RoR: Forum

Not a lot of time to post but...

If the Iranian leader was saber rattling, and we're saber rattling, and we're using their saber rattling to justify war and they're using our saber rattling to justify war, where does that leave us?

Sarah

Post 21

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:11am

Sarah, here we get down to your premise: that there is no fundamental difference between the Iranian government and culture, and the US government and culture. I disagree.

Post 22

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:12am

Laure,

I don't see how that's implied anywhere in what I'm saying. Furthermore, what does it have to do with war?

Sarah

Post 23

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:54am

Sarah, the following statements you made earlier caused me to conclude that you see a symmetry and a moral equivalence between "us" and "them." Maybe I read too much into your statements.

"If the Iranian leader was saber rattling, and we're saber rattling, and we're using their saber rattling to justify war and they're using our saber rattling to justify war, where does that leave us?"

"Not at all, but us wiping them off the face of the planet because they want to wipe us of the face of the planet makes me feel no safer with us behind the nukes. You think using their argument substituting fundamentalist secular aspects for fundamentalist theist ones makes the action any more justifiable?"

Post 24

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:55am

I want those of you who think that diplomacy and apeasment are strategies we should use with Iran to watch a couple of these videos.

These are political speeches by Iran's true leaders -- the Ayatollahs. This is the stuff that is preached and piped into Iranian TV sets every day.

Take click the link below and then click on link #855.

http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S6&P3=4#

Here is another by Iran's main leader the Ayatollah Khamenei

http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S6&P3=6

click on the link to video #818.

And make sure you click on "view clip" because everything else will merely give you the transcript.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 10/28, 10:34am)

Post 25

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:59am

Thanks for those links Jason.

Post 26

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 12:36pm

Pacifist: One who will fight with anyone but the enemy.

Post 27

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 2:32pm

     Clearly, Piekoff was correct a year or two ago, re Iran. It seemed 'extreme,' but, I (unlike some obvious others) would have had little prob with his...'solution.' Certainly no 'moral' prob; merely a tactics one re dealing with all the...shall we say...'fallout.'

     Now, things are obviously so bad that only blatant followers of Chamberlain would say, "Hey, can't we all [keep on trying to act the semblance of] just get along?" (I can't help but think of the Mexican saloon-keeper in The Magnificent 7, worried about the 'response' of the bandits if the latter were fought against.)

     One thing I'm sure about is, whatever is thought of re the 'proper response' (wipe-them-out vs toleration-of-threats-to-the-point-of-actual-extortion), and, whatever Washington/Britain 'decides' (hmmph) to merely say...

     ...Israel, as I've said before, is the one that's really going to DO something. No doubt such will be to it's castigation by all (while, almost hypocritically, all the rest of us quietly breathe a sigh-of-relief.)

LLAP
J:D

Post 28

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 3:40pm

One thing's for sure: Iran won't have a nuclear program while Israel still has an air force :-) Remember Iraq's little attempt at nuclear development?

Ah, those were the days...

Ross

Post 29

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 4:02pm

To me, a question that comes to mind seems to be: what happens if more than just a series of airstrikes is needed to wipe out their nuke program. Maybe they have development going on in deep underground bunkers. Maybe they have secret locations. At this point, an all out regime change invasion and occupation is required. Considering that Iran is larger and more populous than Iraq, this could be a tall order on our already stretched military (whose recruiting numbers have been declining). Also, the relative stability the US has been able to broker with the Iraqi Shia would probably crumble. It will be interesting to see how it pans out - something needs to be done, though.

Post 30

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 4:05pm

I want to know why Sarah is so committed to the idea that the filth coming out of that sand-hole called Iran is somehow just a benign ploy to scare us, and that we should somehow not treat it as a direct threat to our lives, and that there seems to be little justification in her eyes to act in self-defense until we can see the smoke trails of the nuclear weapons in the skies over our cities. Sarah, put on some mental clothes, your pacifism is sticking out.

Post 31

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 5:46pm

Ross,

I wish I could be as confident as you. If I'm not mistaken, they already have a nuclear program and are only a few years (if that) away from an atomic bomb of some type. I'd say it's well past time the Israeli's scrambled the jets.

Jeff

Post 32

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 6:10pm

Well, you may be right, Jeff.

Obviously, if Iran has development in progress that is both hidden & untouchable, we can only await their actions & respond in kind.

If they use a nuke or nukes against Israel then I assume Israel, if still able, will reply similarly.

I can't help wondering if a nuclear capable Iran would play a different game, though. An Iranian nuke in the hands of Al Qaeda might have more of a psychological and therefore, geopolitical effect.

Of course, that all depends on who Iran hates more: Israel or America.

Ross

Post 33

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 6:13pm

Either way, if is used - there'll be glassland in Arabia...

Post 34

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 6:30pm

Sure, Robert.

As I said here:

http://solohq.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/0983.shtml#14

The idea is to lay out the ground rules in nice easy to read arabic. Big glow in the dark letters that can't be misconstrued :-)

Ross

Post 35

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 6:50pm

Ross,

I'm far from an expert on military matters, but I think the plant, etc could fairly readily be taken out with a pinpoint strike long before anything begins to fly. I doubt it's necessary to nuke Tehran, nor wait until they nuke Tel Aviv. In this case, less is definitely better.

And unlike Iraq and other countries, there are many in Iran favorable to the U.S. and other Western countries, so the intelligence is bound to be better.

Jeff

Post 36

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:03pm

Andre wrote:

"We should bear in mind that most Iranians seem to loathe their government. They just lack the power to overthrow their illegitimate, unwanted, god-awful dictatorship."

I disagree. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Islamo-fascist views were already clear beyond any doubt when he trounced the more moderate Rafsanjani with almost 62% of the vote in the August presidential elections. The Iranians knew what kind of creature they were voting for. And yesterday a million of them marched alongside him in support of his calls for Israel's destruction:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051028/ca_pr_on_wo/iran_israel

Where were all those supposed anti-government Iranians then?

And don't think that those marchers were just a bunch of loony Imams and relics from the Iranian revolution of 1979. Most of them, in fact, were students - precisely the group whose hearts and minds Ahmadinejad is seeking to reach. On the basis of this march, he's won them over.

Post 37

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:08pm

Iran is the only country whose leader publicly instigated all muslim cultists to assassinate an ordinary citizen of another country (Salman Rushdie). This should be remembered all the time. Then we know what we can do.

Post 38

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:45pm

Laure,

By those statements I was saying that both sides have symmetrically bad arguments.

Jason, Marty, Jamie,

Good to see you misconstruing my position. Always a pleasure.

I explicitly said we shouldn't appease them and no where did I say we shouldn't defend ourselves from imminent threats. Leaders say a lot of things to rally their people, doesn't mean they'll all come to be. That's where our government comes in. They've got to tell the valid threats from the public rants. Lots of people don't like the US. Hell, more than a few of em probably even want to see the US taken down a notch or two and some even want us dead. But any time they say so it becomes a declaration of war? If the US attacked every ill-wisher we'd be going up against most of the planet.

Sarah

Post 39

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:12pm