should Iran be bombed? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

WpgTriniman

01-30-2005, 01:34 AM

Even if the US and or Israel bombs Iran to get rid of their nuclear program, what gurantee would there be that the program would have been completely wiped out? None.

How do you go about creating more terrorists willing to die in the process of causing great harm to the US, Israel, etc.?

How do you ensure that the military industrial complex is well-fed with tax dollars so that high-paying jobs are kept or created, thus maintaining the status quo, politically?

What are the chances that Iran will launch an attack against the US or Israel, before anyone strikes them?

Is Iran trying to arm itself as a defensive measure or as an offensive one? Are countries that we don't like allowed to arm themselves with the best weapons they can buy or develop?

Are the Iranians crazy enough to attack Israel, thus ensuring that Tehran and the rest of the country gets bombed back into the stone age with nuclear weapons, among other things?

Is Pakistan next after Iran or would it be Syria? Pakistan is governed by a general. What happens when a less US and Israel-friendly person comes to power? Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Why not bomb them now (doctrine of a pre-emptive strike) so that they won't be a threat to the US, Europe or Israel in the future.

Avenger

01-30-2005, 01:48 AM

Even if the US and or Israel bombs Iran to get rid of their nuclear program

Word is that the Israeli airforce doesn't have the capability for the mission, so rule them out.

Are countries that we don't like allowed to arm themselves with the best weapons they can buy or develop?

Clearly not. Long-standing policy.

Is Pakistan next after Iran or would it be Syria? Pakistan is governed by a general. What happens when a less US and Israel-friendly person comes to power? Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Why not bomb them now (doctrine of a pre-emptive strike) so that they won't be a threat to the US, Europe or Israel in the future.

Err, are you talking about nuking them? Obviously they are not going to be subject to a conventional attack which wouldn't take out their nukes, they're on our side anyway, that always a good thing. See, errr, Iran.

Eleusis

01-30-2005, 01:53 AM

Word is ... so rule them out.
What word??? Whose word?

Nevermind, just rule it out.

It's happened before, quite handily IIRC.

Oh yeah, cite?

Avenger

01-30-2005, 01:59 AM

What word??? Whose word?

Nevermind, just rule it out.

It's happened before, quite handily IIRC.

Oh yeah, cite?

Hmm, now I have to remember where I read it, I'll get back to you. What are you refering to by 'it's happened before' though?

treis

01-30-2005, 02:07 AM

They did it to Iraq. link (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html)

Avenger

01-30-2005, 02:16 AM

Ok, this (http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/01/29/a5.nat.nukesites.0129.html) isn't where I read it initially (I'm pretty sure it was a British newspsper article, not sure which paper), but it summarises much of the same points.

If Eleusis was refering to Iraq as the previous example, the obvious point is that Iran is further away than Iraq and the Israeli airforce is not designed for long-range missions. Also, from the cite,

Iraq's nuclear program was concentrated in an above-ground location easily spotted by the Israeli bomber pilots, but Iran's nuclear operations are dispersed throughout that country, with some key centers hidden underground. Iran is believed to have as many as 20 nuclear-related facilities in a nation with a larger land mass than Alaska...............[snip].........

Anthony Cordesman, a military expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan research organization, says there's no comparison between Iraq in 1981 and Iran in 2005.

``The Israelis had complete intelligence on the reactor in Iraq and the target was highly vulnerable,'' Cordesman said. ``In Iran, there are many facilities and there are serious underground facilities, which are very hard to destroy.''

The article that I initially read had [unattributed] claims that the Israeli airforce had told the government that the mission was not realistic. The author was arguing that the reason that the Israelis were being so vocal on the subject was that they want the US to do the job for them because they know they can't do it themselves.

Xamatix

01-30-2005, 10:31 AM

Wishing death on people is a violation of the rules of this message board.

Greetings.

Avenger

01-30-2005, 10:34 AM

Wishing death on people is a violation of the rules of this message board.

Greetings.

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Ryan_Liam

01-30-2005, 10:52 AM

I'd say wait until the Iraqi situation calms down, then bomb as many of the reactors the Mullahs have in operation.

Rashak Mani

01-30-2005, 10:53 AM

I'd say wait until the Iraqi situation calms down, then bomb as many of the reactors the Mullahs have in operation.
I love teenage mentality... act first... consequences later...

Ryan_Liam

01-30-2005, 10:57 AM

I love teenage mentality... act first... consequences later...

You got a better idea Che?

CynicalGabe

01-30-2005, 11:00 AM

The Israelis needed American AWACs coverage to bomb the Osiraq reactor. Granted, the Iraqi Air Force is less of a threat now than it was 20-odd years ago, but the likelihood IMHO is that an Israeli strike would simply be a surrogate US strike, with more US logistical support.

Rashak Mani

01-30-2005, 11:07 AM

You got a better idea Che?
You mean besides starting a new cycle of world terrorism and a new quagmire ?

Naturally... but I'm criticizing your "quick and dirty" view of something as complicated as the Nuclear weapons development and spread in the Middle East. The fact that your unwilling to contemplate anything but bombing is certainly a demonstration of how you think and how things will get worse.

Avenger

01-30-2005, 11:08 AM

I'd say wait until the Iraqi situation calms down, then bomb as many of the reactors the Mullahs have in operation.

Can you think of any reasons why bombing operating nuclear reactors might not be a good idea? :rolleyes:

Take your time now....

Ryan_Liam

01-30-2005, 11:12 AM

You mean besides starting a new cycle of world terrorism and a new quagmire ?

Naturally... but I'm criticizing your "quick and dirty" view of something as complicated as the Nuclear weapons development and spread in the Middle East. The fact that your unwilling to contemplate anything but bombing is certainly a demonstration of how you think and how things will get worse.

I've contemplated the negotiations set out by the European Union, but am pretty sure they'll lead nowhere.

Look, this isn't some 2nd world developing country which peaceful intentions here, its a second world country with a pathological hatred of Israel, the West and US. The minute it sees it can get away with sabre rattling, the more likely the chances are they'll increase the pressure right on Israels doorstep. We are better off keeping them weak and destroying the reactor, I see no need in letting them have that 'paper tiger' of an A bomb.

So you believe there will be no increase in terrorism if we allow them to develop them bomb? Or a reactor?

Ryan_Liam

01-30-2005, 11:14 AM

Can you think of any reasons why bombing operating nuclear reactors might not be a good idea? :rolleyes:

Take your time now....

Its the classic catch-22 situation, damned if ya do, damned if ya don't. We might as well exhaust the diplomatic channels, if a solution if met, fine, but in the end they will attain a nuclear bomb. Thats why I advocate taking it out.

Guinastasia

01-30-2005, 11:39 AM

Look, this isn't some 2nd world developing country which peaceful intentions here, its a second world country with a pathological hatred of Israel, the West and US.

Oh yeah, and bombing the shit out of them is really going to make things better!

:rolleyes:

Ryan_Liam

01-30-2005, 11:42 AM

Oh yeah, and bombing the shit out of them is really going to make things better!

:rolleyes:

Yeah, just like diplomacy is bringing them closer Guin! :rolleyes:

Declan

01-30-2005, 11:49 AM

Its the classic catch-22 situation, damned if ya do, damned if ya don't. We might as well exhaust the diplomatic channels, if a solution if met, fine, but in the end they will attain a nuclear bomb. Thats why I advocate taking it out.

Even the Israelis said afterwards , that the only reason the osirak reactor strike was authorized , was that it was not online , had it been so , the strike would have been aborted or not authorized.

The Iranians learned hard lessons from Osirak and they have no intention of letting us have a cheap one. If anyones military takes a serious look at hitting the complexes , they are probably going to only qualify a 90% sucess rate with penetrating nukes.

It would be a lot easier to decapitate the govt of Iran.

Declan

Avenger

01-30-2005, 11:55 AM

Ryan_Liam

01-30-2005, 12:12 PM

Ryan, just so we're clear here, what is your casualty estimate for the 'damned if we do' part of your equation, the bombing of (apparantly) more than one working nuclear reactor inside Iran?

You can go to the nearest hundred thousand or whatever. Just so we've got a rough idea.

Ok, but what I don't get is why we should tolerate Mullahs having the bomb when we can stop them from doing so.

Even the Israelis said afterwards , that the only reason the osirak reactor strike was authorized , was that it was not online , had it been so , the strike would have been aborted or not authorized.

Well of course I'll take that into consideration. And it is a bad idea to bomb it when its online. The Iranian one isn't yet.

It would be a lot easier to decapitate the govt of Iran.

Thats the spirit. :)

Avenger

01-30-2005, 12:17 PM

Ok, but what I don't get is why we should tolerate Mullahs having the bomb when we can stop them from doing so.

That's really not an answer to the question. How many dead people? Fallout over how big an area? Numbers?

Well of course I'll take that into consideration. And it is a bad idea to bomb it when its online. The Iranian one isn't yet.

Of course it's a bad idea to bomb it when it's online. In fact it's such a mind-bendingly bad idea that the only person that I have ever seen advance it as a viable strategy is...........you. Do I have to cite you, or can you manage scrolling up?

Declan

01-30-2005, 12:20 PM

Ok, but what I don't get is why we should tolerate Mullahs having the bomb when we can stop them from doing so.

We don't tolerate em, but sometimes they win one for the gipper and we lose. Thats when the folks at foggy bottom jaw jaw , while the folks down in langley plot death and mischief on a more personal level.

Well of course I'll take that into consideration. And it is a bad idea to bomb it when its online. The Iranian one isn't yet.

Again , the Iranian reactors have been online for a decade or more. At this point , all you can really do is to look at the process flow for the nuke production and look for possible bottle necks that would set back the process for five or so years.

Thats the spirit. :)

It should have been done in 79 , but its a different world now.

Declan

aahala

01-30-2005, 12:21 PM

There's nothing like dropping a few thousand pound bombs on unsuspecting dark skinned people to adjust a nation's foreign policy toward to the US.

Ryan_Liam

01-30-2005, 12:27 PM

There's nothing like dropping a few thousand pound bombs on unsuspecting dark skinned people to adjust a nation's foreign policy toward to the US.

Yeah, because I seem to think Americas that racist, those imperialist scumbags facist war mongers!

Declan

Again , the Iranian reactors have been online for a decade or more. At this point , all you can really do is to look at the process flow for the nuke production and look for possible bottle necks that would set back the process for five or so years.

There has to be someway then. I really do hate and despise the leadership in Iran, the sooner its destroyed, the better.

It should have been done in 79 , but its a different world now.

I blame the Carter administration. But you're right.

Declan

01-30-2005, 12:28 PM

There's nothing like dropping a few thousand pound bombs on unsuspecting dark skinned people to adjust a nation's foreign policy toward to the US.

Unsuspecting ? , usually the perps in question know its coming.

Declan

Declan

01-30-2005, 12:33 PM

There has to be someway then. I really do hate and despise the leadership in Iran, the sooner its destroyed, the better.

Again , the Iranian reactors have been online for a decade or more. At this point , all you can really do is to look at the process flow for the nuke production and look for possible bottle necks that would set back the process for five or so years.

You must have missed this, or just did not see the signifigance. The Mullahs in Iran , have a shelf life , just five years alone is enough to alter the outcome of the middle east.

Declan

tomndebb

01-30-2005, 01:39 PM

It should have been done in 79 , but its a different world now.

I blame the Carter administration. But you're right.

You guys seem to have misspelled 53 and Eisenhower.

PatriotX

01-30-2005, 06:38 PM

Is there any solid evidence that Iran actually is developing nuclear weapons?

I've been away from the internet for a while, but last I heard, there was only the say so of the same people who said that Hussein was six months away from having a nuke that he would give to al Qaida- you remember the same folks who were worried that Saddam's flying, poison-spraying robots of terror would attack us any minute.
So, if it's all the same to you, I'd rather not take their word for it again.

What's the evidence that Iran's developing weapons?

BrainGlutton

01-30-2005, 07:14 PM

Is there any solid evidence that Iran actually is developing nuclear weapons?

The Iranians insist their nuclear program is purely for power generation, but many are skeptical. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_nuclear_program:

Iran claims that nuclear power is necessary for a booming population and rapidly industrialising nation. It points to the fact that Iran's population has more than doubled in 20 years, the country regularly imports gasoline and electricity, and that burning fossil fuel in large amounts harms Iran's enviornment drastically [1] (http://www.payvand.com/news/03/oct/1022.html). Additionally, Iran questions why it shouldn't be allowed to diversify its sources of energy, especially when there are fears of its oil fields eventually being depleted. It continues to argue that its valuable oil should be used for high value products, not simple electricity generation. Iran also raises financial questions, claiming that developing the excess capacity in its oil industry would cost it $40 billion, let alone pay for the power plants. Harnessing nuclear power costs a fraction of this, considering Iran has abundant supplies of accessible uranium ore [2] (http://www.payvand.com/news/03/oct/1022.html).

Iran claims to have a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the NPT. Iran, and many other developing nations who are signatory to the NPT, believe the Western position to be hypocritical, claiming that the NPT's original purpose was universal nuclear disarmament. ([3] (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,726557,00.html)) Iran also compares its treatment as a signatory to the NPT with three nations that have not ratified the NPT: Israel, India, and Pakistan. Each of these nations developed, or in the case of Israel is believed to have developed, an indigenous nuclear weapons capability: Israel by 1968 [4] (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/index.html), India by 1974 [5] (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/index.html) and Pakistan by 1998 [6] (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/).

Since 2002, the US has countered that Iran does not need nuclear power due to its abundant oil reserves. The argument also lies on financial grounds: The US argues that in production, each kilowatt of nuclear power costs $1000, a high figure when compared to the $600-800 of oil power. While this claim is also justified by economics, the true reason behind US resistance lies in regional Middle Eastern geopolitics. In essence, the US feels that it must guard against even the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. Furthermore, the particular type of nuclear power Iran is pursuing is termed by critiques as being dual-use technology—i.e. it can be used for peaceful energy generation, but the same technology, it is argued, could also be used to develop nuclear weapons, the same sort of situation which resulted in India's own nuclear weapons programme in the 1960s.

The claims and counter claims have put an immense amount of pressure on Iran to reveal all aspects of its nuclear programme to date. A great deal of this pressure has come from Iran's trade partners: Europe, Japan, and Russia. Iran has been slow to respond, claiming the pressure is an attempt by the US government to prevent it from obtaining nuclear technology.

Rashak Mani

01-30-2005, 08:05 PM

I don't think anyone seriously thinks they aren't developing a nuke program... its just an issue of how far they are... and at what pace they are trying to finish it. The "west" has to set clear opposition and give them face saving means. The problem of bombing is that it practically justifies having those nukes in the first place in order to guarantee sovergeinty and no stupid invasions for votes.

BrainGlutton

01-30-2005, 08:28 PM

Does anyone seriously believe we can bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, and it ends there?

In "Is Iran Next?" an article in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2004, James Fallows recounts the playing out of several "war games" scenarios for such a bombing. No clear outcome emerged. One of the participants was Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel. He noted, "The region is like a mobile. Once an element is set in motion, it is impossible to say where the whole thing will come to rest."

Domokun

01-30-2005, 08:45 PM

If the US attacks Iran even Britain wouldn't play fig leaf. That's how bad an idea this is. But I'm fairly confident recent sabre rattling is only that. Let's hope so.

Loopydude

01-30-2005, 09:37 PM

I think the one country most likely to have people in high levels of govt. capable of supplying terrorists with fissile materials for the production of either dirty bombs or fission bombs is Iran. Probably 99% of the people in power want them so something like the invasion of Iraq doesn't happen there. But we're talking about a govt. with religious fanatics in positions of high influence and power. Having these people in control of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium is, to me, about as frightening a prospect as there is.

If targeted strikes, repeated if necessary, could sufficiently damage their nuclear capabilities, it might be warranted. Unfortunately, I no longer think that option would work. Iran is too far along, and the targets too spread out and hardened. In all likelyhood, Iran will have nuclear weapons fairly soon, and there's probably nothing anyone can do about it. The best hope is a move toward secularizaiton and moderation of the govt., but outside influence applied toward that end probably should not be designed to destabilize the current regime, lest nuclear weapons, or weapons-grade nuclear fuel, get into the wrong hands during a chaotic transition.

We really do not want a nuclear attack on American soil. Think the response to 9/11 was bad? That was nothing compared to what the aftermath of a nuclear terrorist act would be. We can only hope that the Iranian govt. collectively realizes how important it is for them to keep their uranium secure and out of the hands of extremists.

Neurotik

01-30-2005, 09:44 PM

IWe can only hope that the Iranian govt. collectively realizes how important it is for them to keep their uranium secure and out of the hands of extremists.
:rolleyes:

The mullahs are not stupid, nor are they suicidal.

BrainGlutton

01-30-2005, 10:22 PM

:rolleyes:

The mullahs are not stupid, nor are they suicidal.

Nor are they sane, unfortunately.

Neurotik

01-31-2005, 11:45 AM

Nor are they sane, unfortunately.
Yes, actually, they are. They may not be particularly nice, but I haven't seen any evidence that they are insane.

CarnalK

01-31-2005, 12:23 PM

BrainGlutton

01-31-2005, 12:35 PM

I hope the administration of the US is not labouring under the impression that a group of organised people of power and influence are "insane". BrainGlutton, I think you mean to say "They have a completely different and to me an offensive world view".

Perhaps I'm judging them based on impressions formed in the '70s. Does anybody in this forum seriously believe Khomeini was sane?

The difference being, rational rulers and leaders can be trusted to make certain calculations of their, and their country's, self-interest. But if they think they're taking orders from God, their actions become unpredictable.

CarnalK

01-31-2005, 12:40 PM

BrainGlutton:
But if they think they're taking orders from God, their actions become unpredictable.

There's a lot of that going around. ;)

Avenger

01-31-2005, 12:40 PM

But if they think they're taking orders from God, their actions become unpredictable.

You're not wrong! At least no democracy would ever elect such a person!

Captain Amazing

01-31-2005, 12:53 PM

Perhaps I'm judging them based on impressions formed in the '70s. Does anybody in this forum seriously believe Khomeini was sane?

Sane enough to plan and organize a successful revolution from exile in Paris, and then come back to the country and coopt or destroy any opposing views. And sane enough to successfuly stay in power for ten years until his death, in spite of the fact that both superpowers and the Arab world wanted him overthrown.

Loopydude

01-31-2005, 12:54 PM

When the Iranian parliament voted to continue their Uranium enrichment program last October, the vote was sealed with a chant of "Death to America!"

I think what we've learned about religious fanatics these past few years is that, sometimes, when they say things like "death to you", the really, truly mean it. It's not some kind of cynical populist propaganda designed to pander to the troglodyte fringe in their particular constituency; they're very sincere. At least as sincere as George W. Bush is in his faith.

This is, in a rather understated word, troubling.

Holy War + Nukes = Scares the Daylights Out of Loopydude.

Frankly, I think we've got a religious fanatic running our country as well, but at least there are some mechanisms in place to mitigate his impact. Not nearly enough, as our invasion of Iraq clearly demonstrates, but at least there's a chance he might have to ask somebody for permission to mount a full-scale invasion of yet another country. One hopes the Republican Congress could pull their heads out of the Neocon's backsides long enough to see the light and say "No, not this time."

I'm not sure if such checks really exist in Iran. Maybe they do; maybe the moderates there have enough sway to keep the few hundred kilos of enriched U necessary to start WWIII off the market. Maybe they don't. I make no assumptions about Iran, because you can't really predict what a relgious fanatic is capable of doing. Maybe that person is not "insane" in a medically definable sense, but they're capable of doing some pretty insane things, because of their ability to rationalize monstrous acts using their beliefs as a moral guide. A person who really, sincerely believes that starting a worldwide conflagration as a means of ushering the eschaton is a Good ThingTM really, truly believes they ought to do it. If they can get away with it, they will. Such people appear to be in positions of power and influence in Iran in numbers great enough to make them a legitimately serious worry. I'm not sure if arguments for self-preservation, be they of the individual or national kind, make much of a dent in the logic informing Armageddon eschatology. Probably the best you can hope for from such people is that they can be convinced God doesn't need Men quite so much to get the Endtimes ball rolling. Maybe it's more proper to wait for a host of Angels or other such supernatural agents.

Empower the Iranian moderates without causing the nation to collapse: That, IMO, is the way to go. I have absolutely zero idea of how other nations can contructively contribute to that rosy outcome, however. Zilch. That's what sucks. I know what the right thing to do is, but I don't have any confidence in the ability of our leaders or theirs to embrace that option. I don't think they really want to. I think they's be happiest if the other was destroyed, the sooner the better, meaning a natural death through obsolescence would take too long. It's a big shit sandwich, folks. Do we have to take a bite? I have no idea.

Tamerlane

01-31-2005, 01:00 PM

Perhaps I'm judging them based on impressions formed in the '70s. Does anybody in this forum seriously believe Khomeini was sane?

Yep. Quite sane. Check out Ervand Abrahamian's Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic ( 1993, University of California Press ) someday.

He was a zealot, there's a difference.

The difference being, rational rulers and leaders can be trusted to make certain calculations of their, and their country's, self-interest. But if they think they're taking orders from God, their actions become unpredictable.

But he didn't pretend to speak to God or any such thing. He just ( oddly flexibly, he was nothing if not an adaptable populist in many respects and altered his message at several points over his career, sometimes subtly, sometimes not ) made an interpretation from his life experience and study of Shi'a scripture that pointed him towards a particular direction. By his own lights he was a sober and serious theologian.

- Tamerlane

Grey

01-31-2005, 01:02 PM

There’s no written rule that says once you get nuclear weapons you can’t give them up and close your program. Mind you, to get a paranoid state to that point you’d have to actually engage a fair number of intelligent people to deal with them, maybe even payout money to get that state integrated into the global system and perhaps even fund through 3rd parties domestic democratic movements to remove dogmatic zealots in control of the government.

Or maybe pay out a $100 billion/year for occupation forces for how long? 5-10 years maybe. Choices, choices, choices…

Tamerlane

01-31-2005, 01:05 PM

When the Iranian parliament voted to continue their Uranium enrichment program last October, the vote was sealed with a chant of "Death to America!"

Rhetoric. IMHO they are not looking for, nor expect an imminent armageddon and you should expect nothing more and nothing less than the same concept of self-preservation that any nation would exhibit to be operative.

These folks, even the theocrats, are far more pragmatic than I think most people are giving them credit for.

- Tamerlane

Cornelius Tuggerson

01-31-2005, 01:06 PM

But we're talking about a govt. with religious fanatics in positions of high influence and power
That describes the US goverment as well as that of Iran. And you are not complaining about GW running around with a nuclear briefcase. And he is as big a fanatic as any mullah.

Loopydude

01-31-2005, 01:26 PM

Rhetoric. IMHO they are not looking for, nor expect an imminent armageddon and you should expect nothing more and nothing less than the same concept of self-preservation that any nation would exhibit to be operative.

These folks, even the theocrats, are far more pragmatic than I think most people are giving them credit for.

- Tamerlane

Enough money has been channeled into Hamas and Islamic Jihad to make, I think, even the most forgiving diplomat sincerely question a purely self-preservationist goal on the part of at least some proportion of Iranian politicians. Whatever this proportion, it has shown itself capable of appropriating the funds, etc., to support terror for the purpose of genocide. Regardless of one's view on the legitimacy of the Israeli state, the fact that there are politicians in Iran who feel it is a theological imperative to rid the Holy land of Jews should give any sane person serious pause.

Iran is a cradle of militant Islamist extremism, which is sanctioned and fostered by the Iranian govt., and that is a fact. One of the stated goals of Iran is to destroy Israel, and by their actions, I do not take this to be mere rhetoric. They're developing missiles capable of bombarding Tel Aviv, an open challenge to the Sharon govt. to take action, since the latter rightly regards Iran as threat. How could they not? Iran is waging a war with them by proxy. Iran has played no small role in training and arming the terrorists who have taken thousands of lives in Israel through suicide bombings and other heinous acts. Hence, I think it would irresponsible to take such an optimistic view of the motives of all factions of the Iranian govt.

Loopydude

01-31-2005, 01:32 PM

That describes the US goverment as well as that of Iran. And you are not complaining about GW running around with a nuclear briefcase. And he is as big a fanatic as any mullah.

Did I not say I felt Shrub was not of a similar ilk? The reason I'm less afraid of him is because he lacks complete power to do as he would. He must have some degree of cooperation from other levels of govt. to embark on another full-scale war, and I'm hoping there are enough suitably underanged Senators out there to apply some needed checks. I most certainly could not fault the Iranians for doubting the sincerity of our quest for "Freedom", which I myself think is simply code for right-wing Judeo-Christian cultural imperialism. I still harbor a waning confidence in the strength of our democratic institutions to mitigate Bush's negative impact, as I said.

Captain Amazing

01-31-2005, 01:42 PM

Iran is a cradle of militant Islamist extremism, which is sanctioned and fostered by the Iranian govt., and that is a fact. One of the stated goals of Iran is to destroy Israel, and by their actions, I do not take this to be mere rhetoric. They're developing missiles capable of bombarding Tel Aviv, an open challenge to the Sharon govt. to take action, since the latter rightly regards Iran as threat. How could they not? Iran is waging a war with them by proxy.

There's a difference, though, between funding Hamas or other terrorist groups, and launching an initial nuclear strike against Tel Aviv. I'm sure Iran wouldn't hesitate to nuke Tel Aviv if they thought they could get away with it, but they have to know that any initial use of nukes will lead to a nuclear response by Israel and/or the United States.

Tamerlane

01-31-2005, 01:59 PM

What Captain Amazing said. It is the difference between funding the Contras and invading Nicaragua.

Iran is certainly no friend of Israel or the U.S., but the mullahs are not suicidal.

- Tamerlane

Loopydude

01-31-2005, 02:01 PM

It may be enough to provoke a response, which has already been promised by Israel regardless. Is Israel serious? Is it all just brinksmanship? If so, how dangerous is the game?

As for getting away with it: If you do not doubt Iran would nuke Israel if it had confidence it would further their agenda, is it no sensible to ask how easy it would be to supply underground terrorists with fissile material and then claim no responsibility? Iran denies the the scope of their role in Palestinian terrorism while actively and publically promote it at home. In this regard, they come across like pathological liars. Does anyone in Iran wonder if they could get away with surruptitiously smuggling a fission or dirty bomb to the US? Or Tel Aviv, for that matter? If it took years and years, and the materials were sufficiently "laundered", would that be a viable approach to attacking Iran's proclaimed enemies?

Who can say? I certainly hope I'm completely wrong, but I'm not comforted by arguments like "Oh, they would never do that; that would be irrational." Of course it would be irrational. But implausible, given what we already know? If there's even a small chance the aswer is "no", isn't that a serious cause for concern?

BrainGlutton

01-31-2005, 04:10 PM

Yep. Quite sane. Check out Ervand Abrahamian's Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic ( 1993, University of California Press ) someday.

He was a zealot, there's a difference.

:rolleyes: Not so's you'd notice it, Tam.

Captain Amazing

01-31-2005, 04:40 PM

:rolleyes: Not so's you'd notice it, Tam.
Well, in what way would you consider Khomeini crazy? What specific actions make you doubt his sanity?

Kimstu

01-31-2005, 05:29 PM

Ryan: Look, this isn't some 2nd world developing country which peaceful intentions here, its a second world country with a pathological hatred of Israel, the West and US. The minute it sees it can get away with sabre rattling, the more likely the chances are they'll increase the pressure right on Israels doorstep.

Loopydude: When the Iranian parliament voted to continue their Uranium enrichment program last October, the vote was sealed with a chant of "Death to America!"

Oy mir. What I don't get is, whatever happened to the much-lauded salutary effects of our "muscle-flexing" in Iraq? Back in 2003, there were a lot of people jubilantly pointing out that our invading Iraq had a good effect in showing other countries "that we meant business". Libya, Syria, Iran, etc., were said to be falling into line and cooperating with our policies, because they'd seen what happened to the other guys. Our own Sam Stone predicted on 12 March 2003 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3123994&postcount=1):

How long will the war last?
2 weeks.

How many American casualties will there be in an Iraq war?
Less than 500.

How many civilian casualties will there be in Iraq?
2000. Far fewer than would have died in the next year by Saddam's hand if he were still in power.

What will Iraq look like a year after the war?
I believe it will be free, and relatively peaceful. While I expect the occasional acts of violence and maybe terror, I believe there will be real progress towards a stable, prosperous country.

How long will the U.S. military occupation last?
A full Japanese-style controlling occupation will last for a year or maybe two. Maybe much less, but not more. [Hmm. That deadline runs out in what, two months?]

A year from now, the start of real change in the middle east will be happening. The dissident movement in Iran will gain strength. Hizbollah will either be under attack in Lebanon, or gone. Libya will renounce terrorism. The U.S. government will begin to pressure Saudi Arabia, sparking real change there.

My emphasis. About a month later (14 April 2003), Sam opined: (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3279060&postcount=15)

The U.S. also fired a couple of threats across Iran's bow, and now it looks like Iran wants to re-open diplomatic channels that have been closed for 20 years. They're getting the message. I'll bet Syria does too.

The Arab world is in shock right now. They had bought into the belief that the U.S. was a paper tiger without a stomach for conflict.

And now here we are again, worrying about Iran's intransigence in seeking nukes and debating the pros and cons of bombing them. Syria is still being described as terror central (http://www.nationalreview.com/lerner/lerner200501190749.asp) over at the National Review. Hezbollah, so far from being "gone" as per Sam's prediction, is accused of arranging at least 20% of terror attacks in Israel in 2004 (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/524803.html), and actively working to destabilize the Palestinian regime. Libya remains, as of December 29, on the US's State Sponsor's of Terror list (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_926.html). And where is the "real change" in Saudi Arabia, nearly two years later? As of the State Department's human rights report (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35507.htm) last September, it was essentially a little window dressing on top of the same old repression.

We've "proved" we're not a paper tiger, but it doesn't seem to have inspired sincere cooperation. Why not? Why are we still having to worry about nukes in Iran and terror sponsors in Syria? I thought the invasion of Iraq pour encourager les autres was supposed to have changed all that. At least, that was the story we were hearing a couple of years ago.

Diogenes the Cynic

01-31-2005, 05:58 PM

It would be a lot easier to decapitate the govt of Iran.
That would be illegal.

I'd like to know by what right or authority the US gets to decide who can have nukes and who can't.

It seems to me that as the one country in the world who has proven that we can't be trusted with this technology we have absolutely zero room to speak.

I hope that Iran does acquire nuclear weapons and soon. The more countries have nukes, the better chance there is of keeping the US in check.

foolsguinea

01-31-2005, 06:03 PM

Countries can have pathological hatred? Maybe the USA has a pathological hatred of Iran, then.

Let them have the bomb, already.

Captain Amazing

01-31-2005, 06:24 PM

I'd like to know by what right or authority the US gets to decide who can have nukes and who can't.

For one thing, because Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, if they're developing nuclear weapons.

Also, the Iranian government is actively hostile to the US, and also has a history of supporting terrorist groups. A nuclear Iran wouldn't be good for either the United States or the world.

Loopydude

01-31-2005, 06:26 PM

That would be illegal.

I'd like to know by what right or authority the US gets to decide who can have nukes and who can't.

It seems to me that as the one country in the world who has proven that we can't be trusted with this technology we have absolutely zero room to speak.

I hope that Iran does acquire nuclear weapons and soon. The more countries have nukes, the better chance there is of keeping the US in check.

Well, as long as one can rest assured they keep their nukes secure, that's fine. But one nuke goes off in an American City, and I don't think there's a deterrent on the planet that would stop us from using our own in retalliation. Perhaps if all the other nuclear powers in the world promised to flatten us if we nuke Tehran in retribution, that might make us think for ten minutes, but when we tell them they can kiss Paris, London, Moscow, Beijing, et al. goodbye, thank you very much, where does that get them? They might decide losing Tehran is the lesser of two evils.

I'm all for non-proliferation. It's a pipe dream, but I still support it, within reason. Unfortunately, I think the reasonable options were long ago exhausted, and now we're stuck with hope.

Diogenes the Cynic

01-31-2005, 06:30 PM

For one thing, because Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, if they're developing nuclear weapons.
After invading Iraq we hardly have any moral credibility when it comes to international treaties.

Does the NPF Treaty authorize the US to unilaterally bomb anyone it suspects of a violation?
Also, the Iranian government is actively hostile to the US,
and also has a history of supporting terrorist groups.
So does the US.
A nuclear Iran wouldn't be good for either the United States or the world.
The US invasion of Iraq wasn't good for the US or the world. Bombing Iran would just exacerbate things even more.

Captain Amazing

01-31-2005, 06:41 PM

Does the NPF Treaty authorize the US to unilaterally bomb anyone it suspects of a violation?

No, and I don't support bombing Iran, mostly because I don't think it would do any good. But you asked what right or authority the US gets to decide who has nukes, and I answered. International law, and self interest.

notquitekarpov

02-01-2005, 11:51 AM

I'll think about supporting radical action against Iran's potential nuclear weapons programme the day after similar action is taken against Israel's actual existing nuclear weapons programme.

Zealots ye both....

ZombiesAteMyBrain

02-01-2005, 12:03 PM

No, and I don't support bombing Iran, mostly because I don't think it would do any good. But you asked what right or authority the US gets to decide who has nukes, and I answered. International law, and self interest.

What 'international law' gives the USA authority to decide who has nukes, who should be bombed on suspicion of having nukes etc? Self interest doesn't give them any rights, either.

America may have the arrogance to decide that they should be the 'world's policeman' [or the world's bully], but how many other countries agree with this?
86.9% voted that the USA was the most dangerous country and the biggest threat to world peace. http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html

The world would be a safer place, IMO, if America publicly renounced its own nuclear armaments, and made a real effort to lead disarmament by example. Other countries may be more inclined to disarm if the USA did likewise, instead of using threats.

Avenger

02-01-2005, 12:25 PM

For one thing, because Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, if they're developing nuclear weapons.

The US is also a signatory. What steps have they taken towards their obligations to totally disarm of their nuclear weapons?

Loopydude

02-01-2005, 12:38 PM

What steps have they taken towards their obligations to totally disarm of their nuclear weapons?

We have no such obligation under the Treaty.

Here: Read it (http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm).

BrainGlutton

02-01-2005, 12:42 PM

Well, in what way would you consider Khomeini crazy? What specific actions make you doubt his sanity?

Ordering the public execution of adulterers is insane, no matter how much Koranic authority you can cite for it. Every dictatorship executes dissidents, but Khomeini's regime did that to twelve-year-old girls, according to news reports I read at the time. And ordering a hit on an author who was not even Iranian was not only insane but presumptuous.

I'll think about supporting radical action against Iran's potential nuclear weapons programme the day after similar action is taken against Israel's actual existing nuclear weapons programme.

Zealots ye both....

Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-proliferation_treaty

Of course, we should not bomb Iran -- if nothing else, because it would be impossible to be sure that would not lead to war.

Avenger

02-01-2005, 12:47 PM

We have no such obligation under the Treaty.

Here: Read it (http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm).

:confused:

Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament,

Desiring to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Loopydude

02-01-2005, 01:02 PM

:confused:

You just answered your own question. What does "earliest possible date" mean? Exactly nothing, that's what. We agree to eliminate nuclear weapons some time between now and never, whenever we deem it "possible". The interdictions on purchase, transfer to, or development in non-nuclear weapon states of nuclear weapons are quite clear. They mean, "Not now, and not ever."

Avenger

02-01-2005, 01:15 PM

We agree to eliminate nuclear weapons some time between now and never, whenever we deem it "possible".

Right. And I asked what steps they had taken towards fulfilling this obligation, to which you replied that the obligation doesn't exist.

By the way, if someone had borrowed some money from you in 1968 and promissed to re-pay it 'at an early date', would you be happy to still be waiting? ;)

Diogenes the Cynic

02-01-2005, 01:30 PM

Well, as long as one can rest assured they keep their nukes secure, that's fine. But one nuke goes off in an American City, and I don't think there's a deterrent on the planet that would stop us from using our own in retalliation. Perhaps if all the other nuclear powers in the world promised to flatten us if we nuke Tehran in retribution, that might make us think for ten minutes, but when we tell them they can kiss Paris, London, Moscow, Beijing, et al. goodbye, thank you very much, where does that get them? They might decide losing Tehran is the lesser of two evils.
You realize that such a response by the US would be one of unmatched and unforgivable evil, do you not?

Nuclear war is a situation where a retaliatory strike is just as evil as the first strike. You don't rectify the murder of civilian by murdering other civilans. Making insane threats to slaugher everyone else in the world if they try to stop you is hardly an argument as to why you should have nukes and someone else shouldn't.

Loopydude

02-01-2005, 01:59 PM

By the way, if someone had borrowed some money from you in 1968 and promissed to re-pay it 'at an early date', would you be happy to still be waiting? ;)

No, I'd kick myself in the ass for not setting a specific date for repayment.

Loopydude

02-01-2005, 02:02 PM

You realize that such a response by the US would be one of unmatched and unforgivable evil, do you not?

Well, yes, but so what? I'm not advocating such a response, I discussing what I think would be likely, and taking that into account when assessing what might be the best course of action for all involved, given those conditions.

Would it be that much of a surprise if we did something unforgiveably evil? Has the US not done numerous such things in the past, at least in the estimation of some? That's why the terrorists want us dead, after all; we're already unforgivably evil.

Shodan

02-01-2005, 02:07 PM

Making insane threats to slaugher everyone else in the world if they try to stop you is hardly an argument as to why you should have nukes and someone else shouldn't.
Unless it is the Iranians making the threat, apparently.

So when a country chants "Death to the USA", this is evidence that they should be encouraged to obtain nuclear weapons. But overthrowing a dictator and holding elections is evidence of mass murder, and that country is horrible and wicked for defending itself.

You really do hate the US, don't you?

Khadaji

02-01-2005, 02:19 PM

[Flock of Seagulls]
And Iran, you are so far away
And Iran, we bombed you night and day
You could not get away
[/Flock of Seagulls]

Diogenes the Cynic

02-01-2005, 04:14 PM

Unless it is the Iranians making the threat, apparently.
Cite for Iran making threats to nuke the US?
So when a country chants "Death to the USA", this is evidence that they should be encouraged to obtain nuclear weapons.
Countries don't chant.
But overthrowing a dictator and holding elections is evidence of mass murder, and that country is horrible and wicked for defending itself.
What is the US defending itself against?
You really do hate the US, don't you?
:rolleyes:

Shodan

02-02-2005, 09:10 AM

Cite for Iran making threats to nuke the US?Provided for the benefit of those who can't read:When the Iranian parliament voted to continue their Uranium enrichment program last October, the vote was sealed with a chant of "Death to America!"
Countries don't chant.Fine, then they don't invade either, so every stupid rant you have ever posted about the US invasion of Iraq is invalid.

Cripes, can't you even pretend to be rational anymore?
What is the US defending itself against?
Iran. Try reading the fucking thread.

Diogenes the Cynic

02-02-2005, 09:56 AM

tagos

02-02-2005, 10:09 AM

By the way, just the fact that our idiot president is even contemplating such a thing out loud shows that the US is a direct threat to Iran, so by your own logic, they have the right to preemptively bomb the shit out of us. Lucky for us they don't have the ability.

DTS - you've been here long enough to know that for these people there is no equivalence. Whatever Bush decides is by definition right and true. The USA and only the USA is allowed to threaten and invade whoever it wants for whatever specious reasons it can get people to close their eyes and choke down. You simply cannot use the same logic to point out the fallacy of their position, it's like trying to argue with children. There's always a reason why it's fine to torture people, invade unthreatening nations, kill civilians who dare to presume to be on the same road as your convoy etc etc. And then they wonder why so many of us look in horror at a nation we once so admired.

If I was in charge of Iran I'd be busting a gut to get nuclear weapons ASAP and setting up guerilla resistance networks as that's the only thing that in the end will guarantee sovereignty against an attack on some trumped up charge when the neo-cons feel they can get away with it.

Ryan_Liam

02-02-2005, 10:24 AM

How is Iran a threat?

Since when is chanting a threat?

You need more than some people saying "death to America" (and you didn't link that quote) to constitute a threat.

If Iran ever attacks the US, then we'll have a right to bomb them, but not a moment before.

By the way, just the fact that our idiot president is even contemplating such a thing out loud shows that the US is a direct threat to Iran, so by your own logic, they have the right to preemptively bomb the shit out of us. Lucky for us they don't have the ability.

Ok, so with that analogy 'Death to America' shouldn't be next to Sieg Heil :rolleyes:

If Iran ever attacks the US, then we'll have a right to bomb them, but not a moment before.

Well you've just contradicted yourself

You realize that such a response by the US would be one of unmatched and unforgivable evil, do you not?

Make your friggin' mind up.

Diogenes the Cynic

02-02-2005, 10:47 AM

Ok, so with that analogy 'Death to America' shouldn't be next to Sieg Heil :rolleyes:
I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.
Well you've just contradicted yourself
My previous quote referred to nuclear retaliation, especially as it pertained to threatening nuclear strikes against all of Europe if they tried to prevent us from launching nukes at Iran.

Measured retaliatory strikes at military targets are not in the same ballpark as launching a nuclear holocaust. I have not contradicted myself.

Ryan_Liam

02-02-2005, 12:32 PM

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.

Various totalitarian ideologies have the idea of a slogan to unite the people against a percieved enemy, such as Nazis Sieg Heil, and the more modern 'Death to America'

Iran is a totalitarian state which needs to be defeated no matter the cost. If diplomacy doesn't bring it down eventually, and Iran contributes to terrorism and a deteriotating security situation, we should used armed forced to bring them down.

The Iranian leadership wants to see the destruction of the US, and damage US interests in the middle east as much as possible, given the choice between us and them, I'd choose us everytime regardless.

Neurotik

02-02-2005, 12:44 PM

Iran is a totalitarian state which needs to be defeated no matter the cost.
So, you're in the UK military, correct? Willing to put yourself on the line to be defeated "no matter the cost."

CarnalK

02-02-2005, 01:05 PM

I'm curious Ryan_Liam, obviously you have decided it would be "worth it" to start active military hostilities with Iran, but do you envision any non-negligible problems resulting from it?

Do you think US oil prices would be affected- to a degree which harms the US economy? How much, during these defecit times, should the US be willing to pay for a subdued Iran.

Will it create a disporea of terror sources? Might these sources try to settle in more western countries and try to "hide behind our freedoms"- will this cause any social problems in these Western countries. Will there be any increase in attempts at revenge on the US mainland?

In short, I'm curious which bad side-effects you've accepted but over-ruled.

Shodan

02-02-2005, 01:13 PM

How is Iran a threat?

Since when is chanting a threat?Saying "death to America" isn't a threat?

That is too stupid to refute. You need more than some people saying "death to America" (and you didn't link that quote) to constitute a threat.So, how about, say, taking our people hostage, wishing death on us, supporting terrorism, trying to get nuclear weapons - something that a normal mind would interpret as threatening.

Put it this way - suppose your next door neighbor wound up every day by sending you a letter saying, "Death to Diogenes - the Great Satan!" He has already shot your dog, and is trying to obtain dynamite and blasting caps from the Internet.

So you go to the police, and they tell you, "That's not a threat, and besides, if everyone had lots of dynamite in their basements it would be a safer world" - would you nod quietly in agreement and go home? Or would you consider someone who denied what is obviously true to be a fucking idiot?

You know what - your posts are crossing over a line here. If you aren't accusing Karl Rove of burglarizing CBS and planting documents, you are denying that there was any risk in voting in the Iraqi elections, or denying that death threats from a terrorist regime who is trying to get nuclear weapons are anything to worry about.

Your hatred of Bush, in other words, is leading you into delusions. It's not healthy.

Avenger

02-02-2005, 01:21 PM

Saying "death to America" isn't a threat?

I've vowed to kill at least 5 workmates today. I'm not actually going to kill them.

Diogenes the Cynic

02-02-2005, 01:44 PM

Saying "death to America" isn't a threat?
Of course not. Words never hurt anybody. They do not constitute a physical threat.

Besides, I hear Americans saying stupid shit about how we need to tirn Iraq/Iran. Saudi Arabia/etc. into a "parking lot" and the like all the time. Who gives a shit? That does not rise to the level of a meaningful threat and it does not give you an excuse to drop bombs on people.
So, how about, say, taking our people hostage,
Cite for Iran doing that? Or are you talking about the 80's? can we stick to this century, please?
wishing death on us
They can wish whatever they want. No skin off my dick. And not a threat, no., supporting terrorism
Against the US? Cite?
trying to get nuclear weapons
How is that a threat? They have every right to defend themselves against aggressive, rogue countries like the US.
Put it this way - suppose your next door neighbor wound up every day by sending you a letter saying, "Death to Diogenes - the Great Satan!" He has already shot your dog, and is trying to obtain dynamite and blasting caps from the Internet.

So you go to the police, and they tell you, "That's not a threat, and besides, if everyone had lots of dynamite in their basements it would be a safer world" - would you nod quietly in agreement and go home? Or would you consider someone who denied what is obviously true to be a fucking idiot?
I trhink your analogy is bogus. Iran has not expressed any intent to harm the US, nor does it have the ability. You are perfectly safe. Relax. :)

Ryan_Liam

02-02-2005, 02:22 PM

I'm curious Ryan_Liam, obviously you have decided it would be "worth it" to start active military hostilities with Iran, but do you envision any non-negligible problems resulting from it?

Either it comes down from implosion, or military intervention, if implosion doesn't work, invasion is necessary to bring it down.

Do you think US oil prices would be affected- to a degree which harms the US economy? How much, during these defecit times, should the US be willing to pay for a subdued Iran.

Oil prices may very well go up, even to the point where they actively hurt the economy, but if thats the price worth paying to ensure liberty for these people, and eventual safety for us by destroying a regime with a harsh Islamist totalitarian ideology, then so be it.

Will it create a disporea of terror sources? Might these sources try to settle in more western countries and try to "hide behind our freedoms"- will this cause any social problems in these Western countries. Will there be any increase in attempts at revenge on the US mainland?

Heard this before, yet fail to see any sort of attack in 'revenge' on the US mainland at all.

If it createds a diaspora, then you can explain to me Hezbollah, why should we tolerate a regime which exports terrorism if we can somehow get rid of it? The Muallah regime will never be happy until the US is either subdued, or completely driven off the Arabian peninsula, to ensure it can slaughter Israel and then drive them out too.

You can sugar coat the regime all you want, say all the benefits over the Shah etc blah blah blah, but it doesn't change the fact the Theocracy is totally despicable and should be brought down.

Loopydude

02-02-2005, 02:27 PM

They have every right to defend themselves against aggressive, rogue countries like the US.

This I agree with.

I trhink your analogy is bogus. Iran has not expressed any intent to harm the US, nor does it have the ability. You are perfectly safe. Relax. :)

This I do not. Everything I've read about Iran's support for international terrorism leads me to suspect if they can find a way to attack the US and/or some number of its allies via those channels and survive, they will do it.

Quite a paradox, IMO.

Ryan_Liam

02-02-2005, 02:32 PM

Besides, I hear Americans saying stupid shit about how we need to tirn Iraq/Iran. Saudi Arabia/etc. into a "parking lot" and the like all the time. Who gives a shit? That does not rise to the level of a meaningful threat and it does not give you an excuse to drop bombs on people.

Yeah with one exception, its not state policy to utter those words.

Cite for Iran doing that? Or are you talking about the 80's? can we stick to this century, please?

This is ridiculous, oh lets forgive and forget eh? Even though its the same fucking regime that held them hostage.

They can wish whatever they want. No skin off my dick. And not a threat, no.,

Sure as hell incites them though to carry out stupid attacks

Against the US? Cite?

Hezbollah which blew up 241 US marines to get them out of Lebanon. Its supported by Iran.

I trhink your analogy is bogus. Iran has not expressed any intent to harm the US, nor does it have the ability. You are perfectly safe. Relax.

The founder of the Theocracy explicitly said the Americans were the enemy of Iran and Islam.

Why should we listen to your opinion anyway? You're already biased, you said you were ashamed to be a US citizen, so why should we listen to this b.s you're feeding us?

Diogenes the Cynic

02-02-2005, 03:02 PM

Yeah with one exception, its not state policy to utter those words.
the hell it isn't. Not only do they utter the words, they carry them out.
This is ridiculous, oh lets forgive and forget eh? Even though its the same fucking regime that held them hostage.
How is anything that happened 25 years ago relevant now? Ronald Reagan never seemed to think Iran was a threat. he even gave them weapons.
Sure as hell incites them though to carry out stupid attacks
What attacks? Please confine your answer to actions against the US specifically sponsored or sanctioned by the CURRENT government of Iran.
Hezbollah which blew up 241 US marines to get them out of Lebanon. Its supported by Iran.
That didn't seem to bother Ronald Reagan or stop him from giving them weapons.

Of course it's also completely irrelevant to the CURRENT Iranian state.
The founder of the Theocracy explicitly said the Americans were the enemy of Iran and Islam.
By "founder of the theocracy" do you mean Khomeini? The dead guy who no longer exists?

You are really reaching your ass off here.
Why should we listen to your opinion anyway? You're already biased, you said you were ashamed to be a US citizen,
When did I say that? Cite?

CarnalK

02-02-2005, 03:09 PM

Ryan_Liam said
Heard this before, yet fail to see any sort of attack in 'revenge' on the US mainland at all.

If you think the reasons behind that are anything other than fear of American retaliation, I'd love if you posted your comments in my "Bombing America a Good idea?" (http://207.97.195.229/sdmb/showthread.php?t=299718) thread. Here though, I wasn't suggesting any of those things WOULD happen, merely tossing them out as examples of possible bad side effects. Can I take it that you think higher oil prices are the only likely serious consequence?

BrainGlutton

02-02-2005, 03:17 PM

Iran is a totalitarian state which needs to be defeated no matter the cost.

:dubious: Does that apply to all totalitarian states? You want we should invade China? There are many dictatorships in the world, we can't and shouldn't forcibly regime-change them all.

BrainGlutton

02-02-2005, 03:22 PM

This is ridiculous, oh lets forgive and forget eh? Even though its the same fucking regime that held them hostage.

No good ever comes of whole nations holding grudges, Ryan. There are just too many historical scores to be settled. From the Iranians' POV, they still owe us for engineering the 1952 coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh, which made the Shah an absolute ruler.

Ryan_Liam

02-02-2005, 04:07 PM

:dubious: Does that apply to all totalitarian states? You want we should invade China? There are many dictatorships in the world, we can't and shouldn't forcibly regime-change them all.

But we should get rid of the ones we can.

No good ever comes of whole nations holding grudges, Ryan. There are just too many historical scores to be settled. From the Iranians' POV, they still owe us for engineering the 1952 coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh, which made the Shah an absolute ruler.

I don't care, if we overthrow there government, and give them elections and a democratic government, and let them find the government they want without the consent of a guardian council, then we'll be on the right course.

Can I take it that you think higher oil prices are the only likely serious consequence?

Radicalisation of some sections of Muslim society, but whatever we do, its going to happen anyway. Its just something we're going to have to wade through.

the hell it isn't. Not only do they utter the words, they carry them out.

Yes Diogenes :rolleyes: I'm sure the state department calls on every section of American society to kill the infidels and jews.

How is anything that happened 25 years ago relevant now? Ronald Reagan never seemed to think Iran was a threat. he even gave them weapons.

Some people can hold grudges, like the Iranians and the Shah.

What attacks? Please confine your answer to actions against the US specifically sponsored or sanctioned by the CURRENT government of Iran.

Hezbollah, currently trying to uproot the Palestinian fatah movement and the Jewish state. Sponsored by Iranian government.

That didn't seem to bother Ronald Reagan or stop him from giving them weapons.

Well, those hostages were being held in Iran, remember?

By "founder of the theocracy" do you mean Khomeini? The dead guy who no longer exists?

Within Iran yes? Surely you knew my generalisation was within limits to the Iranian state.

It doesn't matter how much you try to polish the turd that is the Iranian regime, you cannot deny it is a threat to the United States, Israel and Iraq in general, this regime like I've stressed repeatedly, will become the dominant player within the Middle East unless stopped by the United States and its allies. A Theocratic Islamist state must be stopped from ever gaining prominance within the area.

Avenger

02-02-2005, 04:11 PM

It doesn't matter how much you try to polish the turd that is the Iranian regime, you cannot deny it is a threat to the United States, Israel and Iraq in general, this regime like I've stressed repeatedly, will become the dominant player within the Middle East unless stopped by the United States and its allies. A Theocratic Islamist state must be stopped from ever gaining prominance within the area.

What we need is a secular Arab state on Iran's borders to act as a counterweight. With a strongman dictator in charge probably, so as to ensure that the religious types in his own country don't gain any influence.

*paging Saddam*

CarnalK

02-02-2005, 06:04 PM

Well Ryan_Liam I think you underestimate the economic consequences. Besides oil prices there is, of course, the straight cost of whatever action is taken. I also fear that this will really push third worlders towards Europe in trade and diplomatic ties. I guess you think these things will happen regardless but I would think caution now could mitigate damage.

All this and tax cuts too? As my pullcord GI Joe used to say: "Looks like trouble!"

Ryan_Liam

02-02-2005, 06:21 PM

What we need is a secular Arab state on Iran's borders to act as a counterweight. With a strongman dictator in charge probably, so as to ensure that the religious types in his own country don't gain any influence.

*paging Saddam*

I don't see why it necessarily has to be secular, a democracy which let the religious people have a voice would act as a considerable counterweight to Theocracy next door. A religious government in Iraq which can rule Iraq without having to suppress popular opinion, holds power through some honestry and integrity. would be a much better threat than any secular 'strongman'

I also fear that this will really push third worlders towards Europe in trade and diplomatic ties. I guess you think these things will happen regardless but I would think caution now could mitigate damage

I'm European, I'm not complaining. Anyway, I sincerly believe we will never invade Iran, no matter how much bitching otherwise goes on in this thread. We'll do the old Soviet containment method, arms race, economic pressure, and hey presto! Instant regime collapse because of the rise of a strong Iranian middle class with a thirst for change in politics.