Iraq War Supporters: How is Iran Different?

[Der_Trihs]

@John Mace

I think it would less Islamic, if you take my meaning.

Why ? From all I’ve heard, most of the dictators are less extreme than the populace.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Der Trihs

Why ? From all I’ve heard, most of the dictators are less extreme than the populace.

In most of the Middle East, where you have secular dictatorships oppressing democratic religious parties, that’s true. It’s probably less true in Iran, which has been a theocracy for 26 years, and where the main opposition groups, while certainly not secular, want less religious involvement in the affairs of state.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Gangster Octopus

Let’s go over the invasion checklist:

X Developing WMDS
X Virulently anti-American
XX Aiding and abetting terrorists
X Destablizing force in a vitally important region

Why is Iran getting off with some strong language and wagging fingers at this point? When do we actually threaten them with military action?

To my mind there is a huge difference between Iran and Iraq. The most important difference is that there was a perception that the US would be welcomed in Iraq. I’m sure it wasn’t ignored by Bush II that Bush I was heavily criticised for not carring through with military support for a regime change in Iraq. The effectiveness of the insurgency was totally underestimated, yet I don’t hear many calls for immediate US withdrawal from within Iraq. Had there been no evidence of suppression of the majority of Iraqis, I doubt very much that Bush would have gone in there.

There is no evidence that the majority of Iranians are desperate for regime change. If the US invaded, it is highly unlikely that they would get any support from within the country. Iran is much larger than Iraq. Given the cost of the Iraqi occupation, even the mighty USA would not be able to control it. In short there is no conceivable prospect for a permanent solution to prevent the development of nuclear armaments or WMDs in Iran through boots on the ground.

[RyJae]

@The Flying Dutchman

To my mind there is a huge difference between Iran and Iraq. The most important difference is that there was a perception that the US would be welcomed in Iraq. I’m sure it wasn’t ignored by Bush II that Bush I was heavily criticised for not carring through with military support for a regime change in Iraq. The effectiveness of the insurgency was totally underestimated, yet I don’t hear many calls for immediate US withdrawal from within Iraq. Had there been no evidence of suppression of the majority of Iraqis, I doubt very much that Bush would have gone in there.

There is no evidence that the majority of Iranians are desperate for regime change. If the US invaded, it is highly unlikely that they would get any support from within the country. Iran is much larger than Iraq. Given the cost of the Iraqi occupation, even the mighty USA would not be able to control it. In short there is no conceivable prospect for a permanent solution to prevent the development of nuclear armaments or WMDs in Iran through boots on the ground.

Not sure if this is evidence because I cannot vouch for the validity of the polls.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7115295&postcount=13

The aftermath of the U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq provided remarkable evidence about how far the pro-American sentiment has gone.(7) On June 22, 2003, the Iranian newspaper Yas-e Now published a remarkable poll that had originally appeared on the “Feedback” web page of the Expediency Discernment Council, run by former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Those polled were given the question, “What are the actual demands of the Iranian people?” and a choice of four answers. They responded as follows:

– 13 percent chose the answer “solutions to the problems of people’s livelihood, and the continuation of the present political policy”–in other words, the current hardline stance.

– 16 percent chose “political reforms and increases in the powers of the reformists.”

– 26 percent chose “fundamental changes in management and in the performance of the system for an efficient growth”–a position often identified with Rafsanjani.

– 45 percent chose “change in the political system, even with foreign intervention.”

The rest of the post (#13) is up there.

[SenorBeef]

@Pope Bob The Pious

We are readying some interesting new weapons. Conventional warheads for our SLBMs.

Nit: Conventional missiles from the missile subs. They’re not retrofitting SLBMs with conventional warheads but rather putting tomahawks in where the SLBMs were.

[Pope_Bob_The_Pious]

@SenorBeef

Nit: Conventional missiles from the missile subs. They’re not retrofitting SLBMs with conventional warheads but rather putting tomahawks in where the SLBMs were.

Counter-Nit: Cite.

The first of the 65-ton Trident conventional missiles would be deployed aboard some of America’s 14 Trident submarines within two years and would then be available for use against hardened targets such as Iran’s underground nuclear facilities, or terrorist mountain hideaways.

Which is seperate from our SSGN program. From my understanding, our first SSGNs are already at sea, with some insane compliment of Tomahawks (150 or something like that.)

[buns3000]

One difference is that Iraq wasn’t “developing WMDs”.

[tagos]

@John Mace

I’ve never been an Iraq War supporter, but I don’t see what you’re getting at. Invading Iran would be a bad idea even if we hadn’t gone into Iraq. Iran is a much larger country with much more difficult terrain and is in an entirely different poiltical situation.

We are reacting to Iran-- through diplomatic means. It’s slow and frustrating, but that’s the nature of the beast. And even the most staunch supporter of the Iraq war is unlikely to say that war is the answer in all cases.

But apparently all the ‘good bits’ - the oil fields on which their economy (and ours) depends are conveniently clustered along te border with Iraq. We don’t need to occupy the whole country, just the border provinces.

[Der_Trihs]

@tagos

But apparently all the ‘good bits’ - the oil fields on which their economy (and ours) depends are conveniently clustered along te border with Iraq. We don’t need to occupy the whole country, just the border provinces.

Whcih won’t stop Iran from making nukes, and will mean our people will be in easy range of them.

It’ll be amusing to see the apologists try to explain how that grabbing only the oil wells doesn’t mean the war is about oil; there’s really a perfectly just and noble reason for it all . . .

[tagos]

@Der Trihs

Whcih won’t stop Iran from making nukes, and will mean our people will be in easy range of them.

It’ll be amusing to see the apologists try to explain how that grabbing only the oil wells doesn’t mean the war is about oil; there’s really a perfectly just and noble reason for it all . . .

Natanz - the research facility, is also in that region. And it is an area allegedly ‘ripe’ for exploitable ethnic tensions which no doubt are being stirred. I’m sure the oppressed minorities, yearning to be free, are already stocking up on rose petals.

Given the lack of interest in real-world faccts and assessments I can easily see this Administration and its UK lapdog convincing itself that seizing a part of Iran is feasible. And as Iraq don’t have nukes there is no need to fear them.

Unrest in Iran

In April, days of rioting by ethnic Arabs in the oil-rich province led to several deaths and hundreds of arrests after protests at government plans to encourage more ethnic Persian Iranians to move to the province.

The province is home to about two million Arabs.

Iran said the violence in the province was foreign-instigated, adding that several people with links to the UK had been arrested.

[tagos]

@tagos

Natanz - the research facility, is also in that region. And it is an area allegedly ‘ripe’ for exploitable ethnic tensions which no doubt are being stirred. I’m sure the oppressed minorities, yearning to be free, are already stocking up on rose petals.

Given the lack of interest in real-world faccts and assessments I can easily see this Administration and its UK lapdog convincing itself that seizing a part of Iran is feasible. And as Iraq don’t have nukes there is no need to fear them.

Unrest in Iran

And as Iran doesn’t have nukes :smack: