Discussion in 'World Events' started by Bowser, Jan 2, 2012.
I would say that about the evangelicals and do. And I do think it exerts itself in many decisions.
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.
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.
Iran has good reason to dislike USrael no?
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.
Stonewalling Carter on the hostage crisis, and then negotiating a backroom deal with Reagan ahead of his election, doesn't count?
There are no "good" reasons for national enmity. Hating entire nations is not morally justifiable.
Unless we're talking about Canada, obviously.
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.
We have tons and tons of land with which to soak up all the hate. Keep it comin'!
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.
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.
Please provide some factual information on what exactly, Iran`s political ambitions are?
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.
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.
No, Iran is nothing more than a resource rich nation that does not toe the line. The master is upset, thus the consistent demonetization.
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.
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.
Again, this notion is largely a figment of Western Media - some background and facts.
Yes indeed Capt.
That was what, 4 decades ago?
Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels, that's like trusting a two year old with a pistol...
I fucking hope not.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
in Iran's defense I think Reagan intiated that little trade
Separate names with a comma.