|
reno
Apr 18, 2006, 2:09 PM
Post #26 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: In reply to: I don't know if Isreal is capable but I think probably not. Have to disagree with you again. Isarael already has nuclear weapons. It also has biological and chemical weapons. Oh and it has an advanced and capable army, navy and air force. Trad: Do you think that any conflict between Iran and Israel has a chance in hell of NOT going nuclear, if Iran builds a nuclear warhead? Iran's President has called for Israel to be wiped off the map... is that an imaginary threat, or a real one?
|
|
|
|
|
theledge
Apr 18, 2006, 2:17 PM
Post #27 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2005
Posts: 116
|
Tradman, I think you need to reread some of CC's posts to this. There is nothing in there that says a military attack would be a good idea. The sugestion was to prevent a potentional situation before it occured. Is Iran a threat with nuclear power..... yes, and so is everyone else that has it. Why, becuase the country that is using the technology does not have to be the one to abuse it. All that needs to happen is for a little bit of it to get misplaced. After that.... well terrorist build things that go boom out of the same stuff that most of us clean our house with. I think they could figure out what to do with something better. Also, I dont think Israel or any other country could ever be evil enough to warrent not trying to stop a modern nuclear attack.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Apr 18, 2006, 3:47 PM
Post #29 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: In reply to: Iran's President has called for Israel to be wiped off the map... is that an imaginary threat, or a real one? Imaginary. Saddam Hussein said lots of nasty things about the west too. Look how real the threat from him was. Fair point. Not to bring Godwin's law into this, but Hitler said nasty things about the Jews as far back as the early 30's. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 19, 2006, 1:43 AM
Post #31 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: Not to bring Godwin's law into this, but Hitler said nasty things about the Jews as far back as the early 30's. Good example; the allied nations didn't declare war on germany until its army actually invaded and annexed poland. Not a preemptive strike. Good example of what? There is little doubt that waiting until 1939 to use force against Germany was a colossal mistake. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Apr 19, 2006, 3:54 AM
Post #32 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Not to bring Godwin's law into this, but Hitler said nasty things about the Jews as far back as the early 30's. Good example; the allied nations didn't declare war on germany until its army actually invaded and annexed poland. Not a preemptive strike. Good example of what? There is little doubt that waiting until 1939 to use force against Germany was a colossal mistake. Curt I agree. If Iran was currently building a massive army to take over the world, and had a large number of nuclear warheads (attached to missiles, of course), obviously we should prevent them from carrying out their mission. However, at this point in time, I don't believe Iran is planning any such world takeover. The U.S. on the other hand... I don't really trust US news outlets anymore--for good reason. They stretch the news to its limits. An example: Supposedly the military had launched an attack that took out one of the heads of Al Qaida. The next day, it turns out, they "potentially" killed one of the guys. Then a day later, it became "50% chance", and then it became "Killed a bunch of women and children, Al Qaida untouched". (This is a true story.) The media is obviously either manipulating information purposefully or incredibly incompetent and simply out to get high ratings. I also read a report that an interpreter misquoted Iran's leader from a speech--the quote (not exactly) was interpreted as "I want to build nuclear bombs" when what he actually said was "I want to build nuclear power plants". The news (i think on CNN) then reported this, but released the update a few days later? I don't know where the report is, but I promise this is a true story. This whole war--Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan (remember, we're still in Afghanistan?) is designed to create a state of disorder/chaos in the world to extend the United States Empire (really, an empire of the rich/super rich and wealthy corporations). Compare this with the history of the British Empire. They invaded countries all over, then allowed their companies to go in and get prime trade opportunities. Moral of the story: Bush Co. LIES, there is no need to attack Iran, just like there was no need to attack Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 19, 2006, 4:20 AM
Post #33 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Not to bring Godwin's law into this, but Hitler said nasty things about the Jews as far back as the early 30's. Good example; the allied nations didn't declare war on germany until its army actually invaded and annexed poland. Not a preemptive strike. Good example of what? There is little doubt that waiting until 1939 to use force against Germany was a colossal mistake. Curt I agree. If Iran was currently building a massive army to take over the world, and had a large number of nuclear warheads (attached to missiles, of course), obviously we should prevent them from carrying out their mission. However, at this point in time, I don't believe Iran is planning any such world takeover... So, just to make sure we're on the same page here, are you saying that you believe that Iran only wants to develop nuclear power for completely peaceful purposes--like the generation of electricity? Curt
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Apr 19, 2006, 5:35 AM
Post #34 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Not to bring Godwin's law into this, but Hitler said nasty things about the Jews as far back as the early 30's. Good example; the allied nations didn't declare war on germany until its army actually invaded and annexed poland. Not a preemptive strike. Good example of what? There is little doubt that waiting until 1939 to use force against Germany was a colossal mistake. Curt I agree. If Iran was currently building a massive army to take over the world, and had a large number of nuclear warheads (attached to missiles, of course), obviously we should prevent them from carrying out their mission. However, at this point in time, I don't believe Iran is planning any such world takeover... So, just to make sure we're on the same page here, are you saying that you believe that Iran only wants to develop nuclear power for completely peaceful purposes--like the generation of electricity? Curt It would seem pretty likely that generating electricity is a good reason to enrich uranium. Sorry if my use of the word "believe" created any confusion... All I know is that I don't trust Bush and Co to tell me what Iran is doing and why; I also know that I can't trust supposed "intelligence" provided by Bush and Co to support their decision to attack Iran. The sad truth is, until there is a widespread removal of corrupt politicians and a complete, thorough investigation into this administration and their links to the CIA and Pentagon, I will have a hard time trusting ANY intelligence they present to the nation to back their political decisions. If you want to know the truth of the matter--the only way for me to truly know what is going on in Iran is if our government gathers intelligence on Iran, which is unbiased, untainted, and trustworthy. Since this administration has corrupted just about all intelligence available, none of it is trustworthy; I can't know what's going on in Iran. Based on past events (i.e. Iraq), it would seem that the administration is, once again, presenting incorrect intelligence in order to sway the public to meet their desired goals of invading a foreign nation for no good reason. So, Curt, by my reasoning, Iran may or may not be building nukes--but I strongly doubt that they desire to nuke anyone with them, unlike Bush and Co. I'm basing this conclusiong on "innocent until proven guilty." But, since I do not trust Bush and Co, there isn't really any way they can convince me that Iran intends to nuke anyone, until it happens. Honestly, I trust Iran's leader more than I trust Bush--Bush has proven himself completely untrustworthy, while Iran's leader has not.
|
|
|
|
|
edwardmedina
Apr 19, 2006, 11:43 AM
Post #35 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2001
Posts: 29
|
Gotta chime in on this one. I see a lot of folks equating Iran with Iraq and pointing to the colossal fraud perpetrated in invading the latter as a good reason to avoid an entanglement with Iran. There are several significant differences between these two countries. Iran actually does sponsor terrorism and has proven itself willing to use it against the US. The bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut and the bombing of the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia were carried out by Iranian agents. The Iranian government has overtly declared itself the enemy of the US. If you believe Ken Timmerman in his seminal work 'Countdown to Crisis' there is compelling evidence linking Iran with Al-Qaeda and even with the 9/11 attacks. The fact is that Iran should have been the target of a much stronger US response. That response was wasted on Iraq, a secular power that never attacked the US. The notion that Iran wants nuclear technology exclusively for electrical generation is laughable. They sit on vast reserves of oil and, even better for power generation, natural gas. Iran has consistently made pleges to the West in regards to its nuclear agenda and promptly broken them. Should we believe anything they say? It's extensive affiliation with Hamas makes a nuclear attack on Israel a very believable scenario. Iran declared war on the US and Israel in 1979 and since they never rescinded that declaration we are technically still at war.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Apr 19, 2006, 2:11 PM
Post #36 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Unless you have actual evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons, you are still talking about imaginary threats. You're right, Iran and Iraq are very different. But our leaders have stayed the same. They lied through their teeth about the threat from Iraq. Don't you want to see some evidence this time?
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Apr 19, 2006, 2:36 PM
Post #37 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Since this administration has corrupted just about all intelligence available, none of it is trustworthy; I can't know what's going on in Iran.... I strongly doubt that they desire to nuke anyone with them, unlike Bush and Co. I'm basing this conclusiong on "innocent until proven guilty." But, since I do not trust Bush and Co, there isn't really any way they can convince me that Iran intends to nuke anyone, until it happens. Honestly, I trust Iran's leader more than I trust Bush An amazing combination of knowledge, intellect and common sense. You should run for President.
|
|
|
|
|
coopershawk
Apr 19, 2006, 9:20 PM
Post #38 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 210
|
hmmmm, now let's think about why exactly Iran is a foe of the US. Anyone here remember the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's? Anyone NOT convinced we armed the Iraqis to fight them, and now those arms are being used to kill our soldiers in a pointless conflict over "terrorism"(oil)? There is no black and white in this situation. American foreign policy in the Middle East has created the situation, gunboat fucking diplomacy has exacerbated it and the government of Israel is just as fanatical as Hamas, except they have nukes (generously provided by the US). Personally, I think Israel would love to nuke the shit out of Iran. So, how long before Iran put 2 and 2 together and came up with the Great Satan of the West? Oh yeah, and remember, we are the ONLY country to have used nuclear weapons in a war. Twice. Karma my friends. Karma. And doesn't Iran sit on a massive oil field? In fact, isn't Iran one big oil field? But of course, that has nothing to do with the sabre rattling. No, it's all about terrorism. Yeah fucking right.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Apr 19, 2006, 11:58 PM
Post #39 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: hmmmm, now let's think about why exactly Iran is a foe of the US. Anyone here remember the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's? Anyone NOT convinced we armed the Iraqis to fight them, and now those arms are being used to kill our soldiers in a pointless conflict over "terrorism"(oil)? Cooeprshawk, you're forgetting the "Death to America" chants that echoed through the streets of Tehran in 79, when Carter was too freaking spineless to do anything about the attack on the American Embassy. THAT alone is causus belli but we've shown restraint for the past 27 years by NOT going to Iran to kick their ass.
In reply to: There is no black and white in this situation. American foreign policy in the Middle East has created the situation, gunboat f---ing diplomacy has exacerbated it and the government of Israel is just as fanatical as Hamas, except they have nukes (generously provided by the US). :shock: Name the last time Israel made a preemptive strike against the Palestines. Hell, the Israelis even vacated Gaza in an effort to settle things down. And what did Hamas do in return?
In reply to: Personally, I think Israel would love to nuke the s--- out of Iran. Then why haven't they?
In reply to: And doesn't Iran sit on a massive oil field? In fact, isn't Iran one big oil field? True enough... which makes me wonder why they need nuclear technology for electricity. Don't tell me you think Amadjinaadhadji (or whatever the fuck his name is,) has a green side and is worried about fossil fuel emissions.
In reply to: But of course, that has nothing to do with the sabre rattling. No, it's all about terrorism. Yeah f---ing right. Well, think about it: The Mullahs in Iran have been calling "Death to the Great Satans" for years... since, oh, 79. Now that there are only TWO "Great Satans" (US and UK.... USSR is no longer,) who do you think they're going to focus on? Iran's ties to terrorism are well established, long, and extensive. But of course you don't believe any of that, and think it's all about making Chimpy McHaliburton-Hitler's cronies rich.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Apr 20, 2006, 5:29 AM
Post #40 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
In reply to: In reply to: Since this administration has corrupted just about all intelligence available, none of it is trustworthy; I can't know what's going on in Iran.... I strongly doubt that they desire to nuke anyone with them, unlike Bush and Co. I'm basing this conclusiong on "innocent until proven guilty." But, since I do not trust Bush and Co, there isn't really any way they can convince me that Iran intends to nuke anyone, until it happens. Honestly, I trust Iran's leader more than I trust Bush An amazing combination of knowledge, intellect and common sense. You should run for President. Yeah, all the military leaders that have threatened to resign if Bush doesn't withdraw the threat to use nukes on Iran are idiots too. You know, maybe I will run for president one day. Worse candidates have won in the past (well, mostly just Bush).
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Apr 20, 2006, 5:38 AM
Post #41 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
In reply to: But of course you don't believe any of that, and think it's all about making Chimpy McHaliburton-Hitler's cronies rich. Yep. Otherwise we'd be invading North Korea--they have nukes now, remember? They've even threatened us with them!
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Apr 20, 2006, 11:49 AM
Post #42 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: There is no black and white in this situation. Except..In reply to: American foreign policy in the Middle East has created the situation Love the "Blame America First" sentiment. :wink: Collegekid, So, you're saying that because our leaders are doing a crappy job, we should just ignore the obvious red flags, waving over Iran??? :? Nice bit of critical thinking, sport.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 20, 2006, 3:22 PM
Post #43 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Iran is NOT one big oil field. It has big oil fields to be sure, down near the Gulf. My current thinking is a preemptive strike to prevent Iran from building nuclear facilities would not produce useful long term results. Surely they will build a bomb or 3 or 10 if they are able. If you lived next door to an ancient enemy bent on your destruction, wouldn't you? But Iran is complex. There are plenty there who don't want wars and don't want to bomb distant lands. They are not all fanatics. My approach would be to target all of Iran's major cities with nukes and issue a stern warning... launch a nuke attack on another country and your civilization will be anilihated. enable a terrorist organization to do the same? Face the same fate... the elimination of the persian people. Then let Iran keep her fanatics in line herself. That's what I'd do. I would not ask Isreal to do our dirty work as payback for all our defense of them. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
coopershawk
Apr 20, 2006, 10:05 PM
Post #44 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 210
|
Iran also has a strong youth movement. I completely believe that the citizens themselves are in no big hurry to prompt a war with anyone, anymore than say, the citizens of iraq were. Maybe Israel hasn't preemptively struck anyone militarily yet (Mossad assassinations aside, of course), but they owe their unrestrained military might entirely to the efforts of the west. They certainly didn't develop their own nukes(where would they test them?). Now, whatever problems the Muslims and the Jews have with each other transcends the history of this country by a few thousand years. We arm one side of the problem, this ancient, ancient problem, and the other one is bound to resent it. We armed Iraq, we armed Israel, we armed Afghanistan, why? What's the real reason? sure, Iran maybe developing the potential for nuclear weapons, but we KNOW North Korea has them. Shit, I'd say it's because there's nothing of interest in North Korea whatsoever besides a few million starving people, and the last time I looked, my car doesn't run on North Koreans.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 21, 2006, 4:02 AM
Post #45 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Unless you have actual evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons, you are still talking about imaginary threats. You're right, Iran and Iraq are very different. But our leaders have stayed the same. They lied through their teeth about the threat from Iraq. Don't you want to see some evidence this time? I'm not so sure we have to rely on our own leaders in this case to see the difference between Iraq and Iran. Saddam said he didn't have WMD--and he didn't. Iran, on the other hand, says that it will wipe Israel from the face of the Earth. Perhaps instead of making another mistake in foreign policy, we should also take this statement at face value? Curt
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Apr 21, 2006, 4:58 AM
Post #46 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: They lied through their teeth about the threat from Iraq. Don't you want to see some evidence this time? Not if that evidence is nuclear fallout in Israel and a few hundred thousand dead bodies. At that point, it's going to be too late, cause Israel will respond in kind, and we'll have a nuclear slug-fest in the middle east. And that, my friend, is not going to serve ANYONE'S interests.
|
|
|
|
|
highcamp
Apr 21, 2006, 3:46 PM
Post #47 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 29
|
Looking back at the “Axis of Evil” speech Bush made in front of Congress, 3 countries were listed as threats: Iraq, Iran and N.Korea. If you had to rank the relative threat of these 3 states with respect to US security and global stability, which would be the greatest threat and which would be the smallest? I’d argue, and I’m sure most would agree, that in terms of threat, the ranking would be (from high to low): NK, Iran, Iraq. Each of these 3 states were, at the time, engaged in ongoing campaigns that violated UN agreements – and the severity and frequency of these violations were escalating. In the face of such behavior, no response by the global community translates directly as appeasement. Foreign policy, domestic policy, neighborhood bullies, all of these have shown over the span of history that appeasement in the face of aggressive personalities has the high probability of yielding something ugly in the future… real ugly. So, doing nothing is a poor option. Sanctions are choice number one, but if they fail at achieving results, force needs to be used – because again, appeasement is the appetizer before ugly. Now look back at how both global and regional superpowers conducted their foreign policy in times of near-conflict during the mechanized age (primarily the 20th century, although the rail system of the late 19th century also has examples). How often did a power directly engage its primary enemy first? Now think why? Interestingly, this type of “policy” goes back ages - remember the skull pyramids the Khans left as calling cards on their westward march? Intimidation has great success in getting problems resolved with reduced causality counts. Sequential game theory 101. “Intimidation” here encompasses both scaring opponents into submission AND just letting them know you really do mean business – where perhaps they were unsure of it before. So now returning to the “Axis of Evil” ranking, historic examples and GT both lean heavily toward NOT engaging the strongest adversary first. Instead, engage one where a resounding victory with the least casualties is most probable. Iraq satisfied both of those criteria – both because of their low relative threat and the fact that the US had been there a decade earlier. So engaging them first became the strategy, despite Iran and NK both being greater threats to global stability. In the early parts of the war, that so called “Shock and Awe” phase, the strategy actually worked as expected. Both Iran AND North Korea immediately silenced their “war drums”. Not a peep came out of either of their presidential palaces during that time. No rhetoric. Nothing. As US ground troops took acreage in Iraq, Iran immediately allowed the IAEA to return and Kim re-opened the doors to talks about NK’s nuclear programs. The desired effect was achieved against the greater threats by soundly trouncing the relative lowest threat. It was “textbook” almost. Unfortunately, the US has bumbled basically everything since that initial “Shock and Awe” success. Consequently, both Iran and NK have returned to their pre-9/11 temperaments. The Bush administration is solely to blame for this f-up. More importantly, however, we are now back at square one: ranking the current set of threats and picking the lowest for engagement. (And no, Iran is not the lowest.) What does this all have to do with this thread? Probably nothing. But to those out there who continually shout “Bush this…” and “Bush that…” or throw about media charged terms like “WMD,” “terrorist links,” or “oil” like those are the explanations to everything, I challenge you to look at historical examples and power/super-power security strategies when evaluating current US foreign policy trends. enjoy your friday…
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Apr 21, 2006, 4:47 PM
Post #48 of 48
(1179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: I'm not so sure we have to rely on our own leaders in this case to see the difference between Iraq and Iran. Saddam said he didn't have WMD--and he didn't. Iran, on the other hand, says that it will wipe Israel from the face of the Earth. Perhaps instead of making another mistake in foreign policy, we should also take this statement at face value? Curt It would be incredibly stupid to take it at face value. Taking such statements at face value makes us vulnerable to manipulation. We should be smarter than that. You have to ask yourself, why is Iran's president making such statements? What is his political situation? How was he able to come into power? What does he need more than anything in order to retain power? You also have to ask yourself, why is Israel not nearly as concerned about Iran as we are? Banging the war drums at this time is weakening our position and giving power to the Iranian president. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|