Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
QuantumE

Iran

Iran  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think their will be a conflict with Iran soon?

    • Yes
      22
    • No
      7
    • As long as it dosent effect me, I dont care.
      4


64 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

I am me

Unfortunately, sometimes war is the only option.

The only time war is an option is when you are being attacked at home and are forced to defend yourself. Even then war is not a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HKCavalier

I voted "no" because whether there is a conflict or not is entirely in our hands.

Iran is in our government's cross-hairs and they know it. I know people over there and they are terrified. The only insurance anyone in the world has that America won't destroy them, other than kowtowing to our New World Order, is to go nuclear.

Look at North Korea. Why aren't we talking about invading them? Why do we go to such diplomatic lengths to "get along" with that crazy dictator of theirs? 'Cause they've got nukes. That's the only reason Iran has been stepping up its nuclear program. Israel has been there since WWII, but they're pushing for nuclear capability now, because so many yahoos here in the states think it's cool to talk about glass parking lots.

We're the only country in the world that hasn't had major cities destroyed in warfare--not just a few thousand people in a couple of buildings--whole cities! We're the only country in the world that has actually dropped nuclear weapons on another country. America has got to grow up and stop acting like world politics is just some video game we're better at than anyone else.

War is never necessary until they're marching down your streets. America has never fought a necessary war since the first one. We're the richest country in the world and the only thing we won't spend money on is peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am me

I find it a little simplistic to seperate people who would accept a war as 'cheerleaders' and those who oppose it as worried about the common man.

I am a veteran of two wars, and I have both been in and sent men into combat. I lived in Saudi Arabia for several years when I was a child, and consider myself fairly well-rounded in my knowledge of the average arab mentality. I have no love of war, but I also have no illusions that the leadership of Iran will suddenly do a reversal of what it has been doing for the past three thousand years. The big difference is now they are playing on a global stage, where a Jihad will have implication beyond the limited scope of two desert tribes. If the president of Iran cannot conduct himself in a manner that does not cause other countries concern of irrational action (and no, the U.S. going to war was not irrational, simply wrong), then the president should expect to be treated as a dangerous element.

You'll notice that the Iranian advisors are starting to crowd him out of the light a bit. They understand, that the rest of the world will not stand for the traditional saber-rattling that has defined tribal warfare.

I think it is safe to say that most people do not want to be in a war, actually fighting and killing or being killed. Most people oppose war. Wars are waged primarily by governments. The supporters of these wars are cheerleaders for their governments. They cheer on the propaganda spewed their way. I see it on this board all of the time and on many other boards, also at my place of work. This does not hold true about everybody but holds true for the majority. Give the cheerleaders the choice to join the war and they will easily decline but they surely will cheer on those troops fighting the war!

I am sure you have a far better grasp of the arab mentality, I have never lived there, I just had several arab friends in college. I do know that they were all very peaceful and friendly. The president of Iran could very well be a dangerous man. I see no need to provoke him. Don't poke the bee hive and you will not be stung. I feel for the peaceful people in the region that have to live there. My guess is that most of them would like to be left alone so they can live their own lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PadawanOsswe

I am me, war is pretty much our only option, because Iran WANTS to wage a nuclear war and crusade on the Western World. Though, if you would like to be glassed by a Nuclear Jihad, be my guest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

...and, there is a HUGE difference between your average Arab and Iranian Revolutionists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

I am sure you have a far better grasp of the arab mentality, I have never lived there, I just had several arab friends in college. I do know that they were all very peaceful and friendly. The president of Iran could very well be a dangerous man. I see no need to provoke him. Don't poke the bee hive and you will not be stung. I feel for the peaceful people in the region that have to live there. My guess is that most of them would like to be left alone so they can live their own lives.

The average Arab, much like the average person anywhere, is very friendly (in fact, a bit overly friendly by American standards). Your beehive metaphor is quite apt in that it mirrors a simlar Arab proverb concerning snakes and holes. That, however, is also the problem. In the Arabian mindset, shouting threats (saber-rattling), much like the angry buzzing of bees, is a perfectly legitimate way to demonstrate your strength. In the global theatre, however, it depicts a loss of control. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was intentionally making it look like he had weapons of mass destruction. In his eyes, he was simply talking tough. In the eyes of the world, he was hiding something extremely dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

It has obviously been too long since the world has seen what nukes can do. If people remembered them properly, they might be a little more concerned about some tin horn dictator threatening to use them against a neighbor. That neighbor might use them back.

When it comes to sanctins, sanctions don't work. They didn't work against Hitler, and they failed in Iraq also. Only the people suffered, not the idiot at the top.

BTW, Iranians are not arabs, they are Persians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mklsgl

I believe there will be conflict and not just with Iran. I think civil unrest will escalate to civil war in Iraq within a few months, if not weeks. I think Israel will attack Iran's military infrastructure if the US/UN does not dismantle Iran's nuclear program. I think that certain issues concerning Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinians must be addressed immediately. If this administration is genuinely to gain ground on the War on Terrorism, these are all Musts.

Diplomacy and sanctions are not worth the paper they're on which they're printed.

However, violence (war) is just as problematic:

"H-a-t-e: it was with this hand (left) that Cain iced his brother.

L-o-v-e: these five fingers go right to the soul of man. The right hand.

The story of life is this: Static (fingers meshed together, but trying to pull apart and dominate the other).

One hand is always fighting the other hand."

- Radio Rahim, from Do The Right Thing

"Violence as a way of achieving justice is both impractical and immoral. It’s impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. It seeks to annihilate the opponent rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers."

- Martin Luther King Jr.

"I think there are plenty of good people in America [my addition: insert "world" for America], but there are also plenty of bad people in America [world] and the bad ones are the ones who seem to have all the power and be in these in these positions to block things that you and I need. Because this is the situation, you and I have to preserve the right to do what is necessary to bring an end to that situation, and it doesn’t mean that I advocate using violence in self-defense. I don’t even call it violence when it’s self-defense. I call it intelligence."

- Malcolm X

Who knows if there actually is a viable solution to any of these problems. What I do know is that it's been perpetually an inherent plague that has infected our global society since forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jjtss

I voted NO. Iran's president was legally elected by the way so the people of Iran do control their country.

Don't forget, Iran has defense treaties with both Russia and China and now one with Pakistan. I can't believe that those DC maniacs are crazy enough to think they can intefere with Iran's affairs without starting a nuclear holocaust. Besides they must know that if they do, Israel will be annihilated(maybe that's what Bush wants). Also the Arab Nations have just met to censure Israel and are uniting against any further US interference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

collateral damage?

What about their ways on going up on times? They still willing stone women for cheating! How wrong is that?! Why are they refusing to come into the modern world? If they refuse, they are the problem. Just like anybody else.

Those are religious principles, not political. People still go to church in the United States and take communion because it was recommended to them two thousand years ago. You cannot say that it is because they don't want to enter the modern world. Their religion is neither modern or changable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StalingradK

I think Iran would be the only currently acceptable time to use a preemptive strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PadawanOsswe

Those are religious principles, not political. People still go to church in the United States and take communion because it was recommended to them two thousand years ago. You cannot say that it is because they don't want to enter the modern world. Their religion is neither modern or changable.

but yet they were growing as a society at one time. then they stopped growing, stuck about 900 years in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bone_Collector

The US isnt dictating terms, the world is.

Ok, then tell me why US can have WMD and other countries can't?

Well, when theres a country saying it will bring death to another country...then you tend to make connections...

Iran never threatened US to start with, it was US which threatened Iran first, accusing it of having nuclear weapons. It was US again, which gave all indications that it will invade Iran.

Nope.

Why not? When US can invade Iran giving WMD as the reason, why can't Iran invade US for the same reason? I'm not saying it should.

Would you propose waiting attacking Iran second? That would just end up in a big nuclear mess if they're getting nukes.

Iran is no threat to US. Do you really think Iran would nuke US and invite a situation of getting totally annihilated? Who would willingly invite such wrath really?

Every country has some security concerns that it must address, it is in its best interests. Most countries feel the need to have powerful weapons, especially those with fragile political relationships with other countries, not necessarily to bomb another country but to say: "don't think of attacking us." If countries are evenly matched, then either country would hesitate to go to war with each other, this is exactly the situation that keeps peace between them.

If one country has WMD, then automatically other countries(let alone rival countries) feel the need to have them for their own security. Ask US to give up all its nuclear weapons and hear what it has got to say about it. It is unfair for any country to ask a country to give up it's nuclear weapons, especially those countries which themselves have these weapons.

Iran for oil? Hell, I think if thats the reason for Iran, less countries would be saying he's getting nukes... and I think the invasion would have already been done by now.

WMD is just an excuse that they can give to rest of the world in an attempt to justify themselves. First they start the talk about WMDs, provoke Iran and create uneasy situations, then use Iran's response against itself, then, they'll have all the ground they need to attack, yes. Do yo really think US will accept that it's invading for oil?

Edited by Bone_Collector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Ok, then tell me why US can have WMD and other countries can't?

How does that have to do with what you quoted me saying?

No one is saying other countries cant. There ARE other countries which have nukes, and no one is complaining about their posession of these nukes. There is, however, a nuclear non proliferation treaty that bans the other countries from developping nuclear weapons. Thats why.

Iran never threatened US to start with, it was US which threatened Iran first, accusing it of having nuclear weapons. It was US again, which gave all indications that it will invade Iran.

Why are you so focused on the US? You should realise that the US isnt the only country in this world, apart from Iran. Iran has threatened other countries, such as Isreal, an allie of the US. The US hasnt done anything to such a degree.

Why not? When US can invade Iran giving WMD as the reason, why can't Iran invade US for the same reason? I'm not saying it should.

Because the US has a good and valid reason to do so, Iran doesnt.

Iran is no threat to US.

Iran is more of a threat to Isreal though. And I'm sorry if I feel threatened by a country which chants "death to the west" getting nukes...

Do you really think Iran would nuke US and invite a situation of getting totally annihilated and wiped out? Who would willing invite such wrath really?

The same type of people who sacrifice themselves just to kill innocent civilians in Iraq perhaps?

Every country has some security concerns that it must address, it is in its best interests.

And in the wests best interests, Iran shouldnt have nukes.

Most countries feel the need to have powerful weapons, especially those with fragile political relationships with other countries, not necessarily to bomb another country but to say: "don't think of attacking us." If countries are evenly matched, then either country would hesitate to go to war with each other, this is exactly the situation that keeps peace between them.

It keeps a fragile peace that could be broken in any minute by something as simple as a suicidal leader. Even more to the point, what if the country is doing something wrong and needs to be invaded? Not going to happen if the country has nukes...

If one country has WMD, then automatically other countries(let alone rival countries) feel the need to have them for their own security. Ask US to give up all its nuclear weapons and hear what it has got to say about it. It is unfair for any country to ask a country to give up it's nuclear weapons, especially those countries which themselves have these weapons.

Unfair? Perhaps... if you think everyone deserves to have nukes.

WMD is just an excuse that they can give to rest of the world in an attempt to justify itself. First they start the talk about WMDs, provoke Iran and create uneasy situations, then use Iran's response against itself, then, they'll have all the ground they need to attack, yes. Do yo really think US will accept that it's invading for oil?

As I said, if the US is out for more oil in Iran (and I suppose the majority of the rest of the world too, since they also dont want Iran to have nukes), it probably would have already happened while the US peoples support and many other countries involvement in Iraq. Going after Iran right now for the sole purpose of oil would do more harm than good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

Has anyone other than Steller and myself been keeping up with the news? Iran wants to have these nukes for the sole purpose of hitting Israel and other pro-west nations. The U.S. has nukes but, has not used them in sixty years. Do you think that Iran would wait that long? Wuold you bet the lives of your family that "Iran" would/could act in a responcible way with that kind of power? Personally, I would not.

The U.S. does not have a philosophy of "only the U.S. should have nukes". France, the U.K., Pakistan, India, maybe Israel and deffinately a few others, currently possess nuclear weapons. That arguement is unfounded. Also, the U.S. is in the process of trying to get rid of some of its nukes as well as converting some of the aging Soviet built Russian warheads. The last leg of that arguement just fell into the gutter.

Nuclear weapons are not the panacea that they were once believed to be. Smaller versions of them might become effective bunker busters but, smaller yeilding nukes are far more difficult to build than the larger yeilding, more distructive varieties. Well out of the capability of Iran. If they build one, it will be ugly, deadly, and will spread radioactive fallout far beyond the theater of the conflict in which they deploy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bone_Collector

How does that have to do with what you quoted me saying?

You said the world is dictating terms to US and I just mentioned that US tends to dictate that it has a right to nukes and others don't. I just gave an example.

No one is saying other countries cant. There ARE other countries which have nukes, and no one is complaining about their posession of these nukes.

Yes, there are other countries which have nukes but they are mostly countries which are US allies more or less.

US is always saying "either you are with us or against us", with US being the super power, it doesn't give relatively weaker and other underdeveloped countries much of a choice, their alliance doesn't necessarily mean they agree with everything US does. What US is doing mainly is abusing its power, it will only gain more and more enemies in the near future with this attitude, and it might not be the economic superpower forever and when it's not, it would be really interesting to check their ally count.

here is, however, a nuclear non proliferation treaty that bans the other countries from developping nuclear weapons. Thats why.

When it comes to national security, no treaty really matters.

Why are you so focused on the US? You should realise that the US isnt the only country in this world, apart from Iran. Iran has threatened other countries, such as Isreal, an allie of the US.

Iran is more of a threat to Isreal though.

Why does US feel the need to interfere with Iran and Israel? Why does it always want to be the world police? Why does US feel the need to decide who's right and who's not? Why does US they think it knows better?

The US hasnt done anything to such a degree.

What was Iraq invasion all about then, what are all the almost direct threats of Invading Iran then?

Most people agreed with US invading Afghanistan but not quite Iraq and not many people outside US actually support the idea of US invading Iran but they wont openly oppose it either because US is the super power.

Because the US has a good and valid reason to do so, Iran doesnt.

You think US has a valid reason, the rest of the world doesn't.

And I'm sorry if I feel threatened by a country which chants "death to the west" getting nukes...

And how many posts should I quote from this very forum (let alone the entire US) where Americans have repeatedly said "nuke those mother *******"

The same type of people who sacrifice themselves just to kill innocent civilians in Iraq perhaps?

Iran is not a terrorist nation like say Afghanistan(at one point of time). Terrorism is a global problem faced by many countries, not just US, if all these countries went on invading each other then there wouldn't be many countries left.

Even more to the point, what if the country is doing something wrong and needs to be invaded?

You are not going to invade countries going by "what ifs", are you? Christ!

Unfair? Perhaps... if you think everyone deserves to have nukes.

Actually I believe no country should have nukes but that's like impossible now. What I find strange though is that how much US believes it deserves to have WMD.

As I said, if the US is out for more oil in Iran (and I suppose the majority of the rest of the world too, since they also dont want Iran to have nukes),

A majority of the world does NOT have a problem with Iran having nukes, if at all there is some country which wants to show that it has a problem, then it is US and Israel perhaps. US is dragging other countries into the whole talk and trying to make them believe they too are threatened.

it probably would have already happened while the US peoples support and many other countries involvement in Iraq. Going after Iran right now for the sole purpose of oil would do more harm than good.

It's very difficult for any country(even US) to handle two wars at a time, they also needed time to prepare ground and show the world that they have a strong reason to invade Iran, that's why it didn't happen yet.

Edited by Bone_Collector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baku

I think the biggest problem here is misunderstandment and miscommunication when Iranians say 'you suck' or 'the holocaust is a myth', etcetc. They dont really mean it like that, they are very idiotic people when it comes to politics. Cuz they dont really know how to talk in politic language, they think its the same as normal talking, so they never hold back on whats on their mind. They just spit everything out at once. How else do you think this guy keeps on making these things up.

I know alot of you are not gonna understand this, problably only the once from middle east themselfs will. But we shouldnt take Iran serieusly with this kinda stuff, take it as a joke, they aint not gonna do anything about it anyways. When they say stuff like 'Israel should be wiped out the map' then they dont really mean it like that you can compare it with a bunch of kids who are name-calling each other and jumping to conclusions to fast. There just stupid on political parts, dont take it to serieusly, they are just bluffing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

I think the biggest problem here is misunderstandment and miscommunication when Iranians say 'you suck' or 'the holocaust is a myth', etcetc. They dont really mean it like that, they are very idiotic people when it comes to politics. Cuz they dont really know how to talk in politic language, they think its the same as normal talking, so they never hold back on whats on their mind. They just spit everything out at once. How else do you think this guy keeps on making these things up.

I know alot of you are not gonna understand this, problably only the once from middle east themselfs will. But we shouldnt take Iran serieusly with this kinda stuff, take it as a joke, they aint not gonna do anything about it anyways. When they say stuff like 'Israel should be wiped out the map' then they dont really mean it like that you can compare it with a bunch of kids who are name-calling each other and jumping to conclusions to fast. There just stupid on political parts, dont take it to serieusly, they are just bluffing.

I generally agree with the spirit of this. In the tribal mentality, saber-rattling such as this is considered perfectly acceptable, if not expected, as a show of strength. The problem is that the world does not run on tribal mentality, but a more higly advanced political system in which mistakes can lead to world conflicts. I would consider what they say to be a little more serious than a bluff, but not an actual threat in the manner that we think of them; as a threat that will eventually be carried out.

Regardless, though, they cannot be allowed to enter the world arena in that manner. It is entirely too easy to run away with the heat of the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

You said the world is dictating terms to US and I just mentioned that US tends to dictate that it has a right to nukes and others don't. I just gave an example.

No, I said that in the case of Iran having nukes, its not just the US speaking out against them, its the world.

Yes, there are other countries which have nukes but they are mostly countries which are US allies more or less.

Not all. What does it change if they're US allies more or less?

it doesn't give relatively weaker and other underdeveloped countries much of a choice,

Sure it does. It gives them the possibility to not build nukes. Iran doesnt seem to be taking that way out though.

What US is doing mainly is abusing its power, it will only gain more and more enemies in the near future with this attitude, and it might not be the economic superpower forever and when it's not, it would be really interesting to check their ally count.

Right now, the US is not abusing its power, its using its power to enforce international law.

When it comes to national security, no treaty really matters.

So then I suppose that the US is perfectly right in attacking Iran in the interests of national security, right?

Why does US feel the need to interfere with Iran and Israel?

Umm, because they're allies...

Why does it always want to be the world police?

Wanting to prevent unjust acts against Isreal does not constitute being "world police". Its the majority of the world that wants the same. And when the US is ever doing something that can be considered as policing the world, who says they want to do it? Unfortunately, there is a sever lack in the amount of police in the international world... someone has to police it to enforce order.

Why does US feel the need to decide who's right and who's not? Why does US they think it knows better?

Its not the US who's decided who's right and who's wrong, it's the world.

Why do YOU feel the need to decide who's right and who's wrong aswell?

What was Iraq invasion all about then,

That is not a threat against Iran...

what are all the almost direct threats of Invading Iran then?

1. When has the US threatened to invade Iran?

2. The US may have threatened to conduct a surgical strike into Iran to forcefully prevent them from aquiring nukes if it comes down to that. In that case, it's Iran who doesnt follow international law and thus a military strike as a last resort is not deemed wrong. That is not nearly on the same level as threatening Isreal openly for no realistic reason. In the case of Iran, they ARE advocating something thats against international law. Its like comparing a police officer saying "Ill shoot you if you attempt to kill that guy" to the criminal saying "I'm going to kill you".

Most people agreed with US invading Afghanistan but not quite Iraq and not many people outside US actually support the idea of US invading Iran

Im sorry? No one supports attacking Iran... unless its the only option.

There are many countries that are advocating it.

but they wont openly oppose it either because US is the super power.

Then how do you know if they oppose it? What is a superpower going to do to a single individual in a foreign nation?

And just for your information, a vaste majority of the countries agree that Iran is wrong in aquiring nukes, and that it should be prevented...afterall, there is a non proliferation treaty...

You think US has a valid reason, the rest of the world doesn't.

Lol, maybe you should inform yourself before making claims like that.

As I see it, considering that the nuclear non proliferation treaty IS in place, that alone means that Iran is wrong.

Its like saying that the a country (even the US) is not wrong in conducting actions against the Geneva Conventions!

And how many posts should I quote from this very forum (let alone the entire US) where Americans have repeatedly said "nuke those mother *******"

I really couldnt care how many you quoted... but I'd like to see you try. The difference between the two is that the average american citizen here doesnt have and will not have nuclear weapons at his disposal to do so.

Iran is not a terrorist nation like say Afghanistan(at one point of time). Terrorism is a global problem faced by many countries, not just US, if all these countries went on invading each other then there wouldn't be many countries left.

That has absolutely no relevance to what I said.

You are not going to invade countries going by "what ifs", are you? Christ!

1. Its a surgical strike, like the one Isreal did to take out the reactor in Iraq thats in question, not a full blown invasion.

2. Of course I wouldnt do so on "what ifs". The situation, however, is not a "what if".

Actually I believe no country should have nukes but that's like impossible now. What I find strange though is that how much US believes it deserves to have WMD.

If you dont believe any country should have nukes, why are you advocating more countries getting nukes?

A majority of the world does NOT have a problem with Iran having nukes, if at all there is some country which wants to show that it has a problem, then it is US and Israel perhaps. US is dragging other countries into the whole talk and trying to make them believe they too are threatened.

The US is doing no such thing, and a large number of other countries DO have a problem with Iran having nukes. Theres been many countries that have spoken against Irans attempts to aquire nukes, and many more countries that have done what they can to help stop Iran from aquiring them. The fact that theres a non proliferation treaty in effect shows that countries oppose the idea of new nuclear powers.

It's very difficult for any country(even US) to handle two wars at a time, they also needed time to prepare ground and show the world that they have a strong reason to invade Iran, that's why it didn't happen yet.

They could have and most likely would have done it earlier though. Any such invasion, however, be it now or later, is not worth the control of Irans oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baku

I generally agree with the spirit of this. In the tribal mentality, saber-rattling such as this is considered perfectly acceptable, if not expected, as a show of strength. The problem is that the world does not run on tribal mentality, but a more higly advanced political system in which mistakes can lead to world conflicts. I would consider what they say to be a little more serious than a bluff, but not an actual threat in the manner that we think of them; as a threat that will eventually be carried out.

Regardless, though, they cannot be allowed to enter the world arena in that manner. It is entirely too easy to run away with the heat of the moment.

I know the world doesnt run on tribal mentality but we can easily say most of the Middle Eastern countries are, thats just the way they talk to each other. And I serieusly agree with you, this is not normal they need some serieus help with this issue cuz this is going to get them in alot of trouble. I mean have you ever read Persian history? Then you would know how many countless wars they have been in, most of the recent once started because of miscommunication. A good example would be the Russian-Persian wars, it pretty much started everytime all over again just because the Persians started to insult and threaten the Russians etc.

Dont expect much improvement because this is the way things work in the Middle East people dont know better, they have a low mentality. The only way I think that might work is by following the plan of the Sovjets of the CCCR. It worked for some of the Republics but its definitly something that shouldnt be repeated, cuz you need to change the roots, language, religion, habits, etc.

Anyways this doesnt mean all Iranian are stupid, the once who are smart dont live in Iran ;) and are married to a foreign female and those are the once who you guys are in touch with. Thats why most Americans of Europeans who know Iranians say that they are nice and smart people. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

It is said that it takes three generations to bring about change. We are on generation one, just another forty years to go...

Personally, I say that we air drop thousands of easily hidden pocket TV's all over Iran, set up a satellite to beam American television shows 24/7, and incite rebellion in that manner. Victory through cultural subversion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HKCavalier
It is said that it takes three generations to bring about change. We are on generation one, just another forty years to go...

Personally, I say that we air drop thousands of easily hidden pocket TV's all over Iran, set up a satellite to beam American television shows 24/7, and incite rebellion in that manner. Victory through cultural subversion!

They already have access to american television. It's illegal to own a satellite dish in Tehran, but that doesn't stop half the people who live there from owning them. In terms of your generational markers, I'd say we're closer to generation 2. All this reactionary radical Islamic talk is actually in reaction to the progress being made over there and the fear generated world wide by 9/11 and America's over the top militaristic response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baku

Three generations is to few the CCCR used 4-5 generations and still came about 80% of the final goal. And believe me they used hard mesures..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bone_Collector

Not all. What does it change if they're US allies more or less?

It's like it's ok to have nukes if you are an ally of US(US wouldn't like any of its allies getting too strong though), if not then it's war, that's what changes.

US just doesn't seem to like the strength of it's opposition growing, it wants to nip it's opponent's advancements in the bud, all it wants is a pretext, if the reason is not nukes then it would have been something like "we know they're hiding Osama there".

It gives them the possibility to not build nukes. Iran doesnt seem to be taking that way out though.

If that's not dictating, what is?

its using its power to enforce international law.

Unfortunately, there is a sever lack in the amount of police in the international world... someone has to police it to enforce order.

US is just enforcing laws for the sole purpose of its own benefit to suit its short term and long term plans for the future, nothing else.

So then I suppose that the US is perfectly right in attacking Iran in the interests of national security, right?

I ask you again, tell me really, is Iran really a threat to US. You gotta be kidding. Economically, technologically, militiary strength wise, etc etc etc, does Iran come anywhere even close to US in ANY category, let alone matching or even bettering US. Iran can't even make a slightest dent in US armour, in fact, a civilian from Iran would sense far more danger imagining an invasion by a superpower like US.

Why do YOU feel the need to decide who's right and who's wrong aswell?

Everybody has a right to form his opinions, don't you think?

The difference between the two is that the average American citizen here doesnt have and will not have nuclear weapons at his disposal to do so.

Don't tell me you believe every kindergarten kid of Iran will be firing a nuke at US. lol

Then how do you know if they oppose it?

I see it and I know it. US should try to know what other countries REALLY think of it. Many countries are dependent on US, one way or the other, trade wise, economically and so on, so no country can openly voice their opinion and see their bilateral relationship with US getting affected, though I'm sure more countries will voice out sooner or later. Believe me with the amount of enemies US is making, with the attitude it's showing, it would be hard to imagine its future once the other countries become economically stronger and more independent.

That has absolutely no relevance to what I said.

In your last post, you sounded as if everybody in Iran is a terrorist or something.

Of course I wouldnt do so on "what ifs". The situation, however, is not a "what if".

Something similar Bush confidently once said "we have concrete evidence that Iraq has WMDs", no "what ifs" at all. Well...now you tell me, where are those WMDs? And now US says "we didn't find WMDs, but hey, Saddam was a moron anyways". So going by the same logic, America should also be invaded, don't you think? You ask me why? Simple, Bush is a moron, that's why. Ridiculous isn't it? So are the reasons US gives to the world to justify itself.

If you dont believe any country should have nukes, why are you advocating more countries getting nukes?

I'm not advocating other countries getting nukes, I just find it funny why US thinks it deserves to have them and others don't. Tell me something, will US consider giving up its nukes for world peace? It will never happen.

Edited by Bone_Collector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PadawanOsswe

Tell me something, will US consider giving up its nukes for world peace? It will never happen.

actually Lord Umbarger said that we are in the proccess of disarming a few of our nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.