Are we being suckered in to war by Israeli interests?

[TommyGunn]

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?

I was wondering if this was an episode of The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits, is all.   

[red headed stranger]

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

It has worked out for N Korea and Pakistan so far . . .

Once they get it, it is a game changer.  The US would treat Iran differently.  From the Iranian perspective, it might earn them some respect. 

[Monkeyleg]

I don't think North Korea got any respect. Pakistan is getting something of grudging cooperation only because of its proximity to Afghanistan. If it weren't for the war with the Taliban, we'd be in our old role of backing India and pressuring Pakistan on several issues.

[TommyGunn]

It has worked out for N Korea and Pakistan so far . . .

Once they get it, it is a game changer.  The US would treat Iran differently.  From the Iranian perspective, it might earn them some respect. 

No one wants to invade N. Korea.   It's leaders are crazy.  Pakistan .... meh.  Let India have 'em.

It's not only having a nuke, it's having a delivery system. 
There are other reasons why invasions don't happen, other than nuclear weapons.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Instead, they went full retard and lost their entire navy as a result.

its not lost we know where it is and if you have scuba gear we can take you to it

[red headed stranger]

I don't think North Korea got any respect. Pakistan is getting something of grudging cooperation only because of its proximity to Afghanistan. If it weren't for the war with the Taliban, we'd be in our old role of backing India and pressuring Pakistan on several issues.

From NK perspective, they get a decent amount of respect.  All the NK leadership has to do is throw a hissy-fit and major world powers pay attention and offer to bribe them with food/money. For a tinpot dictator, that feels an awful lot like respect.

If it weren't for the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power, we wouldn't be treating them with such kid gloves and giving them billions in foreign aid. 

No one wants to invade N. Korea.   It's leaders are crazy.

"It's [sic] leaders are crazy" is often the reason given FOR military action against Iran. 

Pakistan .... meh.  Let India have 'em.

But that isn't US policy. Due, in part, to the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power. 

There are other reasons why invasions don't happen, other than nuclear weapons.

Of course that is true.  However, the probability of the U.S. invading and overthrowing a government is significantly less if they are a nuclear power.  It's one of the benefits of being in the nuclear club. 

[TommyGunn]

From NK perspective, they get a decent amount of respect.  All the NK leadership has to do is throw a hissy-fit and major world powers pay attention and offer to bribe them with food/money. For a tinpot dictator, that feels an awful lot like respect.

If it weren't for the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power, we wouldn't be treating them with such kid gloves and giving them billions in foreign aid. 
"It's [sic] leaders are crazy" is often the reason given FOR military action against Iran. 
But that isn't US policy. Due, in part, to the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power. 
Of course that is true.  However, the probability of the U.S. invading and overthrowing a government is significantly less if they are a nuclear power.  It's one of the benefits of being in the nuclear club. 

Are you saying we should be as anxious to invade countries that have nukes as we seem to be when they don't?
 

Look, despite appearances I am no big fan of America playing neighborhood cop for the world.  To some extent we might need to but we obviously can't be everywhere and solve every problem and TKO every nutcake dictator.
If Iran were just another country I wouldn't be bothered by whether it had a nuke or a shitload of squirtguns. 
But its head honcho ahmadinijab has repeatly stated his disdain for Israel and like a number of other arab organizations, wants it gone.  I understand there are people here who dispute this based on a translation error, but I've heard enough sources to be pretty sure Iran's headnut is hardly a friend to Israel.
I am also aware some people think even if Iran had a nuke they wouldn't actually use it since it would only assure their own destruction in a M.A.D.-like scenario.  Problem is, Iran's head nut is prophesizing an armageddon-like event.  He WANTS it. 
Given that I am not taking odds on whether or not Iran will actually use a nuke should it develop the bomb(s).  Oh yeah; bombs.  Think they're gonna make just one?  India lit one off and the CIA did a "what the **** was THAT?" in response.  Well, we know Iran actually has a program so atleast we're not that far behind the curve.  Likely thing is someday soon Iran WILL lite off a nuke, and you can rest assured that when they do they will have another one, or two, or five, off in a secret bunker somewhere.

As far as how we're treating Pakistan, it's a lot more complicated than them just having nukes.  Do you think we don't know where they are?  If we really needed to we could probably take them out. That would be a pretty drastic thing to do and would involve the use of our own tactical nukes. 
But so long as they seem to be playing middle-man between us and those radical islamists they're coddling, and we give a rat's petoot about world opinion, we're not going to nuke them or anyone else.
In fact, we seem more intent on getting out of Dodge right now than doing anything about the fact that the neighborhood is going to h3ll in a handbasket........   

[MillCreek]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203518404577096851732704524.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

If you have access to the WSJ, the above editorial by Mark Helprin calls for a strong and courageous President to undertake preemptive strikes on Iran's nuclear capability. An excerpt follows:

"...Any president of the United States fit for the office should someday, soon, say to the American people that in his judgment Iran—because of its longstanding and implacable push for nuclear weapons, its express hostility to the U.S., Israel and the West, and its record of barbarity and terror—must be deprived of the capacity to wound this country and its allies such as they have never been wounded before.

Relying solely upon his oath, holding in abeyance any consideration of politics or transient opinion, and eager to defend his decision in exquisite detail, he should order the armed forces of the United States to attack and destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons complex. When they have complied, and our pilots are in the air on their way home, they will have protected our children in their beds—and our children's children, many years from now, in theirs. May this country always have clear enough sight and strong enough will to stand for itself in the face of mortal threat, and in time."

Interesting that the author glosses over 'consideration of politics and transient opinion'. Oh, that pesky Congress and public opinion!

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Interesting that the author glosses over 'consideration of politics and transient opinion'. Oh, that pesky Congress and public opinion!

And the fact that Iran's got double the population of Iraq, most is in the military service age window, they haven't been crippled by sanctions as Iraq was, they have no doubt learned the value of guerrilla warfare by watching their neighbors, and have been training their troops to partake in it. They stand in a perfect position to majorly screw up our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. As I understand it, they are doing so in a low-key way now, but if we hit them, it'll heat up quickly.

[Regolith]

Instead, they went full retard and lost their entire navy as a result.

its not lost we know where it is and if you have scuba gear we can take you to it

 

[MicroBalrog]

Let me ask this question: were you a military leader of a third-world county - say, an Iranian general or a Saudi general - wouldn't you want the nuke?

A nuke basically means you can do your silly third-world  crap (including even sponsoring terrorism) and not get invaded.

[red headed stranger]

Are you saying we should be as anxious to invade countries that have nukes as we seem to be when they don't?
 

Of course not.  But, if I were a tin-pot dictator, I would generally feel better about my chances of living a full life if my country had a couple nukes.

 

But its head honcho ahmadinijab has repeatly stated his disdain for Israel and like a number of other arab organizations, wants it gone.  I understand there are people here who dispute this based on a translation error, but I've heard enough sources to be pretty sure Iran's headnut is hardly a friend to Israel.
I am also aware some people think even if Iran had a nuke they wouldn't actually use it since it would only assure their own destruction in a M.A.D.-like scenario.  Problem is, Iran's head nut is prophesizing an armageddon-like event.  He WANTS it.  

There is huge difference between Saber rattling and and actually following though.  Vigilance where Iran is certainly called for, but the rhetorical saber rattling coming out of the US isn't particularly useful or productive.  It turns Iranians who are fence sitters or even pro-US more likely to turn anti-US.  Incidentally, there are plenty on our side of the world who prophesize armageddon-like events.  We should be frightened of them too.  IMO, a chickenhawk like Newt or a Pres. Romney that needs to prove something are both potential recipes for disaster.  

Frankly, if I were an evil leader of a country and had to deal with a large bully empire with garrisons in my backyard, I would want a couple nukes too. Those nukes are the ticket to the big-boys table, and at the very least would allow me to get on with oppressing my people with less outside intervention.  

To be sure, we have been bullies as it relates to Iran.  In the past, the US undid a popular election and installed a dictator of our choosing. The blowback from that event has left us with a lot of the Iranian mess that we have today. The Shah incident and the ensuing Islamic revolution is something that happened in a lot of people's lifetimes, so dismissing it because it was 30 years ago is very disingenuous considering the butthurt so many Americans still have over Castro.  

As far as how we're treating Pakistan, it's a lot more complicated than them just having nukes.  Do you think we don't know where they are?  If we really needed to we could probably take them out. That would be a pretty drastic thing to do and would involve the use of our own tactical nukes.  
But so long as they seem to be playing middle-man between us and those radical islamists they're coddling, and we give a rat's petoot about world opinion, we're not going to nuke them or anyone else.

Of course it is more complicated than them just having Nukes, but the calculus for dealing with that country changes immensely because they do.  Their nukes are a major reason why we aren't doing anything too "drastic." Therfore, the douchebags who run that country get to keep up their douchebaggery with billions of US dollars subsidizing it.  

[TommyGunn]

There is huge difference between Saber rattling and and actually following though.  Vigilance where Iran is certainly called for, but the rhetorical saber rattling coming out of the US isn't particularly useful or productive.  It turns Iranians who are fence sitters or even pro-US more likely to turn anti-US.  Incidentally, there are plenty on our side of the world who prophesize armageddon-like events.  We should be frightened of them too.  IMO, a chickenhawk like Newt or a Pres. Romney that needs to prove something are both potential recipes for disaster.

I see nothing to fear in either Romney or Gingrich as president.  I guess I see things very differently, but I don't see how either of these two are aching for a war with Iran, or saber rattling or whatever.  
Iran has recently threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and conducted an excuse for a naval excercise there.  THAT is certainly sabre rattling.  
I don't think we can afford to simply ignore Iran's sabre rattling.  We have to make certain they know we WILL respond if they do shut the strait down.  Now, I don't think Iran will actually close down the strait; they know we could open it up quickly and it would be costly for them, but then they have to have some assurance we will bite if we bark.  

Frankly, if I were an evil leader of a country and had to deal with a large bully empire with garrisons in my backyard, I would want a couple nukes too. Those nukes are the ticket to the big-boys table, and at the very least would allow me to get on with oppressing my people with less outside intervention.

Frankly, the equanamity in which people indulge in response to the possibility/likelyhood of maverick countries getting the "bomb" is disturbing to me.  When I was growing up nuclear proliferation was a grave concern to all because of the possibility that some nutcake might get a nuke and start playing chicken with it.  The fact that the U.S.S.R. lit one off in 1947 was bad enough.  They were an evil empire; ruthless, deadly oppressive even to their own people. But they weren't apocolyptic. They were not insane.  For all its ostensible insanity, "Mutually Assured Destruction"  worked, because beyond whatever world-dominating aspirations the Soviet Communists had, they also wanted to survive.
I grew up in that period and I never really feared that either side would deliberatly initiate a nuclear war.  What I feared was an accident, such as almost happened during the 1980s.  A Scandinavian country launched a missile for scientific purposes.  Soviet radar stations spotted it and their defense systems initiated, thinking the USA had launched a nuclear strike.  The Soviet Premier was being primed to respond via their equivelent of the "football" when he, being nasty evil and everything -- but still an intelligent person -- realized that a nuclear first strike would not be just one missile, as this was, it would be a whole heckuva lot of 'em.  So he smartly called off the USSR's response and thus saved the world.

But, as has been said, the "genie is out of the bottle."  Every nutjob and his brother wants a nuke.  The Indians, the nasty Pakistanis, the insane NorKs ....  and some people here respond ; "oh, so what?  we have no right to stop 'em --- HEY, if you were  surrounded by bullies you'd want a nuke, too."
 
We're sick.  All sick.
Someday it will matter.  
I don't know if Ahmadinejab will launch a nuke or not.  But I can't be sanguin about his desire to off Israel, and his apocolyptic theories with regards to what happens when he does it.  If he feared his own country's destruction, that would be one thing.  THAT would be sane.  But Iran's leader is NOT sane.
And to me that means he's unpredictable.   And therein lies a danger.
We apparantly can't afford to do much about it now.   We don't have the $$$$$ and we surely don't have the cojones.

Incidentally, there are plenty on our side of the world who prophesize armageddon-like events.  We should be frightened of them too.

Like who?  The one that comes to my mind right now is Gerald Celente, who appears on George Noory's "Coast-toCoastAM" every once in a while, predicting grave problems  ahead.  He may be right or wrong.   Given our current economic and political situation, predicting bad cr@p ahead should be a "no-brainer" even to a blind squirrel in search of nuts.   That doesn't mean I think Celente is a prophet, it just means that when your country is 15.2 trillion in debt and still spending like there's no tomorrow, it's pretty friggin' easy (and doesn't require a crystal ball) to predict disaster ahead.

But if you're infering we should fear either Romney or Gingrich, phooey.  While neither candidate represents by any means what I'd consider an ideal leader both are sane enough and solidly grounded enough to deal with the world ahead much more effectively than "hope & change" Obama.
So who's the doomsayer that you say we should fear?  People like Celente are a dime a dozen and really don't amount to much more than reasonably bright people who want to write scary books and make $$ while running websites and appearing on fringe radio programs.  
Political wannabes?  Well, try Ron Paul.   While many of his economic ideas are sound enough his foreign policy --- now there is a dangerous, dangerous philosophy.  


   Some how.... I don't think that's who you means.... though.  

[red headed stranger]

and we surely don't have the cojones.

You have said this a number of times.  THIS is the dangerous philosophy.  Going to war, breaking things, and killing people is not about cojones, and should not be entered into lightly, or just to prove a point. 

Speaking softly and carrying a big stick has worked well for us in the past. It's too bad we have abandoned this philosophy. 

I can't find a link to it right now, but a PEW survey indicated that about 40% of self-described evangelicals believed that the anti-Christ currently walks the earth.  That is significant, and the kind of thinking that leads to self-fulfilling prophesies. 

[TommyGunn]

You have said this a number of times.  THIS is the dangerous philosophy.  Going to war, breaking things, and killing people is not about cojones, and should not be entered into lightly, or just to prove a point. 

Speaking softly and carrying a big stick has worked well for us in the past. It's too bad we have abandoned this philosophy. 

I can't find a link to it right now, but a PEW survey indicated that about 40% of self-described evangelicals believed that the anti-Christ currently walks the earth.  That is significant, and the kind of thinking that leads to self-fulfilling prophesies. 

NOT having the "cojones" is dangerous because you will be ill-prepared to deal with reality if/when the cr@p hits the fan.  A nice reference to T.R. by the way; one of my favorite historical personas.  But keep in mind that T.R. never left anyone in any doubt that he would clobber an enemy.  'Fercrissake he wanted to go off and fight in World War One and the president wouldn't let him.  And don't forget about that little escapade in Cuba .....
Right now Obama is busy whittling the "big stick" down to a engorged twig.
But never did I say anything about entering any war lightly or simply to prove a point.  You are busy reading things into my posts I never put there, or intended to. 
As far as evangilism is concerned I am not one, have never followed that philosophy/religious persuasion, but neither do I fear them. 
The whole "antichrist" thing is far too .....nebulous (??) philosophical/hypothetical... or spiritual, for me to invest much concern.  We have enough problems with flesh and blood human beings like Chavez and Ahmadinejab.  We don't need to scare up demons, OK?

[De Selby]

Tommygunn, think for a second - what are the odds that only oil producing states have "dangerous nut jobs" who threaten world peace, and need to be shut down/invaded/controlled however?

And what specifically is your threat scenario for these guys?  Ahmadinejad doesn't control the military, the idea that he's waiting for the apocalypse is clownish, and Chavez doesn't seem to have done anything at all to militarily threaten the US.

This is the kind of propaganda that gets us into decades long occupations.  And at the end of them, no one really understands what the point was, just like Iraq.

[Blakenzy]

Chavez subsidized heating fuel for the people of NYC...LOL

[TommyGunn]

Tommygunn, think for a second - what are the odds that only oil producing states have "dangerous nut jobs" who threaten world peace, and need to be shut down/invaded/controlled however?

And what specifically is your threat scenario for these guys?  Ahmadinejad doesn't control the military, the idea that he's waiting for the apocalypse is clownish, and Chavez doesn't seem to have done anything at all to militarily threaten the US.

This is the kind of propaganda that gets us into decades long occupations.  And at the end of them, no one really understands what the point was, just like Iraq.

There are plenty of nutjobs in non-nuclear countries DeSelby.  We don't hear from them because no one really cares who does what on some obscure South Pacific island or unknown South American country which doesn't effect anyone else and won't close down a major oil shipping lane.
You don't get the headlines on the 6:00PM news until you become a credible threat to something beyond the resident seagull population.
You may think Ahmadinejab  "waiting for the apocalypse is clownish" but, my good DeSelby, I AM NOT THE PERSON CLAIMING THAT HE IS  HE is. 
Is it propoganda? 
It's nutcakery, is what it is. 
But don't worry, nutcakes who make wild-assed claims never, ever amount to anything, so I'm sure that Ahmadinejab is really a nice guy, who should be dating your sister and buying her roses.   After all, it's not like he was in a jail cell writing his nutcakery down in book form about how he wants to conquer europe.
Thank God for itsy-bitsy favors...................................

[Seenterman]

some obscure South Pacific island or unknown South American country which doesn't effect anyone else

Well what happens when one of these obscure countries such as Venezuela tries to get the bomb? Are we going to invade or bomb them all?

It would make so much more sense to actually invest in a functional missile shield that would render any delivery system short of them walking a nuke into the US moot.   

I can't find a link to it right now, but a PEW survey indicated that about 40% of self-described evangelicals believed that the anti-Christ currently walks the earth.  That is significant, and the kind of thinking that leads to self-fulfilling prophesies. 

I think you missed red's point, I think he's trying to say that middle eastern countries aren't the only places with religious nut jobs. A few of our own presidential candidates were just talking about how God told them to run. I'm sorry that voice in your head is not God; that's your overblown ego talking and that type of thinking is just plain dangerous.

[TommyGunn]

some obscure South Pacific island or unknown South American country which doesn't effect anyone else

Well what happens when one of these obscure countries such as Venezuela tries to get the bomb? Are we going to invade or bomb them all?

It would make so much more sense to actually invest in a functional missile shield that would render any delivery system short of them walking a nuke into the US moot.   

I can't find a link to it right now, but a PEW survey indicated that about 40% of self-described evangelicals believed that the anti-Christ currently walks the earth.  That is significant, and the kind of thinking that leads to self-fulfilling prophesies. 

I think you missed red's point, I think he's trying to say that middle eastern countries aren't the only places with religious nut jobs. A few of our own presidential candidates were just talking about how God told them to run. I'm sorry that voice in your head is not God; that's your overblown ego talking and that type of thinking is just plain dangerous.

During the 1980s President Reagan proposed the Space Defense Initiative, often refered to as "STAR WARS."  A great deal of research was done to determine what would be the best way to interdict Soviet ICBMs.  I'm not sure how far the program got to but a full blown system was never completed.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to se what could be done.

I am not familiar with any current political candidate who was told by God to run.  I know Santorum is credited with being a very spiritually driven person, but I don't regard him as a religious nutcake.  If he's stated God told him to run I must have missed the newsflash.  As  to how "dangerous" voices in the head/overblown egos are is a matter of case by case discretion. 
A great many politicians have big egos and are not necessarily dangerous.  Some are just buffoons. 
I'm not saying America doesn't have any religious nuts, I just don't know any major political candidate running for high office now I would consider a religious nut.  I have problems with some of them but that has nothing to do with what I think of their religious persuasions.
If you have a candidate please enlighten me, I'd like to know.

[red headed stranger]

I am not familiar with any current political candidate who was told by God to run.

Perry and Bachmann. 

[TommyGunn]

OK I recall Bachman -- who is out of it. Perry is out of the running as well. 
Notwithstanding I do not regard either one as being a religious extremist I believe would be a threat to world peace.

[roo_ster]

The Chrsitophobes, RSH, and Seenterman would have us rule any small-o orthodox Christian unfit for the presidency because they take their religion and prayer seriously, not just as a chummy social club. 

They're daaaaaaaaaaaingerous!  Just like the religious nuts over in the ME, sure enough.  Except for the stoning, head chopping, suicide bombing, not allowing women to drive, imposition of theocracy, torture, crushing of homosexuals with stone walls, imprisoning of women who were raped, and a few other points.

[red headed stranger]

OK I recall Bachman -- who is out of it. Perry is out of the running as well. 
Notwithstanding I do not regard either one as being a religious extremist I believe would be a threat to world peace.

I never said they were. You said that you were not aware of any candidates claiming that God directly told them to run, and I gave you two names.

You said you were not aware of people preaching the impending apocalypse over here in the US, but I pointed out there there indeed are.

There is a constituency that is rooting for the end of the world, and politicians are happy to court them for votes whether they believe the stuff or not.   

The Chrsitophobes, RSH, and Seenterman would have us rule any small-o orthodox Christian unfit for the presidency because they take their religion and prayer seriously, not just as a chummy social club. 

That is quite a mischaracterization.

[TommyGunn]

I never said they were. You said that you were not aware of any candidates claiming that God directly told them to run, and I gave you two names.

You said you were not aware of people preaching the impending apocalypse over here in the US, but I pointed out there there indeed are.

There is a constituency that is rooting for the end of the world, and politicians are happy to court them for votes whether they believe the stuff or not.   ...........

What constituency is rooting for the end of the world -- and what jackass politicians are courting them?
As I've said (I think, though I could be misremembering from a different thread) I am aware of people like Gerald Celente and others who sell books and go on overnight radio tallking about some coming apocalypse.

Now, on the other hand, given our national debt, our spending, and everything, we very well could see a financial apocalypse in the near future if we can't get ahold of our out-of-control govt. spending.  And that's no supernatural  precogitation either, it is a very real threat to this country's future.