NationStates Jolt Archive

And he made the speech from Qom, inside Iran, and it was on television
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/18/wiran18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/18/ixnews.html

So, do you think he's right? Should we help him?

I figure they were able to have a revolution before - if they want one, they should be able to have one now without our help. But I'm sure some might want to help him.

(Filed: 18/06/2006)

The grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, the inspiration of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, has broken a three-year silence to back the United States military to overthrow the country's clerical regime.

Hossein Khomeini's call is all the more startling as he made it from Qom, the spiritual home of Iran's Shia strand of Islam, during an interview to mark the 17th anniversary of the ayatollah's death.

yes

yes
can you elaborate?

Seems a more militant version of Sergei Khrushchev. Deja vu, anyone?

How about we leave him to start his own revolution.
Or be put up against the wall by his own countrymen and shot.

Attacking Iran would cause yet another horrible civil war and destroy a stabile country quite completely. It would cost tens and hundreds of thousands of deaths, few of those thousands being American soldiers, and yet more gigantic sums of American money which would even further fasten their economical collapse (EDIT: ...which I wouldn't mind at all, if it wouldn't drag the whole world's economy down with it).

Unless a civil war breaks out from inside Iran, in which case sending help to the rebels wouldn't propably make it too much worse than it would already be, US should stay away from there.

How about we leave him to start his own revolution.
Or be put up against the wall by his own countrymen and shot.
Well, that was my idea. Somehow they managed to pull off a revolution before without help - why can't they do it now?

Something else to consider: the counter-revolution may come anyway.

Since 1979, the average American's buying power has quadrupled, whereas the average Iranian's has halved.

Obviously, the clerics aren't exactly wizards at finance. Inherently, people want stuff. If they continue to see the clerics living well while their standard gets worse, there will be a revolt. Revolutions never come from the top or the bottom. They come from the middle when they think life is turning for the worse.

Or be put up against the wall by his own countrymen and shot.

I hope I'm interpreting this the wrong way, but...

...Why? If the guy's for eliminating the oppressive clerical regime, than more power to him.

Iran's bordering on economic collapse as it is, so I don't think we'll have to invade. Ahmadinejad's and the clerics' trashing of the Iranian economy is so deep that it will likely implode once oil prices start to decline.

A country can't support 11% known unemployment, massive and widening income inequality, 16% inflation, blatant state corruption and a 40% poverty rate for long, especially when it's only going to get worse as more and more investment drains away. Even in a democratic nation it would be intolerable, let alone in a repressive nation like Iran.

Their nuclear drive is likely meant to distract the people more than anything...

if he say that IN iran on LIVE show, I assume we cant help HIM.

as israeli, I will be glad to see anything that might stop the iranian nuclear program. right now, it seems that invasion of iran is the only way.
still, if the iranian want revolution it probably better to do it by their own. western involvement just make the iranians unite against the agressor and their partners who will take the power. you just need to see what end with those things at the past.

I think the iranian populace deserves all the theocratic shit they get from their government. It was their revolution.

if he say that IN iran on LIVE show, I assume we cant help HIM.

as israeli, I will be glad to see anything that might stop the iranian nuclear program. right now, it seems that invasion of iran is the only way.
still, if the iranian want revolution it probably better to do it by their own. western involvement just make the iranians unite against the agressor and their partners who will take the power. you just need to see what end with those things at the past.

Do we really have to invade? Can't we just bomb the shit out of the facilities like you guys did to Saddam a few years back?

Do we really have to invade? Can't we just bomb the shit out of the facilities like you guys did to Saddam a few years back?
Well, I figure that would cost money. And besides, they managed their own revolution before.

Something else to consider: the counter-revolution may come anyway.

Since 1979, the average American's buying power has quadrupled, whereas the average Iranian's has halved.

Obviously, the clerics aren't exactly wizards at finance. Inherently, people want stuff. If they continue to see the clerics living well while their standard gets worse, there will be a revolt. Revolutions never come from the top or the bottom. They come from the middle when they think life is turning for the worse.

Viva Capitalism, viva la revolution.

Viva Capitalism, viva la revolution.
I think that any form of government that doesn't take into account the fact that young people will think, "I don't want some fossilized ancient guy to tell me what to do," is fundamentally flawed from the start.

Do we really have to invade? Can't we just bomb the shit out of the facilities like you guys did to Saddam a few years back?

1. That was Israel, not the US.
2. That was 20+ years ago, and the Iranians have put their stuff underground, unlike the Iraqis had.

I think that any form of government that doesn't take into account the fact that young people will think, "I don't want some fossilized ancient guy to tell me what to do," is fundamentally flawed from the start.

Hail and well said!

(BTW: I just went to the one local Five Guys, about 20 miles from my house here in CT. I hear one just went up in Herdon near the Outback. You lucky b*stard!)

The Iranian revolution in '79 was basically a long-delayed counter-effect to the US implanting Reza Pahlavi in the fifties. I don't expect them to really revolt again, however, I expect that there will be more of a silent revolution, maybe a quick coup. The religious leaders will either be taken down from power, or relegated to much less important roles. The last thing they want, especially the older generation, is to go back to the days of the shah(at least the majority).

The US helping would make it much worse.

There will need to be a catalyst, though. I'm guessing some oil related event(large accident, strait of hormuz being shut down, etc) will cause an albiet small economic panic, but that will be enough to sow the seeds of dissent in both the older and newer generations, because the gov. will probably be scapegoated for it.

I know its a lot of conjecture to basically say the US going in would only make things worse.

1. That was Israel, not the US.
2. That was 20+ years ago, and the Iranians have put their stuff underground, unlike the Iraqis had.

3. It was illegal.

Attacking Iran would cause yet another horrible civil war and destroy a stabile country quite completely. It would cost tens and hundreds of thousands of deaths, few of those thousands being American soldiers, and yet more gigantic sums of American money which would even further fasten their economical collapse (EDIT: ...which I wouldn't mind at all, if it wouldn't drag the whole world's economy down with it).

Unless a civil war breaks out from inside Iran, in which case sending help to the rebels wouldn't propably make it too much worse than it would already be, US should stay away from there.
I agree that we should avoid any armed conflict with Iran, but why on earth would you think the collapse of the American economy would be a good thing?? That doesn't even make good nonsense!

3. It was illegal.

Well yeah, that goes without saying.
(Then again, most incidents between countries are.)

I hope I'm interpreting this the wrong way, but...

...Why? If the guy's for eliminating the oppressive clerical regime, than more power to him.


I don't say *I* want him shot. Let Iran and its own people handle the way they want to run their country.

People keep saying the US should stay out of other nations: I agree. Whether the US gets involved or not, it will be criticized, so might as well stay out of it -- which we SHOULD have done way back when. Had we not gotten involved in telling the Shah how to deal with internal matters the present regime would not be in power.

Do we really have to invade? Can't we just bomb the shit out of the facilities like you guys did to Saddam a few years back?
well, i thought about it. I think this case is much different.
first, iran has known connections with global terror organizations, many unconventional long-range missles and bad relations with most of their neighbours. if you will attack them without harm they forces they may revenge quick and painly in all off the area near them (to the middle of europe on the east). probably israel will get the most of it, include of hammas, hizbulla and their cells in iraq trying to break the weak stability of the middle east.
second, iran leadership learn from what happened to saddam and build their facilities all over their their country (even under the land). destroying all of the facilities, including their unconventional stockages and missle bunchers, can't be accomplished in one bomberment, which mean we lose the surprise advantage israel had in the former time.
third, oppose to the iraqish progrram who relied on foriegn help and french scientists (who left after the bomberment), the iranians had their own scientists, and they may rebuild their facilities after the bomberment (which bring us to point one after few more months or years).

Hail and well said!

(BTW: I just went to the one local Five Guys, about 20 miles from my house here in CT. I hear one just went up in Herdon near the Outback. You lucky b*stard!)
Yes, the Five Guys is within 5 minutes walking distance of my house.

I hope I'm interpreting this the wrong way, but...

...Why? If the guy's for eliminating the oppressive clerical regime, than more power to him.

Yes, but if he is drug out and shot, especially being who he is, it might make a martyr out of him. Symbols are easy to rally people around.

3. It was illegal.
it was impossible to let him get nukes. have you think some times, what would happen if he was starting the first gulf war or iran-iraq war with nukes?
you can't argue that we didn't make the world a favour by bombing his facility.

We could not fault middle eastern people from perceiving the US as the Hun.

After the example of our destroying Iraq, it is hard to imagine how a persian or an arab could actually welcome waves of US soldiers and bombings.

Iran seems by all accounts to present an even greater threat of total failure in an invasion. Unlike the iraqis of course, the persians are unified. This unity however would be directed against a hostile foreign country which invaded, as it has in the past.

We could not fault middle eastern people from perceiving the US as the Hun.

After the example of our destroying Iraq, it is hard to imagine how a persian or an arab could actually welcome waves of US soldiers and bombings.

Iran seems by all accounts to present an even greater threat of total failure in an invasion. Unlike the iraqis of course, the persians are unified. This unity however would be directed against a hostile foreign country which invaded, as it has in the past.

Iran would take a month to obliterate . It would be like the German invasion of Poland only worse because Irans military is not even that close to parity .
But why bother ..the Iranians are perfectly capable of sorting out their own problems..thanks to the Global economy and the internet it hard to hide the fact that the rest of the world has it better than you do .

Iran would take a month to obliterate . It would be like the German invasion of Poland only worse because Irans military is not even that close to parity .
But why bother ..the Iranians are perfectly capable of sorting out their own problems..thanks to the Global economy and the internet it hard to hide the fact that the rest of the world has it better than you do .


It is indeed easy to destroy a country and kill its people if you have enough bombs. The problem, especially in terms of terrorism, is that those people then become increasingly justified in seeking a redress in kind.

1. That was Israel, not the US.
2. That was 20+ years ago, and the Iranians have put their stuff underground, unlike the Iraqis had.

1) Note that I said "you guys." The poster identified himself as an Israeli.

2) Bunker Busters. Enough ordinance can turn anything into a crater.

if he did indeed make this speech in Iran, its evidently not the opressive regieme the neo-cons want us to believe.

have the yanks not learnt their lesson after getting bullshitted by the iraqi 'expat''s with agendas?

2) Bunker Busters. Enough ordinance can turn anything into a crater.
They're nuclear-tipped. You'd have nary a chance of using those without some serious consequences, and I'm sure that they thought about that a bit as well.

Iran's bordering on economic collapse as it is, so I don't think we'll have to invade. Ahmadinejad's and the clerics' trashing of the Iranian economy is so deep that it will likely implode once oil prices start to decline.

A country can't support 11% known unemployment, massive and widening income inequality, 16% inflation, blatant state corruption and a 40% poverty rate for long, especially when it's only going to get worse as more and more investment drains away. Even in a democratic nation it would be intolerable, let alone in a repressive nation like Iran.

Their nuclear drive is likely meant to distract the people more than anything...
Smells alot like Pre-War Nazi Germany. Despite its exuberance and racist exaltation, the 3rd Reich would have caved in by 1939 if it had not been their decision to go to war against basically everybody.

Smells alot like Pre-War Nazi Germany. Despite its exuberance and racist exaltation, the 3rd Reich would have caved in by 1939 if it had not been their decision to go to war against basically everybody.

They were pretty well secured power by '39, although if we went to war against them in '36, like Versailles said we should, he would have been flattened.

Smells alot like Pre-War Nazi Germany. Despite its exuberance and racist exaltation, the 3rd Reich would have caved in by 1939 if it had not been their decision to go to war against basically everybody.

That's why Iran is probably acting so belligerently...no one is asking them to stop their nuclear power program, just their enrichment of uranium. They need to distract the people from a situation that can be only described as an economic meltdown...just like a war did in Germany. I have a feeling they want the West to attack or penalize them so they have a scapegoat for their problems other than their own mismanagement and corruption.

I'm feeling more and more that they are trying to build a bomb; there is no reason why Iran would have a problem with conducting centrifuge research with inert gases instead of uranium or allowing the IAEA to fully inspect their program prior to allowing enrichment unless they are doing something that they should not be.

It's also possible that Iran might start turning on its religious and ethnic minorities as scapegoats if the West does not attack...either way, it's going to be bad. Hopefully, a revolution will occur before large-scale problems begin.

I agree that we should avoid any armed conflict with Iran, but why on earth would you think the collapse of the American economy would be a good thing?? That doesn't even make good nonsense!
Countries with collapsed economies usually stop playing superpower and policing the world, "putting it back to it's place" so to speak. But, like I said, that would drag the rest of the world down as well, which means that negative consequences of it would exceed the positive ones. So no, I don't think it would be a good thing.

if he did indeed make this speech in Iran, its evidently not the opressive regieme the neo-cons want us to believe.

A place where women and homosexuals are stoned to death, criminals are routinely flogged publically, and elections are rigged is not an open society. Iran is one of the most repressive regimes on Earth, and the only reason he was not arrested or killed is because he is the son of Khomeini...either that, or they realize he is not a threat.

Countries with collapsed economies usually stop playing superpower and policing the world, "putting it back to it's place" so to speak. But, like I said, that would drag the rest of the world down as well, which means that negative consequences of it would exceed the positive ones. So no, I don't think it would be a good thing.

Well, the USSR's economy was collapsing in the late 70's and 80's yet they launched an open invasion of Afghanistan...countries with collapsing economies often lash out in order to try and salvage it or distract the people with war.

About Iran building a nuclear bomb... I think they really should, and it would be good for the world peace. My reasoning:

Iran's leadership isn't exactly stupid. Their ways of saying things might differ of that normally used by Western politicians, and they use language that makes them look like idiots to us, but they still know these basic facts:

1. Having a nuclear weapon is a good thing. Once you've got it, no one can attack you conventionally.

2. Not having a nuclear weapon while being a strongly islamic non-puppet of USA is a bad thing. USA has the means and ability to attack and conquer you, and there's nothing you could do to prevent that really - except becoming their puppet or getting a nuclear weapon.

3. Using a nuclear weapon is a bad thing. If you use a nuclear weapon against someone, even as disgusting and evil as Israel, you will receive a horrible retaliation strike by both the mentioned country and its American allies.
Using nuclear weapon against you enemy (which in this case is equal to USA or an ally if it) = suicide.

4. To put this all together, if you have a nuclear weapon, you don't need to use it. If you use it, you're dead. You don't want to be dead, so you don't use it. But you don't want to get conquered either, so you'd better have one.

That's why Iran is probably acting so belligerently...no one is asking them to stop their nuclear power program, just their enrichment of uranium. They need to distract the people from a situation that can be only described as an economic meltdown...just like a war did in Germany. I have a feeling they want the West to attack or penalize them so they have a scapegoat for their problems other than their own mismanagement and corruption.

I'm feeling more and more that they are trying to build a bomb; there is no reason why Iran would have a problem with conducting centrifuge research with inert gases instead of uranium or allowing the IAEA to fully inspect their program prior to allowing enrichment unless they are doing something that they should not be.

It's also possible that Iran might start turning on its religious and ethnic minorities as scapegoats if the West does not attack...either way, it's going to be bad. Hopefully, a revolution will occur before large-scale problems begin.
they may learn from nazy germany, or they learn from north korea who nobody touch since they had nukes, or they really fundementalist who want to nuke israel and europe, and they use delay tricks until they will get the bomb.
the options are open, the sum is as same. neuclear iran is danger for the world.

1) Note that I said "you guys." The poster identified himself as an Israeli.

2) Bunker Busters. Enough ordinance can turn anything into a crater.

1) Sorry, I missed that.

2) Not necessarily. The most obvious example is Cheyenne Mountain (rated at 70% vs. 5 megatons), and that was built over 30 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_mountain

Who knows what those wacky Iranians have been up to?
With modern engineering technology, it's possible to build an underground structure that would survive against Tomahawks or plane delivered bombs.

Well, the USSR's economy was collapsing in the late 70's and 80's yet they launched an open invasion of Afghanistan...countries with collapsing economies often lash out in order to try and salvage it or distract the people with war.
Yeah. This is what's happening to USA. Signs are visible, the smell of collapse is in the air. I just wonder when exactly will this giant go down, like they all eventually do. In 10, 50 years?

About Iran building a nuclear bomb... I think they really should, and it would be good for the world peace. My reasoning:


That's a logical and correct point, but the main concern for me isn't Iran using its weapons. The concern I have is enriched uranium or weapons being stolen or "lost" to terrorists by extremist elements of the Iranian military and then being used by the terrorists who lack the restraint and rationality of the Iranian leadership. The leadership would never use a weapon on anyone, but the rampant corruption and extremism in lower levels of the government would pose a massive risk of someone getting hold of a weapon or enriched uranium and using it.

Yeah. This is what's happening to USA. Signs are visible, the smell of collapse is in the air. I just wonder when exactly will this giant go down, like they all eventually do. In 10, 50 years?

ROTFLMAO!

Meh, no matter how corrupt the country is, nuclear weapons are kept in safe. Even Iran can pay enough to their silo guards to make sure that they're not sold out.

About Iran building a nuclear bomb... I think they really should, and it would be good for the world peace. My reasoning:

Iran's leadership isn't exactly stupid. Their ways of saying things might differ of that normally used by Western politicians, and they use language that makes them look like idiots to us, but they still know these basic facts:

1. Having a nuclear weapon is a good thing. Once you've got it, no one can attack you conventionally.

2. Not having a nuclear weapon while being a strongly islamic non-puppet of USA is a bad thing. USA has the means and ability to attack and conquer you, and there's nothing you could do to prevent that really - except becoming their puppet or getting a nuclear weapon.

3. Using a nuclear weapon is a bad thing. If you use a nuclear weapon against someone, even as disgusting and evil as Israel, you will receive a horrible retaliation strike by both the mentioned country and its American allies.
Using nuclear weapon against you enemy (which in this case is equal to USA or an ally if it) = suicide.

4. To put this all together, if you have a nuclear weapon, you don't need to use it. If you use it, you're dead. You don't want to be dead, so you don't use it. But you don't want to get conquered either, so you'd better have one.
1 and 2 are right. the north korean case is the prove.
in the third reason, I losing you. if iran leadership are fundementalist wacko who need war to distract their populace from inner problems, as the compration to the nazis stand, they may see the destruction of israel has important goal enough to risk their countrey (as milions of palastinians, arabs and al-aqsa mosque).
it all depend of logical they are. if they are, we just get small version of the cold war, while iran will keep their terror organization on stage while they attacking israel, but not harm her drastically.

Yeah. This is what's happening to USA. Signs are visible, the smell of collapse is in the air. I just wonder when exactly will this giant go down, like they all eventually do. In 10, 50 years?

It may not collapse; the world economy is very interconnected and diversified, so any economic disruption is much more effectively muted today than it was in the 1930's or 1970's. It's only getting more globalized, and the trend has been towards milder and shorter recessions in the US despite equally severe shocks so the possibility is that the economy will never collapse again. It will slow or recede at times but likey never enter depression.

It could collapse, however. The only ways it will collapse are if the US does not keep its workforce competitive and well educated or if we begin to move towards protectionism and close our market to the world...the first one is, unfortunately, a very real possibility and may lead to the second in a domino effect of economic collapse that will be severe and possibly permanent.

Most likely, however, the US will eventually fade as an independent market and blend in to the world economy rather than be destroyed.

ROTFLMAO!
Heh, I know what you mean... it doesn't really look so when you look at the news. But like Vetalia put it, "countries with collapsing economies often lash out in order to try and salvage it or distract the people with war." And when economy collapses, down goes the empire also. I'm not saying that US of A would cease to exist, not at all, but all signs of decline and "last roars of the dying beast", =this silly "war against terrorism" by which they mean running amok around the Third World and beating down their former allies, are already taking place. History repeats itself, like it always does.

Meh, no matter how corrupt the country is, nuclear weapons are kept in safe. Even Iran can pay enough to their silo guards to make sure that they're not sold out.

Most likely. But in a world where oil is valued in trillions of dollars, it is possible a terror group could outbid the Iranian government despite its own resources...but then again, the weapons of any nation are vulnerable in that case.

Meh, no matter how corrupt the country is, nuclear weapons are kept in safe. Even Iran can pay enough to their silo guards to make sure that they're not sold out.
unless this is the leadership goal, and it does by their anti-western fundementalist ideology (at least by their speaches).

=this silly "war against terrorism" by which they mean running amok around the Third World and beating down their former allies, are already taking place. History repeats itself, like it always does.

That's what World War I was...it was the last gasp of imperialism and the dominance of the European monarchies over the Third World. They destroyed themselves in a last gasp for dominaince. Hopefully, the US will be able to avoid such a degree of carnage but we don't really know for sure.

1 and 2 are right. the north korean case is the prove.
in the third reason, I losing you. if iran leadership are fundementalist wacko who need war to distract their populace from inner problems, as the compration to the nazis stand, they may see the destruction of israel has important goal enough to risk their countrey (as milions of palastinians, arabs and al-aqsa mosque).
it all depend of logical they are. if they are, we just get small version of the cold war, while iran will keep their terror organization on stage while they attacking israel, but not harm her drastically.

Look, let's imagine that there's a nuclear explosion in Israel after Iran has made it known that they have n00kz. What do you think will happen? One doesn't have to be an einstein to immediately know where it came from. Iran will get blasted out.

And, no matter how fanatical they are, they will not commit a national suicide of that scale. There is absolutely NO WAY they could use nuclear weapon without getting immediately destroyed. Yet, if they have it, no one can attack them by conventional means.

unless this is the leadership goal, and it does by their anti-western fundementalist ideology (at least by their speaches).

Speeches are perhaps the worst way to divine the intent of any politician.

Speeches are perhaps the worst way to divine the intent of any politician.
Very true. Speeches like these are indeed given mainly for their home audience. They still have brains not to try to do what they speak of.

Look, let's imagine that there's a nuclear explosion in Israel after Iran has made it known that they have n00kz. What do you think will happen? One doesn't have to be an einstein to immediately know where it came from. Iran will get blasted out.

And, no matter how fanatical they are, they will not commit a national suicide of that scale. There is absolutely NO WAY they could use nuclear weapon without getting immediately destroyed. Yet, if they have it, no one can attack them by conventional means.
lets back to the nazi example.
first, hitler was enough wacko so he mainly try to kill jewish and other minorities, although he had problem of rescures and he was going to lose the war. point one- extreme ideology owner leaders may act illogically.
second, when hitler conquer chech republic some months before the wars, the world do nothing. point 2- sometimes the world prefer not to act even if somebody been hurt (as long as it happen to someone "unimportant").
while the west and the soviets start to win, they didn't put forces in order to save people from the death camps. point 3- when the world will act it will be too late for the jewish.

Speeches are perhaps the worst way to divine the intent of any politician.
maybe, maybe not. nobody take hitler seriously- you know what happened.
I prefer that first we take their ability to get bomb, and THAN we sit back and check how serious they were.

maybe, maybe not. nobody take hitler seriously- you know what happened.
I prefer that first we take their ability to get bomb, and THAN we sit back and check how serious they were.

Except Hitler didn't live in a time period where nuclear missiles could have obliterated him and his country.

maybe, maybe not. nobody take hitler seriously- you know what happened.
I prefer that first we take their ability to get bomb, and THAN we sit back and check how serious they were.
You mean, attack them? Iraq x 3?

Except Hitler didn't live in a time period where nuclear missiles could have obliterated him and his country.
history repeat himself, it just change her look (the problem is the history is very long and we can't be sure what part repea himself).

You mean, attack them? Iraq x 3?
I thought from the beggining that the war on iraq was mistake. mostly, because states like north korea or iran are much mor dangerous or important goals than iraq ever was, and it was better to put the forces on search for bin-ladin and not saddam hussein.
badly, we will pay for bush mistakes because he get in to the wrong war, and now he can't start another.

lets back to the nazi example.
Why? The worst possible example... Meh, if you insist.
first, hitler was enough wacko so he mainly try to kill jewish and other minorities, although he had problem of rescures and he was going to lose the war. point one- extreme ideology owner leaders may act illogically.
Jews living in Germany in the 1930's/40's, being secretly gathered and murdered has little to do with Jews living in Israel in the 2000's, being attacked by a nuclear weapon the whole world will know about withing 5 minutes. These two things have little to do with eachother. Look at it this way - had Hitler known that when the first Jew dies in the hands of SS, the whole world will know and Soviet Union, USA, France and UK will all strike against him with everything they have, he would have stopped in the 30's. That's how it is now - if they ever use nuclear weapon against Israel (or anyone else for that matter) Iran will get immediately glassed.

second, when hitler conquer chech republic some months before the wars, the world do nothing. point 2- sometimes the world prefer not to act even if somebody been hurt (as long as it happen to someone "unimportant").
I don't get your point here. To USA, Israel is not "unimportant", and Iran knows this. As Israel itself is also known to have nuclear weaponry under its disposal, and USA has enought both conventional and WMD firepower to destroy the world 10 times, ...

I thought from the beggining that the war on iraq was mistake. mostly, because states like north korea or iran are much mor dangerous or important goals than iraq ever was, and it was better to put the forces on search for bin-ladin and not saddam hussein.
badly, we will pay for bush mistakes because he get in to the wrong war, and now he can't start another.
Why do you think Iran is dangerous? Because they can perhaps develop nuclear weapon? You and your likes are the reason for their desperate need to have it, and also give it the full justification.

Jews living in Germany in the 1930's/40's, being secretly gathered and murdered has little to do with Jews living in Israel in the 2000's, being attacked by a nuclear weapon the whole world will know about withing 5 minutes. These two things have little to do with eachother. Look at it this way - had Hitler known that when the first Jew dies in the hands of SS, the whole world will know and Soviet Union, USA, France and UK will all strike against him with everything they have, he would have stopped in the 30's. That's how it is now - if they ever use nuclear weapon against Israel (or anyone else for that matter) Iran will get immediately glassed.nevermind that there are documents that show the world get information about the nazi acts some years before the world end, and the western airplanes could bomb train-lines or death camps and save dozens of thousands of lives or more, but they didn't.
the main point is iran logic may not be as same as the western logic, and the circumances may be fatal.

I don't get your point here. To USA, Israel is not "unimportant", and Iran knows this. As Israel itself is also known to have nuclear weaponry under its disposal, and USA has enought both conventional and WMD firepower to destroy the world 10 times, ...call it healthy worries of person who prefer not trust to much that the world will stand there in hard times.
probably, it unnedded worry.

Why do you think Iran is dangerous? Because they can perhaps develop nuclear weapon? You and your likes are the reason for their desperate need to have it, and also give it the full justification.
we aren't treat are neighbours with our "not officially known" nukes. iran want to destruct israel in any possible way, and justified their nuclear progrram isn't much different than justified the palastinian terror.

If we attack Iran, China and Russia will probably come to their aid. Yeah lets do it!

If we attack Iran, China and Russia will probably come to their aid. Yeah lets do it!
it bring important question: who will win in ww3 when israel, europe and USA in one side, and iran, china, russia and the muslim world (include terror organizations) in the other.

we aren't treat are neighbours with our "not officially known" nukes. iran want to destruct israel in any possible way, and justified their nuclear progrram isn't much different than justified the palastinian terror.

the lies begin

why would iran nuke israel? they would kill all the palestinains that they are tryung to help and make the land uninhabitible.

the lies begin

why would iran nuke israel? they would kill all the palestinains that they are tryung to help and make the land uninhabitible.
and destroy their holy mosques, and bring radiactivity to most of the middle east and will start WW3, and will be flattened even before the first rocket will land.
all of this are logical reasons who apply on the cold war between USA and USSR. I just don't sure this logic apply to iran, if their leaders are fundementalist anti-western wackos.
by their acts and speaches, they are. is it true?
I don't know, and I don't want to discover the truth when it may be too late.

I don't know, and I don't want to discover the truth when it may be too late.
No, you want to invade "just in case" and turn yet another Middle East country into a chaotic hellhole in the middle of desperate civil war tearing it apart, and have thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people killed.

They need that nuke.

No, you want to invade "just in case" and turn yet another Middle East country into a chaotic hellhole in the middle of desperate civil war tearing it apart, and have thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people killed.

They need that nuke.
as I said in the ancient start of th descusion, I don't think invasion of iraq nor bambarement of their facilities is possible and good idea. at least not before much thinking which is not what bush good at, as iraq prove.
however, I do think iran may act iilogocally and use her nukes which his danger for the world, mainly israel. I do believe that if the diplomacy wan't work and right now it dosen't, there should be alternate ways to prevent them from getting nukes including the possibilities I mention as the least neccesery evil.

I thought from the beggining that the war on iraq was mistake. mostly, because states like north korea or iran are much mor dangerous or important goals than iraq ever was, and it was better to put the forces on search for bin-ladin and not saddam hussein.
badly, we will pay for bush mistakes because he get in to the wrong war, and now he can't start another.
This is what you said, actually...

and destroy their holy mosques, and bring radiactivity to most of the middle east and will start WW3, and will be flattened even before the first rocket will land.
all of this are logical reasons who apply on the cold war between USA and USSR. I just don't sure this logic apply to iran, if their leaders are fundementalist anti-western wackos.
by their acts and speaches, they are. is it true?
I don't know, and I don't want to discover the truth when it may be too late.

the OP of this thread was an iranian, in iran, on iranian tv calling for a foreign invasion. they cannot be that fundamentalist if they allow that sort of opposition.

would woodrow wilsons grandson have been allowed tv space to call for a russian invasion in the height of the cold war?

iran not liking israel and the us is not enough to attack them. not by a long shot.

Heh, I know what you mean... it doesn't really look so when you look at the news. But like Vetalia put it, "countries with collapsing economies often lash out in order to try and salvage it or distract the people with war." And when economy collapses, down goes the empire also. I'm not saying that US of A would cease to exist, not at all, but all signs of decline and "last roars of the dying beast", =this silly "war against terrorism" by which they mean running amok around the Third World and beating down their former allies, are already taking place. History repeats itself, like it always does.

True, history does repeat itself... but not always when it comes to the US. It has so many advantages (natural resources, immigrants, two huge oceans for major borders, etc) that it is often the exception. Indeed, consitutional government may have taken another 2 or 3 generations in Europe had the US not been around to make a go of it first.
That said, anyone who says that the US economy is near collapse has pretty much no clue about economics. No, it isn't the best of times, but it's no 1987, let alone 1929.

Besides, the Asians need us to buy their junk, and the Euros need us to defend theirs. ;)

I say we continue to discredit Iran, while increasing funding to Iranian reform groups. If Iran erupts into a democratic revolution, I doubt many would object to US support for it.

Isn't Al-Arabiya supposedly "controlled" and biased by the West?

Well, the USSR's economy was collapsing in the late 70's and 80's yet they launched an open invasion of Afghanistan...countries with collapsing economies often lash out in order to try and salvage it or distract the people with war.
Indeed. Happened in Argentina also with the Falkland Islands.

Khomeini's grandson is a flaming idiot. A US invasion of Iran would make Iraq look like paradise. It would probably even be worse than Vietnam, and even less necessary.

Al-Arabiya is based in Virginia, and is funded by the State Department. Naturally, they will probably be slightly biased in favor of the West.