-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Obama: Iran Not a Threat
- Thread starter Brainster
- Start date
Tricky
Briefly immortal
The first Gulf War was fought on their border. How many troops did they send to support us in Iraq?
Except that the EU actually does some mutual defending. Saudi Arabia defends themselves, and that's all.
The reasons for religious oppression in SA are similar to the reasons for said oppression in other Mideast places. We condemn it in our enemies but ignore it in our oil-rich allies. We ignored it in Iraq too, back when they were fighting Iran.
You think that because they have foreigners working there that this excuses religious oppression? Why are they worried that their people might become westernized? Do you think it might have anything to do with making sure they don't learn about how democracy works in free nations? That might be a threat to their rule.
Can a woman seek any job that a man can with her university education? Are they allowed to vote? Are they allowed to have contact with westerners?
If OBL was trying to overthrow Saudi Arabia, then why didn't he attack them?
No, it's hardly specious. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship. The fact that they are a friendly dictatorship shouldn't make any difference to a country that is philosophically opposed to dictatorships.
Take a look at that book I mentioned. At least read some of the reviews. The Saud family are not nice guys.
Well that stinks. The entire region is a pit of vipers.
You are close to saying that the government of SA was in cahoots with OBL for 911. Is that your position?
The same number of troops that NATO sent. None.
No they are not allowed to vote. Yes they can and do have contact with westerners since many leave the country for study and work.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=95003&d=15&m=4&y=2007
.
Crrrnk! (the sound of moving goalposts)
Just a simple statement of fact.
NATO is failing miserably in Afghanistan
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,534524,00.html
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Surely you don't think the comparison with the USSR is better than the one with Germany. Or do you?
And "dislike"? Is that how you interpret Ahmadinejad's and many other Iranian leader's statements regarding Jews and Israel? Just simple "dislike"?
Plus, you overlook the fact that it's not just "dislike" of Jews. The fundamentalists now in charge of Iran seem to also "dislike" the "Great Satan" ... us ... even more. And much of the West. In fact, their intolerance towards ANY non-muslim and the oppressive way they say non-muslims should be treated infuses their religion which in turn dominates their government. Do you also view that as just simple "dislike"?
With regards to economy, why look at Germany in 1938? Afterall, Chamberlain began his efforts at appeasement of Hitler much earlier ... before it had annexed Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia. Maybe that's where the comparison is strongest. In 1934, Germany's economy was much smaller than it was in 1938 ... because Hitler's 4 year plan to prepare Germany for war only began in 1936. It's amazing how much a small country's economy and military can grow in a short time ... if it's leaders and people have the will to devote themselves to that goal. Even a small country can rapidly become a big threat ... if the threat of that happening is ignored. History proves that time and again.
Just as important is the potential of the economy. Germany was a country with relatively few resources. To build Germany's military into the threat it became, Hitler had to devote a very large portion of the economy to the military. Over 20%, I seem to recall. Now Iran is sitting on very large oil reserves and given rising oil prices and a plethora of buyers, that means Iran's military can grow rapidly if it's leaders wish, perhaps without even imposing much additional hardship on it's civilian population.
Moreover, the chief threat that Iran poses doesn't lie in militarily conquering it's opponents. It lies in asymmetric conflict ... in using well funded terrorists to spread its ideology and control. As it is doing in Palestine, Lebanon and trying to do in Iraq.
I'd say both countries sit at important locations. Germany's was obviously important ... otherwise it wouldn't have been the focal point of 2 world wars, a number of major wars before that, and a major focus in the cold war that followed. What makes Iran important is that it is sitting dangerously close to the source of most of the world's oil supplies ... a resource on which the whole world now depends to maintain economic health.
Sure, we've got a bigger military and lots of nuclear weapons but look what a relatively small number of terrorists did on 9/11. We are fighting a different type of war so perhaps relative power should be measured somewhat differently than in 1939. And you need to keep in mind is that power is only meaningful if one side is willing to use it. Bush has demonstrated that willingness and that power has dramatically altered the situation in the Middle East with even larger changes in store down the line. But under Obama and democRAT leadership, we might be perceived as being unwilling to employ that power ... especially if Obama starts his presidency by pulling out of Iraq prematurely. In which case, the only thing that might matter is how far Iran is willing to push. And so far Iran has shown quite a willingness to push. As long as they maintains a plausible deniability, they might be able to get away with a great deal. Even supply terrorists with WMD. And grow in strength and relatively power each time they do that.
Hitler was out to put his government in charge of all the surrounding countries. Iran is already controlling the actions of several governments and it's religious leaders state they want to make the whole world obey that state religion.
Not sure of your point, DR. Why don't you expand on this one.
But that could change quite rapidly. Even within a single US administration. Topple a few more governments in the Middle East, drive us out of the region with the help of democRAT appeasement, keep Europe occupied with its muslim "minority" problem and Iran could be more than a middling power in just a few short years. All they have to do is gain control of either Iraq or Saudi Arabia and the oil they'd have would give them the potential of dominating the region completely. Of blackmailing the West like never before.
Well for starters, Israel. And Iraq. And Jordan. And Afghanistan. And then you need to ask yourself where other muslim minorities want control. Fewer people believed in nazism than believe in authoritarian Islam. If just 10 percent of the billion Muslims in the world believe in what Iran's leadership now believes (and that's what some analysts say is the case), then you are looking at an enemy with 100 million followers ... egged on by Iran's leaders.
What other similarities are there? Both Nazi Germany and Iran are closed societies, where the state controls the press. That makes it easy for them to indoctrinate their subjects. In both Nazi Germany and Iran The State was the religion. Iran has Revolutionary Guards. Hitler had the SS. Both fanatical groups willing to do anything for the cause.
And there are factors that make Iran even more dangerous than Nazi Germany. The Nazi government hid the murder of Jews from its public. The islamofascists in Iran celebrate those they murder. In Nazi Germany there were no public exhibits of the Einsatzgruppen or gas chambers. In the Iran backed West Bank, there's an exhibit celebrating the suicide bombing of a pizza restaurant in Israel.
The Nazis, evil as they were, at least valued their own lives and that of their children. The Iran backed terrorists don't seem to value either. These are people who would be willing to strap a nuke on their child's body and set it off ... just as long as it did some damage to the infidels.
This is not a country and government that should possess nuclear weapons.
"Iran: Taking the Nazi Road to War By Brian Melton, 04/10/2008 ... snip ... Ahmadinejad and his cronies in Iran appear to be literally following a path blazed in the Twentieth Century by Hitler himself. In those fateful years leading up to World War II, Hitler consciously attempted to follow a policy that could be reasonably broken down into four stages: Stage 1: Convince the world that your intentions are both reasonable and peaceful. ... snip ... Stage 2: Pursue your own policy behind the scenes. ... snip ... Stage 3: Strike and accomplish your goal before your enemy can react. ... snip ... Stage 4: Fait Accompli—Reassume a reasonable posture and bargain from your new position. ... snip ... Of course, this approach never worked out in perfect order in real life, but it worked well enough and often enough for Hitler to take over the Rhineland, Austria, and all of Czechoslovakia while the Allies babbled pointlessly on about “a peace for our time.” Unfortunately for Hitler, he took his last step in Poland a little too quickly and on September 1, 1939, inaugurated a war he never intended to start; a war he could not win. ... snip ... There is at least one more commonality between the two situations: the universal gullibility of the western liberal-intellectual elite. What worked for Hitler seems to be working again for Ahmadinejad, and on the same people, no less. "
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
And you want them to go nuclear? Because if Iran does, SA probably won't be far behind.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
You know, I don't think he does. I guess that's why he said nothing of the kind.
If you thought that was beautiful, feast your eyes on this.
Last edited:
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
You claim my comment is a strawman? Did you notice the "?". I think it would have been a strawman if I'd said "So ... you want them to go nuclear." (notice the period at the end). I was asking whether he wanted SA to go nuclear. Not saying that he did. And SA going nuclear is a logical outcome if Iran goes nuclear. In fact, I believe I've already read that the Saudis are exploring that option should it happen.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
You're trying to pass off a rhetorical question as a request for information? Are you dumb or what?
And since I don't believe that Tricky wants Iran to go nuclear either, I don't see how this is relevant.And SA going nuclear is a logical outcome if Iran goes nuclear. In fact, I believe I've already read that the Saudis are exploring that option should it happen.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
No, I'm trying to show that perhaps that poster (and perhaps you too) haven't fully considered the consequences of appeasement.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I would prefer they didn't go nuclear, but then, I wish ALL countries would destroy their nuclear capability. What we have now is several countries that have nukes,including some marginally stable ones, like Pakistan.
As it stands now, only one country has ever used nukes against a populated target. This same country, on the flimsiest of pretenses, invaded another country within the last decade. Yet it is this country that is trying to dictate who is "trustworthy". The hypocrisy of this stance is astounding.
As I say, it would be better if nobody had nukes, but ya know how that goes. Genies. Bottles.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Nor, indeed, have we given a moment's thought to the possibility of appeasement. Why would we?No, I'm trying to show that perhaps that poster (and perhaps you too) haven't fully considered the consequences of appeasement.