NationStates Jolt Archive

As I intend to visit Iran in April, I have been keeping a close eye to the developments in the Gulf. Following the findings of the Iraq Study Group (http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf)chaired by Baker, and the Democratic electoral victories, I had been hopeful that the US government would take a more constructive path in Iraq. However, with the current trend in the US media and Government to link Iran with the problems in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6319451.stm), I am beginning to worry. This trend feels disturbingly similar to linking Iraq with al-Qaeda.

From the Baker report:
Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

From the Chatham House report:
However, there is an additional, and for the US and UK very threatening element that has to be considered regarding Iran’s presence in Iraq. This is the often overlooked fact that it is Iran, not the US, and certainly not the UK, that is the most influential ‘external’ power in Iraq today, with an unparalleled ability to affect stability and security across most of the country. There exists a very real possibility that, if the US attacks Iran, then Iran will inflict a devastating defeat upon the US in Iraq, and also take the fight to the US across the Middle East. Even now, the Multinational Force is struggling to influence political developments in the south and central Euphrates regions of Iraq, where there is a predominantly Shi’a population, and the Arab Sunni insurgency continues to be a deadly presence inflicting catastrophic losses upon the nascent Iraqi security forces and their US backers. These situations could be magnified by Iranian intervention, to the point that the coalition might conceivably be forced to evacuate Iraq, leaving Iran not only as the undeniable formative force in Iraq, but also as the undisputed hegemon in the Gulf.

While Iran may well have become the most influential power in Iraq, it is not connected to the Sunni insurgency. Moreover, it has not yet used its influence within the Iraqi Shi’a factions to target US troops. See this great Chatham House report (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/Iran0806.pdf). Going after Iran may well draw the US and Iran in a costly war, which could be disastrous for world security; not to mention the useless cost of Human life on both sides. I should be glad that this stubborn president would grant me ample job opportunities in the future, but I am sad for the destruction of this beautiful region. I would like to conclude with the words of G. W. Bush, which could not be more true: Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

Iraq has a "q" in it's name, as does Al Qaeda, and neither of these "q"s are followed by "u"s. Thus they are noth terrorists. Iran has no "q", and thus is not a terrorist. Simple.

hell yes im worried about it.

bush pushed us into one useless and unwinnable war, he might well decide to push us into one thats even less winnable.

You're going to Iran? Cool. Take loads of pictures!

Whenever debates about Iran pop up I always try to provide the voice of reason, stating that Iran's soft power relies on it being a non-aggressive power that spearheads the anti-Zionist movement, and that any war-mongerous behaviour on Iran's part would shatter this reputation and make them very, very vulnerable. But a lot of people refuse to believe that an Islamic nation can have rational reasons behind its actions.

I am but one man, but I will argue extra hard to try and prevent any US intervention in Iran (however unlikely) while you are there. I would not wish what happened to the foreigners who happened to be in Afghanistan at the time of the invasion on anybody.

American foreign policy:

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/1797/yankcarqh2.jpg

You're going to Iran? Cool. Take loads of pictures!

Whenever debates about Iran pop up I always try to provide the voice of reason, stating that Iran's soft power relies on it being a non-aggressive power that spearheads the anti-Zionist movement, and that any war-mongerous behaviour on Iran's part would shatter this reputation and make them very, very vulnerable. But a lot of people refuse to believe that an Islamic nation can have rational reasons behind its actions.

I am but one man, but I will argue extra hard to try and prevent any US intervention in Iran (however unlikely) while you are there. I would not wish what happened to the foreigners who happened to be in Afghanistan at the time of the invasion on anybody.

Thanx,

Luckily Iran is a more stable society than Afghanistan; I think the rule of law would persist even in the unlikely case of a war erupting while I’m there. But I would hate that such a beautiful country be destroyed by irresponsible acts from a single war-prone president.

Iraq has a "q" in it's name, as does Al Qaeda, and neither of these "q"s are followed by "u"s. Thus they are noth terrorists. Iran has no "q", and thus is not a terrorist. Simple.

But... they all have "a" in their name... and strangely, so does America... and Ireland, and England...and France, Germany....Israel...:p

We’ll probably bomb Iran at some point, kill a few thousand people, ruin the lives a few million more, but we won’t invade and we won’t go to war with them.

We’ll probably bomb Iran at some point, kill a few thousand people, ruin the lives a few million more, but we won’t invade and we won’t go to war with them.

Bombing Iran might well end in a war. For, it is highly unlikely that Iran would not retaliate in Iraq, followed by a US retaliation etc…

Many leaders that did not desire war have become trapped in the vicious circle of escalation leading to war …

As I intend to visit Iran in April, I have been keeping a close eye to the developments in the Gulf. Following the findings of the Iraq Study Group (http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf)chaired by Baker, and the Democratic electoral victories, I had been hopeful that the US government would take a more constructive path in Iraq. However, with the current trend in the US media and Government to link Iran with the problems in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6319451.stm), I am beginning to worry. This trend feels disturbingly similar to linking Iraq with al-Qaeda.

From the Baker report:


From the Chatham House report:


While Iran may well have become the most influential power in Iraq, it is not connected to the Sunni insurgency. Moreover, it has not yet used its influence within the Iraqi Shi’a factions to target US troops. See this great Chatham House report (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/Iran0806.pdf). Going after Iran may well draw the US and Iran in a costly war, which could be disastrous for world security; not to mention the useless cost of Human life on both sides. I should be glad that this stubborn president would grant me ample job opportunities in the future, but I am sad for the destruction of this beautiful region. I would like to conclude with the words of G. W. Bush, which could not be more true:

I got three words for these idiots who want to go to war with Iran.

Fuck. That. Shit.

I got three words for these idiots who want to go to war with Iran.

Fuck. That. Shit.Unfortunately, anything beyond "Fuck. Shit. Up." is too complicated for them.

Most likely there will be an air war against Iran with Iranian opposition forces trying to take control of the country. US and Iraqi troops will mass on the Iranian border to push back the Iranians if they counter-attack. The Bush administration is already gearing up for this by slowly blaming Iran for alot of different things. In my opinion Iran is guilty as charged. So let's get this over with once and for all.

Unfortunately, anything beyond "Fuck. Shit. Up." is too complicated for them.

Your speaking of diplomacy I take it? Wow, that is working wonders. If anyone has any good ideas on diplomatically dealing with Iran please let's hear it.

We’ll probably bomb Iran at some point, kill a few thousand people, ruin the lives a few million more, but we won’t invade and we won’t go to war with them.bombing Iran.. is declaring War..

Iraq has a "q" in it's name, as does Al Qaeda, and neither of these "q"s are followed by "u"s. Thus they are both terrorists. Iran has no "q", and thus is not a terrorist. Simple.

Wow - that's some impressive logic! You put the State Department to shame with your incisive understanding of foreign policy and crucial world events.
Ever thought of running for President? You'd have my vote (well, if I lived in the US and could vote there, that is...)

Your speaking of diplomacy I take it?US foreign policy, or "national security policy" as they so arrogantly call it, has been ultimatums threatning with death & destruction of genocidal proportions since the end of WWII.
Wow, that is working wonders.Depends on your perspective. It's worked fairly well for the US. Not so much for everyone else.
If anyone has any good ideas on diplomatically dealing with Iran please let's hear it.EU/UN efforts were working, until the US fucked things up with their usual death threats & petty namecalling.

But apart from that, why the fuck is it an American problem? Is it because it limits opportunities for the US to carry out terrorist activities in the region?

Bush hasn't made an intelligent decsion in the Iraq war, why should I expect him to make one regarding Iran?

Seriously, the man needs to cool his heels. Clean up the mess he's already caused and go back to Waging War 101. Rule one, don't invade a country without an exit strategy. Rule two, don't wage a second war when a large chunk of your army is still fighting the first war.

I might be supportive if he went to the UN, sought approval, and got it from more than a few countries.

I might be supportive if he went to the UN, sought approval, and got it from more than a few countries.

Ya, you know thats not going to happen. Bush and the US are too hardcore for that. :rolleyes:

Ya, you know thats not going to happen. Bush and the US are too hardcore for that. :rolleyes:

You mean Bush plus 31-39% of Americans. He's the least popular president in US history.

Anyway, it's a nice thought is all. Lord knows, the world will stop spinning the day Bush starts making sense.

In the meantime, remember to put food on you family.;)

You mean Bush plus 31-39% of Americans. He's the least popular president in US history.Yet if 9/11 hadn't happened & the regime thus hadn't had the opportunity to invent plausible-sounding reasons for invading a pathetic little, severely crippled country, it's unlikely they would've been able to win a second term.
Americans were starting to become aware how completely inept the fuckers were before the wars, but then good old nationalism & bloodlust seized the population.Anyway, it's a nice thought is all. Lord knows, the world will stop spinning the day Bush starts making sense.And by extension; American voters. They made the bed, now we're all tangled up in the sheets, with our faces in the wet spot.In the meantime, remember to put food on you family.;)I... Think I'm misunderestimating something.

Sorry, but I'm really fucking tired of hearing Americans renounce their administration as if they didn't vote for it twice. If you didn't know what you were getting the first time, then why the fuck were you voting? If you didn't realise the second time.. Well.. Let's just say you lot making fun of Bush's lack of brains is beyond fucking ironic.

For the record, I voted for Kerry. Even though I thought he was a no-good lying bastard (for another thread), I figured he was better than Bush. Which is why most of the people I know voted for him.

Apparently the democrats nominated him in the primaries because they thought he had the best change of appealing to the Republicans of the country. Which is retarded logic if that's indeed true. I still fail to understand how the one person who was guaranteed not to beat Bush got nominated.

And he didn't win the first time around. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but he did not win Florida and therefore did not win the election. He damn sure didn't win the popular vote. (Yes, I'm maligning the electoral college.) I can't remember if he won the popular vote the second time or not. Doesn't matter, he stole the election the first time.

bombing Iran.. is declaring War..

Nonsense. We bomb places we aren’t t war with all the time.

Most recently, Somalia.

Sorry, but I'm really fucking tired of hearing Americans renounce their administration as if they didn't vote for it twice. If you didn't know what you were getting the first time, then why the fuck were you voting? If you didn't realise the second time.. Well.. Let's just say you lot making fun of Bush's lack of brains is beyond fucking ironic.

I didn't vote for Chimpy (technically speaking that's a fairly empty statement. It'll be another 6 months 'fore I'm allowed to vote). Don't slap every American with the label of the Bush Admin. They don't speak for all of us, and to assume that just because 51% of Americans vote one way means that all Americans support dubya is unfair.

I didn't vote for Chimpy (technically speaking that's a fairly empty statement. It'll be another 6 months 'fore I'm allowed to vote). Don't slap every American with the label of the Bush Admin. They don't speak for all of us, and to assume that just because 51% of Americans vote one way means that all Americans support dubya is unfair.

considering half the country don't vote, i'd say it's more like 25% of Americans actually voting for him

KSP your representatives not only speak for you, they act for you. By virtue of recognising it as the administration, you both enable & recognise it's right to do so.

There's only two instances where my criticism might be more or less misplaced. The first is if you've taken up arms against the administration. The second is more complicated. If you're actively working against your administration & it's policies, via the political process, my criticism is somewhat misplaced, but only somewhat, because you're still effectively legitimizing your administration as a valid entity, capable of speaking & acting on your behalf.

The second applies to me personally, and you're more than welcome to hold me responsible for the actions of my government. They're not actions I support, but I'm confident that participating in the political process is ultimately more constructive than taking up arms. That it makes me an accomplice is a fact I can live with, but pretending I'm not would be pathetic.

If you're too young to do either, then quite obviously you cannot be held responsible. Then again, I didn't actually mean Americans, past, present & future. I just meant the American voting public. I thought that was obvious.

Finally, what brought about my rant was the tiny minority of Americans with the balls to come right out & say "Well I fucked up when I voted for this/supported this." These days, Americans have an overwhelming & rather amazing tendency to make themselves look like victims of something other than their own brutal stupidity. Pretending the majority of you didn't fuck up badly only makes the lot of you look like whiny hypocrites.

But hey, let's form a 2-party republic, call it a democracy, tell all the flaming world how fabulous it is, show it down people's throats even if it kills them, and refuse to acknowledge our own role in it. Ain't got nothin' better to do.

Just one scapegoat after another...
You would've thought the administration would learn to take responsibility. With opinion polls of 31-39%, what exactly do they have to lose?

Yet if 9/11 hadn't happened & the regime thus hadn't had the opportunity to invent plausible-sounding reasons for invading a pathetic little, severely crippled country, it's unlikely they would've been able to win a second term.
Americans were starting to become aware how completely inept the fuckers were before the wars, but then good old nationalism & bloodlust seized the population.And by extension; American voters. They made the bed, now we're all tangled up in the sheets, with our faces in the wet spot.I... Think I'm misunderestimating something.

Sorry, but I'm really fucking tired of hearing Americans renounce their administration as if they didn't vote for it twice. If you didn't know what you were getting the first time, then why the fuck were you voting? If you didn't realise the second time.. Well.. Let's just say you lot making fun of Bush's lack of brains is beyond fucking ironic.

I can honestly say I NEVER voted for GW. But since you brought it up I really would like to know the thoughts of that 20%---1 in 5--that voted for him then a month later tells the polls we're going the wrong direction and they have no faith in the man they just voted for. I really would like to here just one logical argument for such a vote and turnaround when it's too late.

I'm not worried. The only part of the Iranian government that wants a war is that nutjob Ahmadinejad; if there are signs that he's going to start doing things that might endanger the clerical regime, they're going to remove him and put someone more controllable and more sane in his place. He's nothing more than a pest used by the clerics to prod Western nations and to distract the people from their problems by focusing on external enemies.

I mean, Iran is facing enough with its decaying economy, declining oil production, and massive government waste to try and fight a war against the US.

American foreign policy:

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/1797/yankcarqh2.jpg

Wallpapered.


Politeia, when you are hung, shot, stabbed or blown up by a Muslim extremist in Iran, Syria or some other backwards, unhappy place, I won't be there to say "I told you so". Fact is, they will always hate America and seek to undermine us at every possible point, and they will never stop until we or they themselves are dead.

And as an American, I'd prefer to stay alive.

We’ll probably bomb Iran at some point, kill a few thousand people, ruin the lives a few million more, but we won’t invade and we won’t go to war with them.

1) Bombing would set back Iran's nuclear program, but we don't have good enough intel to do it
2) Unlike other places we have bombed, Iran has a better capacity to retaliate.


Bombing Iran might well end in a war. For, it is highly unlikely that Iran would not retaliate in Iraq, followed by a US retaliation etc…

Many leaders that did not desire war have become trapped in the vicious circle of escalation leading to war …

Indeed. James Fallow's war gaming of a strike on Iran outlined some possible responses:
he most important hidden problem, exposed in the war-game discussions, was that a full assault would require such drawn-out preparations that the Iranian government would know months in advance what was coming. Its leaders would have every incentive to strike pre-emptively in their own defense. Unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a threatened Iran would have many ways to harm America and its interests. Apart from cross-border disruptions in Iraq, it might form an outright alliance with al-Qaeda to support major new attacks within the United States. It could work with other oil producers to punish America economically. It could, as Hammes warned, apply the logic of "asymmetric," or "fourth-generation," warfare, in which a superficially weak adversary avoids a direct challenge to U.S. military power and instead strikes the most vulnerable points in American civilian society, as al-Qaeda did on 9/11.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows/6

In the time since then, the situation has become worse:
Every tool at Iran’s disposal is now more powerful, and every complication for the United States worse, than when our war-gamers determined that a pre-emptive strike could not succeed. Iran has used the passing time to disperse, diversify, conceal, and protect its nuclear centers. Instead of a dozen or so potential sites that would have to be destroyed, it now has at least twice that many. The Shiite dominance of Iraq’s new government and military has consolidated, and the ties between the Shiites of Iran and those of Iraq have grown more intense. Early this year, the Iraqi Shiite warlord Muqtada al-Sadr suggested that he would turn his Mahdi Army against Americans if they attacked Iran.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran/2
Nonsense. We bomb places we aren’t t war with all the time.

Most recently, Somalia.

Bombing a nations soveriegn territory is most certainly a casus belli.

Note that bombing places that have no means of retaliating results in . Iran does have means of retaliation, albeit they are local. However, their local retaliation against US interests would have global reverberations. What happens when they start up another tanker war and shut down the flow of gulf oil?

Wallpapered.


Politeia, when you are hung, shot, stabbed or blown up by a Muslim extremist in Iran, Syria or some other backwards, unhappy place, I won't be there to say "I told you so". Fact is, they will always hate America and seek to undermine us at every possible point, and they will never stop until we or they themselves are dead.

And as an American, I'd prefer to stay alive.

Blatant hateful bigotry is not a solution. Period.

1) Bombing would set back Iran's nuclear program, but we don't have good enough intel to do it
2) Unlike other places we have bombed, Iran has a better capacity to retaliate.
I didn't say I supported the idea. I just think it's what is going to happen, and Iran can declare war on the US all they want. Congress won't respond.

I didn't say I supported the idea. I just think it's what is going to happen, and Iran can declare war on the US all they want. Congress won't respond.

Fair enough, but the US will have to respond to Iran's retaliations in some fashion.

Fair enough, but the US will have to respond to Iran's retaliations in some fashion.
With more police actions, yes.

With more police actions, yes.

Depends on what Iran does, of course. Shutting down Gulf shipping through attacks on tankers or mining a la the 1980s, or further intereference in Iraq, would require a heftier response, for example.

Wallpapered.

Politeia, when you are hung, shot, stabbed or blown up by a Muslim extremist in Iran, Syria or some other backwards, unhappy place, I won't be there to say "I told you so". Fact is, they will always hate America and seek to undermine us at every possible point, and they will never stop until we or they themselves are dead.

And as an American, I'd prefer to stay alive.
You... wallpapered that... in agreement with it?

It doesn't matter to me either way. We all gotta die one day or another. If its from Iran, or natural causes, I could care less anymore.