Dilbert, Iran wanting to get nukes has little to do with the US and much more with regional conflicts.
inane little opines
I don't think anyone would misunderstand your position if you were to say 'military options are still on the table'. I have a problem with the way they choose to say this because if they're actually being sincere, the emphasis seems to be on threat and coercion, which makes me seriously question the candidates' competence regarding foreign policy. That particular approach worked so well during the Bush administration the US's international standing has dropped to a historic low and will stay there for at least another 10 years to come.FEOS wrote:
It's the difference between being a candidate and being the office-holder. The latter has far more responsibility and need to be concerned about "how they say something," because they are speaking as the President. One expects candidates to be more frank in their language so that everyone clearly understands their position.
If they're however simply catering to the voters by having a dickwaving contest it's a great way to enter office having said outrageous shit like 'I will bomb X country' and 'I will cheer when Castro dies'. The candidate that won can go and spend his entire first term trying to clean up after his mess (if at all possible) and apologize for the utter shit he's been spouting during the campaign. It is extremely irresponsible.
You sure about that? It's not for no reason that the rest of the world is almost always cheering on the democrat candidate. They're usually much less 'outspoken' in their foreign policy stances. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people will agree with Fidel when he said this:FEOS wrote:
It's not a republican/democrat thing.
not related but I laughed heartily when I heard Romney went to France to try and convert the wine-loving, english-language-hating (especially American English), chauvinist, fiercely catholic French to mormonism.“The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is — and I mean this seriously — the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.”
inane little opines
I understand you are fairly hawkish for a Euro and am the only person on the forum to support Iraq. That's cool. I am not knocking you. I am extremely hawkish myself. That said I think that if you want to justify U.S. action, you shouldn't resort to rewriting history.Shocking wrote:
Dilbert, Iran wanting to get nukes has little to do with the US and much more with regional conflicts.
Iran has a history of interest in nukes. There were times we were helping them get nuclear energy. After the revolution Western support disappeared. There was some talks back and fourth about nuclear energy and stuff but nukes were not on anyones agenda.
'91 the Iraq monster was slap down hard enough that they only posed a nominal threat to Iran. Add to that the fact that they were diplomaticly isolated. Furthermore the Saddam family was more interested in making money and enjoying their lives than they were in rocking the boat and getting smacked by someone in the region or the U.S.
Iran at this point is secure since Pakistan is too busy with India and Afghanistan is a mess and Turkmenistan is well Turkmenistan. The Saudis didn't want to rock the boat either since they were more than happy with their oil wealth. Iran is jealous of Saudi Arabia's wealth but they can't do anything about it. A conventional war with the Saudis would bring the U.S. and all the other Arab states maybe even Iraq into conflict with Iran. So we have regional balance at this point. The Arabs are selling us oil ans Iran can't do shit in any direction.
Now 9/11 happens and the U.S. overreacts. We hit Iraq and Afghanistan and surrounded Iran. Since we flew way off course into Iraq during our WOT you can understand why Iran would be a little nervous. Being able to swing nukes in all directions is a pretty good hedge against a full scale invasion like Iraq.
So yeah Iran is reacting to our post 9/11 foray into the middle east.
mitt romney gave more to the mormon church than he paid in taxes last year
Tu Stultus Es
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Rewriting history, what? Iran is putting itself in more danger of invasion/attack by the US because of their pursuit of nuclear weapons than it would be if the country didn't pursue the tech. The Iranians have seen the US invade Iraq over WMDs, getting them is counter productive to their security against the US. Besides that, having a nuke or two wouldn't help them much were the US to decide and attack their country (see; Pakistan).
So what purpose does that leave us with? I believe that they're looking at the future of the ME, nuclear tech is going to be one hell of a helpful tool in countering Saudi Arabia's influence & strength.
So what purpose does that leave us with? I believe that they're looking at the future of the ME, nuclear tech is going to be one hell of a helpful tool in countering Saudi Arabia's influence & strength.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-28 11:27:47)
inane little opines
It doesn't put them in any more danger because the U.S. has already demonstrated a willingness to invade countries over suspected building of nuclear weapons. Even though Iraq building nuclear weapons didn't make any sense from the Iraqi standpoint. That has been demonstrated by the amount of nuclear weapons we found in Iraq. From their standpoint the U.S. went in and took over a country right next to them over bad intelligence. Considering we have always been frosty with the Iranian government (current one) you can understand why they would be pretty nervous when they are getting encircled. Now if you go into the conspiratorial side and think the U.S. went into Iraq for oil...it just adds to that nervousness.
In the Chinese Soviet border conflict the Russians backed down after they figured the few (very few by relative and objective standards) nuclear weapons China had would cause way too much destruction and decided it wasn't worth it. If Iran had even a few nukes they could seriously disrupt Arab oil production to say the least. That's enough to not make attacking them worth it. We didn't invade Pakistan.
Like I said they don't have anything to fear from Saudi Arabia. The Saudi are fine with the status quo and wouldn't want to do anything that could mess with their oil revenue. They are afraid of us since we seem to be one terrorist attack away from invading states.
In the Chinese Soviet border conflict the Russians backed down after they figured the few (very few by relative and objective standards) nuclear weapons China had would cause way too much destruction and decided it wasn't worth it. If Iran had even a few nukes they could seriously disrupt Arab oil production to say the least. That's enough to not make attacking them worth it. We didn't invade Pakistan.
Like I said they don't have anything to fear from Saudi Arabia. The Saudi are fine with the status quo and wouldn't want to do anything that could mess with their oil revenue. They are afraid of us since we seem to be one terrorist attack away from invading states.
Both parties were opposing one another in the Afghan civil war and continue taking turns to jab at one another. Once the US leaves the area it's going to leave a power vacuum for which both are going to contend. Saudi Arabia is fine with the status quo because they're the 'top dog' in the region, they don't wan't Iran to extend its influence, which Iran does want to do (al-sadr in Iraq etc).
No, you didn't invade Pakistan, you went inside of their borders without their permission to take out OBL and had taken preperations to engage the Pakistani military if it were necessary. Undoubtedly Pakistan's nuclear capacity was factored into the equation before O gave the go-ahead. I'd also like to point out that having nukes isn't necessarily the be-all end-all it was 40-60 years ago, Iran doesn't really have the supporting technology to succesfully deliver one far outside their borders if they were in a conflict with the US. It would be sheer luck if they'd manage that tbh.
No, you didn't invade Pakistan, you went inside of their borders without their permission to take out OBL and had taken preperations to engage the Pakistani military if it were necessary. Undoubtedly Pakistan's nuclear capacity was factored into the equation before O gave the go-ahead. I'd also like to point out that having nukes isn't necessarily the be-all end-all it was 40-60 years ago, Iran doesn't really have the supporting technology to succesfully deliver one far outside their borders if they were in a conflict with the US. It would be sheer luck if they'd manage that tbh.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-28 12:11:40)
inane little opines
The U.S. isn't ever going to leave the area. And if we somehow manage to stop existing, one of the other two pillars of power (China, Rus) will fill in where we aren't. I don't see a world where were there isn't some overarching power in the middle east. There isn't going to be a reality where Iran and Saudi Arabia are allowed to fight it out without someone big getting involved for one side or the other.
Pakistan had given us carte blanche in northern Pakistan. We were allowed to blow up their citizens without giving any advanced notice to the Pakistan government. They were fine with that. No one would have cared if we blew up a jet some a random base commander sent up. Invading Pakistan or fighting the U.S. isn't on the agenda for either country.
I wouldn't under estimate their ability to deliver missiles outside of their border. Are you an expert on Iranian military technology? I'm not but I still have a feeling they can deliver at least one over the border.
Not a huge area between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Pakistan had given us carte blanche in northern Pakistan. We were allowed to blow up their citizens without giving any advanced notice to the Pakistan government. They were fine with that. No one would have cared if we blew up a jet some a random base commander sent up. Invading Pakistan or fighting the U.S. isn't on the agenda for either country.
I wouldn't under estimate their ability to deliver missiles outside of their border. Are you an expert on Iranian military technology? I'm not but I still have a feeling they can deliver at least one over the border.
Not a huge area between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
What could they possibly target if they wanted to retaliate against a US invasion?
Anything aimed at the oil states would have to fly over the gulf which means trying to pass carrier groups, good luck.
The other target is Israel which is just too far away and for which you'd have to go over Iraq, which would probably be another staging ground for US troops. Good luck on that front as well.
Hitting US forces themselves is, I reckon, also out of the question.
I am by no means an expert or knowledgeable on Iranian military tech but I do know that their aviation tech is rather outdated in part thanks to the embargo you have on the country in it. They have so far unsuccesfully tested ICBM missiles and if I can believe analysts on the matter their capabilities in this respect aren't very impressive. Considering they as of yet haven't attained any nuclear weapons either chances are the first ones may be too large to fit on them anyway.
With 'leave the area' I meant physically and return to your observing role rather than the actively participating one you have now. The rest of the world may not sit by idly were saudi arabia to confront Iran militarily or vice versa, though they may be less inclined to do so were one of the two states in possession of nuclear weapons tech.
Anyway, besides Saudi Arabia not liking them Iran is also surrounded by states in possession of nuclear weapons (Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia). The US right now is one of them though I very much doubt this is the driving factor in their quest for this capability.
and on the topic of;
Anything aimed at the oil states would have to fly over the gulf which means trying to pass carrier groups, good luck.
The other target is Israel which is just too far away and for which you'd have to go over Iraq, which would probably be another staging ground for US troops. Good luck on that front as well.
Hitting US forces themselves is, I reckon, also out of the question.
I am by no means an expert or knowledgeable on Iranian military tech but I do know that their aviation tech is rather outdated in part thanks to the embargo you have on the country in it. They have so far unsuccesfully tested ICBM missiles and if I can believe analysts on the matter their capabilities in this respect aren't very impressive. Considering they as of yet haven't attained any nuclear weapons either chances are the first ones may be too large to fit on them anyway.
With 'leave the area' I meant physically and return to your observing role rather than the actively participating one you have now. The rest of the world may not sit by idly were saudi arabia to confront Iran militarily or vice versa, though they may be less inclined to do so were one of the two states in possession of nuclear weapons tech.
Anyway, besides Saudi Arabia not liking them Iran is also surrounded by states in possession of nuclear weapons (Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia). The US right now is one of them though I very much doubt this is the driving factor in their quest for this capability.
and on the topic of;
Saddam never really made much sense, I recommend you look up his activities and ambitions in the nuclear field. God knows why he wanted them.Macbeth wrote:
Even though Iraq building nuclear weapons didn't make any sense from the Iraqi standpoint. That has been demonstrated by the amount of nuclear weapons we found in Iraq.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-28 12:54:41)
inane little opines
I get the feeling you think the U.S. military is omnipotent.
As far as the leaving part. We haven't entered recently
We have always been actively involved. Even if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan we will still have a military presence in the area that goes far beyond an observing role.
Well could you fill me in on his nuclear weapons work post desert storm?
As far as the leaving part. We haven't entered recently
We have always been actively involved. Even if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan we will still have a military presence in the area that goes far beyond an observing role.
Well could you fill me in on his nuclear weapons work post desert storm?
There wasn't any, though your post implied he never sought after them.Macbeth wrote:
Well could you fill me in on his nuclear weapons work post desert storm?
Not at all, I'm basing my response on the fact that in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan no enemy missile or air asset was ever allowed anywhere close a US carrier or air base. My assumption is that in a conflict with Iran it'd be the same.Macbeth wrote:
I get the feeling you think the U.S. military is omnipotent.
Not at all comparable to the degree of involvement you've had now and in the past 10 years. Many of those bases have been created in that timeperiod btw, who says all or even most of them will remain intact after you're completely gone from Iraq/Afgh?Macbeth wrote:
We have always been actively involved. Even if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan we will still have a military presence in the area that goes far beyond an observing role.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-28 13:05:43)
inane little opines
They are essentially saying the same thing European and GCC leaders have been saying: diplomacy by itself isn't working. They need motivation to come to the negotiating table. It's called coercive diplomacy, and it's quite common.Shocking wrote:
I don't think anyone would misunderstand your position if you were to say 'military options are still on the table'. I have a problem with the way they choose to say this because if they're actually being sincere, the emphasis seems to be on threat and coercion, which makes me seriously question the candidates' competence regarding foreign policy. That particular approach worked so well during the Bush administration the US's international standing has dropped to a historic low and will stay there for at least another 10 years to come.FEOS wrote:
It's the difference between being a candidate and being the office-holder. The latter has far more responsibility and need to be concerned about "how they say something," because they are speaking as the President. One expects candidates to be more frank in their language so that everyone clearly understands their position.
If they're however simply catering to the voters by having a dickwaving contest it's a great way to enter office having said outrageous shit like 'I will bomb X country' and 'I will cheer when Castro dies'. The candidate that won can go and spend his entire first term trying to clean up after his mess (if at all possible) and apologize for the utter shit he's been spouting during the campaign. It is extremely irresponsible.
Yes, I'm sure. The rest of the world cheers on the democrat candidate because they are more like the rest of the world...or at least act like they want to be. But on foreign policy, they aren't that much different.You sure about that? It's not for no reason that the rest of the world is almost always cheering on the democrat candidate. They're usually much less 'outspoken' in their foreign policy stances. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people will agree with Fidel when he said this:FEOS wrote:
It's not a republican/democrat thing.not related but I laughed heartily when I heard Romney went to France to try and convert the wine-loving, english-language-hating (especially American English), chauvinist, fiercely catholic French to mormonism.“The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is — and I mean this seriously — the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.”
And Romney had no choice where he went on his mission. The church chooses that for them.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
My post was referring to activities post '91. Any sort of regional ambition Saddam had after that was stopped in it's tracks completely from there on.Shocking wrote:
There wasn't any, though your post implied he never sought after them.Macbeth wrote:
Well could you fill me in on his nuclear weapons work post desert storm?Not at all, I'm basing my response on the fact that in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan no enemy missile or air asset was ever allowed anywhere close a US carrier or air base. My assumption is that in a conflict with Iran it'd be the same.Macbeth wrote:
I get the feeling you think the U.S. military is omnipotent.Not at all comparable to the degree of involvement you've had now and in the past 10 years.Macbeth wrote:
We have always been actively involved. Even if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan we will still have a military presence in the area that goes far beyond an observing role.
Libya was in a state of civil war. Afghanistan too. Iraq's military was corroded from Saddam's pilfering. I would be willing to bet money on the Iranians having a better military than Iraq did.
So I take you agree with my assertions that Iran is nervous about American military actions in the middle east then?Shocking wrote:
Not at all comparable to the degree of involvement you've had now and in the past 10 years.Macbeth wrote:
We have always been actively involved. Even if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan we will still have a military presence in the area that goes far beyond an observing role.
Last edited by Macbeth (2012-01-28 13:11:59)
Essentially the same though the message and emphasis is different.FEOS wrote:
They are essentially saying the same thing European and GCC leaders have been saying: diplomacy by itself isn't working. They need motivation to come to the negotiating table. It's called coercive diplomacy, and it's quite common.
let's make a comparison... person A says to person B:
1. I don't like you
or
2. You're a cunt
Essentially the same though it has a different effect don't you reckon.
I wasn't the one crying warmongers anyway though so let's just leave it at that.
Essentially, no.FEOS wrote:
Yes, I'm sure. The rest of the world cheers on the democrat candidate because they are more like the rest of the world...or at least act like they want to be. But on foreign policy, they aren't that much different.
Ah well, it was funny though. I can scarcely imagine the amount of abuse that must've been hurled at him .FEOS wrote:
And Romney had no choice where he went on his mission. The church chooses that for them.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-28 13:20:57)
inane little opines
Never denied it, though I don't see it as being the driving factor in their nuclear ambitions. 'Little' may have been a poor word to use regardless.Macbeth wrote:
So I take you agree with my assertions that Iran is nervous about American military actions in the middle east then?
They weren't capable of touching aforementioned targets in their Kuwait campaign either, really, I don't see it as likely that Iran would fare better, but as I've said I am neither an expert nor knowledgeable so between us let's just say it's an unanswerable hypothetical.Macbeth wrote:
Libya was in a state of civil war. Afghanistan too. Iraq's military was corroded from Saddam's pilfering. I would be willing to bet money on the Iranians having a better military than Iraq did.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-28 13:28:00)
inane little opines
Well okay.Shocking wrote:
'Little' may have been a poor word to use regardless.
Can you give me karma now?
BS - They were labelled 'The Axis of Evil' when they had done nothing whatever, Bush clearly signalled his intention to attack them some time in the future.Shocking wrote:
Rewriting history, what? Iran is putting itself in more danger of invasion/attack by the US because of their pursuit of nuclear weapons than it would be if the country didn't pursue the tech.
Fuck Israel
Iran is the Republican boogeyman.
I'd love to hear Santorum comment on the rights of women in Saudi Arabia. Who are arguably worse off than in Iran...
If it were comparable to your analogy, that would be fine. But it's not really. Your comparison is far, far more extreme than what we're discussing.Shocking wrote:
Essentially the same though the message and emphasis is different.FEOS wrote:
They are essentially saying the same thing European and GCC leaders have been saying: diplomacy by itself isn't working. They need motivation to come to the negotiating table. It's called coercive diplomacy, and it's quite common.
let's make a comparison... person A says to person B:
1. I don't like you
or
2. You're a cunt
Essentially the same though it has a different effect don't you reckon.
I wasn't the one crying warmongers anyway though so let's just leave it at that.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Out of all of the "Axis of Evil" exactly how many have been attacked by the US?Dilbert_X wrote:
BS - They were labelled 'The Axis of Evil' when they had done nothing whatever, Bush clearly signalled his intention to attack them some time in the future.Shocking wrote:
Rewriting history, what? Iran is putting itself in more danger of invasion/attack by the US because of their pursuit of nuclear weapons than it would be if the country didn't pursue the tech.
One. And everyone knew that was coming when he said that.
And your assertion that Iran "had done nothing whatever" flies in the face of fact. State supporter of terrorism. That was the basis of the "Axis of Evil": known state supporters of terrorism. It's not like he picked some random countries out of a hat.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
He doesn't even believe the rights of women should include the right to an abortion.Spearhead wrote:
I'd love to hear Santorum comment on the rights of women in Saudi Arabia. Who are arguably worse off than in Iran...
Which, aside from voting, is really the only measure by which you can judge 'womens rights'. Iran bans abortion. So does Saudi Arabia. So do the Taliban.AussieReaper wrote:
He doesn't even believe the rights of women should include the right to an abortion.Spearhead wrote:
I'd love to hear Santorum comment on the rights of women in Saudi Arabia. Who are arguably worse off than in Iran...
Never underestimate the power of nationalist, jingoist thugs to co-opt democracy and kill each other -- at the expense of everyone else. Even if they live on opposite sides of the planet.