Re: CCD against "bombing Iran back to the dark ages"
[ Follow-Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ Canadian Coalition for Democracies Public Message Forum ]
Posted by Bill Narvey on 10:16:38 2007/06/08
In Reply to:
Re: CCD against "bombing Iran back to the dark ages" posted by Al Gordon
My figure of speech comment was obvious hyperbole.
The point of the West moving now to defang Iran and force the nation to focus on rebuilding was not.
Of course the majority of Iranians who are not part of their leadership who threaten Israel, America, the West and even Muslim Middle Eastern stability, should be spared the ravages of war as best as can be achieved.
With modern war technology, war can and should be fought in a more humane way relative to the way WWII was fought, but that does not mean that we are so advanced in the West that war can be fought humanely.
The expression war is hell still applies today even if that hell can be made to burn less fiercely then in days gone by.
You only have to read or hear the daily reports out of Iraq to know that America's well intentioned and attempted humane efforts at regime change have resulted in well over 50 thousand dead and mostly Iraqis. That civil war still rages and the Americans cannot stop it. They just want to get out, knowing that they have in spite of their best intentions, mismanaged the situation in the worst way and there is no way they can redeem themselves by staying there.
So just how is the West to eliminate the Iranian threat, short of war. It cannot.
If it is war that is chosen by the West or more particularly America, then how extensive a war is needed to destroy Iran as a threat to the West and the region and force a regime change without putting Westerner's at risk and limiting Iranian civilian casualties?
Iran, anticipating a strike against her nuclear facilities, built most of them deep underground. It is unlikely that a strike will destroy them. It could however disable them for a time.
But does Iran even need nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, which in America apart from the military uses developed, was intended to provide Americans with an ultimately cheaper form of energy?
Iran is rich in natural gas and oil resources which do provide Iranians not only a source for wealth vis a vis the oil/natural gas consuming West, but inexpensive fuel at home.
Reported recently was a poll that suggested that the majority of Iranians supported their mullocracy's nuclear agenda. Now why is that?
So back to the war. In addition to nuclear facilities that must be disabled or taken out, Iran has a very large, well trained and equipped army. That army would have to be attacked. People will die.
Iran has been armed to the teeth with the most modern weaponry from Russia and China. Those munition dumps, will have to be significantly compromised. People will die and that is especially so if those dumps are near or within populated areas.
The Iranian infrastructure will have to be attacked to retard the ability of the government to mobilize troops, to disrupt communications and disrupt energy and electricity. Some people will die, but most will only suffer lack of essential services for the time it takes to recover them.
With an Iran so weakened and focussed on just rebuilding, restoring essential services and regaining her balance the following would be likely:
1. Iran would not have the capacity to continue to sponsor terrorism, finance, support, arm and guide the Shia in Iraq to continue their insurgency in the most inhumane ways to wreak the most human loss and to bring chaos to the nation to prevent efforts at stability taking hold;
2. Even if the Iranian mullocracy continued to talk big and threaten the West, that mullocracy would have no ability to carry out those threats has they have done and continue to do to this day;
3. With the mullocracy so weakened, including its political infrastructure, the Iranian majority that reputedly want regime change but have been too weak to do anything about it, would be empowered by the weakness of the mullocracy to do just that. It is almost certain that the Iranian majority would blame their mullocracy for the hardships wrought by a war that the mullocracy brought down on all of Iran.
We cannot know what regime would replace the current Iranian mullocracy.
It does seem logical however that even if that regime is replaced by another radical Islamic regime, it would be less oppressive to Iranians who would have shown they will no longer tolerate such oppression and such regime would also know that there are limits to just how far they can push and threaten the West before the West hits back. That too will have a salutary effect to restrain the new Iranian regime from extreme positions.
Logically therefore a war that limits, but cannot avoid casualties fought along the lines I have laid out would more likely save a great many millions of lives from being lost or shattered.
If however the West continues to wait as Iran continues on the path it is, at some point Iran will go too far and the West will erupt with seething anger and a blood thirst for revenge which will see death and destruction rain down on Iran with far many more millions of lives lost on both sides. With the West's fire power it will be Iran however that will suffer millions more in lost and shattered lives.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
[ Follow Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ Canadian Coalition for Democracies Public Message Forum ]