PDA

View Full Version : The situation in Iran confuses me.



Stoop Dawg
6/5/2007, 02:13 PM
Been away for a while, so sorry if this has already been discussed.

I'm confused by Iran on a couple of points, primarily from this story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070605/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

A) Iran has stated all along that it's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. In the story, they say "Iran says it is within its rights to pursue uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes." If it's for peaceful purposes, why do they say "We advise them not to play with the lion's tail"? I think we all know that Iran can't compete with a conventional army. How are they a "lion"?

B) Addressing the West, Ahmadinejad said that a third round of sanctions will only "make things harder for you and distances you from resolving the issue ... We advise them to give up stubbornness and childish games." Now, I'm under the impression that the "issue" is Iran's nuclear program (we don't want them to enrich weapon's grade plut). So if Iran has only been enriching plut for peaceful purposes, how do sanctions make things "harder" for the West?

C) "Now, they said help us," Ahmadinejad said, in an apparent reference to the U.S. invitation for the Baghdad talks. "We are prepared, for the sake of the Iraqi people, to help. We won't spare any efforts." Iranians have largely welcomed the talks, although the state television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying Iran only agreed to them after the U.S. asked Iran 40 times and sent a formal diplomatic note. I don't think it's any secret that the US has been looking for help in Iraq from anyone and everyone for 3 years now. How does Iran claim to want to help the Iraqi people now when they've not done anything for 3 years and after "40" invites from the US? Doesn't that make Iran look bad instead of good? "Yeah, we've done nothing for 3 years while the US has been begging us for help. We're the good guys." WTF?

D) Is the US (and the rest of the world) content to just let anyone and everyone develop the ability to destroy the world? Apparently so. Just like after Vietnam, we're frozen by fear of making another mistake. Unfortunately, it seems to require great tragedy before the world will take another stand against tyranny. I wonder how many people will have to die this time?

TexasLidig8r
6/5/2007, 02:48 PM
And all the while, Iran waits for the US to leave Iraq. Within 6 months after our troop withdrawal, Iran will perpetrate a confrontation with Iraqi troops or militia and in order to protect their right to remain sovereign, will invade Iraq. They will call on their Shiite brothers in Iraq to support their righteous intervention in Iraq, the Iraqi militia will fall very quickly and we will see the birth of something like.. The United Arab State comprised of the countries formerly known as Iraq and Iran.

The Syrians and Jordanians could very well be next and under the guise of unifying and strengthening their Muslim brotherhood, will urge Shiites in those countries to unite with them to form a country, economically and militarily strong enough to withstand again, an "invasion" army from the West, and to remain strong against the developing, new Soviet missiles.

It's gonna get a lot worse before it gets any better.

BU BEAR
6/5/2007, 03:08 PM
My greatest concern is that many of the other countries in the region are now also pursuing nuclear energy for supposedly peaceful purposes. What you could see is a ME nuclear arms race with Turkey, Saudi and Egypt all interested in nuclear power if Iran continues forward toward a nuclear weapon.

IronSooner
6/5/2007, 03:11 PM
Could be more interesting considering Iranians aren't arabs, and that traditionally the Iranians and Iraquis have had few positive things to say to each other. I see Iran trying to take over Iraq, but I don't see that going smoothly really.

MamaMia
6/5/2007, 03:22 PM
Its very confusing indeed. :confused:

Widescreen
6/5/2007, 03:36 PM
C) "Now, they said help us," Ahmadinejad said, in an apparent reference to the U.S. invitation for the Baghdad talks. "We are prepared, for the sake of the Iraqi people, to help. We won't spare any efforts." Iranians have largely welcomed the talks, although the state television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying Iran only agreed to them after the U.S. asked Iran 40 times and sent a formal diplomatic note. I don't think it's any secret that the US has been looking for help in Iraq from anyone and everyone for 3 years now. How does Iran claim to want to help the Iraqi people now when they've not done anything for 3 years and after "40" invites from the US? Doesn't that make Iran look bad instead of good? "Yeah, we've done nothing for 3 years while the US has been begging us for help. We're the good guys." WTF?
Clearly that was simply Ahmadinejad trying to show how much the US needs him and how important he is. He probably didn't even consider the way you are looking at it. You're right - it shouldn't make Iran look good but it seems middle easterners think very differently than we do in the west.

BU BEAR
6/5/2007, 03:51 PM
Ahma-nutjob fancies himself the Islamic Messiah figure, the Mahdi. He is pretty much a flake, but may soon be a flake with a nuke and Taepadong 2 missle with a range of about 3000KM.

reevie
6/5/2007, 04:52 PM
In my opinion....

A) They are lion because of their ties with terrorist organizations. Any attack on Iran or Iranian interests and the Iranians will start a proxy war. I'm sure, like every other country, they've been studying our military over the past 10 years to figure out how we fight. They're conventional army would (assuming they have adequate leadership) apply what they've learn and make a conventional war coupled with a terrorist war incredibly difficult and complex.

B) Sanctions would just make them harder to deal with. We do not have any legal trade relationships with Iran...which means we import no oil from Iran among other things. So sanctions would not hurt their economy from a lost US dollar perspective. Meaningful sanctions would have to include those countries who are doing business with Iran to stop. Their threat here is just to let us know that they would become more beligerent...say threatening or actually using peaceful nuclear power facilities to build weapons.

C) Iran wants to be treated like a respected member of the international community. They want us to send them formal, written requests and talk to them like we do with other countries. Official US policy with Iran since 1979 has been to ignore that they exist, diplomatically speaking. I think they're trying to prove a point here that we cannot be successful here without them. This also puts them in the position of a shining knight coming in at a later date to clean up our mess.

D) Have we learned nothing of Europe lately? They were content to let Yugoslavia kill civilians in Bosnia, Herz. and Kosovo for almost 10 years until they couldn't ignore it anymore. Europe won't act on Iran until they are specifically endangered by Iran. China will let Iran do its thing until they start encouring the Muslims in western China to do something or stepping on their sphere of influence. Russia needs money, that's why they're involved in Iran's nuclear program. I don't know if India can project power on a scale to confront Iran and what it would take for them to get involved. But as long as Iran is focused on harassing the US and UK, the rest of the world will let them be our problem.



If you really want to be confused about Iran. Try to figure out who really is in charge of the Iranian government.

Collier11
6/5/2007, 05:05 PM
I thought Iran was shut down for all the insider trading several years ago, OLD NEWS!!! :confused:






:D :D :D :D :D

JohnnyMack
6/5/2007, 05:11 PM
And all the while, Iran waits for the US to leave Iraq. Within 6 months after our troop withdrawal, Iran will perpetrate a confrontation with Iraqi troops or militia and in order to protect their right to remain sovereign, will invade Iraq. They will call on their Shiite brothers in Iraq to support their righteous intervention in Iraq, the Iraqi militia will fall very quickly and we will see the birth of something like.. The United Arab State comprised of the countries formerly known as Iraq and Iran.

The Syrians and Jordanians could very well be next and under the guise of unifying and strengthening their Muslim brotherhood, will urge Shiites in those countries to unite with them to form a country, economically and militarily strong enough to withstand again, an "invasion" army from the West, and to remain strong against the developing, new Soviet missiles.

It's gonna get a lot worse before it gets any better.

Which is why I said from the beginning that taking Hussein out was worse than having him in. From a geopolitical point of view of course.

Add that in with the rate at which relations seem to be cooling with the ol' CCCP and you've set the table for a good old fashioned **** storm.

Should be fun to watch.

Where's the popcorn smiley?

Vaevictis
6/5/2007, 05:12 PM
Been away for a while, so sorry if this has already been discussed.

I'm confused by Iran on a couple of points, primarily from this story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070605/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

(...)
(bunch of stuff about Iran)
(...)

It can all be summarized by one word: Posturing. That's all that's going on. Go watch videos of the Soviet premiers, Castro, Chavez, Saddam, etc. When you've got nothing of substance, you get up on a podium, rant for awhile, and pretend you're the big man on the block.

He ain't doing these things to impress or convince us, it's to shore up political support in Iran and possibly within the region.

OklahomaTuba
6/5/2007, 05:15 PM
Best bet is to NOT let Iran have nukes.

If we are truly fighting a global war on terror, the last thing we can allow to happen is the world's #1 sponsor of terrorism to have a nuke.

And we should have started bombing their asses the second we found out Iran was supplying the terrorists killing our soldiers in Iraq.

OklahomaTuba
6/5/2007, 05:18 PM
Which is why I said from the beginning that taking Hussein out was worse than having him in. From a geopolitical point of view of course.


And from a military point of view, it just means we have our biggest enemy surrounded.

OklahomaTuba
6/5/2007, 05:22 PM
It can all be summarized by one word: Posturing.

Please.

Its a little more than posturing when Iran is openly killing our troops and funding terrorists groups that are firing missles into countries killing innocent people.

Hate to think what happens if we let them get a nuke.

King Crimson
6/5/2007, 05:27 PM
And from a military point of view, it just means we have our biggest enemy surrounded.

thank god we are going to take out Illinois.

OklahomaTuba
6/5/2007, 05:31 PM
thank god we are going to take out Illinois.

Ahh King, I hate to have to tell you this, but Illinois isn't in the middle east now.

King Crimson
6/5/2007, 05:33 PM
Ahh King, I hate to have to tell you this, but Illinois isn't in the middle east now.

that Huessein guy is from there, boyo. eh?

OklahomaTuba
6/5/2007, 05:37 PM
that Huessein guy is from there, boyo. eh?

Heh. ;)

Harry Beanbag
6/5/2007, 05:41 PM
And from a military point of view, it just means we have our biggest enemy surrounded.


This is true, to a point. Our armed forces are so small we can't do anything to exploit this geography. If we are serious about this war, we have to start rebuilding our military once again so we can fight (and win) the truly global war that I'm afraid is on the horizon. With nukes these days, we can't afford to wait until this thing really gets out of hand, especially when one is deployed in Baghdad that wipes out half our active duty forces.

Stoop Dawg
6/6/2007, 11:25 AM
In my opinion....

A) They are lion because of their ties with terrorist organizations. Any attack on Iran or Iranian interests and the Iranians will start a proxy war. I'm sure, like every other country, they've been studying our military over the past 10 years to figure out how we fight. They're conventional army would (assuming they have adequate leadership) apply what they've learn and make a conventional war coupled with a terrorist war incredibly difficult and complex.

B) Sanctions would just make them harder to deal with. We do not have any legal trade relationships with Iran...which means we import no oil from Iran among other things. So sanctions would not hurt their economy from a lost US dollar perspective. Meaningful sanctions would have to include those countries who are doing business with Iran to stop. Their threat here is just to let us know that they would become more beligerent...say threatening or actually using peaceful nuclear power facilities to build weapons.

C) Iran wants to be treated like a respected member of the international community. They want us to send them formal, written requests and talk to them like we do with other countries. Official US policy with Iran since 1979 has been to ignore that they exist, diplomatically speaking. I think they're trying to prove a point here that we cannot be successful here without them. This also puts them in the position of a shining knight coming in at a later date to clean up our mess.

D) Have we learned nothing of Europe lately? They were content to let Yugoslavia kill civilians in Bosnia, Herz. and Kosovo for almost 10 years until they couldn't ignore it anymore. Europe won't act on Iran until they are specifically endangered by Iran. China will let Iran do its thing until they start encouring the Muslims in western China to do something or stepping on their sphere of influence. Russia needs money, that's why they're involved in Iran's nuclear program. I don't know if India can project power on a scale to confront Iran and what it would take for them to get involved. But as long as Iran is focused on harassing the US and UK, the rest of the world will let them be our problem.



If you really want to be confused about Iran. Try to figure out who really is in charge of the Iranian government.

Thanks for taking the time to post that, reevie. It's good stuff.

A) Good point, but is their conventional army + terrorist network really a threat? Also, they'll need to take credit for backing those terrorists if they are to live up to "being a lion", no? But my real point was that their statement about being a "lion" implies that they are not just enriching uranium for peaceful purposes.

B) I am under the impression that sanctions would come from the UN, not the US.

C) And well they should. But in order to be treated with respect one must treat others with respect. Perhaps the US treats them poorly, but as far as I know this whole affair has been handled through the UN thus far. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't followed it all that closely.

D) Agree completely. Europe allows attrocities of enormous scale. But that doesn't seem to stop them from condemning the US for ... well, everything.

TexasLidig8r
6/6/2007, 11:48 AM
Which is why I said from the beginning that taking Hussein out was worse than having him in. From a geopolitical point of view of course.

Add that in with the rate at which relations seem to be cooling with the ol' CCCP and you've set the table for a good old fashioned **** storm.

Should be fun to watch.

Where's the popcorn smiley?

Which is one of the many reasons why we need to be out of the UN... the UN passes resolutions and then does not enforce them. Rogue leaders are free to flaunt UN resolutions because the Security Council, for the most part, lack the conviction to militarily, if necessary, enforce the resolutions.

Prime example, Hussein was refusing access by UN designated weapons inspectors. Repeated demand was made by the UN. Did the Security Council unite, and send a truly united military force in at any time? Of course not. Our military actions were opposed by all of the other Security Council members except the Brits. And, don't even get me started on the corruption of the French and Russians in skirting the very economic embargo and sanctions imposed on Iraq. Oh, and when have the flippin' Chinese done ANYTHING militarily to enforce UN resolutions?

The UN is nothing but an organization to have impoverished countries have a forum to air their complaints and seek hand outs, while at the same time, deriding the US and our way of life. It has outlived its usefulness. It is ineffective and impotent.

MojoRisen
6/6/2007, 11:50 AM
IRAN:

Lion- see how they like an assult by air that destroys all the military infrastructure in less than 3 weeks.

Navy stand bye for the vice grip- if they retaliate - take em out.

sooner_born_1960
6/6/2007, 11:50 AM
100% agreement, Lid. Well maybe 99%. I'm not sure it ever had a usefulness.

Ike
6/6/2007, 11:59 AM
Thanks for taking the time to post that, reevie. It's good stuff.

A) Good point, but is their conventional army + terrorist network really a threat? Also, they'll need to take credit for backing those terrorists if they are to live up to "being a lion", no? But my real point was that their statement about being a "lion" implies that they are not just enriching uranium for peaceful purposes.

B) I am under the impression that sanctions would come from the UN, not the US.

C) And well they should. But in order to be treated with respect one must treat others with respect. Perhaps the US treats them poorly, but as far as I know this whole affair has been handled through the UN thus far. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't followed it all that closely.

D) Agree completely. Europe allows attrocities of enormous scale. But that doesn't seem to stop them from condemning the US for ... well, everything.


A) I think Iran fancies itself a lion, as it is still living in the past and believes that their ability to push a US backed Saddam back in the 80s is 'proof' that they are a big dog. If we were to wage open war with them, I do not think for a minute that it would be easy to topple their government.

B) Sanctions against Iraq came from the UN didn't they. They weren't nearly as effective as we'd have liked them to be. I think that sanctions against Iran would be even less effective, as I think the Russians and Chineese would openly flaunt them...or use their leverage with the security council to make sure they don't happen.

C) The mid-east tradition (at least among states) seems to be that respect is gained through being the bigger fish.

D) (Non)Proliferation of nukes is a tricky business in the first place. The science is pretty simple, the engineering is only slightly more difficult. If a country has natural uranium deposits, development of nukes seems to me to be an inevitability. That isn't to say that we shouldnt try to get in the way of other countries developing nukes...but at the same time, we should also be thinking about what happens when they acquire them, because it ain't that hard, and it's only getting easier over time. That said, I still think that any country that does not have ridiculously large stockpiles of nukes would be insane or stupid or more likely both to sell or give those nukes to terrorists. Why? Because we do have ridiculously large stockpiles of nukes, and if one is used, it will only be a matter of time before its country of origin is determined, and the originating country becomes an afterthought.

sooner_born_1960
6/6/2007, 12:03 PM
A) It most certainly would be easy, but we probably wouldn't go there.

TheHumanAlphabet
6/6/2007, 12:04 PM
And all the while, Iran waits for the US to leave Iraq. Within 6 months after our troop withdrawal, Iran will perpetrate a confrontation with Iraqi troops or militia and in order to protect their right to remain sovereign, will invade Iraq. They will call on their Shiite brothers in Iraq to support their righteous intervention in Iraq, the Iraqi militia will fall very quickly and we will see the birth of something like.. The United Arab State comprised of the countries formerly known as Iraq and Iran.

The Syrians and Jordanians could very well be next and under the guise of unifying and strengthening their Muslim brotherhood, will urge Shiites in those countries to unite with them to form a country, economically and militarily strong enough to withstand again, an "invasion" army from the West, and to remain strong against the developing, new Soviet missiles.

It's gonna get a lot worse before it gets any better.

You may be right more that you think. What's funny is that Iran (Persia) is not arab and they spend much time trying to be identified as non-arabs.

Iran used to be Persia and changed its name during WWII in support of the Nazi's. Iran means "friend of aryans" or something like that.

Iraq was run by the Baathists (official name Baath Arab Socialist Party) and Saddam was an original henchman. They were trained by the Nazi's and Saddam was an avid reader of Hitler. The SS trained much of the original group and hoped to use them to disrupt British influence in the region during WWII. The Syrian Baathists are of the same group. Salah al-Din al-Bitar saw the Nazi's as a way to remove the Brits from the region. He was part of the inteligencia in the early 1900s that were educated in France.

So its France's fault.

OklahomaTuba
6/6/2007, 12:41 PM
Which is one of the many reasons why we need to be out of the UN... the UN passes resolutions and then does not enforce them. Rogue leaders are free to flaunt UN resolutions because the Security Council, for the most part, lack the conviction to militarily, if necessary, enforce the resolutions.

Prime example, Hussein was refusing access by UN designated weapons inspectors. Repeated demand was made by the UN. Did the Security Council unite, and send a truly united military force in at any time? Of course not. Our military actions were opposed by all of the other Security Council members except the Brits. And, don't even get me started on the corruption of the French and Russians in skirting the very economic embargo and sanctions imposed on Iraq. Oh, and when have the flippin' Chinese done ANYTHING militarily to enforce UN resolutions?

The UN is nothing but an organization to have impoverished countries have a forum to air their complaints and seek hand outs, while at the same time, deriding the US and our way of life. It has outlived its usefulness. It is ineffective and impotent.

How true.

They are doing a bang up job in Darfur right now.

The UN is the biggest waste of money in history. No other organization can do so little with so much.

Scott D
6/6/2007, 01:47 PM
A) Publically the best manner of things would be to take what they say at face value. (Now before you get apoplectic tuba, let me finish) Privately, it would be of great interest for us and other nations to be monitoring the situation as best as possible with the best possible infiltration methods.

B) They're basically saying "We can make the 'stabilization' of Iraq easy for you, or we can make it more difficult than it already is. This is something that definitely needs to be taken as it's meant at face value as a pure unadulterated warning. Like it or not, they do have a bit of the upper hand in this regard (for now). International public opinion will likely support their side in this matter to a degree over our governmental point of view.

C) This part is the most complex. For the last 30+ years both countries have been acting like petulent children in regards to each other. In some ways you could compare it to the situation with Cuba. I mean, someone please tell me how 80+ year old Fidel Castro who is barely alive is a threat to world safety. Our continued sanctions on them and refusal to establish normalized diplomatic relations are just a continuation of being a petulent child in the world of diplomacy. It can't hurt us to at least attempt to establish some form of normalized relations with Iran regardless of the last 30 years.

D) The world today is as different from the era of Vietnam as the era of Vietnam was from the era of World War II. Some Europeans will state that a portion of it is that in their 'older' part of the world, most of the countries there are 'tired of the bloodshed' that has gone on due to their countries and policies for the last 700 years. Folk with Tuba's mindset will say that it's been part of the overall wussification of Europe, and give a laundry list of reasons as to why this is why we can't count on our 'allies' for anything of substance.

I'm adding the following point as a way of addressing other issues

re: Lid's stating of an invasion within 6 months. If you want to see how fast Iraq would unify and forget their secular differences, nothing would bring that about faster than an Iranian invasion.

re: the point raised about India. India's hands are relatively tied in this matter, if they start rattling sabres at Iran, they have Pakistan on their other side whom is also nuclear capable, and has an uneasy peace with India at this moment. What side do you really think Pakistan will come in on?

re: Russia and China. Both benefit greatly from the ME retaining an unstable situation. The worst possible thing for them would be any sort of normalized relations the US could gain with Iran, especially if it could accelerate to speaking terms between the leaders. As long as the situation is unstable, they get massive gains with 'cheap' oil, and a buyer for excess arms.

re: Saddam. Iran has always been the one wild card in regards to toppling Saddam. Any plan for that toppling, should have had how to handle the entailing situation with Iran and Syria set up BEFORE there were plans made for an invasion. That is probably the biggest area where the administration both now, and the previous regime failed this country. As it stands now, we have to wait and see if all we managed to do was remove one rabid former puppet with another rabid puppet once we scale down and begin to move out.

re: Illinois. I'm all for parts of Illinois being nuked, they are on my list right after I-35 through downtown Austin. :D

Stoop Dawg
6/6/2007, 01:55 PM
B) Sanctions against Iraq came from the UN didn't they. They weren't nearly as effective as we'd have liked them to be. I think that sanctions against Iran would be even less effective, as I think the Russians and Chineese would openly flaunt them...or use their leverage with the security council to make sure they don't happen.

I don't think sanctions work, nor are they a good idea. All they really do is punish the civilians. The govt is rarely affected in any significant way. They also tend to punish allies who rely on trade with that country.

My point in bringing it up is that Iran is making threatening remarks concerning sanctions. What exactly does it mean that "negotiations will be harder"? I've not heard where they've ever even considered dropping their entire nuclear program. How does it get any "harder" than that? And in what way is it "too late"? How is Iran "already past the point where the UN wants them to be"? Are they implying that they already have nuclear weapons? Or that they have already enriched uranium for their peaceful power plants?

To me, it sounds like a bunch of sabre-rattling. But if you are a peaceful country, why are you rattling your sabre?


D) (Non)Proliferation of nukes is a tricky business in the first place. The science is pretty simple, the engineering is only slightly more difficult. If a country has natural uranium deposits, development of nukes seems to me to be an inevitability. That isn't to say that we shouldnt try to get in the way of other countries developing nukes...but at the same time, we should also be thinking about what happens when they acquire them, because it ain't that hard, and it's only getting easier over time. That said, I still think that any country that does not have ridiculously large stockpiles of nukes would be insane or stupid or more likely both to sell or give those nukes to terrorists. Why? Because we do have ridiculously large stockpiles of nukes, and if one is used, it will only be a matter of time before its country of origin is determined, and the originating country becomes an afterthought.

Tricky? Not IMO. All nuclear weapons should be opposed, where ever they exist. Is it hypocritical to want the US to have them and others not? Yes. But so what? This is where I live. Also, I strongly believe that the US would not launch a nuke even in response to a terrorist nuke. I could be wrong on that, but I don't think so.

I know I'm out in "la la land" here, nuclear weapons are not going to just go away. But that doesn't stop me from opposing them. All of them. And it doesn't stop me from being a bit hypocritical and wanting other countries to "stand down" first (or never get them, as the case may be).

And finally, I'm not so sure any other country would give two shakes if a terrorist detonated a nuke in the US. They would question any intelligence linking the nuke to a particular origin country and oppose military action against that country. It's just what France does. I guess if the US had lost as many wars as France we'd oppose military action as well! (sorry, couldn't resist)

Scott D
6/6/2007, 02:04 PM
I don't think sanctions work, nor are they a good idea. All they really do is punish the civilians. The govt is rarely affected in any significant way. They also tend to punish allies who rely on trade with that country.

My point in bringing it up is that Iran is making threatening remarks concerning sanctions. What exactly does it mean that "negotiations will be harder"? I've not heard where they've ever even considered dropping their entire nuclear program. How does it get any "harder" than that? And in what way is it "too late"? How is Iran "already past the point where the UN wants them to be"? Are they implying that they already have nuclear weapons? Or that they have already enriched uranium for their peaceful power plants?

To me, it sounds like a bunch of sabre-rattling. But if you are a peaceful country, why are you rattling your sabre?

In your opinion, what is the best way to announce you are ready to be a major player on the biggest stage? Iran is pretty much stating, you make sanctions...and we'll be less inclined to want to talk with you. And, while we're at it, we can go ahead and turn up the heat in Iraq for you...albeit we'll deny any possible connection you could accuse us of.


Tricky? Not IMO. All nuclear weapons should be opposed, where ever they exist. Is it hypocritical to want the US to have them and others not? Yes. But so what? This is where I live. Also, I strongly believe that the US would not launch a nuke even in response to a terrorist nuke. I could be wrong on that, but I don't think so.

I know I'm out in "la la land" here, nuclear weapons are not going to just go away. But that doesn't stop me from opposing them. All of them. And it doesn't stop me from being a bit hypocritical and wanting other countries to "stand down" first (or never get them, as the case may be).

And finally, I'm not so sure any other country would give two shakes if a terrorist detonated a nuke in the US. They would question any intelligence linking the nuke to a particular origin country and oppose military action against that country. It's just what France does. I guess if the US had lost as many wars as France we'd oppose military action as well! (sorry, couldn't resist)

The problem is that the rational conclusion is that nuclear weapons only serve their purpose as a deterrant. If you are forced to use them, then no matter what the final outcome may be, you've lost. It's rational to oppose the existence of nuclear weapons, and it can be argued that they exist only because man has a god complex in needing big toys that can destroy anything near their detonation.

Opposing a military solution to every problem isn't very 'Francelike', but realistically it should be considered to be the last resort if at all possible. However, consider it this way....terrorists out of Iran (proven through multiple links) detonate a nuclear device in the United States, we retaliate with a nuclear strike. The question becomes who fires the next shot..does Iran do it directly, is there a coup in Pakistan and they fire the next shot which results in India firing a retaliatory shot, does this draw in Russia and China to fire off retaliatory shots to any of the previous shots? Nobody can with any certainty say they know how that chain of dominoes would fall, and it's in everyone's best interest for none of those dominoes to ever even slightly wobble.

BU BEAR
6/6/2007, 02:16 PM
Questions: Do you consider the mullahocracy in Iran to be a rational or irrational actor?

Do you think that the mullahocracy in Iran would be a rational or irrational actor with respect to the use of nuclear weapons should they acquire them?

Do you think the same assumptions that made M.A.D. a viable framework with the Soviets could be applied to Iran if they acquire a nuclear arsenal?

Stoop Dawg
6/6/2007, 02:18 PM
In your opinion, what is the best way to announce you are ready to be a major player on the biggest stage? Iran is pretty much stating, you make sanctions...and we'll be less inclined to want to talk with you. And, while we're at it, we can go ahead and turn up the heat in Iraq for you...albeit we'll deny any possible connection you could accuse us of.

In my opinion, there is no need to announce that you are ready to be a major player on the biggest stage. Just start playing. It's like the guy who tells all his friends what a great ball player he is. You immediately know he sucks if he's talking himself up. If you're a major player, people know it.

But again, I don't have a problem with their "announcement" per se. I'm just trying to read between the lines. They publicly state that they are not creating nuclear weapons, then make remarks like these that imply that maybe they are.


The problem is that the rational conclusion is that nuclear weapons only serve their purpose as a deterrant. If you are forced to use them, then no matter what the final outcome may be, you've lost. It's rational to oppose the existence of nuclear weapons, and it can be argued that they exist only because man has a god complex in needing big toys that can destroy anything near their detonation.

Opposing a military solution to every problem isn't very 'Francelike', but realistically it should be considered to be the last resort if at all possible. However, consider it this way....terrorists out of Iran (proven through multiple links) detonate a nuclear device in the United States, we retaliate with a nuclear strike. The question becomes who fires the next shot..does Iran do it directly, is there a coup in Pakistan and they fire the next shot which results in India firing a retaliatory shot, does this draw in Russia and China to fire off retaliatory shots to any of the previous shots? Nobody can with any certainty say they know how that chain of dominoes would fall, and it's in everyone's best interest for none of those dominoes to ever even slightly wobble.

Opposing a military solution to every problem is different than opposing a military solution to any problem. As far as I can tell, all of the negotiations and sanctions have netted zero. I'm not saying that now is the time for military action against Iran, but I am asking what the next step *should* be.

And I agree 100% that we don't want any wobbling dominoes. Nor do we want dominoes set up on a wobbly table. And actually, we should start trying to take down some of the dominoes that are already set up - even if they appear to be pretty stable at the moment.

Scott D
6/6/2007, 02:23 PM
Questions: Do you consider the mullahocracy in Iran to be a rational or irrational actor?

Do you think that the mullahocracy in Iran would be a rational or irrational actor with respect to the use of nuclear weapons should they acquire them?

Do you think the same assumptions that made M.A.D. a viable framework with the Soviets could be applied to Iran if they acquire a nuclear arsenal?

Even the current Iranian President is aware that he is in his position due to a technicality as he was merely the second place finisher in their election.

The catch-22 with Iran is how long it will take for overall reform to take place with the aging of the current group of 'students' whom are far more 'west friendly' than those in power at this time. Last as I remembered, as I grew up the teachings were that Dictatorships would fail because they would eventually begin to fall in on themselves. Also that it was ALWAYS in the best interest of the United States to position itself by taking a much longer term view than most of the world.

Sadly, those teachings are merely teachings, and not used in the modern world in an applicable manner.

As for their being any sort of M.A.D. with Iran. You have to believe that from a rational point of view, there has to be a strong possibility that it is an acceptable conclusion. It may not be the most likely conclusion, but it has to be in your mind as an attainable goal. This isn't something we'll know very well until they actually have developed it, then I think how much of a likelihood we can get is based on how other nuclear powers in the region and world approach the matter. Us going all cavalier(cowboy) with guns blazing won't solve anything, especially if all it manages to do is make the proverbial trigger finger "itchy".

MojoRisen
6/6/2007, 02:27 PM
If Sadam was still in power and was in an arms race with Iran for a nuclear weapon - you can rest assured he would of used them - not only on Iran but Isreal as well.

Like it or not - the whole region would be shooting nukes off at each other.

BU BEAR
6/6/2007, 02:29 PM
Scott, Can you rephrase your last paragraph? I am not sure I understand your response with respect to my question about MAD. You do know what MAD stands for, correct?

Maybe I am just trying to read too fast and missed your point. If so, sorry!

Scott D
6/6/2007, 02:30 PM
In my opinion, there is no need to announce that you are ready to be a major player on the biggest stage. Just start playing. It's like the guy who tells all his friends what a great ball player he is. You immediately know he sucks if he's talking himself up. If you're a major player, people know it.

But again, I don't have a problem with their "announcement" per se. I'm just trying to read between the lines. They publicly state that they are not creating nuclear weapons, then make remarks like these that imply that maybe they are.

At this point we'll call Iran the short kid who never gets picked to play the game. He needs something to get attention to himself to get into the game, because he's new to the area.


Opposing a military solution to every problem is different than opposing a military solution to any problem. As far as I can tell, all of the negotiations and sanctions have netted zero. I'm not saying that now is the time for military action against Iran, but I am asking what the next step *should* be.

And I agree 100% that we don't want any wobbling dominoes. Nor do we want dominoes set up on a wobbly table. And actually, we should start trying to take down some of the dominoes that are already set up - even if they appear to be pretty stable at the moment.

When I say opposing a military solution, I'm mainly stating that it should be opposed as the initial first thought or first course of action. The negotiations have netted little mainly because up until this point, for the last 30 years we've chosen to do any negotiation through 3rd and 4th parties. This in effect is part of the problem that has prevented a legitimate solution. We've never directly dealt with Iran on anything since the Shah was overthrown, this is new territory for the United States in this regard. I'd agree that the United Nations has pretty much outlived it's usefulness, and should be discarded, but for what? What new model should we go with? Will we insist that it be shut down again if not every little aspect of it is "pro-American"? Of course the last time we scrapped something anywhere near the level of the United Nations it was the League of Nations, mainly because of the ineffectiveness of it led us into WW2.

BU BEAR
6/6/2007, 02:31 PM
If Sadam was still in power and was in an arms race with Iran for a nuclear weapon - you can rest assured he would of used them - not only on Iran but Isreal as well.

Like it or not - the whole region would be shooting nukes off at each other.

Saddam tried to acquire nukes back in the 1980s. Israel destroyed his Osirik reactor in a daring air raid. Elan Ramon (who died with the crew of the Shuttle Colombia) was one of the pilots that dropped the bomb on the reactor.

IAF: How are you gentlemen?

Saddam: What you say??

IAF: All your nukes are belong to us. HA HA HA!

Scott D
6/6/2007, 02:32 PM
Scott, Can you rephrase your last paragraph? I am not sure I understand your response with respect to my question about MAD. You do know what MAD stands for, correct?

Maybe I am just trying to read too fast and missed your point. If so, sorry!

I assume you are using it under the auspices of Mutually Assured Destruction. I was actually looking at it from a similar view, but using Deterrant in my head instead of Destruction.

BU BEAR
6/6/2007, 02:33 PM
I assume you are using it under the auspices of Mutually Assured Destruction. I was actually looking at it from a similar view, but using Deterrant in my head instead of Destruction.

Ok, thanks! I will re-read your post.

royalfan5
6/6/2007, 02:34 PM
As anyone ever achieved their desired result by extensively involving themselves in Middle Eastern affiars?

Scott D
6/6/2007, 02:36 PM
As anyone ever achieved their desired result by extensively involving themselves in Middle Eastern affiars?

well whenever I think of starting a harem using a bunch of kidnapped blonde american women....Middle Eastern affairs are usually where I look to start involving myself ;)

TexasLidig8r
6/6/2007, 02:37 PM
As anyone ever achieved their desired result by extensively involving themselves in Middle Eastern affiars?

Jesus.

royalfan5
6/6/2007, 02:39 PM
Jesus.
So you are saying it takes a deity to successfully wallow in that mud pit. That might be something to think about when competelting jumping in deeper.

BU BEAR
6/6/2007, 02:39 PM
well whenever I think of starting a harem using a bunch of kidnapped blonde american women....Middle Eastern affairs are usually where I look to start involving myself ;)


Are you suggesting that Natalee Holloway may be in Jedda under a burka?

Scott D
6/6/2007, 02:41 PM
Are you suggesting that Natalee Holloway may be in Jedda under a burka?

I suggested that she was in Kuala Lumpur back two days after she 'disappeared'

Stoop Dawg
6/6/2007, 02:44 PM
At this point we'll call Iran the short kid who never gets picked to play the game. He needs something to get attention to himself to get into the game, because he's new to the area.

But do you think their remarks are contradictory?


When I say opposing a military solution, I'm mainly stating that it should be opposed as the initial first thought or first course of action. The negotiations have netted little mainly because up until this point, for the last 30 years we've chosen to do any negotiation through 3rd and 4th parties. This in effect is part of the problem that has prevented a legitimate solution. We've never directly dealt with Iran on anything since the Shah was overthrown, this is new territory for the United States in this regard. I'd agree that the United Nations has pretty much outlived it's usefulness, and should be discarded, but for what? What new model should we go with? Will we insist that it be shut down again if not every little aspect of it is "pro-American"? Of course the last time we scrapped something anywhere near the level of the United Nations it was the League of Nations, mainly because of the ineffectiveness of it led us into WW2.

The UN is a great concept, so why is it ineffective? It certainly shouldn't be pro-American in every aspect. The UN has seemingly already decided that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but they are apparently unable to acheive the goal. Why? I'm gonna go ahead and guess that part of the reason their resolutions are so ineffective is that everyone knows they are meaningless. It's like the dad who counts to "3", only he does it about 10 times. "1 ... 2 ... i mean it ... 1 ... 2 ... get over here now ... 1 ... 2 ..."

Stoop Dawg
6/6/2007, 02:47 PM
Jesus.

Yes, but Jesus' goal was to die. A relatively simple goal to achieve in the ME, I believe.

Scott D
6/6/2007, 03:16 PM
But do you think their remarks are contradictory?

It's always easy to say that "I promise we're developing nuclear energy with no intention of making weapons" is going to be contradictory. And it could be pointed to other statements made in the past by same individual in regards to the existence and right to exist for other nations. However, Iran doesn't have the masses that say a China has to get itself listed as a major player in world decisions. Basically our way of 'stepping up' was done via armed conflict on foreign shores.


The UN is a great concept, so why is it ineffective? It certainly shouldn't be pro-American in every aspect. The UN has seemingly already decided that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but they are apparently unable to acheive the goal. Why? I'm gonna go ahead and guess that part of the reason their resolutions are so ineffective is that everyone knows they are meaningless. It's like the dad who counts to "3", only he does it about 10 times. "1 ... 2 ... i mean it ... 1 ... 2 ... get over here now ... 1 ... 2 ..."

Honestly, the UN is ineffective for the same reason that the US Government is inept in so many matters. Early on the UN mostly looked out for the interests of the members of the Security Council. It was a post WW2 creation that existed to maintain a balance between basically the NATO nations and the Iron Curtain. As time went on, the smaller nations gained more of a voice. With that voice came increased desires for programs that were beneficial to their country. Pretty much the UN turned into Congress but on a much larger scale which lead to more obvious widespread corruption.