[QUOTE=xtisme]
…It will be funny to see all the backpeddling to already prepared positions when the US DOESN’T attack Iran during Bush’s term. …
[/QUOTE]
Then let me burn that bridge in advance. If this ghastly thing does not come to pass, you have my entire blessing to dance about singing “neener neener” to your heart’s content. Small price to pay. If I have to eat some shit for peace, here’s my spoon, here’s my grin…
[QUOTE=elucidator]
You asking and answering the wrong question. When war is easy, peace becomes difficult, it must be worked for. What efforts towards a peaceful solution do you see on our part? Outside of the belligerant rhetoric that seems to gush endlessly from our leaders. Is this how peace is sought, do you think?
[/QUOTE]
What effort toward a peaceful solution do I see? I see the fact that the US has been talking to Iran for the past several years about this subject, and that the US is letting the Euro’s, China and Russia take the lead in the discussion to attempt to resolve this issue peacefully.
As for ‘belligerant rhetoric’ I honestly see a hell of a lot more of that coming out of Iran directed toward the US than I see moving in the opposite direction. YMMV of course.
I also see no indications that the US is moving towards an invasion, which was the the question in the OP…nor that the US is moving toward even limited air strikes against Iran, though, granted, there really wouldn’t need to be much indication of that ahead of time.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Do you agree, or no, that a peaceful modus vivendi with Iran is a desireable thing? Something to be actively sought, rather then grudgingly and reluctantly accepted? Are you satisfied that our leaders are actively seeking such an accord? Then, why, pray, don’t they tell John Bolton to shut the fuck up? Why the calm aplomb when Isreal threatens air strikes?
[/QUOTE]
Sure, I agree that negotiation is preferable to war…if negotiations are working and proceeding along a line that seems to hold out hope of a resolution. I don’t see how we haven’t been negotiating with Iran for the past several years though, rhetoric aside. The Euro’s have been offering the Iranians everything under the sun to get them to formally abandon the weaponization parts of their nuclear program for years now. The Russians have offered them all kinds of deals to do so.
The US’s role is pretty obvious to play the bad cop and to offer the threat to go along with the goodies the good cops are offering…and we have played and continue to play that role, a foil to the Europeans.
As to Israel’s threats, what exactly would you suggest? Israel IS threatened by an Iranian’s nuclear program, much more so than the US is. They are also our strongest ally in the region. They are also a sovereign nation of their own, with them own military and their own Democratically elected government. Should we tell them they can’t protect their own interests? If we DID tell them that, what do you suppose their reaction would be?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
All we are saying is give peace a chance. Is this how that is done?
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: Have any bombs been dropped on Iran when I wasn’t looking? We HAVE given peace a chance, we HAVE negotiated with Iran on this subject. The thing is that you seem to be of the opinion that we should just keep negotiating ad infinitum. At some point it becomes clear that negotiations aren’t getting anywhere…and at that point you need to look at other options. I don’t think we are at that point…yet…but we certainly may get to that point some time.
Probably not during the Bush administration though.
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Sure, I agree that negotiation is preferable to war…if negotiations are working and proceeding along a line that seems to hold out hope of a resolution.
[/QUOTE]
What makes you think we need any resolution? We can afford to let Iran be the regional power in the Gulf if they want, with Iraq as their protectorate; certainly they’re better suited to the role than we are, and they’ll still be pumping the oil and selling it on the world market. No skin off our nose.
No idea what gives you that idea BG. There is no way considering the current regime in Iran that we are going to turn over the region to them and just walk away, hopeful the oil keeps flowing.
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
No idea what gives you that idea BG. There is no way considering the current regime in Iran that we are going to turn over the region to them and just walk away, hopeful the oil keeps flowing.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
Of course it will keep flowing. What else are they going to do with it but sell it?
As for nukes, I hate to see the nuclear club expanded, ever, but let’s keep it in perspective: A nuclear Iran is really no more dangerous than a nuclear Pakistan, or a nuclear Israel. Since China has already been a nuclear power for decades, the Far East did not become significantly more dangerous when Kim Jong Il got the bomb. (Less so, in fact, if the new deterrent prevents another peninsular war.)
This would be funny, in a way, if -
No, I’m wrong, it can’t be funny.
You believe that a megalomaniac with no regard for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people gaining the ability to nuke Tokyo makes the world a safer and more stable place. Do you even read what you say before you post it?
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=xtisme]
No idea what gives you that idea BG. There is no way considering the current regime in Iran that we are going to turn over the region to them and just walk away, hopeful the oil keeps flowing.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
It isn’t ours to “turn over”, XT. We are occupiers, with no legitimate reason to be there. Iran at least lives there, it is their neighborhood. And we have no earthly reason to claim any right to determine the legitimacy of regimes. I would certainly prefer that Iran were not in the grip of a theocrcacy, not my call to make, any more than my preferences for Saudi Arabia or Kuwait have any moral force.
We make extravagant claims about supporting democracy. Well, then, if the majority of the people of Iraq would prefer to be BFF with Iran, how do we have any legitimate standing to thwart them? Is it our support and alliance with Pakistan, which stands at the very forefront of military dictatorships, human rights wise?
Unless I’m very mistaken, you would not predicate your position on raw force. What else have you got?
[QUOTE=Shodan]
…believe that a megalomaniac with no regard for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people gaining the ability to nuke Tokyo makes the world a safer and more stable place. Do you even read what you say before you post it?..
[/QUOTE]
About megalomaniacs with limited regard for human life. You sure you want to go there? Do you even read what you say before you post it?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Of course it will keep flowing. What else are they going to do with it but sell it?
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: And you base this incredible assumption on what exactly? The supposed good will of Iran? And you think we should base our foreign policy and a vital national strategic commodity on…hope? Seriously?
Let me put it in terms you may understand better BG. YOU don’t believe in business or profit, ehe? Why do you think the Iranian’s necessarily do…or that they wouldn’t be willing to sacrifice said profit for a greater good…just like you are always saying you are willing to do so. For the ‘good of the people’, aye? Well…that ‘good of the people’ thingy is pretty loose, and the Iranian’s may have a different way of looking at it.
Mind, I’m not saying they would do so…but if we leave the region to them and simply hope they will be benign then we may find out to our cost that they don’t look at profit the same way that, say, I do…but perhaps more like you do.
-XT
[QUOTE=elucidator]
It isn’t ours to “turn over”, XT. We are occupiers, with no legitimate reason to be there. Iran at least lives there, it is their neighborhood. And we have no earthly reason to claim any right to determine the legitimacy of regimes. I would certainly prefer that Iran were not in the grip of a theocrcacy, not my call to make, any more than my preferences for Saudi Arabia or Kuwait have any moral force.
[/QUOTE]
And so Iran has a legitimate interest OUTSIDE IT’S BORDERS, but the US, who also has a vital strategic interes in the region doesn’t?? :dubious: That seems to be dubious logic at best.
Why do you think it’s Iran’s call to make then? And why should we just go along? Because they live there? That gives them more right to impose their influence on the other nations of the region?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
We make extravagant claims about supporting democracy. Well, then, if the majority of the people of Iraq would prefer to be BFF with Iran, how do we have any legitimate standing to thwart them? Is it our support and alliance with Pakistan, which stands at the very forefront of military dictatorships, human rights wise?
[/QUOTE]
Do you have any indication that the majority of people in Iraq would preffer to be BFF with Iran (they would be shot for one thing…or hung, considering Iran’s take on that particular act)? As far as I know there has been no vote on that particular (or even generic) assertion.
Even if it were the case, should the US just humbly pack our bags and hope that Iran continues to supply us and the rest of the world with a resource we vitally need?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Unless I’m very mistaken, you would not predicate your position on raw force. What else have you got?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I’ll just use the old standby so popular with some on the board…need. The United States has a vital strategic interest in the region as our technology, industry and civilization are currently completely dependent on oil. It would be like in ancient times when the river we needed for trade, irrigation and life flowed through another country. While ‘raw force’ may not be needed to conquere that other country it’s still in our collective best interest to make sure the water kept flowing unhindered and uncontaminated. Well, oil is the same thing. And the US isn’t the ONLY country with such a vital strategic interst in the region either…we are simply in the best position to protect not only our interests but the interests of most of the other industrialized nations of the world.
So, besides the fact that Iran happens to live there…what else have you got?
-XT
[QUOTE=Shodan]
This would be funny, in a way, if -
No, I’m wrong, it can’t be funny.
You believe that a megalomaniac with no regard for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people gaining the ability to nuke Tokyo makes the world a safer and more stable place. Do you even read what you say before you post it?
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
The Japanese aren’t stressing over it AFAIK. It’s like Mutually Assured Destruction during the Cold War – made us all nervous to live under, but still the best to be made of a bad situation. Bilateral disarmament would have made us all safer; any attempt to deploy a missile-defense system such as SDI would have done the opposite, by making everybody’s trigger fingers itchier.
To be fair, Iran stopping its exportation of oil is highly unlikely. And once it’s on the global market, oil is essentially fungible.
That being said, the real threat comes from conflict. Of course, those who haven’t really learned about the region view it as a US-Iranian dualpolar conflict. It isn’t. Khomenism is a virulent and dangerous ideology, and the possible ascendancy of Iranian theocratic militias in the region, and its impact, has not been lost on the 12 ME nations that are starting/resuming their own nuclear programs.
Viewing the current conflict as ‘big bad America versus Iran’ misses a great number of critically important facts in favor of a false-to-facts political worldview.
(Of course, “Iran has every right to exert its influence over the region, but America and its allies are horrible if they do” fits into the same worldview, for the same reasons)
The real threat is that the ascendancy of militant Khomenism, backed up by a nuclear deterrent, will make the imbalance in the region that the Iraq war has caused… look like a church bake sale. Casting this as an American-Iranian issue, only, is simply ignorant. The threat to oil production/distribution comes in, not from an Iran that chose not to sell oil, but from regional/inter-regional fighting that closed the Straight of Hormuz and/or led to wide spread terrorist strikes and counter strikes. Any way you slice it, numerous ME regimes getting nukes is not a good scenario.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
:dubious: And you base this incredible assumption on what exactly?
[/quote]
The fact that Iran produces more oil than it can use and can make a lot of money by selling it and governments always need more money. It takes some really strong resolution to shut off the spigot under those circumstances. Hussein did once or twice but he was an autocrat; Iran, an authoritarian-ideological state but with a divided, collegial leadership and some genuinely democratic elements, never will; somebody will always be there to point out the disadvantage of cutting off the income stream.
Unreal the comments one gets to read here. You plunder a country and make a bloodbath out of it for no other reason than because you could and now are suggesting you do the same to another one because, apparently, your oil is buried underneath their ground as well.
Imperial logic at its very best.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
And so Iran has a legitimate interest OUTSIDE IT’S BORDERS, but the US, who also has a vital strategic interes in the region doesn’t?? :dubious: That seems to be dubious logic at best.
[/quote]
If there were a civil war in Mexico that would be none of America’s business, strictly speaking – but wouldn’t it still be more our business than China’s?
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, I’ll just use the old standby so popular with some on the board…need. The United States has a vital strategic interest in the region as our technology, industry and civilization are currently completely dependent on oil.
[/QUOTE]
So? “Vital interest” does not translate into any right or claim.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
The real threat is that the ascendancy of militant Khomenism, backed up by a nuclear deterrent, will make the imbalance in the region that the Iraq war has caused… look like a church bake sale. Casting this as an American-Iranian issue, only, is simply ignorant. The threat to oil production/distribution comes in, not from an Iran that chose not to sell oil, but from regional/inter-regional fighting that closed the Straight of Hormuz and/or led to wide spread terrorist strikes and counter strikes. Any way you slice it, numerous ME regimes getting nukes is not a good scenario.
[/QUOTE]
Actually that’s what I was getting at though I see I didn’t do such a good job of making my point. It’s not so much that they will refuse to sell their oil, as that for their own reasons they may choose to cut off oil supplies to the west if they think it’s necessary…and if they had regional influence AND nuclear weapons they would certainly have the capability to do so. He who can destroy something (i.e. has the will and means to do so) controls it…and Iran could certainly hold the US (and the rest of the world) over an, um, barrel, if we simply decided to hope for the best and leave it to the Iranian’s.
-XT
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
If there were a civil war in Mexico that would be none of America’s business, strictly speaking – but wouldn’t it still be more our business than China’s?
[/QUOTE]
Does China have a vital strategic interest in Mexico? If so, then they would have some stake in a Mexican civil war. How much stake would depend on how vital their interest was. If it was vital enough that their entire social infrastructure may collapse due to it then they would probably do what they needed to do to assert and protect their interests…no?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
So? “Vital interest” does not translate into any right or claim.
[/QUOTE]
We have a right to protect our interests same as any other nation…especially when they are so critical to our society. Or do you disagree that nations have the right to protect their interests?
-XT
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
What makes you think we need any resolution? We can afford to let Iran be the regional power in the Gulf if they want, with Iraq as their protectorate; certainly they’re better suited to the role than we are,
[/quote]
If you’re a Shi’a, maybe. What about the Sunni Arabs and Kurds? You think Iran is better suited at protecting them? Perhaps we should ask your favored candidate, Obama, what he thinks about that? What do you supposed he’d say?
Yeah, the Sunni Arabs and Kurds would just roll over and not interfere with Iran taking over the country. It would never occur to them to try and disrupt the flow of oil.
Speaking of said logic, I found the following article a great read:
Addressing America’s “Deeper Malignancies”
Much more at source…for those who dare.
[QUOTE=XT]
And so Iran has a legitimate interest OUTSIDE IT’S BORDERS, but the US, who also has a vital strategic interes in the region doesn’t?? That seems to be dubious logic at best…
[/QUOTE]
I am at least pleased to see that friend XT agrees with me that the Monroe Doctrine is a wholly unjustified projection of presumed legitimacy to interfere with one’s neighbors.