Iran Threat Real or Not?
Residential Real Estate Broker · Conroe, TX · Member since 2008 · 1k+ posts · 43 votes
So we found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and decided to go to plan "B" which was to reconstruct their government. Now we have a possible real threat in Iran. Is it real or is someone crying wolf again? Can we afford action in Iran. What do some of you think? I'd like to know.
Unfortunately once our leaders began to lump Iran in the "Axis of Evil" they did great harm to our relationship with just about the only POPULATION in that part of the world that actually LIKE us. I worked in Iran for a time in the '70s, it had a large, and growing modernizing, westward looking middle class. Albeit the entire population was held in check by the Savak (secret police).
When the Shah fell and the Ayatollahs came to prominence many people friendly to the US either fled, were murdered by the new regime or "went along to get along". In the past 8-10 years I've known many 20-30and 40 something Iranians who've moved home as the country has become more liberalized, ie; the more radical Ayatollahs lost much of their standing.
Then we start insulting them and lumping them in with North Korea and it gives their more radical element the perfect vehicle to sway the modernizing element back to the anti US viewpoint.
Attack them, WITH WHAT! Our military has taken a drubbing the past couple of years of occupation. Somehow everyone who claimed that our forces were GROSSLY OVERTAXED and "spread too thin", and "losing the cream of the officer and NCO corps", when we had 20,000-30,000 troops in the Balkans, seem to see no problem with the current mess.
But not too worry about Irag, it's "the war that will fund itself through oil revenue" WHOOPS, and "Mission Accomplished", WHOOPS, and "Democracy is messy", WHOOPS, and "you go to war with the troops and equipment you have" WHOOPS, and "we know EXACTLY where the WMD are", WHOOPS.
You asked for opinions, thought I'd throw in some FACTS so everyone can berate me for being a "liberal".
all cash
www.newamericancentury.org is the Neocon website which will explain what all of this is about ifyou go into the site and philosophy and people involved. It is like the idea of manifest destiny in the 1700 and 1800's when Americans believed that it was their destiny to take slaves and populate a new part of the world and build a mighty nation etc.. Bush said last night that to defeat terror, you have to replace tyranny with democracy one nation at a time. That is scary when you think that this idea will keep us at war for most of our lifetimes, but I guess thats OK since we dont have to fight it here, it can disrupt other peoples lives. Meanwhile. we can party, go to ballgames, and live it up while our soldiers die for us to have those freedoms. It will be decades before any democratic society can flourish there. How long did it take us here? America was over 150 years old and still fighting to be segregated and people couldnt even drink from the same water fountain or use the same toilet. Read the letter that Ahmadinajad wrote to Bush and I could be wrong, but in terms of speaking with faith and commitment, he hardly seems like some madman bent on world domination. His views may be wrong in areas like the Israeli issue, but look at the other things and you will find much truth in his words.
From my conservative point of view(please don't hate me)I personally don't think we need to find weapons of mass destruction to justify helping a country unseat a monster like Hussein. That man hates the USA, and would willingly & gleefully aid & abet anyone who wants to harm us. Anyone ever read what he allowed his sons to do to people over there? Or what HE did? The man was a threat, and he needed to be taken out. All you have to do is talk to any of our returning troops to find out how the majority of Iraqi's are so grateful that they are there. We need to get the job finished & get out.
If a country needs help & we ignore what is going on,
who will then help us in our time of need?
A conservative point of view is a good one and I dont hate conservatives. My views run down the middle, if the conservative view in a given issue is truth, I support it and likewise for liberal points. I can show you a few people who would be happy if someone came over here and took Bush and his cronies out of power. Point is that just because some Iraqis supported his ouster doesnt make it worth the money and the lives when America could be putting resources into its own problems. I know many soldiers who are mad as hell for having to have been there under the disguise of a weapons hunt. I have heard that there are many educated people and that there is/was a bustling middle class of people there. Everyone isnt poor and raggedy. I have heard that many Iraqis hate our presence and even though Saddam was a bad person, International law does not allow us to overthrow governments that we dont like.
Bonnie, do you know what government put Saddam in power? Gave him chemical weapons and had him use them on Iran? What countrys then and current Secretary of Defense met publicly in support of Saddam? Thats right, the good old USA. All of this is fixing problems that we started and they hate us because of our policy and not because we are free.
Speaking of our time of need, I expect that it is coming sooner than most people think. Think of the school bully, when he finally tripped in a fight and was on the verge of getting beat up for the first time, he looks for help and the only people around are the people he insulted and beat up before and now they help to finish him off. I like that analogy.
Ahmadinejad - a clever and dangerous enemy
There is a fascinating interview with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Der Spiegel.
Key excerpts:
ON HOLOCAUST
SPIEGEL: Denying the Holocaust is punishable in Germany. Are you indifferent when confronted with so much outrage?
Ahmadinejad: I know that DER SPIEGEL is a respected magazine. But I don't know whether it is possible for you to publish the truth about the Holocaust. Are you permitted to write everything about it?
(…)
We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn't research into a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to research, and even the governments support this.
SPIEGEL: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Holocaust occurred, there were concentration camps, there are dossiers on the extermination of the Jews, there has been a great deal of research, and there is neither the slightest doubt about the Holocaust nor about the fact - we greatly regret this - that the Germans are responsible for it. If we may now add one remark: the fate of the Palestinians is an entirely different issue, and this brings us into the present.
Ahmadinejad: No, no, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in history. The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another.
SPIEGEL: Are you questioning Israel's right to exist?
Ahmadinejad: Look here, my views are quite clear. We are saying that if the Holocaust occurred, then Europe must draw the consequences and that it is not Palestine that should pay the price for it. If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from. I believe that the German people today are also prisoners of the Holocaust. Sixty million people died in the Second World War. World War II was a gigantic crime. We condemn it all. We are against bloodshed, regardless of whether a crime was committed against a Muslim or against a Christian or a Jew. But the question is: Why among these 60 million victims are only the Jews the center of attention?
SPIEGEL: We're not Israel's uncritical ally in the Palestian conflict. But we want to make one thing very clear: We are critical, we are independent, but we won't simply stand by without protest when the existential right of the state of Israel, where many Holocaust survivors live, is being questioned.
Ahmadinejad: Precisely that is our point. Why should you feel obliged to the Zionists? If there really had been a Holocaust, Israel ought to be located in Europe, not in Palestine.
SPIEGEL: Do you want to resettle a whole people 60 years after the end of the war?
Ahmadinejad: Five million Palestinians have not had a home for 60 years. It is amazing really: You have been paying reparations for the Holocaust for 60 years and will have to keep paying up for another 100 years. Why then is the fate of the Palestinians no issue here?
ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ahmadinejad: We're fundamentally opposed to the expansion of nuclear-weapons arsenals. We don't need any weapons. We're a civilized, cultured people, and our history shows that we have never attacked another country.
SPIEGEL: Iran doesn't need the bomb that it wants to build?
Ahmadinejad: It's interesting to note that European nations wanted to allow the shah's dictatorship the use of nuclear technology. That was a dangerous regime. Yet those nations were willing to supply it with nuclear technology. Ever since the Islamic Republic has existed, however, these powers have been opposed to it. I stress once again, we don't need any nuclear weapons.
ON PALESTINIANS
Ahmadinejad: Our stance with respect to Palestine is clear. We say: Allow those to whom this country belongs to express their opinion. Let Jews, Christians and Muslims say what they think. The opponents of this proposal prefer war and threaten the region. Why are the United States and these two or three European nations opposed to this? I believe that those who imprison Holocaust researchers prefer war to peace. Our stance is democratic and peaceful.
SPIEGEL: The Palestinians have long gone a step further than you and recognize Israel as a fact, while you still wish to erase it from the map. The Palestinians are ready to accept a two-state solution while you deny Israel its right to existence.
Ahmadinejad: You're wrong. You saw that the Palestinian people elected Hamas in free elections. We argue that neither you nor we should claim to speak for the Palestian people. The Palestinians themselves should say what they want. In Europe it is customary to call a referendum on any issue. We should also give the Palestinians the opportunity to express their opinion.
ON IRAQ
Ahmadinejad: Let me say something about Iraq. We have always favoured peace and security in the region. For eight years, the Western countries provided arms to Saddam in the war against us, including chemical weapons, and gave him political support. We were against Saddam and suffered severely because of him, so we're happy that he has been toppled. But we don't accept a whole country being swallowed under the pretext of wanting to topple Saddam. More than 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives under the rule of the occupying forces.
SPIEGEL: But, Mr. President, who is swallowing Iraq? The United States has practically lost this war. By cooperating constructively, Iran might help the Americans consider their retreat from the country.
Ahmadinejad: This is very interesting: The Americans occupy the country, kill people, sell the oil and when they have lost, they blame others. We have very close ties to the Iraqi people. Many people on both sides of the border are related. We have lived side by side for thousands of years. Our holy pilgrimage sites are located in Iraq. Just like Iran, Iraq used to be a center of civilization.
(…)
We have always said that we support the popularly elected government of Iraq. But in my view the Americans are doing a bad job.
(…)
We feel animosity toward no one. We're concerned about the American soldiers who die in Iraq. Why do they have to die there? This war makes no sense.
(…)
They should not use Sept. 11 as an excuse to launch a military attack against the Middle East. They should take those who are responsible for the attacks to court. We're not opposed to that; we condemned the attacks. We condemn any attack against innocent people.
(…)
Europe has made three mistakes with respect to our people. The first mistake was to support the shah's government. This has left our people disappointed and discontent. However, by offering asylum to Imam Khomeini, France earned a special position that it lost again later. The second mistake was to support Saddam in his war against us. The truth is that our people expected Europe to be on our side, not against us. The third mistake was Europe's stance on the nuclear issue. Europe will be the big loser and will achieve nothing. We don't want to see that happen.
(...)
We understand the Americans' logic. They suffered damage as a result of the victory of the Islamic Revolution. But we're puzzled why some European countries are opposed to us.
Unlike most Third World tin-pot dictators (Chavez, Mugabe and many others), Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an incredibly smart and dangerous opponent. In this interview, he very cleverly identifies major points of disagreement within the Western world and exploits them to the fullest.
Notice how he cleverly links the Palestinian question with the issue of Germany's guilt about the Holocaust. By effectively saying that Germany has been financing Israel out of guilt, he succeeds in hitting the Israelis in their softest spot.
Notice how he never flatly states that Holocaust is a myth, but strongly denounces the West for not permitting to discuss that issue openly. Very clever.
Notice how he guilt-trips the West again and again over supporting the shah and Saddam Hussein. How he defends democracy in Palestine. How he almost approves of the US invasion of Iraq, but not its occupation.
And most cleverly of all, he tries to drive a wedge between the US and Europe by effectively saying that the Americans have the right to oppose Iran (we understand the Americans' logic. They suffered damage as a result of the victory of the Islamic Revolution), but that Europe doesn't have that right. He is saying, in effect, that while the US is an opponent (and can be respected as such), Europe might become something far worse unless it stops supporting the Americans. Notice how he condemned terrorist attacks in the US, but not in Europe. The message is clear: our beef is with the Americans and we will fight them fair and square (i.e no terrorism). But whoever betrays us and joins the American side will be treated like a traitor - without any fairness. And with terrorism.
I often give Assclown Awards to leaders who say stupid, crazy or inaccurate things. But Ahmadinejad is not a fool or a liar. And he is way more dangerous because of that.
I agree for the most part and I think you have a mature understanding of him. I believe that he is being honest and many will shoot the screen for me saying this, but I find him to be more verbally and historically astute than our President. This doesnt mean I am on his side, but our man cant tell a joke without reading off a sheet of paper. Even on issues that he has discussed and had a thousand meetings on, he always is reading from paper as if he is not thinking for himself.
For years we have gotten caught up in the perception of other leaders as keystone leaders like Khadafi (at one time), Saddam, Noriega, Aidid (Somalia) and others. He was right to say that Saddam was given Chemical weapons to go against them. Surely we cant expect them to be happy about that. We kicked out Saddam for having the same weapons that we gave him to use on them and we still found nothing.v Remember the footage of Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand in the Reagan years? They were in agreement on something. He is exposing hypocrisy.
With respect to his leadership and the potential economic, and physical ramifications of a war with them, I can tell you that I am not for it. Our policy even toward nukes has to be more even-handed. India has them, Pakistan has them, Israel has them and even Brazil is getting ready to start, not to mention China and Russia. Our policies towards these nations has to be even, everyone have them or no one does, because I dont believe that everyone that has them will or could use them against us. North Korea has been said to have one that can reach the west coast, but we are not jumping to wage war with them, why not?
Too many questions and not enough answers to justify a war.
I agree Adam, survival of the fittest bully. I remember as a child in school seeing how smart and fearless children dealt with big, strong bullies. They would allow him to tune all his energy into his latest conquest and then attack him when he is tired from a fight. Has it occurred to you that right when we have strecthed ourselves to our limits chasing oil in the Middle East, that that will be the time China, Russia and even North Korea may decide to give us a real test. Not just a military test, a policy test where they take what they want from someone or even us and dare us to do something about it. Dont think these nations with the histories that stretch back thousands of years are just so content with America being the world leader. They are waiting for time and our arrogance to give them the chance to rally up and challenge the dominance of this great nation. We have to stop thinking that our ship is unsinkable or we may just be a great Titanic headed for an iceberg.
Guide, I completely agree with you in the fact that this war we're in right now certainly does make us vulnerable to other attacks right now - and maybe I'm wrong (hopefully not), but I just don't see them making an attack on us. But definately, we are extremely vulnerable.
I think our biggest mistake in this war is not giving a whole-hearted effort. It seems as though we thought we could just kind of walk in over there and everyone would throw down their weapons and surrender. Obviously, we underestimated them. And back to the bully analogy - that's when bullies always lose - when they underestimate the others. To stay at the top of anything, you have to have extreme confidence in yourself and in what you're doing - but if you're not careful, that confidence turns to arrogance, and therein starts your downfall. I think as a country and society as a whole, we may have crossed that line from confidence to arrogance.
My political views are right down the middle. Can we afford to go into Iran?....NO!.....do we need to go into Iran?.....YES! if we have a real threat. Personally I feel that if we do decide to go into Iran we need to pull the troops out of Iraq not send in more soldiers from the US. It really is difficult to say because last time we believed we were under a real threat from a country(iraq) we went over there an created this whole fiasco.
Adam, remember when you were in school taking algebra or trig., or some subject that mey have been a challenge and a student would ask "why am I learning this, I am not going to need this for what I am going to be in life!!"? The reason why math applies to everything in life is because at the root, its about adding and subtracting not just numbers but facts.
When you add for instance the things that were said by people like Richard Clark, and others in the administration that left and came out against the President, the "bad intel" on WMDs, the shifting of story lines and purpose(Wmds today, regime change tomorrow, then liberation of a people who we found out didnt want us there), It leads you to suspicious conclusions. Every math problem has a way to check it so by viewing the vast array of info available on the web and foreign news etc., we can come to true conclusions about whats going on.
Yes, its all what someone wants you to know, NBC, ABC and others are a part of the whole info control cylce. In spanish the word "media" means the midpoint or half. The media sits in a buffer zone of info between us and the government and always has. If you watch Fox News, Beltway Boys and Brit Hume, the pundits that come on and help shape the opinions of the news we see mostly subscribe to the neocon philosophy. William Krystol, Fred Barnes, Krauthammer and Kondrake are all neocons yet you never hear them say it openly. Goto their websites and you will see it. This is news that sets out to create and foster
opinions that coincide with the government interests i.e. "state run media" in diguise.
You have to read the so called "conspiracy theorist" info and sites and not think that they are wrong just because they are in opposition to the official position. There are some positions that are very compelling. I also read foreign news and sites to see how the stories they put out compare to ours, in many cases, that will raise hair on your neck.
Based on my math, we are in deep trouble and it will take truly righteous leadership to get us out. No nation in history has just been able to DESTROY all of its enemies and keep up their rule. The history of the Romans is very much like our own.
Wow, guide, very well thought out and presented. I've been a bit busy trying to get a rehab done and closed this week, closing on Tuesday now, so haven't kept up too much on all the posts on this thread, but reading them now just confirms what I've always thought, WE HAVE SOME OF THE BEST READ, AND THOUGHTFUL posters on the web here on biggerpockets.
I would like to recommend two books to everyone, both by Kevin Phillips, former Nixon aide and author in about '67 or '68 of "The Emerging Republican Majority", also the guy that coined the word "sunbelt". The first is about the Bush family and IIRC is "American Dynasty", it's about 3 or 4 years old. The second is on bookshelves now and is "American Theocracy". Phillips is a lifelong Republican who cuts through the sound bites and the digs to the root of the story. If your hair isn't standing on end by the end of both, IT SHOULD BE.
BTW, I don't recall any book of his that isn't great, although some of them can be a bit of a slog unless you're a "wonk".
all cash
It seems clear to me that this whole upheaval is simply a pretext. I don't believe for one second that the people in a position of power truly believe that if Iran had a nuclear weapon that they would launch an attack on the US or Isreal; if they did or troops would be over there right now and they would reinstate the draft, if necesary. Our president and others have been working tirelessly to leave the public with the impression that the Iranian regime is almost as unreasonable as Al Qaeda. Let's assume that Iran is trying to ultimately develop a nuclear weapons program, so what! The most that they would be able to produce is probably less than a hundred, while the US and Isreal together posess well over ten thousand warheads. Even if they managed to develop a delivery system the could not destroy the US but they would be assuring the complete destruction of their society, way of life and probably every living being within their borders. The regime has consistently shown that they are trying to better their country and to me, this doesn't display suicidal tendencies. In my humble opinion, even if Iran had a few nuclear weapons the only thing that would change is that it would close out the plausibility of a foreign power toppling their regime. The US wouldn't be able to use that stick against them! I am thinking this on the fly so I encourage anyone to poke holes in my theory; I may not be right , but something is fishy.[/i]
I was reading thru some of the posts to this topic and I want to thank all of the contributers. Even though we don't all agree....I believe the world would be a better place if the writers that contributed to this topic were in charge. At least there would be an intelligent exchange of ideas.
Though I consider myself a conservative....I don't agree with the way big business is making money from the war effort. They (businesses) are profitting like no other war before with the sale of computers, cell phones, Mc'donalds, Burger King and Wendy's on the front line. No one other than the troops is in a hurry for this thing to end. And to add insult to injury we are now starting to lock up some of our own men for doing their jobs. It's like Vietnam to the tenth Power. Granted to change someone's ideology takes generations, yet, I believe Pres. Eisenhower warned us about the dangers of the big business war machine.
Being from the streets and ex-military I feel that once the lines have been drawn and a fight has been declared, one should do all they can to get it over quick. With today's technology we could make a quick end to this event. We even have the technology to send low level sound waves forcing individuals to come out of their dwellings. When Clinton suggested bombing Iraq, Bush replied, "why send a 5 million dollar missile to destroy a $5.00 dollar tent. Well that may have been funny at the time, but to then go and deploy ground forces in exchange for the missile seems to me unacceptable.
Like in the Bible, King David once said, " I'm coming to town and I'm gonna kill everything that pisses against the wall." (paraphrased), giving everyone that had to sit down to pee a chance to get out of Dodge (:
That said....I respect all our fine men and women in the armed forces I talk to them online all the time via the Poker Rooms, Myspace, ect.., and I think those of us that believe in praying should pray that the leaders of our nations obtain the wisdom to make the difficult decisions that must be made to end this nonsense. Bring our folks Back!
Once again thanks for all the fine comments and I really consider it an honor to be associated as a member to this forum.
You are a gentleman and a scholar. Very few realize the "business of war" and the profiteering that goes on during negative circumstances. Its an unfortunate bi-product of capitalism and has always gone on. When some type of disaster occurs, be it natural or human, there is always someone there to make money from the extension of the circumstance. The extension of grief and mourning or the extension of a war benefits the greedy. We need to bring em home and stop the madness or maybe they will wait until they find a way to profit off bringing them home.
The idea of another war is absolutely insane considering the debacle that we are in now.
This president of Iran talks too much to be a real threat. If he really had anything in his pocket he'd shut his mouth and make a move, or at least sit tight till he is ready.
If anything, he is a master of PR and is using it to scrape up anything the world community is willing to give him in return for not pursuing nuclear capabilities.
Crpntr, if you can see that he is not a real threat, then so should our esteemed President and his Cabinet, and they should stop beating the drum of war and pissing people off. Its not the President of Iran, its the people in the region who may have had moderate views who become anti US in the process because they come to see us as trying to bully them. There is no "move" for him make and Bush knows it, and they need to stop lying to the world to make us think there is a threat.
I was presented this line of thinking by a friend about the whole mess with Iran right now. As I thought about it, it starts to make sense.....at least a little bit.
With Iran, the President is almost in a no-win situation. Here sits the Iranian leaders saying they have nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, with the possible threat of using them. With that, we really have three options. We could 1) try diplomatically to impose sanctions on their nuclear program (tried and failed) 2) attempt to stop them from making them (which we are trying, and most likely failing - at least in the public eye. or 3) sit back and do nothing to stop them. I'll admit, since I along with the majority of people don't think they are much of a threat, if even a threat at all, option #3 seems like the most logical and best solution.
Problem is this, what if the Iranian leaders aren't bluffing. It's like watching the World Series of Poker re-runs on ESPN. Some players bluff when they have nothing. However, the most successful players, when they have a good hand, can play it so that they get you to think they're just trying to bluff you - then they take you for all they can get. What happens if that is what's happening with the nuclear question here?
If we do nothing, and it comes to light that Iran IS a threat and does launch an attack - there will be an enormous public outcry because we did nothing to stop them - even when they told the world they had the capability to do what they did.
Anyway, just thought I'd share my friends ideas to see what you all think.
Dwayne, I'm not sure if you agree with me or not.
But I think my mind was changed last night when I saw this video last night.
here is the link to the google video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2295792449224502914
enjoy!
Whether it is nuclear or not, Iran does not have a bomb that can reach the United States and if this video link shows me anything is that Israel is very capable of defending itself. One reason that the US did not know about this attack on the reactor is because Saddam got his ambition and much of his technology from us as well as the French. There very well may be a threat to them, but why do we have to take a threat to them as a threat to us?, especially when they are so very capable of kicking butt. Whe your little brother gets picked on, you have to make him fight sometimes and prove himself. Again this is a high stakes game being played way over our heads.
P.S. The Mossad is a very serious agency.
This thread hasn't been posted to in a while but...surely you have to be concerned when a country that has already given missiles to a terrorist group decides to pursue uranium enrichment. Not a good thing. The US may not be a direct target, but Israel -- and Israel is the US's best ally in the region.