• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are we going into Iran?

The fact that we think we and our few allies are the only people who can be trusted with nuclear weapons is a weak arguement. Especially considering so far we are the only county in the world to actually use them.

We go around flailing a club around that is going to force countries to seek the nuclear option because that is their only hope of fending us off.
 
Vagabond said:
The fact that we think we and our few allies are the only people who can be trusted with nuclear weapons is a weak arguement. Especially considering so far we are the only county in the world to actually use them.

We go around flailing a club around that is going to force countries to seek the nuclear option because that is their only hope of fending us off.
Click to expand...
Yeah, whatever. It's all the same, fer sure... :rolleyes:
 
Screw military action, screw sanctions and screw a blockade. I think the best option is to change Iran on a fundamental level. We should support their democratic movement and foment revolution against the theocrats. I wonder if such an option is even on the radar in the Bush administration. A few things tell me it isn't, but one can hope.
 
DD says: "Invading Iran would be a huge mistake"
Click to expand...

From all the indications and reports I have seen, there is a very high probability that Israel, alone, will take care of the Iranian nuclear situation.
Israel's motivation is very clear, especially after the bombing earlier today in Tel Aviv, which has been laid directly at the doorstep of Tehran.

Hold on tight, 'cause the Israelis are not going to sit around and let any future Sami Antar waltz into the Central Bus Station with a suitcase nuke --- and the best way to prevent it is to take out the Iranian facilities right now.
Natanz, Isfahan and all the rest of Iran's nuclear projects are about to go up in smoke, at the hands of the IAF.
 
a_unique_person said:
Pejoratives aside, yes.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, Ayatollah Khamenei is the current leader, before him was the Ayatollah Khomeini, before that the Shah. Which means you think the Ayatollah Khomeini was more moderate than Ayatollah Khamenei? :confused:
 
webfusion said:
a_u_p said:
"Which makes you wonder why, when there were more moderate governments in power in Iran, the US didn't normalise relations and end the tension between the two countries."

Are you referring to the period of the reign by Shah Pahlevi?
Or before?(1950's)
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.4/bronner.htm
Click to expand...
We had normalized relations w/ the Shah, so he must be talking about Khomeini. A true moderate, all he wanted was for the children to be happy...

khomeinichild.jpg
 
WildCat said:
Hmmm, Ayatollah Khamenei is the current leader, before him was the Ayatollah Khomeini, before that the Shah. Which means you think the Ayatollah Khomeini was more moderate than Ayatollah Khamenei? :confused:
Click to expand...

No, not the Shah. It was the US support of the Shah which made Iran so anti-American. It was the overthrow of the Shah which gave the fundy mullahs so much 'politcal capital'.

Iranians are just people, and the moderates were in there with a chance for a while. A bit of a softening on the Iranian issue from the US would have given 'peace a chance' for a while there. Now we are back to a Spaghetti Western stand off.
 
a_unique_person said:
Iranians are just people, and the moderates were in there with a chance for a while. A bit of a softening on the Iranian issue from the US would have given 'peace a chance' for a while there. Now we are back to a Spaghetti Western stand off.
Click to expand...
Is there a moderate Ayatollah missing from my timeline? :confused:
 
a_u_p must have been watching different spaghetti westerns than the ones I saw...

"Now we are back to a Spaghetti Western stand off." -- claims a_u_p

Dude, in every such flick, Clint Eastwood made mincemeat of the opposition.

The Iranians are about to feel what it's like to be brought down.
Israel has 'em in their sights...

and for good reason...

  • The attack in Tel Aviv today was horrible and senseless, but not quite horrible enough for the loathsome mujahideen who call such depravity holy. The Iranians had their sights set on destruction and mass murder of a much grander scale.

    A car loaded with hundreds of kilograms of explosives that had been prepared for attack by the same Islamic Jihad cell responsible for Friday night's suicide bombing was discovered by security forces between Arybeh and Mevoh Dotan south of Jenin.

    An IDF company commander spotted the car with wires protruding from it and alerted sappers to the site. Security officials said that the same cell who launched the attack in Tel Aviv were planning to infiltrate this car into Israel.
 
a_unique_person said:
Iranians are just people, and the moderates were in there with a chance for a while. A bit of a softening on the Iranian issue from the US would have given 'peace a chance' for a while there. Now we are back to a Spaghetti Western stand off.
Click to expand...

errr ... didn't the Iranian people vote the current nut in?
 
Ed said:
errr ... didn't the Iranian people vote the current nut in?
Click to expand...
The Ayatollahs aren't elected, they're chosen by Allah. The Ayatollahs pick who can run in PM elections, and apparently only the nutjobs qualify. The PM is just a puppet of the Ayatollahs.
 
WildCat said:
The Ayatollahs aren't elected, they're chosen by Allah. The Ayatollahs pick who can run in PM elections, and apparently only the nutjobs qualify. The PM is just a puppet of the Ayatollahs.
Click to expand...

I know, I know. I was pointing out that he still won big, didn't he? So much for the Iranian people.
 
Ed said:
errr ... didn't the Iranian people vote the current nut in?
Click to expand...

Well, sort of. They guy was screened by the Mullahs to begin with, so the Iranian citizens had a choice of two different nutcases. Then there were allegations of vote tampering.
 
WildCat said:
There was a time when more moderate islamofascist ayatollahs and mullahs ran the place? Do tell...
Click to expand...

Well, no, but AUP MUST blame the USA for everything evil that happens. As usual his logic is refutation-proof. If country X does (or intend to do) Y and Y is bad, there are two possibilities: either country X had good relations with the USA in the past, or bad relations.

If the USA had tolerable relations with country X, AUP blames the USA for country X's behavior, telling us that if the USA was REALLY "serious about democracy and freedom", it should have pursued a tougher stance against country X's insane leaders, to deter them from doing Y. So the "root cause" of country X doing Y is the USA's hypocritical lack of commitment to human rights.

If, however, the USA had bad relations with country X, AUP blames the USA for country X's behavior, telling us that if the USA was REALLY "serious about peace" and not run by "gun-toting cowboys who have no idea about 'soft power'", it would have tried to appease/befriend country X's leaders, to convince them it is to their benefit not to do Y. So the "root cause" of country X doing Y is the USA's stupid black-and-white view of the world in tems of good and evil, no doubt due christian fundamentalism.

A shorter version of this same "argument" is what I call the "people's gambit": if the USA has good relations with a country's leader, it is perfectly justified that "the people" in that country hate the USA for supporting the cruel dictator who opresses them. But if the USA has bad relations with a country's leader, it is perfectly justified that "the people" in that country hate the USA for insulting and demeaning their country's honor by its unjusitifed attacks on the dear leader, the father of the people, which is no doubt merely an excuse to invade them any day now.

See? It's easy.
 
Last edited:
Ed said:
I know, I know. I was pointing out that he still won big, didn't he? So much for the Iranian people.
Click to expand...

I dunno. The Communist party used to get 99% of the votes in Russia, too, and Saddam 100% or so in Iraq.
 
WildCat said:
Is there a moderate Ayatollah missing from my timeline? :confused:
Click to expand...

The polictics of Iran, IIRC, is as much about the battle between the secular and the religious. (Does this ring a bell?). There have been moderate political leaders, and candidates. If they had been able to offer some proof that their stance had been vindicated, they would still be in power. (IMHO)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom