Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Die Hard Baseball. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Iran
Topic Started: May 6 2006, 01:46 PM (432 Views)
Element
The Original
Admin
What do you think we should do about Iran.

Please keep it civil and intelligent.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NateFizzle

Members
Bomb the **** out of there nuclear development places. And assassinate their leader.
Jim Thome: 564 Homeuns (12th All-Time)
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kyyankgrrl
Member Avatar
Feminist & Proud
Members
Shouldn't the question be, why do "we" need to do anything?
Posted Image
Sig by Detroittigerfan28

In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman. - Margaret Thatcher

I never married because there was no need. I have three pets at home which answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon, and a cat that comes home late at night - Marie Corelli (19th century author)

Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
British_Pharaoh
Member Avatar
Oeshbach you twat
Members
Element,May 6 2006
06:46 PM
What do you think we should do about Iran.

Please keep it civil and intelligent.

am I actually reading that right??

'what should WE do about Iran' ???

thats unbelievable

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Element
The Original
Admin
From Grumpy @ sportspot.net

Iran is a militant, revolutionary, anti-status-quo power that bankrolls Hisb'allah and Syria, and cooperates with Al-Qaeda (to the extent that several of the most wanted are allowed to roam free in Iran).

This is the same country that continued fighting the Iran-Iraq war for over 6 years after Saddam wanted to stop on the premise that they'd eventually roll through Iraq, overthrowing all of the gulf kingdoms/emirates (replacing them with revolutionary islamic republics), then through Saudi Arabia and Jordan, pushing Isreal into the sea. This was their "plan".

A regime that employed human wave attacks and famously used children to clear minefields... by walking through them to set the mines off. Each one promised a direct ticket to paradise, of course. (<<< KYY, that was for you)

A country that we almost went to war with in the late 80s, and again in the mid-90s after the Khobar Towers incident. A country that has used bombs to kill people in countries far from the ME... like in Argentina.

The current president has threatened to "wipe Isreal off the map" several times now.

It is also a regime with no clear power center as it is not an absolute dictatorship but rather a dictatorial theocracy... the lack of a clear leader makes the regime actions much harder to predict, and makes negotiation very difficult.


Additionally, the nucleraization of Iran will put inexorable pressure on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria to nuclearize as well. A regional nuclear arms race, inherently unstable. Israel will be compelled to participate. It would lack the components that made MAD work (although this strategy was not without its several crises) in the cold war: 1) a reliably deterrable foe, 2) actual time to respond to a first strike (the missiles would take 30 min from the USSR to the USA... the ME is much closer together).


Imagine Pakistan-India times ten.

Finally, achievement of a suitable nuclear "deterrent" would free Iran to conduct terrorist and revolutionary activities that has been unable to launch due to the constraints of the current power balance in the world.

There are many ways Iran could cause intolerable trouble for the region and the west short of unleashing a nuclear blast. All of these options (further interference in (or invasion of) Shi'a Iraq, interference in Afghanistan, closing of the Straights or Hormuz, support for terrorism in the Levant and Israel, fomentation of islamist revolution in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, hegemony of OPEC, and eventual linkage with the growing muslim population in Europe) would be protected from countermeasures by the threat of Iran's nuclear weapons. Just as the USSR's nuclear umbrella protected it from retaliation from adventurism (and so encouraged it) in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, the Middle East, Angola, Congo, Nicaragua etc, so it would be in the case of Iran.

Do we really want another 50+ year cold war (with the attendant small wars and interventions) with a much less stable and predictable foe, without a guarantee of support from Europe (thanks to the growing islamic populations there) all playing out over the world's reserves of energy? Requiring the permanent basing of troops in the Middle East, as was the case in Europe? Where we wouldn't be nearly as welcomed by the local populace as we were in Europe?

I'm all for energy independence, as you all know... but even if we started today, it would still take 20+ years to build out enough nuclear plants, create the biomass programs, and convert enough coal plants to do so.

Support for regime change from within, by support of democratic forces and ethnic minorities within Iran is important and worth trying, but if it doesn't work, then we need a backup because the risks to national security are simply intolerable.

Recall that there is NO reason Iran "needs" a bomb. The only legititimate reason would be deterrence of outside invasion from the US (Iraq has been conveniently neutralized by our intervention there). But the only reason that the US would ever need to consider such an action would be Iranian support for terrorism and interference in other countries in the area.

Hence, if the Iranian leadership were to simply renounce their expansive ambitions and terrorism, joining the mainstream family of nations they would be free from outside threat, and free to run their society as they saw fit. But they refuse to do so. And that's why they want and "need" the bomb... so that they can feel free of outside threats while they persue their expansive and revolutionary long-term goals.

We saw the same dynamic in Afghanistan. If all the Taliban and Al-Qaeda wanted to do was be left alone to run society in their own islamist-utopian way, they could have done so (with some international criticism, but no invasion). But they had world wide goals as their true ambitions. And so it is with Iran; the leadership to be both a religious and regional superpower.








Quote:
 
A Lefty for Bombing Iran
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/04/a...ty_for_bom.html

I wonder if in the next national security debate, there may not be some on the left who favor a harder line against Iran than some on the right. Iran, after all, is the ultimate exemplar of fundamentalist religious right government. Its regime is brutal toward women and gays and Jews. If you distrust American Christian fundamentalists, who do not condone violence or terrorism, and who are restrained by something called the Constititution, how can you not be horrified by Tehran? Rod Liddle has been a Guardian columnist, and editor of the highly influential BCC Radio Four Today program for several years. He shouldn't be pigeonholed ideologically; but he sure isn't a conservative. He hired Andrew Gilligan, of "dodgy dossier" fame. And he's hawkish on nuclear mullahs:

Never mind such niceties as verifying Iran’s nuclear aims: there is still a large tranche of the western world that believes with bovine obduracy that because we and the Americans and the French and the Israelis have nukes, why shouldn’t poor old Third World Iran? Fair play to the burka boys, don’t you think? The answer is simple and yet — in some quarters — quite unsayable: because it is Iran.

I think we have more time to exhaust every other option against Tehran; and I suspect that Ahmadinejad is deliberately trying to provoke reaction right now for domestic reasons. But in the end, I agree with Liddle. Giving eschatological, anti-Semitic religious fanatics a nuclear capacity is not an option. It cannot be allowed to happen.



Quote:
 
Another Lefty For Bombing Iran
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/05/a...er_lefty_f.html


A reader writes:

Let me first give you a few brief words of my leftist credentials. I'm as stalwart a member of the left as anyone; I'm for the abolition of state-recognized marriage, much, much higher taxes, vastly expanded public education and housing and, ultimately, the collective democratic control of industry and commerce. I'm an atheist, think cars should have to get better than forty miles to the gallon to be sold, and I think most narcotics should be legal for recreational use. I am blue state, urban, stylish.

That having been said, I supported military intervention in Iraq though like you I've been critical of the handling throughout, and, like a lot of people on the left I know, I'm far more concerned about the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran than anything else that could possibly happen on the global stage. While one can have a meaningful discussion about where the line must be drawn between acceptance of other cultures and intervening to protect human rights, it's only prudent to say that Iran cannot possibly be permitted to join the nuclear club. One can believe that Iran has a "right" (whatever that means) to develop nuclear technology while simultaenously holding the view that allowing Iran to have that technology would be monumentally stupid.

This is the most maddening aspect of the war in Iraq and the one I feared an incompetent management of the after-war would enlarge. Because our military are stuck and the world community knows as well as we that the American public would never support a military strike on Iran, the President is unable to apply the kind of diplomatic pressure to stop Iran without military action. And the electoral fear that is being collectively experienced on the right combined with the pathetic and transparent pandering of those on the left who should know better can only contribute to a dismal situation in which we'll be forced to confront a nuclear armed Iran knowing we could have, but chose not to, prevent. Had we never invaded Iraq this wouldn't be a problem. We'd be better able to display the kind of potential force necessary to stop development; failing that, our elected leaders would have the kind of public support for a military action necessary to keep the nuclear club closed. But even having invaded Iraq, had the President and Defense Secretary made the kind of committment early on necessary to win the war, the President would still command the kind of support that he needs to deal with the real threat instead of the one he invented
.

I strongly disagree with a great deal in the first paragraph. But the rest seems pretty coherent to me.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheHugeUnit
Come on CC
Admin
Well you got to treat them as a threat not only to American but the rest of the world. I wouldn't worry to much about them now though, they know if they strike us or anyone else they wouldn't have a chance to even say truce, the one country im worried about right now is China
Posted Image
Posted Image
Click Here For a Pic of OESH BEAST Montero
oeshbach - on his Italians roots
 
not all italians shit their pants

Rockshu
 
I had a dream where I was playing RF for the Yankees against the Red Sox and Joe Torre was yelling at me in the outfield...Helloooooo erection
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eye95
Member Avatar
Gorilla...'nuff said
Members
kyyankgrrl,May 7 2006
08:24 AM
Shouldn't the question be, why do "we" need to do anything?

Because if "we" don't, no one will. Then Iran will get nukes and will use them on Israel, on us, or on both.
<O>
Posted Image Danny's take on Israel LINK-->Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
British_Pharaoh
Member Avatar
Oeshbach you twat
Members
eye95,May 7 2006
04:19 PM
Because if "we" don't, no one will. Then Iran will get nukes and will use them on Israel, on us, or on both.

very concise

and absolute bollox
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eye95
Member Avatar
Gorilla...'nuff said
Members
DannyWestbrook,May 7 2006
11:24 AM
very concise

and absolute bollox

And you have every right to express disagreement. I would just hope that you would provide support for that disagreement and not just express it.
<O>
Posted Image Danny's take on Israel LINK-->Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheHugeUnit
Come on CC
Admin
eye95,May 7 2006
12:19 PM
Because if "we" don't, no one will. Then Iran will get nukes and will use them on Israel, on us, or on both.

You don't shoot a guy when his father is pointing a gun at your head. Thats why i don't see them as a huge threat as of now
Posted Image
Posted Image
Click Here For a Pic of OESH BEAST Montero
oeshbach - on his Italians roots
 
not all italians shit their pants

Rockshu
 
I had a dream where I was playing RF for the Yankees against the Red Sox and Joe Torre was yelling at me in the outfield...Helloooooo erection
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eye95
Member Avatar
Gorilla...'nuff said
Members
TheHugeUnit,May 7 2006
11:28 AM
You don't shoot a guy when his father is pointing a gun at your head. Thats why i don't see them as a huge threat as of now

World wars are started when we don't think that militaristic, despotic, extremist regimes, with goose-stepping parades, aren't a threat.

Especially when some try to keep talking while that regime moves full speed ahead with its plans.
<O>
Posted Image Danny's take on Israel LINK-->Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheHugeUnit
Come on CC
Admin
eye95,May 7 2006
12:33 PM
World wars are started when we don't think that militaristic, despotic, extremist regimes, with goose-stepping parades, aren't a threat.

Especially when some try to keep talking while that regime moves full speed ahead with its plans.

ok they bombed the US, GB and Isreal, then what do they pull the covers over their heads and wait til its over....
Posted Image
Posted Image
Click Here For a Pic of OESH BEAST Montero
oeshbach - on his Italians roots
 
not all italians shit their pants

Rockshu
 
I had a dream where I was playing RF for the Yankees against the Red Sox and Joe Torre was yelling at me in the outfield...Helloooooo erection
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eye95
Member Avatar
Gorilla...'nuff said
Members
TheHugeUnit,May 7 2006
11:40 AM
ok they bombed the US, GB and Isreal, then what do they pull the covers over their heads and wait til its over....

OK, Germany invaded Poland, Czechoslovakia, and France. Just because it is stupid to the point of being suicidal does not mean a despot won't do it, particularly when the rest of the world looks like it won't take action...and it looks like the world is macmillaning again.
<O>
Posted Image Danny's take on Israel LINK-->Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheHugeUnit
Come on CC
Admin
eye95,May 7 2006
12:53 PM
TheHugeUnit,May 7 2006
11:40 AM
eye95,May 7 2006
12:33 PM
World wars are started when we don't think that militaristic, despotic, extremist regimes, with goose-stepping parades, aren't a threat.

Especially when some try to keep talking while that regime moves full speed ahead with its plans.

ok they bombed the US, GB and Isreal, then what do they pull the covers over their heads and wait til its over....

OK, Germany invaded Poland, Czechoslovakia, and France. Just because it is stupid to the point of being suicidal does not mean a despot won't do it, particularly when the rest of the world looks like it won't take action...and it looks like the world is macmillaning again.

Germany was technologically advanced back then, plus back in 1930's there was more strategy in invading and starting a war. Now if you kick us we aren't going to take 3 months to kick back. War has changed a lot in 75 years. Wars these days you get in a F-16 and bomb a city you don't get on your horse and ride across country and with a gun and a knife
Posted Image
Posted Image
Click Here For a Pic of OESH BEAST Montero
oeshbach - on his Italians roots
 
not all italians shit their pants

Rockshu
 
I had a dream where I was playing RF for the Yankees against the Red Sox and Joe Torre was yelling at me in the outfield...Helloooooo erection
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cubbies10
Member Avatar

Members
Im not taking either Side here, but Germany was allowed to Re-arm by the Aliies i.e Us, which was in contradiction to the Terms in the Versaille Treaty of the 1st World War, we did nothing to stop them.
“Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living.”

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eye95
Member Avatar
Gorilla...'nuff said
Members
TheHugeUnit,May 7 2006
11:57 AM
Germany was technologically advanced back then, plus back in 1930's there was more strategy in invading and starting a war. Now if you kick us we aren't going to take 3 months to kick back. War has changed a lot in 75 years. Wars these days you get in a F-16 and bomb a city you don't get on your horse and ride across country and with a gun and a knife

Iran is on the verge of developing nukes, so the technology contrast is specious. Furthermore, our ability to strike back quickly will prove to be of little solace to the millions already dead.

War may have changed in 74 years, but the wisdom of not allowing threats to develop unchecked has not.
________________

2B: Your point about allowing Germany to rearm makes my analogy all the more on point. We cannot allow Iran to arm themselves with nukes.
<O>
Posted Image Danny's take on Israel LINK-->Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheHugeUnit
Come on CC
Admin
eye95,May 7 2006
04:50 PM
Iran is on the verge of developing nukes, so the technology contrast is specious. Furthermore, our ability to strike back quickly will prove to be of little solace to the millions already dead.

War may have changed in 74 years, but the wisdom of not allowing threats to develop unchecked has not.

Nukes don't make you technogocally advanced though, it takes more than that. So what your suggestioning is we nuke them before they Nuke us? Won't that cuz more trouble though, i mean people will see us as nuke happy and might try to control us by startign a war agaisnt us.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Click Here For a Pic of OESH BEAST Montero
oeshbach - on his Italians roots
 
not all italians shit their pants

Rockshu
 
I had a dream where I was playing RF for the Yankees against the Red Sox and Joe Torre was yelling at me in the outfield...Helloooooo erection
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NateFizzle

Members
I don't think he was suggesting nuking them first.
Jim Thome: 564 Homeuns (12th All-Time)
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheHugeUnit
Come on CC
Admin
natefizzle,May 7 2006
08:21 PM
I don't think he was suggesting nuking them first.

well i tihnk he was suggestiing attacking them in someway
Posted Image
Posted Image
Click Here For a Pic of OESH BEAST Montero
oeshbach - on his Italians roots
 
not all italians shit their pants

Rockshu
 
I had a dream where I was playing RF for the Yankees against the Red Sox and Joe Torre was yelling at me in the outfield...Helloooooo erection
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eye95
Member Avatar
Gorilla...'nuff said
Members
TheHugeUnit,May 7 2006
04:00 PM
Nukes don't make you technogocally advanced though, it takes more than that. So what your suggestioning is we nuke them before they Nuke us? Won't that cuz more trouble though, i mean people will see us as nuke happy and might try to control us by startign a war agaisnt us.

No, the nukes make them dangerous, making any technological disparity specious. In both cases, it was/is the ability to kill millions was/is the concern being ignored by many in the vain hope that we can use diplomacy to achieve world peace.

The vain hope for peace creates conditions ripe for despots to make war.

Oh, and don't put words in my mouth. That is the one thing that will cause extrreme discourtesy from me. I said nothing about nuking them.
<O>
Posted Image Danny's take on Israel LINK-->Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply