ADVERTISEMENT

Iran

qazplm

qazplm

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
32,620
3,202
113
So, an article in the Washington Post argues not simply for a tougher deal, or even no deal, but taht we should go to war with Iran, now, to stop them from getting nuclear weapons.

One of the comments from the editorial staff stated that if Iran got nukes, it was "beyond reasonable doubt" that they would use them.

Does anyone actually believe this? They would be committing suicide if they used nukes. Not only would the entire world turn against them, but Israel has a lot more nukes, and most certainly would use them.

It's one thing to believe the Iranians are radical, it's another to believe they insane.

bomb bomb bomb Iran
 
I believe Iran would use nukes via proxy, not as a direct state actor for all the reasons you cited. They fight proxy wars as it stands, even against ISIS.

Israel is going to bomb Iran the minute they think they are very close to having a nuclear weapons capability. They didn't wait for us to fix Syria; they won't wait for us to deal with Iran either.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Except how would they use a proxy? Who else would be looked at if Israel or America were nuked but Iran? Assuming they had nukes. They be assumed to have done it
 
Originally posted by qazplm:
So, an article in the Washington Post argues not simply for a tougher deal, or even no deal, but taht we should go to war with Iran, now, to stop them from getting nuclear weapons.

One of the comments from the editorial staff stated that if Iran got nukes, it was "beyond reasonable doubt" that they would use them.

Does anyone actually believe this? They would be committing suicide if they used nukes. Not only would the entire world turn against them, but Israel has a lot more nukes, and most certainly would use them.

It's one thing to believe the Iranians are radical, it's another to believe they insane.
Click to expand...
I don't know about "going to war" with Iran. But, you're attempting to use logic to evaluate an illogical situation.

Iran's zealots don't care about your logic any more than suicide bombers care about their next meal.

Why would religious zealots ("Palestinians") attack another country (Israel), then seek sympathy when they're punished for it? Furthermore, why would otherwise seemingly coherent people (in our country, as well as others) condemn a country (Isreal) seeking to protect their citizenry when attacked by hateful religious zealots ("Palestinians")?

The world is turned upside-down, where right is wrong and wrong is right. What a screwed up time.
 
what evidence is there

that Iran is filled with illogical people? Illogical leaders?

What evidence is there that they do not care about their continued existence as a nation? A people?
 
Originally posted by qazplm:
Except how would they use a proxy? Who else would be looked at if Israel or America were nuked but Iran? Assuming they had nukes. They be assumed to have done it
Click to expand...
If you were going to prove that the weapon came from Iran, I think that'd be pretty tough, and we're not going to nuclear war with anyone on assumption, IMO. Israel might.

I don't think the U.S. would be the target anyhow. That is just stupid even if by proxy.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
if Iran used a nuke by proxy

I don't remotely believe it would be tough to tie it back to them.

I think in fact it would be almost inevitable. Even ignoring that, they would have to assume, worst case scenario, that it would be tied back to them.

And as you said, even if somehow we aren't willing to go to war (and I'm not remotely sure that's true), Israel has 300 nukes, and if they were nuked, Iran would be a glowing parking lot pretty quickly.

Iran wants nukes for one reason. It signals that they've joined the club of big boy nations. Persian pride. They have a long history of being an important culture, and recently they've lose that (as in the last few centuries). But that doesn't mean they still don't view themselves with outsized importance.

It's no different than why a Pakistan, or India wanted nukes.
 
Right, don't disagree with any of that. Is it your opinion that Iran wouldn't employ nuclear weapons in any way other than symbolically? I'm not sure nor willing to bet American lives (or likely Israeli) on that.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
NK has nukes

they haven't deployed them in any way other than symbolically, and they are magnitudes more crazy.

So yes, I'm unconcerned that American or Israeli lives are in any danger from Iranian nukes.
We are more in danger from the NKs selling or using a nuke IMO, or a Russian nukes somehow ending up missing...yet we surely are betting American (or S Korean) lives that it doesn't happen because invading NK would be pretty crazy.
 
Re: NK has nukes


So, the biggest threat from NK is that they might sell weapons to someone, yet you don't view it as a big deal that Iran, a regime which operates or supports proxy warfighting organizations all over the region, wouldn't do the same or worse?

Iran would put a warhead on a medium range missile to exercise regional power, gain legitimacy, and threaten Israel. Iran would also likely provide bombs of some scale, maybe tactical, maybe larger, to Hezbollah, Hamas, Assad's regime, Shiite militiamen, etc. to grant those organizations legitimacy. IMO, that's unacceptable.
 
Iran (and Hezbollah) removed from terrorist threat list

We're safe! Let's go ahead and let them get nukes.

They would be committing suicide if they used nukes.

Yeah, like a lot of Muslims recently who've commited suicide in the name of Islam. Not to mention all the other fanatics throughout history who've been willing to get killed for the cause. Suicide is certainly a possible motivation if they believe the rewards on the other side are worth it.

It's one thing to believe the Iranians are radical, it's another to believe they insane.

Why is it so hard to believe they're insane? At least insane enough to wage an end-times war against the Jews. Why is it beyond the realm of possibilities?



This post was edited on 3/16 8:06 PM by GMM

US report scraps Iran from list of terror threats
 
Re: Iran (and Hezbollah) removed from terrorist threat list

Originally posted by GMM:

It's one thing to believe the Iranians are radical, it's another to believe they insane.

Why is it so hard to believe they're insane? At least insane enough to wage an end-times war against the Jews. Why is it beyond the realm of possibilities?
Click to expand...
Because if what you imply with these silly questions were true, they would've waged this war directly by now. They haven't, so it follows that they are neither illogical nor insane.
 
NK is a cult

Iran is a modern nation. NK is one step away from collapse. Iran is a stable nation. Absolutely magnitudes of difference between the two. Yet NK has had nukes for what, a decade now? And even they aren't crazy/dumb enough to give them to terrorists.

And really, Iran is the only nation that "operates or supports proxy warfighting organizations?"

We've been doing that since the Shah was a baby.

I absolutely agree that Iran would make a show of having nukes, and they would probably saber rattle a little bit, but no I don't believe they would give them to Hezbollah or Hamas. I mean I thought you said they would be discreet. Giving a nuke to Hezbollah? They might as well stamp property of Iran on it.

They will get nukes sooner or later. We could bomb them, and they would get nukes sooner or later. The ONLY way to stop it would be a full-scale land invasion of Iran. You advocating that to stop it?
 
Re: Iran (and Hezbollah) removed from terrorist threat list

No, its not necessarily true that they would've waged a conventional war. Maybe they're waiting to develop nuclear missiles because they think that's their best chance to destroy Israel. I wouldn't doubt the possibility they sincerely believe in their end-times prophecies and would act on it. Its not like it'd be the first time it has ever happened.
 
The people of Iran may be modern......

.....but that's no guarantee the mullahcracy is as well.
 
Re: NK is a cult

Originally posted by qazplm:

We could bomb them, and they would get nukes sooner or later. The ONLY way to stop it would be a full-scale land invasion of Iran. You advocating that to stop it?
Click to expand...
Did I ever say anything about the US using military force to stop it? Nope. I just don't think we should be cutting deals which involve concessions to Iran. The cycle is thus: we make a deal where Iran promises not to do X, and in exchange we provide Y. Two years later after we provided Y, we find out that Iran did X anyway. Same deal with North Korea. These are not countries and regimes that should be trusted, and it's comical to me that the Obama administration hasn't learned from the past at all. Their foreign policy is based on living in fantasy land where everyone does what they say they're going to do.

Ultimately, Israel is going to stop Iran just like they stopped Syria's program.
 
Re: Iran (and Hezbollah) removed from terrorist threat list

The Mahdi, aka the 12th Imam.

Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Mahdī (Isa (Jesus Christ) in order to fulfill their mission of bringing peace and justice to the world.

...............

Shi'as believe that Imam al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason.

Since his return won't happen until there is chaos and war in the world it is believed that some of the mullahs will try to instigate this chaos and war by trying to exterminate the hated Jews.

Muhammad al-Mahdi
 
Re: NK is a cult

These are not countries and regimes that should be trusted, and it's comical to me that the Obama administration hasn't learned from the past at all.

Its not comical, its sinister. Also, its not they haven't learned from the past its that they don't care about learning. They don't care if these regimes can be trusted. They care about appeasing regimes that hate the West and America in particular.
 
Re: NK is a cult

Right, I forgot that Obama is a Muslim plant bent on political jihad against the United States.
rolleyes.r191677.gif


Or, more likely he's just naïve.
 
Re: Iran (and Hezbollah) removed from terrorist threat list

Originally posted by GMM:

... chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason.

... this chaos and war by trying to exterminate the hated Jews (and presumably retake the holy land).
Click to expand...
Does not follow.
 
Re: NK is a cult

Yeah, "naive". Amazing how consistently "naive" people in the Obama administration keep acting.
 
Almost all international deals require concessions

from both sides. Short of war, and usually not even then. So I don't understand the mindset that says no concessions. Who ever negotiates that way? What does that even mean? Iran never gets a nuclear power plant?

The negotiations involves an inspection regime, that is kind of the opposite of trust.

Israel is going to stop? How? Iran isn't Syria. It's way larger, way more advanced and way more sophisticated.
 
Re: Almost all international deals require concessions



Originally posted by qazplm:
from both sides. Short of war, and usually not even then. So I don't understand the mindset that says no concessions. Who ever negotiates that way? What does that even mean? Iran never gets a nuclear power plant?

The negotiations involves an inspection regime, that is kind of the opposite of trust.

Israel is going to stop? How? Iran isn't Syria. It's way larger, way more advanced and way more sophisticated.
Click to expand...
Instead of concessions, apply sanctions. They were working. What had Iran done to earn concessions? They hadn't lived up to the terms of getting their sanctions lifted. Maybe they should've started there. Instead, our naïve president and State decided to give "good faith" to a regime that's never earned it.

The inspection is all fine and dandy, but we're going to make these concessions (give them the carrot) and then inspect. Once we inspect, and they fail to do what they were asked, we can't take those concessions back.

Iran's military isn't nearly as advanced as you give them credit for, nor are they as experienced or strongly backed by, oh, say... Russia?
 
Re: NK is a cult


So, it is your stated belief then that the President of the United States is purposefully subverting the country he was elected to run? If so, you'll start to rival IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW!!! for top whackadoo on this message board, and that's saying something.
 
Russia's backing

couldn't help Syria stop rebel splinter groups, so lotta good that does.

And yes, Iran is more advanced than Syria. Not just their military, but the country as a whole. It's also a heckuva a lot more unified, not just religiously, but culturally, and ethnically.

Inspections mean that we get a close look at what they are doing. Are we getting a close look at what they are doing right now? Nope. So, which would you rather have? Sanctions, but no real knowledge of what they are doing...or "concessions" but inspections seeing what they are doing? Sanctions are always going to be there. Using the stick all of the time with no carrot is not an effective approach.
 
Re: NK is a cult

Its been the Left's goal since 1789 to subvert the West.
 
so being shown something

is worse in your mind than being shown nothing because they might be hiding something?
 
Re: Iran (and Hezbollah) removed from terrorist threat list

we could just type that at the end of every GMM post ever.
 
Re: so being shown something

Making concessions under the auspices of receiving transparency from a regime that's got extensive history of doing the exact opposite is foolish and naïve. I don't think it's that hard to comprehend what I'm getting at here.

It's kind of like giving Putin a bunch of "off ramps" and then when he opts not to take any of them being stuck doing nothing.

The foreign policy credibility of the Obama administration is shot. No one believes that he will do anything of any note to back up demands or enforce deals, so they're just biding their time (or annexing portions of other countries as they see fit - Crimea, Ukraine, ISIS).

I'm not advocating going to war over any of this. What I am advocating is a little bit of forceful diplomacy, rather than operating under the astonishingly naive assumption that if we show good will, our adversaries will respond in kind.
 
Re: so being shown something

But things unfortunately are not that simple.

What would you do about Russia/Crimea/Ukraine if you don't want military force? If you don't think Russia is feeling the squeeze of the sanctions, of which the US has advocated the toughest, you're nuts. They're crippling Russia's economy. The US basically said this week there's no set end date to these sanctions and they'll go on forever.

But the sanctions are not that simple. Obviously the U.N. is not effective in this situation. Some European countries have been on board with sanctions, however - their level of support only goes so far because they rely on a lot of natural resources from Russia. It's no different than how our relationships have been odd with some Middle Eastern countries. So that's not exactly an easy situation to deal with.

Iran is also a very tricky situation because there are so many variables involved. Iran itself isn't a unified country. There's 2 very different factions within the government and we obviously don't want the "hardline" faction of it to make gains. Iran is a very, very unique country and nothing involving them can be talked about within a 60 second 24 hour news segment. In addition, Iran obviously has unique relationships outside of Iran, particularly right now the situation in Syria. So while it may be easy to say screw em, why bother negotiating - we (as in the West) needs a relationship, whether we admit it or not or how official it is.

Overall, do I think what's been done is amazing? No. But I certainly do not envy having to deal with many of these subjects, all over the world. Diplomacy is nothing it used to be even in 1990s. We live in a much more connected world, through the internet, world travel, etc.
 
negotiating

is not "naive." It's what everyone does.

We did sanctions against Russia, now their economy is in freefall, and there were even, apparently? false rumors of a slow coup against Putin. They also appear more or less to have given up annexing more of Ukraine, at least for now.

We did sanctions against Iran, which has now driven them to the negotiating table where we can get inspectors in who are NOT there now.

The only people who think the foreign policy of Obama is "shot" are folks who think the stick is the only method of negotiating.
 
there is no

amazing when dealing with international diplomacy and politics.

We can't even deal with domestic relationships where there are more or less only two sides. International diplomacy has dozens of sides sometimes.

What folks don't understand is, we aren't some juggernaut. OK let's get "tough" with Iran and not negotiate and do tough sanctions. What happens if the rest of the world says, hmmmm...no, we want to negotiate, we want a more binary approach?

This isn't the cold war where the west followed our lead because of the red menace...Europe and Russia and China and other countries are going to follow their own paths, so my way or the highway "non-naive being tough" approaches is not a viable go to move every single time.
 
Are you serious

Sure both sides in a negotiation usually require concessions.

However, one does not and should not concede anything when the other side is not keeping or will keep their end of the bargain. Look at North Korea.

I mean really, the USA is effectively giving Iran 12 billion just to sit down and talk to them. They are laughing all the way to the bank.

This post was edited on 3/18 1:06 AM by Purdue97
 
Re: NK is a cult

Sure, the USA has been and does support proxy warfighting organizations. So what?

I think it is is safe to say that the proxy warfighting organizations Iran supports are not aligned in any way, shape, or form with those of the United States.

Sure, point to to ISIS. Do not think for a second that Iran has other motives for defeating ISIS. It would be called surrounding KSA and getting/clearing a direct line to Syria/Lebanon to harass Israel.

As for who would give nukes uranium enrichment methods to rogue nations or proxy warfighters-all I will say is Pakistan generals and scientists had no issues with selling it. At best history shows it is really hard to predict what these countries will do with their nuclear technology, at worst history gives us the answer.
 
Re: so being shown something

Russia's economy is crippled due to $40 oil. Like I wrote here late last summer, drive down oil prices...limit Russia's ability to be aggressive with its neighbors. I was told by the board genius it wouldn't make any difference.
 
yes look at NK

Up until 2003, they had inspectors in their country. We declared them part of the Axis of Evil, and took a hardball approach.
They expelled those inspectors, who never returned. Late 2004, they declared they have nuclear weapons.

They did this all while under crushing sanctions (and a woefully, criminally insane economic system).

Removing inspectors and playing hardball did not stop NK from getting the bomb...but it will stop Iran? Do tell how.
 
so what?

The "so what" is it's in response to Gr8's statement that that fact is a reason to fear Iran using nukes. I submit, most nations with designs outside their borders engage in these practices, and it is not, in and of itself, a reason for someone to use nukes.

Nothing about Iran's current leadership is aligned with us, save maybe a mutual enemy in ISIS.
Yep, Iran would love to disrupt/harass Israel via the use of proxy actors.
Those things should be opposed, obviously.

That is not the same as "we need to attack Iran because if they get the bomb they will use it" which is the supposition of the article I linked to. And I think it's also not answered by "no deals with Iran" because we tried the "no deals with NK" route, and that did gang-busters in preventing them from getting nukes.
 
Re: there is no

NATO, the UN, etc. all follow our lead unless we choose not to lead.

This "no negotiation" point is a red herring. Never have I said "no negotiation". What I HAVE said is don't give them the carrot before they do anything. They came to the table because sanctions worked. Getting them to come to the table isn't enough because they have a long history of stalling and biding time in negotiations.

As I have said before, and you and lbodel point out, I don't envy the position of having to make these tough choices, but I do think the negotiating tactics we are using are naïve and utopian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tjreese

A couple of interesting things going on relative to Climate change and your money

Replies
0
Views
357
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
tjreese
tjreese
Casey Bartley

Purdue men's basketball One scholarship too many | Transfer?

Replies
33
Views
1K
The Depot
Casey Bartley
Casey Bartley
tjreese

Any guess how many illegals are currently in the country ? 53 million? We don't really know, but here is

Replies
7
Views
282
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
Boiler Buck
Boiler Buck
tjreese

whud a thunk?

Replies
2
Views
188
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
tjreese
tjreese
Do Dah Day

ESPN article - unlocked

Replies
22
Views
2K
Boilermaker Men's Basketball
Purdue Grad in Texas
Purdue Grad in Texas
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back