There is the small matter of an Embassy takeover, and hostages held while a absolutely inept US administration watched. They are only lucky a Reagan (or Bush) wasn't POTUS at the time.
What about the idea is frustrating and terrifying? Why is it so bad to make judgements? We do it all the time in life. We even do it regulary with who-gets-to-do-what. Its a very common thing.Much as that idea frustrates and terrifies me, given Iran's current leadership I'm inclined to agree.
I'm not yet willing to concede that a Western invasion is the best solution, though. There have to be avenues that we haven't explored yet...
What would Randi do?
Again, I never said that Iran getting nukes is a good thing, but what would you do to stop them?
Sure if the Iranian leaderships highest goals is to get half of Iran annihilated and themselves dispiosed it would be perfectly rational for them to try to nuke Israel, but I don't think they've been behaving like that. People call Kim-Jong Ill raving mad too, and certainly he doesn't suffer from an excess of rationality, but he still hasn't been tossing nukes right and left for no readilly apparent reason.
The hostage crisis was a little before my time, but a) Reagan and Bush weren't presidents at the time and b) Wasn't that initiated b a mob, rather than actual Iranian governement, which pretty much didn't exist at the time due to being smack in the middle of a revolution?
On what grounds can we NOT take that threat seriously?
Well, Zig, so far they're only theathening jews with death.
I don't mean that those who discount the threat want the jews dead. I mean that if tomorrow they said, "we shall wipe out the imperialist French with nuclear weapons" (or English, or Russians, or whomever), then people will take it seriously. But since it's aimed only at the jews, the saying is that there is nothing new since they always want to wipe off the jews.
The problem is that it is accepted as a matter of course that genocidal antisemitism is part and parcel of the Muslim worldview, much like turbans or Hookahs, so there is no point in getting all excited about it.
Well, Zig, so far they're only theathening jews with death.
I don't mean that those who discount the threat want the jews dead. I mean that if tomorrow they said, "we shall wipe out the imperialist French with nuclear weapons" (or English, or Russians, or whomever), then people will take it seriously. But since it's aimed only at the jews, the saying is that there is nothing new since they always want to wipe off the jews.
The problem is that it is accepted as a matter of course that genocidal antisemitism is part and parcel of the Muslim worldview, much like turbans or Hookahs, so there is no point in getting all excited about it.
Possibly, but it wasn't the mob that kept them 444 days in captivity.
True, but it's harder to back down once a situation has been created than not to create it in the first place. It's not as if I'm arguing that the Iranians are paragons of virtue and rationality but if they were as stark raving mad as you want me to believe shouldn't we have seen some fairly solid evidence of that in the past 25 years. Why didn't they just slaughter the hostages instead of releasing them in exchange for bribes? Why don't they take hostages every time there's a diplomatic crisis. Perhaps shot a foreign leader who comes by for a state visit? Why diddn't they just slaughter everybody who calls for reforms rather than inventing a riged election system? That's the kind of behavior I'd expect from somebody who was actually stark raving mad. In fact all of these things would be less mad than nuking another nuclear power, but they still don't do them.
You're "defining deviancy down", as they say. In most of the world, kidnapping foreign diplomats and holding them hostage for over a year in an act of blatant blackmail is rather good evidence that the leaders of the country are loonies and that one should have no dealing with them whatever. Now you're saying it doesn't count because they haven't actually killed the diplomats?
Perforatu
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2003
- Messages
- 171
Sorry, I should clarify: it's not the judgment itself I find terrifying, it's the implications of what happens when Iran obtains nuclear weapons. I also find it frustrating, because in Iran's case many of the diplomatic, economic and political ways of exerting pressure probably won't have much effect, thus limiting our options severely.
Ah, okay. Got it. I totally agree with you.
Jon_in_london
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 4,989
Unfortunately, I just dont see the US/UK alliance having enough military muscle to take on Iran at the moment. Perhaps we could hit thier nuclear facilities and carry out a decade long no-fly-zone-break-their-economic-bones-campaign? But what would be the effect of a strike against Iran? Dont you think they would just then invade Iraq? Would our troops there be sufficient to halt it?
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 10,611
Well, they have been saying "Death to America" for about 25 years, and it´s not like anybody has been too worried about them being able to pull that off.
Face it, either way it would be a Third World country threatening to destroy a First World country that is vastly superior in any category you could name, except in "nutcases per square mile of land area".
They know they´d get their asses kicked straight to... whatever "hell" is in Farsi. And they know that, whether or not they´ll succeed, the more densely inhabited parts of Iran will be converted into parking lots. And I can´t see how they´ll let it come to that, unless there is a realistic chance of taking a substantial number of infidels with them.
Bottom line: they´re just making a lot of noise with goal of becoming more popular among anti-semites in the Muslim world.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
On one hand you say the claim should be dismissed because they don't have the means to pull it off, yet they are pursuing the means. This is illogical.
Iran is not a third world country.
They are pursuing the means to take a substantial number of infidels with them.
Evidence?
In general you are correct, but they are not threathening to use nukes against America, only against israel.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,763
Is that true?
This assumes that nuclear weapons are only deliverable with ballistic missiles.
I would think that is an inaccurate assessment of the Iranian's goals and designs. There are other things besides a 'nuke' being a highly-explosive bomb of the type you associate with the military. It is well within the conceivable for Iranian-backed terrorists to be given a quantity of hot radioactive material and the resulting "suitcase dirty-bomb" being detonated in Atlanta, for instance.
BTW, in today's news, from Germany:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/664518.html
This assumes that nuclear weapons are only deliverable with ballistic missiles.
I would think that is an inaccurate assessment of the Iranian's goals and designs. There are other things besides a 'nuke' being a highly-explosive bomb of the type you associate with the military. It is well within the conceivable for Iranian-backed terrorists to be given a quantity of hot radioactive material and the resulting "suitcase dirty-bomb" being detonated in Atlanta, for instance.
BTW, in today's news, from Germany:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/664518.html
- The "Der Spiegel" weekly emphasized that "Washington is now sending high level officials to prepare allies for a potential strike, as opposed to conducting talks that just hint at the possibility, which is what has been happening until now."
The Berlin paper "Tagesspiegel" quoted NATO intelligence sources last week who said that "NATO members have received information that the United States is currently looking into all possibilities, including a military attack against the regime in Tehran."
Using nuclear weapons against another nuclear power without provocation is just about the most stark raving mad thing you can possibly do. Taking hostages doesn't come within a mile of being as insane. It's a matter of historical record that taking and keeping those hostages was not in fact totally suicidal. Nuking Israel pretty much would be. I am concerned by the posibility of Iranian nukes (and hopefully I'm wrong about airstrikes and/or sanktion being ineefective, certainly that's preferable to an invasion), but I'm less concerned about them screaming "Allah Akbar! Let's test our first nuke over Tel Aviv", than about it turning into a NK-like situation.
Last edited:
I'm not sure about the US (I honestly don't think Uk makes much difference in the equation) having enough muscle to invade Iran, that's part of the problem. I'm fairly sure however that Iran doesn't have the muscle to take on the US forces in Iraq. Launching offensive operations against more than 100.000 very well equipped US soldiers, in the face of absolutely overwhelming air supremacy across largely open terrain, is most likely impossible. I thinks it's dubious whether they'd even be able to marshal for an invasion, without being detected and bombed pre-emptively. I don't think an Iranian invasion of Iraq needs to concern us.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,763
True enough.
Also, I would be surprised if the USA acted against Natanz. The Israeli Prime Minister Arik Sharon is the one who has political capital to gain, in the run-up to the elections. He knows that his constituency will build even more in the aftermath of a strike at Natanz. He knows what Menahem Begin attained after Osirak was destroyed. The current posturing by the Americans looks like they are laying the groundwork to justify a way for Israel to do the job, and grab the glory (or grab the heat, more accurately, since worldwide condemnations will invariably follow).
Since the elections in Israel are scheduled for end of March, an IAF raid on Natanz can be expected to happen some weeks prior to that event!
De-rail.
Has Bush every actually said the earth is 6,000 years old? I don't know. Do you have a quote?
I say this because it was a meme that Bush had a "rapture ready" foreign policy. When I asked for proof, nobody could actually offer any.
As far as Bush thinking his "god is the only god," I would think that may be inaccurate as he went to mosques shortly after 9/11 and praised the Islamic religion as the "religion of peace." I am pretty sure a true fundamentalist would not do that if his "god is the only god."
He hasn't, he has said that he thinks the jury is still out on evolution http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE0DF1739F936A35752C1A9669C8B63 , though whether that's because he believes in creationism, but doesn't want to offend the moderates, believes in evolution, but doesn't want to offend the religious right or if it's actually his honest opinion is anybodys guess.