Sorry Putin, You're only making Cheney's penis harder.

[Kanastrous]

I'm gonna go wash my eyes with bleach now.

I thought I was the only person who used that expression.

I think there's still enough Russo-Chinese rivalry and mistrust left that, no matter how much hardware Beijing buys, they won't keep an alliance together.

[Crazy_Vasey]

Well, even adding China to the equation might not tilt the war in favor of Moscow and Tehran (unless they're planning to use the Chinese armored divisions to invade continental Europe), but China might complicate American plans enough that Dubya might give the Russians a peace they can live with. Or not. No one's everyone accused Junior of rational thinking.

Why on Earth would they response to an American invasion of Iran with an invasion of continental Europe, which will almost certainly NOT be on America's side if it invades?

[DavidEC]

Why do people automatically assume a full-scale invasion and occupation is the only type of military action possible against Iran? The fact that Bush didn't do that last time in 2003 and went the whole hog is not evidence - in fact, it's likely the experience and current practicalities of resources will push him to airstrikes and special forces, like many times in past US history.

[Kanastrous]

Why do people automatically assume a full-scale invasion and occupation is the only type of military action possible against Iran? The fact that Bush didn't do that last time in 2003 and went the whole hog is not evidence - in fact, it's likely the experience and current practicalities of resources will push him to airstrikes and special forces, like many times in past US history.

Because anyone looking to this administration to do the most stupid, clumsy, destructive thing possible, is rarely disappointed?

Okay, that's a little unfair, but still, the proposition that he and his will actually learn much of anything from 'experience' and 'practicalities' impresses me more as wishful thinking, than anything else.

Might his admin do something clever?

Well, it's within the realm of possibility.

Even a broken clock can be right, twice a day.

[Pelranius]

Well, even adding China to the equation might not tilt the war in favor of Moscow and Tehran (unless they're planning to use the Chinese armored divisions to invade continental Europe), but China might complicate American plans enough that Dubya might give the Russians a peace they can live with. Or not. No one's everyone accused Junior of rational thinking.

Why on Earth would they response to an American invasion of Iran with an invasion of continental Europe, which will almost certainly NOT be on America's side if it invades?

I didn't say anything about an actual invasion being likely. It just seemed that would be the only thing Beijing could actually make a difference in (they haven't got a very strategically significant airforce or navy), and it's not a very plausible as has been pointed out. They could go around harassing American bases in the Pacific, but that's about it outside of a land war.

[Ryan Thunder]

What the fuck is his problem, sticking fingers in the gears like that?

How the hell are we supposed to keep the nukes out of there now?

[Ryan Thunder]

Before anybody jumps on me; I believe the threat of force would be useful, or limited use of force, not an invasion or anything retarded like that...

[wolveraptor]

I'm not sure how much I believe this article. It doesn't name it's sources, and is from a newspaper I've never heard of. Furthermore, it was an opinion article. I wouldn't put too much stock in it until more information comes out. I strongly doubt Putin said anything so blatant and aggressive.

[Spyder]

What the fuck is his problem, sticking fingers in the gears like that?

How the hell are we supposed to keep the nukes out of there now?

Oh don't cry. If President Shit-for-Brains can't invade them anyway they probably won't bother building them.

[Ryan Thunder]

You're forgetting about Israel.

Unless, of course, you're ridiculing me for not wanting a nation, the president of which has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, to have nukes, in which case you can take your sarcasm and put it where the sun don't shine...

[Darth Raptor]

Unless, of course, you're ridiculing me for not wanting a nation, the president of which has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, to have nukes, in which case you can take your sarcasm and put it where the sun don't shine...

I'm not a fan of either Amadinnerjacket or the IRI, but it gets a bit tiresome to see that quote misinterpreted time and again (both intentionally and not). Yes, he said that. But in context, he meant it literally i.e., to redraw the political boundaries of the Palestinian region, NOT turn it into a glass parking lot. He wants Israel "wiped off the map" in the same sense that the Holy Roman Empire was wiped off the map.

And you can't realistically stop any country from acquiring nukes if it wants them. Better to go after the desire. Now ask yourself: "Why does Iran want nukes?" Hint: The correct answer is not "to obliterate Israel".

[Ryan Thunder]

I'm not a fan of either Amadinnerjacket or the IRI, but it gets a bit tiresome to see that quote misinterpreted time and again (both intentionally and not). Yes, he said that. But in context, he meant it literally i.e., to redraw the political boundaries of the Palestinian region, NOT turn it into a glass parking lot. He wants Israel "wiped off the map" in the same sense that the Holy Roman Empire was wiped off the map.

Really? Guess I'll have to think about that...

He's also a borderline holocaust denier, unless I misinterpreted that as well. I'll see if I can dig up the quote.

And you can't realistically stop any country from acquiring nukes if it wants them. Better to go after the desire.

You know what? For once, I think I agree with that sort of approach.

Now ask yourself: "Why does Iran want nukes?" Hint: The correct answer is not "to obliterate Israel".

To make them untouchable for fear of a nuclear retaliation of some sort or another. Not necessarily against a North American or European country, of course, but one that we're allied with, perhaps.

Considering that they have oil and there's not too much of that stuff left, I don't like that idea, especially when they don't like us that much...

[Spyder]

You're forgetting about Israel.

Russia will defend Iran from the US but not Israel?

Unless, of course, you're ridiculing me for not wanting a nation, the president of which has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, to have nukes, in which case you can take your sarcasm and put it where the sun don't shine...

Actually, I'm ridiculing you because you're an idiot. However I'm more then happy to oblige, bend over.

I'm not a fan of either Amadinnerjacket or the IRI, but it gets a bit tiresome to see that quote misinterpreted time and again (both intentionally and not). Yes, he said that. But in context, he meant it literally i.e., to redraw the political boundaries of the Palestinian region, NOT turn it into a glass parking lot. He wants Israel "wiped off the map" in the same sense that the Holy Roman Empire was wiped off the map.

Really? Guess I'll have to think about that...

He's also a borderline holocaust denier, unless I misinterpreted that as well. I'll see if I can dig up the quote.

Yes because as we all know, borderline holocaust deniers are immune to MAD.

And you can't realistically stop any country from acquiring nukes if it wants them. Better to go after the desire.

You know what? For once, I think I agree with that sort of approach.

That's that sarcasm enema you asked for. Works wonders doesn't it?

Now ask yourself: "Why does Iran want nukes?" Hint: The correct answer is not "to obliterate Israel".

To make them untouchable for fear of a nuclear retaliation of some sort or another. Not necessarily against a North American or European country, of course, but one that we're allied with, perhaps.

Considering that they have oil and there's not too much of that stuff left, I don't like that idea, especially when they don't like us that much...

You don't like what, the idea that 'touching' Iran and their oil would have consequences?

[Ritterin Sophia]

If Russia does come to the aid of Iran, it's probably a safe bet that China will jump on board. Standing alone in a world against Regent Cheney and his cabal when Russia has been removed from the equation isn't going to be ideal for Beijing.

First of all, I'm not sure you're aware just how much China relies on America's business. Second, do you even know how small China's ability to project power is?

[Pablo Sanchez]

How the hell are we supposed to keep the nukes out of there now?

Think about this critically and guess what happened, dumbass--
The administration adopted a stance against Iran that was too harsh and, in light of our total occupation of Iraq, scared the hell out of everybody. Putin, keen to put on the mantle of a peacemaker and opponent to Bush-style imperialism, and further determined to secure at least one of Russia's historic strategic frontiers, has given his support to Iran. Putin is already helping Iran build nuclear facilities, may later be talked into selling nuclear fuels to Iran, and has very obviously found it in his interests to be friendly with Tehran. In other words, Bush's Iran policy has backfired.

RE: your other whining about Ahmadinejad:
Ahmadinejad does not make policy. His actual role in Iran is not equivalent to the POTUS. He is a figurehead and all shots are called by the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Even if Iran had nuclear weapons, right now, Ahmadinejad would have no authority to deploy them. Also, all reliable intelligence indicates that Iran cannot possibly have nuclear weapons before 2016 or so. It is not feasible for Ahmadinejad to even be in his ceremonial, powerless position as President of Iran in 2016, because he is only eligible for two-four year terms and will be legally out of office 2013, even if he is able to win a second election, which he might not, because his antics have alienated a lot of Iranians and pissed off the Ayatollahs.

Ahmadinejad is a chimera. He is conveniently crazy, so the Bush administration likes to pretend that he is significant for propaganda purposes, but in fact he has no power and everybody knows this. You fell for an obvious lie. Nice work.

I'm not sure how much I believe this article. It doesn't name it's sources, and is from a newspaper I've never heard of. Furthermore, it was an opinion article. I wouldn't put too much stock in it until more information comes out. I strongly doubt Putin said anything so blatant and aggressive.

According to the Beeb Putin shied away from any direct promises of support, but reaffirmed his commitment to help Tehran construct nuclear power plants for peaceful purposes and said stuff like "We should not even think of making use of force in this region." This means that he is not actually signing any historic military alliance with Iran, but he is very definitely throwing Russia's substantial weight behind a peaceful solution to the dispute which will still leave Iran with nuclear power plants.

Part of the reason that it was so easy to mug Saddam Hussein was that he had no friends at all, not even a whisper of support from any other government in the world. The very fact that Putin visited Tehran, the first Russian premier ever to visit Tehran for the purpose of talking to the Iranians*, is a really big deal, especially considering the diplomatic isolation of the Islamic Republic. He didn't actually say that much in concrete terms, but the art of diplomacy is about insinuation.

* (Stalin was in Tehran in 1943, as the Beeb points out, but he was there to meet Roosevelt and Churchill and didn't give two shits for the locals)

What the hell is Putin trying to do internationally? Assassinating journalists, escalating nuclear tensions, intimidating Eastern Europe and supporting Iran is only going to piss off the EU and USA.

No, it isn't. The leading EU states (France and Germany) have been against the Iraq war from the start, many of the smaller states have cooperated with the US in search of goodies (e.g., Poland, Spain for a little while, the Baltics, and more). The UK was very firmly behind us as well, as is their wont. However, most of the actual population of Europe has no love for the Iraq War, and even less love for a prospective war on Iran. In fact, people in general are all over the world hostile to the United States and its apparent goals. We can see this in the downfall of Tony Blair.

Of course this isn't as significant as it might because of the distorting effect that the sheer economic and military power of the USA has on diplomacy. But as I said earlier, Putin is going for the Chavez effect. Supporting Iran actually doesn't cost him anything, because he is making it very clear that he has peaceful intentions and definitely doesn't want Iran to get the bomb. His argument is that the Iranians need nuclear power, and that the best way to keep them from getting the nuclear arsenal is to be involved in their getting the facilities they need to generate power, peacefully. This makes a certain amount of sense, but I don't think there's been any polling yet to indicate how much people are buying into it, internationally.

Conversely it can gain Putin a lot, because he is seen to be standing up to American aggression. Standing up to the USA right now is smart, because we are too overstretched to be a real threat, and so unpopular that smearing Bush is good for a bump in international opinion. Internationally, the American "brand" is at its lowest ebb since the Vietnam War.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Why do people automatically assume a full-scale invasion and occupation is the only type of military action possible against Iran? The fact that Bush didn't do that last time in 2003 and went the whole hog is not evidence - in fact, it's likely the experience and current practicalities of resources will push him to airstrikes and special forces, like many times in past US history.

Its the only permanent and truly effective means to prevent Iran from developing weapons of mass destruction.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ahmadinejad does not make policy. His actual role in Iran is not equivalent to the POTUS. He is a figurehead and all shots are called by the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Even if Iran had nuclear weapons, right now, Ahmadinejad would have no authority to deploy them.

Well, if that's true, I'm relieved. The man's a loose cannon.

Also, all reliable intelligence indicates that Iran cannot possibly have nuclear weapons before 2016 or so.

Define "reliable" in this context...

You fell for an obvious lie. Nice work.

Thanks.

[Ryan Thunder]

Damnit... quote tags...

[Pablo Sanchez]

Define "reliable" in this context...

Oh, gee, maybe the Iran NIE, that being the consensus of the American intelligence community on the subject?

Wa-Po reports in 2005.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ah, ok.

Sometimes I get dubious answers from people. I just wanted to be sure.

[wolveraptor]

I had no idea that Amedinejad was a powerless figurehead. Though in retrospect, it seems obvious. What real office would be titled "Supreme Leader"? It's right out of Orwellian ethos. Plus, the man is horribly incompetent at foreign politics.

[Wanderer]

I had no idea that Amedinejad was a powerless figurehead. Though in retrospect, it seems obvious. What real office would be titled "Supreme Leader"? It's right out of Orwellian ethos. Plus, the man is horribly incompetent at foreign politics.

Despite the fact its been mention several times already outside of this thread.

[DavidEC]

Okay, that's a little unfair, but still, the proposition that he and his will actually learn much of anything from 'experience' and 'practicalities' impresses me more as wishful thinking, than anything else.

It was practical to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, it will be probably be impossible to occupy Iran as well. It's a country of 70 million, whereas the previous two have 25ish million apiece.

[Pelranius]

If Russia does come to the aid of Iran, it's probably a safe bet that China will jump on board. Standing alone in a world against Regent Cheney and his cabal when Russia has been removed from the equation isn't going to be ideal for Beijing.

First of all, I'm not sure you're aware just how much China relies on America's business. Second, do you even know how small China's ability to project power is?

China would most likely join the bandwagon, despite economics and all, since in a world without Russia, the US will be far more able to effectively put all sorts of pressure on China on many more issues (if you remember, the Bush admin pre 9/11 was going on and on about the so called "China threat").

China doesn't have to actually have to invade the continental US or anything. They could open up a second front around their corner of the Pacific, which at the very least would tie down and prevent American allies and forces in the region from participating in any action against Russia.

[Ritterin Sophia]

China doesn't have to actually have to invade the continental US or anything. They could open up a second front around their corner of the Pacific, which at the very least would tie down and prevent American allies and forces in the region from participating in any action against Russia.

How is it going to prevent American Allies from participating in the region? Again, no ability to project power and no blue water navy to speak of.