Iran sticking its nose up again.

[Voltron]

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Toughening its stance in advance of a meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Iran on Saturday said it would reject international restrictions on its nuclear program and challenged the world to accept Tehran as a member of the "nuclear club."

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi rejected further outside influence on Tehran's nuclear ambitions two days before the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors meets to discuss Iran's highly controversial program.

"We won't accept any new obligations," Kharrazi said. "Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path."

Iran has repeatedly insisted its nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity, not making weapons, but the United States and its allies say Tehran has a secret nuclear weapons program. The IAEA has wrestled with the dilemma for more than a year.

Apparently they have been lieing.

Kharrazi insisted that Iran would not give up its development of the nuclear fuel cycle, the steps for processing and enriching uranium necessary for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran says it has achieved the full cycle, but is not now enriching uranium.

"That somebody demands that we give up the nuclear fuel cycle ... is an additional demand," Kharrazi said, apparently referring to demands by U.S. and European countries that Iran halt operations of a plant it inaugurated in March in Isfahan, central Iran, that processes uranium into gas. The demand also calls for aborting plans to build a heavy water reactor in Arak, another city in central Iran.

"We can't accept such an additional demand, which is contrary to our legal and legitimate rights," he said. "No one in Iran can make a decision to deny the nation of something that is a source of pride."

Iran has confirmed possessing technology to extract uranium ore, processing it into a powder called yellow cake and then converting it into gas. The gas is then injected into centrifuges for low-grade enrichment that turns it into fuel for nuclear reactors.

... more
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040612/D835OR1G0.html

[Desertrat]

This squabbling has been going on for several years; it's been masked by other events. Given Iran's track record of efforts to destabilize Saudi Arabia plus their support of anti-Israel efforts, it's a touchy situation.

Iran's talk of "only electric generation" is disbelieved since they don't need that amount of capital investment compared to the costs of using natural gas or oil.

'Rat

[blackfox]

Frankly, I am not sure how to feel about this...On one hand, Iran is an anomaly in the ME, as a Persian people (as opposed to Arab), and one of the few countries of the region who have not, by and large, seen an increase of Fundamentalism in their populace (although the government continues to be hard-line). From a geo-political standpoint, the ME is in desparate need of a Regional Power in said area. Without such a State, Islamic Culture is likely to continue to be consumed by external and internal conflicts, which does no-one, including the US, any service, as stability in that region is in everyones' interest and would do much to take the wind out of the sails of various terrorist movements (imo). Iran could perhaps be that State...so in interest of discussion, allow me to outline the various contenders to this possible title, and wrap up with discussion of Nuclear weapons..
Any state which is to have a chance at Regional leadership must possess these attributes:
1. Economic Resources
2. Military Capability
3.Organizational Competence
4. Islamic Identity
5. Political and Religious leadership/commitment to "the faith"

1) Iraq (The New-and-Improved Democratic one). This would seem to be the US/NeoCon goal, with the beacon of Western Style Democracy bringing about stability to the Region...ironically, under different circumstances, Iraq may have had a chance, as it had a relatively prosperous economy (esp, before sanctions), a relatively sophisticated culture, and a potential commitment to the Faith, as well as a central location to Islam and excellent regional military strength. Unfortunately, under Hussein, Iraq was explicitly secular, voiding #4 and #5, and the organizational competence of the Regime left something to be desired...in the wake of the US "liberation" it is unlikely to meet any of the criteria any time soon...it is also predominately shi'ite (like Iran), which are the minority of Islam. Oh well...

2) Egypt. Is an Arab country in a central, strategically-important location in the ME. It is also populous and home to many leading institutions of Islamic Learning, including AL-Azhar (perhaps the best). Unfortunately, it is also a poor country, dependent on Western aid and that of the Oil-Rich Gulf States...this lack of financial independence precludes it being a front-runner...

3)Pakistan. It has the size, population and military strength (it has nuclear weapons). It has also fairly consistently tried to promote cooperation among Islamic nations, and to promote Islam to the rest of the world...it is however, relatively poor and suffers from serious internal etnic and/or regional divisions, a history of political instability and a fixation on India vis-a-vis Security, which leads it to look for support among Islamic and non-Islamic nations alike (US, China). A possibility, but frankly, a scary balancing act (imo) that I worry about in the coming years...

4) Saudi Arabia. The home of Islam, with the holiest of Islamic shrines, and has the language of Islam as it's own. Also has the largest oil-reserves and the resulting financial clout. The government has shaped society along Islamic lines, and it has had a long (and often indescriminate) policy of financial support to Muslim Organizations. It's relatively small population and geographic vunerability have traditionally made it dependant on the west, however, and it is unclear if the tribal system upon which it was built will prove flexible enough for true leadership in the Region. Another possibility, probably not the Wests' favorite...

5) Turkey. Probably the front-runner. It has the history(ottoman), population, level of economic development, national coherence and military tradition and competence. Unfortunately, it's commitment to secularlism precludes it being a leader of Islam. There has been a resurgence of Islamic faith in Turkey in recent years, but it also continues to petition for membership of the EU, which would effectively join it to the Western camp. If the EU continues to rebuke its' advances, however, it may shed it's secular past and become the Islamic Regional Power. It would most likely take an exceptional leader to navigate the country down this path safely (an anti-Ataturk, if you will)...good possibilty, and probably the best hope of an example for the Middle East in US eyes, as it will likely remain a democracy...

6. Iran. It has the size, central location in ME, population, historical traditions, oil-resources, and excellent economic development for the Region. Unfortunately, it has three liabilities:
That Persian is a distant-second as the language of Islam...that Iran is predominately Shi''ite, the minority...and that Persians and Arabs have historically not gotten along...
Despite this, Iran remains my personal favorite, although less likely than Turkey...imo, this is because I believe that under the current context of events, Islamic states, tired of infighting and Western intervention, may see the common-good in promoting the candidate most likely to stand up for Islam as a power in the Region. Saudi Arabia has largely compromised itself with it's reliance on the West, and Turkey is not yet commited to Islam. The fact that Iran would be a nuclear power to balance Isreal, would probably be a welcome development to the Arab/Muslim world, even if they are Persian...

From a Western perspective, Iran would not be the worst choice either, despite appearances. Although their government remains hard-line, the population is probably the only Islamic state not to have experienced a large increase in fundamentalism, and the rights of self-determination and even democracy have bubbled beneath the surface. Iranian/Persian Culture has historically proved it's competance and sophistication, even an attention to detail that can border on neurotic...but they are a Culture to be taken seriously, unlike some Arab Culture. Persian Culture has also softened Islam in Iran, in that women stare you in the eye on the street, travel unaccompanied and although often in Chadors, they are often made of Silks and other exotic materials, a testament to Persian hedonism perhaps. Foreign journalists may also photograph women, something that would get you stoned in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia...there are also the matter of private parties, where women dress in slinky numbers and liquor (black-market) flows...Iranian culture may be hypocritical, but it is seemingly not repressive. The Iranian revolution seems to have acheived a political revolution, but not a cultural one - and as such, was not a "true" revolution, and it can be said that it is drifting back to it's center...as far as the government goes, it can be said that although governments may clash and try to undermine and commit violence against each other, it is ultimately an ephemeral phenomenon, something for the news...ethnic and national characteristics change slower, and can be seen as a better indicator of future political trends...and the indications seem encouraging to me, and should to the West...

I do not see a huge problem with Iran posessing nuclear capabilities, in fact Pakistan is much more worrisome...I am not sure how Isreal, and the West would handle it, particularily the US, and if recent history has taught us anything, it probably will not be a pragmatic response...however, this does not necessarily preclude the viability of my opinions. I leave you with a Quote about Iranian Culture:


Iranians are voluptuaries and delight in the flesh. Their conversation, their poetry - which means everything to them after their God, and sometimes before...all reflect a love of earthly pleasures...There is, too, the readiness to engage in revenge and to relish it.

Remind you of anyone?...

3)

[Desertrat]

"The moving finger writes..." ?

'Rat

[mactastic]

How dare they pursue weapons that we possess? How dare they consider attacking us preemptively? And how dare they consider our presence on two of their borders in any way provocative? It's not like WE'D ever use our might in anything other than an appropriate fashion. In fact, I'm hurt that they'd even suggest that we would do such a thing.

[Desertrat]

Now, now, mac, take a Valium and tune in Maharushi so you can regain your perspective. :D

blackfox, you raise some good points, but I guess it'll take a while to play out. Today's NYT has this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/international/middleeast/13HAND.html?th

about the already-happening changing of controls in Iraq, in advance of June 30th.

I guess the subtitle to the article could be "Crossed Fingers".

'Rat

[blackfox]

"The moving finger writes..." ?

'Rat
a roving grad students mind and some glasses of wine...

I do believe Iran gets a bad rap (at least publicly), much like Turkey does occasionally (for human rights), when I feel the real problem is the Wests' unwillingness, uncomfortableness and reluctance to deal with a powerful Muslim Culture on equal footing...that said, I do not savor yet another country posessing Nuclear arms, even if it is one unlikely to either use, or sell the technology.
There is also the issue of whether after the obvious recent setbacks, the US will go back to a traditional policy of containment towards this scenario, or again use the neocon preemption doctrine...hell, we could be in the ME from Iraq east to afghanistan...a scary, if unlikely prospect.

[Desertrat]

What does the vintner buy that's half so good as what he sells?

:), 'Rat

[blackfox]

Argyle, 1998 Spirithouse.

"Phenomenally smooth and lush, with warm and complex flavors of orange, peach, coconut, and vanilla, all wrapped in a soft oaky blanket. Overall a soft wine lacking crispness, nevertheless tremendously elegant and tasty."

bought a case...

Or are you talking about ol' Mark Vitner of the Economist? Because with some of the things he has been saying, he might be drinking the hard stuff :rolleyes:

[Voltron]

How dare they pursue weapons that we possess? How dare they consider attacking us preemptively? And how dare they consider our presence on two of their borders in any way provocative? It's not like WE'D ever use our might in anything other than an appropriate fashion. In fact, I'm hurt that they'd even suggest that we would do such a thing.
Seems to me your too worried about things like fairness or giving an equal chance for them to win a war like this was a game or something. Giving folks equal chances is a good way to make mankind extinct.

[Frohickey]

Iran is mostly Shia muslims. I don't think it has a majority Persian (Sassanid) any more.

I think that we ought to just bomb Iran already. But instead of bombing them with conventional explosives, or nuclear explosives, we should just bomb them with DirecTV and TiVo set-top boxes. ;)

Or, just let the Mossad take care of the Iranian nuclear facilities. :eek:

[Zaid]

Iran is mostly Shia muslims. I don't think it has a majority Persian (Sassanid) any more.


:confused: :confused:

um... no

The Iranians are persians. These are the same people as the ancient persians (in as much as such things remain the same), they're just muslim now. sassanid refers to a pre-islamic persian empire.

So iran's population is mostly shia muslim and persian.

Not all muslims are arabs, nor are all arabs muslim. ;)

[skunk]

:confused: :confused:

um... no
Thanks for clearing that one up... ;)

[blackfox]

Seems to me your too worried about things like fairness or giving an equal chance for them to win a war like this was a game or something. Giving folks equal chances is a good way to make mankind extinct.
Poor sentence-structure not withstanding, I still do not understand your point, except that it is easy to take that position when you are in the position of power, and your comment ignores the fact that global extinction is in no socities interests(seems rather condescending, actually)...What has Iran got to do with the WOT directly, as terrorists are usually w/o states, and even w/in the Muslim world, the aquisition of Nuclear Weapons by extremists would not be seen as conducive to National or Regional interests, as it would undermine stability. If Iran possessed Nuclear capability, it would most likely not be able to attack the West (lack of long-range ballistic missles), and would probably concentrate on their possesion as simply an assertion of regional balance, as even a Islamic state is not going to Nuke Jerusalem, or other holy sites in neighboring ME countries. I think some points need to be established:
1. Military capabilities are the natural result of social and economic development, and as such more and more countries will possess sophisticated military apparatus (including nuclear), in east asia and to a lesser extent in the ME. This is inevitable. However, the time and resources to aquire conventional military strength induce a number of countries to take a short-cut, and produce WMD. This is for a couple important reasons:
a) Possession of these weapons allows the country to assert regional dominance over other states in their region, (which as my first post noted, could be a good thing)
b) More importantly, it provides them the means to deter intervention in their Nation or Region by Western Powers (ie US). Basically, the unwritten rule is that "if you posess Nuclear weapons, the US will not fight you". Since the US has unmatched Conventional Military strength, this is seen as a good equalizer, much in the same way that the West built up nuclear weapons during the Cold War, as they perceived themselves as being inferior in terms of conventional military strength to the Soviets. It is also interesting to note US, Russian and Chinese policy changes on "no-first-use" policies, when they perceived themselves in a position of relative weakness, and wished to maximize the deterrent potential of such weapons. Most other countries in development of such capabilities, are likely to take similar stances, for similar reasons.

2. Terrorism and Nuclear weapons. Both of these have traditionally been the weapons of the weak, of those who do not posess conventional military power. Although there is a possibility of them being combined, resulting in strength, it seems more likely that one will substitute for the other. If Irans' possession of Nuclear weapons detered Western intervention and Imperialism, much of the goals of terrorism in the region would be met w/o continued violence. I'd like to think this is a plausible and superior alternative.

3. China. Since the beginnings of the 80's China has been a massive arms supplier of the ME, notably Iran and Pakistan. Agreements were signed with both countries for "scientific and military knowledge transfers". This includes Nuclear advisements, albeit probably more advanced for Pakistan. The US has also, of course, acted as a counter-balance in this respect, providing arms and expertise to rival countries for strategic reasons. China has, obviously, important strategic interests in the Region, and has a vested interest in its' stability.

4. Arms races...build-up vs build-up or build-up vs hold-down. During the Cold War the West and the Soviets (and Chinese) maintained a classic arms race of more and more sophisticated Nuclear weaponry and means of delivering them. This is not currently the case with regards to Iran, or any other newer non-western state aquiring or attempting to aquire Nuclear capabilities. This time is is the attempt to aquire on one side, versus the Wests' efforts to prevent them from doing so. Despite the Wests' best efforts, we may slow the weapons build-up of other societies, but we cannot stop it. For these reasons:
a) Economic and social development of said societies.
b) The commercial incentives for all societies to make money through the sale of weapons, technology and expertise.
c) The strong Political motives of regional powers to protect their hegemony, or in the case of a region w/o one (like the ME), to create one.

5.Western Policy (ie US). There is a somewhat continued debate on the policy of nonproliferation vs counterproliferation. Faced with the inevitable failure of a policy of nonproliferation (as discussed above), US and Western goals changed towards a policy of counterproliferation (also as a result of the reluctance of countries to sign a permanent nonproliferation treaty w/o a massive decrease in armaments of the big five Nuclear powers, although the US acheived a treaty extension by bribes, arm-twisting and threats) in 1993. This change in policy choose to accomodate the reality of some nuclear proliferation, and perhaps promote proliferation to serve US and Western Interests. However, officially the US has remained commited to a nonproliferation policy, and the current NeoCon preemptive strategy is likely to maintain this bound-to-fail course until it is replaced by another doctrine, probably with a new administration. While the West sees nonproliferation as in the interests of all nations in International order and stability, many non-western countries perceive this as a policy serving/preserving Western Hegemony.

[Frohickey]

:confused: :confused:

um... no

The Iranians are persians. These are the same people as the ancient persians (in as much as such things remain the same), they're just muslim now. sassanid refers to a pre-islamic persian empire.

So iran's population is mostly shia muslim and persian.

Not all muslims are arabs, nor are all arabs muslim. ;)

Is being a persian, a race, or a religion?
Is being a shia muslim, a race, or a religion?

I don't think that Iran's state religion is anything but Islam, and that means its muslim.

Iran (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#People)
Ethnic groups: Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%

Religions: Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 10%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 1%


I think the more important distinction/characterization for Iran's population is that it is 89% Shi'a Muslim, or 99% Muslim. The ethnicity of 51% of Iran's population does not enter into what Iran might or might not do. Unless, the 51% Persian of Iran's population were somehow opposed to the rest of the population.

[blackfox]

Is being a persian, a race, or a religion?
Is being a shia muslim, a race, or a religion?
Persian is a Culture, and Religion (Islam) is integrated into culture to a degree that is foreign to our sensibilities, confusing terminology...

*edit* Frohicky, in reference to your edit, the Persian influence in Iranian Culture does matter, as an effect of how Islam is integrated into the society...In Iran's case, it has softened it's influence with some hedonisistic tendencies (among others)...unless you meant to comment on the US not accepting a Muslim country w/ Nuclear weapons, but there is already Pakistan. I mentioned more in my first post.

[Zaid]

<warning -- completely off topic>

Is being a persian, a race, or a religion?


It's a race/cultural/language thing.


Is being a shia muslim, a race, or a religion?

Ok this is just silly. It's like asking, is being a protestant christitian a race or a religion?

Some early islamic history for you so that you don't make silly statements like the above again. :p

Shia and Sunni are the two big divides in Islam. The origional difference (and someone can correct me here) is that the sunni (the majority) believed that the authority of the prophet passed to the community's elected leader Abu Bakr. The shia believed that authority should have remained in the prophet's family; specifically in Ali (who was the fourth Caliph and the last of the so-called 'rightly-guided caliphs')

Over the intervening centuries different theologies developed within the two groups; with one of the largest being that the shia developed an organised clergy wheras the sunni did not. (Though i suppose a de-facto clergy has probably developed in most parts of the world.)

Sunnis and shias still share a much larger common theology that catholosism and the protestant churches.


I don't think that Iran's state religion is anything but Islam, and that means its muslim.


Iran calls itself an Islamic republic, so Islam would be the official religion of the Iranian state. Which does not mean to say that other religions don't exist.


Iran (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#People)

I think the more important distinction/characterization for Iran's population is that it is 89% Shi'a Muslim, or 99% Muslim. The ethnicity of 51% of Iran's population does not enter into what Iran might or might not do. Unless, the 51% Persian of Iran's population were somehow opposed to the rest of the population.

Yes the most important characterisation of Iran's population is that it's predominately Shia muslim. Though as blackfox said, the persian influence on the iranian interpretation of islam has been enormous.

One of Iran's most important influences on islamic culture has of course been the veil, which was a pre-islamic persian custom.

Also as far as i am aware, the difference between the persian and non-persian parts of iran's population are not that great. (though i could be wrong here)

(the current dominiance of a very dogmatic and conservative islam in much of the sunni arab world is more an indication of arab culture than sunni islam. the rise of this particular brand of islam, and its dominance over the rationalist and other schools of thought also makes for interesting, if sad, reading)

Hope this clears up some of your misconceptions.

[blackfox]

Zaid, would you happen to be Iranian? Muslim? I ask only because I have gone on at length about Iran and the ME, and I am afraid what I have written is just a composite of reading on the matter(s), so I do hope I was not way off base...I must admit (as I did before), that I am a great admirer of Persian Culture, so any corrections/clarifications would be appreciated if appropriate...

[Thanatoast]

Seems to me your too worried about things like fairness or giving an equal chance for them to win a war like this was a game or something. Giving folks equal chances is a good way to make mankind extinct.no, fighting fair gives incentive for your opponent to fight fair. if i thought the republicans were going to fix the election in november, what would be my incentive to vote? i might as well raise holy hell and rebellion as try to play by the rules. giving folks the shaft is a good way to garauntee retributive acts. have you been paying attention the last few years?

[Desertrat]

Hey, if you're gonna get into a definition-discussion of a "fair" war, start a new thread.

Please!

:), 'Rat

[Zaid]

Zaid, would you happen to be Iranian? Muslim? I ask only because I have gone on at length about Iran and the ME, and I am afraid what I have written is just a composite of reading on the matter(s), so I do hope I was not way off base...I must admit (as I did before), that I am a great admirer of Persian Culture, so any corrections/clarifications would be appreciated if appropriate...

I was brought up a muslim in southern africa, though none of my ancestry is arab or persian :).

I was always very interested in me/persian/islamic history, culture and literature, interests which i still retain though i'm probabbly not what one would call a practicing muslim.

So basically my knowledge (or lack thereof) is also nothing more than a distilate of what i've read and discussed with others. :D

[Frohickey]

Ok this is just silly. It's like asking, is being a protestant christitian a race or a religion?

Some early islamic history for you so that you don't make silly statements

Hope this clears up some of your misconceptions.

I think I have clarified it for myself when I posted that earlier post. Being persian is like being hispanic, or asian, or white. Its a race, and its not a religion. Being shia or sunni muslim is like being a jew, or a christian, or a buddhist. This aspect you can change (at least without gene replacement therapy). :p

[mactastic]

Seems to me your too worried about things like fairness or giving an equal chance for them to win a war like this was a game or something. Giving folks equal chances is a good way to make mankind extinct.

I'm more concerned about the loss of America's ability to speak with any kind of moral authority on these issues than fighting fair.

Seems like you are arguing that the ends justify whatever means it takes to achieve those ends.

[Desertrat]

mac, it looks to me like you and Frohickey are thinking differently about "fair". It seems to me that you're including the morality or justification of a war in the first place, while he's looking at it from the standpoint that if you think you MIGHT have to fight somebody, you don't want parity of force.

Anyhow, that's the way it seems to me.

:), 'Rat

[blackfox]

'Rat, you do want "parity of force", if you are the weaker party...there is also the inherent conflict/hipocrisy in the US valuing the right "to self-determination" of a society, although in practice we seem to say that determination can only be along "our" rules, and if it does not constitute a perceived threat to us...so "fairness" is of course at odds with "strategic interests"...however, since (as I wrote above), the only options for a country like the US in dealing with other countries' enevitable military evolution is to intervene to prevent it (expensive and destabilizing, ultimately futile) or try to strategically manage these developments...in the latter cases, moral authority and the perception of "fairness" goes a long way. As mentioned, playing fair is likely to invoke a reciprocal response, although not always...but not playing fair almost guarantees one...

[Frohickey]

'Rat, you do want "parity of force", if you are the weaker party...there is also the inherent conflict/hipocrisy in the US valuing the right "to self-determination" of a society, although in practice we seem to say that determination can only be along "our" rules, and if it does not constitute a perceived threat to us...so "fairness" is of course at odds with "strategic interests"...however, since (as I wrote above), the only options for a country like the US in dealing with other countries' enevitable military evolution is to intervene to prevent it (expensive and destabilizing, ultimately futile) or try to strategically manage these developments...in the latter cases, moral authority and the perception of "fairness" goes a long way. As mentioned, playing fair is likely to invoke a reciprocal response, although not always...but not playing fair almost guarantees one...

blackfox, we have not been valuing the 'right to self-determination' since the 1910s when Woodrow Wilson got us into WW1, and 1930s when FDDR got us into WW2.

If we were, we would have followed ol' George (not George Bush, but George Washington) and his warning about not getting into entangling alliances.

[Voltron]

I'm more concerned about the loss of America's ability to speak with any kind of moral authority on these issues than fighting fair.

Seems like you are arguing that the ends justify whatever means it takes to achieve those ends.
I wouldn't use the words "whatever means."
But simply because the means are unpallatable doesn't mean they aren't the best method to get to the ends, a lot of times the so called pc correct nice methods simply stretch out the pain unnecessarily. An argument I used recently on my Machiavelli paper recently due to the instructor thinking he also meant "us any means to achieve the ends." I see that as a misconception.

[Voltron]

mac, it looks to me like you and Frohickey are thinking differently about "fair". It seems to me that you're including the morality or justification of a war in the first place, while he's looking at it from the standpoint that if you think you MIGHT have to fight somebody, you don't want parity of force.

Anyhow, that's the way it seems to me.

:), 'Rat
I like the way you put things.

We don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because they are known establishments of terrorism and as such may in the future be an enemy we would have to attack. And thus deffinitely wouldn't want them to increase their potential attack abilities. Where it is ok for Israel to have them because 1. They are on our side, and hopefully will stay there, and 2. aren't terrorists and are simply trying to survive in their little hole they call home.

[blackfox]

blackfox, we have not been valuing the 'right to self-determination' since the 1910s when Woodrow Wilson got us into WW1, and 1930s when FDDR got us into WW2.

If we were, we would have followed ol' George (not George Bush, but George Washington) and his warning about not getting into entangling alliances.
While you may be correct, Frohicky, we have at least been paying lip-service to such concepts, with regards to Iraq (and others), with a corrolary of the concept of "democracy" which I am sure will only be acceptable to us if it proves Pro-Western.


I like the way you put things.

We don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because they are known establishments of terrorism and as such may in the future be an enemy we would have to attack. And thus deffinitely wouldn't want them to increase their potential attack abilities. Where it is ok for Israel to have them because 1. They are on our side, and hopefully will stay there, and 2. aren't terrorists and are simply trying to survive in their little hole they call home.

You are forgetting a couple of things, Sly...even if Iran has been a past supporter of Terrorists financially, that does not mean it is in the interest of the Iranian State to supply WMD to them. As I wrote in a previous post, the deterence capabilities of merely possessing Nuclear weapons, will keep US intervention out of the region, and likely take much of the wind out of the terrorists' sails, making the region more stable and open to foreign investment (which is also in the State's interest). It is analgous to the US having Nuclear weapons, but not letting Christian fundamentalists have them...Iran is a sophisticated, intelligent Culture and Nation, even if they operate as an Islamic republic, and they have a right to evolve as such. To look at them as irresponsible, backward, or evil is simplistic and condescending.

Also, there is the matter of perspective...many in the world consider Isreali and US actions "terrorist", and who is to say that relations between the US and Iran must be that of enemies? We support Saudi Arabia (a more hard-line Islamic country) and have a Central Command in Yemen (another)...many of these countries are also trying to "survive in their little hole they call home"...the Palestinians don't even have one...

[Voltron]

While you may be correct, Frohicky, we have at least been paying lip-service to such concepts, with regards to Iraq (and others), with a corrolary of the concept of "democracy" which I am sure will only be acceptable to us if it proves Pro-Western.



You are forgetting a couple of things, Sly...even if Iran has been a past supporter of Terrorists financially, that does not mean it is in the interest of the Iranian State to supply WMD to them. As I wrote in a previous post, the deterence capabilities of merely possessing Nuclear weapons, will keep US intervention out of the region, and likely take much of the wind out of the terrorists' sails, making the region more stable and open to foreign investment (which is also in the State's interest). It is analgous to the US having Nuclear weapons, but not letting Christian fundamentalists have them...Iran is a sophisticated, intelligent Culture and Nation, even if they operate as an Islamic republic, and they have a right to evolve as such. To look at them as irresponsible, backward, or evil is simplistic and condescending.

Also, there is the matter of perspective...many in the world consider Isreali and US actions "terrorist", and who is to say that relations between the US and Iran must be that of enemies? We support Saudi Arabia (a more hard-line Islamic country) and have a Central Command in Yemen (another)...many of these countries are also trying to "survive in their little hole they call home"...the Palestinians don't even have one...
Would also make it more likely that the Jews will be completly eradicated with those doing it telling us that if we try to save the Jews they will use Nukes. :mad:

I don't like our support of Saudi Arabia but there is a necessary and very important element there --- we get like 50% of our imported fuel from them and thus our own survival is dependant on them until we start drilling more wells in our own backyard.

[Voltron]

.the Palestinians don't even have one...
Yes they do its called Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria just check their passports, the ones that havn't thrown theirs away.

[blackfox]

Would also make it more likely that the Jews will be completly eradicated with those doing it telling us that if we try to save the Jews they will use Nukes. :mad:

I don't like our support of Saudi Arabia but there is a necessary and very important element there --- we get like 50% of our imported fuel from them and thus our own survival is dependant on them until we start drilling more wells in our own backyard.
Sly, did you read either of my (long) posts? The likelyhood of ANY Islamic country nuking a small country containing Jerusalem (holy to three religions, including Islam) is remote...more likely in that regard is a deterrent for continued Isreali aggression, a subsequent return to the negotiating table and perhaps a reduction in overall hostilities in the Region...Isreal is also unlikely to use Nuclear weapons in such a geographically-confined area. In fact ANY country would be set-upon by the world for usage of such weapons...they would be only a balancing tool, much like US - Soviet relations during the Cold War...

As for your other sentence, unless "our backyard" means Canada, we do not have enough oil reserves to do so, so alternative fuels is the appropriate route there...also, Iran has oil reserves also, and it might be in our best interest to court more suppliers...China has, and if we ever got into it w/ China (over Taiwan, or control of the South China Sea), we might be at a serious disadvantage if the ME oil-supplying countries sided with the Chinese...like I said, it is impossible to stop the evolution of Nations' military capabilities, but we could negotiate them with our strategic interests in mind....

[blackfox]

Yes they do its called Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria just check their passports, the ones that havn't thrown theirs away.
Funny, I thought it was called Isreal... :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

While you may be correct, Frohicky, we have at least been paying lip-service to such concepts, with regards to Iraq (and others), with a corrolary of the concept of "democracy" which I am sure will only be acceptable to us if it proves Pro-Western.

Actually, democracy is a bad idea, or at least, a democracy can be a bad idea. 50.1% of a population, lets say Sunni Muslim or Anglo-Saxon Christian could up and decide to take rights away from lets say Shiite Muslim or tee-pee dwelling nomadic pagan (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pagan).

Better to have a constitutionally-limited republic designed to protect individual human rights to life, liberty and property. :D

That way, we can trade with them. :D :p :D

[blackfox]

Frohicky, you are correct, but as we both know, we do pay lip-service to these terms. What is perhaps important w/ regard to Iran, is the fact that ideological rhetoric and actual pragmatic actions are often not-related...this has been illustrated for the US in part by our back-and-forth...is Iran any different?

[Voltron]

As for your other sentence, unless "our backyard" means Canada, we do not have enough oil reserves to do so, so alternative fuels is the appropriate route there...also, Iran has oil reserves also, and it might be in our best interest to court more suppliers...China has, and if we ever got into it w/ China (over Taiwan, or control of the South China Sea), we might be at a serious disadvantage if the ME oil-supplying countries sided with the Chinese...like I said, it is impossible to stop the evolution of Nations' military capabilities, but we could negotiate them with our strategic interests in mind....
Try Alaska. We don't really know how much oil is there for we have only measured it in old outdated methods which are known to be wrong. The nature lovers have refused to even allow them to bring in modern equipment to properly measure the amount of oil there.

Besides every little bit helps. Yes it won't last forever but it will give us more time to find real alternative fuel vehicles that people can actually afford to drive.

[blackfox]

Try Alaska. We don't really know how much oil is there for we have only measured it in old outdated methods which are known to be wrong. The nature lovers have refused to even allow them to bring in modern equipment to properly measure the amount of oil there.

Besides every little bit helps. Yes it won't last forever but it will give us more time to find real alternative fuel vehicles that people can actually afford to drive.
How 'bout the rest if my post, Sly?

[Neserk]

Funny, I thought it was called Isreal... :rolleyes:

Israel. Sorry, a pet peeve of mine. :p

Think: Is-ra-el when spelling it out (assuming that wasn't a typo). the "el" at the end stands for God.


I have no other comments (shocking, huh?)

[blackfox]

Israel. Sorry, a pet peeve of mine. :p

Think: Is-ra-el when spelling it out (assuming that wasn't a typo). the "el" at the end stands for God.


I have no other comments (shocking, huh?)
Thanks, I have that habit...perhaps I just find that spelling more appropriate (as in "Is" "Real")...a subconscious reminder, perhaps...

[Neserk]

Thanks, I have that habit...perhaps I just find that spelling more appropriate (as in "Is" "Real")...a subconscious reminder, perhaps...


Many do. I learned to spell it because I learned to say it in Hebrew -- 3 syllables.

[mactastic]

I wouldn't use the words "whatever means."
But simply because the means are unpallatable doesn't mean they aren't the best method to get to the ends, a lot of times the so called pc correct nice methods simply stretch out the pain unnecessarily. An argument I used recently on my Machiavelli paper recently due to the instructor thinking he also meant "us any means to achieve the ends." I see that as a misconception.

And what about those means causing us to lose the moral authority to tell the rest of the world that torture is not acceptable? Or the moral authority to say a war of aggresion is not accepable?

[blackfox]

Sly, let's take a hypothetical shall we?

Say in 2020, a separatist group of Taiwanese Nationals launches a limited strike on China with US suppied weapons and China holds the US responsible for supporting "terrorists" and attacks select US targets in E. Asia with overwhelming force and sets up detention camps for both Taiwanese and US military and Civilian personnel (the latter being "spies")...would you support "any means necessary" for China to protect it's perceived interests?

Alternately, what If Taiwan was interested in Nuclear Power and was aided by US an Japanese technology and expertise...again China stepped in with military force to stop a perceived threat to their interests, and forceably occupied Taiwan and took control of the South China Sea...Vietnam and Japan resist and fighting begins between Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese Warships...The US is warned to stay out...Economic sanctions are levied against the Chinese...The Chinese occupy Hanoi, and Japan refuses the use of bases by the US, fearful of Chinese aggression and declares itself neutral...The US dispatches it's Carrier Fleet, which suffers heavy losses. India takes advantage of Chinas' involvement in Asia to attack Pakistan, Iran comes to Pakistans' aid. Meanwhile Russia aligns itself with the US, fearful of Chinese Hegemony, and amasses troops in Siberia. Europe vows to keep out, and this is reinforced by the placing of medium-range ballistic missles in Bosnia by China and allies (secretly), meanwhile Israel is overrun by Islamic countries, with the West helpless to intervene...and so on.

This is a real possibility for a Global War in the 21st Century, and would you still feel that preemption and aggression on the part of the Chinese, the use of "any means necessary" is justified? We (or anyone else) do not live in a vaccuum...actions have consequences, so caution should be a reasonable nations' first priority...

[Frohickey]

Sly, let's take a hypothetical shall we?

Say in 2020, a separatist group of Taiwanese Nationals launches a limited strike on China

Alternately, what If Taiwan was interested in Nuclear Power

This is a real possibility for a Global War in the 21st Century, and would you still feel that preemption and aggression on the part of the Chinese, the use of "any means necessary" is justified? We (or anyone else) do not live in a vaccuum...actions have consequences, so caution should be a reasonable nations' first priority...

Um... Taiwan is already seperate from China. So this is already a fact.

Again, Taiwan already knows enough about nuclear power (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/taiwan/nuke/)

Yes, global war is possible in the future. I still think that we are going to be fighting the ChiComs. That is, if they can figure out how to fly jet aircraft without crashing them into our prop-driven planes. :eek:

[skunk]

Sly, let's take a hypothetical shall we?

Say in 2020, a separatist group of Taiwanese Nationals launches a limited strike on China with US suppied weapons and China holds the US responsible for supporting "terrorists" and attacks select US targets in E. Asia with overwhelming force and sets up detention camps for both Taiwanese and US military and Civilian personnel (the latter being "spies")...would you support "any means necessary" for China to protect it's perceived interests?

Alternately, what If Taiwan was interested in Nuclear Power and was aided by US an Japanese technology and expertise...again China stepped in with military force to stop a perceived threat to their interests, and forceably occupied Taiwan and took control of the South China Sea...Vietnam and Japan resist and fighting begins between Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese Warships...The US is warned to stay out...Economic sanctions are levied against the Chinese...The Chinese occupy Hanoi, and Japan refuses the use of bases by the US, fearful of Chinese aggression and declares itself neutral...The US dispatches it's Carrier Fleet, which suffers heavy losses. India takes advantage of Chinas' involvement in Asia to attack Pakistan, Iran comes to Pakistans' aid. Meanwhile Russia aligns itself with the US, fearful of Chinese Hegemony, and amasses troops in Siberia. Europe vows to keep out, and this is reinforced by the placing of medium-range ballistic missles in Bosnia by China and allies (secretly), meanwhile Israel is overrun by Islamic countries, with the West helpless to intervene...and so on.

This is a real possibility for a Global War in the 21st Century, and would you still feel that preemption and aggression on the part of the Chinese, the use of "any means necessary" is justified? We (or anyone else) do not live in a vaccuum...actions have consequences, so caution should be a reasonable nations' first priority...
Now you've REALLY cheered me up. :eek:

[skunk]

Um... Taiwan is already seperate from China. So this is already a fact.
Not according to China...

[Voltron]

Sly, let's take a hypothetical shall we?

Say in 2020, a separatist group of Taiwanese Nationals launches a limited strike on China with US suppied weapons and China holds the US responsible for supporting "terrorists" and attacks select US targets in E. Asia with overwhelming force and sets up detention camps for both Taiwanese and US military and Civilian personnel (the latter being "spies")...would you support "any means necessary" for China to protect it's perceived interests?

Alternately, what If Taiwan was interested in Nuclear Power and was aided by US an Japanese technology and expertise...again China stepped in with military force to stop a perceived threat to their interests, and forceably occupied Taiwan and took control of the South China Sea...Vietnam and Japan resist and fighting begins between Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese Warships...The US is warned to stay out...Economic sanctions are levied against the Chinese...The Chinese occupy Hanoi, and Japan refuses the use of bases by the US, fearful of Chinese aggression and declares itself neutral...The US dispatches it's Carrier Fleet, which suffers heavy losses. India takes advantage of Chinas' involvement in Asia to attack Pakistan, Iran comes to Pakistans' aid. Meanwhile Russia aligns itself with the US, fearful of Chinese Hegemony, and amasses troops in Siberia. Europe vows to keep out, and this is reinforced by the placing of medium-range ballistic missles in Bosnia by China and allies (secretly), meanwhile Israel is overrun by Islamic countries, with the West helpless to intervene...and so on.

This is a real possibility for a Global War in the 21st Century, and would you still feel that preemption and aggression on the part of the Chinese, the use of "any means necessary" is justified? We (or anyone else) do not live in a vaccuum...actions have consequences, so caution should be a reasonable nations' first priority...
Reasons why we shouldn't allow anymore countries to have nuclear technology than already do now.

[Voltron]

Beirut, Lebanon, Jun. 15 (UPI) -- Iran reportedly is readying troops to move into Iraq if U.S. troops pull out, leaving a security vacuum.

The Saudi daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat, monitored in Beirut, reports Iran has massed four battalions at the border.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat quoted "reliable Iraqi sources" as saying, "Iran moved part of its regular military forces towards the Iraqi border in the southern sector at a time its military intelligence agents were operating inside Iraqi territory."
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040615-055649-4707r.htm

[Ugg]

Do you blame them? Would you want a destabilized country next door? Since the US has made such a cock up of Iraq, the Iranians couldn't do any worse and might even have better luck.

It's been a Pandora's box over there. Too bad gw failed at his history lessons.....

[Voltron]

Do you blame them? Would you want a destabilized country next door? Since the US has made such a cock up of Iraq, the Iranians couldn't do any worse and might even have better luck.

It's been a Pandora's box over there. Too bad gw failed at his history lessons.....
Do they really believe that the US will simply pull our troops out?

[mactastic]

Do they really believe that the US will simply pull our troops out?

Yes. And I thought that was part of the rationale given for the war, that we needed to prove to the Arab world once and for all that Vietnam and Somalia were exceptions and not the rule.

[Frohickey]

Do you blame them? Would you want a destabilized country next door? Since the US has made such a cock up of Iraq, the Iranians couldn't do any worse and might even have better luck.

It's been a Pandora's box over there. Too bad gw failed at his history lessons.....

I dunno.
GWBush is a student of history.
Stable governments are not created in an instant. Even our government took more than 10 years, from 1776 to 1788 to start up.
French revolution resulted in the toppling of the monarchy in 1793, and it took 6 years, 1799 until a relatively stable (Napoleon) government to come out of it. Even that didn't last long.
So, the ones that are expecting an instant stable government out of Iraq or Afghanistan are the ones that do not know their history lessons.

Stuff like this is not easy. Its unfortunate that some in the US, ones with mass media outlets think its supposed to be easy. I wonder how many journalism graduates also hold a PhD in History. Maybe its the instant gratification attitude that we have these days. Its not like the Pentagon has a 30 day course in creating a stable government, just add cold water and politicians. ;)

[Neserk]

GWBush is a student of history.


ROFLMAO

[Desertrat]

Neserk, you're laughing because you've reviewd Dubya's college transcript and there are no history courses there?

From what I've seen of his administration, he's weakest on knowing the psychology of his upper-echelon people. Their motivations, to me, seem different from his. It seems to me that Bush has some parallels with Wilson: A basically good-hearted man who doesn't realize that the Cabinet has people with agendas of their own, with different views of how things should be done. Overall, this doesn't excuse Bush, but it's a bit of an explanation...

'Rat

[Sayhey]

Neserk, you're laughing because you've reviewd Dubya's college transcript and there are no history courses there?

From what I've seen of his administration, he's weakest on knowing the psychology of his upper-echelon people. Their motivations, to me, seem different from his. It seems to me that Bush has some parallels with Wilson: A basically good-hearted man who doesn't realize that the Cabinet has people with agendas of their own, with different views of how things should be done. Overall, this doesn't excuse Bush, but it's a bit of an explanation...

'Rat

'Rat, if the subject is the level of commitment to one's own education, you couldn't have picked two more dissimilar Presidents. Wilson was a highly educated man, a former University President, who took such things as reading seriously. Dubya doesn't like to get his ideas confused by picking up the morning newspaper. A lot of bad things can and probably should be said of Wilson, he was a committed racist for instance, but don't compare him to Bush. Even he doesn't deserve that! ;)

[Frohickey]

Neserk, you're laughing because you've reviewd Dubya's college transcript and there are no history courses there?

From what I've seen of his administration, he's weakest on knowing the psychology of his upper-echelon people. Their motivations, to me, seem different from his. It seems to me that Bush has some parallels with Wilson: A basically good-hearted man who doesn't realize that the Cabinet has people with agendas of their own, with different views of how things should be done. Overall, this doesn't excuse Bush, but it's a bit of an explanation...

'Rat

Neserk...
GWBush (http://www.famoustexans.com/georgewbush.htm)
Education: Attended Phillips Academy prep school at Andover, then Yale from 1964 until 1968 and graduated with a major in history;

Sure makes it seem like that GWBush is a student of history... even has a major in history. :p

[skunk]

Neserk...
GWBush (http://www.famoustexans.com/georgewbush.htm)


Sure makes it seem like that GWBush is a student of history... even has a major in history. :p
All that coke and alcohol obviously destroyed his memory, then.

[Desertrat]

Naw, Sayhey; my comparison was about the influence of their cabinets, and their general "nice guy" behavior toward those around them.

As far as "history" and our Iraq adventure, I'd say it's more to to with Mr. Murphy's laws of human recalcitrance.

Hey, the U.S. is hard enough to govern, and we're not heavy into killing as a way of expressing our political discontent!

'Rat