Thanks for asking. I don't believe the Europeans have the strength nor will to sort this out (the Eurozone has bigger problems at the moment, plus the Europeans will always defer problems until they are completely unavoidable - no "a stitch in time saves nine" for pre-emptive action for them). The Arabs have the will but are paper tigers, they have always been soundly beaten by the Persians. They are useful for political cover only. That only leaves the US as the sole agent with the will and capability to permanently solve the problem. It is good the US is giving the Iranians time to try and become a responsible global citizen. The reality is that the Iranian leadership does not want this. The Iranians are biding their time until they have their nuclear arsenal. Then they will feel they are untouchable and will spread trouble throughout the region (at the moment they do it, but are still constrained by the fear of retaliation). The time is running out for the opportunity to dismantle the Iranian threat, and it is a real threat if you have been following what they have been doing. A few Delta teams will not cut it. The Iranian people hate their government, but dislike the US even more (no-one likes foreign occupation). However, if push came to shove and the US intervened then I think the Iranians would eventually see the US as a force for good - just as it took several years for the Iraqis to work this out, but eventually they did. The recent withdrawal of the US from Iraq also helps US credibility enormously in this area. While you and I would have taken this as a given, many in the Middle East have been raised on a steady diet of bizarre propaganda, which means they have what we would consider unreasonable resistance to things that are for their own good (and why they do what we consider crazy stuff - but is is because their governments regularly spread lies about the West and Israel). So, if the US doesn't do something soon I expect the world to get a lot worse, with the threat of a rogue nuke turning up *anywhere* on the planet.
Actually, having visited the region, including Israel and Palestinian Territory I have this to say to you (since you seem terribly misinformed and tragically biased). The Israelis live in a rough neighbourhood. They do what any reasonable person would do in a rough area. They are not perfect, for sure. They want to trade land for peace, which is why they *unilaterally* gave Gaza back. Basically the Israelis just want to have a good life and are trying to deal with a troublesome neighbour (although the settlers are bad asses - but the Israeli government is fighting them as they see their action as illegal)
The Palestians also want to have nice life. However, their political parties are obsessed with destroying Israel and moving all Israelis (even if born there) into the sea. In English they will say they want peace, to get money from the sucker Europeans. Meanwhile in Arabic they will never ever say this, they want to destroy Israel. Basically you are being played and are too misinformed to understand - hence you spread lies about the Israelis. Disappointing bro, don't get played. How about you check these out to get a better picture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gzyeo1Z1I4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUXTPH5-IPQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca48ocpFBiE
The Israelis and Israeli Government are not perfect, but they are not the bad guys in the story - not by a long way from what I have seen from going there as a neutral observer. The terrorists (and utlra-othodox settlers) are the bad dudes.
Don't fall for the same propaganda tactics the Nazis used! and stop with the lies!
Don't you think that Iran could be made a democratic country? Don't you think a significant number of Iranians want to be a democracy? Do you think the Persians would be unable to govern themselves if they were given the opportunity to have a democratic government? Your statements show you seem to be well-meaning but you actually have a cultural bias where you think that the Iranians couldn't effectively govern themselves if given a chance. I personally know a few Iranians and know that they are more than capable and willing if given the chance. They would have a government with problems and different from one the way most Western governments work, but I would say they would do a better job than the Iraqi government (which, despite its flaws, seems to be functioning well enough to prevent reversion to a dictatorship, for now). So, I would say that US isolationism has failed in the future just has it has failed miserably in the past. The World is now too interconnected and too 'small' to hide in Island America as was possible a century ago. No one else has the power to help the Iranians throw off their theocracy and transition to democracy except for America. If the time and opportunity came I would hope the Americans would make the selfless sacrifice (yes, it costs money and soldiers) to help drag Iran into this century. The rest of the World (eg. me, I'm not in the US) is too poor and weak to lead, but we help whenever we can. It sounds like you don't agree with this - but I have admired the energy that America has had (not a fan of GW Bush at all, but at least he had the balls to finish what was started - despite the naysayers - and it has worked out much better than if nothing had been done).
This is a mis-informed lie. You should be ashamed for propagating untruths. Israeli policy is to use all means in self-defence (since they never acknowledge whether they have nukes or not) if WMD have been used against them. In short they have stated a posture of strategic deterrence in the hope that enemies are smart enough never to try.
Contrast that with Iran's position where it has *repeatedly* stated that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth - even without any direct provocation by Israel. Even worse, Iran would probably try and use 'plausible deniability' by arming Hezbollah instead, so they could say "it wasn't us". Then there is the fact that Iran has threatened Europe as well. If you can't see evil just because it is more subtle and not in a Hollywood movie then I suggest you go an have a think - and please stop spreading your mis-informed lies about the Iraesli deterrent (how about you actually do some reading and check the facts and statements from the Israeli Defence Ministry and IDF, instead of reading bollox from anti-semetic sites).
> Your conservative revision of history is appalling. You are the type of person who believes that the USA has never supported tyrants and has never taken part in unjustified aggression.
and it is just as clear that your unreasoned position is that there is no place for realpolitik. Where nasty dictators are supported if they are engaged in a fight with an even worse regime, and that aggression to remove the same bad dictator should never happen. In short, the world is a nasty brutal place. While countries should strive to uphold the highest morals, and sway the path of other countries with reasoned debate there are actually times when it makes sense to pick up the sword and sort things out in a way that asking to hold hands and sing kumbaya together doesn't. Basically, if you are not a democracy then expect to feel heat. If you are democracy and still to killing your own people and not anyone else's, then you have the right to 'self-determination' and get left alone (more or less). It's not a perfect world but this is how it is. Criticizing the realists makes you look like a dreamer - which is why you have had these rebuttals.
No, the money would have been stolen. The corrupt elites of the region would have been better off. The people, not so much. Iraq is unquestionably better after the US invasion. Not perfect for sure, but much better and a better global citizen. You might disagree with premise for the Second Iraq War, and the war itself, but the facts are the strategic outcome has been better than most predicted.
lol, Silkworms vs aircraft. Silkworms are very old anti-ship missiles. I stopped reading your post there (which might have actually been a good post). Suggest you get some more homework in before posting for people that actually know this stuff.
> So the problem with your theory is that Iran actually has some decent air defenses along the Straight of Hormuz.
No they don't. The Russians have been withholding the S-300 from them, and eventually cancelled. As the attack by Israel on Syria showed, it is easy for modern Western forces to defeat (or in the case of the engagement, to actually control) Russian built air defences. Russian missiles can be dangerous if you are not prepared for them, but if you have planned an attack for them then they are not that hard to defeat (in an aircraft vs SAM engagement the aircraft always "has the initiative" and can engage and extend at will - which always results in the SAM getting downed *unless* the SAM is somehow not known about [which would not be the case in the Gulf]).
> In the mean time, it's worth noting that a sudden increase in petrol-energy-efficiency could shave off that last 10% in just a few years. Help avoid war: ride a bicycle | ride a bus | ride a subway | walk | telecommute | carpool.
Excellent point! too bad most people around the world are just too damned lazy to even think properly, let alone move their carcasses about. They'd much rather have a remote war they can drink beer and eat popcorn too than actually expend effort themselves - all the while tut-tutting the 'aggression' of the US as it seeks to restore Freedom of Navigation.
Disclaimer: not from the US, so don't ever accuse me of that!
Selective reading of history - which makes your argument lame. Who cares what the US did in 1953 when they would install anyone who would resist Soviet communism? At the moment their policy is removing dictators and installing (US-friendly) democracies (eg. Iraq, Afghanistan). The governments installed don't have to be clean (asking the Afghans to have clean government is not realpolitk, so lets not be prissy and naiive) they just have to match US interests in key areas.
> Unfortunately, the US Military didn't listen to him.
Bullshit! the US Navy has been putting on a lot more light weaponry on it vessels and doing more crew training to use them. The scenario you described was effective because it was unexpected. It is now completely expected, and hence, much less effective a decade later.
Sensationalist history. Don't you realise that such things make it out to the public as a way of scaring money for the Department of Navy out of the US Congress (so that the money doesn't fall into the budgetary maw of the Navy's true enemy, the USAF). A similar shock revelation was made about the F-22 in an unrealistic scenario (6 F-22 took on 72 Chinese Su-27 after flying from Alaska; killed 20, lost no F-22 but the scare 'loss' was that the F-22's tanker was hit so the F-22s wouldn't make it to Anderson on Guam). The brilliant thing about the wargame scenario you heard is that the USN learned from it (it is now an 'old' story) and has been putting light weaponry all over their vessels and drilling crews to counter such an event. I remember reading that wargaming was done extensively by the USN before WWII and those wargames prepared the navy quite well. There was nothing that happened in WWII that surprised the USN except for kamikaze attacks (which were basically ineffective in a strategic sense). So, please read past the sensationalist reports and dig deeper.
The Iranians are not stupid, but are very balkanized at the moment. They are also very proud of their country and history (isn't everyone?). That said, by allowing some crazies to make threats the Iranians are not being smart at all. While the US is used to being a targets as threats the Europeans are not. Such statements are making the Iranians look to be very unreasonable by countries that are usually receptive to them (eg. Europe). This episode is a fail for the Iranians on the world stage. It will make it easier for the enemies of Iran to sway other countries now (perhaps because it serves those enemies, that it why it gets so much press, but that is how the game is played).
They said the US would lose in Iraq, but it won. It now has a US-friendly government installed. They said the US would lose in Afghanistan but it is in the process of winning (only the Afghani governmental corruption, the drug lords and Pakistani meddling are keeping the weak Taliban going). If the US went into Iran for real it would install a US friendly government. The average joe in the US might not be so bright, but their military is smart and second to none. That is why they haven't been defeated on the battlefield for a long time (oh, and if you look at Vietnam, the US military destroyed the Vietcong and left; it was several years later that North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam after the US left; only the historically ignorant count Vietnam as the US military losing [disclaimer: I don't come from the US, but do call out fallacies when I see them]).
I see you don't understand modern naval warfare. You need a lot of simultaneous Sunburn launches to "roll back" the defensive layers of a carrier battle group. A few Sunburns are not enough to defeat SM-2, RAM and Phalanx. A lot of Sunburns all at once are very dangerous (like the Soviet Navy planned to do), but the few the Iranians have (assuming any Iranian naval batteries aren't first destroyed by the USAF) are much less of a problem and can be defended against. Note: the RAM was deployed to defeat these fast missiles further out than the Phalanx could and a task force can deal with a few at once. Also, if detected early enough the SS-N-22 is easy to defeat at long range with the SM-2ER. It is when they go undetected close in that the missile becomes very dangerous. All told, the SS-N-22 is not a superweapon, it just makes it possible to get through a task forces defences and hit carrier (if not decoyed already) if fired in numbers all at once. Slower missiles would have no chance, which is why the SS-N-22 gets some (sensationalist) press.
So tell me. How many of these missiles does Iran have? No enough to stop the three carrier task forces (assuming the ten other US carrier task forces elsewhere in the world haven't already joined the party - oh yeah, and then there are the Marine Expeditionary Units as well). You also haven't factored in just how unreliable Russian-built missiles are, a fair chunk of them fail at launch. I would suspect some ships would get hit, some even sunk, but all you'd do is enrage the Bull. Iran's defenses are not nearly enough (assuming any missiles survived the USAF's attack from Kuwait). In short, you're fantasizing if you think the pitiful number of SS-N-22 that Iran has could stop a Coalition juggernaut. It is logistics that wins wars and the Coalition would have a lot more stuff (although the real problem for Iran is preventing implosion as there are a lot of factions within Iran that are barely held together).
Why not. The US forces in Iraq did this to all traffic near them. The Iraqis learned very quickly to get out of the way. The US pissed a lot of Iraqis off with this, and inflamed the insurgency as a result, but it did work for them in the long run (as barbaric as it was). Don't let your pussy view of the world and what is right and wrong get in the way of how soldiers actually fight wars when the leash is off - and no one will care how many dhows are sunk, only that the coalition prevailed.
The missiles the Iranians possess aren't smart enough to defeat US countermeasures: chaff, strong ECM, decoys, RAM, and Phalanx. That's not even looking at possible EW/EMP from the AESA SPY-1 (an ace they have been holding up their sleeve).
Dontcha get it? the US is treating Iran humanely instead of just smashing it. They are giving the Iranians a chance to comply with the International Will (*no one* wants a nuclear armed Iran - which you would know if you have been paying attention; not the US, nor Arabs, nor Europeans; nor Chinese nor Russians and certainly not the Israelis [the only ones who aren't being ostriches about it]). If the situation were reverse (Iran a nuclear armed superpower) then the US would have been squashed like a bug in 1979. The US is not the bad guy here. The US is not about to wait until Iran supplies Hezbollah with a nuke and a US or Israeli city gets smashed either. The Iranians are smart, but have overplayed their hand here.
The US spends approx 2/3 trillion annually on defense whether fighting or not. Fighting is more expensive that not fighting, but not by as much as most folks think. If the US economy recovers the cost will become less of an issue (historical tidbit: wars have been becoming more expensive in absolute terms but actually decreasing very significantly as a percentage of the overall US economy - in short, the US has more than enough resources to beat Iran even if a protracted war ensued, which it wouldn't since the Iranians have no support, whereas the Iranians supported Iraqi insurgents and protracted the war in Iraq so that experience would not be repeated).
Yes, but the Regional War you talk about is Iran vs "superpower and Euro allies (obliged by NATO commitments) and pissed off rich Arab states". Wanna take a bet on who would win that? Only in Iranian fantasies would they do any damage before they succumbed. Plus, the Iranian government has a lot of factions. Most likely outcome of US involvement is a messy civil war in Iran with the US and mates tipping the scales in favor of reformers (with the same result as in Iraq where that the US favored faction gets enough support to grind any opposition down).
Actually that would screw the Iranians more than the US. While Iran exports crude oil it has very little refining capacity. I it an importer of petrochemical products like gasoline. Raising the price of gas would ruin their own economy while the US would seek cheaper supplies from Canada, the North Sea, or even their own backyard. It's a shame that people swallow the Iranian bullshit and see the weak Iranians as strong and the superpower as weak (and economically broke, when in fact it is still very very rich, just not quite as stinkingly wealthy as it used to be).
* only a someone who hasn't been paying any attention thinks that the Israelis were 'beaten' by Hezbollah. The Israelis certainly had an initial surprise, but that has happened before. What did happen is that Hezbollah's means to make war was *smashed* by the Israelis (after some weeks) and the only reason the Israelis stopped at the Litani river was that the Europeans were screaming at them to do so - best not to get your mates offside (the Israelis may be pig-headed sometimes, but they do reluctantly listen to the US and limp-wristed Europeans who don't really understand the rough neighbourhood). Hezbollah was so roundly defeated by the end of a couple of weeks (having lost the best of its fighters that had been trained in Iran) that they have been careful for the last several years not to provoke Israel again (apart from a few isolated incidents by other crazies - which Hezbollah has always been careful to disclaim). In fact, if it wasn't for Syrian and Iranian support and re-arming of Hezbollah (since both have an interest in stirring trouble with Israel, in an attempt to divert the attention of their own public from their government actions) then Hezbollah would still be weak today. I know, I have been to both sides of the border and met with Hezbollah guys and Israelis (disclaimer: although that was before hostilities - but still on the ground there, not just armchair speculation). I consider the outcome of that war a hard-won victory by the Israelis, who withdrew for political reasons despite the military situation becoming increasingly favorable for them - the fact is the Israelis have had enough with occupying the Lebanon and don't appear to want to do it anymore. Especially since the actual Lebanese government of the time was far less inclined to make trouble on the border.
* "The US's carriers are a notable weakness of US strategy once you have a cheap counter to them.". What most people miss is the fact that the US doesn't have one carrier strike group, it has 13. When it feels like it the US can easily put three carrier battle groups in the Gulf, and could put more there with a little time to prepare. Iran simply can't win this fight. Despite its braggadocio, getting one warship down and then losing sovereignty is still a massive fail (although it would make the Middle East a much more peaceful place in the long term if it were to happen).
> There is no contradiction. I am pointing out some historical facts.
And you have done an excellent job of this. What you have chosen from refraining from doing is pointing out whether you believe these facts support or negate any position on whether stealing or not stealing technology or copyrighted works has merit or not merit, IYHO.
So the facts are fascinating but without some kind of position on how they alter the debate they are 'dry' and relatively meaningless, IMHO. The facts could be taken to attack or defend any 'position', depending on where you place emphasis.
However, my original point was that the US has 'stolen' technology in the past (in the 18th as well as 19th centuries). We have agreed on that (with the word 'stealing' being loaded for sure, but the point is that the technology was obtained without permission of the inventor). There is no doubt the US was and is not alone in this, as you correctly point out. That doesn't make it right, and makes it hypocritical when these states now adopt a policy of not only protecting 'their' technology - but yet even worse they enforce their own anti-competitive and anti-democratic positions (as laid out by their corporations, not their governments) on other countries via trade treaties (ACTA being a prime example). The historical facts do not contradict this.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for asking. I don't believe the Europeans have the strength nor will to sort this out (the Eurozone has bigger problems at the moment, plus the Europeans will always defer problems until they are completely unavoidable - no "a stitch in time saves nine" for pre-emptive action for them). The Arabs have the will but are paper tigers, they have always been soundly beaten by the Persians. They are useful for political cover only. That only leaves the US as the sole agent with the will and capability to permanently solve the problem. It is good the US is giving the Iranians time to try and become a responsible global citizen. The reality is that the Iranian leadership does not want this. The Iranians are biding their time until they have their nuclear arsenal. Then they will feel they are untouchable and will spread trouble throughout the region (at the moment they do it, but are still constrained by the fear of retaliation). The time is running out for the opportunity to dismantle the Iranian threat, and it is a real threat if you have been following what they have been doing. A few Delta teams will not cut it. The Iranian people hate their government, but dislike the US even more (no-one likes foreign occupation). However, if push came to shove and the US intervened then I think the Iranians would eventually see the US as a force for good - just as it took several years for the Iraqis to work this out, but eventually they did. The recent withdrawal of the US from Iraq also helps US credibility enormously in this area. While you and I would have taken this as a given, many in the Middle East have been raised on a steady diet of bizarre propaganda, which means they have what we would consider unreasonable resistance to things that are for their own good (and why they do what we consider crazy stuff - but is is because their governments regularly spread lies about the West and Israel). So, if the US doesn't do something soon I expect the world to get a lot worse, with the threat of a rogue nuke turning up *anywhere* on the planet.
The Palestians also want to have nice life. However, their political parties are obsessed with destroying Israel and moving all Israelis (even if born there) into the sea. In English they will say they want peace, to get money from the sucker Europeans. Meanwhile in Arabic they will never ever say this, they want to destroy Israel. Basically you are being played and are too misinformed to understand - hence you spread lies about the Israelis. Disappointing bro, don't get played. How about you check these out to get a better picture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gzyeo1Z1I4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUXTPH5-IPQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca48ocpFBiE
The Israelis and Israeli Government are not perfect, but they are not the bad guys in the story - not by a long way from what I have seen from going there as a neutral observer. The terrorists (and utlra-othodox settlers) are the bad dudes.
Don't fall for the same propaganda tactics the Nazis used! and stop with the lies!
Don't you think that Iran could be made a democratic country? Don't you think a significant number of Iranians want to be a democracy? Do you think the Persians would be unable to govern themselves if they were given the opportunity to have a democratic government? Your statements show you seem to be well-meaning but you actually have a cultural bias where you think that the Iranians couldn't effectively govern themselves if given a chance. I personally know a few Iranians and know that they are more than capable and willing if given the chance. They would have a government with problems and different from one the way most Western governments work, but I would say they would do a better job than the Iraqi government (which, despite its flaws, seems to be functioning well enough to prevent reversion to a dictatorship, for now). So, I would say that US isolationism has failed in the future just has it has failed miserably in the past. The World is now too interconnected and too 'small' to hide in Island America as was possible a century ago. No one else has the power to help the Iranians throw off their theocracy and transition to democracy except for America. If the time and opportunity came I would hope the Americans would make the selfless sacrifice (yes, it costs money and soldiers) to help drag Iran into this century. The rest of the World (eg. me, I'm not in the US) is too poor and weak to lead, but we help whenever we can. It sounds like you don't agree with this - but I have admired the energy that America has had (not a fan of GW Bush at all, but at least he had the balls to finish what was started - despite the naysayers - and it has worked out much better than if nothing had been done).
Contrast that with Iran's position where it has *repeatedly* stated that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth - even without any direct provocation by Israel. Even worse, Iran would probably try and use 'plausible deniability' by arming Hezbollah instead, so they could say "it wasn't us". Then there is the fact that Iran has threatened Europe as well. If you can't see evil just because it is more subtle and not in a Hollywood movie then I suggest you go an have a think - and please stop spreading your mis-informed lies about the Iraesli deterrent (how about you actually do some reading and check the facts and statements from the Israeli Defence Ministry and IDF, instead of reading bollox from anti-semetic sites).
and it is just as clear that your unreasoned position is that there is no place for realpolitik. Where nasty dictators are supported if they are engaged in a fight with an even worse regime, and that aggression to remove the same bad dictator should never happen. In short, the world is a nasty brutal place. While countries should strive to uphold the highest morals, and sway the path of other countries with reasoned debate there are actually times when it makes sense to pick up the sword and sort things out in a way that asking to hold hands and sing kumbaya together doesn't. Basically, if you are not a democracy then expect to feel heat. If you are democracy and still to killing your own people and not anyone else's, then you have the right to 'self-determination' and get left alone (more or less). It's not a perfect world but this is how it is. Criticizing the realists makes you look like a dreamer - which is why you have had these rebuttals.
No, the money would have been stolen. The corrupt elites of the region would have been better off. The people, not so much. Iraq is unquestionably better after the US invasion. Not perfect for sure, but much better and a better global citizen. You might disagree with premise for the Second Iraq War, and the war itself, but the facts are the strategic outcome has been better than most predicted.
lol, Silkworms vs aircraft. Silkworms are very old anti-ship missiles. I stopped reading your post there (which might have actually been a good post). Suggest you get some more homework in before posting for people that actually know this stuff.
> So the problem with your theory is that Iran actually has some decent air defenses along the Straight of Hormuz.
No they don't. The Russians have been withholding the S-300 from them, and eventually cancelled. As the attack by Israel on Syria showed, it is easy for modern Western forces to defeat (or in the case of the engagement, to actually control) Russian built air defences. Russian missiles can be dangerous if you are not prepared for them, but if you have planned an attack for them then they are not that hard to defeat (in an aircraft vs SAM engagement the aircraft always "has the initiative" and can engage and extend at will - which always results in the SAM getting downed *unless* the SAM is somehow not known about [which would not be the case in the Gulf]).
Excellent point! too bad most people around the world are just too damned lazy to even think properly, let alone move their carcasses about. They'd much rather have a remote war they can drink beer and eat popcorn too than actually expend effort themselves - all the while tut-tutting the 'aggression' of the US as it seeks to restore Freedom of Navigation.
Disclaimer: not from the US, so don't ever accuse me of that!
Selective reading of history - which makes your argument lame. Who cares what the US did in 1953 when they would install anyone who would resist Soviet communism? At the moment their policy is removing dictators and installing (US-friendly) democracies (eg. Iraq, Afghanistan). The governments installed don't have to be clean (asking the Afghans to have clean government is not realpolitk, so lets not be prissy and naiive) they just have to match US interests in key areas.
> Unfortunately, the US Military didn't listen to him.
Bullshit! the US Navy has been putting on a lot more light weaponry on it vessels and doing more crew training to use them. The scenario you described was effective because it was unexpected. It is now completely expected, and hence, much less effective a decade later.
Sensationalist history. Don't you realise that such things make it out to the public as a way of scaring money for the Department of Navy out of the US Congress (so that the money doesn't fall into the budgetary maw of the Navy's true enemy, the USAF). A similar shock revelation was made about the F-22 in an unrealistic scenario (6 F-22 took on 72 Chinese Su-27 after flying from Alaska; killed 20, lost no F-22 but the scare 'loss' was that the F-22's tanker was hit so the F-22s wouldn't make it to Anderson on Guam). The brilliant thing about the wargame scenario you heard is that the USN learned from it (it is now an 'old' story) and has been putting light weaponry all over their vessels and drilling crews to counter such an event. I remember reading that wargaming was done extensively by the USN before WWII and those wargames prepared the navy quite well. There was nothing that happened in WWII that surprised the USN except for kamikaze attacks (which were basically ineffective in a strategic sense). So, please read past the sensationalist reports and dig deeper.
The Iranians are not stupid, but are very balkanized at the moment. They are also very proud of their country and history (isn't everyone?). That said, by allowing some crazies to make threats the Iranians are not being smart at all. While the US is used to being a targets as threats the Europeans are not. Such statements are making the Iranians look to be very unreasonable by countries that are usually receptive to them (eg. Europe). This episode is a fail for the Iranians on the world stage. It will make it easier for the enemies of Iran to sway other countries now (perhaps because it serves those enemies, that it why it gets so much press, but that is how the game is played).
They said the US would lose in Iraq, but it won. It now has a US-friendly government installed. They said the US would lose in Afghanistan but it is in the process of winning (only the Afghani governmental corruption, the drug lords and Pakistani meddling are keeping the weak Taliban going). If the US went into Iran for real it would install a US friendly government. The average joe in the US might not be so bright, but their military is smart and second to none. That is why they haven't been defeated on the battlefield for a long time (oh, and if you look at Vietnam, the US military destroyed the Vietcong and left; it was several years later that North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam after the US left; only the historically ignorant count Vietnam as the US military losing [disclaimer: I don't come from the US, but do call out fallacies when I see them]).
I see you don't understand modern naval warfare. You need a lot of simultaneous Sunburn launches to "roll back" the defensive layers of a carrier battle group. A few Sunburns are not enough to defeat SM-2, RAM and Phalanx. A lot of Sunburns all at once are very dangerous (like the Soviet Navy planned to do), but the few the Iranians have (assuming any Iranian naval batteries aren't first destroyed by the USAF) are much less of a problem and can be defended against. Note: the RAM was deployed to defeat these fast missiles further out than the Phalanx could and a task force can deal with a few at once. Also, if detected early enough the SS-N-22 is easy to defeat at long range with the SM-2ER. It is when they go undetected close in that the missile becomes very dangerous. All told, the SS-N-22 is not a superweapon, it just makes it possible to get through a task forces defences and hit carrier (if not decoyed already) if fired in numbers all at once. Slower missiles would have no chance, which is why the SS-N-22 gets some (sensationalist) press.
So tell me. How many of these missiles does Iran have? No enough to stop the three carrier task forces (assuming the ten other US carrier task forces elsewhere in the world haven't already joined the party - oh yeah, and then there are the Marine Expeditionary Units as well). You also haven't factored in just how unreliable Russian-built missiles are, a fair chunk of them fail at launch. I would suspect some ships would get hit, some even sunk, but all you'd do is enrage the Bull. Iran's defenses are not nearly enough (assuming any missiles survived the USAF's attack from Kuwait). In short, you're fantasizing if you think the pitiful number of SS-N-22 that Iran has could stop a Coalition juggernaut. It is logistics that wins wars and the Coalition would have a lot more stuff (although the real problem for Iran is preventing implosion as there are a lot of factions within Iran that are barely held together).
Why not. The US forces in Iraq did this to all traffic near them. The Iraqis learned very quickly to get out of the way. The US pissed a lot of Iraqis off with this, and inflamed the insurgency as a result, but it did work for them in the long run (as barbaric as it was). Don't let your pussy view of the world and what is right and wrong get in the way of how soldiers actually fight wars when the leash is off - and no one will care how many dhows are sunk, only that the coalition prevailed.
The missiles the Iranians possess aren't smart enough to defeat US countermeasures: chaff, strong ECM, decoys, RAM, and Phalanx. That's not even looking at possible EW/EMP from the AESA SPY-1 (an ace they have been holding up their sleeve).
Dontcha get it? the US is treating Iran humanely instead of just smashing it. They are giving the Iranians a chance to comply with the International Will (*no one* wants a nuclear armed Iran - which you would know if you have been paying attention; not the US, nor Arabs, nor Europeans; nor Chinese nor Russians and certainly not the Israelis [the only ones who aren't being ostriches about it]). If the situation were reverse (Iran a nuclear armed superpower) then the US would have been squashed like a bug in 1979. The US is not the bad guy here. The US is not about to wait until Iran supplies Hezbollah with a nuke and a US or Israeli city gets smashed either. The Iranians are smart, but have overplayed their hand here.
The US spends approx 2/3 trillion annually on defense whether fighting or not. Fighting is more expensive that not fighting, but not by as much as most folks think. If the US economy recovers the cost will become less of an issue (historical tidbit: wars have been becoming more expensive in absolute terms but actually decreasing very significantly as a percentage of the overall US economy - in short, the US has more than enough resources to beat Iran even if a protracted war ensued, which it wouldn't since the Iranians have no support, whereas the Iranians supported Iraqi insurgents and protracted the war in Iraq so that experience would not be repeated).
Yes, but the Regional War you talk about is Iran vs "superpower and Euro allies (obliged by NATO commitments) and pissed off rich Arab states". Wanna take a bet on who would win that? Only in Iranian fantasies would they do any damage before they succumbed. Plus, the Iranian government has a lot of factions. Most likely outcome of US involvement is a messy civil war in Iran with the US and mates tipping the scales in favor of reformers (with the same result as in Iraq where that the US favored faction gets enough support to grind any opposition down).
Actually that would screw the Iranians more than the US. While Iran exports crude oil it has very little refining capacity. I it an importer of petrochemical products like gasoline. Raising the price of gas would ruin their own economy while the US would seek cheaper supplies from Canada, the North Sea, or even their own backyard. It's a shame that people swallow the Iranian bullshit and see the weak Iranians as strong and the superpower as weak (and economically broke, when in fact it is still very very rich, just not quite as stinkingly wealthy as it used to be).
* only a someone who hasn't been paying any attention thinks that the Israelis were 'beaten' by Hezbollah. The Israelis certainly had an initial surprise, but that has happened before. What did happen is that Hezbollah's means to make war was *smashed* by the Israelis (after some weeks) and the only reason the Israelis stopped at the Litani river was that the Europeans were screaming at them to do so - best not to get your mates offside (the Israelis may be pig-headed sometimes, but they do reluctantly listen to the US and limp-wristed Europeans who don't really understand the rough neighbourhood). Hezbollah was so roundly defeated by the end of a couple of weeks (having lost the best of its fighters that had been trained in Iran) that they have been careful for the last several years not to provoke Israel again (apart from a few isolated incidents by other crazies - which Hezbollah has always been careful to disclaim). In fact, if it wasn't for Syrian and Iranian support and re-arming of Hezbollah (since both have an interest in stirring trouble with Israel, in an attempt to divert the attention of their own public from their government actions) then Hezbollah would still be weak today. I know, I have been to both sides of the border and met with Hezbollah guys and Israelis (disclaimer: although that was before hostilities - but still on the ground there, not just armchair speculation). I consider the outcome of that war a hard-won victory by the Israelis, who withdrew for political reasons despite the military situation becoming increasingly favorable for them - the fact is the Israelis have had enough with occupying the Lebanon and don't appear to want to do it anymore. Especially since the actual Lebanese government of the time was far less inclined to make trouble on the border.
* "The US's carriers are a notable weakness of US strategy once you have a cheap counter to them.".
What most people miss is the fact that the US doesn't have one carrier strike group, it has 13. When it feels like it the US can easily put three carrier battle groups in the Gulf, and could put more there with a little time to prepare. Iran simply can't win this fight. Despite its braggadocio, getting one warship down and then losing sovereignty is still a massive fail (although it would make the Middle East a much more peaceful place in the long term if it were to happen).
[Disclaimer: I live there]
And you have done an excellent job of this. What you have chosen from refraining from doing is pointing out whether you believe these facts support or negate any position on whether stealing or not stealing technology or copyrighted works has merit or not merit, IYHO.
So the facts are fascinating but without some kind of position on how they alter the debate they are 'dry' and relatively meaningless, IMHO. The facts could be taken to attack or defend any 'position', depending on where you place emphasis.
However, my original point was that the US has 'stolen' technology in the past (in the 18th as well as 19th centuries). We have agreed on that (with the word 'stealing' being loaded for sure, but the point is that the technology was obtained without permission of the inventor). There is no doubt the US was and is not alone in this, as you correctly point out. That doesn't make it right, and makes it hypocritical when these states now adopt a policy of not only protecting 'their' technology - but yet even worse they enforce their own anti-competitive and anti-democratic positions (as laid out by their corporations, not their governments) on other countries via trade treaties (ACTA being a prime example). The historical facts do not contradict this.