[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
…
Most importantly, we should be looking at Iran as a potential ally in the region. …[/quote]
You are not this naive. Iran has called us the Great Satan for 25 years.
They have been a major source of international terrorism.
They will never ever be friendly or even neutral to American interests until there is regime change in Iran.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Most importantly, we should be looking at Iran as a potential ally in the region. …
You are not this naive. Iran has called us the Great Satan for 25 years.
They have been a major source of international terrorism.
They will never ever be friendly or even neutral to American interests until there is regime change in Iran.[/quote]
Did you read what I wrote? At all? I’m not talking about the theocracy, I’m talking about the people in that country. I think I was pretty clear there.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Except you.[/quote]
You’re right, it’s just me.
Everyone else is in chorus yelling “bomb them fuckers!” except little ol’ me.
They don’t have a nuke, and they aren’t likely to get one anytime soon. They need a lot of centrifuges and a lot of time, neither of which they’re likely to get. Maybe, just maybe, the president of Iran is a blustering idiot.
Hmmm, a country composed of a mostly moderate middle class but controlled by a vocal and shrill theocracy, presided over by an idiot who tends to make stupid remarks intended primarily to keep his loyal base in line and enthralled. Wonder why that sounds so vaguely familiar? Does beating the war drum allow the ruling party to define dissent as treason over there as well?
I wouldn’t even be shocked to learn that Rupert Murdoch owns the Iranian Faux News channel. How do you say “Fair and Balanced” in Farsi?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Most importantly, we should be looking at Iran as a potential ally in the region. …
You are not this naive. Iran has called us the Great Satan for 25 years.
They have been a major source of international terrorism.
They will never ever be friendly or even neutral to American interests until there is regime change in Iran.
Did you read what I wrote? At all? I’m not talking about the theocracy, I’m talking about the people in that country. I think I was pretty clear there.[/quote]
The mullahs are firmly in control. The reformers have been purged. They elected a hostage taker president.
Pwehaps you are being naive.
[quote]mark57 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Except you.
You’re right, it’s just me.
Everyone else is in chorus yelling “bomb them fuckers!” except little ol’ me.
They don’t have a nuke, and they aren’t likely to get one anytime soon. They need a lot of centrifuges and a lot of time, neither of which they’re likely to get. …
[/quote]
They are not likely to get time? How do we stop time?
They are not likely to get centrifuges? Who will stop that?
I understand why some of us here are hesitant to take a firm stance on this. I’m hearing a lot of guys saying “slow down and let’s look at this without all the sensationalism.” This is a good idea.
BUT
There is a difference to calling bullshit on sensationalist headlines and being pragmatic/realistic with regards to the use of force against Iran.
An exceprt of the report, with some boldfaced text I added to emphasize stuff:
[quote]Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security continue to be involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continue to support a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals. Iran’s support includes funding, providing safe haven, training, and weapons to a wide variety of terrorist groups including Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Liberation Front for Palestine-General Command. Its support of HAMAS and Palestinian Islamic Jihad is of particular concern, as both groups continue their deliberate policies of attacking Israeli citizens with suicide bombings.
In addition to halting this support, Iran must cease its opposition to the Middle East Peace Process. Iran’s leadership continued to encourage anti-Israeli activity and Supreme Leader Khamenei has even referred to Israel as a “cancerous tumor”. The Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to live in peace and security without the interference of Iran. The goal of Middle East Peace will be achieved through diplomacy and mutual understanding, not hatred and violence.
Finally, the U.S. Government insists that Iran cease its current policy of providing a safe-haven to al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam operatives and cooperate with international efforts to bring them to justice. The United States has been concerned for some time about the presence in Iran of al-Qaida members, including senior al-Qaida leaders. We believe that some elements within the Iranian regime have helped al-Qaida terrorists transit or find safe-haven inside Iran. Moreover, we believe senior al-Qaida terrorists inside Iran played a part in the planning of the May 12 Riyadh bombings.
[/quote]
I know you guys don’t want to draw steel and take on another “war”, but come on! Stop your whining and look at this country’s leaders! This is the face of the fuckin’ enemy!
Nobody is saying “let’s kill everybody in Iran”. It’s the fuckers in charge who are the problem. Does anybody in their right mind think it’s a good idea to let irrational islamic fundies get a hold of nukes? I can hear it now:
“You will NOT SHOW A CARTOON WITH MUHAMMED OR WE WILL NUKE YOU!!!”
You think terrorism is bad now? Wait until these fucks have a nuke. And to all of you who are saying that this is fifteen years away, I will properly answer your concerns with this statement:
Even though it now takes most folks ten years to get full-blown AIDS, and you could be asymptomatic for years anyway, is it a good idea to keep having unprotected sex with transvestite Thai hookers? Maybe using dirty needles on an endless basis?
These Iranianianians are trouble, whether it’s fifteen years, fifteen hours, or fifteen minutes. They are not going to go away. This will only get worse, and threatening them with pieces of paper that say “we are mad at you” is not going to help. At all.
Take a realistic look at this.
We can’t just look the other way with this Iran situation. Like the original poster said, sooner or later the shit is going to hit the fan. The only thing that makes sense is to stop banging diseased hookers, because sooner or later you’re gonna catch the AIDS.
And yes, Iran having nukes is just like catching HIV. Both are imminently preventable situations with the proper knowledge and the will to do what is necessary.
It’s not only America that’s concerned about what’s happening in Iran. It’s the world. This isn’t something that’s being cooked up by the Bush administration.
America is in no position to invade Iran right now. We’ll see lots of sanctions before we see military action. If there is military action, it’ll be some missile strikes, not a full scale invasion.
Also… You can’t compare Iran to Iraq. They’re very different countries and very different situations.
markey, I’m going to do my level best not to insult you. It’s going to be difficult. This last post of yours is exactly why I blame George Bush for not taking advantage of his 2004 win to squeeze YOUR wing of the liberal party out of existence.
So much nonsense!!!
Let’s begin:
"You’re right, it’s just me.
Everyone else is in chorus yelling “bomb them fuckers!” except little ol’ me."
Sarcasm is a nice tool when used effectively. Unfortunately, it usually has to have some factual basis from which to begin.
Remind me again, how many of us are saying “bomb them fuckers!” on this forum?
Is the Administration saying that? Remember, the new york times does NOT speak for the Administration. In fact, if memory serves, they are the only news organization expressly barred from riding on Air Force Two.
“They don’t have a nuke,”
You know this how? You and your pals have taken the verbal STICK to the intelligence services of the U.S./World over stockpiles of WMD. Further, without a shred of proof, your pals have claimed “cherrypicking of information” related to WMD.
You wrote:
“and they aren’t likely to get one anytime soon.”
Bingo!!! Cherry-picking. When I have nicely pointed out the Senior Administration official’s report. You choose to base your entire argument on the new york times analysis.
Please make a stab at informing yourself. Please google in “Iran Nuclear Weapon.” See what the consensus from the Intelligence Services is as of today.
Oh, by the way, it’s sad that I have to point out that Intelligence is an educated guess. It isn’t 100% certain or a “slam dunk” if you will.
“They need a lot of centrifuges and a lot of time, neither of which they’re likely to get.”
Please explain where you came up with saying they aren’t likely to get them? Did you flat out make that up? If they have the blueprints and the national desire (aka read speeches) what exactly will stop them. Oh, and access to friendly nuclear powers with urgent need for oil (China/Russia).
“Maybe, just maybe, the president of Iran is a blustering idiot.”
He certainly is blustering. He is counting on YOU and the europeans standing down on this. He knows full well that our ground troops are fully engaged. He is hoping that YOU don’t have the stomach to stop him.
“Hmmm, a country composed of a mostly moderate middle class but controlled by a vocal and shrill theocracy, presided over by an idiot who tends to make stupid remarks intended primarily to keep his loyal base in line and enthralled. Wonder why that sounds so vaguely familiar?”
I’m wondering if you noticed just how many people voted for W. in the last election? Would it be fair to say that he represents a large cross section of people? Of course it would. How would you categorize over 50 million Americans? Religious? Christian? Poor?
I’m interested.
“Does beating the war drum allow the ruling party to define dissent as treason over there as well?”
This is the biggest crock of horseshit I’ve heard in a while. Explain how your freedom of speech has been curtailed in any way? You’ve been spewing your bile unchecked since day one.
I cannot speak for the multitude that voted for Bush. However, it’s probably fair to say that most of us welcome a healthy debate.
“I wouldn’t even be shocked to learn that Rupert Murdoch owns the Iranian Faux News channel. How do you say “Fair and Balanced” in Farsi?”
It is amazing how threatening alternative viewpoints are to some liberals.
I’m quite serious. If I were you, I’d reevaluate many of my basic premises. You accuse Republicans of equating dissent with treason.
HOWEVER, here you are attacking Fox News for showing an (unacceptable and apparently very threatening) viewpoint.
They apparently deviate from the standard liberal media mantra, and that “must not be tolerated.”
I wonder of the two of us, which person has more trouble with “dissent” from the “moderate” viewpoint.
JeffR
[quote]mark57 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Except you.
You’re right, it’s just me.
Everyone else is in chorus yelling “bomb them fuckers!” except little ol’ me.
They don’t have a nuke, and they aren’t likely to get one anytime soon. They need a lot of centrifuges and a lot of time, neither of which they’re likely to get. Maybe, just maybe, the president of Iran is a blustering idiot.
Hmmm, a country composed of a mostly moderate middle class but controlled by a vocal and shrill theocracy, presided over by an idiot who tends to make stupid remarks intended primarily to keep his loyal base in line and enthralled. Wonder why that sounds so vaguely familiar? Does beating the war drum allow the ruling party to define dissent as treason over there as well?
I wouldn’t even be shocked to learn that Rupert Murdoch owns the Iranian Faux News channel. How do you say “Fair and Balanced” in Farsi?
[/quote]
The threat is more grave than you make it out to be. Iran shouldn’t be enriching uranium PERIOD. Most countries don’t even start enriching uranium until they have 20 or 30 power plants running. Iran doesn’t even have a single power plant. It’s clear that their goal is to achieve nuclear weapons.
We have an Iranian president who hates America AND loudly advocates wiping Israel off the map. And we have an Iranian nuclear program that is focused entirely on making weapons.
How long should the world community wait before taking action? Do we let them enrich more uranium? If so, how much more? Do we let them acquire centrifuges? Where do we draw the line?
Lots of governments around the world are worried about this. It’s not just an American issue. Keep in mind that there will be a series of sanctions and other soft deterrents applied before there’s any military action. There’s a lot of unwarranted fear-mongering going on amongst the uneducated. Iran’s nuclear program IS something to worry about but it’s not going to result in an American invasion of Iran anytime soon.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Most importantly, we should be looking at Iran as a potential ally in the region. …
You are not this naive. Iran has called us the Great Satan for 25 years.
They have been a major source of international terrorism.
They will never ever be friendly or even neutral to American interests until there is regime change in Iran.
Did you read what I wrote? At all? I’m not talking about the theocracy, I’m talking about the people in that country. I think I was pretty clear there.
The mullahs are firmly in control. The reformers have been purged. They elected a hostage taker president.
Pwehaps you are being naive.[/quote]
Um, Iran’s not a democracy. Not sure if you got the memo there. Ahmedinejad’s popular support, such as it is, has much to do with disgust at the crumbling theocracy, as counter-intuitive as that may seem. And his support has dropped too, got a chilly reception on a trip up to the Caspian recently (rural poor are supposed to be his strongest supporters).
Well, here’s the rub.
Bombing them won’t make the problem go away. It’ll just result in a delay, and a better-hidden nuclear program, with deeper bunkers, and more secrets. The result from this would be poorer inteligence and a greater overall threat. The only solution to the result would be invasion, which would then have the added difficulty of going into the situation with poor intel.
As for invasion and regime change, yes, it COULD effectively stop their nuclear program, but then again, it could also result in nuclear materials being smuggled out of the country in the buildup to the war, like some are claiming the chemical weapons Iraq had slipped out to Syria in the buildup to the invasion. The other problem with invasion is that it’s EXTREMELY costly, in both manpower and cash. Not only is the US in no position whatsoever to invade another country, our track record when it comes to doing a good job of regime change and rebuilding, obtaining international allies, preventing the spread of WMD, etc. is pretty goddamn depressing.
So, isolated air strikes are essentially out of the question, and if the even United States can’t effectively invade Iran, what then? Essentially, we = fuct.
UNLESS… whoah, hey, maybe there’s a diplomatic solution. Like a trade blockade. We surround the country, and capture ANY AND ALL shipments of ANYTHING going in and out of the country. Then again, this is going to REALLY piss off Russia and China, who if they had a mind to, could really screw with the US economy. If the US economy got screwed, we wouldn’t be able to maintain our trade blockade anymore, Iran would prosper once more, and we’d have accomplished nothing except shooting ourselves in the foot. (again.) Essentially, we = fuct.
One more option available - we ask them nicely again and again to allow UN inspectors in, and to cease enrichment of uranium, or at least, dont’ enrich it to the point where it could be used for a weapon. We keep asking them to grow up and be a real country, along with most of the rest of the countries in the world, until they say “yes”. The only problem with this one, is they could say, “fuck you”, and as before, we = fuct.
I really don’t see any way around this one except to try and make-nice with the new nuclear kid on the block. …do you?
knewsom: I like your points, they are well thought out. It’s just that… you may not truly understand the power of the dark side of the force. Russia and China will only piss us off for so long. They are both on a very short red, white, and blue leash. You think China and Russia could wreck our economy? Whoa, partner… you’re forgetting who the pitcher and the catcher are here. We are the ones holding everybody hostage.
We are absolutely NOT at the mercy of the whims of a third-world wanna-be attention whore nation like Iran. NOT. I’m sorry, that is just not reality.
This is reality: They better learn to play nice with us, or bad, bad things will happen to those little bastards. Go ahead and ask Saddam Hussein how well his game of “nah nah come and get me” worked out for him. The last time I saw that guy, he wasn’t trying to make WMD’s anymore, he was living in a fucking hole in the ground trying not to pee himself. Or maybe that was Saddam’s stunt double?
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Well, here’s the rub.
Bombing them won’t make the problem go away. It’ll just result in a delay, and a better-hidden nuclear program, with deeper bunkers, and more secrets. The result from this would be poorer inteligence and a greater overall threat. The only solution to the result would be invasion, which would then have the added difficulty of going into the situation with poor intel.
As for invasion and regime change, yes, it COULD effectively stop their nuclear program, but then again, it could also result in nuclear materials being smuggled out of the country in the buildup to the war, like some are claiming the chemical weapons Iraq had slipped out to Syria in the buildup to the invasion. The other problem with invasion is that it’s EXTREMELY costly, in both manpower and cash. Not only is the US in no position whatsoever to invade another country, our track record when it comes to doing a good job of regime change and rebuilding, obtaining international allies, preventing the spread of WMD, etc. is pretty goddamn depressing.
So, isolated air strikes are essentially out of the question, and if the even United States can’t effectively invade Iran, what then? Essentially, we = fuct.
UNLESS… whoah, hey, maybe there’s a diplomatic solution. Like a trade blockade. We surround the country, and capture ANY AND ALL shipments of ANYTHING going in and out of the country. Then again, this is going to REALLY piss off Russia and China, who if they had a mind to, could really screw with the US economy. If the US economy got screwed, we wouldn’t be able to maintain our trade blockade anymore, Iran would prosper once more, and we’d have accomplished nothing except shooting ourselves in the foot. (again.) Essentially, we = fuct.
One more option available - we ask them nicely again and again to allow UN inspectors in, and to cease enrichment of uranium, or at least, dont’ enrich it to the point where it could be used for a weapon. We keep asking them to grow up and be a real country, along with most of the rest of the countries in the world, until they say “yes”. The only problem with this one, is they could say, “fuck you”, and as before, we = fuct.
I really don’t see any way around this one except to try and make-nice with the new nuclear kid on the block. …do you?[/quote]
Good post. I agree with all of this.
There’s this assumption in the world that America won’t invade countries that have nuclear weapons… And it’s likely true. It’s one of the main reasons Iran wants weapons. They figure NO ONE will fuck with them if they get those weapons.
Problem is that playing nice doesn’t always work. In fact, lots of political experts (many of whom have Bush’s ear) don’t believe in playing nice at all. They think the world is a nasty place, and that playing nice paints a big target on your back. Scary thing is, they might be right. I mean, how to you play nice with a country that advocates extermination of the Jewish race and wiping Israel off the map?
Personally, I think there’s a place for soft measures (diplomacy, blockades, sanctions) and hard measures (military strikes), depending on the situation. Many of the problems in the Middle East are untenable because no solutions seem to work. To use your expression, no matter what we do: we = fuct.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I understand why some of us here are hesitant to take a firm stance on this. I’m hearing a lot of guys saying “slow down and let’s look at this without all the sensationalism.” This is a good idea.
BUT
There is a difference to calling bullshit on sensationalist headlines and being pragmatic/realistic with regards to the use of force against Iran.
An exceprt of the report, with some boldfaced text I added to emphasize stuff:
Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security continue to be involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continue to support a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals. Iran’s support includes funding, providing safe haven, training, and weapons to a wide variety of terrorist groups including Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Liberation Front for Palestine-General Command. Its support of HAMAS and Palestinian Islamic Jihad is of particular concern, as both groups continue their deliberate policies of attacking Israeli citizens with suicide bombings.
In addition to halting this support, Iran must cease its opposition to the Middle East Peace Process. Iran’s leadership continued to encourage anti-Israeli activity and Supreme Leader Khamenei has even referred to Israel as a “cancerous tumor”. The Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to live in peace and security without the interference of Iran. The goal of Middle East Peace will be achieved through diplomacy and mutual understanding, not hatred and violence.
Finally, the U.S. Government insists that Iran cease its current policy of providing a safe-haven to al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam operatives and cooperate with international efforts to bring them to justice. The United States has been concerned for some time about the presence in Iran of al-Qaida members, including senior al-Qaida leaders. We believe that some elements within the Iranian regime have helped al-Qaida terrorists transit or find safe-haven inside Iran. Moreover, we believe senior al-Qaida terrorists inside Iran played a part in the planning of the May 12 Riyadh bombings.
I know you guys don’t want to draw steel and take on another “war”, but come on! Stop your whining and look at this country’s leaders! This is the face of the fuckin’ enemy!
Nobody is saying “let’s kill everybody in Iran”. It’s the fuckers in charge who are the problem. Does anybody in their right mind think it’s a good idea to let irrational islamic fundies get a hold of nukes? I can hear it now:
“You will NOT SHOW A CARTOON WITH MUHAMMED OR WE WILL NUKE YOU!!!”
You think terrorism is bad now? Wait until these fucks have a nuke. And to all of you who are saying that this is fifteen years away, I will properly answer your concerns with this statement:
Even though it now takes most folks ten years to get full-blown AIDS, and you could be asymptomatic for years anyway, is it a good idea to keep having unprotected sex with transvestite Thai hookers? Maybe using dirty needles on an endless basis?
These Iranianianians are trouble, whether it’s fifteen years, fifteen hours, or fifteen minutes. They are not going to go away. This will only get worse, and threatening them with pieces of paper that say “we are mad at you” is not going to help. At all.
Take a realistic look at this.
We can’t just look the other way with this Iran situation. Like the original poster said, sooner or later the shit is going to hit the fan. The only thing that makes sense is to stop banging diseased hookers, because sooner or later you’re gonna catch the AIDS.
And yes, Iran having nukes is just like catching HIV. Both are imminently preventable situations with the proper knowledge and the will to do what is necessary.[/quote]
Invading Iran and decapitating the government, while it might be necessary at some point, is EXTREMELY problematic.
If you look at Iraq as an example… Saddam’s regime was widely despised throughout the Middle East. Nobody is unhappy to see Saddam go, including all of his neighbors. Insurgents in Iraq aren’t supporting Saddam, they’re attack America.
Iran is a completely different story. An attack by the West on Iran would arguably be seen, by the broader Middle East, as an attack on Islam. Not to mention the fact that Iranians aren’t subjugated the way Iraqis were. While there is dissent against the government within Iran, Iranian people DON’T HATE their regime. An invasion of Iran would piss off the Iranian people and the Muslim world.
It’s an untenable situation. There’s a lot of diplomacy going on as we speak. Hell, it’s been going on for years. Based on what Secretary Rice said yesterday, we’ll probably see sanctions pretty soon. Count on the fact that they’re going to exhaust all the soft measures before they resort to military force.
[quote]eiverson wrote:
Count on the fact that they’re going to exhaust all the soft measures before they resort to military force. [/quote]
Agreed 100%. Those options WILL be exhausted. Then we fuck them up. It’s a pretty simple formula. I like the fact that THIS time, we will have the support of the rest of the civilized world (China and Russia will bend, at least privately… trust me). As you stated, nobody wants a nuclear Iran. If this is seen as an attack on Islam, tough shit. They will get over themselves when they realize we aren’t blowing up their mosques and whatnot.
This is/will be an attack on terrorism and the spread of islamofascism. WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS. I know that there’s a lot of peaceniks out there, and they forget this one simple fact sometimes.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
eiverson wrote:
Count on the fact that they’re going to exhaust all the soft measures before they resort to military force.
Agreed 100%. Those options WILL be exhausted. Then we fuck them up. It’s a pretty simple formula. I like the fact that THIS time, we will have the support of the rest of the civilized world (China and Russia will bend, at least privately… trust me). As you stated, nobody wants a nuclear Iran. If this is seen as an attack on Islam, tough shit. They will get over themselves when they realize we aren’t blowing up their mosques and whatnot.
[/quote]
Consequences just aren’t a factor here huh?
Isn’t it a litte weird that we’re more worried about Iran than the ISRAELIS are?:
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Isn’t it a litte weird that we’re more worried about Iran than the ISRAELIS are?:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28567[/quote]
No it’s the WORLD that is concerned, not just the US. The Israelis know they can defend and flatten them with no hesitation.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Isn’t it a litte weird that we’re more worried about Iran than the ISRAELIS are?:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28567
No it’s the WORLD that is concerned, not just the US. The Israelis know they can defend and flatten them with no hesitation. [/quote]
No one’s saying the world is not concerned, or that this is solely an American issue. I’m pointing out that the Israelis think it’s too early to be rattling sabers and focusing on a military option.
And if you believe that “The Israelis know they can defend and flatten them with no hesitation,” then that implies you think Iran can be deterred by force. If that’s the case, then we shouldn’t care at all if they get a nuke, because we’ll be in the same position we are with the Russians and Chinese, nuclear primacy on our end. But that’s the trillion dollar question, isn’t it: is Iran run by rational decision makers or true fanatics?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
…
Um, Iran’s not a democracy. Not sure if you got the memo there. Ahmedinejad’s popular support, such as it is, has much to do with disgust at the crumbling theocracy, as counter-intuitive as that may seem. And his support has dropped too, got a chilly reception on a trip up to the Caspian recently (rural poor are supposed to be his strongest supporters).[/quote]
Irans president is democratically elected but the real power lies with the mullahs.
They have been in power 25 years and will likely stay in power for a long time.
We should not base our strategy on wishful thinking that they will be deposed.