Iran takes one more BIG step...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I hardly think that Iranians could become more resentful of the Yanks.

The more intelligent among them might begin to grasp the sum of the equation that 25 or more years of Islamic fundamentalism have added up for them.

when people have a choice to blame their problems on their political leadership or on foreigners they choose the foreigners every time.

That doesn't change until a nation develops into a modern liberal self loathing collection of guilt ridden wealthy consumers.

Iran is nowhere near that situation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Do you think that's more likely than becoming resentful of the US, the country that bombed them in the first place? I mean, we did that to Iraq, and it did precisely nothing except kill a lot of Iraqis needlessly.

Spot on, and embolden fundies in close by countries, particularly one that already has nukes... add to that perhaps more increased presence in Iraq. It is not wise to create a hornets' nest while you are trying to deal with one right next to it.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I hardly think that Iranians could become more resentful of the Yanks.

The more intelligent among them might begin to grasp the sum of the equation that 25 or more years of Islamic fundamentalism have added up for them.

Outside antagonism tends to only further build up support for such leaders, who naturally exploit the "rally 'round the flag" feelings of people who feel helpless and threatened. I don't have enough trust in mob intelligence to assume that something else will happen in this case.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Geronimo


While I certainly think any country attacking Iran would eventually regret doing so I don't see how you think they would themselves avoid getting pounded if a great power were to attack them.


If Iran is attacked surely you agree there will be pounding to be had all around?

If the US attacks Iraq with limited strikes, then it probably won't do much but delay their nuclear program.

If they try to occupy the place, they will take an astronomical beating. There are many more Iranians than Iraquis and they would be much more motivated – and Iran is a much more rugged country than Iraq.

Either way, it would be a political disaster.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


A what? When the USA kills somebody, it is the fault of the USA. No qualifications. Only somebody who had totally lost their sense of what basic responsibility is would think otherwise.

nonsense. That's like saying if the Allies had bombed the concentration camps in ww2 to try to disrupt the final solution that the deaths of any of the inmates would be the responsibility of the Allies and not Hitler.

Needless to say responsibility can be quite a bit more complicated than you describe. Qualifications can often exist.


Having said all that, in this case if the US bombed iran to disrupt an iranian weapons program most if not all of the responsibility for Iranian deaths would indeed lie with the US.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon


If the US attacks Iraq with limited strikes, then it probably won't do much but delay their nuclear program.

If they try to occupy the place, they will take an astronomical beating. There are many more Iranians than Iraquis and they would be much more motivated – and Iran is a much more rugged country than Iraq.

Either way, it would be a political disaster.

completely true. But i don't think it's appropriate to suggest that in such a conflict the Iranians would be spared an awful pounding. There would be no winners to such a stupid conflict.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Geronimo
nonsense. That's like saying if the Allies had bombed the concentration camps in ww2 to try to disrupt the final solution that the deaths of any of the inmates would be the responsibility of the Allies and not Hitler.

The responsibility for such deaths is always with the killer. That doesn't mean that killing isn't sometimes neccessary.

It hardly matters in this case, however. Deliberately bombing the infrastructure of states has been proven to be immensely harmful to people who have nothing to do with the machinations of belligerent states. There's simply no justification for such a thing.

[atomant]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Because they have WEAPONS!!1

And all countries that have weapons are EVIL!!1 and must be destroyed!!1

By other countries with bigger weapons....

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
It hardly matters in this case, however. Deliberately bombing the infrastructure of states has been proven to be immensely harmful to people who have nothing to do with the machinations of belligerent states. There's simply no justification for such a thing.

Unfortunately, the actions of Iran's leaders are going to provide all the justification that will be needed.

If the EU say OK, there's going to be no stopping it. Parts of the EU are within range of missiles.

Place your bets on what side of the question the EU comes down on.

[Cyclotron]

My bet is still that Israel will act before the EU can be moved to do so. The EU is far more cumbersome to act than Israel, has far greater inhibitions about force than Israel, and is in much less danger from a nuclear-armed Iran than Israel is.

[notyoueither]

Isreal can't do ****.

There is no single target, or three.

To shut the program down, you have to shut the country down.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Isreal can't do ****.

Am I the only one who thinks Israel isn't telling the truth when they say they don't have nukes? Even if they only use conventional strikes, they don't need to "shut the country down." Taking out the leadership would probably suffice for their goals.

In the end analysis, however, I find any of this highly unlikely in the near future. The responsible UN authorities have yet to produce any evidence that Iran is producing material for non-civilian purposes, and until there is even a shred of such intelligence I don't think even the Bush administration could trump up charges that would convince anybody else.

But of course, I could be mistaken, seeing as what happened with Iraq.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
The responsible UN authorities have yet to produce any evidence that Iran is producing material for non-civilian purposes...

Why hide the program? Why reject EU incentives out of hand?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why hide the program? Why reject EU incentives out of hand?

Saddam rejected various inspection teams out of fear they were "spies," and it seems that Iraq had nothing to hide either. It's also a point of national pride - a regime that essentially survives out of demonizing foreign enemies has to make some waves, diplomatically speaking, so its truculence can be adored by the domestic masses.

Now that I think of it, "truculent" is an excellent word for this situation, and I should use it more often.

[DinoDoc]

Iraq /= Iran. At least to my understanding anyway. I also don't think the post adequately explains why a legal program (if we are to be expected to believe Iranian claims of purity) would be kept covert for so long.