Repeat and it's worse and longer.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Of course. That's why we have benchmarks. The agreement must be reached and the IAEA satisfied that it has done a complete and thorough inspection and safeguards in place. Then the carrot is given, say LEU enrichment facilities. We then start assuming control of HEU. Then we respond. Explicitly stated are timelines which violated result in more sanctions that will not be lifted until the situation is corrected to our satisfaction plus a putative time out. Repeat and it's worse and longer.
Click to expand...

But that would mean giving them red lines. and OMG thats bad.
 
michal1980 said:
But that would mean giving them red lines. and OMG thats bad.
Click to expand...

It's like having our own village idiot. Usually I wait some time to begin mocking people hoping they'll say something worth reading, but it's clear you were born ignorant and have been losing ground ever since.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
There is a discussion in this vid which explores various approaches to Iran. Yes it's TLDW but the favored approach was a series of verifiable milestones and the worst as setting an absolute red line except as a last resort. The obvious reason being that face saving will automatically result in non compliance. That's bad at this moment.

The link to the story is here.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/09/israel-leader-demands-red-line-to-stop-iran-nuclear-program.html

Things have a time and place and rushing to the end game which guarantees failure. Fortunately the P5+1 isn't going to change it's measured approach.
Click to expand...

I can't see the vid, I have no audio.

What's the solution?

As far as "face saving" seems to me every approach suffers that problem. How is Iran backing down in the face of sanctions any more "face saving" than backing down from threats of military action? What face-saving excuse can Iran apply to backing down from sanctions that it can't equally apply to threat of military action?

Fern
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top