So, How do you help them get rid of the government they don't want?

[Ozoned]

Letter from Iran

Why should the Iranian and Israeli people be on the verge of military confrontation? War between Israel and Iran could easily spill over into a regional conflagration that could have devastating consequences given the likely disruption to oil and gas production.


Do the Iranian people really want to go to war with the Jewish people? The answer is a resounding No! For thousands of years the Iranian and Jewish peoples have lived in peace, and continue to do so to this very day. There are 25,000 Jewish Iranians living and working in Iran without any persecution or worry.

The clerics in power in Iran only represent at most 10 percent of the Iranian people, and stay in power through manipulation of the electoral process. The fact that they happen to hold power is a temporary condition, and eventually the Iranian people will establish a true democratic system of government, and will do so through their own efforts, and without the interference of foreigners.

EVEN IF WE assume that there exists a secret program to build nuclear weapons in Iran, why should Israel be worried? The day Iran tests a nuclear warhead would be the day that the same principle of Mutually Assured Destruction that kept the peace between America and Soviet Russia would come into effect.


This is not a comforting thought, but it is the reality of a nuclear world. We all know that Israel has enough warheads to destroy every city in Iran, and has second-strike capability with its submarines. So why is preventive action on a half-finished enrichment facility based on 60-year-old technology so urgent?

What the Israeli people need to realize is that those in power in Iran become stronger and increase their grip on power when they can point to "enemies" and "threats." So why do you play their game and inadvertently help them?

The Israeli government must not make decisions based on fear and take preemptive action. They need to trust their ability to keep the peace through deterrence, and trust the Iranian people to bring about democracy through our own efforts.

We the Iranian people have lived in peace with the Jewish people for thousands years and will continue to do so. Nobody should be allowed to destroy this tradition of peace, even those who misunderstand their own religious teachings.

During 2003 a secret offer was made to the Bush administration by the regime in Teheran that was mistakenly ignored. Contained in that offer was Iran's agreement to end its support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and work toward disarming Hizbullah.

Is that not an offer which should be of strong interest to the Israeli people? It's a closer reflection of the thinking of the Iranian people than what some Iranian officials shout.

If the Israeli people were able to look past the bluster, noise and insults, they would discover that the Iranian people have little interest in problems beyond our own borders. We would much prefer that the money being spent in southern Lebanon be spent in Iran, and you will hear this opinion expressed in almost every Teheran taxi you ride in.

ZIONISM IS a problem for Israelis to solve, not Iranians. The injustices inflicted on the Palestinian people must be compensated for, as it is not right that Palestinians should pay for the injustices caused by Europeans.

Most Israelis know this, and most Israelis want to live in peaceful co-existence; the problem is to find the right way to do this that does not cause further injustice.

These are issues that Iranians have no business sticking their noses into, even if some clerics like to complicate matters by dragging in religious arguments.

The Israeli people have the power of making peace within their grasp given their democratic system of government, and they should use it. Making the mistake of thinking that peace can be achieved through military might or preemptive attack is one that will only cause more war.

My prediction is that any preemptive military action by Israel or America will result in a blowback effect which would be many magnitudes greater than the initial onslaught.

Attacking Iran would be the equivalent of a 1,000 9/11s for the Iranian people.

An attack would also postpone democracy in Iran for decades, and would probably result in a military regime coming to power. And most likely that military regime would have very wide support from the Iranian people, much more so than the current regime.

Making a miscalculation based on fear simply because Israel has the ability to postpone a potential threat - that is not a real threat - is the issue all Israelis need to think hard about.

We have lived in peace with each other for thousands of years and there is no reason why this has to change, and I think most Iranians would agree with this.

The writer lives and works in Teheran
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I believe that doing nothing is not an option.

What can we do to help these people that don't want to live under the clerics rule?

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Doing nothing is precisely what we should do. As the author of the letter pointed out, they will have a democratic society soon enough on their own without foreign intervention. The policy makers in the US do not want this to happen however. They want this perpetual war they've begun as it fits in to controlling us through fear much better. If all of us are afraid of the big bad terrorists coming to get us, it's much easier to get us as a collective whole to patently reject our Constitutional Rights in favor of the "safety" our government will provide us. If there wasn't "war and rumors of wars" we would reject the totalitarian rule being imposed on us by our government. Do any of you really think we'd allow the executive to secretly spy on our citizens in a pre 9/11 US. Hell No! We'd have had GW's head on a platter if he tried that BS before the "boogeymen" came to get us. Do everyone a favor and read and heed the author's message. Leave Iran alone, it's not going to accomplish anything positive if we stick our noses in there. MAD worked pretty well between us and The Soviets for a long time. Cooler heads eventually prevailed there and the same would happen in the ME if we'd just quit trying to make it "better." If we really wanted security in this country, don't you think our own freaking borders would likely be the most logical place to start and perhaps expand from there?

 

[StageLeft]

Doing nothing is precisely what we should do.

Agreed.

There are plenty of countries, if you want to make a charity case, that need help way more than Iran. For starters, throw a dart at a map of Africa and you've found your place to help.

 

[sandorski]

Doing nothing is the best option.

As for the Nuclear program, there's a lot of room for Diplomacy there and that should be pursued. Make it clear that Nuclear Weapons would violate certain agreements they have made, but constant Military threat against them is counter productive. If they refuse continued thorough oversight by the UN Inspectors and/or are *proven* to be developing a Nuke, then use Military intervention. Air/Missile strikes against key facilities make the most sense. Let the Government stand though, as Iraq has proved, simply destroying a Government doesn't solve anything.

Bush's biggest blunder regarding Iran and N Korea was to declare them part of the "Axis of Evil". All that did was to push them to prepare for a Military Conflict with the US. Somehow it seems the Neo-Cons thought they'd respond by cowering in Fear. Imagine their shock to find their Imperialistic fantasy was just that, a Fantasy.

 

[Alistar7]

Hope the people of Iran can achieve the change they desire, and deserve. Why do you think a secular democratic Iraq scares the hell out of the Iranian regime? Iran was secular until the Shah was deposed, the majority of their citizenry would prefer a return to that approach.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The letter poses a carrot and stick issue.

Of course they find a way to blame Israel for the tensions, ignoring the fact that it is the Iranian leadership that is spouting the hatred and rattling the war drums.

If their leadership were not to act so antagonistic then the world would be willing to wait for the Iranian people to initiate a change.

When their leadership makes such threats against it's neighbors, their neighbors have a right to be concerned.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The letter poses a carrot and stick issue.

Of course they find a way to blame Israel for the tensions, ignoring the fact that it is the Iranian leadership that is spouting the hatred and rattling the war drums.

If their leadership were not to act so antagonistic then the world would be willing to wait for the Iranian people to initiate a change.

When their leadership makes such threats against it's neighbors, their neighbors have a right to be concerned.

And when it's entirely possible that a poorly thought out reaction to the actions of Iran's leaders might remove ANY chance of a peaceful and moderate Iran for generations to come, I think we ALL have a right to be concerned. I don't get why the focus is on how righteous it is to dislike Iran. I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I think it's a little short sighted. Getting our feathers all ruffled because they're acting like a bunch of assholes is fine and dandy, but thinking with our balls didn't work out so well in Iraq, and there is a lot more at stake here than getting into a pissing contest with Iran.

If it comes down to it, maybe an all out conflict will be inevitable. But it seems to me that people are a little too ready to punch Iran's lights out without thinking of the problems that might cause. And, more importantly, how we can deal with Iran WITHOUT resorting to the only thing we seem to be any good at lately.

 

[StageLeft]

Bush's biggest blunder regarding Iran and N Korea was to declare them part of the "Axis of Evil". All that did was to push them to prepare for a Military Conflict with the US. Somehow it seems the Neo-Cons thought they'd respond by cowering in Fear. Imagine their shock to find their Imperialistic fantasy was just that, a Fantasy.

You are right and I think it was a miscue on the admin's part. Since that declaration, North Korea has become one of the elite few with nuclear weapons and relations with Iran have certainly not gotten better.

But it seems to me that people are a little too ready to punch Iran's lights out without thinking of the problems that might cause.

I don't know why people haven't learned from Iraq, which is as good a lesson as we could possibly have in front of us, so my guess is either they are too stupid to care or hoping that if they attack Iran it will somehow negate the mistake in Iraq, presuming an Iranian attack could be positive (though I see no way it could be).

As long as Iran holds steady for a while longer, the democratic adminstration come Jan/09 will (even if it's Hillary, who has gone to the same foreign relation school as bush) not be likely to attack.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Bush's biggest blunder regarding Iran and N Korea was to declare them part of the "Axis of Evil". All that did was to push them to prepare for a Military Conflict with the US. Somehow it seems the Neo-Cons thought they'd respond by cowering in Fear. Imagine their shock to find their Imperialistic fantasy was just that, a Fantasy.

You are right and I think it was a miscue on the admin's part. Since that declaration, North Korea has become one of the elite few with nuclear weapons and relations with Iran have certainly not gotten better.

But it seems to me that people are a little too ready to punch Iran's lights out without thinking of the problems that might cause.

I don't know why people haven't learned from Iraq, which is as good a lesson as we could possibly have in front of us, so my guess is either they are too stupid to care or hoping that if they attack Iran it will somehow negate the mistake in Iraq, presuming an Iranian attack could be positive (though I see no way it could be).

As long as Iran holds steady for a while longer, the democratic adminstration come Jan/09 will (even if it's Hillary, who has gone to the same foreign relation school as bush) not be likely to attack.

It's going to take at least a generation to undo the damage Bush has done with Iran, and I don't even want to try to predict how long we're committed to Iraq.

Pakistan is a mess which wouldn't be great under any circumstances, but GW has made such a big deal out of American moral superiority that he makes us look like huge hypocrites by not pouncing on Musharraf like he did Saddam. Fact is that Musharraf is just about the only ally we have in Pakistan, and he's turning into a tyrant. If we went about planning how to look like idiots, we couldn't do better. I'd accept that if there was any good likely to come of it. I don't see that at all.

 

[ProfJohn]

Wow the blame America/Israel first crowd is strong on this thread. Did I click on a DailyKos link by accident?

As the author of the letter pointed out, they will have a democratic society soon enough on their own without foreign intervention.

And this idea is based on what? The Mullahs have been in power for almost 30 years now and there is no sign of them losing that power any time in the future. Castro has been in power for 40+ years and the North Koreans have been under the rule of communists for even longer. How often do dictatorships of any form or shape fall apart on their own without outside pressure? Once in power dictators, religious or otherwise, tend to anything they can to retain that power. As we have seen in the past the Mullahs are more than willing to kill and imprison anyone who dares to openly oppose their rule. What makes you think this will magically stop happening?

The day Iran tests a nuclear warhead would be the day that the same principle of Mutually Assured Destruction that kept the peace between America and Soviet Russia would come into effect.

MAD works when both sides have an incentive NOT to use nuclear weapons. But when we are talking about Islamic extremists the norms of civilized behavior are thrown out the window. Post 9-11 the Taliban was given the option to turn over Osama and other AQ leaders or face invasion and they choose the former.

With Iran we can expect the same type of irrational behavior. Iran is a country that sat back and watched a bunch of students take over the embassy of another country and did nothing about it. Even during WW 2 the Allies and Axis had more respect for diplomacy than the Iranians showed during this. Since then they have armed Hezbollah and assisted in its campaign against Israel. This despite the fact that Iran has no real intrinsic value in eliminating Israel. The Palestinians and Iranians aren?t from the same ethnic group nor does Iran and Israel share a boarder. The only thing Iran and Hezbollah have in common is their Islamic beliefs.

If Iran is willing to arm terrorists like Hezbollah what makes you think that they won?t risk handing them over a nuclear weapon if it suited Iranian desires?

Finally, you guys ignore the two biggest reasons to not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. One, it will encourage other Middle East countries to follow suit in order to ?balance? out the Iranian threat. Two, Iran will use it to ?blackmail? the Western world. With a nuclear weapon Iran could step up its anti-western efforts and respond to any threat by the west by holding their nuclear arsenal over our heads.

Allowing an outlaw terrorist supporting state like Iran to have a nuclear weapon is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It's going to take at least a generation to undo the damage Bush has done with Iran, and I don't even want to try to predict how long we're committed to Iraq.

You make it seem like Iran and the US had a great relationship prior to Bush. Sadly the animosity between the US and Iran goes back 30+ years.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Wow the blame America/Israel first crowd is strong on this thread. Did I click on a DailyKos link by accident?

As the author of the letter pointed out, they will have a democratic society soon enough on their own without foreign intervention.

And this idea is based on what? The Mullahs have been in power for almost 30 years now and there is no sign of them losing that power any time in the future. Castro has been in power for 40+ years and the North Koreans have been under the rule of communists for even longer. How often do dictatorships of any form or shape fall apart on their own without outside pressure? Once in power dictators, religious or otherwise, tend to anything they can to retain that power. As we have seen in the past the Mullahs are more than willing to kill and imprison anyone who dares to openly oppose their rule. What makes you think this will magically stop happening?

The day Iran tests a nuclear warhead would be the day that the same principle of Mutually Assured Destruction that kept the peace between America and Soviet Russia would come into effect.

MAD works when both sides have an incentive NOT to use nuclear weapons. But when we are talking about Islamic extremists the norms of civilized behavior are thrown out the window. Post 9-11 the Taliban was given the option to turn over Osama and other AQ leaders or face invasion and they choose the former.

With Iran we can expect the same type of irrational behavior. Iran is a country that sat back and watched a bunch of students take over the embassy of another country and did nothing about it. Even during WW 2 the Allies and Axis had more respect for diplomacy than the Iranians showed during this. Since then they have armed Hezbollah and assisted in its campaign against Israel. This despite the fact that Iran has no real intrinsic value in eliminating Israel. The Palestinians and Iranians aren?t from the same ethnic group nor does Iran and Israel share a boarder. The only thing Iran and Hezbollah have in common is their Islamic beliefs.

If Iran is willing to arm terrorists like Hezbollah what makes you think that they won?t risk handing them over a nuclear weapon if it suited Iranian desires?

Finally, you guys ignore the two biggest reasons to not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. One, it will encourage other Middle East countries to follow suit in order to ?balance? out the Iranian threat. Two, Iran will use it to ?blackmail? the Western world. With a nuclear weapon Iran could step up its anti-western efforts and respond to any threat by the west by holding their nuclear arsenal over our heads.

Allowing an outlaw terrorist supporting state like Iran to have a nuclear weapon is a disaster waiting to happen.

First, no one has "blamed America first" The administration? Sure, I'll buy that one. Don't try to equate the White House with America.

Second, all mullahs are not created equal. Before the "Axis" speech there were more and more moderates, who BTW were largely opposed to a nuclear program. It was the secularists who promoted developing a bomb for the purposes of thwarting another Iran/Iraq war scenario, which just about crippled Iran. Iran was in a state of flux becoming more West friendly until He who got America Blamed screwed the pooch. The central government had no more ability to completely control all factions within it's borders than the current Iraqi government has over the PKK. That's all gone now and as I said it will probably be a generation before it turns around again, and thanks to Bush, those nukes will be in the hands of those he supported by his foolishness.

Third, what precisely can you suggest that won't make things even worse? Bombing isn't going to have negative effects? Think Al-Qaeda is a problem? You've seen nothing until we bomb Iran. We have been left a choice. Let Iran get a nuke or create a whole new level of international terrorism.

We haven't been left with jack for choices.

Third, While many do not want a nuke in the hands of Iran, it

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It's going to take at least a generation to undo the damage Bush has done with Iran, and I don't even want to try to predict how long we're committed to Iraq.

You make it seem like Iran and the US had a great relationship prior to Bush. Sadly the animosity between the US and Iran goes back 30+ years.

As I just said, that isn't true. Witness the support for the US after 9/11. While relationships weren't normalized the majority of leaders with influence were not hostile to us. The moderates hadn't consolidated power entirely to themselves, and extragovernmental groups were definitely wiling to back terrorists. Still, Iran was moving forward. That's been knocked back 20 years now.

 

[Noobtastic]

Letter from Iran]

Why should the Iranian and Israeli people be on the verge of military confrontation?

Because Iran is refusing to end it's pursuit of becoming capable. Duh.

War between Israel and Iran could easily spill over into a regional conflagration that could have devastating consequences given the likely disruption to oil and gas production.

No sh1t sherlock.

Do the Iranian people really want to go to war with the Jewish people?

Probably not.

The answer is a resounding No!

Really?

For thousands of years the Iranian and Jewish peoples have lived in peace, and continue to do so to this very day.

What? The government of Iran has been funding Hezbollah, AOI, and many other Islamic Jihad who's goals are to destroy the nation of Israel since the beginning of time. Peace my f**king @ss.

There are 25,000 Jewish Iranians living and working in Iran without any persecution or worry.

Yes.

The clerics in power in Iran only represent at most 10 percent of the Iranian people

What? Is this guy saying 90% of all citizens are represented by other leaders not equal in radical agenda?

and stay in power through manipulation of the electoral process.

Okay.

The fact that they happen to hold power is a temporary condition, and eventually the Iranian people will establish a true democratic system of government

Revolution! That can only end well.

and will do so through their own efforts, and without the interference of foreigners.

What is the author trying to say? Western interference is preventing the country of Iran transforming into a democracy? Lolz.

EVEN IF WE assume that there exists a secret program to build nuclear weapons in Iran

It isn't assumed, nor is it a secret.

why should Israel be worried? The day Iran tests a nuclear warhead would be the day that the same principle of Mutually Assured Destruction that kept the peace between America and Soviet Russia would come into effect.

Why wait? Israel is not going to sit on its rear end hoping they won't get bombed. Why should they wait until Iran is nuclear capable?

If the Islamic state had the military abilities of Israel, they'd be raining warheads on the Jewish country thirty years ago.

This is not a comforting thought, but it is the reality of a nuclear world. We all know that Israel has enough warheads to destroy every city in Iran

Damn straight.

and has second-strike capability with its submarines. So why is preventive action on a half-finished enrichment facility based on 60-year-old technology so urgent?

I thought this was a "secret" nuclear program, or was that only assumed?

What the Israeli people need to realize is that those in power in Iran become stronger and increase their grip on power when they can point to "enemies" and "threats." So why do you play their game and inadvertently help them?

What? I'm confused here. Is the writer saying Israel's existence alone persuades Iran to point the finger? The entire Middle East has "Hate Israel" written in their constitutions, to say these countries have been provoked (whereas they originally were supportive of a Jewish state, supposedly) is absurd.

The Israeli government must not make decisions based on fear and take preemptive action.

Israel isn't afraid of Iran; maybe they're a little fearful of starting another world war, as demonstrated by their cautious response to Iran's nuclear masturbatory fantasies is testament to this)

and trust the Iranian people to bring about democracy through our own efforts.

Iran isn't "ruled by the people." I don't see the logic in trusting a country (in a sense of mutual military agreements) that openly supports anti-Israeli terrorist organizations.

We the Iranian people have lived in peace with the Jewish people for thousands years and will continue to do so. Nobody should be allowed to destroy this tradition of peace, even those who misunderstand their own religious teachings.

Wait, so now Israel would be responsible for discontinuing this illusion of peace? The religious law of Iran is not misunderstood. The judicial system is ruled under Sharia law, conflicting ethnicities are forced with additional taxes (known as dhimmi tax), and state funded schools are loaded with anti-Western text and twisted/omitted facts.

During 2003 a secret offer was made to the Bush administration by the regime in Teheran that was mistakenly ignored. Contained in that offer was Iran's agreement to end its support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and work toward disarming Hizbullah.

What?

Is that not an offer which should be of strong interest to the Israeli people? It's a closer reflection of the thinking of the Iranian people than what some Iranian officials shout.

Is this guy for real?

If the Israeli people were able to look past the bluster, noise and insults, they would discover that the Iranian people have little interest in problems beyond our own borders.

Clearly.

We would much prefer that the money being spent in southern Lebanon be spent in Iran, and you will hear this opinion expressed in almost every Teheran taxi you ride in.

Okay.

ZIONISM IS a problem for Israelis to solve, not Iranians. The injustices inflicted on the Palestinian people must be compensated for

Oh, a little change of topic eh? The Muslim theocracies control the refugee camps. Israel supports almost 70% of all aid going into the region, while YOU pump anti-Zionist teachings into the populous whilst starving the citizens even though you and your Arab League possess the finances to assist the Palestinians. Maybe if you directed the millions of dollars your countries spend on anti-Israeli propaganda, you could be helping the Palestinians that you seem to love so much.

as it is not right that Palestinians should pay for the injustices caused by Europeans.

Right.

most Israelis want to live in peaceful co-existence; the problem is to find the right way to do this that does not cause further injustice.

What, like wipe Israel off the map? Ohh, did I speak too soon..?

These are issues that Iranians have no business sticking their noses into, even if some clerics like to complicate matters by dragging in religious arguments.

Nice attempt at disassociating yourself from those who pay your mortgage.

The Israeli people have the power of making peace within their grasp given their democratic system of government, and they should use it.

.....

Making the mistake of thinking that peace can be achieved through military might or preemptive attack is one that will only cause more war.

Israel is not in a peace seeking mood. Their primary agenda consists of defending the state of Israel from arrogant countries like Iran and Syria, not establishing phony peace contracts involving billions of dollars paid out to the Arab league in return for a handshake.

My prediction is that any preemptive military action by Israel or America will result in a blowback effect which would be many magnitudes greater than the initial onslaught.

If it prevents Iran in becoming capable, mission accomplished. Those who've been following basic current events knows Israel could give two s**ts about "blowback effect." As long as they're state goes physically unharmed, the rest of the World can burn.

Attacking Iran would be the equivalent of a 1,000 9/11s for the Iranian people.

3,000,000 casualties as a result of buster bombing "secret" Iranian nuclear sites? Psh. Would this violation of airspace force your populous to commit mass seppuku, or am I thinking of a different county?

An attack would also postpone democracy in Iran for decades

Right.

and would probably result in a military regime coming to power.

What kind of regime is it now?

And most likely that military regime would have very wide support from the Iranian people, much more so than the current regime.

Irrelevant. Israel could careless about the Iranian people.

Making a miscalculation based on fear simply because Israel has the ability to postpone a potential threat - that is not a real threat - is the issue all Israelis need to think hard about.

Heh.

We have lived in peace with each other for thousands of years and there is no reason why this has to change, and I think most Iranians would agree with this.

How many times must the author reference this illusion of an existence of a thousand year peace between the Jews and Iranians? The rivaling ethnicities have been killing each other for centuries.

The writer lives and works in Teheran

Probably Jewish too.

 

[Aimster]

Lot of stupid crap being posted in this thread.

Iran is not against Jews nor does it wish to start a war with Jews.

Iran funds groups that are against the regime of Israel. They go around doing crap that the U.S labels as terroristic.
The U.S/Israel fund groups that are against the regime of Iran. Those groups go around doing the same crap that Iranian funded groups do.

To suggest Iran is against the "Jews" would be like saying the U.S/Israel is against "Muslim" as Iran is an Islamic regime. The only Islamic Regime.

 

[Aimster]

Also the U.S is going to attack Iran. Common Sense.

You know how easy it is to end the nuclear stand-off?
U.S: We will lift sanctions and restore diplomatic ties if you cut-off your nuclear program
Iran: Done Deal

End-result? Iran has no nuclear weapons, but the Iranian Regime is guaranteed to stay in power for another 10+ years.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Also the U.S is going to attack Iran. Common Sense.

You know how easy it is to end the nuclear stand-off?
U.S: We will lift sanctions and restore diplomatic ties if you cut-off your nuclear program
Iran: Done Deal

End-result? Iran has no nuclear weapons, but the Iranian Regime is guaranteed to stay in power for another 10+ years.

I may be struggling with math, but that struggle has no relation to any mental disorder - unlike you.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: Aimster
Also the U.S is going to attack Iran. Common Sense.

You know how easy it is to end the nuclear stand-off?
U.S: We will lift sanctions and restore diplomatic ties if you cut-off your nuclear program
Iran: Done Deal

End-result? Iran has no nuclear weapons, but the Iranian Regime is guaranteed to stay in power for another 10+ years.

I may be struggling with math, but that struggle has no relation to any mental disorder - unlike you.

I see you lack common sense

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Wow the blame America/Israel first crowd is strong on this thread. Did I click on a DailyKos link by accident?

As the author of the letter pointed out, they will have a democratic society soon enough on their own without foreign intervention.

And this idea is based on what? The Mullahs have been in power for almost 30 years now and there is no sign of them losing that power any time in the future. Castro has been in power for 40+ years and the North Koreans have been under the rule of communists for even longer. How often do dictatorships of any form or shape fall apart on their own without outside pressure? Once in power dictators, religious or otherwise, tend to anything they can to retain that power. As we have seen in the past the Mullahs are more than willing to kill and imprison anyone who dares to openly oppose their rule. What makes you think this will magically stop happening?

The day Iran tests a nuclear warhead would be the day that the same principle of Mutually Assured Destruction that kept the peace between America and Soviet Russia would come into effect.

MAD works when both sides have an incentive NOT to use nuclear weapons. But when we are talking about Islamic extremists the norms of civilized behavior are thrown out the window. Post 9-11 the Taliban was given the option to turn over Osama and other AQ leaders or face invasion and they choose the former.

With Iran we can expect the same type of irrational behavior. Iran is a country that sat back and watched a bunch of students take over the embassy of another country and did nothing about it. Even during WW 2 the Allies and Axis had more respect for diplomacy than the Iranians showed during this. Since then they have armed Hezbollah and assisted in its campaign against Israel. This despite the fact that Iran has no real intrinsic value in eliminating Israel. The Palestinians and Iranians aren?t from the same ethnic group nor does Iran and Israel share a boarder. The only thing Iran and Hezbollah have in common is their Islamic beliefs.

If Iran is willing to arm terrorists like Hezbollah what makes you think that they won?t risk handing them over a nuclear weapon if it suited Iranian desires?

Finally, you guys ignore the two biggest reasons to not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. One, it will encourage other Middle East countries to follow suit in order to ?balance? out the Iranian threat. Two, Iran will use it to ?blackmail? the Western world. With a nuclear weapon Iran could step up its anti-western efforts and respond to any threat by the west by holding their nuclear arsenal over our heads.

Allowing an outlaw terrorist supporting state like Iran to have a nuclear weapon is a disaster waiting to happen.

That's great, chief...so what's your solution to the problem?

And your read on the Iranian leaders mental state seems likes I'M reading FreeRepublic instead of P&N. MAD works just fine, because the leaders of Iran aren't Islamic extremists, at least not the way you mean. You ever notice how THEY don't blow themselves up in crowded markets? That's because their beliefs are an excuse for power. Maybe a good one, but either way, they are only willing to do things that don't put them at risk. Your comparison between nuclear war and an embassy hostage situation is silly, the US wasn't going to nuke Tehran to get our hostages back. And supporting organizations like Hezbollah just proves my point...they want to distances themselves from any actual risk, else Republican Guard units would be directly participating in attacks. But with nuclear weapons, you can't distance yourselves...and the capability to build a nuclear weapon, at least for the next few decades, brings with it enough other things that all who can do so are afraid to lose those things. The Iranian leaders might be OK with terrorism, but only because they still have a country to rule at the end of the day.

 

[palehorse]

I would have no problem with "doing nothing," as long as we had some sort of guarantee that they would not obtain nuclear weapons.

Hence the conundrum we're currently faced with... DOH!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I would have no problem with "doing nothing," as long as we had some sort of guarantee that they would not obtain nuclear weapons.

Hence the conundrum we're currently faced with... DOH!

No one can guarantee anything. Hell, the US Air Force could accidentally drop a Nuke on your house.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I would have no problem with "doing nothing," as long as we had some sort of guarantee that they would not obtain nuclear weapons.

Hence the conundrum we're currently faced with... DOH!

What would be the prescription under the Reagen doctrine?

What is Bush doing?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Doing nothing is the best option.

Interesting. Looks as if that is what we will be doing. Looks like you called it sandorski.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: sandorski
Doing nothing is the best option.

Interesting. Looks as if that is what we will be doing. Looks like you called it sandorski.

how many more BM's are you gonna pull up?