U.S. Embassy in Iraq to be biggest ever

[Aimster]

Hezbollah has nothing to do with the United States.
Hezbollah is a Lebanese militia group.
There is zero evidence Iran is arming insurgency groups inside Iraq. There is evidence Iran is supporting political parties..... so what?

Iran is not giving Hezbollah or Hamas or anyone else chemical weapons to kill people. Iran has stockpiles of such weapons. Who has acted more sane when it comes to WMD?
U.S made it possible for a terrorist state to get chemical weapons and it gave Iraq crop dusting helicopters to deliver them.

Nothing Iran has done even comes close to what the U.S has done. Nothing at all. & the U.S labels Iran as the biggest threat to the world.

If it wasn't for the U.S sticking their nose in the M.E, none of this B.S would be happening right now. Iran's regime is a result of the U.S forcing their policies in the M.E. It is the U.S who started the fight with Iran. Why do you think the U.S hates Iran? Why don't they get along? It has absolutely nothing to do with the hostage crisis since the Iranian Regime had nothing to do with it. It has to do with 1) oil 2) power 3) nationalization of oil.
The U.S overthrew a democracy and installed a Shah. They tried to make Iran into a military state so Iran could fight the Soviets. Look at what Iran's military would have been like today had the Shah stayed in power. It would be the third largest military force in the world with stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

The U.S should have minded their own damn business. The only reason Iran supports groups against Israel so much is because it is trying to give the finger to the United States. Otherwise, Iran has no care for the Arabs or any use for them.

 

[Farang]

Aimster, the evidence isn't conclusive but it certainly isn't nonexistent, either. Let's not go to extremes here because if you have any shred of intelligence (and it seems you do) you'd know that isn't true.

You make a valid point when you say that because Iran has acted responsibly with their chemical weapons, we have no reason not to trust them with nuclear weapons. However I think you're failing to consider what Iran supplying chemical weapons to groups such as Hezbollah would cause, which is international backlash which could very well lead to a full scale war that would not be another unilateral effort. Iran knows this and chooses wisely to keep the weapons to themselves.

However, international backlash is severely limited when you become a nuclear power. Iran also knows this, and is desperately seeking to acquire nukes. By securing their role as a nuclear power, the fears of bilateral attacks resulting from the supplying of terror groups with WMD would be removed. For this reason I think your point, while valid, doesn't apply when looking at a scenario of Iran as a nuclear power because the dynamics are much different.

So what can we base our assumptions on when we imagine Iran having nukes? Well their open intention of destroying Israel are concerning. Whether you take this rhetoric seriously or not, should we not work to prevent such an irresponsible state from acquiring nukes? Is it not in the US and EU's best interest to fight this semi-war with Iran to delay their acquiring of nukes? I think it very obviously is in our interest. And I get frustrated when I see people here saying we should lay down our greivences and concede everything Iran wants without getting anything in return. That is just stupid diplomacy.

 

[imported_smyrgl]

Originally posted by: Farang
So what can we base our assumptions on when we imagine Iran having nukes? Well their open intention of destroying Israel are concerning. Whether you take this rhetoric seriously or not, should we not work to prevent such an irresponsible state from acquiring nukes? Is it not in the US and EU's best interest to fight this semi-war with Iran to delay their acquiring of nukes? I think it very obviously is in our interest. And I get frustrated when I see people here saying we should lay down our greivences and concede everything Iran wants without getting anything in return. That is just stupid diplomacy.

Oh come now, this is just getting silly. Iran having nuclear weapons does not make them akin to a nuclear power such as the Soviet Union, and they would never have a chance of threatening anyone besides their local neighbors. Iran in ten years could probably wipe Tel Aviv off the map, but what would that get them exactly? Full scale nuclear retaliation from Israel, the US and quite probably every other power on the planet. There is no conceivable logic that would EVER lead to Iran using a nuclear arsenal offensively. PERIOD.

Furthermore, Iran having nukes does not lead to them giving them or other WMDs over to extremist groups. Iran having nukes doesn't mean they are invincible, nor could they conceivably develop an arsenal threatening enough to make the inevitable retaliation any less likely. Iran knows perfectly well that if they were to provide WMDs to anyone and they then got used, they would be annihilated.

As for your comment about laying down our grievances and conceding everything, I fail to see any legitimate grievance we have against Iran at this point. You claim their interference in Iraq (however specious) constitutes a grievance, but you should know very well that the reason Iran is interfering in Iraq has little to do with our presence there and everything to do with them wanting to shape the future of Iraq. This is a neighbor they share a border with that caused a war with casualties not seen since Genghis Khan visited the region and you don't understand why Iran might want to control the destiny of Iraq? Are you serious?

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: smyrgl

Originally posted by: Farang
So what can we base our assumptions on when we imagine Iran having nukes? Well their open intention of destroying Israel are concerning. Whether you take this rhetoric seriously or not, should we not work to prevent such an irresponsible state from acquiring nukes? Is it not in the US and EU's best interest to fight this semi-war with Iran to delay their acquiring of nukes? I think it very obviously is in our interest. And I get frustrated when I see people here saying we should lay down our greivences and concede everything Iran wants without getting anything in return. That is just stupid diplomacy.

Oh come now, this is just getting silly. Iran having nuclear weapons does not make them akin to a nuclear power such as the Soviet Union, and they would never have a chance of threatening anyone besides their local neighbors. Iran in ten years could probably wipe Tel Aviv off the map, but what would that get them exactly? Full scale nuclear retaliation from Israel, the US and quite probably every other power on the planet. There is no conceivable logic that would EVER lead to Iran using a nuclear arsenal offensively. PERIOD.

Furthermore, Iran having nukes does not lead to them giving them or other WMDs over to extremist groups. Iran having nukes doesn't mean they are invincible, nor could they conceivably develop an arsenal threatening enough to make the inevitable retaliation any less likely. Iran knows perfectly well that if they were to provide WMDs to anyone and they then got used, they would be annihilated.

As for your comment about laying down our grievances and conceding everything, I fail to see any legitimate grievance we have against Iran at this point. You claim their interference in Iraq (however specious) constitutes a grievance, but you should know very well that the reason Iran is interfering in Iraq has little to do with our presence there and everything to do with them wanting to shape the future of Iraq. This is a neighbor they share a border with that caused a war with casualties not seen since Genghis Khan visited the region and you don't understand why Iran might want to control the destiny of Iraq? Are you serious?

We do have a grievences with them. The U.S. government suspects Iran of aiding groups who are killing American soldiers. Since this seems to be disputed we'll set that aside and consider that Iran funds and supplies weapons to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, as well as doing things like parading British soldiers on television. Israel and Britian are two of our strongest allies and these actions are hostile towards them. Now you combine the grievences of Israel, who is being threatened openly with annihilation, Britain, who is seeing its soldiers taken hostage, and the U.S., who is seeing its soldiers killed while trying to stabilize Iraq and get the hell out, and you see a number of issues that are still unsolved with Iran. This is why you see Britain, the U.S., Israel, and others teaming up to diplomatically pressure Iran into compliance.

And Iran is effectively "invincible" when it acquires nukes. Name two nuclear powers that have gone to war in world history.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: smyrgl

Originally posted by: Farang
So what can we base our assumptions on when we imagine Iran having nukes? Well their open intention of destroying Israel are concerning. Whether you take this rhetoric seriously or not, should we not work to prevent such an irresponsible state from acquiring nukes? Is it not in the US and EU's best interest to fight this semi-war with Iran to delay their acquiring of nukes? I think it very obviously is in our interest. And I get frustrated when I see people here saying we should lay down our greivences and concede everything Iran wants without getting anything in return. That is just stupid diplomacy.

Oh come now, this is just getting silly. Iran having nuclear weapons does not make them akin to a nuclear power such as the Soviet Union, and they would never have a chance of threatening anyone besides their local neighbors. Iran in ten years could probably wipe Tel Aviv off the map, but what would that get them exactly? Full scale nuclear retaliation from Israel, the US and quite probably every other power on the planet. There is no conceivable logic that would EVER lead to Iran using a nuclear arsenal offensively. PERIOD.

Furthermore, Iran having nukes does not lead to them giving them or other WMDs over to extremist groups. Iran having nukes doesn't mean they are invincible, nor could they conceivably develop an arsenal threatening enough to make the inevitable retaliation any less likely. Iran knows perfectly well that if they were to provide WMDs to anyone and they then got used, they would be annihilated.

As for your comment about laying down our grievances and conceding everything, I fail to see any legitimate grievance we have against Iran at this point. You claim their interference in Iraq (however specious) constitutes a grievance, but you should know very well that the reason Iran is interfering in Iraq has little to do with our presence there and everything to do with them wanting to shape the future of Iraq. This is a neighbor they share a border with that caused a war with casualties not seen since Genghis Khan visited the region and you don't understand why Iran might want to control the destiny of Iraq? Are you serious?

We do have a grievences with them. The U.S. government suspects Iran of aiding groups who are killing American soldiers. Since this seems to be disputed we'll set that aside and consider that Iran funds and supplies weapons to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, as well as doing things like parading British soldiers on television. Israel and Britian are two of our strongest allies and these actions are hostile towards them. Now you combine the grievences of Israel, who is being threatened openly with annihilation, Britain, who is seeing its soldiers taken hostage, and the U.S., who is seeing its soldiers killed while trying to stabilize Iraq and get the hell out, and you see a number of issues that are still unsolved with Iran. This is why you see Britain, the U.S., Israel, and others teaming up to diplomatically pressure Iran into compliance.

And Iran is effectively "invincible" when it acquires nukes. Name two nuclear powers that have gone to war in world history.

You're confusing US interests with Israeli interests, not the same thing at all. Britain needs to curb its high seas piracy and it wouldn't get its sailors busted. There is no evidence that the US is trying to stabilize Iraq. Since Bremer failed in his bid to get a pro-US constitution in Iraq the US has been applying the chaos doctrine until things look more advantagous to our interests, just as the Iranians are doing. The difference is that the Iranians have legitimate security interests in the outcome in Iraq, we're just in it for the money.

 

[imported_smyrgl]

Originally posted by: Farang
We do have a grievences with them. The U.S. government suspects Iran of aiding groups who are killing American soldiers. Since this seems to be disputed we'll set that aside and consider that Iran funds and supplies weapons to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, as well as doing things like parading British soldiers on television.

Neither of which is sufficient to necessitate a conflict. Hezbollah isn't a terrorist organization, they are a major political dissident group inside Lebanon (and I don't see what they have to do with the US), and the British soldiers incident obviously wasn't enough of an issue to cause a major stir over. All of the troops came home safely after all.

Using this logic you can justify war with Mexico since the Mexican military routinely takes potshots at US border patrol.

I think it's amusing though that you blast Iran for conducting a much lower level of proxy warfare via minority militants while the US has been doing this since the Cold War. Hezbollah has nothing to do with the US, it has to do with Iran's foreign policy internally to the Middle East and them supporting divergent groups with sympathetic political ideologies. The US only does this...EVERY DAMN DAY.

Israel and Britian are two of our strongest allies and these actions are hostile towards them. Now you combine the grievences of Israel, who is being threatened openly with annihilation, Britain, who is seeing its soldiers taken hostage, and the U.S., who is seeing its soldiers killed while trying to stabilize Iraq and get the hell out, and you see a number of issues that are still unsolved with Iran. This is why you see Britain, the U.S., Israel, and others teaming up to diplomatically pressure Iran into compliance.

Funny how you want to disregard the possibility of Iranian funded militants in Iraq a second ago, but now bring them up again.

First off Israel is a cesspit of a foreign policy issue for the US. By constantly funding a ruthless, racist regime we have incurred the hatred of the entire Muslim world. I'm not the only one who thinks the US would be infinitely better off casting Israel to the wind at this point, of course by now that would just cause them to go completely ape ****** and start attacking their neighbors.

Let's not forget, it was Israel that first covertly developed nukes in the Middle East, and we didn't lift a finger. Furthermore, every time Israel does something heinous and sanctions are attempted against them in the UN Security Council, the US makes an instant veto. You really think Israel's interests coincide with ours? Why do you think the entire Middle East hates us and many nations outside of the Middle East think we are insane for putting up with such a perverse nation which does little to nothing for us in return for arming them to the teeth with the latest American hardware?

And yes, I'm well aware of why the US puts pressure on Iran. But this doesn't change the fact that it is a classic example of a foreign policy that will fail us in the Middle East. Tell me, how exactly do you intend to stop Iran from getting nukes or from doing whatever the hell they please? You can't invade them (you think Iraq was bad, try tackling Iran), air strikes will do only token damage, so short of total annihilation, there is little we can do besides let them get the bomb. Once we've accepted that fact, it is obvious that our foreign policy needs to change with regards to Iran as all of the blustering that is going on right now is counterproductive.

And Iran is effectively "invincible" when it acquires nukes. Name two nuclear powers that have gone to war in world history.

Ridiculous. Nukes are effective deterrents against all out war, but this doesn't mean Iran gets to do what it pleases. About the only thing it can do with its nukes is defend itself, which makes them purely defensive weapons.

Nukes don't change the fact that if Iran ever used them they would be glowing in the dark for the next century. You don't seem to get this, Iran having nukes is NOT akin to the USSR and the US having them. Any realistic Iranian stockpile could only do token damage to the US, which would be met with overwhelming response. Of course, it is in our best interests NOT to have nukes used at all which is why they are an effective deterrent.

North Korea has had an effective deterrent for DECADES (they've had artillery pieces that could destroy Seoul in place since shortly after the Korean War and now they have nukes) and has it changed anything with regards to the containment policy? Does North Korea get exactly what it wants?

 

[Farang]

I never advocated war with Iran, so most of your last post was off the mark.

I'm merely arguing that it is moronic to advocate us dropping all of our bargaining power with Iran because of some conceived injustice we are perpetrated on them decades ago. Whatever you think the best course of action is, it is most certainly not bending over and letting them give it to us.

You're right that they will eventually get the bomb. But let diplomacy play its game and hopefully delay it, while giving a motivation for other nations (Libya, for example) to go for the carrot rather than the stick. I'm sure the government realizes that a nuclear Iran is inevitable, but they also realize the path to that power for an irrational state must be made to seem very difficult in the eyes of other similar countries.

 

[imported_smyrgl]

Originally posted by: Farang
I never advocated war with Iran, so most of your last post was off the mark.

I'm merely arguing that it is moronic to advocate us dropping all of our bargaining power with Iran because of some conceived injustice we are perpetrated on them decades ago. Whatever you think the best course of action is, it is most certainly not bending over and letting them give it to us.

You're right that they will eventually get the bomb. But let diplomacy play its game and hopefully delay it, while giving a motivation for other nations (Libya, for example) to go for the carrot rather than the stick. I'm sure the government realizes that a nuclear Iran is inevitable, but they also realize the path to that power for an irrational state must be made to seem very difficult in the eyes of other similar countries.

Who said anything about doing nothing? Not every diplomatic solution requires bluster, threats, etc.

You know what the most proven tool for getting nations to develop into stable, vibrant economies is? Globalization. And it even works with nations you aren't on the best terms with, Nixon proved that swimmingly.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: smyrgl

Who said anything about doing nothing?

Read a bit earlier in the thread 😉

I agree globalization is key but currently the government is so radical that we must deal with them sternly. If they elect a moderate president then I'm all for working towards improving relations, until that happens we need to stand firm.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Farang-

As far as Jhhnn's response, well there really isn't much to respond to. 'If Iran was meddling, it would be much worse,' 'no supporting evidence,' 'a false translation' (when it has been repeated numerous times) are all very simplistic statements that are all very simply false. If you want to respond with one-liners please make sure they are accurate first.

Heh. If you want to make assertions, then it's your responsibility to back them up, not mine to refute them.

If you're going to assert that Iran is fueling the Iraqi insurgency, then you need to show how much, and with what. Their allies, the Shia, run the Iraqi govt, so of course they're supporting them, and the associated militias. To think that the current govt will actually oppose the mahdi army in any meaningful way is delusional- they fit together hand in glove. They're really one and the same under the surface.

If you're asserting that the Iranians are seeking Nukes, you need some concrete evidence, and engaging in low level uranium enrichment under IAEA supervision isn't it...

If you're asserting that the iranaian president actually said "wipe israel off the map", then you're merely repeating a lie, as if enough repetition will make it the truth...

You've merely trumpeted the usual rightwing talking points without engaging in any actual thought at all.

Bargaining power? What bargaining power do you need when you refuse to negotiate, merely issue non-negotiable demands, like the Bushies are famous for? We have full relations with nations whose govts are a lot worse than the Iranians- we even count some of them as friends...

And this ignores the role that the Bushists have played in pushing the interests of the most radical political elements in Iran-

I agree globalization is key but currently the government is so radical that we must deal with them sternly. If they elect a moderate president then I'm all for working towards improving relations, until that happens we need to stand firm.

They have their own patriots, and all the bluster from the Bush Admin merely forces them into the arms of their own militants. I'm sure their leaders are saying the same thing about the Bushists, with good reason...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let's be honest about our prospects in Iraq and the region.

Best (likely) case is that Iraqis decide they hate the meddlers (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, US, Turkey, and terrorists) more than they hate one another. They tell everyone to take a hike. The US would leave based on principle and hopefully Iraq has enough quantity and quality of security forces to get the others to leave.

Then Iraq will continue to struggle with internal strife for decades . . . unless of course some strong man emerges (likely Shia) that gives the Kurds and Sunnis some degree of independence but makes it clear that Shia will dominate forever.

Under that rosy scenario what are the odds that the nationalistic fervor necessary to expel foreign influences and unite under an Iraqi banner would tolerate a sprawling US complex in the middle of Baghdad?

What happens when the average Iraqi realizes that hundreds if not thousands of facilities built by US contractors (using Iraqi oil revenue) are marginally useful if not worthless while the only thing that really works in the embassy complex? Do you think they will accept our claims that the US shouldn't be held responsible for wasting Iraqi oil revenue?

 

[tomywishbone]

Originally posted by: Farang

Why don't you go move to Iran if they are such honorable victims of our tyranny? They are meddling in Iraq. They do want nuclear weapons. They are financing terror groups and they have declared they want to wipe Israel off of the map. I hate Bush as much as the next guy but you are a moron.

You need to understand that we are effectively at war with Iran in much the same way we were at war with the Soviet Union, if only on a smaller scale. Our actions towards Iran, and theirs towards us, are as hostile as you can get without having a straight up military vs. military war. This is why we do not grant them diplomatic recognition, release their "hostages," or let the IAEA, which has been ineffective in the past, deal with the "nuclear stuff" on its own.

:laugh: They are meddling, and we are killing & systematically destroying the entire F-ing country.

Let's review: Meddling v. Complete destruction, mass murder, theft & occupation.
Verdict... I'll take the meddlers.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Farang
Aimster, the evidence isn't conclusive but it certainly isn't nonexistent, either. Let's not go to extremes here because if you have any shred of intelligence (and it seems you do) you'd know that isn't true.

You make a valid point when you say that because Iran has acted responsibly with their chemical weapons, we have no reason not to trust them with nuclear weapons. However I think you're failing to consider what Iran supplying chemical weapons to groups such as Hezbollah would cause, which is international backlash which could very well lead to a full scale war that would not be another unilateral effort. Iran knows this and chooses wisely to keep the weapons to themselves.

However, international backlash is severely limited when you become a nuclear power. Iran also knows this, and is desperately seeking to acquire nukes. By securing their role as a nuclear power, the fears of bilateral attacks resulting from the supplying of terror groups with WMD would be removed. For this reason I think your point, while valid, doesn't apply when looking at a scenario of Iran as a nuclear power because the dynamics are much different.

So what can we base our assumptions on when we imagine Iran having nukes? Well their open intention of destroying Israel are concerning. Whether you take this rhetoric seriously or not, should we not work to prevent such an irresponsible state from acquiring nukes? Is it not in the US and EU's best interest to fight this semi-war with Iran to delay their acquiring of nukes? I think it very obviously is in our interest. And I get frustrated when I see people here saying we should lay down our greivences and concede everything Iran wants without getting anything in return. That is just stupid diplomacy.

Iran has no desire to destroy Israel.
If it wanted to destroy Israel their chemical weapons would do a much better job than their big bulky heavy nuclear bomb that will probably have a yield of 1KT.

Israel is home to hundreds of thousands of Iranian Jews and 20% of Israel is Muslim. Jerusalem is a holy city in Islam. Iran is definitely not going to attack a holy city.

Iran needs nuclear energy. During the regime of Shah, the U.S allowed Iran to have 20+ contracts out for nuclear plants to be built by the year 2000. Nobody seemed to care especially when the Shah said he will make Iran a nuclear military power. Now all of a sudden the world cares.

There is zero evidence to suggest Iran is acquiring the bomb. There is evidence to suggest Iran is going after nuclear energy which is their right.

 

[imported_smyrgl]

Originally posted by: Farang
Read a bit earlier in the thread 😉

I agree globalization is key but currently the government is so radical that we must deal with them sternly. If they elect a moderate president then I'm all for working towards improving relations, until that happens we need to stand firm.

Are you familiar with the concept of détente? There's a reason I brought up China and Nixon you know.

 

[UF Matt]

US Embassy in Iraq = ultra secure oil ministry

Let's be honest here. The neocons have been planning this since the 90s. Just look at how they mapped out future oil pipelines for Afghanistan back in 1997.