Something of interest on Iran
 

This doesn't suprise me really, reading this over I thought I read it before last year..but oh well. Hope this sheds light on the coming crisis, if you will..

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 008657.php

hindsight is 20/20. Even if we had started negotiations with Iran, would they have not elected their "wing nut" president? Unlikely. Would they have abandoned their hatred for America and Israel? Definately not the latter, almost certainly not the former. So then you have to ask yourself, what would it have really done besides given us a little more time to work all this out? What is behind their attempt to get nukes that talking earlier would have solved?

So your saying talks could not resolve anything? oOo: Something could have come to a resolution in which would have increased diplomatic talks..Personally I believe from what I've read on certain think tanks (Brookings institute, Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Endowment) That if you had not invaded Iraq, had no bases in certain middle east countries then the Iranians wouldn't be scared shitless of being invaded thus not building a nuclear bomb. That's my view shared with many others. And Iran, as of now, is just engaging in a highly hyperbolic game which is being horribly covered by the media. Everyone turns to Mossad (Israel Intelligence) for their intelligence, which over stated Iraq WMD capabilities and is known to be highly anti-arab. So you can look at these events or look at the president's advice who as of now has one of the worst reputations ever. I somehow feel that the coup in the 50's, if it had not occurred maybe Arab states would actually like you guys.

well, the fact is they don't, they hate us, and I don't think you can negotiate with people who want to destroy your country and your values, but that might just be me.

This was before the crazy president was elected, diplomatic talks could have resumed even with the current president..unless he pulled out or bush did. Like I said resentment as Stephen Kinzer details in his brilliant book "Overthrow" and "All the shah's men" may not even exist if you didn't stir up islam in the 50's. Some believe democracy would have acutally flourished if you left the PM of Iran alone.

Also saying you can't deal with a mad man is absurd. He doesn't speak for all of Iran, he acutally just barely won the run off election. It's not like all his advisors and diplomats are like him. The object of diplomacy is to resolve issues no matter how "insane" you see the other country. Look at the Cold War, we would all be dead if the U.S and USSR didn't talk.

I don't care what happened in the past, but the truth is, at the moment, most of the middle east hates us. If you think we can negotiate with them, fine, maybe we can. I dont' think it will work unless we put pressure on them from multiple countries.

I'm speechless...did the USSR not hate America?

The middle east is a different country, yes, in another time, of course. However if they hate you alot or not..TALKING is more important than action. I would hate to see another Iraq situation..but most of the hawks are going all out on this issue. Going around diplomacy is not a issue. Having another preemptive war, in my opinion, is a grave mistake.

no, the USSR did not hate america. They wanted to beat America and be more powerful, but they didn't have a deep felt hatred for all Americans as so many middle eastern countries do. I think you are too worried about the United States invading Iran. If anyone invades Iran, it will most likely be condoned by the UN or with a consensus of developed nations. This is not like Iraq, other countries are already taking up the issue.

Yeah the UN did alot with Iraq. oOo:

true, but this is a different case

Yeah your gov. fucked that up - You could have probably negotiated before Iraq, but the U.S lost alot of credibility in the eyes of the general middle eastern population after the way that campaign was handled.

Or its overall foreign policy standard in the past. You guys just can't stop fucking up.

If everything was a great world, I would love to have the US step down from policing the world. But you can't have Canadians do it which leaves the US for the responsibility.

Yes because you guys have done such a mighty fine job! I take a realist approach in my foreign policy not this neo con go get em policy. The only persons "policing" the world should be the U.N (after intense reform) They have the obligation not the U.S.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/444

rock:

yeah I do think America has done a good job in comparing it to what it would be if Canada or some other rinky dink country patrolled.

For the love of god stop bringing up this comparitive nonsene..One country "policing" the world is highly problematic and for you to say you have done a good job makes your argument even more laughable. The CIA has released reports stating that your so called war on terror isn't doing much good. But if you think the U.S is doing a good job, that's great I guess. rolleyes:

If the U.S. was policing the world properly the rest of the world wouldn't hate you. And don't even start with the "well if any other country was doing it, it would be worse" The U.N should have that role, not the U.S.

I said the US is doing a good job compared to what it could be like if another country did our same work. Don't put words in my mouth. The world is one huge-ass place. The US can't be everywhere. I would love to pull out of the UN and just see everyone shit their pants.

I said after "intense reform" the U.N should be the policing force. As of now it holds a somewhat deformed position. And if the U.S were to pull out, well that's another debate.

ok, so should we just tell everyone not to do anything controversial until the UN gets to a point where it can attempt to do it's job? "Hey, Iran, it's really not a good time...can we reschedule all this for 2020?, thanks, that'd be great."

Are you saying that the U.N is to small to tackle this issue?

I'm saying it's weak, it's worthless the way it is now.

Did you not see that I wrote "after intense reform"

I know it's late though...pretty tired myself.

yes, i did see that. We both agree that it needs intense reform, but look at what I wrote, I'm saying that there are things going on right now that can't wait until reforms are made but need to be dealt witih.

Another thing of interest: http://bloggingheads.tv/

I would advise you to watch the whole thing to see what Fukuyama says. I don't agree with every thing he says, especially on Hamas and Iran. But it is very interesting.

This thread wreaks of arrogance....

From which side? eek: biggrin:

Machette, I watched our friend Tom on a news program last week. He said he thinks we should do what we did in the Cold War and hold our nuclear dominance as a deterrent to Iran, basically saying that we should just make sure they know, if they use nukes, we will "obliterate" (and I'm almost positive that was the word he used) them. He said he would rather use this policy instead of letting "our incompetent administration" start a military invasion.

I think it would be nice if we could do that, but I don't think that Iran can be equated with the Soviet Union, they are different. The fact that Iran ended their announcement of their nuclear development with "Death to America" makes me hesitant to beleive that they will use logic and insight like the Soviets did.

What do you think?

Tom, tom who?

I remember writing about that a few weeks ago. It's based on the MAD theory and I personally feel it could work.

http://www.groundforce1.com/forums/view ... sc&start=0

Thomas Friedman.

I know there are examples where unstable nations have built nuclear capabilities and haven't used them, but I'm pretty sure none of them had a direct hatred for America like Iran does, I feel like they are a threat to us, for ffs, they said "Death to America" when they announced their nuclear program's progress, it's just very disconcerting.

Like I said in my argument, China under Mao was seen as a grave threat, literally, when I read certain books on the Cold War it outlines America believed that China was sometimes a larger threat than soviet russia. Mao said to his counterparts "We must rule the world" (From Mao:The Unknown Story, brilliant bio) When the Chinese launched their first nuclear missile in 1969 The U.S were in anger but over time the Chinese and Americans started to realize if they launched a nuclear weapon on each other the world would end, everyone is dead no one wins. That is the principle theory of MAD, and MAD saved us from the cold war. It's incredibly interesting stuff and many see the MAD theory working in Iran, if they realize the capabilities the nukes have they wouldn't possibly end the world. Think tanks believe the MAD theory could help Iran into talks with Israel because they would realize just how dangerous having these nukes are.

Some say it's far fetched but I totally agree with Freidman, he is a highly respected figure in his writing..he carries a very balanced judgement about the Middle East. cool: Just last week he wrote a piece about it being a mistake to cut off aid to Hamas.

Side note interesting article:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD25Ak02.html

[url=http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/25/D8H736Q00.html:8025d]Also very frightening[/url:8025d]

[quote:8025d]Iran's supreme leader said Tuesday that the country is ready to transfer its nuclear technology to other countries. Meanwhile, Tehran threatened to halt all cooperation with the U.N. atomic energy agency if the U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions, warning that it might hide its nuclear program if the West takes any other "harsh measures."[/quote:8025d]

So, people get angry at the US for rejecting the UN's supreme authority, but Iran takes this position and they get nothing but instead are treated like victims? We cannot allow them to develop nuclear weapons if they are serious about violating non-proliferation agreements.

I've read they are sharing rather than transferring...some say its just to saudi, pakistan and libya or sudan..Don't know, could be blowing hot air for all I know.

It's a worry though: The Chinese and the Soviets didn't have a religious ideology that supported their actions....They also weren't notorious for suicide bombings.

What happens if Tehran goes for the virgins in the sky?

Interesting point. But when you acquire a nuke and launch it at another country why would you want the entire world to end? Somebody in the inner circle in Iran may not want to see those virgins just yet.

Also to think they are going to use them right away is out of the context if you ask me.

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?f ... edzbig.php

Strange to see Zbigniew Brzezinski take this stand, he is known for his rather hawkish views.

They have suicide bombers, people who end their lives for the purpose of killing infidels, I wouldn't put using nukes past them, it'd be just like a large scale suicide bomber attack.

So once they build a nuke they are going to hand it over to suicide bombers.. eek: