The Iran Controversy

[Lief Erikson]

Something new has happened in the Iran nuclear controversy that I felt like bringing up. Discussion of the nuclear controversy can be done in this thread, as well as other discussion of the Iranian state, its politics and such.

Originally Posted by The Scotsman News

Ahmadinejad said Iran's enemies had learned a lesson from the eight-year war during which Iran and Iraq fought each other to a standstill and hundreds of thousands were killed.

"Iran's enemies understood that the nation is very serious in defending the country's security, integrity, and the achievements of the [1979 Islamic] revolution," he said.

As in previous years the highlight of the parade, which included tanks, jets and troops, were six huge trailer-mounted Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of hitting Israel, US bases in the Gulf and parts of southeastern Europe.

"If the Global Arrogance wants to attack Iran ... [it] will destroy their countries with these missiles," the parade announcer said.

"God is Great!" the announcer cried repeatedly as the missiles trundled past the presidential viewing platform.

Some of the missiles, which have a range of 2,000km bore banners proclaiming "Israel should be wiped off the map" and "We will trample the US under our feet."

US and Israeli officials have said they believe Iran intends to use its Shahab-3 to carry nuclear warheads. Iran says the missiles are equipped with conventional payloads and would be used only if Iran came under military attack.

This story is available on BBC and CNN, too. I just didn't quote the BBC article because they didn't think it worth mentioning Iran's comments about the US:

Originally Posted by CNN

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.

The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- reported by Islamic Republic News Agency -- coincide with a month-long protest against Israel called "World without Zionism" and with the approach of Jerusalem Day.

World without Zionism is a nationwide event the planners intend to hold annually, and Ahmadinejad made the remarks during a meeting with protesting students at the Interior Ministry.

Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, who said that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."

The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by IRNA.

[The Gaffer]

OK now imagine you are Iran.

In 1979 you overthrew a monarchy which you regarded as oppressing your religion and betraying its people. You fall out publicly with the US, the major supporter of the monarchy.

In 198? your next-door neighbour attacked, with the support of the US and other allies of your former monarch. There followed a protracted war in which hundreds of thousands, if not millions, died.

In 2003, this neighbour, by now out of favour with the West, is invaded by the US and its allies under a false pretext. Now they have hundreds of thousands of their troops, with the most advanced weapons in the world, positioned right next to you (think Russia and China combining to invade Mexico).

Meanwhile, the US President branded you as one of the bastions of an "axis of evil". He spouts endless rhetoric about being at war, and refuses to rule out invading you just because you might have WMDs or something.

Meanwhile meanwhile, North Korea, also part of this axis, GETS nuclear weapons. Everything goes quiet: the US stops threatening to invade them.

If I was Iranian, I would want nukes YESTERDAY.

[Spock]

You wouldn't need them if you stopped threatening your neighbors, permitted UN inspection of the facilities, permitted more human rights in your country, etc. etc. etc. but hey, facts don't matter to some

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

You wouldn't need them if you stopped threatening your neighbors, permitted UN inspection of the facilities, permitted more human rights in your country, etc. etc. etc. but hey, facts don't matter to some

and compounding wrongs does not make a right either... we made our bed in the middle east

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Spock

You wouldn't need them if you stopped threatening your neighbors, permitted UN inspection of the facilities, permitted more human rights in your country, etc. etc. etc. but hey, facts don't matter to some

I posted this as a thought experiment. You fail the test.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I posted this as a thought experiment. You fail the test.

That's baiting and not permitted

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and compounding wrongs does not make a right either... we made our bed in the middle east

We did no wrong to Iran.
Do you forget the American Embassy Hostage episode?

Our bed may be there but that doesn't mean we want to build a development.
sometimes answering you with metaphors is most challenging.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

We did no wrong to Iran.
Do you forget the American Embassy Hostage episode?

Our bed may be there but that doesn't mean we want to build a development.
sometimes answering you with metaphors is most challenging.

any country who claims they have "done no wrong" will never know peace with the rest of the world... every international action has reasons behind it... we are free to label some as "justified" and others as "unjustified"... but if the goal is peace, there has to be understanding of the opposition... this includes understanding why they do what they do... just calling it "evil" is unrealistic and counterproductive... we don't live in middle-earth

the first step is admitting the fact that both sides do wrong... frequently

[The last sane person]

Nope, I haven't forgotten. Nor has anyone else, though for most that I know, its regretted.

If America is really scared shitless of these guys, why don’t the unilaterally slap an embargo on them, no oil goes in or out? They didn’t need UN permission to go to war.... That’s the only thing these Mother f-ers got going for them, in six months to a year, mullahs will be collapsed and gone. No oil= no cash= no power. Worked on Mosadeq, who was elected by the people and who actually built a functioning democracy (British style, with a parliament). Why does America and other countries keep buying oil from these jokers, who are sworn enemies...axis of evil....blah blah...when that money isn’t going anywhere but to weapons funding?

Y'know, I really would like an embargo, it will hurt me and my family and Iran in general, but we can survive and sort our own. And it will be infinitely better than what we got now. HOWEVER, that is highly unlikely to happen, as is America invading Iran.


Though, the latter is more likely than the former, and I don’t give a damn whether its rocks or nukes, I see anyone coming into my home, and making a mess, setting up a puppet government, I am going to kill them. And die myself more than likely. But I wont be the first, nor last.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

any country who.......

none of that makes any sense at all when compared to the real world.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The last sane person

.....

Well said. "Hear, Hear!"






"I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to the universe. It hates me, you know"
--Londo

[The Gaffer]

Last Sane Person:

Originally Posted by Last Sane etc etc

I see anyone coming into my home, and making a mess, setting up a puppet government, I am going to kill them. And die myself more than likely.

Did you mean if you were Iran you would attack Iraq/US coalition?

[The last sane person]

No I mean that if I see anyone coming INTO Iran with the same intent as they had in Iraq, then I would kill them. I dont give a damn what happens in Iraq, so long as it stays there.

[rohirrim TR]

so you feel that Iraq is NOT better off without Saddam? i'm just asking to get a feel for this thread i'm not sure what it about exactly

[The last sane person]

Oh, it is, I have no problem with that. And Iran has one less loony with chemical weapons next door. But I really don't care other than that. Iraq isn't really a problem anymore after the war.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The last sane person

If America is really scared shitless of these guys, why don’t the unilaterally slap an embargo on them, no oil goes in or out?

We won't, so long as our government feels there is hope for negotiation. We still also are attempting to work through UN processes, rather than simply ignoring the UN. I believe the US has threatened Iran with referral to the Security Council though, if it pursues this further.

Originally Posted by The last sane person

They didn’t need UN permission to go to war.... That’s the only thing these Mother f-ers got going for them, in six months to a year, mullahs will be collapsed and gone. No oil= no cash= no power. Worked on Mosadeq, who was elected by the people and who actually built a functioning democracy (British style, with a parliament). Why does America and other countries keep buying oil from these jokers, who are sworn enemies...axis of evil....blah blah...when that money isn’t going anywhere but to weapons funding?

I would like to see a reliable source that says we are getting oil from Iran. Perhaps we are, but this is the first I've heard of it.

Gaffer, when did we threaten Iran with attack? We haven't ruled out the possibility, but I haven't heard us make any direct threats. Also, I never denied that they don't have reason to want nuclear weapons. Everyone has reason to want them. But if Iran was willing to give up seeking that ability, the country would receive significant economic benefits and freedom from US accusations. They would be showing their good will to the world and would be freed from the likelihood of attack. At present, it is a definite possibility that we may attack. That threat would greatly diminish if Iran complied with our reasonable demands.

Last Sane Person, don't you know the US has opened the door to free elections in Iraq? The UN spokesman in Iraq has said that they were free, as well. This is no puppet government we're talking about.

Sure, for a while they might be so dependent on the US that they couldn't say anything against us even if they wanted to. They are becoming more and more self sufficient, however.

Since we aren't spreading puppet governments but rather are proliferating freedom, why would you object to a US policy that attempts to forcibly keep Iran from nuclear weapons? Especially when Iran makes such statements as it recently did against Israel!

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Gaffer, when did we threaten Iran with attack? We haven't ruled out the possibility, but I haven't heard us make any direct threats.

So, if Russia and China invaded Mexico, the US would not regard that as a threat??

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

They would be showing their good will to the world and would be freed from the likelihood of attack. At present, it is a definite possibility that we may attack. That threat would greatly diminish if Iran complied with our reasonable demands.

In theory, I agree. However, evidence from experience would dictate that it is having nukes that stops people attacking you. If not, why doesn't the US unilaterally disarm to show its good faith?

But I wanted to ask you directly: you're a thoughtful person, do you see how, from an Iranian perspective, the most sensible thing to do to defend your country would be to get nuclear weapons?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

none of that makes any sense at all when compared to the real world.

actually, the motivations i'm pointing out are exactly the "the real world"... not the "good vs. evil" thing we like to impose upon reality

i know it's a hard, and often humbling pov to take... but conflict resolution always has to eventually come down to compromise and understanding... confrontation is never an ultimate solution

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So, if Russia and China invaded Mexico, the US would not regard that as a threat??

One interesting point is that the reason we invaded Iraq in the first place was that they were being dodgy with us about whether or not they had WMDs. If Iran is going to look at history to see us as a threat, it ought to look at the reason the invasion even took place.

Sure, Iran can view the invasion of Iraq as a threat. It can view the invasion of Iraq as a threat because they are doing the VERY SAME THING that Iraq was accused of doing. Libia gave up its WMD objectives, and Iran should see how fully that country has entered our good graces. Meanwhile, Iran should look at Iraq's refusal to give up its WMD objectives, and should see from there what happened next. US policy isn't that difficult to predict, based upon its history.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

In theory, I agree. However, evidence from experience would dictate that it is having nukes that stops people attacking you. If not, why doesn't the US unilaterally disarm to show its good faith?

If all the superpowers in the world disarmed now, who would be the new superpowers?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But I wanted to ask you directly: you're a thoughtful person, do you see how, from an Iranian perspective, the most sensible thing to do to defend your country would be to get nuclear weapons?

Yes and no.

"Yes" in that it makes complete sense for any country to want nuclear weapons. They almost make it certain that no one will attack you. They also may produce a delectable economic package, if you choose to give them up.

"No" in that it is apparent that the US and other nations will crack down upon a group or nation that pursues the production of WMD, and Iran has about ten years to go before it may actually be able to produce nuclear weapons. In the short term: Pursuing the construction of nuclear weapons is likely to get you conquered. If Iran manages to survive that long, however, nuclear weapons would be (to them) a wonderful thing.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

actually, the motivations i'm pointing out are exactly the "the real world"... not the "good vs. evil" thing we like to impose upon reality

i know it's a hard, and often humbling pov to take... but conflict resolution always has to eventually come down to compromise and understanding... confrontation is never an ultimate solution

What wrong do you feel we have done Iran?