Do you really think we'll invade Iran anytime soon? I just don't believe it'll happen. Besides, we're barely on the verge to begin with. A couple training exercises with the Israelis is hardly anything new. There's no doubt Obama will waste his time with UN if we actually do attack it, just like Bush did, and attacking a large populous nation with a lot of mountains like Iran in the fall is silly. I'm 99% certain there will be no war with Iran for at minimum 2012.
again, here we are 9 years after the failure of iraq talking about bombing a country which has not done anything to us and we have meddled in for almost 60 years. and ron paul supporters are crazy?
Iran just threatened to close the strait of hormuz, and europe is embargoing all iranian oil. Iran also tested a missile designed to reach israel and maybe europe, for which the entire missile defense in israel thing is a response. If we are doing anything to 'artifically create' a war with Iran by having defense exercises with israel, iran (and people like the french who normally hate american hegamony) seem awfuly willing to help do their part to make it happen.
i dont know about invasion, but we have been threatening to bomb them and many including yourself are now advocating it. i just find this stance to be totally insane. what do you think is going to happen if we bomb them? you think that will be the end of it - iran will not try to strike back? invade iran? afghanistan? do you think other countries like china or russia would not be drawn in? imo, our military (ground troops) would most certainly be drawn in as a result of any bombing campaign.
you know i got love for my crackers in circle c - i was responding to your comment that you like making iran nervous. like i said, we have been making them nervous for 60 years. and if yall remember, it was tehran that held candlelight vigils on 9/11 while people were dancing in the streets in cairo, palestine and saudi arabia (you know, our buddies who produced 15 of the 19 hijackers!).
We must bomb Iran fast. Just look at these horrifying images from crazy Iran: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/98j0I7e5OHE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> SEND IN THE DRONES!!!!!!!! ***This endorsement of drones bought to you by this 4-year-old girl who had the good fortune to watch these things in action.
I have absolutely nothing against the people of Iran. As I said in my previous post, I got to know some Iranian students, pre-revolution, and they were just, you know, students. Students who were excited, and a bit nervous, about coming to Houston to study at an American university. And while we've been "making them nervous" to one degree or another since the 1950's, with some justification, their serious efforts the last several years to build atomic weapons is extremely dangerous, both to the surrounding region, and to our own national interests. Why are they dangerous? Putting aside adding to the world's atomic arsenal, something we should be reducing, not spreading across the planet, their government is a mad theocracy, brutal to their own people, and actively spreading violence through surrogates in the Middle East, in both Iraq and Lebanon, and not just there. That regime is a serious threat both to the region, and to world stability. While I don't want to invade Iran, and frankly don't see it happening, they very well may be putting themselves in the crosshairs of a massive conventional air and naval strike by their own actions. If that happens, it will be a tragedy for the Iranian people, and many other people in the region, but it will have been brought about by an extremist government bent on having atomic weapons, a government without a conscious, a government capable of anything. And yes, a government one hell of a lot worse than our own.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XtVvza-ex2s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
How much responsibility should be placed on the party that is making the other feel threatened, where they feel the need to obtain WMD to feel safe? I think its safe to say that if the Iraq invasion was quick, Syria and Iran would have been next. IMO, I believe its quite obvious that having nuclear weapons makes it less likely anyone will invade you, at least they'll think twice or thrice about it. Give Saudi and Iran WMD and call it even, that's the way to go IMO.
Deckard summed it up, but still i have no doubt Iran will do things. Irrelevant. Them having nuclear weapons is not in our interests. That's all that matters, and whether they're civilized enough to handle a candlelight vigil or whatever is also irrelevant. Yeah, they want nuclear weapons. I can understand the Iranians wanting to have nuclear weapons - it helps them. But that doesn't matter. And the Saudis? Good god, the LAST thing we want are them to have nukes. The reason we don't want the Iranians to have nuclear weapons isn't because they'll threaten us. It's because a nuclear arms race? In the Middle East? What could possibly go wrong?
and if they ever do anything to us we totally would destroy them. but until then we have absolutely no justification for attacking them. and if they ever attack israel they are perfectly capable of totally destroying iran in minutes w/out our help. to the point of going to war over it? there are lots of counties in the world that do things that are not in our interests, but we dont go around bombing them and killing their people. and how do yall think the iranian people would react to us preemptively attacking them? from a PR standpoint, it would be the best thing we could do for their very unpopular leaders as it would rally the people behind them. we would actually be strengthening the regimes hold on the iranian people.
What part of "I am absolutely, totally opposed to a military invasion of Iran" and "I would actually support destroying their nuclear sites with an air strike if it was possible, but everything I've read indicates it isn't" did you miss? If we could destroy Iran's nukes with a bombing campaign, I would do it. But I don't believe we can, and I'm not willing to invade Iran. So we'll just do sanctions, international pressure, and everything short of war to make sure they don't get it. That's what I believe. Which is more important, making sure the theocratic regime doesn't have nukes, or the domestic popular support of said regime? I'd argue the former.
It seems the US looks out more for Israeli interests than it does for its own interests. Those billions of tax dollars that go to the Israeli regime every year should be going to help America and the people here in this country. No Micky D's in Iran = Time to Bomb Iran? I really do wonder if the US plans to export more "democracy" to the Middle East like they did so wonderfully in Iraq starting in 2003, in Egypt from the 1980s onward, and in Iran back in 1953. The people of the region are just so ungrateful. With that said, I think the Israel lobby is playing a big role in driving the confrontation and possible conflict between the US and Iran. Both sides (Iran and the US) need to tone down their belligerency to deescalate tensions and actually try engagement. The US also can't let Israel and the Israeli lobby try to sabotage negotiations as they'll inevitably try to do. But another problem is that the US is asking Iran to give up a lot and if they don't the West will portray diplomacy as a "failure" thereby giving strength to the voices (neocons, liberal interventionists, right-wing Christian fundamentalists, Zionists, etc...) that want war. What kind of concessions is the West willing to give in return? Suspending and lifting sanctions isn't really a concession, because the West isn't giving up anything. Maybe a security guarantee? Iran is definitely in the weaker position, but I think there are levels of survival that any government (see Zimbabwe) is willing to accept and I don't think the Iranian regime is any different. Sanctions are not going to hurt the Iranian government no matter how "smart" they are, it's only the people like those in the video above that are going to be negatively impacted. The example of Iraq also demonstrated that sanctions as a coercive tool to put more pressure on the government by ruining the economy and trashing the standard of living of regular folks so that they hopefully but enough pressure on the government to bring about reform and even regime change is bogus. Also, the example of Libya shows that no matter what certain regimes do, the West will never be satisfied unless there is regime change. Gaddafi bent over backwards for the West and gave them everything they wanted and look what happened to him. I don't buy the 'he was slaughtering his own people so we had to do something' excuse, because other countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Congo, Angola, Bahrain, and so on have or are currently doing the same and in some of those examples not only was the West silent and did nothing, but they enabled the perpetrators. I really don't see an incentive for Iran to make major concessions unless they can get security guarantees, which I don't think the West is willing to give, because they want to see regime change. Yeah, all the ongoing overt, covert, and economic warfare being perpetrated chiefly by the US against Iran is entirely non-confrontational and highly stabilizing.
