Iran - Politics Forum - FictionPress.com

Topic: Iran

What should we do about Iran?

#1 Jan 05th 2007, 4:27am

Anything but invade or bomb them. It would incite a global catastorphe (** my spelling). Their leader is a very intelligent person with radical views. The fact that he threatens Isreal makes them seem scary, but honestly no one would use nuclear weapons now days. He would get hit ten times as hard. Everyone knows this. He's radical but that doesn't automatically mean sucidial and dumb. I think its none of our business what they do so long as we mediate to avoid conflict. WE should put as much pressure on Isreal after thier ridiculously inhumane bombing campaign that we just stood by and watched. There have been more radical leaders in the past with nukes. The real worry is that they'll be supplied to terrorist factions. But i believe Iran's prez (can't spell his name and I won't try) is savvy enough to NOT do that. His fight is with Isreal and if we avoid taking sides in such a verbal conflict, then we have nothing to fear from him. If Iran was to invade Isreal (possibly with Syria's support) they'd do it right now without nukes. The US is spread too thin on a world wide scale to take on Iran's army and hold other posts. They wouldn't be in such arguments if Isreal weren't so damn stupid! After that Lebannon boming campaign you want to just slap them upside their collective head and say "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?"

But whatev. I have a snow day today so hell yes! (just had to add that! woooo!)

#2 Jan 05th 2007, 6:21am

I think I agree with Blackbird552, except for the Iran-Israel question. Iran has always been opposed to a Jewish state and they are not alone. I am not, of course, suggesting that Iran and other nations that refuse to acknowledge Israel are right, but the problem runs much deeper than Israel's more recent bombing campaigns and land-taking efforts. It is, in part, the fault of a British government that presumptuously created a Palestinian nation (not to mention pretty much every country in the Middle East) after ww1 and then, with America and other countries, took a large part of that land away so that the Jews had their own country. It is quite a conundrum to consider that yes, the Jews deserve their own homeland, but at whose cost should this nation be made? They are given Jerusalem because it was their holy city first, but this disenfranchises the Christians and Muslims who also want to make pilgrimages. Especially when the Jewish religion is, in itself, in direct opposition to the beliefs of Christians and Muslims. Many countries, including Palestine, do not recognise Israel as a country and thus the Israelis are seen as nothing more than foreign invaders in the eyes of the Iranian government. America doesn't really help the situation by being so chummy with Israel, with many Jews in powerful position in America, meaning that the US will NEVER sanction Israel. This, along with many other factors I can't even begin to describe, makes the US an enemy of Iran.

So... what to do about Iran? Is this an extension of the Cold War? In a way I believe it is, but this time, rather than only opposing political ideologies, there is the question of three religions that do not, by definition, cancel one another out, but that have become so different culturally that it often seems reconcilliation is impossible.

#3 Jan 10th 2007, 12:17am

Extention of the cold war?... Interesting.

#4 Jan 10th 2007, 4:24am

It's starting to look more and more like the Bush Admin is trying to provoke Iran. With the capture of several Iranis in Iraq (who were proably captured legitmately, so i have nothing against it), the movement of two carrier groups to the area, and the pledge to interrupt the supply lines to insurgents and Shi'a milita. It all sounds like preamble to a new conflict. In fact, a lot of what is being said of Iran was said of Iraq before we invaded. But we don't have manpower for combat in Iran.

Way I see it: if things keep going down this same road, we'll be in a war of Mideast vs. west with Iraq in the middle. If we use those carrier groups to strike beyond Iran's border, then we could instigate them to open into direct conflict with US troops in Iraq. All that needs to happen to get the draft reinstated at that point is Iran to test a nuclear device or another terrorist attack on the US (entirely possible with our still unsecure borders). Things are plummeting out of control and 30% of Americans still think it's ok, because they think our mission is one of the noble spreading of democracy. Which is far less noble than the everyone says. Just by saying that many would call me a traitor. That's the sad thing about America today...

I'm scared, to be truthful. Things look worse everyday. If the draft is reinstated, god only knows what I'd do. Right now our brave volunteers are streched thin and to the breaking point. Case of post traumatic stress disorder at Fort Carson here in Colorado are increasing everyday and there was an article in the newspaper about troops being refused diagnosis testing. One more openly hostile enemy with a nuclear weapon or an attack on the US and congress just might have its hands tied and open up a draft. Its entirely WAY too possible.

#5 Jan 14th 2007, 7:46pm

On the other hand, the Iranian government also seems to be provoking the Bush administration. Iran is also allied with many nations that Iraq, especially after the invasion of Kuwait, really wasn't.

#6 Jan 14th 2007, 8:07pm

Iran is provoking everybody (except their allies) with their testing of nuclear weapons. War with them, war with any new nuke-weilding country that all-out disobeys the UN (in the nuclear area) is inevitable. We can't stop it. I don't see anything that can be done to stop war except for a pre-emptive strike that would obliterate them.

I think the Iranians are a proud people, but they are a little too proud...

#7 Jan 15th 2007, 12:35pm

As far as I know, Iran still hasn't got nuclear capabilities and hasn't tested any nuclear weapons. North Korea are the ones with the weapons (not to mention the massive humanitarian crisis), though the ones they have tested thus far have been pretty lousy. Since the Korean War though, Korea has been pretty much left to its own devices apart from somewhat alarmed calls by Japan and South Korea to stop before they blow the whole Pacific out, by China saying every now and then that they 'don't support yada yada', and by Australia waiting, just a tad nervously, for America to pay attention so we can to. Certainly, Iran is an ally of North Korea (again, as far as I know), but seeing as we invaded Iraq on the pretext of them having WMDs, why has nothing been done about North Korea, which OBVIOUSLY has WMDs, a tyrant, is not even under control of China any more, and a good strategical position? Iran is supposedly funding terrorists, which in the eyes of the Bush administration is a more heinous crime than starving a nation to death.

#8 Jan 15th 2007, 3:47pm

Hmm... well, the Iranians are attempting to create the weapons as far as I know, but Kim Jong-il can only get his hands on plutonium. And besides, their last test only registered as a half a megaton blast. The untied state's first test, Trinity, released over a 20 megaton blast.

Besides, Kim jong il may be crazy, but he knows if he launches any of his sissy nukes he'll be wiped off the face of the earth. He is, of course, bordered (i think) by Russia. The nukes NK is making are just a cry for help. His country is full of starving people and he is hoping that the UN will notice them and pay them off with food and stuff.

#9 Jan 15th 2007, 4:23pm

Don't be naive. The Iranians are TOO proud? Please. The USA is possibly the proudest country in the world. Iran may be producing ONE bomb (all but fact, so we'll just say it IS fact). We have thousands. We are the only country in the world that has used a nuke in on a foreign country. Why should WE be trusted with one - or thousands for that matter? Iraq killed thousands of people with chemical weapons in war and on their own soil (hard to say thier own people - Kurds are their own ethnic group wo/ a country) Can't trust them with a nuke. But we firebombed Dresden in Febuary 1945 killing 25 to 35 THOUSAND civilians when the war was all but over. We nuked Japan AFTER they offered a surrender, but we wanted an UNCONDITIONAL surrender: So we killed hundreds of thousands of thier civilian. Why are WE the ones controlling who has nukes and who doesn't?

Despite what our naive people think, we really don't defend peace and justice in this world.

Yes, Iran is being VERY provocative, but this works two ways. Israel has drawn up plans for tactical nuclear strikes in Iran. How can we be this hypocritical? If I were Iran, I'd like a nuke too. Sure, their leader is a radical crazy, and he's definately not a good guy. But what gives us the right to go to war with him? We don't have the right to do first strike tactics. No one does. People should be just as worried about Israel's nukes as Iran's, but no one is attacking THEM. Doesn't make sense to me.

And the thing with NK (Doesn't border Russia by the way, but it's close enough). It still applies to Iran. "sissy" nukes are nukes. If you fire a huge one will you NOT get shot back at? It all goes round in a circle.

#10 Jan 16th 2007, 2:22pm

No, if you fire a large one, you will be turned into subatomic particles. I never said the United States wasn't too proud either, but a country that has a sane backbone can have nuclear weapons. I don't care what Israel does, because if they get destroyed it is sign of the theoretical christian apocolypse. I am a little religious. I am envious of Israel, they can do whatever they want without political pressure.

I called the nk nukes sissy nukes because the explosion wasn't considered nuclear until they found the small EM field. And, they could be knocked out of the sky without much threat to whoever was below.

And that statement about japan- two things about that. One, if they had any brains (considering if it is true they offered a surrender before the nukings) they would have surrendered after the first bombing. second, I have never found anything about this. I have read plenty of wwII books because I am interested in it, and I have never heard about this.

All's fair in (love and) war.

#11 Jan 16th 2007, 3:16pm

Moko Emaki

Thank you God, we have a brain!

#12 Jan 16th 2007, 3:20pm

It's not surprising that you haven't heard previously about surrender being offered by the Japanese, but it's true. There are probably a lot of things that happened between the Japanese and Americans that still haven't been fully disclosed. For example, the Japanese had, in China, many of the same death camp institutions as did the Nazis; units for 'medical' experiments that they did on kidnapped Chinese civilians- much like Doktor Mengele. However, none of the people in charge of these facilities were ever charged with war crimes. The US agreed to grant the operators clemency, as long as the results from the tests were given to them.

#13 Jan 16th 2007, 3:22pm

wandering off topic... is there anything more to say about Iran?

#14 Jan 16th 2007, 5:50pm

"Thank you god, we have a brain"

What's that mean? It was a useless post...

And, "a sane backbone" what I was saying is that the USA DOESN'T have a sane backbone. What makes Iran's culture less sane? What I'm getting at is that the US has done worse things than Iran. Iran has only talked about doing worse things.

On top of the previously mentioned Dresden and Hiroshima, etc. The Cold War gave us a new low. We supported the extreme right wing death squads in El Salvador, we backed Pinochet's coup in Chile (he was a war criminal, and the govt. there was democratically elected), and, finally, we backed the Shah's coup in Iran. His tyranny was supported by the US (Iran still has the F-14s we sold them). Which is a large reason that they are so hostile with us now.

So I ask again: what's this sane backbone? We are so hypocritical it's disgusting. We go around "bringing freedom and democracy" but we remove democratically elected governments when they don't go along with our political beliefs. Where's this freedom we're supposed to be spreading? Iran's leader was put there by popular support. He is losing some of that now (then again, so is Bush), but why is overthrowing dictators any of OUR business?

I'm rambling and shifting off topic, so I'll make a new topic on Cold War issues later...maybe.

So back on topic: What's the sane background? (Don't worry if I misunderstood you, I know things don't come out as we mean all the time.) But frankly...All is NOT fair in Love OR War!

War crimes exist because of this fact. But hey, you don't pay for your crimes if you win!

Anyhow, I'm leniant on getting off topic, cause with these discussions: you shouldn't have to stay in boundries. We should all be able to express our beliefs openly.

#15 Jan 16th 2007, 6:50pm

Not everything is fair, but that's what the genevoa convention is for.

#16 Jan 16th 2007, 7:00pm

yes, but it doesn't seem to apply to the winners, does it?

#17 Jan 16th 2007, 7:03pm

Proof of my war theory- if you violate the Genevoa Convention, then you have a better chance of winning the war. If both countries followed the genevoa convention, then you would have a longer war with many more deaths. In other words, there are situations where the rules must be broken to save lives.

#18 Jan 17th 2007, 1:36pm

the Geneva convention was made to save lives! Firebombing Dresden didn't bring the war to a quicker end. You made MY point, actually. If the winner violated the convention, why didn't they pay the consequences? It seems only to apply to the loser. I can't believe you actually think it's OK to do such things. It doesn't make sense...you say its ok to end wars with breaking of the rules, but if Japan was winning the war and they nuked San Francisco, you wouldn't think it was ok. Justice is Justice and rules are rules. You don't murder thousands to end a war faster! It's as bad as any terrorist...worse actually. Nuking Hiroshima was an act of terrorism by definintion. It attempted to scare them into surrender. Then we did it again. On a scale 100 times worse than 9/11. But once it happens to our own people on even a tiny scale realitvely (no offense to victims of 9/11), then it's bad. I'm just not seeing the reason for our hypocracy.

#19 Jan 17th 2007, 3:39pm

The Germans broke the Geneva Convention and they didn't win the war. In fact, the use of resources and men to go to all that effort breaking the Geneva Convention cost the Reich money, probably meaning they lost the war quicker. Yep. Breaking that Geneva Convention sure helped someone.

#20 Jan 18th 2007, 4:17pm

Either way, at least the rules of confrontation need to be lifted in certain situations.

I have nothing else to say about Iran, really.

#21 Jan 18th 2007, 5:20pm