Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 176

Thread: Are We Going to War With Iran?

  1. #61
    I would say that about the evangelicals and do. And I do think it exerts itself in many decisions.

  2. #62
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork View Post
    At least investment in conventional military capabilities would allow them to escalate a conflict in steady proportions without upping it to full-on attempts at genocide.
    Ah, but the issue they face is exactly that the main adversary they worry about (the USA) exhibits a commanding lead in conventional military capabilities, and so conventional escalation plays directly into American hands. The entire basis for the desire for nuclear deterrent is exactly that conventional escalation simply invites devastating American response.

    If we were talking about Iran taking on Turkey or Saudi Arabia or something it would be a different story. But it's difficult to see how either of those conflicts would occur without drawing in the USA.

    The basic issue remains that Iran's geopolitical ambitions are too big for its britches, and so the only strategy that will actually make Iran secure is rapproachment with the international system. They simply do not have the sort of horsepower and position needed to sustain a revolutionary posture. Their recent wargames in the Strait of Hormuz illustrate this: that's the worst thing they could possibly inflict on the geopolitical system, and its main result would be to decisively cripple Iran's geopolitical power. And so it evokes little more than annoyed chagrin from the geostrategic powers that be.

    Note that it's the autocracy that sustains this unstable scenario, for their own enrichment. The entire justification for the repressive, authoritarian nature of the leadership is premised on playing a revolutionary role in geopolitics, so the Leader can never give up on that or he's sure to go the way of Qaddafi and the Shah. A democratic Iran would probably have produced a less ideological leadership by now, which would have read the writing on the wall and shored up a sustainable geopolitical posture. But the dictators require a revolutionary posture and constant American enmity to sustain their grip on politics, so that's what they cultivate. This ends one of two ways: either a domestic uprising topples the dictators, or the dictators overplay their hand and provoke an invasion.

  3. #63
    Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle CptBork's Avatar
    Posts
    4,801
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    I would say that about the evangelicals and do. And I do think it exerts itself in many decisions.
    How many countries has Iran invaded out of fear of phantom WMD's? In terms of actual track record with respect to suffering imposed on foreign countries, Iran doesn't look particularly good but not terribly bad either in comparison to most others placed in similar positions. Besides, America didn't want communists ousting the cheap oil salesman they had placed in charge there, thus they supported bringing the Ayatollah back from France to take charge so Islamic fanatics could do so instead. Iran has not intervened in any American elections, other than by chasing away its own citizens so that they flee to countries like America and vote for leaders in their adoptive homes. So yeah, Iran and America are both chock full of fundamentalist whackjobs, but only American whackjobs have access to thousands of cutting edge "nukular" warheads.

  4. #64
    disseminated primatemaia StrawDog's Avatar
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by fedr808 View Post
    Because Iran hates Israel and the US. Iran knows it will get its ass whipped for opposing with any other conventional method. But with a nuke it would be able to pose a threat.
    Iran has good reason to dislike USrael no?

  5. #65
    I recall they were at war with Iraq for some time, and they are presently at war with Israel through their proxies. They reacted to an admittedly disastrous intervention into their political system by installing a theocratic dictatorship. If they want to be a peaceful international citizen, they aren't doing a very good job of it.

  6. #66
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork View Post
    Iran has not intervened in any American elections,
    Stonewalling Carter on the hostage crisis, and then negotiating a backroom deal with Reagan ahead of his election, doesn't count?

  7. #67
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by StrawDog View Post
    Iran has good reason to dislike USrael no?
    There are no "good" reasons for national enmity. Hating entire nations is not morally justifiable.

    Unless we're talking about Canada, obviously.

  8. #68
    Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle CptBork's Avatar
    Posts
    4,801
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    I recall they were at war with Iraq for some time, and they are presently at war with Israel through their proxies. They reacted to an admittedly disastrous intervention into their political system by installing a theocratic dictatorship. If they want to be a peaceful international citizen, they aren't doing a very good job of it.
    Yes, but Iraq was at war with them too, and America chose to intervene in that conflict mostly on Iraq's side in order to keep Iran contained when the tides of the war turned against Saddam. Furthermore, it was the US and Britain which removed Iran's last democratically-elected ruler, and for no less a foolish reason than acquiring cheap oil and eliminating any Iranian politician who would do so much as politely shake a Soviet leader's hand. When is British Petroleum going to be indicted for its crimes and treason against the long-term interest and security of the west? Your comments about peaceful international citizens would apply just as equally to America at least up until the end of the Bush dynasty.

    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    There are no "good" reasons for national enmity. Hating entire nations is not morally justifiable.

    Unless we're talking about Canada, obviously.
    We have tons and tons of land with which to soak up all the hate. Keep it comin'!

    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    Stonewalling Carter on the hostage crisis, and then negotiating a backroom deal with Reagan ahead of his election, doesn't count?
    No, because it's the American voters who let themselves be duped by that whole process. But I'm very glad you brought up this historical Republican assault on American liberty. Sad that one of America's most popular leaders of yore was in fact, behind the curtains, no more than a treacherous scumbag and panderer to corporate welfare bums, who should have stuck to making movies with monkeys. If they had made a sequel where the monkey put Reagan to bed and kept him busy with that kind of schtick and the occasional banana for good behaviour, our world would likely be far better off today and justice would flow more amply.

  9. #69
    disseminated primatemaia StrawDog's Avatar
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    Ah, but the issue they face is exactly that the main adversary they worry about (the USA) exhibits a commanding lead in conventional military capabilities, and so conventional escalation plays directly into American hands. The entire basis for the desire for nuclear deterrent is exactly that conventional escalation simply invites devastating American response.
    If Iran had a desire for a nuclear deterrent (of course for which there is no evidence), the reason for such is clearly visible in US military foreign policy in the ME - past and present.
    The basic issue remains that Iran's geopolitical ambitions are too big for its britches,
    Please provide some factual information on what exactly, Iran`s political ambitions are?
    Their recent wargames in the Strait of Hormuz illustrate this: that's the worst thing they could possibly inflict on the geopolitical system, and its main result would be to decisively cripple Iran's geopolitical power. And so it evokes little more than annoyed chagrin from the geostrategic powers that be.
    This is no more than an understandable reaction to a possible act of war by the US. (crippling sanctions) It would have a temporary financial impact, but a dangerous potential to escalate into a broader war involving more potent nations.
    Note that it's the autocracy that sustains this unstable scenario, for their own enrichment.
    Sadly its the Theocracy that is limiting freedoms in Iran - and the basis for this is for spiritual enrichment - ill conceived and unrealistic of course.
    The entire justification for the repressive, authoritarian nature of the leadership is premised on playing a revolutionary role in geopolitics,
    No, Iran is nothing more than a resource rich nation that does not toe the line. The master is upset, thus the consistent demonetization.
    A democratic Iran would probably have produced a less ideological leadership by now, which would have read the writing on the wall and shored up a sustainable geopolitical posture.
    This will happen in time if Iran is left alone - I sincerely believe that if Iran is treated with respect, we will see this happen sooner.
    But the dictators require a revolutionary posture and constant American enmity to sustain their grip on politics, so that's what they cultivate.
    Of course, its the same horsehit enmity that Romney, Perry and the rest of the dunces are sprouting against Iran - politicians need fear and a target.
    This ends one of two ways: either a domestic uprising topples the dictators, or the dictators overplay their hand and provoke an invasion.
    Again, this notion is largely a figment of Western Media - some background and facts.

  10. #70
    disseminated primatemaia StrawDog's Avatar
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork View Post
    Sad that one of America's most popular leaders of yore was in fact, behind the curtains, no more than a treacherous scumbag and panderer to corporate welfare bums, who should have stuck to making movies with monkeys. If they had made a sequel where the monkey put Reagan to bed and kept him busy with that kind of schtick and the occasional banana for good behaviour, our world would likely be far better off today and justice would flow more amply.
    Yes indeed Capt.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork View Post
    Yes, but Iraq was at war with them too, and America chose to intervene in that conflict mostly on Iraq's side in order to keep Iran contained when the tides of the war turned against Saddam. Furthermore, it was the US and Britain which removed Iran's last democratically-elected ruler, and for no less a foolish reason than acquiring cheap oil and eliminating any Iranian politician who would do so much as politely shake a Soviet leader's hand. When is British Petroleum going to be indicted for its crimes and treason against the long-term interest and security of the west?...
    That was what, 4 decades ago?

  12. #72
    Awesome User Title Diode-Man's Avatar
    Posts
    1,372
    Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels, that's like trusting a two year old with a pistol...

  13. #73
    @thread title

    I fucking hope not.

  14. #74
    Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle CptBork's Avatar
    Posts
    4,801
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    That was what, 4 decades ago?
    Seems like an awful long time to avoid an apology, disclosure, compensation and prison time for treason. I didn't know the statute of limitations applied to people who would sacrifice thousands or millions of lives for cheap ah-yal.

  15. #75
    Life is Fatal. Bowser's Avatar
    Posts
    4,095
    Here's a nice little video about Iran...

    Iran History Lesson

    I think America is largely responsible for what we see in Iran today--we sent them down the long road of oppression. And everything we do seems to make it worse.

  16. #76
    troaty mouth best song ever pjdude1219's Avatar
    Posts
    14,687
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    Who did I say was stupid? I just think Iran is controlled by religious fanatics.
    and yet based on your posts seem to believe they are incapable of understanding things as basic as cause and effect and taking into account their own survival. you always asign the most sinister of motives to them while assigning the most benign of motives to those who threaten them.

  17. #77
    troaty mouth best song ever pjdude1219's Avatar
    Posts
    14,687
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    I happen to think their apocalyptic martyrdom fantasies might have something to do with it too.
    which shows just how ignorant you are of the Iranian viewpoint. there is nothing even close to that in the country.

  18. #78
    Life is Fatal. Bowser's Avatar
    Posts
    4,095
    Quote Originally Posted by pjdude1219 View Post
    which shows just how ignorant you are of the Iranian viewpoint. there is nothing even close to that in the country.
    I've talked to a few Iranians online. The impression I got was that they despise their regime, yet they are very nationalistic and stubbornly opposed to outside intervention. They want change, but they want to make the change happen.

  19. #79
    Iranian Uranium enrichment was likely done due to their fears of what could happen next in that part of the world, after all both Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded by a coalition and even Pakistan was raided too.

    I don't know who Iran would class as an ally, considering the countries they probably would of turned to are in turmoil (in the sense they wouldn't be able to support any defence strategies, especially those countries currently involved in civil wars), so this would likely force them into considering protecting themselves with the threat of a nuclear deterrent. It doesn't necessarily mean they would use it as a pre-strike or for terrorism, just to maintain their sovereignty.

  20. #80
    troaty mouth best song ever pjdude1219's Avatar
    Posts
    14,687
    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    Stonewalling Carter on the hostage crisis, and then negotiating a backroom deal with Reagan ahead of his election, doesn't count?
    in Iran's defense I think Reagan intiated that little trade

Similar Threads

  1. By S.A.M. in forum World Events
    Last Post: 04-19-12, 09:39 PM
    Replies: 104
  2. By RonPrice in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 09-13-10, 07:23 AM
    Replies: 0
  3. By nirakar in forum World Events
    Last Post: 02-16-10, 06:58 PM
    Replies: 21
  4. By sowhatifit'sdark in forum Politics
    Last Post: 02-19-08, 05:50 PM
    Replies: 12
  5. By madanthonywayne in forum World Events
    Last Post: 01-02-08, 01:14 PM
    Replies: 444

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •