General discussion

Locked

Iran

By onbliss ·
The chatter in the media on Iran is increasing as days go by. One can be sure there is more than what meets the eye.
The posture of Iranian Government is certainly worrisome. Wonder what is in store !!!

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

27 total posts (Page 2 of 3)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Big sigh

by OnTheRopes In reply to No, one can actually be q ...

I?ve read this same thing three times now. Please give it a rest.

Let?s try to make a case for sanity in the way the US is acting, JUST regarding the war, shall we?

What sane country would BORROW a Trillion dollars from friendly countries to make war upon another country for basically no really good reason? Yes, I?m talking about the war in Iraq. Oh, wait? I guess that would be the US. Somebody?s going to have to pay that back. What REAL value will they have to show for that money?

What sane country would not have UNDENIABLE evidence before going to war? Wait again? that would be the US. Let?s try to ignore that for now.

If you want to talk about 9/11, Al Queda, Al-Qaeda or how ever you want to spell it, make ALL of the evidence available to support your conclusions that the official story is undeniable.

On second thought, don't bother trying to prove it. You can't.

Show me how all of the, sane, much better educated folks than me (and, I suspect, you) who say that 9/11 didn?t happen the way Bush and Company say it did are wrong.

Of course anyone that doesn?t see it the way they?re told to see it is just a kooky conspiracy theorist. Disregard their MIT, Harvard, and Oxford degrees and Professorships. They?re probably on drugs. Damn hippies.

What sane country wouldn?t demand that ALL of the evidence and investigations about 9/11 be trotted out on TV? That would be the US again. ****, we endured the O.J fiasco for months but where was the show about 9/11? Oh, that?s right! American Idol is on.

What sane country would?ve gone to war without trying every possible means of avoiding such a costly conflict? Totally impossible to have Mr. Sadaam Hussein come over for tea and crumpets I guess.

Hmmm? I?m seeing a pattern here.

What sane country goes to war without a plan on how to win that war with minimal troop casualties? Need anyone answer? Don?t we all know?

So, if we judge ourselves, as a country, to be sane and choose to believe that the copyrighted document that keeps getting trotted out here is the absolute unvarnished truth that can never be disputed, what exactly is the sane thing to do?

Quick, I need to go to bed. How can I sleep if some Mullah's half a world away might have a thimble full of enriched Uranium?

Collapse -

Was the above posted out of place ?

by deepsand In reply to Big sigh

As I've said nothing contrary to what you state in your post, and do, in fact, concur with your position, I am at a loss to understand how it is that you might think otherwise.

You state that you've read "this same thing three times now," but it is not clear to me what "thing" it is to which you refer.

All I did was point to the StratFor analysis which explains how Iran's current posturing might be rational, rather than being the offspring of a mad man.

Please clarify.

Collapse -

Iran may welcome a nuclear strike against itself.

by deepsand In reply to Israel doesn't
Collapse -

Iran

by Peter Warren In reply to Iran

Iran

While I wouldn?t consider myself an expert, far from it in fact, I tend to doubt that the US will move militarily against Iran in the near future, not counting psychological, diplomatic and economic pressures. I would think that any military action is a minimum of 2 to 3 years off, and probably significantly further away than that. And that?s if it ever happens. Because of our mistakes in Iraq, we are hardly in a position to invade Iran, and this isn?t going to change anytime soon. That leaves air strikes, naval action and small scale special action teams. In my opinion, unless we plan to go nuclear or conduct massive, long-term, strategic bombing, say on the scale of the bombing of Germany and Japan in the 40?s, these approaches will only serve to galvanize Iran against the rest of the world and America in particular. The problems of using nuclear bombs first, or of destroying the cities, industries, oil fields of Iran, not to mention the slaughter of tens millions of civilians, are too massive for this to be successful in the long term. In plain language, only a mad fool would take this course and expect a positive outcome.

As for emerging Iranian military capability, with or without nuclear weapons, they are not remotely close to the US and its allies in military capability. Of course it won?t take much to disrupt the world oil markets, and if they do get the bomb and use it against Israel or American forces in the area, we can all kiss our extravagant lifestyles goodbye. But the Iranians will be slaughtered in a massive retaliation. Their leaders and the majority of Iranians know this. These are not stupid people.

If we and our allies contained the nuclear-armed Soviet Union for fifty years, and their nuclear- armed Chinese allies (who were considered the ?fanatical? communists) for almost as long, we can certainly contain Iran, just as we could have certainly contained Iraq.

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (M.A. for short), is a loose cannon, but he is not the ultimate authority in Iran. He has handlers and has to answer to the clerical power structure. So the question is -- will this power structure sit idly by while the firebrand M.A. leads their nation down a dead end street? I don?t think so.

Another question to consider: can M.A. gain complete control? For example, Hitler was able to out-maneuver his early industrial and military supporters and ?handlers? in 1930?s Germany. He gained unchallenged power and we all know what happened next. I don?t see this same capability in M.A. yet, but this angle certainly needs to be watched. And while Hitler enjoyed wild, almost worshipful support among younger people who were seduced by his nationalistic and racial myth making, my impression is that a significant percentage of the youth in Iran is fed up with all the repression and rejection of the modern world. This is where the rest of the world should be focusing ? cultivating a better relationship with the educated and the young in Iran.

Another point to consider is that Iran has tremendous social problems, which is in part why M.A. rose to the President?s office in the first place. He was very popular with Iran?s poor and unemployed. So far, M.A. has been tall on sword rattling, swagger, racist anti-Semitism, and challenging the US and Europe. But he has not made progress on solving Iran?s economic and social problems. His support will not last if he does not produce some tangible improvements. If this failure continues, and I can?t imagine why it won?t, M.A. will have to answer to the Mullahs who want stability in Iran so they can continue ruling their theocratic fiefdom.

I think the elephant in the living room for both Iran and Iraq is oil. We are uncomfortable admitting how oil is driving us into an endless cycle of war. Even the leaders of the religious fanatics who have declared war on the US are fighting to control the oil, though they?ll give you a lot of gibberish about Islam, martyrdom, blah, blah, blah. They don?t want us out of Arabia and the Middle East because it?s ?holy.? They want us out so they can overthrow the current rulers and gain control of the oil resources.

I know many reasons are given for going to war, but I think there is always an economic driver. Fanatics and idealists may kill and die for an idea, but nations are led to war for economic reasons.

So what can we do? I think we Americans need to demand that serious, massive resources be dedicated to the development of modern, alternative energy sources. I don?t mean trial runs, and small time experimental projects, photo ops and pr speeches about how this is our future. We need to make it our present. I mean large scale, national projects on the order the Manhattan Project, the Apollo project, the US highway projects, the TVA projects. We Americans have amazed the world in the past, and we can do it again. But we must have leadership with the courage move forward.

Collapse -

Sanctions and isolation

by AV . In reply to Iran

Iran's defiant President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasting to the world about enriching uranium and testing missiles isn't going to win him any friends.

I certainly hope the US is not really considering "tactical nuclear strikes" in Iran or anything else like it. Why go to war if there is another way?

In the end, I think Iran will be sanctioned by the UN as long as GWB can work diplomatically. If Iran doesn't have nuclear weapon capability yet, he can be contained.

Collapse -

Sanctions will work

by Dr Dij In reply to Sanctions and isolation

if you ignore the fact that they will likely have nuclear missiles of better quality aiming probably than Saddam's SCUDs, by the time the UN gets around to sanctioning them.

I doubt we'd nuke strike them. Maybe a few conventional bombs thru the roof of their enrichment facilities.

Iran, despite using energy embargoes for political pressure (case of Turkey getting suddenly cutoff for a while from Iran nat gas pipeline after a vote about Iran), can't afford to not ship their oil. 90% of their govt revenues and 40% of their income is from oil exports.

Collapse -

Couldn't they sanction them now?

by AV . In reply to Sanctions will work

Iran is a major threat to the world and most countries do not like the bravado of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about joining the Nuclear Club. I don't know how long it usually takes to impose sanctions, but it needs to be done right now. I think Iran could be contained if it is done early.

I surely hope we don't bomb anyone else unilaterally. Support from the UN Security Council has to be there before any action is taken. Especially Russia and China.

Iran needs the oil money, but they don't have to sell oil to the US. If they can divide the security council countries with a promise of oil, they may avoid some sanctions. I don't think the US wants to alienate the Iranian people either.

Iran needs to be isolated from the world until it complies with the IAEA.

Collapse -

About that statement

by OnTheRopes In reply to Couldn't they sanction th ...

?Iran is a major threat to the world and most countries do not like the bravado of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about joining the Nuclear Club.?

Did you get that from CNN, Fox or some other threat-of-the-day news channel?

Collapse -

Do you disagree with the statement?

by AV . In reply to About that statement

I've seen it on many different news sources.

Every news channel has threat-of-the-day news lately because that is our world.

Collapse -

Who's the bully?

by OnTheRopes In reply to Do you disagree with the ...

Sure I disagree.

There are 192 countries in the world of which 9 are supposedly nuclear capable.
Iran is ranked 20th in World population AND has yet to be proven to have a nuclear WMD.
Given some fairly current figures that places them at about 3-4% of the population total.

Bad analogy follows:

As a thought experiment, try to picture a high stakes high school football game that everybody is going to go to. Now imagine the ENTIRE country of Iran as a high school wanting to go and pretend they actually have a way to get there.

Do you expect them to kick the entire stadiums 96-97% larger collective butt during half-time? It?s a pretty rough, well trained crowd they?re facing.
Should the rest of the stadium be afraid of the Iranian high school because, as it turns out they are NOT all armed and may (or may not) only have a single weapon amongst themselves.

Let me take a bad analogy even further:

Nine other high schools are at the same game. They may or may not like the Iranian high school. Seven of the other schools have 1273 bigger and better weapons between themselves. They?ve also had more time to deal with the psychological threats of bullies.
The 7 high schools sit in their own sections of the stadium, kind of trying to mind their own business.
The last 2 high schools at the game have 9500+ weapons among them.
Can you see yet why it?s best, if you?re the Iranian high-school, just to shut-up, sit down and watch the game?

If you want to imagine feeling threatened imagine being at the same game and having the most hostile and well armed high school in the crowd threatening to use some of their 6300+ big and bad weapons against your unarmed Iranian high school!

Bad analogy ends.

From what I can see, the US is trying to push their will, through force, on foreign people everywhere.

Why?

Whatever happened to diplomacy? Where's the olive branch? Whatever happened to intelligence?

I don't mean the military type of intelligence.

Why not invite, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and whatever associates he cares to bring with him, under UN protection to the United States?
Show him around the place. Make him feel welcome.
Why not? Are we afraid?

Tell me, PRECISELY, what we in the US and/or the World are afraid of if indeed we are afraid?

Shoot, if I turn off my TV, radio and quit reading the news I wouldn?t even know Iran exists until I talk to the friendly people that own my favorite package liquor store.

I don?t BELIEVE what I hear or read in the news. I prefer to make up my own mind.

I guess I must have had a pretty rough life. Over time, I?ve had 5 people tell other people that they were going to kill me.
What did I do?
I sought out each of those people, one on one. For various reasons, we came to an understanding that it might not be a good thing to threaten me. We developed mutual respect.

For the record, count me as not skeered. Not even a little bit.

Back to Community Forum
27 total posts (Page 2 of 3)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums