# Will we bomb Iran?



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Have your say!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Whaddaya mean "we", white man? *I* sure ain't going to.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Didn't even know we had a military, does couchie run it?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Yes. Make yourself useful and get me some plutonium.



quack said:


> Didn't even know we had a military, does couchie run it?


Nope. It's run by the leader of the Whippersnappers--me.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I hope it never happens. A very stupid decision if it does.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> I hope it never happens. A very stupid decision if it does.


There was discussion of it on Britain's 'flag-ship political bitch-fest' Question Time last week, and the conservatives - assuring us that Iran is _insane_ - used _exactly_ the same rhetoric as they did with Iraq. Their retort was the mighty, "we might be right this time."


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I find the idea disgusting to contemplate. It would be such a horrendous waste of life and resources, and the utter destruction I find repulsive. I also think it's downright racist. Lots of brown people in these countries that have been bombed.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

I assume you mean we as in NATO countries. Iran may have a crazy leader but there is no reason for any country to waste time or money trying to change the course of events in the Middle East. Look what has happened in Iraq and Afganistan and where we are now. Whether the outcome from the wars was good or bad it put a huge strain on the economy. That is a mistake no one should repeat.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

If the only other option is invasion, I'd prefer a stealthy slap now and then. The chance of a war is extremely low. Too many poor folk owe China.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

War in general is a mistake no one should repeat anywhere or any time.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The thing is, it's not a mistake at all. It's a deliberate and foolhardy decision.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Best guess: Israel will bomb Iran. There is no way they can or will allow Iran to go nuclear. WE (the US, Britain, most of the EU, even China and Russia) will publicly act outraged. We'll call for official UN condemnations of their actions (but of course the US will veto any actual consequences being imposed). Behind the scenes WE'LL all be congratulating Israel on a job well done and for doing our dirty work for us.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Best guess: Israel will bomb Iran. There is no way they can or will allow Iran to go nuclear. WE (the US, Britain, most of the EU, even China and Russia) will publicly act outraged. We'll call for official UN condemnations of their actions (but of course the US will veto any actual consequences being imposed). Behind the scenes WE'LL all be congratulating Israel on a job well done and for doing our dirty work for us.


According to one Israeli news site they are planning to attack Iran before summer, but are hoping that US will decide to lead the military operation. So I guess your scenario is the most possible. 
But it seems that Israel will be devastated by doing so. They will just bring more war upon themselves from their neighbours and I doubt they will stop Iran from going nuclear. They will have to fight many fronts if they decide to attack, and they will drag others (US, NATO) into that as well.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

If the above is true, are we heading towards another world war?


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

I say it's the west's moral duty to invide Iran.

a) to remove the regime. If the people want the regime, they can put it back right after it's been checked that they want it
b) to stop a religious state from acquiring a nuclear weapon
c) to safeguard the oil supply.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

*NO. NOT EVER.​*


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Rasa said:


> I say it's the west's moral duty to invide Iran.
> 
> a) to remove the regime. If the people want the regime, they can put it back right after it's been checked that they want it
> b) to stop a religious state from acquiring a nuclear weapon
> c) to safeguard the oil supply.


This is stupid.

(I learned this argument in debate class)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/can-obama-prevail-against-a-romney-netanyahu-ticket-robertson.html

According to this, Obama might have to bomb Iran....

Imagine that: we could bomb a country in order to prevent the Commander-in-Chief's electoral opponent from appealing to religious conservatives. That is democracy in America.

And we worry that voters in Egypt might choose badly.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The title of one of Chris Hedges's books describes this scenario perfectly.

Empire Of Illusion:The End Of Literacy And The Triumph Of Spectacle

No appeal to reason.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> I find the idea disgusting to contemplate. It would be such a horrendous waste of life and resources, and the utter destruction I find repulsive. I also think it's downright racist. Lots of brown people in these countries that have been bombed.


That's fundamentally apparent in the rhetoric, when they say that "we must consider attacking them because _Iran_ has threatened to attack its neighbours" when 'Iran' - here meaning all those brown people - is wrongly replacing the names of a handful of Iranian politicians.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

According to one Israeli news site they are planning to attack Iran before summer, but are hoping that US will decide to lead the military operation. So I guess your scenario is the most possible. 
But it seems that Israel will be devastated by doing so. They will just bring more war upon themselves from their neighbours and I doubt they will stop Iran from going nuclear. They will have to fight many fronts if they decide to attack, and they will drag others (US, NATO) into that as well.

I doubt it would be devastating to Israel. As I read somewhere over a year ago when this very topic was being discussed, a good many theorize that if the US actually decided to stop supporting Israel and turned their back on the whole situation the end result would be that Israel would be five times its current size within six months.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Originally Posted by Rasa 
I say it's the west's moral duty to invide Iran.

a) to remove the regime. If the people want the regime, they can put it back right after it's been checked that they want it
b) to stop a religious state from acquiring a nuclear weapon
c) to safeguard the oil supply.

This is stupid.

(I learned this argument in debate class)

For the sake of argument... what are the alternatives? Are we truly prepared to accept the notion that every nation... even those run by religious fanatics... should be allowed to build a nuclear arsenal? Boycotts only harm the poor population as a whole, not the leaders. As for oil... it is popular to portray the notion of waging war over oil as something that only greedy capitalists would support... but just how willing are you to really go without oil? How are you planning on getting to work? Heat your home? Deliver the food and other goods that are necessities... let alone non-necessities such as the cheap computers you are using shipped from Japan, China and the rest of Asia? Yes... we should be investigating alternative energy sources. We should have been doing this long ago. But we are dealing with the reality of our current situation.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

No nation should be allowed to build a nuclear arsenal, it sickens me to think that people I'm supposed to count among my fellows could even conceive of such a weapon as the nuclear bomb.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Crudblud said:


> No nation should be allowed to build a nuclear arsenal, it sickens me to think that people I'm supposed to count among my fellows could even conceive of such a weapon as the nuclear bomb.


The difficult question is that your ideal world doesn't exist, so in this world where people of all kinds can amass a nuclear arsenal, what do the "good guys" do about the nutjobs?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Well if the "good guys" didn't have so many nukes, then maybe the "nutjobs" wouln't feel such a strong compulsion to defend themselves by means of the same weapons.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I think nuclear weapons are useful as a deterrent, but only as a deterrent, I think indiscriminate slaughter should only ever be an option when there is literally no other. That said, I don't think one of these nutjobs cares if the western nations have nukes; if they launch one at us their action is just, if we launch one at them they're a martyr for their cause. Unless I'm missing something (I'm fully prepared to look stupid here), we don't really have any leverage in that kind of situation.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I highly doubt the launching of a nuclear weapon at the US would be viewed as a commendable action by anyone in the world with the exception of religious fanatics. One could argue that Britain and the US sowed the seeds for the current regime in Iran.
Doing some reading on the history of foreign policy can help piece the puzzle together.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> For the sake of argument... what are the alternatives? Are we truly prepared to accept the notion that every nation... even those run by religious fanatics... should be allowed to build a nuclear arsenal?


Look at that "be allowed" passive voice, and the assumptions it contains.

I'm personally as prepared to live in a world where Iran has nuclear weapons as I am to live in a world where Israel and the US decide who "is allowed" to have them.

It's not like Iran is so much worse than Pakistan and North Korea. The logic of Mutually Assured Destruction will apply as it does everywhere else, even if Iran's bomb leads Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to arm themselves similarly.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> According to one Israeli news site they are planning to attack Iran before summer, but are hoping that US will decide to lead the military operation. So I guess your scenario is the most possible.
> But it seems that Israel will be devastated by doing so. They will just bring more war upon themselves from their neighbours and I doubt they will stop Iran from going nuclear. They will have to fight many fronts if they decide to attack, and they will drag others (US, NATO) into that as well.
> 
> I doubt it would be devastating to Israel. As I read somewhere over a year ago when this very topic was being discussed, a good many theorize that if the US actually decided to stop supporting Israel and turned their back on the whole situation the end result would be that Israel would be five times its current size within six months.


What is that supposed to mean? You say that Israel is being held by the US from conquering all the middle-east? 
I doubt that Israel has any intentions to expand their territory, and where would they expand? And certainly - how? Attacking one of their neighbours without the support of US is pretty much suicide. Yes, in the past they did manage to stand alone, but times have changed. 
Besides, US hasn't been supporting what Israel has been doing in the Gaza territory for the past year.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Well if the "good guys" didn't have so many nukes, then maybe the "nutjobs" wouln't feel such a strong compulsion to defend themselves by means of the same weapons.

A commendable ideal... but we don't live in a world of ideals.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I highly doubt the launching of a nuclear weapon at the US would be viewed as a commendable action by anyone in the world with the exception of religious fanatics.

Whether it is commendable is largely irrelevant. What matters is a recognition that such as action is clearly suicidal... and that doesn't seem to matter to certain brands of fanatic (religious or otherwise) who either believe that through God (or moral superiority, or some other power) they will prevail... or simply don't care that such an action is suicidal. The nuclear deterrent works like a Mexican showdown. Both sides recognize that if they pull their gun they will end up as dead as their opponent. Both the US and the Soviets realized this and were not willing to pay the price. It is not clear that North Korea or Iran or certain other states have the same recognition of reality.

One could argue that Britain and the US sowed the seeds for the current regime in Iran.
Doing some reading on the history of foreign policy can help piece the puzzle together.

It could be argued that the policies of the allies, especially Britain and France, following the First World War sowed the seeds for the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich. Should the world have simply wrung its hands with guilt and allowed for German expansion?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Look at that "be allowed" passive voice, and the assumptions it contains.

I'm personally as prepared to live in a world where Iran has nuclear weapons as I am to live in a world where Israel and the US decide who "is allowed" to have them.

It's not like Iran is so much worse than Pakistan and North Korea. The logic of Mutually Assured Destruction will apply as it does everywhere else, even if Iran's bomb leads Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to arm themselves similarly.

The political logic of a third grader... no... actually most third graders are not stupid enough to believe in some Egalitarian fantasy-world in which you allow your rivals every advantage. We allow the police force to walk about armed. Ideally no one should need to be armed, but we're not talking ideals here. The Egalitarian fantasy argues that if one person is to be armed, then everyone should be armed. What does this result in in reality? The old American West and in some cases the Modern American mean streets. Is this really the safest possible solution? Do you really have the slightest idea what a dangerous game you are arguing for? France, Britain, China, Russia (and some other ex-Soviet states) and the US are nuclear superpowers. The ex-Soviet States and the US hold stockpiles numbering in the thousands or warheads of the largest payload capabilities and have the arsenal capable of delivering these with pin-point accuracy. The more nations that develop nuclear the more likely it is that one of these will end up used against a target in the US, China, Russia, or the US. What do you think the response will be? A measured careful retaliation after long debate among the leaders and in the press?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

What is that supposed to mean? You say that Israel is being held by the US from conquering all the middle-east?

The US is playing both sides here. They need Israel as a secure base in the Middle-East and they continue to support Israel in order to placate the large, loud, and powerful Jewish population in the US (second is size only to that of Israel... and not by much). At the same time, the US is dependent upon the constant flow of "cheap" oil and as a result needs to placate the Arab states and not appear to be wholly in bed with the Israelis.

I doubt that Israel has any intentions to expand their territory, and where would they expand?

Israel has continued to expand since its inception as a nation. Surrounded by enemies, a buffer zone is greatly to be desired. Since when in history have nations of greater military power not employed this advantage to seize land of weaker neighbors?

And certainly - how?

How? You can't really be serious can you.

Attacking one of their neighbours without the support of US is pretty much suicide. Yes, in the past they did manage to stand alone, but times have changed.

In what way have times changed? Israel operates one of the most sophisticated and deadly intelligence and para-military groups in the world. Or perhaps you believe it was the Boy Scouts carrying out the assassinations of Iranian nuclear researchers? Is real has one of the largest, most sophisticated, and most battle-trained military forces in the world. They are the only nation in the world with a fully operational anti-ballistic missile defense system on the national level that includes the "Iron Dome" system of anti-missile rockets as well as an operational tactical high energy laser system. Their armor, naval, and air-force are equipped at a level far superior to that of their neighbors. Beyond the United States, the Israeli military maintains close ties with that of India, France, Britain, Germany, China, Greece, etc...

All this ignores the fact that Israel is quite likely armed with nuclear weapons in spite of maintaining a policy of "nuclear ambiguity". Israel started investigating the nuclear field soon after its founding in 1948 and with French support secretly began building a nuclear reactor and reprocessing plant in the late 1950s. Although Israel first built a nuclear weapon in the late 1960s, it was not publicly confirmed from the inside until Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli nuclear technician, revealed details of the program to the British press in 1986.
Israel is currently believed to possess between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads with the ability to deliver them by intercontinental ballistic missile, aircraft, and submarine.

I doubt Israel would be the one to make the first move in attacking its neighbors, however I have little doubt that if provoked or attacked the Israelis would be more than capable of defending themselves and would have little concern for the ramifications perceived overkill that plagues most Western military considerations.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The nuclear deterrent works like a Mexican showdown. Both sides recognize that if they pull their gun they will end up as dead as their opponent. Both the US and the Soviets realized this and were not willing to pay the price. It is not clear that North Korea or Iran or certain other states have the same recognition of reality.
> 
> 
> It could be argued that the policies of the allies, especially Britain and France, following the First World War sowed the seeds for the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich. Should the world have simply wrung its hands with guilt and allowed for German expansion?




Oh, I'm sure they have the same recognition of reality. Those governments are not going to launch a nuclear missile at the US mainland. Now terrorist groups? That's another story.

As for the second part, I'm just making a point. What goes around comes around. I don't need to listen to my government talking crap like we need to bring democracy to the middle east. Iran had a democratically elected president and he was removed in a coup organized by Britain and the US. Now they have to deal with Muslim hardliners. So much for short term gains.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

It's double standards that is the elephant in the room, as per usual with these things.

As _science_ suggests here -



science said:


> ...
> It's not like Iran is so much worse than Pakistan and North Korea...


...if they bomb Iran, they should do the same with Pakistan and North Korea. But they won't for reasons of realpolitik. Pakistan is a buddy of the USA in it's fight on terrorism, and North Korea is like a basket case, a gordian knot. Even if it were "liberated" or whatever, it would take decades to recover. Think Marshall Aid X1000, something like that. Not worth it financially, & it's always the dollars that matter (eg. I don't think it has resources like oil, etc.).

I think the USA is bitter that they lost control of Iran when the Shah was deposed by the Islamic Revolution there of 1979. They installed the Shah, who was a dictator, but a secular one (so acceptable to Uncle Sam), after ousting the last democratic leader of Iran, Mossadegh in 1953, who wanted to nationalise infrastructure (including oil), like Nasser of Egypt had done (which prompted the UK and France to bomb Egypt in 1956, the Suez Canal Crisis). The USA and other Western powers are experts in formenting division in the Middle East (& elsewhere, of course). Has anyone seen the film_ Lawrence of Arabia_, which talks strongly to these issues? Divide and conquer is the word.

Think of history, folks. It's all about realpolitik and the bottom line. This whole thing stinks of double standards.

The ultimate aim is to take over and put "their man" in power in these kinds of places. I don't argue that the regime in Iran is angelic or without blemish. What I'm saying is there are always ulterior motives in these kinds of things.

If the USA had left Mossadegh in power in 1953 and not backed a coup to unseat him and destroy Iranian democracy, Iran may well still be democratic. But nobody cares about this, it's long over. Of course, the "reality" is that democracy is not doable or realistic in the Middle East because they're all a bunch of terrorists or whatever, rubbish cliches of that sort.

I think the solution is diplomacy and through channels like the UN, imperfect and frustrating as they often are. It's not good to shoot first and ask questions later, it never is...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Diplomacy is not good for the weapons business. America needs enemies to justify the obscene military budget. Presidents need to look tough and threatening, and launching military strikes against the feared others in this world makes the simple minded feel superior and secure, so they can go back to watching football and wrestling.

It's the same charade during every presidential election. The republicans make promises to the fearful that they will be safer if we get rid of the democrats. I wonder how safe those 16 million Americans feel who have lost their jobs and homes now that the country is bankrupt? So I guess the solution must be to start another war???


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

starthrower said:


> Diplomacy is not good for the weapons business. *America needs enemies to justify the obscene military budget.* Presidents need to look tough and threatening, and launching military strikes against the feared others in this world makes the simple minded feel superior and secure, so they can go back to watching football and wrestling...


Yeah, what I put in bold above talks somewhat to what they used to call "gunboat diplomacy," eg. diplomacy with threat of military force, which is no diplomacy at all, or it's a distorted kind of diplomacy.



> ...I wonder how safe those 16 million Americans feel who have lost their jobs and homes now that the country is bankrupt? ...


Just heard on the radio this morning that one of our major banks is doing a huge "downsize," eg. a massive sacking of staff. Despite the record profits the big banks here are making, plus making us pay more and more fees for their services, they still have the nerve to justify these kinds of actions due to some gobbledigook that I heard the spokeswoman for the bank say in the news bulletin. It's ridiculous, it's like _Alice in Wonderland_...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Yeah, what I put in bold above talks somewhat to what they used to call "gunboat diplomacy," eg. diplomacy with threat of military force, which is no diplomacy at all, or it's a distorted kind of diplomacy.


I think this is partly because the Western world sees itself as so inexorably _right_. We have the right kind of government, the right kind of people, the right kind of culture. It's _so_ right, in fact, that it doesn't really matter if we enforce it with a little bit of violence because the world needs it to spread. People don't recognise the intrinsic two-fold problem in this: first, we obviously are _not_ perfect by any measure of the word and second, any theocratic and fascist government will think _it's_ right, and so by our logic they should enforce their standards on us with violence.

The world needs a giant humble pie, and an instantaneous recognition of human fallibility. It's OK to be wrong folks, but it's even better to admit it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Agreed with the gist of that. As I said on this thread or another (forget!) I think the in the old days, politicians and governments often said it like it was, no mucking about. Eg. the Boer War (around 1900), the Brits said they're going in to take over South AFrica to grab the diamond mines. I remember reading a history book that made it quite plain that they said publicly that they were doing that war for purely economic purposes. I wish our pollies today could do the same, but it doesn't go down well now, risking lives for some ulterior motives, does it? We're supposed to be more enlightened than the British colonialists of 1900, but is that the case, or are we just shoving things under the carpet as usual?...


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> In what way have times changed? Israel operates one of the most sophisticated and deadly intelligence and para-military groups in the world. Or perhaps you believe it was the Boy Scouts carrying out the assassinations of Iranian nuclear researchers? Is real has one of the largest, most sophisticated, and most battle-trained military forces in the world. They are the only nation in the world with a fully operational anti-ballistic missile defense system on the national level that includes the "Iron Dome" system of anti-missile rockets as well as an operational tactical high energy laser system. Their armor, naval, and air-force are equipped at a level far superior to that of their neighbors. Beyond the United States, the Israeli military maintains close ties with that of India, France, Britain, Germany, China, Greece, etc...
> 
> All this ignores the fact that Israel is quite likely armed with nuclear weapons in spite of maintaining a policy of "nuclear ambiguity". Israel started investigating the nuclear field soon after its founding in 1948 and with French support secretly began building a nuclear reactor and reprocessing plant in the late 1950s. Although Israel first built a nuclear weapon in the late 1960s, it was not publicly confirmed from the inside until Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli nuclear technician, revealed details of the program to the British press in 1986.
> Israel is currently believed to possess between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads with the ability to deliver them by intercontinental ballistic missile, aircraft, and submarine.
> ...




I am aware of the strength and deadliness of the Israeli army. But even the former director of the Mossad said that an attack on Iran will trigger counter-attack from the Hamas and Hezbollah, probably Syria and Iran itself and that would be deadly. Hezbollah has about 50,000 rockets ready to launch, some can reach Tel-Aviv. Daily bombardment on the the city would paralyze Israel. Syria might not send its tanks and troops, but they poses missiles as well. Iran has got hundreds of Shahab missiles that can reach Israel. 
Apart from the attack on Israel, Iran and Hezbollash have planned attacks on Jewish targets around the globe in case of war. Even if Israel will withstand the attack they won't do much harm to Iran. They have scattered their nuclear facilities and some of them are deep underground. The best Israel can do is to bomb the entrances, which would be rebuild in no time. Also, Israel does not poses aircraft carriers so they jets would require refuel in the air, complicating the attack. 
It just seems that the attack won't do much harm and definitely won't stop Iran from producing the bomb. To stop Iran from being a threat "we" need to take down the fundamentally mad regime.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I find it odd that US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is appearing/politicing on 60 Minutes and in the Washington Post. A two-prong approach in guaging election climate, and Israel as ally?

Related article...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...Luu0_w?docId=d2662e55b0c241278909e5c1a8b51db2


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Sid James Quoted-It's double standards that is the elephant in the room, as per usual with these things.

As science suggests here -


Originally Posted by science 
...
It's not like Iran is so much worse than Pakistan and North Korea...
...if they bomb Iran, they should do the same with Pakistan and North Korea. But they won't for reasons of realpolitik. Pakistan is a buddy of the USA in it's fight on terrorism, and North Korea is like a basket case, a gordian knot. Even if it were "liberated" or whatever, it would take decades to recover. Think Marshall Aid X1000, something like that. Not worth it financially, & it's always the dollars that matter (eg. I don't think it has resources like oil, etc.).

I think the USA is bitter that they lost control of Iran when the Shah was deposed by the Islamic Revolution there of 1979. They installed the Shah, who was a dictator, but a secular one (so acceptable to Uncle Sam), after ousting the last democratic leader of Iran, Mossadegh in 1953, who wanted to nationalise infrastructure (including oil), like Nasser of Egypt had done (which prompted the UK and France to bomb Egypt in 1956, the Suez Canal Crisis). The USA and other Western powers are experts in formenting division in the Middle East (& elsewhere, of course). Has anyone seen the film Lawrence of Arabia, which talks strongly to these issues? Divide and conquer is the word.

Think of history, folks. It's all about realpolitik and the bottom line. This whole thing stinks of double standards.

Andre... you had me with you through "the elephant in the room"... and then somehow completely missed the elephant altogether. The US... and most of the Western world... has one overriding interest in the Middle east and it has nothing to do with avenging some slight felt over the loss of Iran to the Ayatollah, nor does it have to do with racism and our hatred of "brown people" (In case someone missed it, our current leader has something of a tan himself), nor does it have anything to do with righteous crusade of Christianity versus the godless heathens. The one and only concern in the Middle East worth going to war over is that of maintaining the flow of oil. It is the reason Iran is worth going to war over and Pakistan and North Korea aren't. Neither Pakistan nor North Korea are of any essential tactical or economic value. The US already maintains close ties with India and South Korea (giving them a secure foothold in the regions if needed). Neither is perceived as being of any immediate value... no threat to the US.

The ultimate aim is to take over and put "their man" in power in these kinds of places. 

To sit back and take a smug or holier-than-thou view of world politics simply smacks of either naïveté or hypocrisy... especially when one is just as fully dependent and delighted with the results. How many of those who moan of poor working conditions in sweat shops in Latin-America and Asia are willing to give up their access to cheap clothing and cheap computers? How many are willing to surrender their access to cheap oil? The US is the villain because they have the power to impose their will over other nations, but how many other nations willingly accept the benefits of a continued flow of oil from the Middle East? Is Australia really ready to surrender that?

I don't argue that the regime in Iran is angelic or without blemish. What I'm saying is there are always ulterior motives in these kinds of things.

If the USA had left Mossadegh in power in 1953 and not backed a coup to unseat him and destroy Iranian democracy, Iran may well still be democratic. But nobody cares about this, it's long over. Of course, the "reality" is that democracy is not doable or realistic in the Middle East because they're all a bunch of terrorists or whatever, rubbish cliches of that sort.

Again, I doubt anyone but the most naive buy into talk of "democritization". Everyone knows the real reason for the continued military intervention in the Middle east over the last 100 years. If the oil dried up tomorrow, the region would return to a dried up dessert of little interest to anyone in the world.

I think the solution is diplomacy and through channels like the UN, imperfect and frustrating as they often are. It's not good to shoot first and ask questions later, it never is...

The solution to what? Control of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Come on... the idea of the UN is great: a universal police force funded by all the nations of planet. The reality of the UN is that it is a sadly laughable and impotent entity. The military forces of any number of nations besides that of the US can put the UN to shame. Without the ability to enforce its dictates, the UN in powerless. On an international scale the UN reminds me of the political realities of feudal Europe. The idea of an all-powerful emperor maintaining peace and harmony through an Imperial military and Imperial police was the ideal... but the reality was that certain smaller feudal states and duchys, etc... Florence, Milan, Venice, France, etc... were far more powerful than the Imperial forces.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Diplomacy is not good for the weapons business. America needs enemies to justify the obscene military budget. Presidents need to look tough and threatening, and launching military strikes against the feared others in this world makes the simple minded feel superior and secure, so they can go back to watching football and wrestling.

Of course. Orwell had it right... but the Romans maintained control and power through similar means for centuries: Bread and Circuses and a constant threat from the outside.

It's the same charade during every presidential election. The republicans make promises to the fearful that they will be safer if we get rid of the democrats. I wonder how safe those 16 million Americans feel who have lost their jobs and homes now that the country is bankrupt? So I guess the solution must be to start another war???

Part of the problem is the illusion that in the past it was war that pulled us out of such economic turmoils... as in the instance of WWII bringing about an end to the Great Depression. Of course this was brought about also through great austerity measures and programs of government aid such as the WPA that involved responsibilities on the part of the recipient that went beyond today's notion of an entitlement... or a free hand-out. This turn-around was also brought about by the destruction of the industrial capabilities of most of the developed world, leaving the US as the sole economic manufacturing superpower.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think this is partly because the Western world sees itself as so inexorably right. We have the right kind of government, the right kind of people, the right kind of culture. It's so right, in fact, that it doesn't really matter if we enforce it with a little bit of violence because the world needs it to spread. 

Perhaps the populace buys into such a notion... or rather is sold such an idea. Most governments... most anyone in power... believes something far simpler: Might makes Right.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...The US... and most of the Western world... has one overriding interest in the Middle east and it has nothing to do with avenging some slight felt over the loss of Iran to the Ayatollah...The one and only concern in the Middle East worth going to war over is that of maintaining the flow of oil. It is the reason Iran is worth going to war over and Pakistan and North Korea aren't...


Well, it appears to me (commonsense?) that the USA is not on good terms with the regime in Iran. Thus, Iran controls it's oil, not the USA or other western powers. So it does have to do with who's in power in Teheran. The Western power's aim in the region is not democracy. For all we know this can be yet another smoke screen for other agendas (I mean Iran's nuclear "threat'). They like more "secular" leaders - SAddam was like that while he was their friend. I can go on. The USA gave arms to the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan against the Russians. Look at what that spurned (the Taliban). Nice, isn't it, this kind of intervention. It never turns out how you think. It becomes worse than not intervening, that's what history tells us. Just let sleeping dogs lie.



> ...The US is the villain because they have the power to impose their will over other nations, but how many other nations willingly accept the benefits of a continued flow of oil from the Middle East? Is Australia really ready to surrender that?
> ...


The USA has massive oil reserves of it's own. They should plumb that, it will last for ages. There's also oil in Alaska, heaps of it. Maybe harder to get to and develop than other places, but it's there.

The Russians have huge oil reserves and they know - with their failed involvement in Afghanistan, which was like their version of Vietnam, a disaster - not to get involved in the powder keg of the Middle East too much.

No surprise the Russians, on the UN Security Council, were against the invasion of Iraq, if I remember correctly. They have the brains to develop their own oil supplies instead of doing this kind of dangerous thing. Maybe the USA and others can learn from Russia (not that they're perfect).

& to add, Australia also has access to oil reserves to our north in the Timor Sea.



> ...
> 
> Again, I doubt anyone but the most naive buy into talk of "democritization". Everyone knows the real reason for the continued military intervention in the Middle east over the last 100 years. If the oil dried up tomorrow, the region would return to a dried up dessert of little interest to anyone in the world.
> ...


Good government in the Middle East can be a reality, but outside intervention has to stop. One of the more moderate or better managed regimes in the Middle East doesn't have much mineral resources at all, maybe none. One of their main industries is tourism, esp. that beautiful city of Petra. It's Jordan. Their government is probably not perfect, but it shows that with little outside intervention, a Middle Eastern country has potential to build up it's economy and develop the country rather than fighting wars and all that stuff. They can do it just like anybody else, but not with intervention as happened against Mossadegh of Iran and Nasser of Egypt.



> ...
> The solution to what? Control of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Come on... the idea of the UN is great: a universal police force funded by all the nations of planet. The reality of the UN is that it is a sadly laughable and impotent entity. The military forces of any number of nations besides that of the US can put the UN to shame. Without the ability to enforce its dictates, the UN in powerless...


The UN can be effective but often the USA doesn't listen. UN inspectors way before the latest Iraq war (invasion by USA and it's "coalition") proved that there were basically no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. All those stories of Saddam hiding them under his palaces or whatever where like fairy stories. They checked the country with a fine tooth comb, basically. When the USA and others went into Iraq, they did not find these fictional weapons. What they found was a lot of mass graves and stuff like that, but we won't go there, because previous US governments were buddies of Saddam as a bulwark against Iran and other Middle Eastern countries not in their good books. They didn't care about Saddam's human rights abuses...


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Chrythes said:


> Apart from the attack on Israel, Iran and Hezbollash have planned attacks on Jewish targets around the globe in case of war. Even if Israel will withstand the attack they won't do much harm to Iran. They have scattered their nuclear facilities and some of them are deep underground. The best Israel can do is to bomb the entrances, which would be rebuild in no time


Iran's nuclear program seems to have been set back at least a couple of years by the Stuxnet computer worm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Nobody has ever admitted responsibility for this cyber attack. It's a bit surprising that there haven't been any more like it since, directed against whatever target one would like to hit.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> This is stupid.
> 
> (I learned this argument in debate class)


No it's not, it's quite right. I wonder if the "brown people" responsible for 9/11 were rascist?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

moody said:


> No it's not, it's quite right. I wonder if the "brown people" responsible for 9/11 were rascist?


Well, remember that song "Everyone's a little bit racist"


----------

