Iran

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by silverback66, Jan 11, 2006.

  1. silverback66 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #1
    I want to talk about Iran. They've decided to move ahead with their nuclear program and claim it's only for energy. Of course if that were the case they'd have no reason not to accept Russia's deal to provide and remove uranium. The international community is increasingly beginning to believe that Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon and is also aquiring the neccessary missile technology from China to deliver nuclear warheads. Not only this, but the Iranian President said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. So basically, we have a leader driven by blind hatred threatening it's neighbors in the middle east with nuclear weapons. If this is in fact proven to be the case in the UN council which it will inevitably come before, would you all support military action against Iran? Also consider that the majority of nuclear facilities are underground, and some I believe are beyond the range of bunker busters. Given this, us and our allies would most likely have to invade Iran. What do you think about it. At this point as I understand it, the UK is taking the lead in this and if anythign I think you'll see wounds between nations over Iraq healed by uniting together against Iran.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    count me among those who thought the russian offer was clever and that iran had taken it. however, there are other factors that go into wanting to do something one's self. national pride is among them.

    if the international community sanctioned the use and its use of nuclear technology, how would you feel about letting, say, canada provide the fuel? what would you think of a leader who would submit to such international pressure?
     
  3. silverback66 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #3
    National Pride can be dangerous. Isn't that in large part what was responsible for the rise of the Axis powers in WWII? They felt they'd been shortchanged (Germany anyway) at the end of WWI and this was their way of trying to show the world they could'nt be pushed around and that they would do the pushing. That's what initiated the german military buildup and led to Hitler becoming dictator for life. Now, we have a very similar figure once again threatening the jews and essentially propogating the idea of a second holocaust though this time birthed not of concentration camps and gas chambers but a nuclear weapon. We saw what happened when we tried appeasement many years ago and how many lives were lost. Can the world afford to let it happen again?
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
  5. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #5
    ugh:rolleyes:
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    I'll repost the article I posted to DHM, with the same caveat:
    In between the reference to Hersh in the beginning, and the reference to FICA at the end, is some good solid analysis of the Iranian issue.
    Link'd
    We're past the point of 'if' with Iran and nukes. It's a question of when and under what conditions.
     
  7. silverback66 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #7
    I think this ought to be a strictly UN and NATO issue. Doing that would alleviate some of the international pressure off the US. We could still be part of the coalition, but not the spearhead....not this time. We need to finish what we started in Iraq first and get troop levels below 50,000. Granted though, if Iran's president decided to pull a Hitler, we'd be in a heck of a position to send our reply. Can you say hammer and anvil?
     
  8. belvdr macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #8
  9. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #9
    First of all, there aren't enough soldiers to do the job. Second of all, an all out war on Iran without global support would be suicidal for the US and could well spell the end for Israel. The US even with condaleeza steering things, has a heck of along way to go before it gets global support to wage war on Iran. You'll not see the wound of Iraq healed by invading another predominantly Muslim country. That just doesn't wash. By the way, how much is rummy goint to estimate this one costs? A fraction of its real cost I'm sure.

    Iran is attempting to create a non dollar based oil trading system. The dollar based world trade in oil is part of what is propping up our bankrupt country that you are so inordinately proud of. I think this is one of many reasons that the neo cons are so strongly for bombing the heck out of Iran.

    Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is obviously trying to stir things up and is pretty right wing. What's needed in Iran is a nice little revolution to get the religious whackos out of power. Unfortunately, due to that little oopsie at the CIA, CIA operations were seriously impaired. Most Iranians don't feel the way their prez does and just want to get on with their normal and mostly secular lives. Hmmm, the same could be said for the US too.....
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    Even if there were enough troops, I wouldn't trust the Bush Administration to run a tea-party, let alone another war. Besides, I doubt that China would cooperate in any international action since they recently signed the largest energy deal in history for Iranian gas, and the Russians, too, are deeply enmeshed. This is a perfect example of how Bush has squandered any political capital he might have had internationally - after 9/11, not from any investment of his own - and how his unilateralism, arrogance, misjudgment and hubris has made the world a more dangerous place for us all.
     
  11. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #11
    I don't think you have to tell us about that... we know. As for Iran, I can't say I blame them for being scared, what with us knocking on their doorsteps and all. Sorry, I can't think of a better analogy, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Our government going about things all wrong and trying to threaten without actually threatening. Re: Axis of Evil. The best bet would be for a peaceful resolution. We might be able to actually talk with them in a rational way and work something mutually beneficial out with the full support of the rest of the civilized world. Believe it or not, Iran isn't actually all that different from us.

    Failing that, we should nuke them. (sarcasm BTW, but something some have actually proposed... and it's very sad that I have to make that distinction)
     
  12. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #12
    It's also in large part responsible for the US being in Iraq today.

    When Iran deploys their nuclear delivery systems (as someone else said it's only a matter of when, not if) we will have no option of invasion. We will be forced to the bargaining table or risk a very costly nuclear exchange (even if the US isn't initially targeted, it will open a door that will likely lead to the end of the modern era as we know it).
     
  13. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #13
    What we need to do is demand that Russia and China stop exporting this technology. It isnt like Iran,N.Korea just dreamed up this stuff. They were given this technology or bought it. Russia is making Nukes happen for Iran just as China made it happen in N.Korea.
     
  14. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #14
    First off I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons,however you can see Irans point of view,they are surrounded by Russia China India Pakistan and Israel all who have nuclear weapons and leaders who are none too sane.About Russia exporting nuclear technology Germany and Pakistan have their fingers in the pie and where do you think Israel got the technology.I might point out the only country to have used nuclear weapons is the US and the present leader would be ostracised by the mentally ill.
     
  15. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #15
    I might point out that a World War was going on and the U.S. used it to end that war Thank you.
    The bottom line is this genie is out of the bottle and we need to find a way to put it back in. Man's animal nature is for war & greed & tradition, mankind cant live in peace for even a single day? Its time to really stop the proliferation of these weapons but it aint going to happen as long as those Gigantic defense bomb making companies fund these politicians and tell them how to vote on matters. Bush & gang have managed to get the whole world stirred up on military weapons.
     
  16. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #16
    I might point out that is complete ********,the Japanese had offered surrender at least six times on the same conditions that the US accepted before the bombs were dropped.There is another thread that discusses this in detail,thank you very much.
     
  17. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #17
    What B.S. the bottom line is we used it to end the war, spin it all you want this is about Iran this isnt about trying to rewrite WW2. A Nuclear Iran wouldnt make me feel safer at night.
     
  18. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #18
    If Iran invades another country, all bets are off. But barring that, Iran is safe. As you point out, the US does not have the strength to invade Iran right now without radically rethinking our militry policies (i.e., implement a draft and war economy, or withdraw from worldwide presence and let, say, China, Japan, and Russia decide what happens in Asia). Israel no lnoger has the military advantage necessary to just bomb Iran's facilities. European governments like sanctions, and without US help virtually no European militaries have the logistical capacity to invade foreign lands with significant militaries (France and UK excepted).

    Iran's leadership realizes all this. Invading Iraq has openned up an opportunity for them to aquire weapons and assert Iran's ascendence in the Middle East, which it has the potential to dominate (and generally has over the past 3000 years).
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    Yes, it's no coincidence that Iran elected a hard-right president after two of their neighbors were invaded and occupied. Prior to that, the government in Iran was seen as becoming more moderate politically and more open to the West. Much of the dangerous nonsense being spouted by Ahmadinejad today is intended for domestic consumption, but this together Iran's intransigence on nukes, serve as indicators of the current appeal of nationalism within Iran. We might want to ask ourselves why this dramatic shift occurred.
     
  20. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #20
    Or we could engage in a spiral of right-wing, nationalistic politics and move inexorrably towards conflagration.
     
  21. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #21
    So we've just about all agreed that Iran's gonna get their nukes. So the question becomes what will come of it?

    The scenario being pushed at the moment involves international sanctions, in order to pressure Iran economically. I think this is a bad idea. If I recall, sanctions worked(?) against South Africa concerning aparthied. However, in Iran's case I think that the rising nationalism, combined with the fear produced by our actions elsewhere and the economic woe produced by the sanctions would actually get the population on the side of the government there.

    Do we want Iran to have nukes? Probably not. Are they gonna get 'em anyway? Yes. It's like having a sixteen year-old with a license. Do you want them to drive at night in the expensive car? No, but they're gonna do it anyway. The best we can do is treat them with respect and encourage them to make the right decisions.

    This doesn't mean we can't get nasty if they if they screw up. But we have to use a different set of rules when handling them. The days of treating the rest of the world like insubordinate children are over.
     
  22. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #22
    I love the smell of fallout in the morning. Where the ****'s my surfboard!!??
     
  23. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #23
    Exports: $38.79 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)

    Exports - commodities: petroleum 80%, chemical and petrochemical products, fruits and nuts, carpets

    Exports - partners: Japan 18.4%, China 9.7%, Italy 6%, South Africa 5.8%, South Korea 5.4%, Taiwan 4.6%, Turkey 4.4%, Netherlands 4% (2004)

    sanctions won't do much because they won't include petroleum (China and Japan won't sacrifice power and their economies) and the other 20% of exports only account for a very small portion of the Iranian economy. They don't need to import that much either.
     
  24. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #24
    I think you would profit from a reading of history,by historians not the propaganda that passes for history to lots of people in the US(and other countries).You might want to look into what the US(along with the brits)did in the fifties which ultimately brought about the situation in Iran at present.As for the second world war you are simply wrong.
     
  25. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #25
    Point taken, but sanctions would also include imports. Iraq under Saddam was in a similar situation -- oil was probably an even greater proportion of their exports, but sanctions did hurt the Iraqi economy considerably just the same. Not as much as it should have, though, given that they were allowed to cheat.

    I don't think Iran wants to face sanctions. The question is whether the major world players can get themselves together behind a sanctions regime.
     

Share This Page