The Iran Thread

[StorminNorman]

A higher priority should be placed on Iran than Afghanistan.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I'm not sure it would be a war.

I'm just wondering since we're spread out into Iraq, Afghanistan...and I'm beginning to wonder if we'll need to be ready for North Korea...I have doubts that we have to resources to handle all that.

I'm really torn on this situation, I'm buying each side's arguments on this. But could we really spare the troops for the long haul?

I imagine it wouldn't be a short time if we'd step in. And again, I'm trying to keep in mind that the **** could come down with North Korea. I think we'd probably have to redirect troops there either way.

 

[BlackLantern]

It'd be a war...the Iranian leadership is chomping at the bit for the US to get involved so they can cut loose on the dissenters in their country

 

[Paradyme]

I don't think we need to go to war with Iran just yet. Its the Iranians people job to try to clean house through protests and what not. If we do end up needing to help I hope its through shadow means of providing them with weapons and intel.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Iran’s Ahmadinejad: Obama is acting like Bush

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31539392/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa

"Mr. Obama made a mistake to say those things ... our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously (former U.S. President George W.) Bush used to say," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

 

[Nivek]

This from the *** clown who lifted Obamas 'Yes we can" for his campaign.

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't think we need to go to war with Iran just yet. Its the Iranians people job to try to clean house through protests and what not. If we do end up needing to help I hope its through shadow means of providing them with weapons and intel.

But the Iranian people ARE doing that.

It's foolish, however, to believe that an unarmed group of protesters can successful compete against an armed government that holds little reservations about killing or locking up dissenting opinions.

You want protests to work? They need some teeth, they need protection, they need the support of America.

 

[Marx]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31539392/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa

That's quite a bold statement.

 

[StorminNorman]

So can we all agree Obama's idea about dialog with Iran was simply a fools dream?

Who could have saw that coming?

 

[Marx]

When the Iranian state TV is reporting that a mere 4 hours after polls were closed over a million votes were hand counted....it raises a flag in my brain

Exactly, BL. It also raises a big flag when the results were certified almost instantly, instead of waiting the normal three days.

 

[Marx]

So can we all agree Obama's idea about dialog with Iran was simply a fools dream?

Who could have saw that coming?

Fools dream or not, it is/was not wrong to want to start a more serious dialogue.

 

[StorminNorman]

Fools dream or not, it is/was not wrong to want to start a more serious dialogue.

But a President must understand the difference of what is preferable and what is practical.

Obama wasn't just some college student writing a hypothetical solution to Iranian affairs, he was a Senator running for President and as such he should of based his goals on reality, not idealism. For anyone to believe that any sort of good would come out of talks with a government that acts like Iran does requires a great deal of misplaced hope. You cannot force dialog onto a country that has nothing pleasant to say to you.

 

[Nivek]

Exactly, BL. It also raises a big flag when the results were certified almost instantly, instead of waiting the normal three days.

Same here.

 

[Hobgoblin]

But the Iranian people ARE doing that.

It's foolish, however, to believe that an unarmed group of protesters can successful compete against an armed government that holds little reservations about killing or locking up dissenting opinions.

You want protests to work? They need some teeth, they need protection, they need the support of America.

How will the protests seem legitimate if the US gets involved? Then the Iranian's claim that the protesters are the pawns of the west will seem justified.

 

[Paradyme]

But the Iranian people ARE doing that.

It's foolish, however, to believe that an unarmed group of protesters can successful compete against an armed government that holds little reservations about killing or locking up dissenting opinions.

You want protests to work? They need some teeth, they need protection, they need the support of America.

They have our support. At least of the American people. What else can we possibly do? If we brought our troops in it would create a huge problem.

 

[Nivek]

I think the Red's want an excuse to go to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, even if it's to "Liberate them", I don't understand why the majority of them cannot grasp "WE NEED TO STAY OUT OF IT". I don't think the majority sensible opinion on this is that hard to understand.

 

[Bat-Mite]

But a President must understand the difference of what is preferable and what is practical.

Obama wasn't just some college student writing a hypothetical solution to Iranian affairs, he was a Senator running for President and as such he should of based his goals on reality, not idealism. For anyone to believe that any sort of good would come out of talks with a government that acts like Iran does requires a great deal of misplaced hope. You cannot force dialog onto a country that has nothing pleasant to say to you.

The important thing was that he at least TRIED to extend an olive branch, unlike his narrow-minded predecessor.

 

[Anita18]

Interesting, but not surprising, that he asks for sanctions but no invasion. His demand that gasoline be barred from the country sounds reasonable. Who sells Iran its gas?

The thing is, sanctions against Iran would affect the people too, and greatly. They're living there, after all. This man is ready for the consequences, but are all of the protesters just as prepared?

It'd be a war...the Iranian leadership is chomping at the bit for the US to get involved so they can cut loose on the dissenters in their country

How will the protests seem legitimate if the US gets involved? Then the Iranian's claim that the protesters are the pawns of the west will seem justified.

That's exactly what I'm afraid of, if we get involved. It'll give the government an excuse to slaughter everyone before we even set foot on Iranian soil.

 

[StorminNorman]

How will the protests seem legitimate if the US gets involved? Then the Iranian's claim that the protesters are the pawns of the west will seem justified.

They will only seem justified to those already inclined to believe that anyway.

I don't place questions of the protests legitimacy of already skeptic people above the security and safety of those protesters.

They have our support. At least of the American people. What else can we possibly do? If we brought our troops in it would create a huge problem.

Having the vocal support of the American people does little good when you are facing bullets, clubs, gas and armed tyranny.

I think the Red's want an excuse to go to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, even if it's to "Liberate them", I don't understand why the majority of them cannot grasp "WE NEED TO STAY OUT OF IT". I don't think the majority sensible opinion on this is that hard to understand.

Your right, we do so much more good by allowing innocent protesters to be killed in the streets by an evil dictatorship who wants to destroy us and our allies.

 

[StorminNorman]

The important thing was that he at least TRIED to extend an olive branch, unlike his narrow-minded predecessor.

Since when do you get points for trying?

I mean we have such high regard for Neville Chamberlain, right? Right?

 

[StorminNorman]

That's exactly what I'm afraid of, if we get involved. It'll give the government an excuse to slaughter everyone before we even set foot on Iranian soil.

This just in...they don't need an excuse.

 

[Hobgoblin]

They will only seem justified to those already inclined to believe that anyway.

I don't place questions of the protests legitimacy of already skeptic people above the security and safety of those protesters.

What exactly do you want the US to do? Invade? Bomb? What exactly can our over stretched military do without making the situation worse? How do you know that the Iranians wouldnt respond by sending thier own troops over the Iraqi border? You arent thinking of consequences.

 

[StorminNorman]

What exactly do you want the US to do? Invade? Bomb? What exactly can our over stretched military do without making the situation worse? How do you know that the Iranians wouldnt respond by sending thier own troops over the Iraqi border? You arent thinking of consequences.

No, I am thinking of the consequences. I have weighed them out.

Iran won't send troops into Iraq because we can take them out from the sky. Bomb go boom.

What the Iranian government could do is fund terrorist insurgent groups - which they already have a history of. This, of course, relies on Iranian economic capital, which is already not so good.

Another danger is oil prices.

In the end, however, the dangers of Iranian retaliation go away if we are successful.

Since the biggest hurdle in American warfare in the past has been opposition from the citizenry of a country, we would already be above that. We would be joining the Iranian people, not subjecting them to our ideology. Combine the Iranian spirit with American weapons and you have a force that can implement TRUE change in Iran.

Don't tell me I haven't considered the consequences, it's simply untrue. No, the party that hasn't considered the consequences are those that oppose any option that included American intervention.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Ok, so if we help overthrow the current regime, who would be the replacement? Would we have to over see the new election? How would that play out in terms of legitimacy, an election overseen by a foreign force? Remember, the Israelis didnt care much for the opposition candidate either. They saw him as a threat, as well as Ahmadinajad. At least with Mahmoud, we know who we are dealing with.

 

[StorminNorman]

Ok, so if we help overthrow the current regime, who would be the replacement? Would we have to over see the new election? How would that play out in terms of legitimacy, an election overseen by a foreign force? Remember, the Israelis didnt care much for the opposition candidate either. They saw him as a threat, as well as Ahmadinajad. At least with Mahmoud, we know who we are dealing with.

Who would be the replacement? How about the guy that was just elected? Who the Israeli's want is not important in an Iranian election.

To act as if since we know what Ahmadinajad is about, that makes him a superior is ridiculous. Ahmadinajad is everything we don't want in an Iranian leader, even if he is a puppet.