Support NeoGAF

[el retorno]

Plus you're advocating hostile operations against a nation that has not attacked anyone.

Hezbollah, Iraqi militants, Hamas, hostage crisis, planning to attack on US soil.

 

[Something Wicked]

Er... Out of curiosity, what country has successfully enacted (or even, for that matter, visibly attempted) regime change because of international embargo?

There's some pretty obvious counterexamples (Iraq, North Korea).

Off the top of my head, the most notable example might be South Africa, though I think there was already widespread and violent opposition before embargos started happening, iirc.

How about just recently with Myanmar/Burma? The British officials in the country for diplomatic talks for the first time since the '50s.

absolutely not, abso-lute-ly not. Embargos make the nationalism even stronger, and the dedication the regime far stronger as the population is now far more dependant on the state for everything, and the rest of the world is now far, far, far more easier to demonise.

Fortunately, many Iranians are more aware of the world than you. Such Iranians know their government is despotic and that the United States isn't some Great Satan. However, they do fear full fledged aerial bombing campaigns from the US directed within Iran's major cities.

If the regime change option is used, I believe the US should keep the cruise missiles mainly out of the cities and not to target major infrastructure pieces (power plants, bridges, etc.). The primary targets would be Iran's offensive missile launchers, anti-air weapons, and IRG bases. Nudge the regular army into taking on its rival in the Revolutionary Guard.

So what's the other part of the machine in Iran?

Also, in this case, the rhetoric on the US' part sounds disturbingly like the rhetoric used in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq. It's a little disturbing.

Iraq (under Saddam) and Iran were the twin-headed hydra of state sponsored terrorism, hence post-9/11, the US developed similar policies for each regime. Both Saddam/Baath and the Ayatollah/IRG regimes were/are the major sources of instability in the region.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE are spending their oil profits with building massive cities with state of the art water systems, highways, rail lines, etc.

Saddam's Iraq and Iran were/are mostly using its oil money on weapons from Russia and China. Now, SA and the Gulf states have to purchase weapons from the US to counteract Iran's aggression. Without this Iranian regime, the US doesn't sell as many weapons to these countries and can take a much harder stance against their human rights violations.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

If the regime change option is used, I believe the US should keep the cruise missiles mainly out of the cities and not to target major infrastructure pieces (power plants, bridges, etc.). The primary targets would be Iran's offensive missile launchers, anti-air weapons, and IRG bases. Nudge the regular army into taking on its rival in the Revolutionary Guard.

This is a really shitty Tom Clancy novel...

here's some more history on the Iraq sanctions-

Thomas Nagy of Georgetown University unearthed a Defense Intelligence Agency document entitled "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," which was circulated to all major allied commands one day after the Gulf War started. It analyzed the weaknesses of the Iraqi water treatment system, the effects of sanctions on a damaged system and the health effects of untreated water on the Iraqi populace. Mentioning that chlorine is embargoed under the sanctions, it speculates that "Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons," something that the United States disallowed for many years.

Combined with the fact that nearly every large water treatment plant in the country was attacked during the Gulf War, and seven out of eight dams destroyed, this suggests a deliberate targeting of the Iraqi water supply for "postwar leverage," a concept U.S. government officials admitted was part of military planning in the Gulf War (Washington Post, 6/23/91).

A Dow Jones search for 2000 finds only one mention of this evidence in an American paper--and that in a letter to the editor (Austin American-Statesman, 10/01/00). Subsequent documents unearthed by Nagy (The Progressive, 8/10/01) suggest that the plan to destroy water treatment, then to restrict chlorine and other necessary water treatment supplies, was done with full knowledge of the explosion of water-borne disease that would result. "There are no operational water and sewage treatment plants and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels," one post-war assessment reported; "further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation," another predicted.

Combine this with harsh and arbitrary restrictions on medicines, the destruction of Iraq's vaccine facilities, and the fact that, until this summer, vaccines for common infectious diseases were on the so-called "1051 list" of substances in practice banned from entering Iraq. Deliberately creating the conditions for disease and then withholding the treatment is little different morally from deliberately introducing a disease-causing organism like anthrax...

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

So after effectively poisoning Iraq's water supply, setting back the infrastructure 50 years and arbitrarily killing a conservative estimate of half a million children, in a nation where a significant amount of the population already hated the regime, the ruling party maintained power for a decade until it was vanquished by aggressive invasion. Amazing what collective punishment can achieve in the hearts and minds of men.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE

Again, a large majority of the oppressed citizenry in these countries believe the US and Israel are the major threat to the region, not Iran. How do you reconcile this "view on the ground" with your Iranian nightmare?

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Somethingwicked, Iranians consider their right to nuclear power as important as their right to nationalizing their own oil. They may not see Americans as evil, but they know that such strong sanctions in response to their pursuit of nuclear power is wrong and they will not start blaming their own government no matter how far outside of city limits you launch the cruise missiles.

The reasonable, cool-headed deal should be less sanctions in return for increased transparency/monitoring of their nuclear program. As much as you may dislike their system of government, Iranians still want to keep their strong, centralized religious government.

Any plan to change the government will require direct war and will be much messier than Iraq.

 

[theignoramus]

While those deaths were horrible the blame goes to Saddam, who wouldn´t comply. Same with Iran. If anybody is hurting over there its their own government´s fault.

utter bullshit, flatly contradicted by the two UN guys that ran the fucking sanctions regime! And guess what? Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, both responsible for running the fucking oil for food program, both categorically denounced it as genocidal. what do you say to that? That the US government is being falsely maligned by not one, but two consecutive UN representatives, one Irish, one German, that ran the program?
Is there no end to your apologetics for the US government?

 

[theignoramus]

I agree Iran as the right to nuclear power. The US does too. It doesn´t have the right to hide stuff from inpectors, conduct tests and computer similations about nuclear weapons, threaten to reduce cooperation with the IAEA and play games with the IAEA. Iran could open up its program completly and be done with this.

LOL. the NPT has no jurisdiction whatsoever on a computer simulation or a missile program of a sovereign state. it is concerned with two things and two thing only. No proliferation of nuclear technology and no highly enriched uranium being used for weapons development. The IAEA categorically states that Iran is NOT doing the latter and Iran hasnt been accused of doing the former. everything you said is just politicized crap. The US National Intelligence estimate, as of 2011, says Iran isnt building nukes.

 

[el retorno]

utter bullshit, flatly contradicted by the two UN guys that ran the fucking sanctions regime! And guess what? Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, both responsible for running the fucking oil for food program, both categorically denounced it as genocidal. what do you say to that? That the US government is being falsely maligned by not one, but two consecutive UN representatives, one Irish, one German, that ran the program?
Is there no end to your apologetics for the US government?

How is that not true? What would have happened if Iraq would have done what the UNSC was asking for?

The sanctions would have ended.

And to counter your two quotes from polticians here is the head of the worlds oldest human rights organization "one of the key elements of a crime against humanity and of genocide is intent. The embargo wasn’t imposed because the United States and Britain wanted children to die. If you think so, you have to prove it."

I there no end your "america is coupable for everything in the middle east"?

 

[Jburton]

This might seem like a stupid question, but what the fuck has Iran done to anyone?

Why is a Showdown required?

 

[Jburton]

How is that not true? What would have happened if Iraq would have done what the UNSC was asking for?

The sanctions would have ended.

And to counter your two quotes from polticians here is the head of the worlds oldest human rights organization "one of the key elements of a crime against humanity and of genocide is intent. The embargo wasn’t imposed because the United States and Britain wanted children to die. If you think so, you have to prove it."

I there no end your "america is coupable for everything in the middle east"?

Would it not have been obvious to both governments that children would die?

 

[theignoramus]

Would it not have been obvious to both governments that children would die?

especially when they fucking ban powdered milk, baby food, and vital medicines. That has nothing to do with rationale fears of WMD development and everything to do with making life as brutal as possible for ordinary Iraqis in a bizarre hope they'd revolt against the regime.
incidentally, targeting a civilian population is a crime against humanity. the charge of genocide is something the US could probably contest in an international court, but their sadistic policy on "dual use items" was nothing short of a crime against humanity, which is only a notch lower than genocide and the crime of aggression.

 

[el retorno]

LOL. the NPT has no jurisdiction whatsoever on a computer simulation or a missile program of a sovereign state. it is concerned with two things and two thing only. No proliferation of nuclear technology and no highly enriched uranium being used for weapons development. The IAEA categorically states that Iran is NOT doing the latter and Iran hasnt been accused of doing the former. everything you said is just politicized crap. The US National Intelligence estimate, as of 2011, says Iran isnt building nukes.

The nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, of which Iran is a member, recognizes a state’s “inalienable right” to a peaceful nuclear energy program as long as non-nuclear-weapon state membersabide by their commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons.The treaty does not reference specific nuclear activities such as enrichment.

and simulating nuclear bomb tests doesn´t raise any alarms which is what the IAEA said Iran did.

And actively bulding nukes is different than having a nuclear weapons program and designing weapons.

And this is what I found out about the US National Intelligence estimate update

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2011_03/Iran

One central judgment from the 2007 NIE that Clapper’s statement did not address was the intelligence community’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear warhead development and covert uranium-conversion and -enrichment activities. In 2007 the intelligence community judged “with high confidence” that Iran suspended such efforts in the fall of 2003 and concluded “with moderate confidence” that Iran maintained that halt through mid-2007. (See ACT, January/February 2008.)

Statements from senior intelligence officials over the past year have suggested that Iran has engaged in research on nuclear weapons designs at least since the 2007 NIE. “I think they continue to work on designs in that area,” CIA Director Leon Panetta told ABC’s This Week June 27.

and

The public disclosure of a previously secret uranium-enrichment plant under construction near the city of Qom in September 2009 also raised questions about Iran’s renewed pursuit of covert enrichment facilities.

 

[el retorno]

Would it not have been obvious to both governments that children would die?

Yes. But the goal for the UNSC was to have a disarment of Iraq. The sanction would have been lifted if Saddam had complied. Saddam held everything in his hand.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

So long as they disclose any new nuclear sites within the IAEA deadlines and allow inspectors full access, there isn't a problem.

Do you personally think that Iran shouldn't have any nuclear program?

 

[el retorno]

So long as they disclose any new nuclear sites within the IAEA deadlines and allow inspectors full access, there isn't a problem.

Do you personally think that Iran shouldn't have any nuclear program?

Yes, full access and no development of weapons.

And I have no problem with an Iranian civilian nuclear program.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Yes, full access and no development of weapons.

And I have no problem with an Iranian civilian nuclear program.

So what changes exactly would you suggest?

 

[Wazzim]

Yes. But the goal for the UNSC was to have a disarment of Iraq. The sanction would have been lifted if Saddam had complied. Saddam held everything in his hand.

World Police, fuck yeah.

 

[el retorno]

World Police, fuck yeah.

Yes the United Nations Security Council is the closest thing to that

So what changes exactly would you suggest?

Iran being honest about its program. And not hiding anything.

 

[Gaborn]

Iran being honest about its program. And not hiding anything.

What exactly are they hiding at the moment?

 

[Rur0ni]

What exactly are they hiding at the moment?

As recent as 2009 a secret uranium enrichment facility was uncovered right?

Edit: point being they aren't beyond hiding things.

 

[Gaborn]

As recent as 2009 a secret uranium enrichment facility was uncovered right?

Edit: point being they aren't beyond hiding things.

Iran is entitled to pursue a peaceful nuclear program, which in part includes enriching uranium, a process that is used both for nuclear power and in people's fantasies nuclear weaponry.

As for the Iraq scenario:

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

If you think so, you have to prove it.

It's on the record. In the link I posted above-

"There are no operational water and sewage treatment plants and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels," one post-war assessment reported; "further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation," another predicted.

Not only were the treatment plants and dams deliberately targeted and destroyed during the Gulf War, the government's post war assessment directly preceded sanctions on chlorine, antibiotics and vaccines against infectious diseases. There was Knowledge, intent and execution.

The sanctions would have ended.

This is also completely false. Please read this entire post, I'm sure you will find it highly enlightening.
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001542.html

A couple choice quotes, from Robert Gates in 1991

All possible sanctions will be maintained until he is gone. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government.

and

Hussein Kamel, the man who'd run Iraq's WMD programs, defected in 1995 and told UNSCOM that Iraq had nothing.

and Albright again

We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions...And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful...

Clearly, a change in Iraq's government could lead to a change in U.S. policy. Should that occur, we would stand ready, in coordination with our allies and friends, to enter rapidly into a dialogue with the successor regime.

The terms of the sanctions were impossible to comply with for two reasons.
1) there was no weapons program to begin with
2) the end game was regime change, compliance had nothing to do with it (as is the case with Iran)

The fear isn't Iran's nuclear bomb. The fear is having to "engage" a country with nuclear capability. US foreign policy can be summed up as "liberate your markets for multi-national corporations" and "do not defend against US military contingency". For weaker countries, challenging these precepts means you are a hostile and belligerent enemy of the United States.

 

[el retorno]

What exactly are they hiding at the moment?

In November of 2011, IAEA officials identified a "large explosive containment vessel" inside Parchin.[146] The IAEA later assessed that Iran has been conducting experiments to develop nuclear weapons capability.[147]

In July 2010, Iran barred two IAEA inspectors from entering the country. The IAEA rejected Iran's reasons for the ban and said it fully supported the inspectors, which Tehran has accused of reporting wrongly that some nuclear equipment was missing.[144]

In May 2010, the IAEA issued a report that Iran had declared production of over 2.5 metric tons of low-enriched uranium, which would be enough if further enriched to make two nuclear weapons, and that Iran has refused to answer inspectors’ questions on a variety of activities, including what the agency called the “possible military dimensions” of Iran's nuclear program.[142][143]

In February 2010, the IAEA issued a report scolding Iran for failing to explain purchases of sensitive technology as well as secret tests of high-precision detonators and modified designs of missile cones to accommodate larger payloads. Such experiments are closely associated with atomic warheads.[141]

In November 2009, the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors overwhelmingly backed a demand of the U.S., Russia, China, and three other powers that Iran immediately stop building its newly revealed nuclear facility and freeze uranium enrichment. Iranian officials shrugged off approval of the resolution by 25 members of the Board, but the U.S. and its allies hinted at new UN sanctions if Iran remained defiant.[140]

In September 2009, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei that Iran had broken the law by not disclosing its second uranium enrichment site at Qom sooner. Nevertheless, he said, the United Nations did not have credible evidence that Iran had an operational nuclear program.[139]

Yes there are things that say there is no "proof" Iran has been building nukes and other contradictory evidence that says they aren´t but the point remains clear that they are hiding things from the IAEA.

Iran is entitled to pursue a peaceful nuclear program, which in part includes enriching uranium, a process that is used both for nuclear power and in people's fantasies nuclear weaponry.

In September 2009, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei that Iran had broken the law by not disclosing its second uranium enrichment site at Qom sooner. Nevertheless, he said, the United Nations did not have credible evidence that Iran had an operational nuclear program.[139]

 

[el retorno]

It's on the record. In the link I posted above-


Not only were the treatment plants and dams deliberately targeted and destroyed during the Gulf War, the government's post war assessment directly preceded sanctions on chlorine, antibiotics and vaccines against infectious diseases. There was Knowledge, intent and execution.

That´s proving the UNSC has the intent to kill people?

 

[Gaborn]

Yes there are things that say there is no "proof" Iran has been building nukes and other contradictory evidence that says they aren´t but the point remains clear that they are hiding things from the IAEA.

Sooo... I looked at the wikipedia page you apparently used for the source and...

In November of 2011, IAEA officials identified a "large explosive containment vessel" inside Parchin.[146] The IAEA later assessed that Iran has been conducting experiments to develop nuclear weapons capability.[147]

so according to the source they got this... 11 years ago. *yawn* a large explosive containment vessel could easily be used for conventional explosives.

In July 2010, Iran barred two IAEA inspectors from entering the country. The IAEA rejected Iran's reasons for the ban and said it fully supported the inspectors, which Tehran has accused of reporting wrongly that some nuclear equipment was missing.[144]

From the source again:

(Reuters) - Iran has barred two U.N. nuclear inspectors from entering the Islamic Republic, increasing tension less than two weeks after Tehran was hit by new U.N. sanctions over its disputed atomic program.

and

Iran, which has declared the two inspectors persona non grata, made clear it would still allow the Vienna-based U.N. watchdog to monitor its nuclear facilities, saying other experts could carry out the work.

"Inspections are continuing without any interruption," Iran's IAEA envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh told reporters in Vienna.

"(But) we have to show more vigilance about the performance of the inspectors to protect the confidentiality," he said, criticizing alleged leaks by inspectors to Western media.

I'm not sure that's evidence of anything other than personal pique.

In May 2010, the IAEA issued a report that Iran had declared production of over 2.5 metric tons of low-enriched uranium, which would be enough if further enriched to make two nuclear weapons, and that Iran has refused to answer inspectors’ questions on a variety of activities, including what the agency called the “possible military dimensions” of Iran's nuclear program.[142][143]

Or enough for a nuclear power plant or two? This is simple fear mongering.

In February 2010, the IAEA issued a report scolding Iran for failing to explain purchases of sensitive technology as well as secret tests of high-precision detonators and modified designs of missile cones to accommodate larger payloads. Such experiments are closely associated with atomic warheads.[141]

But not exclusively so. Iran presumably has a right to weaponry to defend itself, and it has a right to enrich uranium, the other thing primarily noted by the source.

In November 2009, the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors overwhelmingly backed a demand of the U.S., Russia, China, and three other powers that Iran immediately stop building its newly revealed nuclear facility and freeze uranium enrichment. Iranian officials shrugged off approval of the resolution by 25 members of the Board, but the U.S. and its allies hinted at new UN sanctions if Iran remained defiant.[140]

What are they hiding here?

In September 2009, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei that Iran had broken the law by not disclosing its second uranium enrichment site at Qom sooner. Nevertheless, he said, the United Nations did not have credible evidence that Iran had an operational nuclear program.[139]

Ok. and?

None of this is evidence of anything close to claims that they're involved in a nuclear weapons program. Some of it is suggestive but the innocuous explanation is entirely plausible as well.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

That´s proving the UNSC has the intent to kill people?

If you contract a disease, and I have the power to withhold treatment of that disease and knowingly do so, am I acting with intent?

 

[el retorno]

None of this is evidence of anything close to claims that they're involved in a nuclear weapons program. Some of it is suggestive but the innocuous explanation is entirely plausible as well.

It shows they are playing games and not being forth right. And you´re jumping to the innocuous explanation because that´s what you want to believe. You asked what they are hiding. Does not revealing a plant not count. That´s just worth a "ok and?" You don´t think they could have done anything before they revealed it you don´t think that hints that they are not above having other secret plants?

That the the IAEA report which says they´ve been computer testing nuclear devices. Yes that leads might right to the "innocuous explanation."

 

[el retorno]

If you contract a disease, and I have the power to withhold treatment of that disease and knowingly do so, am I acting with intent?

That´s not what happened though. Saddam held the cure.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

That´s not what happened though. Saddam held the cure.

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

 

[el retorno]

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

No. I´m saying Iraq held the end of the sanctions in its hand.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

No. I´m saying Iraq held the end of the sanctions in its hand.

Try again.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34032449&postcount=371

 

[el retorno]

Try again.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34032449&postcount=371

And... where does that say that Iraq didn´t hold the keys of it´s own future?

 

[YoungHav]

This might seem like a stupid question, but what the fuck has Iran done to anyone?

Why is a Showdown required?

Iran refuses to give oil to Whitey. That's all it boils down to. They kicked out some British oil company in the 50's and UK/US has been pissed off since.

 

[el retorno]

Iran refuses to give oil to Whitey. That's all it boils down to. They kicked out some British oil company in the 50's and UK/US has been pissed off since.

Yes since the US has been struggling for oil since 1979.

 

[speculawyer]

Iran refuses to give oil to Whitey. That's all it boils down to. They kicked out some British oil company in the 50's and UK/US has been pissed off since.

C'mon. They desperately want to sell their oil . . . things may get out of hand if they are not able to sell their oil because they are completely dependent on oil money.

The west just doesn't want an Islamic theocracy with a nuke. But the problem is that standing up to the west and the (presumably peaceful) nuclear program are popular domestically in Iran. So it pushes both sides to a stand-off.

 

[YoungHav]

do you think it's the Islam that's bothering the powers that be? Not the common folk on the ground, I mean the ones that have power.

Yes since the US has been struggling for oil since 1979.

It's not about US needing oil, it's about U.S. investors making a profit.

 

[Extra Sauce]

Showdown, you say?

Thanks for reminding me that the Farrelly Bros used to make amazing movies.

 

[Something Wicked]

Iran refuses to give oil to Whitey. That's all it boils down to. They kicked out some British oil company in the 50's and UK/US has been pissed off since.

The race card will surely win any complex debate...

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

And... where does that say that Iraq didn´t hold the keys of it´s own future?

First, please read the link I provided in that post, it explains a lot.
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001542.html

Second, if you still don't understand why Saddam didn't "hold the cure" for people drinking poisoned water, ask yourself two simple questions. What terms, in writing, did the Ba'ath regime have to meet in order to lift the sanctions? According to US Officials, what happens when they meet those terms?

And then read the link I provided again, to see if it sinks in. Repeat as necessary.

 

[Gaborn]

It shows they are playing games and not being forth right.

Well, I'm sure every country tells the truth about everything, but I'm not really seeing anything significant.

And you´re jumping to the innocuous explanation because that´s what you want to believe.

What? The fact that there IS an innocuous explanation in and of itself demonstrates that we shouldn't be beating the war drum quite so hard.

You asked what they are hiding. Does not revealing a plant not count. That´s just worth a "ok and?" You don´t think they could have done anything before they revealed it you don´t think that hints that they are not above having other secret plants?

secret plants perhaps, actual highly enriched material for nuclear weapons? Quite a stretch.

That the the IAEA report which says they´ve been computer testing nuclear devices. Yes that leads might right to the "innocuous explanation."

The US has drawn up military plans for the invasion of Canada. Clearly Canada should have invaded us years ago.

 

[maharg]

I'd like to point out that if I were Iran and trying to build a nuclear power plant, for peaceful or otherwise purposes, I'd be thinking a lot about what happened to Iraq's in 1981. For good reason.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I'd like to point out that if I were Iran and trying to build a nuclear power plant, for peaceful or otherwise purposes, I'd be thinking a lot about what happened to Iraq's in 1981. For good reason.

Two holes in your argument:

1) Iraq (or any other country for that matter) has already said they wouldn't allow Israel to use its airspace if they intend to bomb Iran.

2) The F-16s that bombed the Osiraq plant were already spitting fumes, and Iran, being an even a larger country and further away from Israel, they would have to refuel in mid-air. Not going to happen. Israel will not violate another country's sovereignty, and if they do, Israeli fighter jets will get shot down, and deservingly so.

 

[YoungHav]

The race card will surely win any complex debate...

I am not debating. The animus towards Iran for the most part is they are scary moooslems, simple as that. I'm wondering about the people in powers' motivations, not the racist asshats on the ground.

 

[maharg]

Yeah, they didn't just invade Lebanon or anything. Israel has huge respect for the sovereignty of their neighbours.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Two different situations, but whatever makes you happy, dude.

 

[GillianSeed79]

I dunno about nationalism, but a siege makes dissidents, along with everyone else, more reliant on the regime for basic goods and services and allows the regime to consolidate its power, even as the economy falters. As was the case in Iraq.

I kind of agree with this. Sanctions did jack all to influence regime change in Iraq post Gulf War 1. I don't even want to get into how we encouraged an uprising but did nothing when Saddam's forces crushed it.

Wrecking another country's economy I would say bolsters nationalism based on the collective punishment angle and sows resentment among among actual progressives.
I wish our foreign policy was more based around diplomacy and empowering dissidents in Iran. I might be wrong, but I think the young people in Iran don't really buy into the whole death to America thing. Maybe something as simple as a radio free Iran type operation would help. Nah, that's too 80s.

I am among the opinion that if they want nuclear energy for domestic power needs that's fine. I don't think anybody believes that's what the regime's goals are though. Even then I kind of find it hypocritical that we say one country can't have nuclear weapons when we and, say, Israel have huge stockpiles.

That's one thing I'm kind of afraid of actually. I'm not making any judgements, but I have a feeling the Arab Spring has Israeli hawks pushing the US harder and harder to attack Iran because they feel more vulnerable.

That and Iran's influence is much greater in the region thanks in no small part to our folly in Iraq.
The crazy thing is unlike, say, Libya, Iran has actual civil institutions that would probably make a transition to a more democratic government easier.

My nieve hope is that someday the people of Iran can shake off the current regime peacefully on their own and become a more respected member of the international community. I'd love for us to actually see the people of Iran as just normal people who got fucked both ways by the US and the current regime.

I mean there was a small flame there when they took to the streets. If we bomb them now that's not going to happen again for another 40 years. It just upsets me that with all the strides made in the Arab world over the last year the people of Iran are still suffering. Maybe if the people of Syria aren't silenced or murdered to the point where they give up Iranians will still have hope. Shit, even a moderate Islamist government would be better than the current regime.

 

[maharg]

Two different situations, but whatever makes you happy, dude.

In specifics, sure. But in the end, if Israel feels threatened by the existence of nuclear reactors in Iran, it's really hard to argue based on their history that they wouldn't go pretty far to protect themselves, regardless of what they say now. Israel has a pretty blatant history of acting unilaterally against perceived threats.

 

[theignoramus]

and simulating nuclear bomb tests doesn´t raise any alarms which is what the IAEA said Iran did.

And actively bulding nukes is different than having a nuclear weapons program and designing weapons.

And this is what I found out about the US National Intelligence estimate update

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2011_03/Iran


and

lol. You can continue quote mining and throwing out all manner of bullshit, but it doesnt change the facts.
There is no conclusive evidence Iran is pursuing a bomb.

A government consultant who has read the highly classified 2011 N.I.E. update depicted the report as reinforcing the essential conclusion of the 2007 paper: Iran halted weaponization in 2003. “There’s more evidence to support that assessment,” the consultant told me.

 

[theignoramus]

It shows they are playing games and not being forth right. And you´re jumping to the innocuous explanation because that´s what you want to believe. You asked what they are hiding. Does not revealing a plant not count. That´s just worth a "ok and?" You don´t think they could have done anything before they revealed it you don´t think that hints that they are not above having other secret plants?

That the the IAEA report which says they´ve been computer testing nuclear devices. Yes that leads might right to the "innocuous explanation."

so what? other countries dont fully comply with IAEA demands.

Brazil Oct. 19 granted International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors limited access to crucial uranium-enrichment technology, increasing the prospects for an end to a nearly six-month-old standoff over the South American giant’s nuclear program.

The dispute broke out in April when IAEA inspectors arrived at Brazil’s uranium-enrichment facility in Resende, near Rio de Janeiro (See ACT, May 2004) and were barred from viewing many of the plant’s centrifuge components. The inspectors were restricted to the vicinity of the plant and to monitoring the arrival and departure of uranium.

Quit acting like Iran is some sort of outlier on this.

 

[theignoramus]

Two holes in your argument:

1) Iraq (or any other country for that matter) has already said they wouldn't allow Israel to use its airspace if they intend to bomb Iran.

2) The F-16s that bombed the Osiraq plant were already spitting fumes, and Iran, being an even a larger country and further away from Israel, they would have to refuel in mid-air. Not going to happen. Israel will not violate another country's sovereignty, and if they do, Israeli fighter jets will get shot down, and deservingly so.

Iraqi airspace, as of Jan. 1 is no longer protected by US airplanes. Obviously the US is monitoring their airspace from its positions in the Gulf, but if the Israelis decided to use Iraqi airspace (which is the easiest route) to bomb Iran, Iraq would be in no position to contest them until a year from now. Prior to this, had the Israelis flown over Iraqi airspace, the US would have had to confront them.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Two holes in your argument:

1) Iraq (or any other country for that matter) has already said they wouldn't allow Israel to use its airspace if they intend to bomb Iran.

2) The F-16s that bombed the Osiraq plant were already spitting fumes, and Iran, being an even a larger country and further away from Israel, they would have to refuel in mid-air. Not going to happen. Israel will not violate another country's sovereignty, and if they do, Israeli fighter jets will get shot down, and deservingly so.

Who says they would use F16s? They could use bombers or more likely rockets. Maximum precision, no Israeli casulties.