Cloudy
Iran and Sabre-rattling.
Hello,
It seems every time I check the news the situation with Iran is getting worse. The possibility of economic sanctions is becoming more probable daily. I would like to hear what others have to say, and how they feel about these events. Iran is now openly making threats, which could be considered "Sabre-rattling" hence the topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/27/in...rtner=homepage
This is a link where Iran is warning of "Retaliation." due to the UN's stance on it's Nuclear policy.
In patronicum svb lt1956
Well, I wouldn't necessarily call it sabre-rattling but it is somewhat disconcerning. The Iranian government knows that they would be hurt economically if they decided not to reveal their nuclear program to the rest of the world and now they're taking this one step furthur by attempting to drag other countries into their predictament. Basically, they're saying, if we're going to suffer, everyone else should too. I believe its the first in a chain of events that could possibly lead to some type of confrontation, hopefully not militarily.
Cloudy
I agree. I find it hard to beleive that the leaders in the Iranian Government don't have the forsight in this matter to realize that they're digging thier own graves - possibilty literally.Originally Posted by crazyhorse
In patronicum svb lt1956
member 3519
Perhaps they're on to the fact that it doesn't matter too much whether you dig your own grave or not. If the world's great powers have it in for you, they'll dig one for you anyway. Perhaps, they've come to the conclusion that nothing short of actually having a nuclear weapon will prevent that.
Muizer
Here you can find an elucidating letter by an influencial Republican (so no liberal bias accusations, please) detailing how wrongfully the whole Iran case is being treated, namely by the media.
http://wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=4552
If you ask me its typical neo-con methodology at work. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
It is funny, if not tragic, to hear, like i did in a documentary, Rumsfeld and his CIA Group B claiming in the 70's that the soviet had gone against the recent SALT agreements, the first sign of an ending to the cold war, and instead of reducing its capability it was in fact increasing it. The arguments where like this: "The soviets have developed a submarine that can avoid sonic detection and the proof is we can't find it"...
See the pattern?
Wanted: Dead or Alive
Yay the possibility of Sanctions
STEP 1...
I am really interested to know how the Iranian population thinks of this. Do they see it as evidence that the "Crusader West" is trying to intervene with their affairs? And will they perhaps be politically influenced by this kind of action. Or is the mayority happy to see that this kind of pressure is being put on their government?
Any experts on Iran out here?
Last edited by MareNostrum; September 28, 2005 at 06:02 AM.
Proud Patron of: Antea, Archer, Banzai Kamikaze, Dromikaites, Ldvs
Aut Viam Inveniam Aut Faciam
Indefinitely Banned
Quite the opposite. Iran has given only words and no real guerantees.
Furthermore, there are reports of (many) Iranians emigrating from their country out of fear of repercussions of the present crisis.
Indefinitely Banned
Iran and evolved are like salt and sweet, they do not stand well together in the same sentence, if not as an oxymoron. Said this, all opinions are legitimate.
Comes Rei Militaris
MoROmeTe the Dacian has sadi it very well. If Iran is acting out of paranoia then who can blame them? Just look how a staunch ally of th West 20 years ago has now been treated - how much worse would it be for them who have never been particularly friendly.
Ouside of Turkey and Isreal, Iran has the best developed democratic models in the Middle East. It is gradually (with one step back, on occasion) developing those democratic institutions - this is ironic considering how much influence the religious wings of American politics seems to be growing (perhaps this is where Iran is going wrong...).
So far, as we know, Iran has broken no laws - can the same be said of Israel? I do not condemn Israel for having nuclear weapons (though how it intends to use them is quite beyond me) BUT I cannot understand how the West regard it as perfectly reasonable for Isreal to have WMD but others not to. I, perhaps, there was even a hint of a degree of even handedness, we might get further in negotiations.
And we wonder why we are unpopular and mistrusted. If we were Iranians (or Arabs) would we trust the West?
For my name is Legion
No. We would not...
Islam is a culture under siege and furthermore Iran is a state uner siege. There's no place for trust and moderation in the actions and discourse of such a state with such a religion...
In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat
Civitate
Where are these democratic models? Is it leadership that is handpicked by the clerics? Is it the clerics approving who can run for office and who cant and endorsing some? Is it 'religious police'? While there maybe a growing movement amoung regular Iranians for democratic reform its like saying there is a growing socialist movement in the US...does it really matter if they have no ability to gain power, take control or influence the country?
What law has Israel broken? The fact they have nuclear weapons IS undesirable given the region and stability but they never agreed to any rules or signed on to any limits regarding nuclear techology. As far as to why the west regards it as reasonable for Israel to have it, 1) because they never signed the nuclear treaty 2) Israel is far more stable and the one true democratic country in the region.So far, as we know, Iran has broken no laws - can the same be said of Israel? I do not condemn Israel for having nuclear weapons (though how it intends to use them is quite beyond me) BUT I cannot understand how the West regard it as perfectly reasonable for Isreal to have WMD but others not to. I, perhaps, there was even a hint of a degree of even handedness, we might get further in negotiations.
Trust is a two way street, for every mistake, screw up, lack of trust by the west the Iranians are more then willing to match it. So I ask you why should the west trust the Iranians?And we wonder why we are unpopular and mistrusted. If we were Iranians (or Arabs) would we trust the West?
Indefinitely Banned
Iran cannot be considered ok.
1) Totalitarian country.
2) Supports terrorism (admittedly).
3) Wants the bomb (admittedly).
4) Is playing the international community (not just the US) as fools.
Iran is neither advanced (socially and politically), nor relatively free. Infact, IAEA "special" requests are motivated by Iranian past, present rhetorics, underground activities, and evident plans.
For my name is Legion
For lack of a better counter example. Israel
1) Segreagations country (on the base of being or not being a Jew)
2) Support strikes against civilians and assasinations
3) Has the bomb (does not admit it)
4) Is playing the international community with the help of the US
Not bashing Israel just saying that your 4 points are not that solid. In my albeit real polikic book Iran's actions are legit. So are the US'es and its allies against Iran. But I like Iran better now because at least they do not hide under a rhetoric of legitimacy created by the international law...
In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat
Comes Rei Militaris
As I said it is not perfect but it is evolving. The Head of State was elected in a democratic vote.Where are these democratic models? Is it leadership that is handpicked by the clerics? Is it the clerics approving who can run for office and who cant and endorsing some? Is it 'religious police'? While there maybe a growing movement amoung regular Iranians for democratic reform its like saying there is a growing socialist movement in the US...does it really matter if they have no ability to gain power, take control or influence the country?
My complaint was about the uneven handed attitude demonstrated by the West generally and America in particular. Just put yourself in their position (please try) and decide whether you would do anything radically different...What law has Israel broken? The fact they have nuclear weapons IS undesirable given the region and stability but they never agreed to any rules or signed on to any limits regarding nuclear techology. As far as to why the west regards it as reasonable for Israel to have it, 1) because they never signed the nuclear treaty 2) Israel is far more stable and the one true democratic country in the region.
granted - but can you name me ONE country invaded by Iran? Nope, I can't either... Now, I imagine we'll trot out the usual stuff about terrorism. yes, they hsve a track record. trouble is, so do we... So, no, I think they have more reason to fear us than us from them.Trust is a two way street, for every mistake, screw up, lack of trust by the west the Iranians are more then willing to match it. So I ask you why should the west trust the Iranians?
I've answered most of the points already. But at least, by playing the international community for fools they haven't invaded a sovereign country without a legitimate reason.Iran cannot be considered ok.
1) Totalitarian country.
2) Supports terrorism (admittedly).
3) Wants the bomb (admittedly).
4) Is playing the international community (not just the US) as fools.
Iran is neither advanced (socially and politically), nor relatively free. Infact, IAEA "special" requests are motivated by Iranian past, present rhetorics, underground activities, and evident plans.
I'm sure that many feel the same about the West. I find this sort of statement really disturbing and it smacks of Western Superiority.Iran is neither advanced (socially and politically)
don't get me worng, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else but the west, but that is because I am a decadent materialist - but I also recognise that not everyone wants the same as I do...
imb39, the basis of your entire argument seems to revolve around the fact that Iran hasn't invaded another country.
granted - but can you name me ONE country invaded by Iran? Nope, I can't either...The only reason for this is that they haven't had a chance to. They've had a eight year long war with Iraq (1980-1988) during which they sustained massive losses, and the war only ended because the situation disintergrated into a stalemate that both sides realised they could not break. Imagine a WW1 style meat grinder localised on the Iraq-Iran border.But at least, by playing the international community for fools they haven't invaded a sovereign country without a legitimate reason.
Iran doesn't have the capacity to invade any other country, and when you look at the other countries on it's border, it has no reason to.
However, do you really think that if Iran shared a border with Israel, it would have sat out on all the Arab world attempts to wipe it out? Of course not. Just because they don't have the capacity to do something, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't do it it a heartbeat.
The issue here is really about whether the Western world should be concerned about Iran's intentions to go nuclear. The answer is yes. It would be a folly not to use all means at our disposal to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of a regime that preaches the destruction of our very way of life. (Yes, yes, throw Iraq at me all you want, this is a different situation; Iran has declaired it's nuclear intent).
Civitate
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=670232005 People who believe an election is a sham wont vote since they know it will be meaingless.
You dont have to invade someone to be a danger, old Soviet Union didnt invade one western country during cold war but was still a threat but yes I agree there is mutual fear/distrust but *neither* side will make a first gesture.granted - but can you name me ONE country invaded by Iran? Nope, I can't either... Now, I imagine we'll trot out the usual stuff about terrorism. yes, they hsve a track record. trouble is, so do we... So, no, I think they have more reason to fear us than us from them.
I wont deny that *I* personally feel the middle east is like a child. Its a region of the world sitting on all the power in the world in its oil wells and it is stuck in this funk of religious fanatics, incompent/corrupt leaders/dictatorships and general stuck in the past. The middle east *could* be a powerful, helpful region in the world...it could do so by standing independant of the west without chants of death to america death to the jews but it doesnt. I freely admit there is an aura of western superority in my comments.I'm sure that many feel the same about the West. I find this sort of statement really disturbing and it smacks of Western Superiority.
Difference is YOU as a western have a choice they dont the muslim world is basically held captive by their religion being hijacked by nutcases, corrupt leadership AND western interference.don't get me worng, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else but the west, but that is because I am a decadent materialist - but I also recognise that not everyone wants the same as I do...
They didnt break it they NEVER signed it. India, Pakistan, Israel never signed they are not held to it Iran and North Korea ARE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._to_the_treatyShould the West be concerned - yes, of course. But I wonder how far things will get. The non proliferation treaty is shambles now anyway. India has broken it, Pakistan has broken it, North Korea has broken it. Heaven knows who else. Isreal, though not a signatory, has nuclear weapons. Look at Iran's borders - Russia to the north, Pakistan to the East. A nuclear power occupying Iraq, a nuclear power just a hop away on its West... If Iran was attacked by either Isreal (much more likely) or America (perhaps) then what little stability will be shattered. Negotiation is the way forward
Mistakes made with not holding the three accountable and applying pressure to them to join it does not mean you should make additional mistakes in allowing countries that did sign it to ignore it.
Last edited by danzig; September 28, 2005 at 01:18 PM.
Comes Rei Militaris
No, my argument goes along the lines that the West has demonised Iran into a huge threat that will, if left unchecked, wipe out civilisation. I am simply arguing that Iran has much more to be afraid of than we do. The West has already sponsored a long drawn out war and sanctioned the use of WMD on Iran - sanctioned by virute that they supplied the material AND did precisely nothing about it when it became obvious what was happening - such was the West's hatred of Iran. Then the West dropped Sadam like a stone and invaded a matter of three years later over Kuwait (justified - though why this wasn't done to support Iran, I do not know () and then attacked without just cause a decade later, war was waged on their border...
I am arguing that the West has a track record for invading other countries - even ones which were close allies - where as Iran hasn't. Now what you say might be correct regarding the reasons as to why Iran hasn't invaded anyone - but it doesn't change the fact that Iran hasn't performed such acts.
Imagine how scared America would be if Canada was invaded and taken over by an Islamic country. This is what has happened - from their perspective. Also a significant part of Iraq's population are Shia Muslims - Iran inevitably feels threatened and it is crazy to think otherwise.
Should the West be concerned - yes, of course. But I wonder how far things will get. The non proliferation treaty is shambles now anyway. India has broken it, Pakistan has broken it, North Korea has broken it. Heaven knows who else. Isreal, though not a signatory, has nuclear weapons. Look at Iran's borders - Russia to the north, Pakistan to the East. A nuclear power occupying Iraq, a nuclear power just a hop away on its West... If Iran was attacked by either Isreal (much more likely) or America (perhaps) then what little stability will be shattered. Negotiation is the way forward.
Comes Rei Militaris
OK my error... regarding the treaty. I still am distinctly wary about how this will go. Iran is being cornered and that cannot be good.
Iran hasn't broken any rules at the moment - indeed some of the accusations (not necessarily all) have been disproved as the people who were checking used contaminated equipment - we need to keep the lack of rule breaking (that we know of) in the forfront of our thinking.
My reference to democracy is in comparison with the rest - virtually all of which are actively supported by America. It is laughable that people make a big song and dance about this yet conveniently forget others. Saudi Arabia is gaining a reptutation that rivals any other regime for totalitarianism - note that the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Iran had NOTHING to do with these acts.
At the end of the day - people's reaction to the whole situation is based upon a demonised perception of Iran (perhaps mine is too glowing) rather than the facts at hand. Also remember that Iran went through a popular revolution and probably commands the support of more of its people than any other government in the region - Isreal included.
Civitate
Sigh you fall into the trap alot of people who hold your view do. Because Saudi has many major issues that need to be addressed doesnt mean you ignore Iran also there is no evidence the Saudis are working on any nuclear program either so you cant make the comparison. That doesnt give them a pass, Saudis are pretty much an authoritian regime there is little doubt about that but there is room to work with Saudis in a different manner then Iran. As far as most of the hijackers being Saudis...er big deal? Most terrorists are muslim, doesnt mean all muslims are terrorist does it? The fact this particular group was from Saudi Arabia is really meaingless and I find it amusing that often the same people who object to grouping muslims = terrorism will go off and happily make the Saudi comparison basically doing the same thing except limiting it to a specific country of muslims. And yes this has nothing to do with 9/11 and no one has suggested otherwise or brought it up but you, this isnt about 9/11 at all its about possible nuclear weapons.
So? Support for a bad goverment is still support for a bad goverment, alot of Germans supported Hitler's goverment too.Also remember that Iran went through a popular revolution and probably commands the support of more of its people than any other government in the region - Isreal included.
A room that would be granted had Iran put it's natural resources at the disposal of the US like the Saudi royal family did. Only thing is, Iran is a country with a longer history and stronger identity than Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia were a bunch of tribes in the desert that this particular family was able to unify on the break of the Oil boom, and the deal has ever been: you (US) grant us protection, we (SA) give you oil. It's little more than a feudal country with a timer on it. When it runs out of oil... bye, bye american friend.
But Iran has a past of civilization and sovereignty and therefore the legitimacy of expecting a future with those too...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
