• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Iran is the Greatest threat to Middle Eastern and World Peace since the fall of the Soviet Union

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,515
3,280
126
I see Dari woke up with an Iran nightmare.

Rock a bye baby on the tree top,
When the wind blows the cradle will rock,
When the bough breaks the cradle will fall,
And down will come baby, cradle and all.

There there, Dari, everything will be all right.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Dari,
Why or how is Iran a threat to World Peace? Who are their allies? Do you mean THEY are the center of Terrorism? Since Iraqi problems occured after the fall of the Soviet Union I guess I can conclude you'd think Iran should be invaded to obviate an attack on the US?

Moonster,
I went to sleep from your post to Dari, above... Is the wind the result of neuclear detonation?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,515
3,280
126
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Dari,
Why or how is Iran a threat to World Peace? Who are their allies? Do you mean THEY are the center of Terrorism? Since Iraqi problems occured after the fall of the Soviet Union I guess I can conclude you'd think Iran should be invaded to obviate an attack on the US?

Moonster,
I went to sleep from your post to Dari, above... Is the wind the result of neuclear detonation?
Yup, from nuk-u-lar explosion.

 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: kage69
Where were we during the recent student uprising where pro-democracy people took over the dorms and demanded change only to be beaten down by people friendly to the regime? There was a spark and we had the perfect opportunity to light the fire yet we squandered it.
Then, pray tell, what is it exactly you think we could have done while Iranian students were being clubbed and dragged from their dorm room beds to interrogation chambers? As I recall, there was international condemnation of the reprisals - what were you expecting? B52s dropping pamphlets? A sudden surge in anti-ayatollah radio broadcasts? How exactly could this 'fire' have been lit?
Change from the inside means just that, the people inside wanting change are in charge of deciding and implementing it.
If you think the students were the only ones fighting for chage you are sadly mistaken. Iran has a strong underground movement that seeks democratic change, some of whome are willing to use force. We do what we did with the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan, we covertly train and arm them. The people they need to stand up to are the well armed security forces controled by the mullahs. You combine the very public peaceful democratic movements with covert armed ones and you have the groundwork for revolution, something that place sorely needs. We can be doing a lot more than just sitting around with our thumbs up our asses which is pretty much the status quo.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Dari,
Why or how is Iran a threat to World Peace? Who are their allies? Do you mean THEY are the center of Terrorism? Since Iraqi problems occured after the fall of the Soviet Union I guess I can conclude you'd think Iran should be invaded to obviate an attack on the US?

Dari and his PNAC heroes are just preparing for the day when the US will have to leave Iraq. Just like the evil aliens in Independence Day that locustlike move from planet to planet exploting the planets' resources and sucking them dry, so the US will hop from one country to the other. Saudi Arabia to Iraq, Iraq to Iran... Unfortunately this creates a dilemma for Will Smith, he now must nuke the evil US. As our righteous hero he of course must fight the evil and exterminate it once and for all. This time one item of WMD will not suffice. Will will have to use the whole arsenal of WMDs to make sure there won't be a third sequel. This series simply is too rotten. Thankfully WMDs are in no short supply in the US military.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Dari,
Why or how is Iran a threat to World Peace? Who are their allies? Do you mean THEY are the center of Terrorism? Since Iraqi problems occured after the fall of the Soviet Union I guess I can conclude you'd think Iran should be invaded to obviate an attack on the US?


Dari and his PNAC heroes are just preparing for the day when the US will have to leave Iraq. Just like the evil aliens in Independence Day that locustlike move from planet to planet exploting the planets' resources and sucking them dry, so the US will hop from one country to the other. Saudi Arabia to Iraq, Iraq to Iran... Unfortunately this creates a dilemma for Will Smith, he now must nuke the evil US. As our righteous hero he of course must fight the evil and exterminate it once and for all. This time one item of WMD will not suffice. Will will have to use the whole arsenal of WMDs to make sure there won't be a third sequel. This series simply is too rotten. Thankfully WMDs are in no short supply in the US military.
I get worried when Dari says the things he does. I accept he holds them to be true. The Iran thing is not anywhere on my radar screen. I see them as progressing toward acceptable in terms of government and attitude toward terrorist activity. In their world things go slow. In the minds of the folks who think like Dari (those in power) Iran may be a major blip on their screen but, no overt threats have yet been directed toward them by the Administration. That I'm aware of, that is.
I cannot accept any act of aggression on our part to stem the invisible alien about to steal our cherrio's. First it was Syria now Iran.. it gets scary.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Country Iran invaded in last 3 years: 0
Country America invaded: 2 (both in ME)

who is the greatest threat to Middle East and World peace again?
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Shanti

WTF?
When did I advocate genocide?
Going to war against an evil government is not genocide.
We were the ones who sacrificed our own soldier's lives to avoid firing upon enemies that were protecting themselves with human shields.
You say we haven't been able to curtail it with force?
We haven't been attacked by Al Qaeda since 9/11. I think our elimination of the Taliban and substantial damage to the Al Qaeda organization played a par in that.
I do agree that it would be much harder to sell the people on the idea of invading Iran and I'm not advocating that we do that at this point. We don't have 17 UN resolutions being violated and ignored like we did in Iraq.
No you didn't advocare Genocide but you did say wipe out Muslim Radicals and the only way you could even come close to doing that with force is Genocide. You seem to think that to combat Islamic Radicalism you need to take out Soviergn Governments. The problem with your solution is that Islamic Radicalism goes beyong Governments. It is a Religious Doctrine the goes beyond any Government. Bin Laden isn't the head of any Government but probably is the most Dangerous person to Western Civilization.

Unfortunately at this moment the best we can do is to be vigilant and try to keep them on the defensive. I believe that the only real way to defeat them would be to develop an alternative solution to Fossil fuel. Once we do that we dry up their funds plus we no longer would need to be such a presence in their lands. Of course that would also kill a Cash Cow for those who are now running our government.
I didn't propose a solution.
I wasn't saying we should start invading soveign countries left and right.
My point was just that we need to do whatever is necessary to stop terrorism. Whether that is hunting down Bin Laden, providing support to internal political movements that oppose radical Isalam, assisting governments that are actually working to stop terrorist groups within their countries, or in some cases, forcefully removing governments that openly support terrorism.

Sure we could get rid of a lot of terrorists by nuking entire countries, but I am certainly not that cruel or uncaring about innocent civilians. Non-violent methods of dealing with the problem are always preferable. But that is not always possible. We tried to persuade the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda members but they refused. So yes, in some cases, as a last resort, we do need to take out governments. Those who openly support and fund terrorism. Sure, it is impossible to completely eliminate terrorism. But by eliminating those who fund it and provide safe haven for training camps, we can definitely do a lot to reduce the threat and weaken the terrorist networks.

Reducing our dependence on middle-eastern oil is clearly a good thing. But it will not stop radical Islamic terrorist groups from hating free and non-religious governments and citizens.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,515
3,280
126
So many closets, so so many Bogey men? I won't sleep well till there all dead.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Seriously. Iran is a place that if we play our cards right, we can bring about change without an invasion. You would think we would have learnt something by not supporting the Shiites in Iraq during their uprising in '91 leaving thousands of them to be slaughtered. Where was our benevolence then? If we had helped, even covertly, we may have been able to get rid of Saddam and work to establish democracy without alienating the world and decimating our credibility. There is a strong anti-Ayatollah et al movement in Iran and we need to support it. Where were we during the recent student uprising where pro-democracy people took over the dorms and demanded change only to be beaten down by people friendly to the regime? There was a spark and we had the perfect opportunity to light the fire yet we squandered it. People like Dari cannot conceive that change can be brought about without an all out invasion. If we covertly help the people who dream of democracy in Iran we could bring about change. But doing things covertly doesn't get you votes, so even if it is the right thing to do, don't count on it being done by this administration.
I totally agree with you on the Shiite uprising. We should have supported them 100%. That was one of the biggest failures of the Bush administration. But if he had actually continued to Bahgdad and taken out Saddam, he would have caught hell from the liberals for going beyond the originally stated goal of liberating Kuwait.

I do find it odd to hear a liberal talking about support for covertly helping internal pro-democracy movements to overthrow the government. Isn't this type of assistance what liberals are always complaining about? That the U.S. and the CIA are meddling in other countries internal affairs?

 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
16,562
5,853
136
If you think the students were the only ones fighting for chage you are sadly mistaken. Iran has a strong underground movement that seeks democratic change, some of whome are willing to use force. We do what we did with the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan, we covertly train and arm them. The people they need to stand up to are the well armed security forces controled by the mullahs. You combine the very public peaceful democratic movements with covert armed ones and you have the groundwork for revolution, something that place sorely needs. We can be doing a lot more than just sitting around with our thumbs up our asses which is pretty much the status quo.
I neither said nor implied that the students were the only ones wanting change, stop trying to change the subject. I was addressing your dismay over a blown-opportunity of sorts, and how that doesn't really apply to the situation. I'm willing to bet we (and the British) have been covertly supplying and training Iranian dissidents, although it's not to scale with what we had to work with in Iraq. In reality, the situation in Iran is profoundly different than either Afghanistan or Iraq, and here's why: Afghanistan has porous borders and at the time no standing centralized goverment which could offer resistance. Iran maintains a standing army, watches it's borders, and can strike at targets abroad. In regards to the Shias being massacred by Saddam and Qusay, that happened once a ceasefire had been reached and apparently Bush Sr. didn't want to open up hostilities again, as our objectives had been reached. Our F15s watched Iraqi gunships strafe Shias and Kurds but could do nothing. I'm not proud of that either and will ALWAYS feel a lot of animosity towards the Bush camp for that. But I digress, that wasn't a situation in which we could have supported an uprising, we were already in the country and were having to abide by the truce we set up. Would have been nice to see Schwartzie pull the Iraqi brass back to the table and say 'Alright, cut that sh!t out., lest I allow the 82nd to commence with the skulldoggery.' It's just too bad the uprisings didn't take place when we were still in the thick of the war... Anyway, the student protests in Tehran were never aimed at overthrowing anyone, they were instigated by the Bush Admin via 'our network' in an active attempt to ruin Khatami's rhetoric of solidarity against the 'Western invaders' ... to think it could have spawned a full blown revolution overnight would have been foolishly optimistic.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: Pers
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
When will you people learn that Dari's posts are nothing more than entertainment? The only person Iran could possibly ever be a threat to is Israel and quite frankly the rest of the world, save the US, could give a rat's ass about that. Secondly Israel can take of themselves and finally, I cannot blame Iran for wanting nuclear weapons, it's the only thing that will keep Israel and the Bush admin. at bay.
i don't think there's ever been a time i've disagreed w/ you.
Let me guess, you both spend 12 hours a day staring at CNN?

Radical Islam is the next Nazi party and needs to be dealt with the same way.
So we should ignore the more moderate groundswell that is sweeping over the Iranian youth and take out the Theran Government by force?If so then you sound like one of those Neo Confused idiots.
Radical Islam needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. By radical, I mean those muslims who murder everyone who does not follow their religious beliefs.
If it can be wiped out by moderate movements within, all the better.
If that fails and they continue training terrorists and providing them with money and weapons to murder innocent civilians, then yes, they should be dealt with by force.
in other words "we need to kill all of those radical muslim people because I dont agree with their idea of killing everyone they dont agree with", talk about hypocracy
Seriously. Iran is a place that if we play our cards right, we can bring about change without an invasion. You would think we would have learnt something by not supporting the Shiites in Iraq during their uprising in '91 leaving thousands of them to be slaughtered. Where was our benevolence then? If we had helped, even covertly, we may have been able to get rid of Saddam and work to establish democracy without alienating the world and decimating our credibility. There is a strong anti-Ayatollah et al movement in Iran and we need to support it. Where were we during the recent student uprising where pro-democracy people took over the dorms and demanded change only to be beaten down by people friendly to the regime? There was a spark and we had the perfect opportunity to light the fire yet we squandered it. People like Dari cannot conceive that change can be brought about without an all out invasion. If we covertly help the people who dream of democracy in Iran we could bring about change. But doing things covertly doesn't get you votes, so even if it is the right thing to do, don't count on it being done by this administration.
Agreed, I wish we would've given more support to the anti-taliban and Iraq Rebels than a full scale invasion. Hopefully we can do this with Iran. I see no problem with it what so ever :p They've been proven to support terrorism.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,710
5
0
Originally posted by: Tabb


Agreed, I wish we would've given more support to the anti-taliban and Iraq Rebels than a full scale invasion. Hopefully we can do this with Iran. I see no problem with it what so ever :p They've been proven to support terrorism.
They supported us in our quest against the Taliban, and they were more than happy to see Saddam get thrown out. Their history with us has been rather pleasant actually, I see no reason to hate Iranian people.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,179
0
76
Originally posted by: Dari
Finally, with new intelligence we are able to see the inner-core of Iranian power.
I hope your intelligence is better than the CIA.

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Dari,
Why or how is Iran a threat to World Peace? Who are their allies? Do you mean THEY are the center of Terrorism? Since Iraqi problems occured after the fall of the Soviet Union I guess I can conclude you'd think Iran should be invaded to obviate an attack on the US?

Moonster,
I went to sleep from your post to Dari, above... Is the wind the result of neuclear detonation?
Well, aside from the fact that they murdered 241 of our Marines in 1981;
Aside from the fact that they bombed an israeli community center in Argentina in 1994;
Aside from the fact that they fund, support, and train the Hezbullah guerrilla group in Lebanon, which carries out a proxy-war on their behalf
Aside from the fact that they are the world's new libya, where terror organizations the world over come to hold conferences, swap terror ideas, and renew their vows to destroy the United States and Israel;
Aside from the fact that Iran has setpup satellite terror outposts in Chechnya, the lawless triborder region where Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil meet, and south Asia;
Aside from the fact the imad mugniyah, the world's foremost terrorist thinker, is bankrolled by Iran and heads her South American terror outpost;
Aside from the fact the Iran and al Qaeda are busy formulating new terror strategies in an Iranian jail;
Aside from the fact that the ayatollahs have let loose Yahya;
and aside from the fact that Iran (and, by ordering Hezbullah to follow suit, Syria) is sending foreign troops to Iraq to fight the coalition troops, she is working hard to build a bomb to give to her partners/allies.

As I've said in my original statement, Iran may have a budding liberal movement, but it is nothing compared to the dual-forces of the ayatollahs and Yahya. And since Iranians are traditionally suspicious of foreign interference, an all out invasion wouldn't go down well in such a large country.

But Bush needs to think of something just as powerful as an invasion. He needs to think the exact opposite of an invasion. Luckly for him, I wrote a policy paper while at Princeton. To punish the iranians for their nuclear ambitions, Bush should widen the sanctions we already have against the terror state. Instead of just barring any company that does business within the country from doing business within the US, we should bar any country whose native firm does business with the iranians from doing business with us. For example, if Mitsubishi sold electric shavers in Iran, an all out embargo against all Japanese companies would go into effect. This would stop every country on Earth from dealing with the Iranians. It would bring about the collapse of the entire economy, regime, and health of the country. Tens of millions of people would go below the poverty level. Millions may die. The government would run out of cash and debt would soar. Impossible, you say? Well, it's possible with a country that has only one main staple, oil. Not only would it bring the regime to her knees, Iran would serve as an example of how powerful we are economically.

I sent the president my paper about 2 weeks ago. If anyone here would like to read it, let me know.

Number of Americans dead: 0
Number of Iranians dead: millions
Financial cost to U.S.: $0
Financial cost to Iran: $300-400 billion

This would be the perfect war. It would be bad for military contractors, but great for the financial community:) Rothschild would be pleased.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Dari,
First I would like to read your paper. It would be easier to e-mail it to me.. hjd1@cox.net, thank you.
(Notwithstanding from where it emanates, Princeton... kidding)

The economic strategy would be the one I'd choose and have advocated in all cases of major violations of the international peace... the UN members, however, have shown their inability to follow the basics in the support of such an effective plan. I'm actually in two minds regarding this because the folks most affected are the least of our problem and having said that, realize that these folks could and should rise up against the cause of such a situation... maybe they would but, they seem to look at all suffering as the will of Allah. They'd most likely just die off. They terrorist folks would wage major and total war against us. I don't assume total defense against this and think the US death toll would be politically high.

The beginning of your post contains a volume of suggested (or factual) assertions which I've to research so I'll revisit your post in due course.

For my edification, who in the Administration would I look to if I wanted to find Dari's thinking? I know you'll say 'no one thinks completely like me' but, surely some one comes close..
 

Whitecloak

Diamond Member
May 4, 2001
6,074
2
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Dari,
Why or how is Iran a threat to World Peace? Who are their allies? Do you mean THEY are the center of Terrorism? Since Iraqi problems occured after the fall of the Soviet Union I guess I can conclude you'd think Iran should be invaded to obviate an attack on the US?

Moonster,
I went to sleep from your post to Dari, above... Is the wind the result of neuclear detonation?
Well, aside from the fact that they murdered 241 of our Marines in 1981;
Aside from the fact that they bombed an israeli community center in Argentina in 1994;
Aside from the fact that they fund, support, and train the Hezbullah guerrilla group in Lebanon, which carries out a proxy-war on their behalf
Aside from the fact that they are the world's new libya, where terror organizations the world over come to hold conferences, swap terror ideas, and renew their vows to destroy the United States and Israel;
Aside from the fact that Iran has setpup satellite terror outposts in Chechnya, the lawless triborder region where Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil meet, and south Asia;
Aside from the fact the imad mugniyah, the world's foremost terrorist thinker, is bankrolled by Iran and heads her South American terror outpost;
Aside from the fact the Iran and al Qaeda are busy formulating new terror strategies in an Iranian jail;
Aside from the fact that the ayatollahs have let loose Yahya;
and aside from the fact that Iran (and, by ordering Hezbullah to follow suit, Syria) is sending foreign troops to Iraq to fight the coalition troops, she is working hard to build a bomb to give to her partners/allies.

As I've said in my original statement, Iran may have a budding liberal movement, but it is nothing compared to the dual-forces of the ayatollahs and Yahya. And since Iranians are traditionally suspicious of foreign interference, an all out invasion wouldn't go down well in such a large country.

But Bush needs to think of something just as powerful as an invasion. He needs to think the exact opposite of an invasion. Luckly for him, I wrote a policy paper while at Princeton. To punish the iranians for their nuclear ambitions, Bush should widen the sanctions we already have against the terror state. Instead of just barring any company that does business within the country from doing business within the US, we should bar any country whose native firm does business with the iranians from doing business with us. For example, if Mitsubishi sold electric shavers in Iran, an all out embargo against all Japanese companies would go into effect. This would stop every country on Earth from dealing with the Iranians. It would bring about the collapse of the entire economy, regime, and health of the country. Tens of millions of people would go below the poverty level. Millions may die. The government would run out of cash and debt would soar. Impossible, you say? Well, it's possible with a country that has only one main staple, oil. Not only would it bring the regime to her knees, Iran would serve as an example of how powerful we are economically.

I sent the president my paper about 2 weeks ago. If anyone here would like to read it, let me know.

Number of Americans dead: 0
Number of Iranians dead: millions
Financial cost to U.S.: $0
Financial cost to Iran: $300-400 billion

This would be the perfect war. It would be bad for military contractors, but great for the financial community:) Rothschild would be pleased.

Dari, you are a perfect psychopath. If you had been born a muslim, I am sure you will have ended up like one of those rabid fanatical screaming mullahs.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,840
2,943
126
Dari is right, look how the World has abandoned Cuba due to the US embargo!
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
But Bush needs to think of something just as powerful as an invasion. He needs to think the exact opposite of an invasion. Luckly for him, I wrote a policy paper while at Princeton. To punish the iranians for their nuclear ambitions, Bush should widen the sanctions we already have against the terror state

I didn't know that Princeton was a breeding ground for extreme right wackos like Dari

You learn something new every day.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
2
0
Reducing our dependence on middle-eastern oil is clearly a good thing. But it will not stop radical Islamic terrorist groups from hating free and non-religious governments and citizens.
But it would greatly reduce our presence in that region and it would also dry up their funds.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
16,562
5,853
136
Iraq attacked their neighbors, Iran hasn't attacked anyone.
I'd like to think the US counts as someone. I find your nonchalant disregard of state sponsored terrorism somewhat sickening.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY