Is Iran Next?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:28 am

I'm surprised/saddened/angry that some conservative radio hosts are actually in favor of attacking Iran.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:32 am

Accountable;535713 wrote: I'm surprised/saddened/angry that some conservative radio hosts are actually in favor of attacking Iran. ( mad:

I wouldn't be surprised, but it would seem to be about the last option that should be considered.

rkdian · Post by **rkdian** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:37 am

Given my situation, all political views aside, I think ANY attack on our part right now would be ill-advised. I want my baby home! Any sand he sees can be on American soil! If he needs to experience a jungle, I will take him to slews in Louisiana. That is close enough, he dodge 'gaters instead of bullets.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:41 am

Bill Sikes;535718 wrote: I wouldn't be surprised, but it would seem to be about the last option that should be considered.
It would be a closer bet if Bush were up for re-election, but I'm fairly sure we're safe.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:45 am

Diuretic;535730 wrote: Perhaps Limbaugh might like to volunteer as a blimp.
Come on, keep up. He lost weight years ago. Now the joke's about his coclear (sp?) implant. It's supposed to really be a receiver so he can get his orders on the fly.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:16 am

I thnik there is every possibility that the US or especially Israel will attack Iran within the next 12 months, bombing the facilities that are allegedly involved in developing this nuclear program that the Iranians seem to be hell bent on developing, its hard to know what is actually going to happen, but its certainly not unlikely, when you couple this with the fact that Iran is getting more involved in Iraq as well, it seems that the region is going to remain very dangerous for all involved in the near future.

rkdian · Post by **rkdian** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:22 am

Galbally;535760 wrote: I thnik there is every possibility that the US or especially Israel will attack Iran within the next 12 months, bombing the facilities that are allegedly involved in developing this nuclear program that the Iranians seem to be hell bent on developing, its hard to know what is actually going to happen, but its certainly not unlikely, when you couple this with the fact that Iran is getting more involved in Iraq as well, it seems that the region is going to remain very dangerous for all involved in the near future.

Thank for being my sunshine this morning there buddy! :-1

I know that it is inevitable. We will be sending troops somewhere. Being infantry-sharp shooter rifleman, makes it pretty much a given that I will be kissing my boy bye-bye.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:11 am

Accountable;535713 wrote: I'm surprised/saddened/angry that some conservative radio hosts are actually in favor of attacking Iran.

Well, first of all, it would have to be a conservative host because the liberal ones can’t seem to draw and audience.

I hope and pray we don’t have to put one more of our finest in harms way. At the same time, I hope and pray that Iran is stopped before it becomes the threat to the world it wants to be. If they are allowed to expand the way they want to we will most certainly regret having allowed it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:17 pm

Clint;535854 wrote: If they are allowed to expand the way they want to we will most certainly regret having allowed it.
We will regret attacking to prevent it as well. I'd rather be optimistic.

Why do I see a self-fulfilling prophecy coming?

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:33 pm

Accountable;535734 wrote: Come on, keep up. He lost weight years ago. Now the joke's about his coclear (sp?) implant. It's supposed to really be a receiver so he can get his orders on the fly.

on the fly.... hehehe......

for those of you playing the home game, I'm referring to Jumbo Rush's Drug habbit.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:46 pm

Accountable;536484 wrote: We will regret attacking to prevent it as well. I'd rather be optimistic.

Why do I see a self-fulfilling prophecy coming?

Optomism is good unless it blinds us to reality and reality should draw an optomistic response. The reality is that Iran's leader is optomistic about his distruction and ours so I don't think it's wise to let our optomism keep us from action.

If he continues there will be a time when responsible leaders have to stop him. He has already made it clear that talking won't work. Maybe that will change... we should always hope and keep trying.

"self-fullfilling prophecy"... Who, what?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:01 am

Clint;536640 wrote: Optomism is good unless it blinds us to reality and reality should draw an optomistic response. The reality is that Iran's leader is optomistic about his distruction and ours so I don't think it's wise to let our optomism keep us from action.

If he continues there will be a time when responsible leaders have to stop him. He has already made it clear that talking won't work. Maybe that will change... we should always hope and keep trying.

"self-fullfilling prophecy"... Who, what?
Sounds like you'd be for yet another per-emptive attack. Turn Iran into the world's largest glass ashtray if they attack us first, fine. Hit 'em just in case they're serious about hitting us? Sorry, that doesn't line up with me.

The self-fulfilling prophesy: If we keep hollering about how evil Iran is, that they'll attack us if we don't act, and that we're going to attack to eliminate the threat, they will attack us whether they were planning to previous or not.

Listen, it's the poor, the destitute, and the outcasts that take the biggest chances. You really want to eliminate the Irani nuclear threat? Open the floodgates. Sell them and every other country there as many nukes as they can handle. Make sure they have the best and shiniest computers, launchers, the works. At the same time, make a concerted effort to point out whatever good you can find that they do, and make it as public as possible. Finally, encourage retailers of every sort to do business there - open stores, show flashy commercials, provide jobs, anything short of opening a pork sausage factory.

It's not their government that's dangerous, nor their military; it's their culture. That's what we need to destroy. Ostracising (spelling provided to include the Brits) them only helps them to demonize us. We need to do to their culture what we did to Japan's - Americanize it. BTW, Japan's most popular sport? Baseball.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:05 am

Accountable;536835 wrote: It's not their government that's dangerous, nor their military; it's their culture. That's what we need to destroy. Ostracising (spelling provided to include the Brits) them only helps them to demonize us.

I was very interested to read the above, for reasons that hopefully are obvious!

rkdian · Post by **rkdian** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:53 am

Accountable;536835 wrote: Sounds like you'd be for yet another per-emptive attack. Turn Iran into the world's largest glass ashtray if they attack us first, fine. Hit 'em just in case they're serious about hitting us? Sorry, that doesn't line up with me.

The self-fulfilling prophesy: If we keep hollering about how evil Iran is, that they'll attack us if we don't act, and that we're going to attack to eliminate the threat, they will attack us whether they were planning to previous or not.

Listen, it's the poor, the destitute, and the outcasts that take the biggest chances. You really want to eliminate the Irani nuclear threat? Open the floodgates. Sell them and every other country there as many nukes as they can handle. Make sure they have the best and shiniest computers, launchers, the works. At the same time, make a concerted effort to point out whatever good you can find that they do, and make it as public as possible. Finally, encourage retailers of every sort to do business there - open stores, show flashy commercials, provide jobs, anything short of opening a pork sausage factory.

It's not their government that's dangerous, nor their military; it's their culture. That's what we need to destroy. Ostracising (spelling provided to include the Brits) them only helps them to demonize us. We need to do to their culture what we did to Japan's - Americanize it. BTW, Japan's most popular sport? Baseball.

:-6 That's my cousin :-6

Well stated!

My only fear is that they will really use the damn things on us (along with everyone else)! The commitment of the Islam's to their beliefs is very strong. This could bite us in the butt very easily, bro.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:05 am

Accountable;536835 wrote: We need to do to their culture what we did to Japan's - Americanize it. BTW, Japan's most popular sport? Baseball.

I am not advocating this so don't misunderstand me when I say the first step toward baseball in Japan was two very large bombs. They didn't respond to anything when they thought they could destroy us. Iran is no different. If anything, Iran and the Islamic cultures in the region are less likely than Japan to respond to anything other than power.

Sweet Tooth · Post by **Sweet Tooth** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:27 am

I know I am not popular in these kinds of threads, but I have to agree with Acc. I think its the same in Iraq- do I agree with the war and do I like Bush? YES! But, I think that as long as these middle eastern countries continue to stay Islam and Muslim, I honestly don't see a drastic change. NOT TO SAY that there is anything wrong with these religions- each to their own- but what they believe in won't #1 let them be a democracy and #2 Foreigners have no impact on their decisions. So, Iraq- lost cause? we have helped more then hurt! Iran? Talking should be all we do right now!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:39 am

Diuretic;536899 wrote: Acc will correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure he was arguing for modernisation in order to get some of these countries out of their mediaeval condition. There's no doubt about the power of modernisation (read market economies) to wipe out redundant cultural ideas. Theocracies are not usually prosperous and don't have high standards of living, secular states (yes I know it's a gross generalisation) tend to be prosperous with higher standards of living.

Actually most theocracies are populated by mugs who listen to all that garbage about rewards in Paradise/Heaven while the rulers are whooping it up.

Should a race of alien humans far more advanced in civilisation and technology

than us, with very different cultural and religious ideas which didn't find favour

here on earth at all, suddenly appear from outer space, would they be justified

in *forcing* us to change and be like them? Obviously they would....

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:42 pm

Bill Sikes;536841 wrote: I was very interested to read the above, for reasons that hopefully are obvious!
I'm way too obtuse for ya, Bill. Help me out?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:48 pm

rkdian;536883 wrote: :-6 That's my cousin :-6

Well stated!

My only fear is that they will really use the damn things on us (along with everyone else)! The commitment of the Islam's to their beliefs is very strong. This could bite us in the butt very easily, bro.

We're probably gonna get bit anyway. Get ready for it. The only question is do we want to get bit for poking it with a stick, or for just being in the area?

If we walk the higher road, at least we might get some help in the fight.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:50 pm

Diuretic;536899 wrote: Acc will correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure he was arguing for modernisation in order to get some of these countries out of their mediaeval condition. There's no doubt about the power of modernisation (read market economies) to wipe out redundant cultural ideas. Theocracies are not usually prosperous and don't have high standards of living, secular states (yes I know it's a gross generalisation) tend to be prosperous with higher standards of living.

Actually most theocracies are populated by mugs who listen to all that garbage about rewards in Paradise/Heaven while the rulers are whooping it up.
That reads waay more altruistic than I meant it, but that's the gist, I think.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:52 pm

Bill Sikes;536927 wrote: Should a race of alien humans far more advanced in civilisation and technology

than us, with very different cultural and religious ideas which didn't find favour

here on earth at all, suddenly appear from outer space, would they be justified

in *forcing* us to change and be like them? Obviously they would....
Justification is subjective.

rkdian · Post by **rkdian** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:56 pm

Accountable;537926 wrote: We're probably gonna get bit anyway. Get ready for it. The only question is do we want to get bit for poking it with a stick, or for just being in the area?

If we walk the higher road, at least we might get some help in the fight.

ahhhh! just like the old days, you poke it with a stick, while I run like hell and hide!

I just feel that we have some loose ends to wrap up before we considered moving in. The fear that we might be spreading ourselves thin is one of my concerns. We would definitely need to activate "the draft". That would mean that ALL of our current military personel was activated previous to this. Get our backs to a wall before we invite a truck to run into us.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:19 pm

rkdian;537929 wrote: ahhhh! just like the old days, you poke it with a stick, while I run like hell and hide!

I just feel that we have some loose ends to wrap up before we considered moving in. The fear that we might be spreading ourselves thin is one of my concerns. We would definitely need to activate "the draft". That would mean that ALL of our current military personel was activated previous to this. Get our backs to a wall before we invite a truck to run into us.
I must've not been clear. I'm not for "moving in" at all.

rkdian · Post by **rkdian** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:28 pm

Accountable;537945 wrote: I must've not been clear. I'm not for "moving in" at all.

My bad! My apologies!:yh_shame

You suggested arming them so that they could go after one another while we kiss their collective a$$es and play nicey-nice.

Did I misread? (Here it comes, Lulu2!;) )

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:09 pm

I have changed my mind...............I think we should get out of the middle east and let those religious factions hash it out amonst themselves - kill one another or make peace. Is that not what we did in Yugoslavia? Did we get involved in Russia's decommission of their their religious states when the wall went down?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:49 am

Accountable;537923 wrote:

Originally Posted by Accountable

It's not their government that's dangerous, nor their military; it's their culture. That's what we need to destroy. Ostracising (spelling provided to include the Brits) them only helps them to demonize us.

Well, read it from your perspective - then imagine that you're Iranian, and

read it again. It can't be the answer, there must be a better way.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:38 am

Diuretic;537952 wrote: More and more Bush's America is looking like Orwell's Airstrip One (Nineteen Eighty-Four). I won't go on about the similarities because there are far too many to enumerate and besides I'm lazy but what I'm seeing right now is the idea of permanent warfare. Bush and his cronies are whipping up public opinion against Iran. "There's gonna be trouble!" There sure is, Bush will see to that. He needs America to be frightened, he, George, Big Brother, will look after you.
That's the self-fulfilling prophecy I was talking about.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:45 am

rkdian;537954 wrote: My bad! My apologies!:yh_shame

You suggested arming them so that they could go after one another while we kiss their collective a$$es and play nicey-nice.

Did I misread? (Here it comes, Lulu2!;) )
I suggest including them rather than ostracising them. Give them too much to lose, so they will be more reticent in taking chances. Give them someone other than themselves to bounce ideas around, to water down (there's a better term, but my brain's locked) their religious rhetoric.

Think of the schoolyard bullies. If they start hanging with each other, they are more likely to start fights, especially with the more popular kids. But if one of them gets on, say, the football team, and is accepted into the larger circle, his loyalties become divided and he fights with no one.

That's my oversimplified and unsophisticated idea.

rkdian · Post by **rkdian** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:03 am

Accountable;538224 wrote: I suggest including them rather than ostracising them. Give them too much to lose, so they will be more reticent in taking chances. Give them someone other than themselves to bounce ideas around, to water down (there's a better term, but my brain's locked) their religious rhetoric.

Think of the schoolyard bullies. If they start hanging with each other, they are more likely to start fights, especially with the more popular kids. But if one of them gets on, say, the football team, and is accepted into the larger circle, his loyalties become divided and he fights with no one.

That's my oversimplified and unsophisticated idea.

The difference is...you are talking about these people's religion! Do you think that you really even want to go there?? Those who will accept the Western life style are already here. Over-statement for those literals among us. They are exposed daily. I don't believe that our men over there are portraying us as being a tyranical people. It isn't "us" that they hate. It is our culture! Because we are so liberal! To "include" them is like throwing me in the river just because the rest of you are having fun jumping in. (My only phobia is water.)

Do you see where this is going?

rkdian · Post by **rkdian** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:08 pm

Diuretic;538243 wrote: I don't know much about Islam rkdian but I read a book on it (isn't that a crackup phrase?

) and found it really interesting. It's a classic, called Islam by Alfred Guillaume. It's reasonably old but this bloke back then when he wrote it was apparently the best academic from the West on Islam. He made the point that Islam has for many years had a huge tension between the conservative/reactionary schools of thought and the moderate/progressive schools of thought. I remember that he (Guillaume) suggested that this struggle would become climactic. He was right I think.

We need to help the moderate/progressive Muslims and in particular moderate/progressive Islamic states. We need to be prepared to deal firmly with the conservative/reactionary states. But we need to stop this sabre-rattling.

I fully agree with stopping the "sabre-rattling". My point is that arming them "in good faith" might not be the brightest choice we could make.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:09 am

rkdian;538238 wrote: The difference is...you are talking about these people's religion! Do you think that you really even want to go there?? Those who will accept the Western life style are already here. Over-statement for those literals among us. They are exposed daily. I don't believe that our men over there are portraying us as being a tyranical people. It isn't "us" that they hate. It is our culture! Because we are so liberal! To "include" them is like throwing me in the river just because the rest of you are having fun jumping in. (My only phobia is water.)

Do you see where this is going?
Culture is stronger than religion. Look at all the atrocities Christians committed, and how we've changed. Look at the Muslims who have adapted to our western culture without killing or hating. As you point out, it's our culture they find threatening. They mistakenly think we threaten their religion, but it's their culture that's in real danger.

You can't fight culture with guns. This is a war of ideas. people won't take up arms against friends. Can you imagine if Bush suddenly started calling for a declaration of war against England? France maybe, but England??

I'm not suggesting we not defend ourselves, not for a minute. I'm looking at our failed efforts, and am discussing alternatives outside the military "box".

The big, undeniable flaw in all this is that they actually have people that live with us, go to our schools, etc, and still are willing to die to kill us. I'm definitely open to suggestions.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:54 pm

Scrat;539387 wrote: Changed? I don't have the time or the interest ....
and yet you prattle on.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:22 am

Firstly, always, we should not get into wars unless they progress our own agendas, not someone elses, either our leaders personal ambitions, crazy plans, or our enemies traps. In the short term what we should attempt to do is to ratchet the temperature down in the whole region, if possible, in the specific case of Iran, the golden egg is influence in Iraq, which the Americans can give a nod to if they wish, this may placate them in their need for such weapons, the Iranians cannot and will not be allowed to develop a nuclear program, and this is the nasty bit, but they just can't, whatever has to be done to prevent will be done, if not by America then by someone else, its very worrying, and I don't know what the outcome will be, because I am not sure if the Iranians are playing for something, or want to create a conflict. Hopefully, some sort of diplomatic agreement will be reached, if not, it will be war, and it will be bad, mark my words.

In the longer term, in terms of the region, what the west should (and is capable of doing), is to act positively and constructively in the debate that is going on within Islam itself between the extreme and moderate forces within it, between the mystic hardliners, and the secular moderates, and try to influence the internal intellectual arguments by external example and practical help, not by playing Islams' cartoon villains and doing exactly what the West is accused of doing by the radicals (which is bombing lots of innocent Muslims, which is what we have been doing for some time now). This loo-laa project to reshape a whole civilization, that by definition is not western and does not want to be, will not, cannot, and will never work, its just sheer folly, and utter hubris. There will be occasions when conflicts will occur, and also it is of the utmost importance to protect our own countries and ideas, but if we do not follow a course that reaches out to the moderate, forward looking forces within Islam, then the inevitable conflict between the western powers, and Islamic extremists will destroy any hope of moderate voices being heard within Islam itself, it will create precisely that "clash of civilizations" we hear so much about, and we will either have war for generations, or the peace of the dead, that will make Iraq look like a thrupenny opera.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:01 am

almostfamous;539952 wrote: ACCOUNTABLE FOR PRESIDENT!!
:wah: Oh sure, that'll happen.