US rattling the saber

[Vendetta]

What's wrong with Iran as a regional power? It's no wronger than an America as a global power. Isn't it good to see nations become more influential and prosperous and strong? It's better than them being weak and becoming the subject of foreign exploitation, intervention, and Iraqi nerve-gassing, right?

They're dirty brown people who don't kowtow to the mighty America sufficiently, and therefore they are ungood and anything they want to do to improve their national standing is ++ungood.

And they are especially bad because America's special bestest friend in the whole world, Israel, is quite close by.

But remember, it's okay to say what they are and aren't allowed, because America is bigger than everyone else, and as long as we like what they're forcing on everyone, it's not really a case of "might making right", it's nebulous right pulled out of thin air and merely enforced by might.

[stormthebeaches]

Not to mention in the 1980s, the American Axis of Evil was also supporting Saddam Hussein's use of nerve gas against Iran. When the UN Security Council tried to condemn Iraqi nerve gas usage on Iranians, the American terrorists vetoed it and the American/terrorist-sympathizing UK also abstained from voting. This is because they hate the Truth, Freedom, and Halal Pie.

Saddam invaded Iran in 1980. However, he pulled all soldiers out of the country a few months later. He then offered a peace deal to Iran. Saudi-Arabia created a plan to end the war that involved Iraq giving 70 billion dollars worth of aid to Iran in reparations. This was very favorable to Iran. Rather than accept this, Iran announced that it would "continue the war until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at Karbala and Jerusalem". It then invaded Iraq. By the time the US started supported Saddam, he was on the defensive, fighting off an invading force. Also, US and British aid was dwarfed by Soviet, Chinese, French and German aid so I'm not entirely sure why your focusing solely on American aid here.

Of course, there is also the fact that Saddam's initial invasion was far from unprovoked. Iraq may have fired the first shot in the war but Iran had been stroking tensions for years.

What's wrong with Iran as a regional power?

Because the current regime is a brutal theocracy that is determined to maintain its own power rather than anything else?

For the Iranians, it is.

For the rest of the world, it wasn't. There is a reason why almost everyone (not just America) supported Saddam when Iran invaded Iraq.

Saddam was a dick, so intervening and getting rid of him was good. Actually, not supporting Saddam at all in the first place would've been... gooder.

I don't think letting Iran take over Iraq would have been "gooder". Saddam was evil but I'd rather his secular dictatorship ruling Iraq than the religious nutters in Iran. The rest of the world agreed with me too considering how the US, UK, USSR, Germany, France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and many other nations all backed Saddam.

Also, America has been fine with Pakistan getting the bomb. So, what if Iran gets the bomb? What's the difference? At least Iran isn't sanctioning destabilizing terrorist attacks against India or some other regional nuclear nation - unlike Pakistan. OH WAIT! Pakistan is actually one of those shitty dictatorships sponsored by the US of A! So that makes it okay! LOL!

Pakistan isn't a dictatorship anymore. Pakistan was actually a democracy when it was developing its nukes.

America supported a tyrant in Iran, and only through the action of Iranian freedom fighters and through revolution was the Shah ousted and did the Iranian founding fathers and Ayatollahs declare democracy and freedom afterwards.

I seriously hope this is a joke. The Shah was bad but the current regime is far worse and has significantly dragged the country backwards, both socially and economically. Not to mention the current regime is just as oppressive, if not more so than the Shah.

My view in all this is that Iranian regime is a brutal theocracy that is represses its own people, is determined to maintain its power and is certainly not the kind of regime that I want to see getting a nuclear weapon. And yes, I hate the idea that Pakistan and Israel have nukes but that doesn't mean that Iran should also get nukes too. Three wrongs don't make a right.

As for being in favor of a military strike, that's another issue entirely.

[loomer]

Let's not forget that this won't stop Iran from getting the bomb. It might slow them down, but it is inevitable that they will produce some manner of nuclear explosive within the next decade. Even the US Military agrees that it's going to happen despite all the non-proliferation bullshit - other countries are going to get low to mid range nukes. They think the big boys, the 25 meg 5 warhead MIRVs and the sort, will remain exclusively the domain of superpowers, but not kiloton to low megaton range missiles and bombs.

Once the bottle was uncorked in 1945 the genie got out and it can never be controlled or forced back in. The question is not 'is it moral to forcibly stop a nation developing nuclear weapons', it is 'is it moral to forcibly delay a nation in this?'

[K. A. Pital]

I have asked just what is the difference in Kane's model of "each new nuclear power adds 2% to the risk of nuclear war", because that means nations like France, Israel, Pakistan, etc. should never have been allowed to get nuclear weapons. They could have been prevented from getting them with sufficient ease, a limited military strike to put their nuclear infrastructure in ruins would do that.

Civilian casualties wouldn't be much higher than in case of Iran. The only difference is that Iran is hostile to U.S. interests, while the other nations are not (or at least waver, like Pakistan).

That is all. So the question is not really about risk (disposessing Israel of nuclear weapons is kiddie job for the USA - the USA can attack Israel's missile sites and destroy it's nuclear potential if it were so willing, also with minimal casualties). So instead of attacking Iran, why not attack Israel? The end result will be the same in Kane Starkiller model - the risk of nuclear war goes down by 2%.

Does the fact that the only power capable of constraining theocracies around the world is flawed itself represent a get-out-of-jail-free card for those regimes?

A point can be made that in fact the intervention of the U.S. resulted in the formation of an islamic theocracy in Iran and later Afghanistan. Since fuck when did the US become "the only power" (which I assume in your head translates to "the only thing") which can constrain theocracies? The US destroyed the secular Iraq without a shred of remorse, thus contributing to the efforts of the theocrats quite a lot.

I have not seen anything which would suggest the US is more prone, able and/or willing to work against theocracy as a concept. Quite the contrary, actually - it's the geopolitical rivalry and the unacceptability of Iran's regional power, be it a theocracy or whatnot, that fuels the U.S. antagonism. If at any future point a theocratic nation X becomes useful to the US, the US would not just support it, but quite possibly arm it, bolster it's regime with death squads and the like.

A point can be made, that nuclear deterrence can be a more potent constraining factor, in fact, than any U.S. involvement. What then?

[mr friendly guy]

We could take that even further and say that its more pressing to attack Israel since it already has nukes, while Iran still hasn't. However I bet Kane Starkiller would argue that its not conclusively proven Israel has nukes.

[The Grim Squeaker]

We could take that even further and say that its more pressing to attack Israel since it already has nukes, while Iran still hasn't. However I bet Kane Starkiller would argue that its not conclusively proven Israel has nukes.

Or to attack Britain since it has Nukes, or France since it has nukes, etc'. Democratic first world countries get treated differently.

[K. A. Pital]

No, no-no-no. France and Britain have a huge IADS and a retaliation capability against the USA. Ergo, the attack would lead to massive casualties, which is what Kane thinks prevents an attack to decrease risk.

However, Israel can't retaliate against the USA. So, it's nuclear potential can be destroyed without big casualties - it's retaliation capabilities are only to strike against U.S. forces in Iraq (much like Iran's).

Israel is effectively equal to Iran in the ease with which it can be disposessed of nuclear weapons.

[lazerus]

I have asked just what is the difference in Kane's model of "each new nuclear power adds 2% to the risk of nuclear war", because that means nations like France, Israel, Pakistan, etc. should never have been allowed to get nuclear weapons. They could have been prevented from getting them with sufficient ease, a limited military strike to put their nuclear infrastructure in ruins would do that.

Civilian casualties wouldn't be much higher than in case of Iran. The only difference is that Iran is hostile to U.S. interests, while the other nations are not (or at least waver, like Pakistan).

YES!

You're not listening to what the other people in this thread are trying to tell you. Let me try explaining it another way.

International politics are like a neighborhood with no police, ever. Everyone has to deal with their disagreements amongst themselves, with no outside authority or influence. There are 203 countries in the world, so we'll say this is a neighborhood with 203 houses, each of which contains a family of varying size.

So someone in this neighborhood gets the bright idea that there should be no lethal weapons. We are perfectly capable of resolving our disputes peacefully, and if things really must come to violence, let them come to the nightstick, the fist, and the knife, rather then guns, bombs, etc. That way, while people may get hurt or die, there's no chance of the neighborhood being really destroyed. This is a good idea, and people widely like it.

Now, out of that 203, there are about 4 houses (Russia, US, China, EU-States) that all large families that own many high quality guns and are well trained in their use. And while they may be rivals to varying degrees, none of them are really enemies with each other, and so are not willing to join in and use force on eachother to take away their weapons. Furthermore, given that everyone banding together to take away a strong powers weapons would mean *they* would loose their weapons, they may even band together to resist such a move.

The other 199 states have no hope of taking away these fours weapons. Does that mean that they give up completely because the system is not fair, and let everyone have all the weapons they want without consequence? Or do they enforce it as best they can and take away the weapons of people who are not so lucky to be powerful and well connected?

If your answer is the former one, then you're in favor of letting the North Korea's and Iran's of the world stockpile all the Nuclear/Biological/Chemical weapons they want too, a move that would undoubtedly lead to massive civilian casualties in the long run and make the world a crappier place. If your answer is the latter one, then you have to admit that taking away Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons is a good thing, even if the system aint totally fair.

[Phantasee]

Using your metaphor, N. Korea is that hermit living in the corner of the neighbourhood who occasionally threatens to throw rocks from his window?

[open_sketchbook]

The fact of the matter is that big rich democracies are, these days, less likely to be overthrown, enter into all-out war with neighbours, suffer government collapse, or be conquered than unstable theocratic regimes. Iran nearly fell apart after their last election; a lot of people don't realize how close the government came to falling down during those riots. The government pretty much emptied it's treasury to keep the brute squads on the streets; the Basij were robbing banks at the end of the day when their government handlers ran out of money. What happens if the Government does go down next time? What happens if the government falls after it gets nukes? What's stopping some jackasses from taking them? What's stopping President Iamadinnerjacket from sending the order to launch at Israel because there isn't anything left for him to lose? It's not a case of rights; it's a case of looking at the situation and realizing that it is against the best interests of a hell of a lot of people to prevent an unstable, violent, fanatical and brutal theocratic government with anti-semetic tendancies that ship weapons to terrorists/freedom fighters/militants (whatever term is in vogue these days) to not have weapons of mass destruction. That you may consider the United States as fitting the discription above doesn't really matter at this point; it's about limiting the number of potential crazies getting their hands on weapons that can kill millions.

[K. A. Pital]

you're in favor of letting the North Korea's and Iran's of the world stockpile all the Nuclear/Biological/Chemical weapons they want too, a move that would undoubtedly lead to massive civilian casualties in the long run and make the world a crappier place

I do not see any evidence that such a move would undoubtedly (i.e. with a 100% probability) lead to "massive human casualties". Therefore, it's a strawman.

Moreover, there's little if anything you can do to stop the research of the FAR more dangerous biological weapons short of invasion with massive casualties - unlike with nukes, bombing a bioweapons facility is NOT safe.

So you want to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities so that it turns to the far less safer and far more easily used things like biological and chemical weapons? Especially in the case of bioweapons, which can threaten to really FUCK UP the world?

In essence, you say that you should beat the people SLIGHTLY with clubs so that they don't get to build guns. But then they start making POISON GAS, and now stopping them is only possible by beating them severely, with a high chance of death (i.e. massive human casualties).

Is that what you propose? You realize, I hope, that a nuclear Iran is a far less dangerous game player than a biological Iran?

That you may consider the United States as fitting the discription above doesn't really matter at this point

It does. Iran's nuclear weapons prevent a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran, during which people will die. Is that so hard to comprehend? Let me show:

...it's a case of looking at the situation and realizing that it is against the best interests of a hell of a lot of people to prevent an unstable, violent, fanatical and brutal theocratic government with anti-Iranian tendancies that ship weapons to terrorists/freedom fighters/militants (whatever term is in vogue these days) to not be able to attack Iran because the latter has a nuclear deterrent

[Shroom Man 777]

Not to mention in the 1980s, the American Axis of Evil was also supporting Saddam Hussein's use of nerve gas against Iran. When the UN Security Council tried to condemn Iraqi nerve gas usage on Iranians, the American terrorists vetoed it and the American/terrorist-sympathizing UK also abstained from voting. This is because they hate the Truth, Freedom, and Halal Pie.

Saddam invaded Iran in 1980. However, he pulled all soldiers out of the country a few months later. He then offered a peace deal to Iran. Saudi-Arabia created a plan to end the war that involved Iraq giving 70 billion dollars worth of aid to Iran in reparations. This was very favorable to Iran. Rather than accept this, Iran announced that it would "continue the war until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at Karbala and Jerusalem". It then invaded Iraq.

Of course! Operation Iranian Shield was followed by Operation Iranian Storm - where the Iranians kicked Saddam Hussein's ass in the name of all that's good and holy. Iran had to invade Iraq because Iraq was developing WMDs, which are a threat to world security, and Saddam was a dictator who hated freedom and needed to be toppled. If those pussy liberal anti-Iranian unpatriotic terrorist-sympathizing hippy abortionist nations like the US hadn't backed Iraq, we would've seen Iran launched Operation Arabian Freedom too.

Come on. Iranian interventionism in Middle East isn't always necessarily bad, I'm sure Kuwaitis and the Saudis had nothing against Operation Iranian Storm.
If Iran invaded Iraq, which were hosts to a strain of Islam advesarial to America (and Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia) and the destruction Saddam's regime was awesome as far as America is concerned. Not to mention, Iran would've gotten rid of Iraq's WMDs too!

It would've meant that America wouldn't have had to send troops in Desert Storm AND Operation Iraqi Freedom, since Iran would've Desert Stormed Iraq AND brought Iraqi Freedom to Iraq!

By the time the US started supported Saddam, he was on the defensive, fighting off an invading force. Also, US and British aid was dwarfed by Soviet, Chinese, French and German aid so I'm not entirely sure why your focusing solely on American aid here.

Because the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, and none of the other powers are currently being interventionist - or AS interventionist - compared to the Americans and the Brits? If the French and the Germans were intervening with Operation Arabian Cheese-Nazi or something, I'd be focusing solely on the Napoleons and Hitlers too.

Of course, there is also the fact that Saddam's initial invasion was far from unprovoked. Iraq may have fired the first shot in the war but Iran had been stroking tensions for years.

Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. By all means, Iran should've launched a pre-emptive strike in the name of freedom and democracy.

What's wrong with Iran as a regional power?

Because the current regime is a brutal theocracy that is determined to maintain its own power rather than anything else?

Why? The current regime would've defended the Middle East from rogue nations armed with WMDs, like Saddam Hussein. Iranian intervention in Iraq would've brought freedom, toppled Saddam, and disarmed the WMDs - a noble goal for all humanity.

Why are you so unpatriotic and anti-Iranian? Do you hate freedom? Why don't you support the troops in the Iranian Republican Guard?

For the Iranians, it is.

For the rest of the world, it wasn't. There is a reason why almost everyone (not just America) supported Saddam when Iran invaded Iraq.

If they're not with Iran, then they're against Iran. And it turns out they're a bunch of fucking morons, since Iraq ended up invading Kuwait and scaring the shit out of Saudi Arabia.

Why do they support a rogue terrorist nation that uses WMDs? Are they part of the Axis of Evil? Do they hate freedom? Do they hate peace? Do they hate babies? Why are they so anti-Iranian and unpatriotic?

I don't think letting Iran take over Iraq would have been "gooder". Saddam was evil but I'd rather his secular dictatorship ruling Iraq than the religious nutters in Iran. The rest of the world agreed with me too considering how the US, UK, USSR, Germany, France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and many other nations all backed Saddam.

So you'd rather his secular dictatorship ruling Iraq and developing WMDs and using them against Kurds and Iranians - an atrocity not even the Iranians have done to their own people? Well, we can see the fruits of these mistaken, fucking hypocritical, actions.

Actually, no. You'd rather not see his secular dictatorship rule Iraq and developing WMDs - which is why you invaded his ass and deposed him. Something the Iranians would've done twenty years ago!

If only the world had listened to Iran, the scourge of WMDs and Iraqi terrorism would've been defeated!

Pakistan isn't a dictatorship anymore. Pakistan was actually a democracy when it was developing its nukes.

Yes, a democracy that's letting terrorists fuck around in India - pissing off another regional nuclear power. But hey, as long as it's a democracy, it's A-OK, am i rite? As long as Pakistan isn't a theocracy, they can have their terrorists fuck Ghandi in the mouth and piss the Indians off, then it's fine and dandy! But if Iran has nukes, to defend against unilateral American atrocity-attacks and illegal deceitful invasions and sponsored WMD-using regimes, it's WRONG because Iran is - gasp - a theocracy! Oh no!

I seriously hope this is a joke. The Shah was bad but the current regime is far worse and has significantly dragged the country backwards, both socially and economically. Not to mention the current regime is just as oppressive, if not more so than the Shah.

I'm using American-style rhetoric, so it is a joke. Why is American-style rhetoric a joke? Because America is a big, fat fucking joke. Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the Shroomedian is the only thing that makes sense.

Oh, Iran is bad because it's a theocracy. But it's okay to support Saddam against Iran, even though Saddam's nerve gassing Kurds and later on invading Kuwait. Saddam's secular, so that's doubleplusgood, am i rite? That's hellarious.

My view in all this is that Iranian regime is a brutal theocracy that is represses its own people, is determined to maintain its power and is certainly not the kind of regime that I want to see getting a nuclear weapon. And yes, I hate the idea that Pakistan and Israel have nukes but that doesn't mean that Iran should also get nukes too. Three wrongs don't make a right.

But you just said that Iraq is OK and preferable to Iran, when it's nerve gassing Kurds andd Iranians. So if Iran follows Iraq's example, and elect Saddam as Ayatollah, then it would be OK for Iran to have nukes? It's no longer a theocracy, so that'll make it better, am i rite?

Why is it wrong for Pakistan and Israel to have nukes? Israel wants nukes to defend itself against the overwhelming numbers of Islamofascists who deny the Holocaust and want to kill Jews. Just like how Pakistan wants nukes to defend itself in conflicts against India. Just like how Iran wants nukes to defend itself against American asshole atrocities.

As for being in favor of a military strike, that's another issue entirely.

Why would anyone want an attack against the Iranian military? Why do you people hate the Iranian soldiers, the proud servicemen and women of the Iranian armed forces who defend the Iranian people and the Iranian way of life against terrorists and American-sponsored WMD regimes? Why do you hate the troops? Why are you so anti-Iranian and unpatriotic? Does the sight of grieving war widows, orphaned children, and Iranian soldiers getting torn to pieces by insurgent terrorist IEDs make you happy? That's horrible.

I for one support the troops who are risking their lives for the safety and security of Iran and its people! I hope that they stay safe, and that through their courage and patriotism, they can defeat and kill anything seeks to hurt or harm Iran and its noble peace-loving people. Iran, fuck yeah!

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

If your answer is the former one, then you're in favor of letting the North Korea's and Iran's of the world stockpile all the Nuclear/Biological/Chemical weapons they want too, a move that would undoubtedly lead to massive civilian casualties in the long run and make the world a crappier place. If your answer is the latter one, then you have to admit that taking away Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons is a good thing, even if the system aint totally fair.

You do realise that it is only an issue if people decide to make it an issue, and also, by that line of thinking, it's perfectly fine for the rest of the world to take away the US' nuclear arsenal for provoking and starting a war at least once.

In fact, mind you, it was nuclear weapons that ultimately led to both sides of the Cold War to stay their hand because they know for a certainty that any war will be a nuclear one and not a conventional one. In fact reducing the prospect of massive causalties.

Quite frankly the issue with Iran is not so much Nuclear weapons, but rather the United States cannot contend with another regional power snatching its pre-eminence in the Middle East, and its pet dog Israel continues barking up the tree.

[K. A. Pital]

So let me see - Israel should have nukes because it decreases (and we know as a fact nukes are a good deterrent, especially if you openly demonstrate the capability with a nuclear test) the prospects of nations around it, including Iran, attacking it.

Iran should not have nukes, despite it decreasing the prospects of Israel and the USA attacking Iran!

That's a massively flawed logic. But it continues to persist until this day.

It's like pointing out that the cop in fact is not a cop, but a fucking racketeer. Iran may be a raving fundie in the neighborhood, but why the hell do people assume the USA is anything like a police? It's more like a racketeer. So the racketeer decides to off the fundie. The latter would like to have some means of protection, of course. Since no world police exists de-facto as we found out, saying that "well the racketeer is a good option" (despite having seen the effects of said racketeer's intervention being far from benigh) instead of saying "let the fundie have his gun, at least it will keep him safe from the racketeer", seems sort of stupid.

Iran's nuclear weapons can't destroy the world. Oh, and yes, America's can, however. So Iran does not pose a 2% threat of nuclear war, because the consequences should be weighed.

A US-involving nuclear war is a megacide. A nuclear war between Israel and Iran would hardly lead to massive human casualties elsewhere. As for whether the increased risk of nuclear strike ON Israel, it's offset by the DECREASED risk of conventional attack or war against Iran.

So the overall risk of "WORLD WAR III" does not rise because Iran gets nuclear weapons. A risk of a regional nuclear conflict between Israel and Iran rises (but that risk was already there since Israel has nukes). A risk of a long brutal conventional war decreases, much like in the US-USSR scenarios or Indo-Pakistani scenarios.

The risk of world nuclear war remains the same. End of story.

[Shroom Man 777]

Hey Stas how come it's always us, recurrent cast of characters, who're railing against American imperialism and "foreign interests" and dickery in general, and siding with guys like China or Iran? You, me, Lusy-chan, Simon_Jester and PeZook. Are we a bunch of anti-American antagonists, or what?

[ray245]

Hey Stas how come it's always us, recurrent cast of characters, who're railing against American imperialism and "foreign interests" and dickery in general, and siding with guys like China or Iran? You, me, Lusy-chan, Simon_Jester and PeZook. Are we a bunch of anti-American antagonists, or what?

I think a lot of others on this forum shares the similar position as you guys, just that we are not that outspoken.

[D.Turtle]

Its always interesting to see people come out and claim that the only thing keeping countries in line is the threat of military destruction.

Its like Europe doesn't exist at all. Hell, you could add certain ASEAN countries and even parts of South America in the last two decades or so. Fact of the matter is, there is a lot more going on between countries than simple "might makes right" and free-wheeling anarchism. There are systems of international control that are working (most effectively on a regional level, but to a certain extent also international).

Are they perfect? No, but then we don't say that a country has no effective crime-fighting capability if there is still crime. We can look at the level of crime in a country and say something about the effectiveness of that crime-fighting capability. Similarly, on an international stage, we can look at such things as military deaths, and judge the effectiveness of international organizations, relations, etc in avoiding shooting wars..

And no, individual wars do not disprove that fact of increasing peace and decreasing military deaths.

Quoting from Prof. Bruce Russert's abstract of a talk he held here two days ago, gotta run (math lecture waiting), so I can't look for the actual academic work that it is based on:

Abstract: One of the least-recognized global trends of the past 60 years is a decline in the number and especially the severity of violent conflicts between and within states. Daily news reports may seem to cast doubt on this trend’s existence, but data collected by researchers on conflict, violence, and war clearly show that it is real.
Democracy, trade, and international organizations and norms have been powerful factors in greatly reducing war across much of the world. The data show that these three factors - the Kantian influences - make a big difference, especially when all three act together. Moreover, these three influences - democracy, trade, and IGO membership - are mutually reinforcing. They create a system of feedback loops that increasingly fosters peace.
This process has worked in many parts of the world. The clearest case is the EU, but we see it among economically advanced countries generally, and for some poor countries as well. The Kantian peace project - gradually integrating more nations more firmly into the system - may be stalled for the moment, but it still shows a reasonable way forward for the long run.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I seriously doubt democracy is the singular reason for lack of armed conflict. Let's be frank, most of Asia has barely a credible democracy and the only reason why there's not much war is due to trade, and finally, mechanisms exist to mediate conflict and prevent them from happening. Failing which of course, it's time to unsheath the sword, such as in the case of Sri Lanka.

[stormthebeaches]

Of course! Operation Iranian Shield was followed by Operation Iranian Storm - where the Iranians kicked Saddam Hussein's ass in the name of all that's good and holy. Iran had to invade Iraq because Iraq was developing WMDs, which are a threat to world security, and Saddam was a dictator who hated freedom and needed to be toppled. If those pussy liberal anti-Iranian unpatriotic terrorist-sympathizing hippy abortionist nations like the US hadn't backed Iraq, we would've seen Iran launched Operation Arabian Freedom too.

I see your attempt to draw a comparison between the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Iran's invasion of Iraq in 1982. I'm against that Iraq war so this comparison won't work. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Come on. Iranian interventionism in Middle East isn't always necessarily bad, I'm sure Kuwaitis and the Saudis had nothing against Operation Iranian Storm.
If Iran invaded Iraq, which were hosts to a strain of Islam advesarial to America (and Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia) and the destruction Saddam's regime was awesome as far as America is concerned. Not to mention, Iran would've gotten rid of Iraq's WMDs too!

It would've meant that America wouldn't have had to send troops in Desert Storm AND Operation Iraqi Freedom, since Iran would've Desert Stormed Iraq AND brought Iraqi Freedom to Iraq!

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had a huge problem with "Operation Iranian storm". That's why they provided a huge amount of financial backing to Iraq when it was being invaded by Iran. And no, a successful Iranian invasion of Iraq would not have brought Iraqi freedom. Iran openly stated that they wished to install a theocracy in Iraq. Not to mention, the Iranian leaders openly stated that they would go after Jer once they conquered Iraq.

Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. By all means, Iran should've launched a pre-emptive strike in the name of freedom and democracy.

Again, I'm against the Iraq war. Still doesn't change the fact that Iraq's invasion of Iran was far from unprovoked.

Why? The current regime would've defended the Middle East from rogue nations armed with WMDs, like Saddam Hussein. Iranian intervention in Iraq would've brought freedom, toppled Saddam, and disarmed the WMDs - a noble goal for all humanity.

Why are you so unpatriotic and anti-Iranian? Do you hate freedom? Why don't you support the troops in the Iranian Republican Guard?

After the June riots, it seems that the entire country is "anti-Iranian". Your attempts to compare Bush to the Iranian regime is quite flawed. Bush has been voted out of office whilst the Iranian regime is an oppressive theocracy that brutally cracked down on protesters after a blatantly rigged election.

So you'd rather his secular dictatorship ruling Iraq and developing WMDs and using them against Kurds and Iranians - an atrocity not even the Iranians have done to their own people? Well, we can see the fruits of these mistaken, fucking hypocritical, actions.

Actually, no. You'd rather not see his secular dictatorship rule Iraq and developing WMDs - which is why you invaded his ass and deposed him. Something the Iranians would've done twenty years ago!

If only the world had listened to Iran, the scourge of WMDs and Iraqi terrorism would've been defeated!

Ignoring the fact that Saddam didn't start using chemical weapons against the Kurds until the very end of the war, yes, I would rather Saddam's secular dictatorship, as horrible as it was, than the Iranian theocracy ruling Iraq. And remember, Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iran didn't start until Iran rejected the peace offer and launched an invasion into Iraq.

Oh, and I was against the 2003 invasion so stop bring that up.

Yes, a democracy that's letting terrorists fuck around in India - pissing off another regional nuclear power. But hey, as long as it's a democracy, it's A-OK, am i rite? As long as Pakistan isn't a theocracy, they can have their terrorists fuck Ghandi in the mouth and piss the Indians off, then it's fine and dandy! But if Iran has nukes, to defend against unilateral American atrocity-attacks and illegal deceitful invasions and sponsored WMD-using regimes, it's WRONG because Iran is - gasp - a theocracy! Oh no!

What Pakistan is doing is wrong. I don't like Pakistan. Still, just because Pakistan has nukes it doesn't mean that Iran should get nukes as well. And Iraq didn't start using chemical weapons (I refuse to recognise chemical weapons as WMD's) until after Iran rejected the peace offering and invaded Iraq.

Oh, Iran is bad because it's a theocracy. But it's okay to support Saddam against Iran, even though Saddam's nerve gassing Kurds and later on invading Kuwait. Saddam's secular, so that's doubleplusgood, am i rite? That's hellarious.

Secular dictatorships are usually more rational and can be reasoned with. Religious fanatics, not so much. This board holds that view. And Iran is not bad because it was a theocracy. The Iranian regime is bad because it is an oppressive regime that keeps its people in line through force. It took very hostile actions towards its next door country by actively working to destabilize its government, thus provoking its neighboor to invade. Iran then rejected very favorable peace offerings and reparations for the damages that the invasion had caused and launched its own invasion on Iraq, justified on religious grounds. It openly stated that it would install and theocracy in Iraq and that it would advance to Israel once it conquered Iraq.

Whilst Saddam did prove to be more violet and irrational than the majority of the world thought he was, he was still more rational that the Iranian theocracy. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, for example, was based on economics and business. Kuwait was violating the OPEC quotas, which Iraq viewed as economic warfare. Saddam also wanted Kuwait's oil, as this would give him control of almost 1/3 of the worlds oil supplies. This does not justify his invasion, but it shows that Saddam was motivated by economics and money, unlike Iran which used religious fanaticism to justify its actions.

But you just said that Iraq is OK and preferable to Iran, when it's nerve gassing Kurds andd Iranians. So if Iran follows Iraq's example, and elect Saddam as Ayatollah, then it would be OK for Iran to have nukes? It's no longer a theocracy, so that'll make it better, am i rite?

I never said that Iraq was ok, just that it was preferable to Iran. And there is a huge difference between chemical weapons like nerve gas and nukes. Also, even if Saddam was alive he won't be elected in Iran because the people who run for election in Iran are hand picked by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A moderate Sunni like Saddam would never be selected by the radical Shia theocracy.

Why is it wrong for Pakistan and Israel to have nukes? Israel wants nukes to defend itself against the overwhelming numbers of Islamofascists who deny the Holocaust and want to kill Jews. Just like how Pakistan wants nukes to defend itself in conflicts against India. Just like how Iran wants nukes to defend itself against American asshole atrocities.

I know your not being serious but I'm going to answer anyway. Israel shouldn't have nukes because it is an imperialistic power that is driving the Palestinians out of their own country and treats Arabs within itself as second class citizens. It is already the most powerful military around thanks to US aid.

Pakistan, well you have already mentioned why Pakistan shouldn't have nukes.

[cosmicalstorm]

What would happen if the US dropped all embargoes against Iran and basically told them, hey lets trade, lets be best friends again?

[K. A. Pital]

I know your not being serious but I'm going to answer anyway. Israel shouldn't have nukes because it is an imperialistic power that is driving the Palestinians out of their own country and treats Arabs within itself as second class citizens. It is already the most powerful military around thanks to US aid.

Pakistan, well you have already mentioned why Pakistan shouldn't have nukes.

Then why not strike and disposess Israel of nukes just like Iran? The risk of nuclear war then goes down - both Israel's and Iran's nuclear infrastructure is ruined and will take time to restore. Also, without Israel and Iran having nukes, neither can obliterate the other with nukes. Heh. The big problem here is that a lack of nuclear weapons increases the likelihood of strikes by other means, up to a full conventional war. But it cannot happen between Israel and Iran, since they lack a common border.

So why not follow the call and remove ALL these nuclear weapons from the Middle East? Why only center on Iran?

Maybe because it provides a counterbalance to the regional influence of the US there? And frankly, yes, Iran is a theocracy, but so what? Has Iran launched any invasions or wars because of Allah told them so, which would serve as proof of their utter irrationality? I thought it was Iraq which launched the Iran-Iraq war.

[Ma Deuce]

What would happen if the US dropped all embargoes against Iran and basically told them, hey lets trade, lets be best friends again?

They might actually cry foul or claim it's a trick or something like that; it would certainly put them in an uncomfortable position though. The government of Iran seems to follow a policy of stoking external tension against themselves in order to keep internal tensions bottled up; that is they want other countries to be mad at them without starting a war to keep the masses in line. In light of this, I've late come to the conclusion that they may not even want nukes at all; they want the world to perpetually believe they're developing nukes. Let's face it, if Iran acquired nukes it would be a fait accomplai, and everyone would simply adjust to the reality of a nuclear-armed Iran: Iran will not face any real consequences, because nobody wants to make the price of oil triple overnight (which is why you will never see a preemptive invasion or complete oil embargo on even a non-nuclear Iran either).

A nuclear Iran would also be forced to tread more carefully around other nuclear powers, and would probably not be able to engage in the empty provocations it does now given the newfound risk of incinerating themselves. The net result would of a nuclear Iran be a decline in tensions which I don't think the Ayatollahs want, because on the homefront that would leave them with the choice of either conceding to the reformers demands, or potentially risking another revolution.

[stormthebeaches]

Then why not strike and disposess Israel of nukes just like Iran? The risk of nuclear war then goes down - both Israel's and Iran's nuclear infrastructure is ruined and will take time to restore. Also, without Israel and Iran having nukes, neither can obliterate the other with nukes. Heh. The big problem here is that a lack of nuclear weapons increases the likelihood of strikes by other means, up to a full conventional war. But it cannot happen between Israel and Iran, since they lack a common border.

So why not follow the call and remove ALL these nuclear weapons from the Middle East? Why only center on Iran?

Well, such action against Iran would probably set back the democratic movement in the country by at least a decade. The Iranian regime is not popular with the Iranian people, but an attack on Iran would make them rally around the regime. An attack on Israel's nuclear weapons would be completely implausible as most of Israel's nukes are on submarines. Plus, from an American PR point of view, such actions would be a disaster. For Obama, it would be political suicide.

Maybe because it provides a counterbalance to the regional influence of the US there? And frankly, yes, Iran is a theocracy, but so what? Has Iran launched any invasions or wars because of Allah told them so, which would serve as proof of their utter irrationality? I thought it was Iraq which launched the Iran-Iraq war.

The Iraq/Iran war is quite misunderstood. Whilst Saddam's invasion was partly due to Saddam's own ambitions of making Iraq a regional power, it was also a response to the actions of the Iranian regime, actions that no sensible head of state would ignore. After the Iranian revolution, the Iranian regime took several actions to destabilize Saddam's regime, these including encouraging Shia's to revolt, violating the Algiers agreement and attempting to assassinate Iraqi government officials among other things. Then there is the fact that when the invasion went badly Saddam pulled his troops out of Iran and a peace offering was created that was very favorable to Iran. Iran rejected this and launched its own invasion into Iraq whilst openly stated that it wished to install a theocracy in the country. It also openly stated that it would march all the way to Israel once it had finished with Iraq and called on other Shia's to join the religious struggle.

[stormthebeaches]

What would happen if the US dropped all embargoes against Iran and basically told them, hey lets trade, lets be best friends again?

They might actually cry foul or claim it's a trick or something like that; it would certainly put them in an uncomfortable position though. The government of Iran seems to follow a policy of stoking external tension against themselves in order to keep internal tensions bottled up; that is they want other countries to be mad at them without starting a war to keep the masses in line.

Very true. This is why the Iranian regime rejected Obama's offers to improve relations between the two countries. The Iranian regime needs an external boogeyman to keep the masses in line.

[Shroom Man 777]

Thus for peace, freedom and stability we must FORCE nukes on Iran! Cram it down their throats, whether they really want nukes or not! Haha! We're not going to blow them with the nukes, oh no, we're going to shove it up theirs so hard that it's going to stay in their turbans forever - and they'll have to live with it! If democracy fails, you can always count on Stalin!

That's a very weird theory though. Nukes would force nations to be more responsible and careful, because nuclear ownership obliges you to behave in certain ways to avoid getting killfucked by the rest of the nuclear club members. Does this also apply to Pakistan? They, the Pakistanis, still engage in empty provocations - with another, bigger, meaner, badder nuclear power right next door to them.