World War Three Coming Soon?

[dudalb]

Oh, poor persecuted Iran.
After all, they have done nothing like banroll and sponser terrorist groups,and makes constant threats against other nations in the region . No siree.
The Ostraich in the head approach to the regime in Iran puzzles me.

 

[Cynic]

So, you approve of hypocrisy?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Since when has having nuclear arms prevented attacks?

India and Pakistan still have periodic clashes, NK and the RoK have periodic clashes even after NK got a nuke, the US is in 2 wars right now and none of the enemies seem to be concerned that we'll nuke them. Nukes don't stop Hamas from attacking Israel. Nukes didn't help Russia's wars in Chechnya.

There's a big difference between periodic border frictions and the occasional trading of artillery fire, and a war that threatens the very existence of the state (e.g. Iraq 2003).

 

[CORed]

IIRC, Europe's much more concerned that Iran gets nukes than the US is, and the US is definitely concerned.

That's understandable, given that much of Europe is probably within range of Iran's missiles, and the US is not. Yet.

 

[CORed]

2003: 70% US Americans believed Saddam Hussein and 9-11 were connected.

2010: 70% US Americans believe Iran has nuclear weapons.

Iran may not have nuclear weapons right now, but they certainly seem to be working on it, Ahmanutjob's denials notwithstanding.

 

[drkitten]

What choices has Iran ever had in all this? It's pretty much agree or else, right?

No. Lots of countries did not agree to the NPT -- Israel, India, and Pakistan are the three most famous; North Korea originally agreed but then withdrew (as permitted).

 

[quadraginta]

Oh, poor persecuted Iran.
After all, they have done nothing like banroll and sponser terrorist groups,and makes constant threats against other nations in the region . No siree.
The Ostraich in the head approach to the regime in Iran puzzles me.

When Iraq invaded Iran in an oil field grab because they thought Iran was too disrupted by internal revolution to resist effectively Iran may have felt a bit persecuted. When the U.S. bankrolled Iraq to the tune of billions of dollars and military backing in a effort to keep the war going for nearly a decade Iran may have had some reason to feel persecuted. When the U.S. provided the foundations for a WMD industry in Iraq which enabled them to gas Iranians, Iraqi Shia, and ethnic Kurds Iran may have had reason to feel persecuted.

The Ostrich Approach to our refusal to recognize the real causes of strife in that region, not least of which is the unwillingness to admit that misguided American "diplomacy" and covert destabilization going back over half a century is the core cause of our difficulties there puzzles me as well.

 

[Cynic]

No. Lots of countries did not agree to the NPT -- Israel, India, and Pakistan are the three most famous;

Three countries the world's major powers are friendly with.

North Korea originally agreed but then withdrew (as permitted).

A country run by a man with a Barbie collection.

My point is, it's countries like the US that can afford to act honorably, but we're holding other countries to a higher standard than we can muster ourselves. We have thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons, dozens of reactors, ongoing research, and far more capacity to deliver any of it to any place on the planet -- or off! -- than is needed, and here we are getting all self-righteous about other countries trying to develop a mere fraction of what we already possess.

 

[drkitten]

When Iraq invaded Iran in an oil field grab because they thought Iran was too disrupted by internal revolution to resist effectively Iran may have felt a bit persecuted. When the U.S. bankrolled Iraq to the tune of billions of dollars and military backing in a effort to keep the war going for nearly a decade Iran may have had some reason to feel persecuted.

This is the "persecution" the Iranians felt after they had stormed the US Embassy and taken all the diplomats hostage?

My sympathies for the Iranians in this instance are negligible. Having effectively declared war on the United States, they shouldn't be at all surprised or persecuted when the US bankrolled their enemies. They have sown the wind and reap the whirlwind.

 

[drkitten]

My point is, it's countries like the US that can afford to act honorably, but we're holding other countries to a higher standard than we can muster ourselves.

Nope. We are and have been scrupulously obeying the NPT.

 

[Cynic]

Nope. We are and have been scrupulously obeying the NPT.

That must be very difficult for us, having already deployed the world's largest nuclear arsenal. It's a little like bragging that you're fasting, five minutes after Thanksgiving dinner.

 

[Praktik]

This is the "persecution" the Iranians felt after they had stormed the US Embassy and taken all the diplomats hostage?

My sympathies for the Iranians in this instance are negligible. Having effectively declared war on the United States, they shouldn't be at all surprised or persecuted when the US bankrolled their enemies. They have sown the wind and reap the whirlwind.

Well you can keep drawing the timetable backwards... after all, there were decades of resentment building up as the Iranian people suffered under the thumb of the brutal shah - so maybe the US was reaping what it sowed when the revolution came for backing the Shah and colluding with the UK to overthrow an Iranian government they decided wouldn't be good for their business interests... It is definitely one of the items in lists of blowback events re: American foreign policy. One would think that Americans would probably develop a longstanding hatred of a country that removed Obama through a coup and installed a torturing, ruthless dictatorship that lasted for decades - until one day they managed to finally overthrow the puppet of a foreign power.

Nonetheless, I think quadraginta raises a good point and its something that anybody should be able to understand: namely that Iran has a strong "go it alone" streak formed in large part due to suffering under the influence of outside western powers for over a century. At the moment of crisis, when they were being attacked with WMD and the whole nation was at stake in a brutal, brutal war - no one really spoke up for them. It was ok I guess to use chemical weapons when they were employed against people America didn't like. The reaction would surely have been different if the targets were European.

Wouldn't you look for a nuke coming off of that? We should remember that wasn't all that long ago. Merely two decades separate the loss of a million casualties and the present day. The people who fought in that war are still around, aged 35 and up - their sons and daughters may have been born into that war and have it shape their whole outlook. Everyone knows someone who died or was crippled.

Regardless of your opinion of Iran one should be open to at least understanding the history that makes them what they are today. There's a difference between explanations and justifications. I for one have a whole host of issues with their theology and their proxies, but that doesn't mean its impossible for me to attempt to put myself in their shoes. To describe the impact of this so flippantly speaks to an inablity of you to do the same.

 

[drkitten]

Well you can keep drawing the timetable backwards...

I can, but I see no reason to.

Violating an embassy is an act of war and justifies literally anything in reprisal -- in fact, if it weren't for that silly NPT, the US could have nuked Tehran to glass.

What did the US do to Iran that was an act of war?

after all, there were decades of resentment building up after the Iranian people suffered under the thumb of the brutal shah - so maybe the US was reaping what it sowed when the revolution came for backing the Shah and colluding with the UK to overthrow an Iranian government they decided wouldn't be good for their business interests...

Except it wasn't. Nothing that the US did qualified as an causus belli.

It is definitely one of the items in lists of blowback events re: American foreign policy.

Exactly. It's one of a laundry list of items that completely fails to justify the Iranian actions.

 

[Praktik]

I can, but I see no reason to.

Violating an embassy is an act of war and justifies literally anything in reprisal -- in fact, if it weren't for that silly NPT, the US could have nuked Tehran to glass.

What did the US do to Iran that was an act of war?

How would you describe the overthrow of Obama enacted by Russia, so that America served Russian interests better?

How would you describe the subsequent decades-long support of a puppet dictatorship to maintain this state of affairs and keep democracy at bay?

I would think that Americans subsequently holding Russian diplomats hostage would consider themselves to have been at war for decades already.

 

[dudalb]

SO the Iranian seizure of the US Embassy was justifiable?
The alliance between the far left and the Islamic militants continues.

 

[Praktik]

SO the Iranian seizure of the US Embassy was justifiable?
The alliance between the far left and the Islamic militants continues.

Note: above I listed the difference between "explanations" and "justifications". As someone who takes diplomacy pretty seriously, nothing actually justifies the violation of the diplomatic code.

That doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand how and why it happened, and what the people who did so may have been thinking at the time.

lol at your last line. I love how Americans on this board keep shoehorning things into their bipolar template.

There's lots of room between me and the "far left" my friend, and the kind of thoughts I've expressed in this thread could have been said by people like Bacevich in The American Conservative. In point of fact, I have trouble discerning how my positions here could be described as "left" or "right" in the first place. Issues like these are best considered without the constant application of that template.

 

[WildCat]

That must be very difficult for us, having already deployed the world's largest nuclear arsenal.

Ah, the old moral eqivalency argument. The US is just like Iran.

 

[WildCat]

SO the Iranian seizure of the US Embassy was justifiable?
The alliance between the far left and the Islamic militants continues.

Yep, and it's a bizarre one. They'll stand shoulder to shoulder with a regime that hangs homosexuals and stones rape victims to death.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I would think that Americans subsequently holding Russian diplomats hostage would consider themselves to have been at war for decades already.

Let alone the fact that in the past few years the Russians have invaded Canada and Mexico and set up a bunch of airforce bases in Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Yep, and it's a bizarre one. They'll stand shoulder to shoulder with a regime that hangs homosexuals and stones rape victims to death.