Not that there is any point talking to you, but I think you are basically wrong. Having nuclear weapons doesn’t make you safer…quite the opposite. Iran would be ‘safe’ from the US by simply joining the international community. But then, I realize that you have a very skewed vision of the US, so there is no point in discussing it.
I just hope to hell that the majority of ANY country doesn’t see things like you do.
Complete horseshit…but no surprise there.
-XT
Really. And how many nuclear armed countries has America invaded or bombed ? We are Iran’s greatest danger.
A meaningless phrase. Define “joining the international community”. And how would that make them safer from us ?
I take it it is now kosher to deride an opponent in GD as above. Just how more personal can one get without a warning? Other than XT of course.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Well, we also know that you can play pretty fast and loose with accusations of anti-Semitism (via not-at-all subtle innuendo, of course). That, too, is a crime which seems to go unpunished in these parts.
How many nations that are NOT nuclear armed has the US bombed or invaded? Now…how many nations in the world have no nuclear arms? How many do?
Get it? I’m guessing…no.
I’d say ‘joining the international community’ is self explanatory. In terms of Iran they would simply have to stop supporting external terrorist organizations and throw open their nuclear program to close international inspection. That would be more than sufficient to make them ‘safe’ from the US.
Again, setting aside your usual over the top rhetoric, THINK for a second. There are lots of non-nuclear armed nations on earth. How many are really threatened by the US? How many of them are full members of the ‘international community’…and how many are rogue nations? If you answer that honestly (I’m not holding my breath) I think the answer will be fairly obvious.
Only if a nation is pretty much a rogue nation would they NEED nuclear weapons to ‘make them safer’ from the US.
I don’t think that is what I did…but did you report it? If so, perhaps you should leave any spankings to the mods?
I don’t think that usually Der Trihs is reachable (thus there is usually no point in talking to him). Not because he isn’t smart enough…but because he is so set in his ways and his rhetoric that it is an exercise in futility to try and ‘debate’ him on this kind of subject. Much as you are sometimes Red.
If I have done wrong and broken the rules here in GD (I don’t think I have, but it’s not up to me or you) let the Mods decide.
Out of curiosity, do you have anything to add to the debate?
-XT
Iraq, Vietnam, Grenada, etc.
That definition means that AMERICA isn’t part of the international community, given the terrorism we’ve supported and continue to support. Not to mention engage in.
It didn’t protect Iraq. The Iranians would need to be insane to agree with you.
The ones that have oil and don’t suck up to us. Or just don’t suck up. And don’t have nukes.
Who gets to define “rogue nation” ? I’d call America one; I doubt you would.
Why ? Because America is the Land of Truth and Justice, and would never attack a country for no good reason ? Too late; we do that, and on a fairly regular basis. We don’t care if you are a “rogue nation”; we care if you look like a good victim. America is just a thug on a large scale, not some noble champion of justice.
Weak list, but there you go. Iraq was pretty much the definition of a ‘rogue state’. The others are terrible examples of nations that toe the line being afraid of a US invasion. You were supposed to name non-rogue nations part of the ‘international community’ that the US has invaded. Obviously you can’t…but I knew that already. I was hoping you would think a bit about what that meant, but obviously I was hoping in vain…
No point in debating this, as I said. Your knee jerk anti-America schtick really gets in the way of a reasoned debate.
Iraq was a rogue nation…and the invasion of Iraq by the US war pretty much an anomaly due to a weird set of circumstances and internal US politics. Iran would be completely stupid to piss off a US as you paint us…because if they DID and we were like that we would destroy them nuclear weapons or no. But you see, we aren’t the comic book picture you paint…which is why the Iranians have felt they could get away with what they have tried in the past.
Ironic, sure…but I’m guessing it’s lost on you.
Canada has huge oil reserves. Maybe you think they ‘suck up to us’ though. Let’s see…how about Venezuela? They have huge oil reserves and I’d say that they don’t ‘suck up to us’…as a vast understatement. They don’t, afaik, have nukes either. I’m guessing that every other oil producing nation would, by your definition, ‘suck up to us’, so I won’t bother.
Well, I could say that the UN defines that, but the reality is that the major powers have always defined that term.
And it’s not exactly a surprise that YOU would define the US as a rogue nation. To answer your question, of course I don’t define the US that way. I define the US as ‘a superpower’…which, while perhaps not a nice thing either, is pretty much the opposite of a ‘rogue nation’ by definition.
Actually, we haven’t attacked any nation for no good reason…so, again, you are wrong. Because the US is full of goodness and light? Of course not…though I think we ARE a good nation, and that there IS a lot of light here. The reality though is the US protects it’s interests, both domestic and abroad. It’s not in our best interests to attack other nations randomly in the comic book fashion you attempt to paint. It’s bad for business for one thing.
By the same token, it’s not in the US’s best interest to allow a nation like Iran, who IS a rogue nation, to gain nuclear weapons capability in a region that is strategically vital to US interests. Iran pursuing such a goal puts it in direct conflict with the US…whether this conflict is military or diplomatic.
It’s a conflict that is completely option and dependent on IRAN…not the US. If Iran did not support external terrorist groups (whether the US does or not is irrelevant btw), and if Iran did not pursue a nuclear weapons program there would BE no conflict with the US. The basis for such a conflict would not exist.
-XT
There was a time when a snide remark in this Forum would be countered with a witty rejoinder that avoided directly insulting the other poster. Recently, it seems, the number of noses that have gotten out of joint over fairly trivial remarks is on the rise for no obvious reason.
If you guys, (not limited to you two), can’t play nice with each other or refrain from junior modding, then go yell at each other in the Pit for a while and come back when you’ve blown it out of your systems.
(If we ever begin to use avatars on this board, mine is going to be the last panel of an ancient (Yale era) Doonesbury strip where, after a particularly rancorous huddle, B.D. looks up at the audience and announces “Beneath the cool exterior of a football huddle lurk the subtle dynamics of a nursery school recess.”)
I’m guessing that you have a time limit of about a couple dozen months on this statement. Despite the hype (and, usually, lies), we had no good reason to attack Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua (multiple times), or (going back further), Haiti, Mexico (more than once), or a number of other nations.
This whole “rogue nation” thingy is a mite fuzzy. So Iraq, which did not have nuclear weapons is a “rogue nation”, but Pakistan, which sold nuclear weapon tech, is not. And Grenada clearly was a dagger aimed straight at our collective heart, with its teams of crack commando Cuban bulldozer drivers. Up tp no good, you may be sure, even if precisely what no good remains unknown, perzackly.
So a “rogue nation” is one we attacked for no good reason, except that they are “rogue nations”, which is reason enough, because they are “rogue nations” and might attack without good reason.
And that’s why I have to fly the missions?
And what about your knee jerk apologism ? Iran isn’t a member of your precious ‘international community’ because it supports terrorism, but America is despite supporting terrorism ? Including that group in Iran itself.
In other words, it’s good when we do it, bad when they do it.
So it just doesn’t count. I guess it’s easy to admire America when you can just wave away all of it’s evil as just irrelevant abberations.
We’ve been their enemies for decades; they don’t need to do anything but exist to make us hostile to them. We won’t let them make peace with us; they’ve tried. And where did I say that they’d try to piss us off ?
And they’ve gotten away with what they have, which isn’t much, because we are nailed down by other commitments, and because they are big enough that conquering them would be a disaster to us - something that doen’t matter any more, because we have a lunatic in the White House. We’d be in Iran now if Iraq had been the cakewalk the neocons insisted it would be.
And we rather famously tried to overthrow their government in a coup a few years ago. As for Canada, they do suck up to us.
:rolleyes: If might makes right, then getting all outraged over Iran is ridiculous.
Then we should stop doing so.
Garbage. Iraq did those things and we attacked them anyway. The primary source of the problem is us, not them. As I said, we’ve refused their attempts to patch up relations.
And if our support for terrorism doesn’t matter, what basis do we have for complaining about them doing so ? Let me guess; might makes right, but only when we have the might.
Obviously, traitorous Zionists are to blame. 
Just to be totally clear… you’re pointing out a factual inaccuracy in XT’s argument, not agreeing that no matter what Iran did, we’d attack them. Right?
I’m just curious tom, as you haven’t really stated your position in this thread. What do you think about the main thrust of the OP or any of the various tangents that have spiraled off?
Edit: I know I’m probably going to regret this, but do you have any proof, substantiated, researched and well cited Der, that Iran actually tried to make peace with us rather than using us to advance their own interests?
Considering that those are the same thing, how would I ? Making peace with us IS in their own interests, if we were willing.
Correct. I certainly hope that Bush and company would be smart enough to leave Iran alone, (although Bush’s self-righteous zealotry scares me), but I have not yet seen any reason to believe that even Bush would initiate a new war with our military already overtaxed.
I also do not believe that Iran poses a genuine threat to the U.S.–following Iraq, everyone should be aware that we do swat gnats with sledgehammers.
This is not to say I believe they should be allowed free reign to sponsor Hezbollah, but there are better ways to address that problem that acting as though they are about to launch a full-scale invasion of the U.S.
“What is it, Corporal?”
“The enemy, sir. Hobbling to our front…”
“Hobbling, Corporal?”
“Crutches, sir. And holding a white flag in his teeth…”
“His teeth, Corporal?”
“No hands, sir. Mumbling something…oh, my mistake, no teeth either…”
“The cunning devils! Always on the look out for thier best interests!”
“You mean, sir?..”
“That’s right, Corporal! Its a trap!”
Goddamnit, lost a post to the internet gremlins. Ah well, retyping.
So their best interest, according to you, is peace.
Also according to you, their best interest is to point nukes at us.
And still no facts from you.
Ah well, I gave it a shot.
Please define “genuine threat”. I take it that you mean that Iran is unlikely to be able to destroy the US and/or do anything more than launch some bloody terrorist strikes?
I mean, you’re not contending that Iran’s sponsorship of Hezbollah is, as another poster in this thread has suggested, in any way analogous to a little old lady in a wheelchair? That their duplicity wrt their nuclear program no more indicative of cause for concern than hiding money in one’s mattress or that Iran’s posture is one that can be compared to hobbling, toothless, gumming a white flag… right? Those are just obfuscatory bits of bluster designed to distort the actual situation… right?
Just to be clear… you’re not addressing anything anybody has said in this thread, right? Nobody here has suggested that we act as if Iran is planning to launch a full scale invasion of the US, merely that, for instance, they could murder Americans, both civilians and military targets, via their proxy forces. And that, as a result, we should be wary, adopt a defense posture and not assume that Iran’s intentions are peaceful until they stop supporting their terrorist proxy forces… yes?
Now… on to recreating the post of mine that got eaten:
Those who claim that Iran’s intentions towards us are peaceful often cite two examples. The first is Iran’s support for our efforts in Afghanistan. The second is the 2003 memo passed to us through a Swiss diplomat. I’ll touch on both of them separately.
WRT Afghanistan, Iran did not shift its policy so much as take advantage of the US’ actions in the region. It had opposed the Taliban rather directly since 1999 and supported the Northern Alliance in one form or another since roughly 1989. This, of course, does not speak to any divergences. Politics, strange bedfellows, all that.
However… Iran’s intentions certainly were neither peaceful nor displayed good will nor were made for the benefit of closer relations.
[
](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/world/asia/27afghan.ready.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1)
Other reports talk about a similar pattern of behavior since then.
In order not to mince words: anybody who claims that supporting Islamic fundamentalism and having a desire for peace with the west are anything but contradictory ,is shoveling a big ol’ load. Anybody who claims that Iran’s intentions are peaceful and not a threat to the west, but then ignores or downplays Islamic fundamentalism is trying to sell you something.
The second event is much more complex and those given to oversimplification have had a field day with it. The events surrounding the 2003 memo are not a simple set of circumstances, at all.
To begin with, let’s take a look at the memo itself. Just so we’re all on the same page. (Sorry for the shitty image quality. It’s the best copy I could find)
Some things about it should raise immediate red flags. First off, although Guldimann says that he got the “clear impression that there is a strong will of the regime to tackle the problem with the US.”, it is also made clear that this offer is being made in secret and that should negotiations not go well, the Iranian leaders who are floating the balloon will refuse to be bound by it due to ‘internal reasons’ (eg. internal opposition). The memo itself was unsigned and not on official Iranian letterhead, simply as an intersting tidbit. Kharrazi himself stated “The question is dealt with in high secrecy. Therefore no one else has been informed,” It is important to emphasize this, the decision to offer talks with the US was made in secret, without the knowledge or consent of most of the Iranian government and with a clear and present fear of opposition and backlash.
Further, although the Supreme Leader agreed to much of the document, we were told that he did not agree to roughly 10-15% of it, but that those bits could be worked out via negotiation. We do not know what, exactly, those bits were. We also don’t know what, exactly, was actually in his power to offer. Much of Hezbollah’s support within the Iranian government, for instance, comes from a different sub-faction, and the Supreme Leader has not always been able to control it. Further, where Hezbollah is mentioned, only its Lebanese scope is touched on. There is also no mention of any drive to stop exporting Islamist fundamentalism.
Moreover, the influence of the members of the government that the trial balloon was kept secret from cannot be hand waved away. We know that they were powerful enough to demand that the internal Iranian talks were secret. We know, further, that the largely state controlled/regulated Iranian press was full of rumors that Kharrazi was removed for having direct meetings with the US. We know that Iran’s anti-western faction succeeded in having a sizable number of diplomats dismissed who were seen as being too friendly with the west.
So, this raises some very real questions as to what could have actually been accomplished and how closely certain factions, like the Ministry of Information and Security, would have actually stuck to any peace deals. So, I suppose, to sum up the 2003 memo there are a few quick questions to go over.
Was it apparently a genuine offer of peace, or at least warming relations between Iran and the US. , made on behalf of a faction within the Iranian government? It certainly seems so, within reason. Was the US government wrong to dismiss it? Again, it certainly seems so. We may not have been certain as to its backing or legitimacy, but we definitely could have pushed the issue and seen where it got us. Finally, was it a viable peace plan that, had we accepted, would have brought peaceful relations? That is much, much harder to answer. Judging by the continued power and independence of various anti-western factions in Iran, the answer to that is most likely no. Those who were associated with drafting the 2003 memo almost certainly did not have the clout to back up any deals that they made.
It is important to remember that looking at governments (and people) as if they are fungible is fallacious. It is important to avoid the fallacies of composition and division. And the evidence does not seem to support the view that a certain degree of desire for better relations among some members of the Iranian government was shared by much of the rest of the government.
So, again, avoiding nuance and trying to sell a partisan political view does not serve the cause of fighting ignorance, only propagating it. To state, with certainty, that Iran has made peace offers (that they could follow through on) and that only the US’ actions have stopped the progress of peace is a fiction, pure and simple.
:rolleyes: Unless you can explain how war with America is in their best interest, not to mention being targeted with continual harassment and American funded terrorism, of course peace is in their best interest. And the only way to ensure that peace is with nukes; it’s the lesson of Iraq, Pakistan and North Korea.
And you didn’t ask for “facts”, you asked me to make an imaginary distinction between their best interest and peace; and one that would have required telepathy or precognition on my part to answer even if there was such a distinction. You didn’t “give it a shot”; you asked a question designed to create a false dilemma.
Iran is not sufficiently stupid to launch any sort of actual attack on the U.S. that could be traced back to Tehran. In the current situation, the U.S. would use any such evidence as an excuse to launch some sort of massive retaliatory attack.
I don’t have any dreamy notion that Iran wants peace and love to permeate the world. They are driven by their own senses of self-interest. In this they are no different than any other country powerful enough to attempt to stand independent of other nations, whether it is the U.S., the U.S.S.R., ancient Thebes, Britain, ancient Judah, or modern Israel. They do have an odd mix of ideology that colors their world involvement, much as the U.S. has shown when it interfered in Guatemala or Chile–or Iran. This makes them less predictable and, to a limited extent, more dangerous. However, they cannot launch an actual invasion against the U.S. and they do not appear to be sufficiently stupid as to sponsor an actual attack against this country’s soil.
Since, having been the victim of U.S. interference and even aggression on several occasions, they consider the U.S. to be the enemy, I do not find it surprising that they will take actions in the Middle East in an effort to reduce or neutralize U.S. power in that region. This is simply how the game is played. Nor do I find it surprising that they seek a weapon that will give the U.S. pause before it decides to pull another Iraq the next time we elect some ignorant goofball willing to believe the sort of crap that Wolfowitz’s term paper proposed. I have no problem with the U.S., (on those rare occasions when it appears to be motivated by a desire for actual peace and stability rather than a desire for hegemony or oil), playing the same game to limit Iranian advances in power, but I think that demonizing them and grouping them with their worst enemies as a country motivated merely by malice is counterproductive. (This would be among the reasons to open unconditional discussions: it may result in no changes in 2008, 2010, or beyond, but it would allow our upcoming leaders and their upcoming leaders to develop a sense of the real positions and motivations of each country rather than the cardboard stereotypes under which the current leaders are operating, so that as the current leaders pass on, there will be an opportunity for future rapprochement. The troubles in Northern Ireland were prolonged by at least twenty years because each side insisted on conditions to participate in peace talks. The Balkans have been suffering for over four hundred years because all the various factions operate under the assumption that they “know” the evil of their opponents and they are more interested in avenging the deaths of various great-grandparents than in ensuring the survival of their own children. It is a pretty dumb way to run a world.)
That would be me. My statements of opinion are simply that, they are not “designed to distort the actual situation”. Such an insinuation is either beneath you, or ought to be. Work on that, won’t you, there’s a good fellow…
Speaking of strawmen, could you please cite anyone in this thread who is acting as if Iran was about to lauch a full-scale invasion?
Or are you contending that sponsoring groups that attack a country or its interests does not constitute a genuine threat?
IOW, the US poses no genuine threat to Iran.
Regards,
Shodan