T Nation

Should We Bomb Iran?

[quote]pookie wrote:
florianopolis wrote:
Unfortunately, there isn’t much else they can shift away from oil with, which they know is finite, besides nuclear power.

I need to recheck my sources, but if I recall correctly, they’ve been offered assistance from various countries to build nuclear reactors that can’t be used to produce weapons grade uranium, and they’re not terribly interested, or at least, unwilling to stop research in their own more primitive (but weapon capable) designs.

But of course, if you were Iran, you’d want nukes too.
[/quote]

This is correct.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

preventing free elections in their own country

Gotta be fucking kidding me!

Iran is easily the most democratic Muslim country in the whole region. Iran is many times more democratic than Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, or Pakistan.

[/quote]

Most of your post is idiotic, but this is true, sadly.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
(1) How about bombing the nuke sites? I have nothing against the Iranian people, except the ones who fund the Iraqi insurgency or other such things.

[/quote]
They don’t have nukes yet, so a pre-emptive attack is a PR nightmare. Fact is they can spin it six ways from Sunday and there would be nothing we can do to counter it.

It saw what happened once India and Pakistan acquired that capability. They believe it will give them the respect and recognition on the world stage that they deserve. The glory of the Ancient Persian Empire is something they are proud of.

They also have no refining capabilities, just lots of crude.

Be damned if I know. There’s a lot of oppression in the world today.

Now you are just being a dick.

[quote]pookie wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The reason western nations are unwilling to wage proper war at least in the middle east is due to the way these countries fight. They have an overt armed forces that we confront in regular battle, then they have covert “militias”.

You can’t really blame the countries for using the only type of warfare that can work against a superpower. You can’t ask for a “fair fight” in a war.

No conventional army, anywhere on Earth, can stand against the might of the US Army. The only way to fight it effectively is to bog it down in a long series of guerilla skirmishes and wait until the US people tire of the whole thing and bring the troops home. That works because they know the US will not use any WMDs against civilian populations.

It seems that modern wars are fought more effectively with PR and through the media than on battlefields with high-tech weaponry.
[/quote]

Bingo. Saddam is probably one of the last people who will try to oppose the U.S. with conventional forces. Even the Chinese wouldn’t, they would use cyberwar, terrorism, and probably tactical nukes on our carriers if need be.

Warfare has been going this way since Mao led the Long March seventy years ago.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Question for those who are more knowledgeable about these things than I:

Since getting nukes, how are the relations between India and Pakistan compared to what they were before either of them had the bomb? [/quote]

Generally softened, some negotiation, Pakistan may be backing off funding the insurgency in Kashmir some I think. Pakistan still regards India as the prime threat to its security though, and felt it needed nukes because India would roll over the Pakistani Army in a conventional campaign in weeks or less.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Also, [Iran] may be interested in saving the planet by cutting carbon emissions.[/quote]

Now, that is laugh-out-loud funny.

[quote]lixy wrote:
pookie wrote:
I need to recheck my sources, but if I recall correctly, they’ve been offered assistance from various countries to build nuclear reactors that can’t be used to produce weapons grade uranium, and they’re not terribly interested, or at least, unwilling to stop research in their own more primitive (but weapon capable) designs.

They weren’t offered squat! They were told to stop all activities before even sitting down on the negociations table. I think it’s a pretty disingenous offer.
[/quote]

Bullshit. There are other countries besides America that have been trying to get Iran to not produce weapons grade material.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

preventing free elections in their own country

Gotta be fucking kidding me!

Iran is easily the most democratic Muslim country in the whole region. Iran is many times more democratic than Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, or Pakistan.

Most of your post is idiotic, but this is true, sadly.[/quote]

If you consider sham elections with handpicked candidates democracy.

[quote]lixy wrote:
They weren’t offered squat! They were told to stop all activities before even sitting down on the negociations table. I think it’s a pretty disingenous offer.[/quote]

Well this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1799796,00.html

and this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=TpM&q=iran+offered+nuclear++reactor+technology&btnG=Search

…seem to support my previous post. Haven’t checked them all, but it seems to me that offers were indeed made.

But, like I said, you don’t have to be a genius to understand that Iran wants both nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.

[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
Also, [Iran] may be interested in saving the planet by cutting carbon emissions.

Now, that is laugh-out-loud funny.
[/quote]

Why not? they already cured AIDS…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

(2) Why does Iran want nukes anyway? Just to alarm the West? Iran sits on the 4th (I think) largest oil deposits in the world.

(4) Funding insurgency by the USA in Iran (and various other places) is GOOD, since the USA is good.

(Alright, I put the last one in to fire up Lixy and Wreckless. :smiley: )[/quote]

I’ll take no 2 please.

HH, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend you’re a somewhat intelligent geography teacher.

Ok, take a look at the map of Iran and it’s neighbours. Now color every neighbour with American troops or bases red. Or blue, which ever you prefer.
Now color every neighbour which is a strong ally of the US red. Or blue.
What do you see?
Right, they are surrounded by US troops and allies.
That makes them a tad nervous.

[quote]pookie wrote:

You can’t really blame the countries for using the only type of warfare that can work against a superpower. You can’t ask for a “fair fight” in a war.
…[/quote]

Sure you can. The 2 presidents duking it out.

Mano a mano.

And we broadcast it live.

No weapons.

Hey, it’s a win-win situation. One less asshole either way.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

preventing free elections in their own country

Gotta be fucking kidding me!

Iran is easily the most democratic Muslim country in the whole region. Iran is many times more democratic than Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, or Pakistan.

Most of your post is idiotic, but this is true, sadly.

If you consider sham elections with handpicked candidates democracy.[/quote]

Now now Zap, you can’t blame Iran for your own political system.

Iran is NOT a democracy. Sure they have elections. But they have a governing body who has to approve every canidate. This “Gaurdian Council” consists of a bunch of 70 and 80-year old ultra-conservative men. So any semi-moderate canidate is not approved. So they get to vote for either a hard-hardliner or a hard-hard-hardliner. Some democracy.

The overwhelming majority of Iranians hate their government. The country as a whole, espicially among the youth, is very Westernized.

They are not as big of a threat as the scumbags at AIPAC would have you believe.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

preventing free elections in their own country

Gotta be fucking kidding me!

Iran is easily the most democratic Muslim country in the whole region. Iran is many times more democratic than Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, or Pakistan.

Most of your post is idiotic, but this is true, sadly.

If you consider sham elections with handpicked candidates democracy.

Now now Zap, you can’t blame Iran for your own political system.[/quote]

Thats right lets still claim Bush stole the 2000 election. Let’s nevermind the thousands of dead people who voted for Al Gore. Good thing you don’t live in the horribly oppressive USA, eh wreckless. You are the poster boy(?) for believing whatever the liberal mainstream media says.

[quote]Ren wrote:
Bomb them to nothingness? The civilian casualties would be catastrophic.

Right now our only option is to tighten economic sanctions. With Sarcozy stating his desire to take a harder stance against Iran we potentially have an allied vote in the war council, at least as far as sanctions go. [/quote]

It’s time we stop worrying about civilians. If you’re going to war, you’re meaning to kill lots of people. When civilians realize their government won’t protect them, they may just throw that government out.

If Phoenix was about to get bombed, I would leave. No where to go, but I sure wouldn’t be there. See? Civilian making a choice to not get killed. As for the rest of the morons that think they won’t get hurt… Darwin awards for all of them.

Sanctions are a paper tiger. As long as Russia and China have any interest, even if it’s just to object to American interests, nothing will ever happen.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Well this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1799796,00.html

and this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=TpM&q=iran+offered+nuclear++reactor+technology&btnG=Search

…seem to support my previous post. Haven’t checked them all, but it seems to me that offers were indeed made.[/quote]

Yep. Iran had nothing against discussing those until they asked Iran to stop enriching BEFORE entering the negociations. It’s reminescent of the US/Israeli stance on the international consensus reintroduced by the Arab league a couple of months. Israel insists on getting the fruits of the negociations BEFORE sitting down to talk.

This is a speculation. I don’t think they are opposed to foreign assistance to generate nuclear power, but supposing they are I wouldn’t blame them for not wanting to become dependent on other nations. Seriously, how hard are nukes to make in the first place? Iranians are a very educated bunch with an inflated sense of pride.

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Iran is NOT a democracy. Sure they have elections. But they have a governing body who has to approve every canidate. This “Gaurdian Council” consists of a bunch of 70 and 80-year old ultra-conservative men. So any semi-moderate canidate is not approved. So they get to vote for either a hard-hardliner or a hard-hard-hardliner. Some democracy. [/quote]

Hear, hear, nobody ever claimed Iran compares to a Western-style democracy. I said that Iran IS easily the most democratic country compared to Muslim or Arab countries.

That is, Iran has a huge potential to mature into a real democracy. Not the kind of elitist democracy you have in the US where campaigns are ran like toothpaste ads, and where most of the populace don’t have a clue about the issues debated.

Bottomline, the best thing you can do to hamper Iran’s democratic evolution would be to interfere with it. It would automatically make the people around the government and undermine the efforts of the progressive crowd. If your mighty military power is giving you an itch, start with the Saudis. They are many many times less democratic than Iran. If you’re worried about nukes and all, try dealing with nuclear powers like Pakistan or Israel before talking about a program that’s just in its early phases.

Greetings,

As usual, when one tosses out the lows in statistical analysis (lixy/reckless) we end up with some interesting discussions.

Sounds like the usual +Bush/-Bush lines have blurred on the iran issue.

The thing that people forget is that iran is almost universally regarded as the number one supporter of terrorism.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/30/ap3669276.html

That makes comparisons between it and India/Pakistan specious.

If it was a peaceful regime that didn’t arm terrorists, kill soldiers in undeclared war, and abduct sailors for no reason, many of us wouldn’t be so nervous.

Now, the iranians are fully aware that there has been a political bloodbath here in America. They are keenly watching our elections.

If we elect a dove, I fully expect them to become far more brazen in their illegal activities.

What do I think we should do about iran?

  1. Kill/capture every iranian operative found aiding the terrorists.

  2. Continue to rebuild Iraq. Build schools. Provide power. Educate the people.

  3. Squeeze, squeeze, and squeeze some more economically.

The hardest question is do we allow Israeli’s to fly over our military in Iraq? When the iranians test their nukes, I’ll bet the Israeli’s attack.

JeffR

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“They (the U.S.) cannot strike Iran,” he said at a press conference during a two-day visit to the United Arab Emirates. “The Iranian people can protect themselves and retaliate.”

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/14/iran.ahmadinejad.ap/index.html

Is arming the insurgency in Iraq, preventing free elections in their own country, oppressing their people, developing nuclear weapons, and destabilising a vital region of the world sufficient cause for bombing Iran? [/quote]

Still the most frightened boy in the world I see…