The Realpolitiks of Iran

[Jim]

I don't know of any other examples of Iran playing the politics game better than the US recently. Nor does that refute my point. If you like I'd be more than happy to give you examples of other countries that have' date=' which would support my statement.

 

Please tell me you're not deliberately misconstruing my point. I'm going to be very disappointed if you did that on purpose. That's a Rush Limbaugh or RevPrez thing to do, not a Jim thing to do.[/quote']

 

When you said a lot of other foreign governments, including Iran, "play the politics game" better than the US, I thought you meant that Iran had somehow outmaneuvered us politically. I was not deliberately misconstruing your point.

[Severian]

Its surpising to me that you don't tie in the invasion of Afganistan as a response to the world trade center destruction (Bin Laden' date=' the Taliban, etc) since most people do and this response included all NATO countries. You should read more about that.

[/quote']

 

It was a response only in the sense of finding someone to blaim. The Talaban were a horrible regime but they did not perform the WTC bombing. Al'qeada did, and the terrorists were not Afghan citizens. You may as well suggest that the UK should have fired nukes at the US after the IRA atrocities in the 80s. It was not a proportionate response, but most people (me included) are inclined to look past that because the US did remove a terrible regime.

 

Do you think that the WTC was a Bush plot too?

 

Do you think that? I don't and I hope you do not.

 

This was not the reason for the invasion as stated above.

 

Are you so naive as to think there is only one reason? Politics is a lot more complicated than that.

 

Yes, I do because I see it every day. The beheadings, the suicide bombings, the targeted killing of little kids and women. The stoning, the blowing up of schools, killing teachers, etc etc. All this is terror.

 

Wow. It must be much worse where you live. I have never seen anyone beheaded, or even stoned. I have never seen any schools blown up.... Wait, do you mean on TV?

 

If so, you have probably seen the genocide in Darfur on TV too. Are you going to invade there next, or does that just not make good TV?

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and for it to be removed from the map. He condones suicide bombings and has called for the worldwide advancement of Islamic teachings and lifestyles. He is sending millions of dollars to palestine to be used in operations against Israel, and now, wants to build a nuclear weapon.

 

Can you provide some sources of all this info please?

 

However, I agree that to call for the destruction of Israel is very evil - in fact, just as evil as your call for the destruction of Islam.

 

Yes, Iran feels threatened and rightfully so, because I would never let the religious mullahs get their hands on a nuke no matter what the cost.

 

Indeed. But if you threaten people you should not be surprised when they take it badlyl.

[Bettina]

It was a response only in the sense of finding someone to blaim. The Talaban were a horrible regime but they did not perform the WTC bombing. Al'qeada did, and the terrorists were not Afghan citizens. You may as well suggest that the UK should have fired nukes at the US after the IRA atrocities in the 80s. It was not a proportionate response, but most people (me included) are inclined to look past that because the US did remove a terrible regime.

 

Al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. The leader is Bin-Laden and they were based in Afganistan. When NATO requested the Taliban to turn over Bin-Laden and his group, they refused to do it and also said they would protect him because the Taliban hated us too. This is the reason we invaded them and this is the short of it. I have no idea where you are getting your heavily biased incorrect information from.

 

Do you think that? I don't and I hope you do not.

Are you so naive as to think there is only one reason? Politics is a lot more complicated than that.

I know that' date=' but its true of any government. There may be many reasons that I don't know about.

 

 

Wow. It must be much worse where you live. I have never seen anyone beheaded, or even stoned. I have never seen any schools blown up.... Wait, do you mean on TV?

 

If so, you have probably seen the genocide in Darfur on TV too. Are you going to invade there next, or does that just not make good TV? Can you provide some sources of all this info please?

 

We are not the worlds policeman. We are damned if we go into a country and damned if we do not. And yes, I see it on TV obviously. Reporters using cameras can't lie and I have seen the beheadings. You imply those are made up?

 

As far as you requesting me to back up my statements, I will. Just list what you are confused about and I will supply you with the latest reports. I don't mind doing your homework for you even though you won't believe them.

 

Lastly, I think you are more naive in world affairs than you make yourself out to be. Maybe some night school work would help.

 

Bettina

Bettina (one more for you)

[Jim]

It was a response only in the sense of finding someone to blaim. The Talaban were a horrible regime but they did not perform the WTC bombing. Al'qeada did, and the terrorists were not Afghan citizens. You may as well suggest that the UK should have fired nukes at the US after the IRA atrocities in the 80s. It was not a proportionate response, but most people (me included) are inclined to look past that because the US did remove a terrible regime.

 

Bush has articulated two strategically important doctrines that have yielded important results and will continue to do so in the coming years if we do not lose our nerve.

 

Bush Doctrine I as articulated within a few days of 9/11: The United States will hold a nation-state responsible if that nation-state gives haven to a terrorist group which then attacks US territory or citizens.

 

Bush Doctrine II: Be prepared to honor agreed terms if you invade a strategically important US ally and lose. The United States is particularly serious about agreed terms pertaining to weapons of mass destruction.

 

Doctrine I is essential as technology continues to ramp upwards along an exponential curve. We simply cannot permit terrorists groups to gather the resources and protection of a nation-state while avoiding the corresponding responsibility of a nation state.

 

Doctrine II is likewise essential to give confidence to our allies and to make meaningful the sacrifice of our soldiers. If we go to war to protect an ally, we will insist on the terms of the ceasefire. This probably is not a new doctrine although you wonder about it given the current state of American thinking.

 

In any event, it was a combination of both of these doctrines which caused Libya to scuttle a relatively advanced nuclear program. This single result may have saved the world from a nuclear fate at some point in the future.

 

Bush's problem is that it is hard to envision the alternate realities which might have existed but for these sensible and important strategic doctrines.

[abskebabs]

For Afghanistan, I don't think there is much (any?) oil there at all, but it is a little bit coincidental that they are right on the route of the proposed oil pipeline from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. At the moment, all the oil from there goes through Russia, which is obviously not good for the US. Have a look at the date of this[/url'] article - they didn't waste much time.

Sorry to be picking the bones in your argument, but I seriously doubt this is a major reason(if minor) for the US attacking afghanistan, if it was, it was flimsy and extremely short sighted(even for Bush and company). This is because the project has been dismantled as India and Pakistan do not plan to take part in building the pipeline. In fact they are going forward with a rival project to pump gas from Iran through Pakistan to india ironically.

 

This may have been why India was slightly reluctant to vote to censure Iran's nuclear program at the UN, but at the end of the day sought to please the US in order to help get support for the civil nuclear deal they organised with bush.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and for it to be removed from the map. He condones suicide bombings and has called for the worldwide advancement of Islamic teachings and lifestyles. He is sending millions of dollars to palestine to be used in operations against Israel' date=' and now, wants to build a nuclear weapon.

[/quote']

Who needs spies when you have leaders(idiots) like Ahmadinejad:-p ! All he's doing is shedding light on what have been Iran's motives all along. Former presidents like Akbar Ratsfajani and Khatami probably hate his guts though for doing the same things as them but shouting about it. We should remember that most of the progress made in this nuclear program was back when Iran had a "liberal" Khatami as president.

 

Ultimately I hope this repressive regime is overthrown in Iran despite the support it has from clerics, the army and a fair proportion of the rural populace. I think this will not be because of western pressure or from the people protesting for their rights or anything similiar.

 

If this regime is overthrown it will be because it wil have passed a tipping point when people are fed up with the rampant unemployment and the institutionalised corruption of the mullahs. Perhaps the only reason they are still around is because the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei still has credibillity and is respected by the populace(don't ask me why).

 

Also what if Iran develops the capbillity to make nukes, but waits for Israel to start sabre rattling before making or testing them. This is similiar to the situation between India and Pakistan a few years back. I doubt Pakistan would have tested its bombs had India not done (personally I think the indian regime at the time were idiots for doing this as India already had nuclear capabillity by carrying out underground tests in the late 70s).

 

Phew! Sorry if I bored anyone reading all that!

[aguy2]

Who needs spies when you have leaders(idiots) like Ahmadinejad:-p ! All he's doing is shedding light on what have been Iran's motives all along. Former presidents like Akbar Ratsfajani and Khatami probably hate his guts though for doing the same things as them but shouting about it. We should remember that most of the progress made in this nuclear program was back when Iran had a "liberal" Khatami as president.

 

Iranian public opinion has generally felt for some time that joining the 'nuclear club' will mean Iran has come of age as a major player on the world stage. I would say that Ahmadinejad's loudmouthed support of their program is largely "pandering" to longstanding Iranian public opinion.

aguy2

[abskebabs]

Iranian public opinion has generally felt for some time that joining the 'nuclear club' will mean Iran has come of age as a major player on the world stage. I would say that Ahmadinejad's loudmouthed support of their program is largely "pandering" to longstanding Iranian public opinion.

aguy2

I do agree with you actually, the politics of gathering internation respect and national pride is certainly a factor in Iran going nuclear. I think the iranian regime has just learnt that nationalism seems to work better at drawing up support from the Iranian public than religious politics. It's such a shame I think that people generally pay attention to such arbitrary things(sigh), and not things that would seem important like welfare, employment and education....