[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
How could I forget Iran’s attack on the USS Stark?[/quote]
Zap,
It was Iraq, and our “good buddy” Saddam which attacked the Stark. What a way for an alleged “ally” to treat another alleged “ally”. You know Saddam, the guy the Europeans and Russians were supplying arms and weapons to while Iraq was at war with Iran in the 80’s. Funny that they would attack us, huh?
[quote]orion wrote:
…
I think we all have learned one thing by now, have no nuclear weapon and you risk getting your ass kicked, have nuclear weapons and you are safe.
Safe, not from Iran, but from the US.[/quote]
This fact has been painfully obvious to every tin-pot dictator in the world for about 62 years now. But it’s not just the U.S. - No one is going to invade a nuclear-armed country.
Which is why, if one country in a region gets the bomb, then the others immediately want it - particularly if the country that obtains the bomb first has aspirations on regional hegemony and is different ethnically (Persian v. Arab) and religiously (Shia v. Sunni) from the majority of other countries.
After that, to Lixy’s point, it’s a domino effect. Morocco doesn’t necessarily want the bomb because Iran has it - but the fact Iran has it makes Egypt want it, and Morocco wants it because Egypt wants it…
[quote]orion wrote:
The time to get nuclear weapons is obviously right now, while the US is occupied in Iraq and there is a strong anti-war sentiment in the US.
It takes about 10 years to build nukes from scratch so they need to get their act together soon, the fact that more than one country developes them makes a move against single country by the US or Israel much less likely.[/quote]
One would think that the large countries in Europe wouldn’t be too thrilled with the idea of a nuclear middle east either, but apparently the U.S. is the only country that would move to stop it?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What business does our military have over there?
You miss the larger point. If we mind our own business then we are in the right. As it stands we have done nothing right since WWI.[/quote]
The fall of Communism was wrong? Maybe in your eyes.
Yeah, Iranian terror is so localized.
"Argentine prosecutors allege Iranian officials orchestrated the bombing and entrusted the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah to carry it out.
Prosecutors in Argentina say they have enough evidence for Interpol’s 186-member general assembly to approve “red” notices for the six suspects which means they are wanted for possible extradition.
While the red notice does not force countries to arrest or extradite suspects, people with red-notice status appear on Interpol’s equivalent of a most-wanted list.
Many frustrated relatives of the victims are looking for support from Interpol because there have been no convictions 13 years after the attack.
“I believe that insofar as any of them can be brought to Argentina to testify, that would be helpful,” Diana Malamud, who lost her husband in the bombing, said of the progress toward an Interpol vote. “But I see it would be very difficult.”
In the run-up to the gathering, Iran had sought to delay the issue until next year, said an Interpol official on condition of anonymity because of agency policy. But the government did not formalize such a request as the meeting opened."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071105/ap_on_re_mi_ea/interpol_iran
[quote]gotaknife wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
How could I forget Iran’s attack on the USS Stark?
Umm… I am pretty sure that the USS Stark was shot by Iraqis. Is this a joke I am not a part of???[/quote]
My bad. You are correct.
So, yeah. We all know US interventionism is evil. We’ve heard it a gazillion times on this board, at least. But, what about Iranian interventionism? Shouldn’t Iran drop all support for the Hezbos and others?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What business does our military have over there?
You miss the larger point. If we mind our own business then we are in the right. As it stands we have done nothing right since WWI.
The fall of Communism was wrong? Maybe in your eyes.[/quote]
If you are referring to the Soviets being defeated it was because communism is economically untenable. They went broke trying to keep up with the US military industrial complex in the “arms race”. Communism still exists in certain other countries but they tend toward isolationism and thus are stuck in third world poverty. Only China seems to have caught on to the values of trade.
We didn’t defeat communism with interventionist foreign policy but rather with good, old-fashioned, American corporatism.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We didn’t defeat communism with interventionist foreign policy but rather with good, old-fashioned, American corporatism.[/quote]
Yeah, but we still beat 'um. You tell me it was wrong?
China just wised up: either slaughter your own people ala Tiananmen Square, or further the economic policies of Deng Xiaoping, have relative security and a competative edge in the world.
So far their blend of Communism, non-intervention and capitalism seems to be working.
Although Chairman Mao is probably spinning in his grave.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We didn’t defeat communism with interventionist foreign policy but rather with good, old-fashioned, American corporatism.[/quote]
Incorrect - we defeated the Soviet Union with good old-fashioned American capitalism and selected theaters of force projection that prevented Soviet penetration into key areas of the world.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Iran really is not an issue, it’s not a threat. Lucky, because the US really doesn’t have any options (thanks mr. Bush for that) to deal with it. Iran could become a threat in perhaps a decade or longer.
For now, it’s only used by the Republicans for internal politics. If they want to have a shred of a chance at the upcoming elections, they need to keep some kind of threat on the US population.
The Republican would have liked nothing better than to give tax cuts and worry about popular music as a threat. They don’t like nation building/war fighting any more than anyone else. They are doing it because they think it is right.
They would have been perfectly happy spending gobs of cash on a missile defense shield and not committing troops to battle in a far off land.
You are starting to sound like HeadHunter.[/quote]
Good observation, Zap! He DOES seem more rational lately!
Though how you, of all people, was able to see this after all those years of inhaling work-related chemicals, and whatever else it is you obviously imbibe.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
My interesting reality makes more sense than being afraid of a country that has not attacked someone since 1757?
…
To which country are you referring?
Iran aka Persia, alas, I have to dissent from the mainstream of dissenters:
My new date is, since Russio-Persian war 1826.
Invasion of sovereign US soil in 1979, multiple attacks through proxies in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia…[/quote]
Oh my, they “attacked” your embassy…
Dirty warmongering ragheads…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
orion wrote:
…
I think we all have learned one thing by now, have no nuclear weapon and you risk getting your ass kicked, have nuclear weapons and you are safe.
Safe, not from Iran, but from the US.
This fact has been painfully obvious to every tin-pot dictator in the world for about 62 years now. But it’s not just the U.S. - No one is going to invade a nuclear-armed country.
Which is why, if one country in a region gets the bomb, then the others immediately want it - particularly if the country that obtains the bomb first has aspirations on regional hegemony and is different ethnically (Persian v. Arab) and religiously (Shia v. Sunni) from the majority of other countries.
After that, to Lixy’s point, it’s a domino effect. Morocco doesn’t necessarily want the bomb because Iran has it - but the fact Iran has it makes Egypt want it, and Morocco wants it because Egypt wants it…
orion wrote:
The time to get nuclear weapons is obviously right now, while the US is occupied in Iraq and there is a strong anti-war sentiment in the US.
It takes about 10 years to build nukes from scratch so they need to get their act together soon, the fact that more than one country developes them makes a move against single country by the US or Israel much less likely.
One would think that the large countries in Europe wouldn’t be too thrilled with the idea of a nuclear middle east either, but apparently the U.S. is the only country that would move to stop it?
[/quote]
Of course this could lead to a new arms race.
It is just that US policies are in part responsible for that arms race (wo else could they be afraid of?) and yet the US is unable to stop them.
So Europe does not especially appreciate their quest for nuclear weapons but we do not have the means, nor the desire, to stop them militarily.
So what options are left if not diplomatic and economic pressure?
Unfortunately the US would have to lead the way or at least co-operate and I see neither in the near future.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Let’s let Iran be the bully! That will solve it.
How about we just mind our own business and let people trade. If Iran pisses anyone off they will suffer economically.
Do you think that (unconditionally) Iran would actually trade with the US? They would trade with Great Satan?[/quote]
Of course they would.
Their business leaders care about their politicians BS as little as Trump cares about Bush.
[quote]orion wrote:
Oh my, they “attacked” your embassy…
Dirty warmongering ragheads…
[/quote]
The United States Army repeatedly stormed Iranian consulates in Iraq. Diplomats are still held prisoners.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
orion wrote:
I think we all have learned one thing by now, have no nuclear weapon and you risk getting your ass kicked, have nuclear weapons and you are safe.
Safe, not from Iran, but from the US.
Don’t want your ass kicked? Don’t be fanatically Anti-American, power hungry, dangerously unstable, or any combination of the three. Not unreasonable.
Does Canada fear an ass kicking? Does South Africa? Australia? Brazil? Mexico? Argentina? Norway? Sweden? Austria? Switzerland?..
[/quote]
Why is power hungry a problem for a governmet?
That is allmost the definition.
Then, how are they unstable? They are slowly evolving to a democracy right now.
Let them.
I am afraid that Anti-Americanism is rampant all around the world right now, considering that the US is seen as the number one threat to world peace.
So, you either bomb them all, or you find out why they all think that way.
To stop rampant Anti- Americanism you might have to bomb Washington.
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
Oh my, they “attacked” your embassy…
Dirty warmongering ragheads…
The United States Army repeatedly stormed Iranian consulates in Iraq. Diplomats are still held prisoners.[/quote]
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi…
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
Oh my, they “attacked” your embassy…
Dirty warmongering ragheads…
The United States Army repeatedly stormed Iranian consulates in Iraq. Diplomats are still held prisoners.[/quote]
Diplomats that were caught red handed aiding terrorist groups.
Some mighty fine pictures of Iran’s nuclear program.
http://picasaweb.google.com/aatrvash/Iran02/photo?authkey=WHfBV-cDZ2E#s5096647238259937938
The whole terrorist aiding thing,does bring to mind Iran /Contra…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
Oh my, they “attacked” your embassy…
Dirty warmongering ragheads…
The United States Army repeatedly stormed Iranian consulates in Iraq. Diplomats are still held prisoners.
Diplomats that were caught red handed aiding terrorist groups.[/quote]
Like American diplomates helping the Iranian branch of the PKK?
Or American diplomates aiding in the overthrow of Mossadegh?
Either way, your embassy seems to have been a valid target…
If one went as far as judging Iranians by the standards Americans apply to themselves…