Why does Iran get a pass.

AXEAM · #1 10-17-2004, 12:56 AM

Of all the Gulf Nations Iran seems to be the one most intent on spreading strict Islamic law in the mid east yet it's not being addressed. In Iran's eight year war w/ Iraq every Gulf Nation except (1) backed Iraq b/c they feared Iran's goal of spreading strict Islamic law. I feel for the mid east to truly have peace the issue of Iran must be addressed.

Optimist Prime · #2 10-17-2004, 01:23 AM

Iran gets a pass because Iraq was a bad idea. We should have kept Saddam in power and taken over IRan back in the day. but no

moe.ron · #3 10-17-2004, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Of all the Gulf Nations Iran seems to be the one most intent on spreading strict Islamic law in the mid east yet it's not being addressed.

Ever herd of the House of Saud?

Kevin · #4 10-17-2004, 09:04 AM

Iran has a liberal (well at least liberal for them), secular middle class that is constantly growing. They are against the current government and I think the state department figures it's only a matter of time before they take over.

I know a few of these folks that travel between the US and Iran. You'd be surprised how Americanized that country has become (although their laws are still a little wacky by my standards).

James · #5 10-17-2004, 12:33 PM

They just stoned that 15 year old girl to death for having a foul mouth ? I am trying to remember if that was Iran or not.

Be lots of dead girls on GC with that law.

Major diffculty with invading Iran is its size. ITs like a quarter of the size of the US, maybe even one third. We are having enough trouble controlling a much smaller country.

PhiPsiRuss · #6 10-17-2004, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by James
Major diffculty with invading Iran is its size. ITs like a quarter of the size of the US, maybe even one third. We are having enough trouble controlling a much smaller country.

Militarily, there would be realitively little difficulty invading Iran. The problems arise with the aftermath. Iran is different from Iraq, which was a totalitarian and genocidal regime. There is far less of a moral imperitive to invade Iran. Also, even if we did invade Iran, thanks to Bill Clinton, the U.S. no longer posesses the force structure to undertake two theaters of operations at the same time. Invading Iran would mean a draft, and that's not going to happen.

Unlike Iraq, we can see inside Iranian society and get some kind of an idea of what is going on. The current regime's days are numbered, the big question is when. Basically, we are currently playing Beat the Clock. Which will happen first? Democracy or nuclear weapons?

What Iran is doing is very clear. They are trying to establish themselves as the regional hegemon, and they believe that they need nuclear weapons to accomplish this. The region has been without a hegemon, which is part of why it is so unstable. Thanks to Iraq and Qatar, the U.S. is now the regional hegemon. This is an unstable situation, but a necessary one.

The region must be changed. Three things have to happen. There needs to be a transition away from the radical madrassas. There must be a transition away from state controlled media that deflects governmental incompetance towards the U.S. And there needs to direct foreign investment. This will transform the region. Immediately after 9-11, Iraq's Baathist regime was the only government in the region proactively opposed to these things (as Iran is today.) On top of that, they increased their financing of terrorist organizations with the express purpose of destabilizing the region. Well, they're gone.

Now there are three nations left that primarily pose a problem, all of which border Iraq (geopolitics was another of the several reasons why the Baathists were removed.) They are Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.

Saudi Arabia is the most perplexing problem. 20 years ago, Saudi Arabia had a per capita income of about $28,000. Today its about $6,000. They are headed for a violent revolution, full speed ahead, and it will probably conclude with a theocracy. There seems to be nothing that anyone can do. The Saudi Royal Family (dis)functions as an oligarchy, and it seems to be incapable of reaching a consensus that would allow it change course. All that we can do is sit back and watch, and we'll be watching from Iraq and Qatar. My guess is that Saudi Arabia will soon be run by a theocracy, and then 20-40 years later, a democracy will finally emerge.

Syria is a smaller, but relevant problem. They continue to occupy Lebanon, and destabilize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Removing the Syrian Baathists from power could have a stabilizing effect on the region. Just as removing the Iraqi Baathists led Lybia to change course, seeing a pro-US change in Iran will make Syria stick out like a sore thumb, and that probably would cause Syria to follow Lybia's path.

Then there is Iran. They are the only nation with hegemonic aspirations, as well as nuclear ambitions. The theocratic regime is on its last legs. We can invade, and easily defeat them, but then what? The Iranian people will probably be supportive of a pro-US government if we don't invade, but probably anti-American if we do. Here lies the paradox. We need a pro-US government in Iran, and it will probably happen. We also can't afford to let Iran go nuclear. Even if Iran never uses those weapons, what would happen to them during a revolution? Can some other entity or coalition help save the day? The UN won't do anything. The IAEA has no teeth. The EU couldn't stop the Bosnian genocide without US leadership, so how are they going to lead this effort, especially with France and Germany in the middle of things? So we (the people outside of the Bush administration) wait and watch. None of us know what's really going on behind the scenes, but I doubt that Iran is getting a pass.

Pike1483 · #7 10-17-2004, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Optimist Prime
Iran gets a pass because Iraq was a bad idea. We should have kept Saddam in power and taken over IRan back in the day. but no

Do you honestly think that the world would be safer with Saddam in power?

Rudey · #8 10-17-2004, 10:48 PM

It's funny. First he talks about how we shouldn't be the world police and then he creates a thread about making us the world police in another country.

Iraq violated sanctions over and over and didn't comply with UN weapons inspectors. The US has met with Europe and pushed them to punish Iran and also offer incentives to move away from nuclear power. The problem is that it is the French who put the Ayatollah in power. The filthy Euros and their blood hungry leadership has set the country back by hundreds of years. And yes America too. Anyway, diplomatically America is trying to achieve as much as it can before it moves towards any other steps. Also, it needs to be fully sure of what's going on. In Iraq, the whole world had faulty intelligence and I doubt America is willing to just jump on this train no matter what.

-Rudey

Optimist Prime · #9 10-17-2004, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pike1483
Do you honestly think that the world would be safer with Saddam in power?

I'd keep him if it meant getting rid of the Ayatollah or Kim Jong-Il. He couldn't do anything and had no power outside of Iraq. Now all the arabs are united including Iran and pissed off.

RACooper · #10 10-18-2004, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
The filthy Euros and their blood hungry leadership has set the country back by hundreds of years. And yes America too. Anyway, diplomatically America is trying to achieve as much as it can before it moves towards any other steps. Also, it needs to be fully sure of what's going on. In Iraq, the whole world had faulty intelligence and I doubt America is willing to just jump on this train no matter what.

-Rudey

I love how you bias always manages to slip on through.... yes it is an evil plot by Europeans to make sure evil spreads... or was that the Arabs... or the Muslims... I tend to forget what you latest target is at the time.

Oh as for the whole world having faulty intelligence about Iraq... um sorry but some country's did state that they didn't believe the intelligence "evidence", presented by the US to the Un or during the drive to build the coalition of the "Willing", to be credible... but then hey the German, Russian, French, Canadian, and UN people weren't relying on Wolf & Rummy

Kevin · #11 10-18-2004, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by James
They just stoned that 15 year old girl to death for having a foul mouth ? I am trying to remember if that was Iran or not.

Be lots of dead girls on GC with that law.

Major diffculty with invading Iran is its size. ITs like a quarter of the size of the US, maybe even one third. We are having enough trouble controlling a much smaller country.

It was Nigeria and due to political pressure, the sentence was overturned.

Rudey · #12 10-18-2004, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RACooper
I love how you bias always manages to slip on through.... yes it is an evil plot by Europeans to make sure evil spreads... or was that the Arabs... or the Muslims... I tend to forget what you latest target is at the time.

Oh as for the whole world having faulty intelligence about Iraq... um sorry but some country's did state that they didn't believe the intelligence "evidence", presented by the US to the Un or during the drive to build the coalition of the "Willing", to be credible... but then hey the German, Russian, French, Canadian, and UN people weren't relying on Wolf & Rummy

It's funny. You always run your mouth you ignorant little bunny rabbit you. I've called BS on your lies before and I'll call BS on these unfounded accusations you always make. It must be difficult sucking on the left nut of Europe and the right nut of America all the time.

And please let's not have you be the poster boy of non-violence after you threatened to kill me.

-Rudey

RACooper · #13 10-18-2004, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
It's funny. You always run your mouth you ignorant little bunny rabbit you. I've called BS on your lies before and I'll call BS on these unfounded accusations you always make. It must be difficult sucking on the left nut of Europe and the right nut of America all the time.

And please let's not have you be the poster boy of non-violence after you threatened to kill me.

-Rudey

No you've attempted to call me out... but as with so many things in life you've come up a little short on the follow through. You've have stated that people should stick to what they know... so please follow your own advice - since you know about as much as FOX News about intelligence and the intelligence community you shouldn't really talk about it.

As for me being the poster boy of non-violence.... hahahahaha... never said I was non-violent; I do however understand that there is a time and a place for it....

Finally a parting thought, a philisophical pondering if you will.... using the interesting image that you invoked, either in relation to me or my country....
"Is it better to be the one sucking or the one swallowing the load like you have"?

KSig RC · #14 10-18-2004, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RACooper

Oh as for the whole world having faulty intelligence about Iraq... um sorry but some country's did state that they didn't believe the intelligence "evidence", presented by the US to the Un or during the drive to build the coalition of the "Willing", to be credible... but then hey the German, Russian, French, Canadian, and UN people weren't relying on Wolf & Rummy

Ironically enough, you allow YOUR omnipresent biases to show here as well - unless you really think that France, Russia, and Germany honestly gave a shit about the intelligence, and were somehow looking past the millions of dollars in 'stolen'/misappropriated funds that were flowing in from the murderous Iraqi dictatorship?

Jesus dude - I get that Canada expressed concern over the reports, but FRANCE?!?? RUSSIA? Their inclusion weakens the argument to the point of lunacy.

James · #15 10-18-2004, 11:16 AM

I believe you used an incorrect comparison. Usually the question is whether its better to be the one sucking or the one being sucked . . . and the answer as far as status is that its always better to be sucked.

The Romans actually differentiated it in their language.

Fellator: One who sucks the cock(passive)

Irrumator: One whose cock is sucked, or one who forces others to suck him off (active).

Definite allusion to power position in the ancient Latin.

Which would you guys rather be? An Irrumator or Fellator?

Personally I prefer cunnilingus: One who licks a Vulva (not volvo, thats a car) although in english we use cunnilingus as a verb rather than its proper noun form.

Sorry for the hijack

Quote:

Originally posted by RACooper

"Is it better to be the one sucking or the one swallowing the load like you have"?