1876 replies to this topic

[Codus N]

^whoops, forgot the big guy behind him. Yeah, I pretty much agree with you completely. And his background definitely isn't helping. As for Israel, the only that can make them stay put like a nice little doggy, is America. Good thing the president isn't stupid enough to let Israel do whatever they want. But seriously, both sides are going to be at fault if Israel does launch missiles towards Iran. Israel should be blamed for the pre-emptive strikes, while Iran should also be blamed for provoking them like that instead of trying to find a peaceful solution.

But however, what about the U.S. & Israel condemning Iran's nuclear enrichment in Turkey and Brazil?? that sounds pretty bias to me and shows that the Iran threat is nothing but a farce. What do you say to that??

[catsi563]

Nominally you'd be right except one little thing. Israel is not going to wait for permisson from uncle sam to defend what it sees as its very survival. Israel will take whatever steps neccesary to preserve its existence and if that means angering uncle sam then so be it. But they will not let Iran gain nuclear weapons if they can help it.

And the Iran threat is anything but a farce. Its a real and direct threat. You have a bunch of religous extremists in charge of a governement that espouces a tryannical goverment, that pushes the worst of sharia law, religous secret police, and censorship. If they feel their power is threatend they will react violently.

Furthermore they feel they have a mission from god to destroy us and Israel. And thats terrifying. North korea is jsut a petty little yapping man holding on to his power as he grows old and decrepid. Once hes gone, its entirely possible well see a germany style reunification as more moderate and progressive leaders take over.

Iran has no such moderates in power nor will it. You dont hear Brazil or Turkey saying Death to america death to israel every time their parliament opens for business. You also dont see Turkey or Brazil denying UAEA inspectors the ability to inspect their facilities..

No Iran is a real threat and a lethal one that could lead to a world wide problem for all muslims if they arent stopped. I sincerely hope that the moderate and progressive elements in the country especially among the younger generation are able to incite a rebellion on the same level as the one in the 70s and overthrow the current goverment.

If they do then we ll have a real chance at peace in the region. If we dont then well contineu to have Iran supporting Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

On top of that the Iranian Miliatary is becoming a new problem. You have a dictatorship which has propped its military up as its biggest strength. However a military like that as history has shown is going to get antsy and look for a fight. If it does It may buck the leadership or even oust it as uneccesary and in the way. Then well have a nuclear armed Iran in the hands of a Military dictatorship that is looking for the excuse it needs to flex its muscle.

[Strangelove]

Nominally you'd be right except one little thing. Israel is not going to wait for permisson from uncle sam to defend what it sees as its very survival. Israel will take whatever steps neccesary to preserve its existence and if that means angering uncle sam then so be it. But they will not let Iran gain nuclear weapons if they can help it.

And the Iran threat is anything but a farce. Its a real and direct threat. You have a bunch of religous extremists in charge of a governement that espouces a tryannical goverment, that pushes the worst of sharia law, religous secret police, and censorship. If they feel their power is threatend they will react violently.

Furthermore they feel they have a mission from god to destroy us and Israel. And thats terrifying. North korea is jsut a petty little yapping man holding on to his power as he grows old and decrepid. Once hes gone, its entirely possible well see a germany style reunification as more moderate and progressive leaders take over.

Iran has no such moderates in power nor will it. You dont hear Brazil or Turkey saying Death to america death to israel every time their parliament opens for business. You also dont see Turkey or Brazil denying UAEA inspectors the ability to inspect their facilities..

No Iran is a real threat and a lethal one that could lead to a world wide problem for all muslims if they arent stopped. I sincerely hope that the moderate and progressive elements in the country especially among the younger generation are able to incite a rebellion on the same level as the one in the 70s and overthrow the current goverment.

If they do then we ll have a real chance at peace in the region. If we dont then well contineu to have Iran supporting Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

On top of that the Iranian Miliatary is becoming a new problem. You have a dictatorship which has propped its military up as its biggest strength. However a military like that as history has shown is going to get antsy and look for a fight. If it does It may buck the leadership or even oust it as uneccesary and in the way. Then well have a nuclear armed Iran in the hands of a Military dictatorship that is looking for the excuse it needs to flex its muscle.

Yeah, except Iran has a third world economy, a third class military, and an unstable government...they do not possess an imminent threat to the United States nor Israel. This is continued war propaganda, that was used to justify an invasion on Iraq.

[catsi563]

A third world economy actually makes it more likely that theyll become agressive especially if the military takes over as it gives them an excuse to attack to gain the resources. It also provides a propaganda tool for the regime regardless as they can and have used it to point to americ and israel and say ""look see how theyre hording all the wealth/rescorces etc etc"".

A third class military didnt stop Sadam Hussein from Attacking Quwait, nor did it stop the north vietnamese army from attacking the south. A lack of technological superiority doesnt stop someone from attacking, and it wont stop Iran from doing so either.

And an Unstable government makes it even more Liekly to attack in order to prop itself up. To prove that its in control.

And the difference between Iraq and Iran is that Hussein wasnt a religous fanatic. He was a petty dictator who would have fallen in time or shoudl have fallen when we took Quwait back in 1990. Iran is run by a group of religious extremists that see themselves as having a divine mission to destroy what the perceive to be Satan. this isnt propaganda this is their own words.

Im personalyl hoping that the Iranian people get fed up enough and dont just demand, they take their freedom from the mullah counsel. If they do then what I perceives as a nightmare scenario will not happen.

If it doesnt well...

[Codus N]

Nominally you'd be right except one little thing. Israel is not going to wait for permisson from uncle sam to defend what it sees as its very survival. Israel will take whatever steps neccesary to preserve its existence and if that means angering uncle sam then so be it. But they will not let Iran gain nuclear weapons if they can help it.

And the Iran threat is anything but a farce. Its a real and direct threat. You have a bunch of religous extremists in charge of a governement that espouces a tryannical goverment, that pushes the worst of sharia law, religous secret police, and censorship. If they feel their power is threatend they will react violently.

Furthermore they feel they have a mission from god to destroy us and Israel. And thats terrifying. North korea is jsut a petty little yapping man holding on to his power as he grows old and decrepid. Once hes gone, its entirely possible well see a germany style reunification as more moderate and progressive leaders take over.

Iran has no such moderates in power nor will it. You dont hear Brazil or Turkey saying Death to america death to israel every time their parliament opens for business. You also dont see Turkey or Brazil denying UAEA inspectors the ability to inspect their facilities..

No Iran is a real threat and a lethal one that could lead to a world wide problem for all muslims if they arent stopped. I sincerely hope that the moderate and progressive elements in the country especially among the younger generation are able to incite a rebellion on the same level as the one in the 70s and overthrow the current goverment.

If they do then we ll have a real chance at peace in the region. If we dont then well contineu to have Iran supporting Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

On top of that the Iranian Miliatary is becoming a new problem. You have a dictatorship which has propped its military up as its biggest strength. However a military like that as history has shown is going to get antsy and look for a fight. If it does It may buck the leadership or even oust it as uneccesary and in the way. Then well have a nuclear armed Iran in the hands of a Military dictatorship that is looking for the excuse it needs to flex its muscle.

Well, there are some moderates y'know. You probably don't have enough news sources to find. If I'm correct, the previous president is quite a moderate person. At least he's better than Ahmadinejad. As for the Turkey-Brazil issue, I think it'll work out. They're about as neutral as you can get. I'm positive those 2 won't let Iran get uraniums that can be enriched into nukes. They enrich the uraniums in a way so that it can't be enriched into nukes.

[Nate River]

Well, there are some moderates y'know. You probably don't have enough news sources to find. If I'm correct, the previous president is quite a moderate person. At least he's better than Ahmadinejad. As for the Turkey-Brazil issue, I think it'll work out. They're about as neutral as you can get. I'm positive those 2 won't let Iran get uraniums that can be enriched into nukes. They enrich the uraniums in a way so that it can't be enriched into nukes.

I'm not sure who the previous President is, but catsi's right that the real power lies with Ayatollah's and they've been running the country since the late 1970's. Second, whether he was a moderate is immaterial. The current group is pursuing nuclear weapons. While they lied about constantly for most of this decade, spewing the nuclear power for peace line you used, they have been far less bashful about saying so as they get closer to acquiring the weapon.

catsi's also right about they proceeding without the US. They didn't wait for it when they took out Saddam's. Besides why would they wait, and why should they have to? Neither Bush nor Obama has done much beyond diplomacy and that hasn't work. We've tried it, the Europeans have tried it and Iran either refuses or violates whatever agreement is made.

Iran is also the group propping up Hezbollah, which was responsible for hurling rockets into Tel Aviv twice within the last four years. Iran helps train them, fund them, and arm them.

Yeah, except Iran has a third world economy, a third class military, and an unstable government...they do not possess an imminent threat to the United States nor Israel. This is continued war propaganda, that was used to justify an invasion on Iraq.

A nuclear weapon changes all that and they know it. Once's it's ready they can point it Tel Aviv and disarming them becomes much harder, unless you have no qualms about the city and its people being reduced to dust.

[Strangelove]

I'm not sure who the previous President is, but catsi's right that the real power lies with Ayatollah's and they've been running the country since the late 1970's. Second, whether he was a moderate is immaterial. The current group is pursuing nuclear weapons. While they lied about constantly for most of this decade, spewing the nuclear power for peace line you used, they have been far less bashful about saying so as they get closer to acquiring the weapon.

catsi's also right about they proceeding without the US. They didn't wait for it when they took out Saddam's. Besides why would they wait, and why should they have to? Neither Bush nor Obama has done much beyond diplomacy and that hasn't work. We've tried it, the Europeans have tried it and Iran either refuses or violates whatever agreement is made.

Iran is also the group propping up Hezbollah, which was responsible for hurling rockets into Tel Aviv twice within the last four years. Iran helps train them, fund them, and arm them.



A nuclear weapon changes all that and they know it. Once's it's ready they can point it Tel Aviv and disarming them becomes much harder, unless you have no qualms about the city and its people being reduced to dust.

Russia had nuclear weapons, it still does. Yet when the US and the USSR were enemies, no nuclear mushroom appeared on the horizon.

Let me get this right, so far Iran has no nuclear weapons, but going to war, spending billions ounce more on destroying the country, then rebuilding it, all at the cost of our economy, and our taxpayers...we humans are the only ones who stump on the same rock twice.

If our excuse is to invade a country, just because it might have the capacity of building nuclear weapons, then every country in the world should be bombed for that very same reason.

Edited by Strangelove, 02 November 2010 - 02:54 AM.

[catsi563]

Your missing the bogger picture Strangelove. The all consuming difference between Russia and America during the cold war.

The major difference was Idealogical and political rather then religous. The sovets felt they were right, And while they were willing to fight to prove it they werent willing to vaporize the world to do it. In the case of the Soviets it was a case of "Yes I feel im right and your wrong, but I want you to be there in the end to admit Im right."

After all it doesnt do any good to rule a world and have your political philosophy prevail when the only ones around to recognize it and rule are the cockroaches.

Iran is a beast of a different caliber. The Soviets never had what could be called a ""Divine Mandate"" to rule over us. The Ayatollah himself has said that we and Israel are the great Satan. They have stated that we must be destroyed and that God has commanded them to do so. They have taken the road of religous fanaticism and like all fanatics will not stop until the achieve their goals.

The Russians were never that extreme in their political means. They competed with us as much as they did yes but it was always with the goal of pushing the communist/marxist agenda in opposition to the capitalist.

THe russians though knew that we would retaliate if they launched any attack of anysort. In a sick and twisted way Mutually Assured Destruction insane as it was worked.

The difference though is that the Iranians see death as a duty and a privelge after all if you martyr yourself for the cause of god you end up in paradise with 40 virgins and all that rubbish. To them an Irradiated Iran with millions dead would be a small price to pay for a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or washington DC.

[Strangelove]

Your missing the bogger picture Strangelove. The all consuming difference between Russia and America during the cold war.

The major difference was Idealogical and political rather then religous. The sovets felt they were right, And while they were willing to fight to prove it they werent willing to vaporize the world to do it. In the case of the Soviets it was a case of "Yes I feel im right and your wrong, but I want you to be there in the end to admit Im right."

After all it doesnt do any good to rule a world and have your political philosophy prevail when the only ones around to recognize it and rule are the cockroaches.

Iran is a beast of a different caliber. The Soviets never had what could be called a ""Divine Mandate"" to rule over us. The Ayatollah himself has said that we and Israel are the great Satan. They have stated that we must be destroyed and that God has commanded them to do so. They have taken the road of religous fanaticism and like all fanatics will not stop until the achieve their goals.

The Russians were never that extreme in their political means. They competed with us as much as they did yes but it was always with the goal of pushing the communist/marxist agenda in opposition to the capitalist.

THe russians though knew that we would retaliate if they launched any attack of anysort. In a sick and twisted way Mutually Assured Destruction insane as it was worked.

The difference though is that the Iranians see death as a duty and a privelge after all if you martyr yourself for the cause of god you end up in paradise with 40 virgins and all that rubbish. To them an Irradiated Iran with millions dead would be a small price to pay for a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or washington DC.

But that anger is the result of blowback. What happened when we overthrew they're elected leader, and put the Shah into power. It radicalized Iran, which in turn led to the Iranian revolution. It is only a matter of time before the same thing happens in Iraq.

I can promise you something, if we invade Iran like we did to Iraq, i can promise you a lot of death from our active military personal, the support of the war will drop dramatically in the first 2 years, the cost will put a huge strain in the economy, and any group that is in power, will suffer the consequences of low approval ratings.

Politicians work with they're approval ratings. Ounce they drop, they see themselves confronted by an extreme environment. There are many ways to provide a positive light without this call for needless bloodshed. Maybe if we removed they're sanctions, start treating Iranians as you know...people, and start trading with them, help they're economy grow, and open they're eyes to the Western World, maybe in the future they will overthrow they're leaders.

But economic sanctions do not work. Eg. Cuba and North Korea. We have a trade embargo with Cuba, literally destroying they're economy. Yet Castro's regime was in power for 50 years. We have sanctions on North Korea, they're people are starving, and yet Kim Jong has been able to maintain his hold on the country. Free trade is the only way to assure peace. Free trade should come before diplomacy, before talks.

[catsi563]

I dont disagree Strangelove I dont disagree. But Again there is that Salient point. All the examples you named, Castro, Kim Jong IL they are dictators who were and are opposed to us politically and socially. Castor led a revolution because he believed in a series of principles politically and socially not religiously. Same with Jong. Hell even Vietnam was political.

But This is different by far as different as a lion is to a house cat. They may seem the same and have similar origins because of american imperialism, but their motives are Entirely different.

This is a man in the Ayatolah who has called for a world wide crusade against America and Israel. he has openly defied any attempt of diplomacy and only agreed to it when it looked like we were losing patience with them and were on the verge of attacking.

He and those who support him have a clear and defined goal and are willing to go to any lengths including martyrdom to achieve it. its not about political power or money or respect. Its about raw religous hatred and pure fanaitcal ideaology.

They want to END US. as a culture, a nation, a people. they see us as Evil incarnate as the very devil, and they see themselves as having a divine Mandate to destroy us.

you dont negotiate with the devil.

Understand me. I dont want to have to resort to bloodshed. I dont want to see a country like Iran which is the very cradle of civilization turned into a smoking burning parking lot. I Do not want to see a people with a passionate dispositon bombed back to the stone age.

I dont want that. But if they do not stand up and take charge of their own destiny they may not have a choice. They may end up having that choice taken from them. I can pretty well asure you that what happens next is up to Irans people. The moderates and younger generation will have to effect a 1970s style revolution calling for the removal of the Mullah counsel and the stepping down of the Ayatollah.

If they do then as you say Free trade and the internet and the flow of information will do for us what no army or bombs could ever do.

But if they do not do so. If the Iranian people allow the status quo to continue. They will be hit and hit hard. Either by Hawks in the US who see them as the next threat/war mongering opportunity.

Or by a nation that is surrounded on all sides by hostile nations which will decide that its own interests are served by eliminating the capacity of a nation to make war on it.

[Codus N]

Strange, you took the words right out of my mouth. I couldn't agree with you more. As Fareed Zakaria said, the only way for democracy to grow is to let the economy of other countries grow and when that happens, the middle-class will eventually expand. The middle-class has always been crucial to the development of democracy, then later on, they overthrew their regimes.

@catsi: oh really, If I remember correctly you said you wouldn't mind turning Iran into a smoking parking lot a few pages back. Talk about hypocrisy. And your term "dealing with the devil" is exactly what they want you to say. That's something those fanaticals would love to hear. But, yes, they started it. Which is why I agree Iran should be dealt with in a stricter way. The relationship between Iran and America into a childish 5-year old babies' argument. it's really getting old, people.

To be honest, there's also a lack of understanding of the Qur'an & Hadits in the younger generation nowadays. It's something the younger generation in Iran had missed into using it as a weapon against the current government. The Qur'an or Hadits (I forgot which one) clearly states that if your leader is acting unjustly towards the people then you should take up arms and fight against the government. And, frankly this is the TRUE Jihad. The jihad that the Mullah council is spouting is clearly a fake. *sigh* if only someone of Iranian descent could read this now...... if they had realized this sooner, it would certainly create a revolution on the scale of the 1970's. Basically, fight fire with fire.

[catsi563]

Fraid its not Hypocrisy Newk. I said what i said ""IF they obtain Nuclear weapons"".

The point being that we may end up with no choice in the matter. If they obtain Nuclear armaments, I feel strongly with the usual caveats that they will immediately use them on Israel. I cant say for certian how quickly they will or how fast theyll launch. But they will launch.

I hope to heaven that that never comes to pass. But if it does itll be an unfortunate sad and neccesary evil. And alot of people are going top pay the price for fanaticism. Im a pragmatist in a number of ways and this is one of them.

the only ways to stop a nuclear armed iran is to prevent them from obtaining Nuclear power. Either through formented revelotion, or directed Air strikes on any facility that is involved.

It is getting old yes. But I personally would like to see all of us get a lot older. A nuclear amred Iran lowers that possibility a lot.



speaking of getitng older, are you k and safe newkerz? I heard theres a volcano spitting fire and brimstone and all that sort of thing out your way. If that is your where I think you are?

[Codus N]

Nah, I'm all right.... although if I remember correctly a friend of mine goes to college in that province. But I think he's fine, he just has to deal with the ash smoke.

To be honest, about Iran launching nukes, not if we (Indonesia) can help it. I have always thought that Indonesia would be the trump card in this game to end everything. Out of all the countries Iran's willing to trust, Indonesia is one of them. Plus, we also have a bond with Obama so that could somewhat work to our favor. But the problem is, our President isn't willing to take an active role. If he grew some balls, we could probably do it as a 3rd party to help bridge Iran and America. Another problem is the republicans winning the elections, knowing them, they'd flat out refuse to negotiate with Iran with us. So yeah, I'm not gonna be surprised if a Mushroom cloud goes over Tel Aviv and D.C. And about my hypocrisy statement towards you, I think they're just the same. You're basically saying the U.S should launch a pre-emptive strike without any clear evidence first.

Edited by Newkerz, 02 November 2010 - 06:19 AM.

[catsi563]

evidence is in the intent im afraid. only difference here is a hesitation in Iraq would have lead to nothing. A hesitation on a possible nuclear armed Iran will lead to tragedy on a scale not seen since Hiroshima and Nagisaki.

I for one would rather apologize to the Iranian people for a mistake later after the Mullah counsel is out of power, then mourn the loss of an entire city and all its inhabitants.

I should for the record clarify one part of my statment. I was being a smidge hyperbolic in the parking lot statement. My intended target is the Nuclear facility it self not any civillian targets. Any thing basicaly associated with the nuclear weapons program would be hit and hit hard, much like the Isaraelis did to Saddam.

Im not advocating the entire country be flattened. Fortunately we dont have to do that since as we proved in Iraq and Afghanistan we can hit pin point targets. So if we needed to we could hit the plant and nothing more.

[Codus N]

Yes, but that's not really concrete evidence. You can't just go in there under the pretense that they will attack if you don't attack first. You need SOLID evidence/materialistic evidence that they are planning to attack the U.S. To be honest, the easiest way to handle it is, don't take the bait. Iran's government is just full of barking dogs trying to look tough and is looking for attention, basically they're just the same as N.Korea. They're only trying to divert the domestic attention to international issues instead of domestic issues. In fact, whose fault was it in the first place that Iran's economy is in ruins?? their government. If they didn't bark so loud, they probably would've been in better shape right now. If the whole world just flat out ignored them, the people of Iran will realize that they've been duped all this time and will ignite a brand new revolution. Think about it, if we ignored them then Iran's barks would have no meaning at all. And more people in Iran would realize that they have the domestic issue to look at, and when they do, they'll realize the horrible truth.

By ignoring them, they'll realize the government won't have something meaningful in the Iranians' hearts and they'll turn to the domestic issue, which is something they've been avoiding since the revolution. After all, what's the meaning of provoking if the enemy isn't responding/taking the bait. Of course, it is rather risky and a big gamble if Iran, on the other hand was serious. But I think the former will most likely happen.

[catsi563]

North Korea and Iraq were yapping dogs definately.

Iran is not. its a dog that barks because its ready to bite, and believes it has to.

But in the end I do trully hope that your right and thats how things work out> other wise were gonna need a really big rolled up newspaper.

[Nate River]

The difference though is that the Iranians see death as a duty and a privelge after all if you martyr yourself for the cause of god you end up in paradise with 40 virgins and all that rubbish. To them an Irradiated Iran with millions dead would be a small price to pay for a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or washington DC.

Pretty much.

You and I agree and virtually nothing, but we do agree on this.

Mutually assured distruction, which Strange referred to earlier, only works when your opponent doesn't want to die. The Soviets didn't want to die and see their country vaporized by a mushroom cloud. Iran's not afaird of that and, as you said, doesn't seem to care about any kind of retaliation. I also wonder if Iran actually believes we would retaliate. In the 1950's and 1960's the Russian had good reason to believe we would as Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been nuked within the last 20 years. It's been over 60 years since then and the view towards nukes by nations such as the US has changed. I wouldn't be suprised if ther Ayatollah thinks we don't have the guts to use a nuke in retaliation.

So yeah, I'm not gonna be surprised if a Mushroom cloud goes over Tel Aviv and D.C. And about my hypocrisy statement towards you, I think they're just the same. You're basically saying the U.S should launch a pre-emptive strike without any clear evidence first.

Iran hasn't been terrible shy about this intent the last couple of years and have taken a numbers of steps that demonstrate that intent. The problem with waiting until they obtain it, is that once they do that have an immeidate threat to prevent people from taking action. Ifthey obtain it and we say disarm or else, they can point the rocket at Tel Aviv and tell the west "your move" with the threat that if we don't cecede to all their demands nad we attempt to forcibly disarm them, they'll just nuke israel.

The other concern would be the Iranians turning over such a weapon to a proxy like Hezbollah who would be happy to do the dirty work of actually launching it, while they say, "whoops, wasn't us."

As catsi has also said, it's younger generation hates the government (remember the revolt during their last election) and would be happy to depose the Ayatollah and the President. I don't know how reasonable it is, but supporting an armed revolt by those guys is a possibility versus an all out military invasion.

This was actually tried in Iraq after the first Gulf War, but Bush I backed out and didn't offer the promised support and they got slaughtered by Sadaam.

Problem is: You have no idea what kind of government will be in its place. Could be better, could be worse and simply funding and arming them may not be enough, not to mention that they are obvious acts of war that may result in engaging the military anyway. If this is done, whoever does it needs to follow through.

By ignoring them, they'll realize the government won't have something meaningful in the Iranians' hearts and they'll turn to the domestic issue, which is something they've been avoiding since the revolution. After all, what's the meaning of provoking if the enemy isn't responding/taking the bait. Of course, it is rather risky and a big gamble if Iran, on the other hand was serious. But I think the former will most likely happen.

There is one problem: You presume that the government cares whether they have something meaningful in the Iranian's hearts. The recent election should tell you they don't. Despots don't normally care whether they have that so long as they have adequate control over them. Dissidents aren't catered to or appeased when they get upset; they're exiled, tortured, and killed.

One other thing Newkertz, what is "solid evidence" that you think be enough? I've asked this before: Should Israel be required to wait until the rocket is on it's way to Tel Aviv before they can say they have enough or do they have to wait tuntil they can see the Mushroom cloud from their doorsteps? My concern has always been that the "solid evidence" line has been just that, an excuse to do nothing and pretend they aren't doing what everyone knows they are doing. I fear that by the time we have enough "solid evidence" to convice those people, they'll have the weapon in its completed form and it'll be much harder to anything about it.

The diplomacy route has been attempted for a decade and it isn't working. So what next?

[Codus N]

Iran hasn't been terrible shy about this intent the last couple of years and have taken a numbers of steps that demonstrate that intent. The problem with waiting until they obtain it, is that once they do that have an immeidate threat to prevent people from taking action. Ifthey obtain it and we say disarm or else, they can point the rocket at Tel Aviv and tell the west "your move" with the threat that if we don't cecede to all their demands nad we attempt to forcibly disarm them, they'll just nuke israel.

The other concern would be the Iranians turning over such a weapon to a proxy like Hezbollah who would be happy to do the dirty work of actually launching it, while they say, "whoops, wasn't us."

As catsi has also said, it's younger generation hates the government (remember the revolt during their last election) and would be happy to depose the Ayatollah and the President. I don't know how reasonable it is, but supporting an armed revolt by those guys is a possibility versus an all out military invasion.

This was actually tried in Iraq after the first Gulf War, but Bush I backed out and didn't offer the promised support and they got slaughtered by Sadaam.

Problem is: You have no idea what kind of government will be in its place. Could be better, could be worse and simply funding and arming them may not be enough, not to mention that they are obvious acts of war that may result in engaging the military anyway. If this is done, whoever does it needs to follow through.



There is one problem: You presume that the government cares whether they have something meaningful in the Iranian's hearts. The recent election should tell you they don't. Despots don't normally care whether they have that so long as they have adequate control over them. Dissidents aren't catered to or appeased when they get upset; they're exiled, tortured, and killed.

One other thing Newkertz, what is "solid evidence" that you think be enough? I've asked this before: Shoudl Israel be required to wait until the rocket is on it's way to Tel Aviv before they can say they have enough or do they have to wait tuntil they can see the Mushroom cloud from their doorsteps before the can act? My concern has always been that the "evidence" excuse has been just that, an excuse to do nothing and pretend they aren't doing what everyone knows they are doing. I fear that by the time we have enough "solid evidence" to convice those people, thety'll have the weapon in its completed form and it'll be much harder to anything about it.

Hmm.... if Bush did that, then I just lost 100% of my respect for him in other words, he was nothing but a coward.

And you know what?? I'm more than ever convinced now Indonesia is the trump card to end this all. If my government gave more scholarships to Iranian students, it would most certainly result in giving them a whole new outlook on Islam. Iran trusts us pretty well. They probably wouldn't see it coming that they would ignite a revolution thanks to our influences. I'm not too sure about this, but I've got a little feeling that the college students from the Islamic colleges back in 1998 May protests viewed themselves as going to Jihad. In fact, the students that were killed were definitely martyrs. I believe some of the students viewed them that way.

As for solid evidence, why don't you guys try launching a stealth mission to get evidence on Iran's nuclear missiles?? then after they've gotten it, we can get Wikileaks to confirm it. I believe Wikileaks is also the key to this matter. We saw how epicly they hacked Pentagon. And Assange is high on my list of respected people just because of the Epicness that he is.

Wikileaks also has a great potential for the world. If your government worked together with them, (albeit temporarily) then we could finally prove once and for all if Iran has WMD's. Wikileaks is a big wild card that can either be a friend or foe for everyone but if you make them your friend, (even temporarily would be enough) they can be allies you can depend on. If you guys befriend them they'll be a major asset to your intelligence and besides, the world pretty much trusts them over America anyday. Wikileals' aim is TRUTH. All you guys have to do is clear the path for them.

Speaking of Wikileaks, any chances they'll be able to uncover the JFK asassination or Area 51 one day. That'd be epic

Edited by Newkerz, 02 November 2010 - 04:06 PM.

[Nate River]

Hmm.... if Bush did that, then I just lost 100% of my respect for him in other words, he was nothing but a coward.

To be clear there are two Bushes. George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) 1988-1992 and George W. Bush (Bush 43) 2000-2008. It was Bush 41 that did that.

[Codus N]

Err.... I knew that.....