Are we being suckered in to war by Israeli interests?

[Jamisjockey]

Its those pesky jooze again, isn't it?

Worse.  The fundies who have this pesky savior complex, and think that since they view the region as the cradle of civilization and the birthplace of their god in the flesh, that becomes reason enough to have serious national interest in Isreal and the immediate region.

[K Frame]

Meh.

[MicroBalrog]

Its those pesky jooze again, isn't it?

Obviously Blackenzy hates Jews. After all Netanyahu's government = all Jews, right.

[TommyGunn]

The whole purpose of putting the Shah in power was to gain control of the oil contracts for English state-owned businesses. This isn't even very controversial.

The events afterwards can be easily seen as a long-range result of that.

But that wasn't my point.

It has to do with why the US meddles in Iran, which at its core has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.  The only reason we care about it in the first place is that it restricts options for forcing outcomes - those outcomes are related to US geopolitical goals, not to freedom (it's laughable that we even pretend that) for Iranians or this or that weapons program.   It's also not related to religious fanaticism; we are fine with supporters of Al Qaeda as long as they do our bidding like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

If the Iranian Government was dependent on the US for its survival and completely obedient to its energy and other demands, we'd be arming its troops, irrespective of its barbarism towards its own people or it's religious fanaticism. 

So to say "it's only because of Iran nukes and aggression that we bother them" is simply untrue, and requires believing that a 50 year track record of involvement was all for fun.

You have a very stilted vision of things....that's all I can say.     

[Monkeyleg]

"Stilted". I've never seen "**expletive deleted** up" spelled that way.

[roo_ster]

"Stilted". I've never seen "**expletive deleted** up" spelled that way.

He wrote it in French.

[Perd Hapley]

Depends on the election. And if the candidates keep their promises:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323686-503544/romney-gingrich-at-gop-debate-wed-go-to-war-to-keep-iran-from-getting-nuclear-weapons/

Just like Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iran, right?

[TommyGunn]

Just like Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iran, right?

  Iraq  ..... is what you mean ..... 

[Perd Hapley]

I mean Iran, but either works.

[MechAg94]

Okay, maybe someone can clear up a question for me.  What meddling in Iran has the US done in the last 30+ years beyond sanctions?  It seems to me their govt has thumbed their nose at us pretty much all my life.  What have we done to them lately?

[TommyGunn]

I mean Iran, but either works.

Maybe Bush meant to invade Iran when he went into Iraq.................

[TommyGunn]

Okay, maybe someone can clear up a question for me.  What meddling in Iran has the US done in the last 30+ years beyond sanctions?  It seems to me their govt has thumbed their nose at us pretty much all my life.  What have we done to them lately?

Well we put the Shah in back in the 1950s.  But that was  longer than 30 years.  But sorta 30+ years if you stretch a point.

[MicroBalrog]

Well we put the Shah in back in the 1950s.  But that was  longer than 30 years.  But sorta 30+ years if you stretch a point.

Sinking half their fleet?

[Perd Hapley]

Maybe Bush meant to invade Iran when he went into Iraq.................

Don't you recall the last years of the Bush admin? When we were told that Bush was just itching for an excuse to wage war on Iran? And then we invaded Iran?

Except that the last part never happened. It's made me very skeptical of such talk.

[De Selby]

Well we put the Shah in back in the 1950s.  But that was  longer than 30 years.  But sorta 30+ years if you stretch a point.

Yeah, we also gave him military and intelligence assistance for the whole time he was in power - now why do you think we did that?   And can you see how Iran would reasonably conclude that the US is a threat to them because of it?

Then there was the whole series of military strikes in the 80's, sponsoring one of the bloodiest wars on Iran since medieval times through Saddam, and now assassinating people with bombs in Iran and attacking its infrastructure and economy through sanctions.


Yeah, you're right - I just can't imagine why they'd think they need a nuke to prevent invasion :(

Roo, if you think that's a slanted view, I'd like to see what you think the truth of the matter is

[Regolith]

Sinking half their fleet?

Yeah, but they started that one.

[SADShooter]

The Shah was deposed more than thirty years ago, and we didn't prevent it, or openly attempt to. Reaction to the prospect of an invasion of Iran would make the Vietnam-era protest movement look like an ice-cream social. So to suggest Iran needs, or is entitled to, nuclear deterrence because the US is a menacing bully is spurious, particularly in view of Iran's efforts toward regional hegemony cited above. And the assertion that the US is directly responsible for the assassinations has no basis in fact.

[De Selby]

Yeah, but they started that one.

How did they start that one again?  And would they be silly to connect it to a US desire not to have them defeat Saddam, which they almost did before Saddam used chemical weapons on them?  And might they also draw some conclusions about the US policy from sales of said chemical and biological weapons to Saddam throughout the course of the war? 

nah, none of that is relevant - they should just ignore what we actually do and accept the rhetoric of our politicians as gospel, that they only want peace and would leave Iran alone if they could.  After all, we all take a politician's words over his actions here routinely.

This is crazy.  Every candidate for president save one is threatening Iran, and no one sees it as a realistic prospect that Iran might be attacked.  The risk is real folks.

[Jamisjockey]

But that wasn't my point.

You have a very stilted vision of things....that's all I can say.     

Huh what?  It's know fact that our government deposed the elected government of Iran and replaced them with the shaw, which directly led to the unfriendly government they have now. 

How is that "stilted"?

For once, our liberal friend is right on the money.

[Seenterman]

I've read reports that it was Mossad or the CIA that killed the Iranian nuclear scientist, or the Mossad trying to make it look like CIA. Whichever it was, the mission was a good one.

I'd be hesitant to call this a good mission. If it was Mossad that's fine for them but either shut up about it or don't attempt to make it look like it was your ally. I don't support the killings of foreign scientists at all and may lead to larger conflicts.  I don't know how credible this article is but this is something along the lines I'm thinking of

http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1511199

Well, what are we going to do? Start bombing their colleges? I have a big problem with the US killing scientists of a foreign nation we are not openly engaged in hostiles with.

If your still not with me on this think about what the US response would be if China started killing Lockhead Martin scientist. I'd imagine most would use that as a call for war on China. What do you think Iran will do if it comes out we are behind these killings? Do we even have the right to kill foreign scientists? Aren't we tired of play world police already?

[TommyGunn]

Yeah, we also gave him military and intelligence assistance for the whole time he was in power - now why do you think we did that?   And can you see how Iran would reasonably conclude that the US is a threat to them because of it?

Then there was the whole series of military strikes in the 80's, sponsoring one of the bloodiest wars on Iran since medieval times through Saddam, and now assassinating people with bombs in Iran and attacking its infrastructure and economy through sanctions.


Yeah, you're right - I just can't imagine why they'd think they need a nuke to prevent invasion :(

Roo, if you think that's a slanted view, I'd like to see what you think the truth of the matter is

The idea that Iran wants a nuke to prevent invasion is unworthy of even Wile E. Coyote.  
 

[TommyGunn]

Huh what?  It's know fact that our government deposed the elected government of Iran and replaced them with the shaw, which directly led to the unfriendly government they have now. 

How is that "stilted"?

For once, our liberal friend is right on the money.

The "stilted" remark was in response to DeSelby, and I never said that we didn't depose the Shah, I said that our removal of the shah had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.   
It would be nice if we're on the same page, but I don't think we even own the same book........

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i thought the shah committed patricide with our blessing/assistance. and losing him left us israel as our sole friend "over there"

[De Selby]

The "stilted" remark was in response to DeSelby, and I never said that we didn't depose the Shah, I said that our removal of the shah had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.   
It would be nice if we're on the same page, but I don't think we even own the same book........

You do realize it was the Iranian people who got rid of the Shah, not the US right?  What was the point you were trying to make, if the history of US intervention into Iran was not relevant???

How can that possibly not be relevant to a discussion about Iran/US relations?

[Regolith]

How did they start that one again?  And would they be silly to connect it to a US desire not to have them defeat Saddam, which they almost did before Saddam used chemical weapons on them?  And might they also draw some conclusions about the US policy from sales of said chemical and biological weapons to Saddam throughout the course of the war? 

nah, none of that is relevant - they should just ignore what we actually do and accept the rhetoric of our politicians as gospel, that they only want peace and would leave Iran alone if they could.  After all, we all take a politician's words over his actions here routinely.

This is crazy.  Every candidate for president save one is threatening Iran, and no one sees it as a realistic prospect that Iran might be attacked.  The risk is real folks.

Generally speaking, if you don't want to draw outside interests directly into a war you're fighting, you don't mine an international shipping lane. It's a pretty good way to get other countries to come in and kick your ass. And yes, while we were playing the "support the weak side and hope they eliminate each other" game, at that point we weren't directly involved. Had Iran not been run by a bunch of morons, they'd have tried to keep it that way. Instead, they went full retard and lost their entire navy as a result.