Iran problems... Opinions?

[Rawra]

I'm talking about this serious issue with Iran's nuclear development. I agree that the Russians constantly watch over Bushehr so they won't make a bomb, but these guys are really dangerous. Especially because US and Israel say that an attack would be very probably. And an attack over Iran, would mean the start of WW3. What do you think? Should they or shouldn't they attack Iran?

[Nekowolf]

World War 3? I doubt it. The Middle East is too unstable. It'll be a couple of countries, against Iran. And frankly, I think I'd worry more about North Korea than Iran, in some sense. Kim Jong Il is a complete nutcase. And he's getting old; it won't be long before his son takes his place. But what will his son do? Would he be even more provocative? Would he actually go ahead and declare war on South Korea? Or the US even? And what would China do if that happened?

Think of ALL the stuff we get from China. Now imagine China gets pissed, and starts to cut trades with the US. Now imagine all the stuff we USED to be getting from China but aren't anymore?

I think North Korea is more worrisome than Iran, in large part because a transition of power will be coming soon, and because of China's favor of North Korea and how US-Chinese diplomacy and trade could be affected by a war with North Korea.

Edit: However, a war with Iran would be harder to fight, as they, I'm sure, have a stronger military than North Korea. Plus I think it's land-locked, isn't it?

[Rawra]

World War 3? I doubt it. The Middle East is too unstable. It'll be a couple of countries, against Iran. And frankly, I think I'd worry more about North Korea than Iran, in some sense. Kim Jong Il is a complete nutcase. And he's getting old; it won't be long before his son takes his place. But what will his son do? Would he be even more provocative? Would he actually go ahead and declare war on South Korea? Or the US even? And what would China do if that happened?

Think of ALL the stuff we get from China. Now imagine China gets pissed, and starts to cut trades with the US. Now imagine all the stuff we USED to be getting from China but aren't anymore?

I think North Korea is more worrisome than Iran, in large part because a transition of power will be coming soon, and because of China's favor of North Korea and how US-Chinese diplomacy and trade could be affected by a war with North Korea.

Edit: However, a war with Iran would be harder to fight, as they, I'm sure, have a stronger military than North Korea. Plus I think it's land-locked, isn't it?

Hmm, I guess you're right. Never worried about North Korea, lol. :rolleyes:

[fakepeeps7]

I'm talking about this serious issue with Iran's nuclear development. I agree that the Russians constantly watch over Bushehr so they won't make a bomb, but these guys are really dangerous. Especially because US and Israel say that an attack would be very probably. And an attack over Iran, would mean the start of WW3. What do you think? Should they or shouldn't they attack Iran?

Let's see... Israel, arguably the most violent and well-armed nation in the Middle East, is allowed to have the bomb, but Iran can't even develop nuclear power?

Yes, Iran is run by a bunch of guys with questionable sanity, and yes, nuclear material can be used for unscrupulous purposes. But to deny them a source of nuclear power if they want it seems like a bad idea. It's a blatant double standard, for one thing. There's also the danger that any bans will drive the whole thing underground. If your enemies are playing around with enriched uranium, would you rather a) accept that they're going to try to develop the technology and know what they're doing with it; or b) impose a ban, pretend they're not doing anything with it, and live in denial until there's a catastrophic problem?

[Rawra]

a, I guess.

[Nabila_Ici]

Another war in the Middle East is most definitely not a good idea. I don't know much about Iran's nuclear developments, but if they do have nuclear weapons, they would not launch them unless they were completely bonkers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a war where both sides are using nuclear weaponry, mutually assured destruction is guaranteed?

[Nekowolf]

I don't think they're that dumb, either. They know if they launch a nuke, they'll have so much fire on their ass.

[smorbie1]

Honestly, this frightens me. The rhetoric that come from Iran is absolutely terrifying. I worry that they are just unhinged enough to mean it.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I don't think they're that dumb, either. They know if they launch a nuke, they'll have so much fire on their ass.

thing is, they arent as afraid of dying for a cause as we are.

[Nabila_Ici]

thing is, they arent as afraid of dying for a cause as we are.

I don't quite understand this. The government may be extreme, and may enjoy annoying the living hell out of the USA, but they would not be willing to sacrifice an entire country for 'a cause'. And who are 'they', if you don't mind me asking? The Iranian government? The people?

It simply makes no sense. The USA has enough nukes to destroy Iran a hundred times over, and could launch a counter attack within seconds and even destroy the missiles before they hit their targets. This was possible in the '80s, I'm not quite up to date with the latest weapons of mass destruction.

[Nekowolf]

thing is, they arent as afraid of dying for a cause as we are.
Perhaps, but I still don't think they'd enjoy the thought of losing a war against us. If they actually do something, it may well shock the world into some serious countermeasures, possibly outside of talk and sanctions.

[Oaktree]

The USA has enough nukes to destroy Iran a hundred times over, and could launch a counter attack within seconds and even destroy the missiles before they hit their targets. This was possible in the '80s, I'm not quite up to date with the latest weapons of mass destruction.

Actually, that was Reagan bluffing. We never had it within our capabilities to shoot down missiles before they hit, but telling the Soviet Union that we did made us look invincible. It helped prevent Russia from launching nukes and starting a war that everyone would regret. Iran thinks somewhat differently, in that they are fanatically devoted to their purpose, beyond cares of living or dying, so the same tactic isn't likely to work.

[fakepeeps7]

Iran thinks somewhat differently, in that they are fanatically devoted to their purpose, beyond cares of living or dying, so the same tactic isn't likely to work.

The Iranian government might think like that, but I don't think all the Iranian people do. The recent election protests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protests) suggest the people aren't as bellicose as their leaders.

Unfortunately, the people of a country often get painted with the same brush that's used on their leader. I'm sure there are a large number of people in the U.S. who could speak about the frustration they felt between 2000 and 2008...

[Oaktree]

fakepeeps: Yes, poor choice of words. I realize that not everyone in the country is fanatically devoted to some sort of religious war, but, unfortunately, the government has far too much power over the people and the government is fanatical.

[Nabila_Ici]

Actually, that was Reagan bluffing. We never had it within our capabilities to shoot down missiles before they hit, but telling the Soviet Union that we did made us look invincible. It helped prevent Russia from launching nukes and starting a war that everyone would regret.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Thank you for clarifying. But then again, that was in the '80s, I'm sure there have been significant developments in defensive weaponry since.

The general opinion in the Middle East about the whole ordeal is that America isn't under any real threat from Iran, and just see it as a way of pissing off the American government and a way of creating more stability in the area. This isn't necessarily my opinion, but this certainly seems to be what most people believe in Egypt, at least.

And could it be possible that the common perceptions of the Iranian government are somewhat exaggerated? For example, Gammal Abdel Nasser was dubbed 'the next Hitler/Mussolini' and was often portrayed as a monster/evil dictator during the Suez Crisis, even though that wasn't necessarily the case.

[Mistermook]

Another war in the Middle East is most definitely not a good idea. I don't know much about Iran's nuclear developments, but if they do have nuclear weapons, they would not launch them unless they were completely bonkers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a war where both sides are using nuclear weaponry, mutually assured destruction is guaranteed?
You're wrong. MAD game theory only works when both sides have a certain saturation/effectiveness, reach, and preparedness for nuclear attack.

For instance: Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The US has nuclear weapons. US ICBM's certainly have the distance and targeting ability to reach Pakistan and saturate the entire country with nuclear weapons with a low instance of error or misfire. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not have ICBMs and their targeting/efficiency numbers are probably much lower unless they're maintaining their weapons with the aid of a foreign power. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain that with limited resources Pakistan has focused its air defense on its border with India. MAD is not in effect: The US could strike at Pakistan and obliterate it entirely before it could reply in kind, with a statistically marginal chance of significant damage in return.

That's not saying that nuking Pakistan might not lead to someone else nuking the US, just explaining that MAD works with game theory, and it's not some simple fact of "I've got them and he's got them, so this is how it works."

Note, this is scenario building is significant with Iran too. Iran's best missiles might be able to reach Europe or the Far East, but no further. Furthermore, Iran's really not in a position to launch nuclear missiles from submarines or from bombers that it doesn't possess from forward bases that no one would give them. Iran's significant threat as a nuclear power is as a destabilizing/arms race provoking/terrorist providing one. Otherwise a nuclear Iran is merely a well-defended one. As brilliant of a military power as the US has, the deterrent factor of a nation with nuclear arms pretty much means we're not going to march our army over there and roll them over.

A nuclear armed Iran means that what happened to Iraq never happens to Iran unless we're really pissed. It means sanctions might only work to a certain point, and after that the nuclear armed nation gets desperate and just pulls the trigger out of spite even if it doesn't have a clear military road to victory.

On the other hand, having nuclear weapons implies other things policy-wise too. Nuclear powers are expected, with vast and ominous warnings, not to lose track of them. A terrorist "accidentally" getting their hands on an Iranian nuke, whether they get to use it or not, is probably as good as a death sentence pronounced upon the Iranian people. Seriously, all bets are off. Even if the US didn't get directly involved you can bet that every nation ever affected by terrorism (which is about all of them) wouldn't be talking about simple "sternly worded letters of condemnation." The wrong flavor of terrorist getting an Iranian nuke could have everyone from India to Russia to Saudia Arabia all in a race to carpet bomb Tehran. You've got nukes? You better reign in your batshit insane fearless leader a little too. Craziness + nukes makes people nervous, and suddenly expansive talks about how you're going to slay the Great Satan or eradicate Israel take on a more serious tone.

As I say all of this, I'm still in favor of letting the Iranians do whatever they like. I mean, it's either just enough rope to hang them with and make a beautifully illustrative example of "No. Seriously. We weren't kidding," or its so much responsibility that it forces Iran to grow up in its politics for once and for all. Hey, and there's still a chance they just wanted nuclear power over there so that they could sell every last drop of oil. I'm cool with that. That's thinking ahead. And if they've got some notion of running out the nuke factory and out nuking the rest of the world, holding us all hostage? That's cute, but it won't work out that way. You make a bunch of nations nervous and you're not armed to the teeth right out of the gate and you're toast.

But then again, that was in the '80s, I'm sure there have been significant developments in defensive weaponry since.
Not especially in the area we're talking about. There's been some investment in that area, but it's been hit or miss (pun intended.) We've got some air-based anti-missile missiles that would be useless against many larger missile platforms (such as one might lob across an ocean), we've got Patriot (which isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing and it's actually been deployed with mixed success), and we've got the still-as-yet-to-be-deployed airborne laser that's going to be a crapshoot as to whether or not it actually works as paid for. There's the "missile defense shield" system too, but that's all on paper and the actual tests have been highly questionable. That sort of suggests the actual system deployed for the missile defense shield is probably more to do with A. Pork or B. Sensor deployment.

There's not much need for these sorts of systems anyways, from a policy standpoint at least. There's no one close to shoot missiles at us that doesn't provoke a total war stop-drop-and-crap-your-pants response, and anyone who isn't close doesn't have good missiles or they don't have enough to hurt us beyond "10,000 dead in NYC = Smoking hole & millions irradiated elsewhere."

Who are we in an arms race against for WMDs? No one. We've got plenty and probably the best maintained and targeted. A WMD response against the US is suicide still, and no one else is on track at all for catching up and overwhelming that advantage for at least 10 years - and only ten years for major players like China or India maybe. You can do a lot with a billion people and an industrial economy. Russia still has the juice to varying judgments of dangerousness, but I think that particular ship's sailed for now. Russia's more likely to nuke the same sort of people we want to nuke than throw anything our way for a long while now. We're not exactly bosom buddies, but we've had decades to learn how to politely not blow up the world together now.

And could it be possible that the common perceptions of the Iranian government are somewhat exaggerated?
It depends on what you consider the political power in Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's by all appearances exactly as crazy as he sounds. The clerics who may or may not be pulling his strings or supporting his regime? Who knows? The Iranian military? Probably overrated both by much of the world and its own analysts. Iranians on the street? No, I don't think they've been covered in the media properly. I think, from talking with a few Iranians, that at least some of the extreme anti-Americanism in populist Iran is either misdirected anti-Isreali sentiment and/or something akin to the patriotism one shows sports teams. "We've been told that you're against us. We like us! Go us! Down with you!" It happens in the US too.

[Nabila_Ici]

Ooh, thank you for the information about weaponry, this makes a lot more sense now! From what I understood from the first post, it seemed that people are worried that Iran could launch an attack on the USA.

Just to clarify, is the cause of all this worry that if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, the bombs would get into terrorist/the wrong hands?

Also, my previous point about the exaggeration was just due to from the little I know about history, it seems that if a country is pissed off with another country, they portray their leaders as evil maniacs. Which makes sense obviously, because you'd want to win the support of your people if you were to take action against said country.

And apologies if I'm not making much sense, I'm not a skilled debater (at all), but I do like to contribute a little.

Edit: I found this article (http://www.truth-out.org/two-minutes-midnight62627) on the situation, and thought I'd share.

[ElementMK]

It truly baffles me to see that, after thousands of years of battling, Middle Easterners (or some particular countries, anyway) still haven't found a neutral ground on the issue of the holy cities. You know who else battled each other for millennia? Europeans. But instead of initiating another fruitless war or battle, they've decided to settle their cultural and spiritual differences, open their borders, and form a powerful alliance. Now we have the European Union, which for all of its flaws, is a big step forward.

Why hasn't anyone stepped in to say "Hey guys, these are holy grounds, and maybe none of us are good enough to still hang around here."? Why don't they do what the Chinese did with the Forbidden City, open the cities to the public, and keep the cities holy while celebrating God, instead of trying to wipe anyone who lives there off of the map? Hell, it's already a tourist attraction, so this should have been the next logical step. Nobody dies in an escalating pissing contest, and everybody can enjoy the heritage of their ancestors who lived in the cities. Win-fucking-win.

Of course, I should know better than to think this will happen. It's not about making the best choice, it's about making the "right" choice.

[fakepeeps7]

It truly baffles me to see that, after thousands of years of battling, Middle Easterners (or some particular countries, anyway) still haven't found a neutral ground on the issue of the holy cities. You know who else battled each other for millennia? Europeans. But instead of initiating another fruitless war or battle, they've decided to settle their cultural and spiritual differences, open their borders, and form a powerful alliance. Now we have the European Union, which for all of its flaws, is a big step forward.

Why hasn't anyone stepped in to say "Hey guys, these are holy grounds, and maybe none of us are good enough to still hang around here."? Why don't they do what the Chinese did with the Forbidden City, open the cities to the public, and keep the cities holy while celebrating God, instead of trying to wipe anyone who lives there off of the map? Hell, it's already a tourist attraction, so this should have been the next logical step. Nobody dies in an escalating pissing contest, and everybody can enjoy the heritage of their ancestors who lived in the cities. Win-fucking-win.

Of course, I should know better than to think this will happen. It's not about making the best choice, it's about making the "right" choice.

The way I see it, a lot of those countries are still in the grumpy teenage stage. They're surly, they don't want to be around anybody else (or share with anyone else), and they think they're right and everybody else is wrong. You could say the exact same thing about Western countries a few hundred years ago, though. We had our adolescent temper tantrums, too (the only difference being that, when we stomped our foot in our bedroom, it didn't cause a chain reaction that made the whole house collapse... but that's simply a result of globalization, and can't be blamed on the Middle East alone).

If you're really interested in the question of "why", Element Leaf, you might like a book called The Fall by Steve Taylor. It's about how humanity went a bit insane about 6000 years ago, and never truly recovered (especially in places like the Middle East).

[Oaktree]

Elemental Leaf: I think there is a little bit of a difference between Europe and the Middle East. For one, I don't think there is much holy ground in Europe. Certainly not holy to the current major religions. Stonehenge might have been holy to the druids, but there aren't too many druids around anymore.

The Middle East is also pretty far behind, technologically and culturally speaking, probably because they sit on holy land and became both insular and backward due to frequent wars over it. When they are devoting so much time and effort to war, they aren't putting a lot into cultural and scientific development. Most of us sitting on the outside think it would probably be best if they just tried to get along and opened their borders, but we have had periods in history with similar types of feuding. Family feuds weren't uncommon in the American South, England and France did not like each other for a long time, and even in modern times, Japan and China compete over possession of Taiwan. The Middle East has yet to make it past the petty rivalries and it may take an extra long time because religion is the driving factor in the rivalries and religion is a strong force.

[Mistermook]

It truly baffles me to see that, after thousands of years of battling, Middle Easterners (or some particular countries, anyway) still haven't found a neutral ground on the issue of the holy cities. You know who else battled each other for millennia? Europeans. But instead of initiating another fruitless war or battle, they've decided to settle their cultural and spiritual differences, open their borders, and form a powerful alliance. Now we have the European Union, which for all of its flaws, is a big step forward.

Except that this really isn't an issue for Iran directly. They're not Arabic, they're Persian. The Middle East and Islam is not this monolithic entity that one negotiates with or assumes is coherent as if they aren't individual countries or religions involved.

Mostly the countries that have significant issues with Israel are more properly the fertile crescent nations - Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, & Syria (plus Egypt, because they were on the other side.) These are places that have either lost land, could stand to gain land (including valuable ports), or allied with other neighboring countries because everyone wants to get along with their neighbors unless they're killing them. You could strip away religion in the conflict entirely and still get the same enormous threat of violence here - Israel basically stole a country and then kicked the ass of all the people who were pissed about it. Think about if someone came around from across the world, declared some really valuable farmland and coastline on your country their homeland, and took it. Even if you didn't have issues with the way they practiced their religion, you'd probably be plenty pissed. That Israel was formed as an exclusive nation for Jews and pretty much Jews only? Whether you're sympathetic or not, it's understandable that this is a political issue.

But then there are the cultural and religious issues, which are important to get straight too. The hard-line Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia aren't going to have a lot good to say about any progressive nation. That might include Turkey, Iran, Iraq or Egypt on a bad day and even cause issues for Saudi Arabia itself. Not all Muslim sects are that way though. Shia Alevis in Turkey are quite moderate, for instance. I'm not even going to get into the divide between Nation of Islam in the US and Indian Ahmadiyyans. Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity. While they all practice the same basic faith they have important practical and doctrinal differences.

The Sunnis in Egypt and Syria aren't the Shia Twelvers in Iran who aren't the moderate Shia Alevis in Turkey, and Arabic Shia Twelvers from somewhere else in the Middle East aren't the same as Persian Shia Twelvers and all along the Mediterranean coast you're sometimes dealing with even more complex relationships - these are places with significant cultural influx from Europe, for instance, and it's a mistake to think that the British and French and Greeks and Africans somehow filtered through these places without leaving cultural markers. How come they don't get along? Why are there still political issues with Quebec in Canada, and a Civil War in the US - people from different regions have different things they value and desire.

Strangely, some of the organizations that hound the Western world most avidly? They're actually examples of people in the Middle East getting along with each other. Hamas, for instance, isn't successful because it's really exclusive. The very word Hamas? Hebrew.

Mostly I think that a lot of the issues with the whole region are the same sorts of issues that plague Africa really. They're poor. Or they're poor except for the utterly batshit insanely wealthy, which is maybe worse. The less vocal and empowered your middle class is, the more dangerous political activism is. That's even true in the US with its diminishing middle class and rich-poor divide.

[LoveExposed]

I'm 100% Persian and I think we should attack Iran, just so the government will change. The president is like seriously mentally ill so I wouldn't doubt it if he actually does use nuclear weapons.

[Rawra]

I am not afraid of Iran attacking US, but US attacking Iran. If US attacks, Russia will nuke US, then NATO will fight with Russia, and there we are, WW3!!! :alarm:

[Nekowolf]

Whaaat? Where did you hear that from?

[Rawra]

From Vanga, the Bulgarian harbinger! :lol: no really, from her.

[Nekowolf]

Sounds like a bunch of over-simplified crap.

[simbalena]

Sounds like a troll.

[Rawra]

How do I lock this stupid thread anyways?

[Nekowolf]

I'll reserve opinion to myself. But let's get this back on topic. I think that's enough one-liners for a debate topic.

I don't know if you were being serious or not, but I'll just assume that it's a serious idea to someone.

The US would not likely declare war on Iran. After fighting in Iraq, still currently fighting in Afghanistan, the people would hate it. True, the President has the power to declare war, but it's the Congress which allows the funding and other stuff that a military needs.

Nor will Iran be like Afghanistan or Iraq. They'd be a lot tougher. The US declaring war on Iran is an absolute worst-case-scenario last-ditch effort. It would be way more than likely that either Iran starts it, or Isreal starts it. In which case we may through support and supplies to Isreal, but try to stay out of direct fighting for as long as possible. Nor do I think that Russia would suddenly declare ware on the US. Isreal, maybe, but not the US, that too would likely be a worst-case-scenario. But I don't think they'd bother. Russia would have to do operations from the sea, and our Navy is stronger than theirs. We have the naval advantage, the home advantage, and the diplomatic advantage. I don't think they'd want to do that.

Edit: Feel free, though I'm interested now, so I may just remake it.

[Oaktree]

Actually, the president doesn't declare war, only Congress can do that. The president can unofficially invades, as in Vietnam, but considering the backlash last time it happened, I doubt few presidents would be stupid enough to go that route.

Actually, come to think of it, I think Clinton did a bit of unwarranted bombing, but we never actually invaded or anything so it seems to have disappeared from common knowledge.

[fakepeeps7]

It would be way more than likely that either Iran starts it, or Isreal starts it. In which case we may through support and supplies to Isreal, but try to stay out of direct fighting for as long as possible.

I think you may be underestimating the ties between the U.S. and Israel. Just look at the idea of Christian Zionism, which seems to have gained strength recently (or maybe its supporters are just louder and more obnoxious). In any case, the U.S. pretty much has to support Israel no matter what, because of the strong pro-Israel lobby in the country; they wouldn't be able to stay out of the direct fighting for very long without incurring the wrath of some very vocal, powerful groups.

[Nekowolf]

@Oaktree: My mistake, then. Thanks for the correction.


Anyway, I think it'd heavily depend on who is the president, and the state of the Congress, at the time. We might go over in a Republican presidency or Republican-led Congress, but I think it's less likely in a Democrat alternative, especially considering the fact of Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be an interesting subject to look into.

But, as for the: "very vocal, powerful groups." - well, they kind of already do, actually, Obama and the Democrat-lead Congress.

[Mistermook]

I think you may be underestimating the ties between the U.S. and Israel. Just look at the idea of Christian Zionism, which seems to have gained strength recently (or maybe its supporters are just louder and more obnoxious). In any case, the U.S. pretty much has to support Israel no matter what, because of the strong pro-Israel lobby in the country; they wouldn't be able to stay out of the direct fighting for very long without incurring the wrath of some very vocal, powerful groups.
I think you're overestimating the influence those interest groups actually hold versus the historical context of American isolationism. If Israel were attacked then I imagine we could find ourselves drawn into a conflict, but simply because Israel attacked someone I don't know if we'd find political will of any kind to do much more than we always do - send money, technology, and sternly-worded op-eds on how mean and evil Israel's opponents are. There's a lot of recognition within the US military that Israel might have a near technological parity with us, which means that short of invading and garrisoning the rest of the Middle East they should pretty much be able to put on their Big Boy Pants and do their own killing if it means so much to them. Supporting Israel directly in an aggressive warfare action would paralyze US relations with the rest of the region for decades, and it's simply not needed for the most part and if it's not needed then it's going to be a hard sell to the American public no matter how much more sympathetic Israel might sometimes be than the rest of the Middle East to the US taxpayer. Any fight that Israel starts it's pretty much going to have an overwhelming advantage beyond getting into a pissing match with NATO or Russia or something not immediately obvious. The US has an easy time stepping in for underdogs, but in that scenario it's a really hard sell.

[fakepeeps7]

There's a lot of recognition within the US military that Israel might have a near technological parity with us, which means that short of invading and garrisoning the rest of the Middle East they should pretty much be able to put on their Big Boy Pants and do their own killing if it means so much to them. Supporting Israel directly in an aggressive warfare action would paralyze US relations with the rest of the region for decades, and it's simply not needed for the most part and if it's not needed then it's going to be a hard sell to the American public no matter how much more sympathetic Israel might sometimes be than the rest of the Middle East to the US taxpayer.

And why is that? Could it be because the U.S.A. has armed and supported Israel financially since 1949? I read some estimates that the U.S. has spent between $100 billion and $135 billion on Israel since 1949. And in recent years, most of that is military aid. I don't think the average taxpayer really knows where their money is going.

It's one thing to put on your Big Boy Pants and do the killing. It's quite another to do your killing in your Big Boy Pants that Mommy bought for you.

[Mistermook]

I think it's actually something in excess of $400 billion if I recall correctly. In recent years though, the traditional aid for Israel has actually dropped off unless someone started writing some big checks since the last time I investigated the matter.

I'm not understanding your question though. Why is what? Why did we support Israel in the aftermath of World War II in the first place, or during the Cold War when so much of the Middle East was being supported by the Soviet Union? Or why should Israel be expected to be able to fight and defend itself with such an obvious and extensive aid program over the last fifty years or what?

Whether or not we've directly supported or indirectly supported Israel, they're not exactly on strings dancing to the tune of Pentagon and State Department fiddlers. The current Israeli government is actually fairly hostile to Washington, probably because their recent activities in Gaza and Lebanon haven't come down with US public opinion solidly in their favor. I'm not convinced that there isn't some actual personal animosity going on either. Netanyahu and Obama have not-entirely-quietly been engaging in a pissing match worthy of a pair of rap stars in the diplomatic arena nearly since Obama came to power. There's always been things that Israel's been about that the US hasn't liked though - forced relocation, allegations of assassination, the sinking of US ships, and th like. But we've liked having a "Western" port nation in the Middle East with a more or less favorable inclination towards the US too much and they've liked having access to our money, implicit backing, and tech. All I'm trying to say is that the two nations aren't connected at the hip - I think both sides would like to think that they're getting a heads up beforehand for major operations that might affect the other, the way the US/British relationship works, but I think that after Lebanon even that's not exactly a given any longer.

[pinketamine]

I'm 100% Persian and I think we should attack Iran, just so the government will change. The president is like seriously mentally ill so I wouldn't doubt it if he actually does use nuclear weapons.
Oh yes, of course, if any country of the world might be an obstacle for your world political domination it is better to attack them, to make sure they won't disturb you anymore. And if you can put a US-friendly goverment, still better.

Ok, so the whole problem is that a country that does not agree with US view of the world has nuclear weapons, isn't it? Because there are other countries having them and nobody seems to worry.

[Oaktree]

Ok, so the whole problem is that a country that does not agree with US view of the world has nuclear weapons, isn't it? Because there are other countries having them and nobody seems to worry.

It's not quite that simple. The US doesn't completely agree with Russia or really any other developed country, but there is little threat of other developed countries with nuclear weapons using them. Iran seems to be more likely to use them. Of course, we can't say for sure, but when the government is controlled by a power-mad fundamentalist, you can't know how that government is going to act and react to others.

[pinketamine]

I agree with you at some point, what I mean is that there isn't any real reason to attack Iran, and if US goverment does it, I don't know which arguments will they give. Anyway, there isn't any country on the world acting on their own, all of them have allies or "friend coutries", and Iran won't launch any attack if they do not have the support of their allies. I still think that the situation is not worrying, at least at the moment, and I don't think other coutries like North Korea or Russia or any other coutries would nowadays give their support to an Iran's attack.

[geallach]

One country does not have the right to attack another over something that they are afraid might happen. You can accuse their leader of being crazy, but no nation in the world, including Iran and North Korea, is stupid enough to launch a missile at America. They are not stupid. What kind of mind would have their entire nation wiped out in the unlikely event of hitting the US with a missile inferior to the ones they've got? None, absolutely none. It proves nothing. Iran have the right to explore nuclear power if they choose to do so, and no country has the right to stand over them and say "You can't, because we say so." There is no evidence that they would actually make weapons with it, apart from a bit of cage-rattling and teasing. Russia has stepped up and agreed to moniter the situation, and that should be good enough for everyone else. Who gets to say who can and cannot use nuclear power, if it is being used as a viable alternative to fossil fuel?

[ElementMK]

@geallach: But your two examples, Iran and North Korea, don't threaten the US first. They threaten Israel and South Korea, respectively. We can't jump to defend our allies as quickly in this situation as if it were an attack on home soil. Besides, these countries are small; it only takes a small arsenal to destroy them. We may not be able to flex our nuclear muscle in this case, but we'd have to start yet another conventional war.

On the other hand, Israel is often cocky about the whole situation, while South Korea would prefer to just be left alone. With the conflicts in the Middle East, it's not about being right, it's about what's left.

[Safyre420]

World War 3? I doubt it. The Middle East is too unstable. It'll be a couple of countries, against Iran.

Yes the middle east is too "unstable", but if the US were to attack Iran, there would be a shit storm that could likely start WW3.


I can't really be bothered to read the rest of the thread either.

To answer the OP:

"What do you think? Should they or shouldn't they attack Iran?"

I say, bomb the eff outta them...but I am biased, no not for religious reasons, not for national reasons. I say bomb them to the stone age because they(those in the middle east) have been fighting for CENTURIES over something so frivolous(religion). But that really is a whole other part and personal opinion.

If the middle east is unstable it's because the US allowed it to be so(we helped osama bin laden fight the russians by supplying weapons and the like).

If Iran wants to develop a nuclear program, I say let them, but watch them so closely that they won't even try to do anything. Nuclear power will solve the energy problems on earth, and propel us into the stars, there's just one major problem, Humanity, we can't seem to get along and work together as a whole. We seriously need to stop all this in-fighting, we're all humans afterall.

[pinketamine]

Yes the middle east is too "unstable", but if the
I say, bomb the eff outta them...but I am biased, no not for religious reasons, not for national reasons. I say bomb them to the stone age because they(those in the middle east) have been fighting for CENTURIES over something so frivolous(religion). But that really is a whole other part and personal opinion.


Well, other countries have beeen figtinh for centuries about something as frivilous as money and power; in fact, even the "religious" wars are not about religion, are about power, because that is the way we are, we want to be better than "the others". Maybe religion is frivolous for some of us, but that is not a justification to "bomb them to the stone age"... errr... seriously, just because they care about religion they should die?

One country does not have the right to attack another over something that they are afraid might happen.
[...]
Iran have the right to explore nuclear power if they choose to do so, and no country has the right to stand over them and say "You can't, because we say so." There is no evidence that they would actually make weapons with it, apart from a bit of cage-rattling and teasing.

I totally agree with you. That concept of the "preventive attack" does not make any sense. It is a way to justify an unjustified attack.

[Nekowolf]

"Yes the middle east is too "unstable", but if the US were to attack Iran, there would be a shit storm that could likely start WW3."

How so, though? There are nations in the Middle East wary of Iran, because they have become an even bigger player thanks to the US involvement in Iraq. If anyone is going to attack Iran first, it WILL be Isreal. This is pretty much a given.

So it would be Isreal who started it. If the US gets involved, it's still Isreal that started it. Sure, they'll go after the US, but who gets the most payout from the US involvement? Terrorist groups, who are already at war with the US. The big problem is, if anything, it'll give more terrorists a greater recruitment ability.

I just do not see how this could turn into World War 3. A war, yes. Maybe even a war with a few countries. A world war? No. So would someone please explain to me how it escalates into that widespread of a situation.

[Oaktree]

Just War Theory (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2).

[Nekowolf]

I don't have time to read it all. Would it be a safe assumption to say that the idea is countries will try to justify war, so that they can enter the war?

Otherwise, could you summarize, please? Just the very basics.

[Oaktree]

To summarize it very simply, a war is just if it has just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, it is the last resort, there is a substantial probability of success, and the benefits outweigh the consequences. Many of these things are the subject of contention, where some might think that it is the last resort, while others think that not all options have been pursued, for example. Overall, though, they are good things for leaders to think about before declaring war.

[Nekowolf]

And, that has to do with a war of Iran turning into World War 3 how?...

Or were you just posting it up, rather than an actual response to what I said?

[Oaktree]

I was just posting it. I thought it was relevant to this thread because there is some talk of the US invading Iran.

[Nekowolf]

Oh, alright. Thought it might've been a direct response to me. My bad.

[Black_Barook!]

The Middle East is too "unstable".

How so? I never really understood this kind of logic. The Gulf States are doing a great job in not screwing up and working together for their common good. Iraq isn’t turning into a black-hole and that’s saying a lot. Jordan and Syria seem to be functioning okay even with the amount of refugees arriving on their doorsteps from both conflicts (American occupied Iraq, Israeli occupied Palestine). Sure Iran is being represented by a quack, but at least the reins aren’t in his hands. Yes the region isn’t Switzerland but it sure as Hell isn’t unstable. Shaky, yes. Dysfunctional? More than that family in Malcolm in the Middle. But unstable. No.

I say bomb them to the Stone Age because they (those in the Middle East) have been fighting for centuries over something so frivolous (Religion).

Centuries? Centuries? The first time we (Arabs, Muslims) ever had a religious war* was when the Europeans sacked Jerusalem and took over parts of the region. The last religious war was when we finally kicked the interlopers out. The other wars were wars of secession, nationalism, etc. that were soaked in religious ideology to spur the masses into giving their approval and support.

*The notion of a religious war, as in a war sanctioned by God did not exist in the Islamic context but with the arrival of the Crusaders it was added to the concept of Jihad. It’s a bit hard to explain.

As to the original question of “Should the United States or Israel attack Iran’s nuclear capabilities?”

That has to be the second stupidest thing that America would let happen, the first being allowing Israel to come into existence. Sure they can bomb Iran, just tell the Europeans we’re moving in since the whole region would be unlivable.

I swear to God the amount of ignorance....*mumbles*

[geallach]

Black_Barook!, I completely agree with your post. I think some Americans like to think that the Middle East is unstable because when they attack part of it, they like to delude themselves with the idea that they are helping, not making things worse. I also reckon that when these people think 'Middle East', they focus only on a few of those countries rather than take them all into consideration, but their perceptions of these countries are basically that the are unstable. If America were ever to attack Iran, or North Korea, those countries would be ripped to shreds because of paranoia, and I don't see many countries who would condone that.

[Vanito]

The USA --wants-- a war against Iran. Just like they claimed Iraq had mass destruction weapons now they claim Iraq has an atom bomb. After the war the supposed atom bomb off course will be nowhere to be found.

[Nekowolf]

Dude, just...ungh. "America" does NOT want a war against Iran. People in America want a war against Iran. We have to freaking parties who are very different; the "wants" of America changes every damn time a politician opens their mouth.

The only reason some people went into Iraq is because Bush lied to us. Not because we're all war-hawks, but because the President's administration lied to us. We, as in the country, America, didn't make that shit up. We, as in the country, America, didn't try to justify the war after it was found out we were lied to. We, as in the country, didn't try to cover shit up.

Bush did. His administration did. And his party did. Shit. Just shut up with your crap about what the US really wants like you're some national-political psychic. It's not that god damn simple, it's not that god damn black-and-white.

[Vanito]

Dude, just...ungh. "America" does NOT want a war against Iran. People in America want a war against Iran. We have to freaking parties who are very different; the "wants" of America changes every damn time a politician opens their mouth.

The only reason some people went into Iraq is because Bush lied to us. Not because we're all war-hawks, but because the President's administration lied to us. We, as in the country, America, didn't make that shit up. We, as in the country, America, didn't try to justify the war after it was found out we were lied to. We, as in the country, didn't try to cover shit up.

Bush did. His administration did. And his party did. Shit. Just shut up with your crap about what the US really wants like you're some national-political psychic. It's not that god damn simple, it's not that god damn black-and-white.
If the people do not want war, politicians just make an excuse to get their war anyhow. Fake an atomb bomb, fake mass destruction weapons. Fake it till you make it, fear is a powerfull weapon.

The problem is that some USA people are critical and a some swallow shit. Wether its horror abortion stories, horror gay marriage stories or the new fake fearmaking atom bomb and anti muslim propaganda. Yeah muslims do idiotic things but no I dont believe they want to atomb bomb the USA etc etc.

Holland has its populist idiot here too, which tries to spead anti muslim propaganda so people will agree with sponsoring USA wars. 14% is insane enough to go for it.

[shivarani]

hey!
I am from iran too and iranian people are really worried about the Situation in their country!
I just wanted to say if you want to get info from a native persian person I am ready to tell you all about iran and middle east.but if i have to tell you one thing that thing is that we want to be your friend not your enemy.
:lovestruc
..............

[Purity4]

hey!
I am from iran too and iranian people are really worried about the Situation in their country!
I just wanted to say if you want to get info from a native persian person I am ready to tell you all about iran and middle east.but if i have to tell you one thing that thing is that we want to be your friend not your enemy.
:lovestruc
..............
:lovestruc By all means, tell us how you see things and what you hope will happen in Iran.

[Nekowolf]

@Vanito

And that is a proper defense for what you said...how?

[shivarani]

I hope to have Developed country!
a country without any violence and stricture.a country with a good reputation. I hate the first look in foreign countries to us .imagin that you were instead of us how would you feel that people judg about your personality without knowing you? :cry: :(

[Purity4]

Shivarani, what type of government do you hope will be in Iran? How do you feel about the US troops over there? How do you feel about the current conflicts and violence taking part in Iran? What do you think would make Iran a peaceful place to live for it's citizens?

[shivarani]

Shivarani, what type of government do you hope will be in Iran? How do you feel about the US troops over there? How do you feel about the current conflicts and violence taking part in Iran? What do you think would make Iran a peaceful place to live for it's citizens?

dear Purity4
I am glad that I see people want to get more info about iran. :gjob:
first I have to say that you are in a wrong way :heyhey:
US troops in iran?Are you joking?of course I am against it! :wtf:
I have already told this to you that i want a free country!with no violence! :(
I cant continue my life with this kinds of Situation! :faceslap:
why cant iranian pepol have a quiet and easy life?just like the other people? :help:
I think if we have the human rights in our country every thing is gonna be okay :lovestruc

[Mistermook]

How do the average Iranians on the street reconcile their modern society and their desire for peace with an Iranian government that has alleged ties with terror groups, a history of cracking down on political protest and expression within Iran itself, has a vitriolic diplomatic dialog with Israel and the West, and whose nominal leader, Ahmadinejad, comes across as a reckless crazy person to much of the rest of the international community? And yes, I know the US isn't without fault in any number of things - but I understand the US and as an open democracy I think it's clear that the US can change when it wants or has to. Why doesn't the leadership of Iran better reflect the people of Iran?

I'm not saying this to be rude, understand. I just don't quite grasp how anyone can treat Iran as a peaceful country as long as your current government is in charge. I wouldn't have expected anyone to have treated the US as peaceful under Bush either. Why should anyone prepare for anything but confrontation when your government seems to seek it at every turn, whether or not its actual intent is confrontation?

[Purity4]

This article touches on some of the many internal conflicts that exist in Iran and between Iran and the countries surrounding it. Iraq, Turkey, Iran (http://www.rferl.org/content/Iraq_Turkey_Iran_Vulnerable_To_Ethnic_Conflict/1375921.html)

And this gives information regarding the Iraq-Iran war Iran-Iraq Conflict (http://course1.winona.edu/aelafandi/polsci270/iran-iraq-war.htm)

I understand you desire peace, but do you have any ideas on how, surrounded by territorial and religious conflicts in the region, a more citizen-representative government can be formed in Iran?



And what of the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts? There is such a wide diversity of ethnic, cultural and religious groups in the entire middle eastern region and it seems to me that the countries in the region are in the middle of a process of re-delineation, reconstructing boundaries, rebuilding governments.

[fakepeeps7]

It's not the people's fault. Look at what happened when they tried to contest the results of the election!

It's not always within the people's power to get rid of a corrupt government. Sometimes, a bunch of them just end up dead for no good reason. I'm not saying they shouldn't fight for what they think is right. But we shouldn't be blaming the people of a country for having a dictatorial government, either. That's sort of like blaming the victim of a kidnapping for getting kidnapped.

[Purity4]

Fakepeeps, I think you completely misinterpreted my last post. I was asking everyone what they think could help this terrible situation. I was not blaming the victims of this. The problems there cannot be fixed by any one person, but the more people think of a solution, the more likely one will be found and implemented. And, as Shivarani pointed out (and I have always thought), US troops in Iran are not going to create any solution, either.

[Mistermook]

It's not the people's fault. Look at what happened when they tried to contest the results of the election!

That's irrelevant really. If all the wolves in the forest but one are peaceful animals that want nothing but to be left alone, but the last one is the largest wolf that leads the pack and it's got a history of lurking at the edges of the fences eying the sheep, you treat all the wolves as dangerous. At least as a policy decision controlling whether or not you're fixing the fence or not.

It might not be the fault of the Iranian people, but at the same time I can't ignore the Iranian hostage crisis, or the evidence of weapons shipments to terror groups, or ...anything. I like Iranians, as a people. Some of my favorite people are Iranians whose families fled the revolution. I can't justify taking an eye off of Iran though, simply because the Iranian people as a whole have all been great to me on a personal level.

That's not justifying anything aggressive against Iran either. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying that Iran, the country, does not act like a peaceful country. The people often do and I commend them for that, but the government does not reflect that ease in diplomatic relations.

For that matter I'm fairly positive that as a people North Koreans are probably very much like their South Korean neighbors, minus a lot of fancy electronics. I couldn't justify recommending tearing down the DMZ just because of that though, the North Korean people don't control the DPRK military and the DPRK leadership seems hellbent on causing a shooting war at all costs.

[fakepeeps7]

What are you supposed to do when the government doesn't accurately reflect the people?

[Mistermook]

What are you supposed to do when the government doesn't accurately reflect the people?
Exactly. Personally I'm fine with just going "Well, this isn't the solution I'd prefer, but nations are powerful, dangerous things. I'll just take my cues from the government as long as it appears to be in control." I don't know what other option anyone has.

That's contrasted, for instance, with "nations" like sometimes pop up in Africa where the actual ability to rule and control the population is obviously limited. Darfur's government could be the very model of an international government in the policies that it endorsed, but since it's not in control of the country in any significant way it suggests that the prudent choice is to disregard it entirely (or at least look for ways to strengthen its control so that you're dealing with a government instead of anarchy.)

[Oaktree]

Exactly. Personally I'm fine with just going "Well, this isn't the solution I'd prefer, but nations are powerful, dangerous things. I'll just take my cues from the government as long as it appears to be in control." I don't know what other option anyone has.


The other option is revolution. It is dangerous and bloody, but when a government becomes too corrupt, sometimes it is the only option.

[Mistermook]

The other option is revolution. It is dangerous and bloody, but when a government becomes too corrupt, sometimes it is the only option.
Revolution in another country isn't really for me to suggest most of the time. How do you suggest to someone that they stand up and get shot at? That's a difficult enough ethical question in any circumstance, but it's particularly sketchy when you're not suggesting that you stand with up with them.

Maybe it's the right thing, but I'm not sure I'd care to voice that one for someone else to carry out. Somehow I've got the nagging feeling that if they did then later on I'd feel like I had blood on my hands.

[Oaktree]

Revolution in another country isn't really for me to suggest most of the time. How do you suggest to someone that they stand up and get shot at? That's a difficult enough ethical question in any circumstance, but it's particularly sketchy when you're not suggesting that you stand with up with them.

Maybe it's the right thing, but I'm not sure I'd care to voice that one for someone else to carry out. Somehow I've got the nagging feeling that if they did then later on I'd feel like I had blood on my hands.

There's nothing wrong with making that suggestion. People can still choose whether or not to have a revolution even if there are other people who think they should favor one way or another. Revolution is heavily reliant on the dedication and numbers of the people starting one, so an outsider can't have any influence in the matter unless the people involved let the outsider have influence.

And it would actually be worse to impose yourself on the revolution of another country without the country asking for help with their revolution (I realize that you're not saying that we should, I'm just preempting the discussion on this point). If you simply impose yourself in it, you are acting as if that country and the people in it are not mature enough to take responsibility for their own problems. If you answer a plea for help, you are acting altruistically, but if you force your way in, you are treating them like children.

[Mistermook]

Ah, but I have a child. I can understand doing things for a child, that I could not conscience doing to or for an adult. ;)

[Oaktree]

Exactly. You can be responsible for a child because a child is often not mentally capable of being responsible for his/her actions, but an adult (short of a seriously mentally impaired one) is capable of making his/her own decisions.

[Mistermook]

If I suggest to someone they take an action that causes them harm, I'm responsible for that suggestion. That doesn't mean I've literally got blood on my hands, but I'm still not comfortable with it. Especially since, as interpreted through the lens of US foreign policy and history, I know that an awful, awful lot of people have died thanks to "suggestions" interpreted as a measure of support in the past. Civil war isn't something I think anyone should suggest lightly, or even seriously, except when they're part of it.

I'm still not beyond accepting that treating an irresponsible government as an enemy of the international community, or even specifically my own country, is sometimes a legitimate and logical decision in how you're doing business, but for all I think the rhetoric and some past actions of the Iranian government have bordered on the irresponsible, I can't deny that their actual actions are consistent for the most part. I don't like them and I don't like the way they're presented, and I think they're recklessly dancing with promoting an aggressive stance that could backfire terribly; but it's clearly a different situation than say... half of Africa. There's plenty of half-governed states in Africa that I wish the international community could find the support for nailing the hell out of them when they decide to play outside the lines. But Africa also presents a lot of examples of how civil war is an awful lot uglier than just another conventional war of foreign powers. That kind of stuff lingers for decades, or even hundreds of years. Even with moderately successful examples out there in revolution I'm not sure it's a good idea for anyone except in the most extreme of circumstances, it's just too risky.

[Oaktree]

I don't mean this personally, but it is rather arrogant to think that you have that kind of control over another. People tend to make decisions first based on their own knowledge and intuition and to be fairly rigid when they have formed an opinion. That means that you have little likelihood of influencing someone to do something that they didn't already want to do. This is a bit different for children, who are more naive and malleable, which is part of why they can't always be held responsible.

Everyone is capable of making their own decisions and will generally exercise that power. To say that you are responsible for the actions of another is to say that you have some sort of power of decision over that person, which is wrong if it is a person who is capable of judgment. Some people may make better decisions more often, but no one is wrong all of the time or right all of the time, so it isn't justifiable to take away a person's freedom of decision-making. I realize that this isn't what you are advocating, but to say that you bear responsibility for the actions of others is to say that you somehow have taken this level of control over another.

[fakepeeps7]

I don't think it has anything to do with arrogance or wanting power. There are a lot of stupid people out there who can be easily manipulated with the slightest suggestion. It would be irresponsible not to acknowledge the fact that your words might influence somebody to do something. Most of us may have the capacity to think for ourselves... but not everybody does so.

[Mistermook]

Look, you can argue the philosophical accuracy of leadership and suggestion all you want, Oaktree. But if I tell someone to walk into a building that blows up it really doesn't matter emotionally whether or not they did or did not have the existential ability to tell me to go fuck myself. Whether I convinced them with a leash or lash, my winning smile and wonderful disposition, or if I just happened to be the guy standing around telling them to do what they already intended to do, emotionally I'm saying I'm going to take ownership of my own actions and apply that to others.

Maybe that is arrogance. You know what? I'm fine with that. I'd rather be an arrogant prick who tried to do the things that I thought would amount to the best for everyone than be the "humble" asshole who puts up the Turn Left sign directing everyone towards the bridge that's out. :)

[Oaktree]

If you tell someone to walk into a building that you knew would blow up, then, yes, you are responsible because presumably you withheld information from him/her, preventing him/her from making a rational decision. If you have no reason to believe that there is any greater chance of that building blowing up than any other, you are not responsible, though it is understandable that someone might feel some displaced guilt.

I think that it is a nice idea to try to do what is best for everyone, but sometimes doing what is "best for everyone" ends up hurting some individuals. It is not justifiable to harm an individual in order to bring some good to many, unless that individual is responsible for the harm done to many. Part of the reason is because a person who is not responsible for the suffering of others cannot be forced to be responsible for it (by giving up what is best for him/her) and part of it is because there is a slippery slope of justification of harming innocents. The good of the innocent individual should only be sacrificed with the consent of that individual.

Your example of putting up a misleading sign is another example in which you are responsible for the harm done. You are, as in the previous example, misleading people, preventing them from making informed decisions. The difference between this and suggesting that a country have a revolution is in the authority that you have, your knowledge of the situation, and your intent. In the situation of suggesting revolution, you probably do not have much authority or illusion of authority, so it is unlikely that you will have much influence. Your knowledge of revolutions tells you that it will be bloody, but it may be that the end result justifies it. Your intent is presumably to help people achieve freedom and a better quality of life. In the case of the road sign, you have an illusion of authority, so people are likely to listen, you have knowledge that doing so will lead to bad things, and your intent is presumably bad. To apply it, you cannot ask for praise for telling people to revolt if it is a successful revolution. The people who actually participated are deserving of the praise. In the same manner, you cannot take the blame for the bad that comes of it.

[Mistermook]

You're right, Oaktree. I'm obviously a bastard for not wanting to suggest that anyone do shit that gets them killed. What a jerk I am.

[ElementMK]

I'm pretty sure your suggestions have no influence on whether or not you were born out of wedlock.

[noosk]

Iran problems... Opinions?

No one mentions Operation Ajax in this thread. No one mentions the petrodollar and Iranian oil bourse. Let the real debate begin...

[modfanatic]

I remember having a dream about WWIII. It was terrifying. Suppose there'll be terrorism, terrorism, and more terrorism, and then POOF! We have World War 3?

[fakepeeps7]

Iran problems... Opinions?

No one mentions Operation Ajax in this thread. No one mentions the petrodollar and Iranian oil bourse. Let the real debate begin...

What's to debate? The U.S. created a problem by interfering, and now they don't like the results, so they'll probably interfere again.

Nobody seems to learn anything from past mistakes...

[Nekowolf]

Nope. The world is a stupid, stupid place.

[kennyinbmore]

What's to debate? The U.S. created a problem by interfering, and now they don't like the results, so they'll probably interfere again.

Nobody seems to learn anything from past mistakes...

You just took the words right out of my mouth