Sure, and Central American and Caribbean governments have a long history of instability, which does not make the United States an unstable government because it happens to be nearby.
Iran isn’t Syria. It’s not Iraq. It’s a different country populated by different people who speak a different language. Unlike those countries, it has a core national population who think of Iran as their nation, one with a long history. Whatever their problem with the regime a lot of people in Iran will take the position that “well, they make be sons of bitches, but they’re our sons of bitches.”
Like Fiendish Astronaut notes, it seems to me as an outsider that the U.S. is in the early stages of hyping itself up for war. I hope Obama’s re-elected if for no other reason than he might not start it; if a Republican is elected, war with Iran is inevitable. What a disaster.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Like Fiendish Astronaut notes, it seems to me as an outsider that the U.S. is in the early stages of hyping itself up for war. I hope Obama’s re-elected if for no other reason than he might not start it; if a Republican is elected, war with Iran is inevitable. What a disaster.
[/QUOTE]
Still waiting for that inevitable trigger pull for the perennial war with Iran, huh? I hope you haven’t been holding your breath for it…it’s been a rather long wait so far, but like the folks who predict the end of the world, if you wait long enough it might happen.
Let me ask you something here. You say the US has been hyping itself for war. Does that mean you think the US is behind the UN reports on the possibilities and indications of Iranian nuclear weapons programs? Or was that just a happy coincidence? Did we manage to infiltrate the Iranian government and make them threaten to close the straights and ramp things up, or, again, was that just a happy coincidence on our part? You seem to feel that this is a one sided thing, and that the US is responsible for the escalation of tensions in the attempt to ramp up for a war with Iran, so I’m curious how this all plays into that.
Despite all the blather from right-wing Israeli politicians, there is NO proof that Iran is building nuclear bombs.
For all we know, this could be a gigantic bluff-the way Kruschev had America convinced that Soviet Russia had fleets of ICBMs capable of hitting the USA.
Second: Iran has a puny little navy-one that would be on the bottom of the Persian Gulf within hours of a war with the US Navy.
Is Iran arming itself? Yes, they have built missiles, and are extending the range of missiles they have.
But to think that we should go to war with Iran is absolutely insane-it would turn out 1000 times worse than Iraq.
I wasn’t either. That thread, and many others like it over the years, was started in response to something some journalist wrote on the subject. We’ve been hearing this for years, and it’s been wrong every time.
At any rate, can you tell us what you were talking about?
Not for me. Yes, I know some people were babbling about it in 2003/2004. I disagreed at the time. I’m not BrainGlutton or Der Trihs. Very different names, shouldn’t be hard to tell apart.
This reminds me of the old joke “I had a friend who wuold drink and drive all the time, and we all thought he’d get himself killed by the time he was 30. But we were completely wrong about him. He didn’t get himself killed until he was 32.” Just because someone was wrong about this in 2004 doesn’t mean it isn’t a legitimate concern now.
I didn’t say either of those things. I don’t like the Iranian regime either; wars are rarely one-sided. After all, it’s not like the U.S. invaded Iraq entirely at random; they didn’t just throw a dart at a map of the world and say “Iraq, Belgium, whatever.”
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Not for me. Yes, I know some people were babbling about it in 2003/2004. I disagreed at the time. I’m not BrainGlutton or Der Trihs. Very different names, shouldn’t be hard to tell apart.
[/QUOTE]
I can tell you apart. The point though is that it’s the same old argument. It happens every time this comes up in the media. The US and Iran have been butting heads for years, through multiple administrations. Saying that if we happen to get a Republican in the Whitehouse this means certain war has about the same ring as those other posters insisting that GW was taking us to war with Iran any day now.
Sure, it could happen. Iran could be foolish enough to actually try and close the straights, which would certainly trigger a ‘war’, consisting of the US and Europe bombing the crap out of their Navy and some missile and C&C and other military targets in Iran. But I highly doubt Iran will do any such thing, since most of this sabre rattling stuff is for internal consumption. The US isn’t going to just attack Iran, despite the fervent belief by DT and BG and others that it’s going to happen any time now, and will certainly happen if a Republican gets elected.
Sure, the same can be said about those folks who predict the end of the world, as I said. I mean, it has to happen some time after all. And when you are dealing with a government like Iran, you just never know…I THINK they are rational, within the logic of their own system, but that doesn’t mean they will always act rationally. As for our system, we could attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but I think the probability of that is pretty low, even if a crazy Republican gets control of the Whitehouse, but it’s not beyond the realm of probability. If Iran keeps pushing on this nuclear weapons program they are purported to be working on then it certainly ups the chances that shots might be exchanged…especially if Iran continues to ratchet up the tensions when the US and Europe ratchet up the sanctions.
Like I said, all this is easily solvable for Iran…stop trying to build nukes. If they aren’t building the things and have no such program, throw it all fully open to inspections by the UN. Hide nothing. Only someone like DT thinks that the US would still attack Iran if they were fully cooperating with the UN and fully open to all inspections.
You said we were slowly ramping ourselves up for war. That implies that WE are the ones ramping up for war. If you meant that war was slowly building as tensions increased then you would have said it that way. All I’ve seen lately is a UN/IAEA report indicating that Iran might still be working on a weaponized nuclear program, a series of sanctions from the US and others, and Iran making threats about possibly closing the straights to trade. IOW, it’s business as usual, with Iran as the ones controlling the level of heat by continuing to indicate to the UN that they are still building a nuclear weapons program.
Out of curiosity, what SHOULD the US (and Europe, though they are hardly ever mentioned in these threads for some odd reason) do when reports like this latest one come out? Nothing? To me, sanctions seem the best way to make the disapproval of Iran’s actions conveyed without shots being fired. No?
Your most persuasive argument has melted my heart. I will now support a war on Iran if Bricker promises to be their chief general, Harold Flaigle is appointed Ayatollah, and jurisdiction doesn’t matter. In that case, I wanna ride the nuke warhead like…that one movie, what was that?
Your evidence is in legalspeak. Translated into a lot of maybes or could be’s but ya really can’t say. For thinking people.
Even so, Iranians have no lesser right to nuclear weapons than anyone else. When the “powers that be” give theirs up, and talk about how rogue they are, etc. with all due rhetoric applied then I’ll argue Iran can’t have one either.
As it is, I take a “Free Speech” approach to nukes. I got one, you got one, heck what a deal to shout about, let’s argue. Shut up.
I’ve seen this and many other similar views a lot. i.e. ‘why can’t any state have nuclear weapons if it wants, what’s it to us?’ (hopefully that doesn’t misrepresent your position David, if it does I’ve misunderstood and I’m sorry).
But let me put this to you and everyone else who believes that any state has the right to arm itself with whatever weapons it chooses:
Let’s say a state begin to openly develop nuclear weapons, whilst openly saying “as soon as our weapons are ready, we’ll be dropping them on x country to wipe out their cities.” How would you feel then?
I know it’s an unlikely scenario because that country would be inviting pre-emptive action upon itself, but just as a thought experiment it’s worth considering. Because I very much doubt many people would continue to hold their nukes for any state that wants them view in these circumstances. And if that’s the case then wouldn’t it be logical to say that we agree there is a line at which point action should be taken?
The point though is that it’s the same old argument. It happens every time this comes up in the media. The US and Iran have been butting heads for years, through multiple administrations. Saying that if we happen to get a Republican in the Whitehouse this means certain war has about the same ring as those other posters insisting that GW was taking us to war with Iran any day now.