So, How would you handle Iran? - Page 6 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #51 of 86 (permalink) Old 01-17-2006, 04:20 PM
430
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: SLK32, ML430
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: So, How would you handle Iran?

Quote:
Jillian80 - 1/16/2006 9:38 PM

Quote:
BrentG500 - 1/16/2006 8:33 PM

Scary! It's Jong II we need to be concerned about.
Who? This guy? He ain't scary.



[:D]
North Korea is after economic gain. Nukes are used as pressure not too much concern about them actually using them.
430 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #52 of 86 (permalink) Old 01-17-2006, 04:30 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: So, How would you handle Iran?

Oooohhhh, the concensus of the various intelligence agencies is that Iran is working to develop nukes. Great. Where have I heard this before? Don't you feel like Charlie Brown and Lucy is presenting you with yet another opportunity to kick the football?

In this instance, I think the USA should STFU. The more pressure we put on Iran the more nationalistically Iran will react and the more likely they will be to actually develop a BOMB. If the EU wants to deal with it, let them.

The USA should let Iran (quietly, no grandstanding) know that a nuke exploded in any area of our strategic national interest will bring obliteration to Iran. That should encourage Iran to hold nukes carefully and may help Iran to discourage others from playing games with them.

In the long term as Fowler said, their young, restive population will come to power. If we can avoid alienating them we may survive the ayatollahs.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #53 of 86 (permalink) Old 01-17-2006, 04:33 PM
430
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: SLK32, ML430
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: So, How would you handle Iran?

Quote:
NZ Benz - 1/17/2006 4:07 PM

Considering that the first H bomb the US managed to develop was just small enough to be hidden in a barn I dont hold much hop of Iran managing to fit them in a suitcase. I don't think Iran would use nukes unless their back was to teh wall. They know what the response would be total anniliation. The leadership is a bunch of crazies but their not stupid. The biggest threat to the US in my opinion is terror cell gaining access tot he materials to produce a dirty bomb.
I think you under estimate the Iranian president. He thinks that the hand of god is guiding him, he appears to be working towards events that he believes will bring the 12 Imam to Earth (who will arrive with Jesus at his side), he believes that Islam will take over the world and result in 1000 years of peace, Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Isreal, they are convening a 'scientific community' to investigate the reality of the holocost, he has recruited 'thousands of suicide bombers', he praised the plan crash in Iran and the people who died as showing the way to martydom for the rest of the country, etc.
430 is offline  
post #54 of 86 (permalink) Old 01-17-2006, 04:57 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
And here's another perspective

For those of you who don't care to read lengthy articles, don't worry. The rest of us will run the world for you.

Bot

--------

The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented
By Niall Ferguson
(Filed: 15/01/2006)

Are we living through the origins of the next world war? Certainly, it is easy to imagine how a future historian might deal with the next phase of events in the Middle East:

With every passing year after the turn of the century, the instability of the Gulf region grew. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients for a conflict - far bigger in its scale and scope than the wars of 1991 or 2003 - were in place.

The first underlying cause of the war was the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. On the one hand, the rest of the world's oil reserves were being rapidly exhausted. On the other, the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand for energy. It is hard to believe today, but for most of the 1990s the price of oil had averaged less than $20 a barrel.

A second precondition of war was demographic. While European fertility had fallen below the natural replacement rate in the 1970s, the decline in the Islamic world had been much slower. By the late 1990s the fertility rate in the eight Muslim countries to the south and east of the European Union was two and half times higher than the European figure.

This tendency was especially pronounced in Iran, where the social conservatism of the 1979 Revolution - which had lowered the age of marriage and prohibited contraception - combined with the high mortality of the Iran-Iraq War and the subsequent baby boom to produce, by the first decade of the new century, a quite extraordinary surplus of young men. More than two fifths of the population of Iran in 1995 had been aged 14 or younger. This was the generation that was ready to fight in 2007.

This not only gave Islamic societies a youthful energy that contrasted markedly with the slothful senescence of Europe. It also signified a profound shift in the balance of world population. In 1950, there had three times as many people in Britain as in Iran. By 1995, the population of Iran had overtaken that of Britain and was forecast to be 50 per cent higher by 2050.

Yet people in the West struggled to grasp the implications of this shift. Subliminally, they still thought of the Middle East as a region they could lord it over, as they had in the mid-20th century.

The third and perhaps most important precondition for war was cultural. Since 1979, not just Iran but the greater part of the Muslim world had been swept by a wave of religious fervour, the very opposite of the process of secularisation that was emptying Europe's churches.

Although few countries followed Iran down the road to full-blown theocracy, there was a transformation in politics everywhere. From Morocco to Pakistan, the feudal dynasties or military strongmen who had dominated Islamic politics since the 1950s came under intense pressure from religious radicals.

The ideological cocktail that produced 'Islamism' was as potent as either of the extreme ideologies the West had produced in the previous century, communism and fascism. Islamism was anti-Western, anti-capitalist and anti-Semitic. A seminal moment was the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intemperate attack on Israel in December 2005, when he called the Holocaust a 'myth'. The state of Israel was a 'disgraceful blot', he had previously declared, to be wiped 'off the map'.

Prior to 2007, the Islamists had seen no alternative but to wage war against their enemies by means of terrorism. From the Gaza to Manhattan, the hero of 2001 was the suicide bomber. Yet Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War, craved a more serious weapon than strapped-on explosives. His decision to accelerate Iran's nuclear weapons programme was intended to give Iran the kind of power North Korea already wielded in East Asia: the power to defy the United States; the power to obliterate America's closest regional ally.

Under different circumstances, it would not have been difficult to thwart Ahmadinejad's ambitions. The Israelis had shown themselves capable of pre-emptive air strikes against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. Similar strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neo-conservative commentators throughout 2006. The United States, they argued, was perfectly placed to carry out such strikes. It had the bases in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. It had the intelligence proving Iran's contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But the President was advised by his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to opt instead for diplomacy. Not just European opinion but American opinion was strongly opposed to an attack on Iran. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had been discredited by the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had supposedly possessed and by the failure of the US-led coalition to quell a bloody insurgency.

Americans did not want to increase their military commitments overseas; they wanted to reduce them. Europeans did not want to hear that Iran was about to build its own WMD. Even if Ahmad-inejad had broadcast a nuclear test live on CNN, liberals would have said it was a CIA con-trick.

So history repeated itself. As in the 1930s, an anti-Semitic demagogue broke his country's treaty obligations and armed for war. Having first tried appeasement, offering the Iranians economic incentives to desist, the West appealed to international agencies - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. Thanks to China's veto, however, the UN produced nothing but empty resolutions and ineffectual sanctions, like the exclusion of Iran from the 2006 World Cup finals.

Only one man might have stiffened President Bush's resolve in the crisis: not Tony Blair, he had wrecked his domestic credibility over Iraq and was in any case on the point of retirement - Ariel Sharon. Yet he had been struck down by a stroke as the Iranian crisis came to a head. With Israel leaderless, Ahmadinejad had a free hand.

As in the 1930s, too, the West fell back on wishful thinking. Perhaps, some said, Ahmadinejad was only sabre-rattling because his domestic position was so weak. Perhaps his political rivals in the Iranian clergy were on the point of getting rid of him. In that case, the last thing the West should do was to take a tough line; that would only bolster Ahmadinejad by inflaming Iranian popular feeling. So in Washington and in London people crossed their fingers, hoping for the deus ex machina of a home-grown regime change in Teheran.

This gave the Iranians all the time they needed to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium at Natanz. The dream of nuclear non-proliferation, already interrupted by Israel, Pakistan and India, was definitively shattered. Now Teheran had a nuclear missile pointed at Tel-Aviv. And the new Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu had a missile pointed right back at Teheran.

The optimists argued that the Cuban Missile Crisis would replay itself in the Middle East. Both sides would threaten war - and then both sides would blink. That was Secretary Rice's hope - indeed, her prayer - as she shuttled between the capitals. But it was not to be.

The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran.

Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened.

• Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University www.niallferguson.org

© Niall Ferguson, 2006 ''
Botnst is offline  
post #55 of 86 (permalink) Old 01-17-2006, 05:11 PM
BenzWorld Elitist
 
Marsden's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2005
Vehicle: Mercedes-Benz
Location: United States
Posts: 11,333
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 420 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: And here's another perspective

Quote:
Botnst - 1/17/2006 6:57 PM

For those of you who don't care to read lengthy articles, don't worry. The rest of us will run the world for you.

[neocon agitprop deleted]
Bot, your delusions are almost as extensive as your cut-and-pastes.
No dear, you're not running the world just now, although
I will admit that you're smarter than the people running the U.S.

You could have just linked your tedious, predictable article.
Most people reading this are capable of clicking their mouse.


Marsden is online now  
post #56 of 86 (permalink) Old 01-17-2006, 05:20 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: And here's another perspective

Quote:
Marsden - 1/17/2006 7:11 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 1/17/2006 6:57 PM

For those of you who don't care to read lengthy articles, don't worry. The rest of us will run the world for you.

[neocon agitprop deleted]
Bot, your delusions are almost as extensive as your cut-and-pastes.
No dear, you're not running the world just now, although
I will admit that you're smarter than the people running the U.S.

You could have just linked your tedious, predictable article.
Most people reading this are capable of clicking their mouse.

Oh dear, you missed the point, I guess.

People who are educated rule the world. people who whine and complain about having to read....don't. Now run along to watch the telly. "The Wheel of Fortune" is on and I'd hate for you to miss a learning opportunity targeted at your level of ambition.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #57 of 86 (permalink) Old 01-17-2006, 05:21 PM
GMISBEST.
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
RE: So, How would you handle Iran?

Bot's article is scary. I say obliterate or thin out the herd NOW. We need to give carte blanche to the Israelis to send in their pilots, missiles and then let us do the damage control.
Man, after reading Bot’s article and barfing my cereal through my nose I am convinced that we are doomed if we don’t act. Rice can go to hell, the President must listen to the voice of reason from the neocons they have not failed us as of yet and they have been so right about how dirty those A-rabs are and how they love to drink blood. Look at us now at an impass because we need to think this through. Say bullshit, let’s wipe out Iran out off the map, give back what is Israel’s and the rest of the A-rabs clown can kiss my suntanned ass as I will one day enjoy the beaches of Sharam Al Sheikh while being served by those ingrates.
post #58 of 86 (permalink) Old 01-17-2006, 05:29 PM
BenzWorld Elitist
 
Marsden's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2005
Vehicle: Mercedes-Benz
Location: United States
Posts: 11,333
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 420 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: And here's another perspective

Quote:
Botnst - 1/17/2006 7:20 PM

People who are educated rule the world. people who whine and complain about having to read....don't. Now run along to watch the telly. "The Wheel of Fortune" is on and I'd hate for you to miss a learning opportunity targeted at your level of ambition.

B
And this is what I get for calling you smart! LOL...

"People who are educated rule the world." LOL... And your George Bush is no doubt Exhibit A.

Dearie, I read more than you can possibly conceive.

And I don't watch TV.

What you would profit from doing is to imagine the existence of intelligence contrary to your own prejudices. There's a lot of it around.

Start anytime.

Marsden is online now  
post #59 of 86 (permalink) Old 01-17-2006, 05:59 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: So, How would you handle Iran?

It is real simple. Iran, as the sworn enemy of the United States, will not be allowed to join the nuke club. Period. Sanctions will be useless against the theocratic regime. It will only drive the price of oil up and hurt the most reluctant U.N. Security Council members; as the Russians, Chinese, and Europeans have their economies tied to Iranian oil, directly. The U.S. has not bought Iranian oil for 10 years, but the global market would go into a supply AND demand oil price surge. If anything, sanctions will only embolden any post operation Iranian insurgency since sanctions only hurt the people under the dictator of the country being sanctioned. However, we have to make sure that the global perception is that the Administration exhausted every diplomatic option before military contingencies were utilized. The EU3 talks failed miserably and stalling is not impermissable because the Iranians are too close to possessing "the bomb". Letting Israel take care of the issue is a lame way out, since we would be blamed for it anyway since the Coalition owns the airspace between Israel and Iran. Besides, they don't have the technology to penetrate the bunkers where the 4,000 centrifuges are. We can hope to cripple the program for another five years if we hit every piece of their "nuclear research" mechanism. However, if we take the strike a little more seriously and broaden it to neutralize the Iranian terrorist leadership, we have a real chance for regime change. Operational contingencies have been on the drawing board for almost a year now; so all the libbies worried about another occupation can relax. A big part of why we set up camp in Iraq was to have logistic superiority for the upcoming Iranian military castration. March is the best time for combat in that theater. Stay tuned. [:D]


'03 C32, '03 E55



AMGod is offline  
post #60 of 86 (permalink) Old 01-17-2006, 06:08 PM
GMISBEST.
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
RE: So, How would you handle Iran?

Quote:
AMGod - 1/17/2006 7:59 PM

It is real simple. Iran, as the sworn enemy of the United States, will not be allowed to join the nuke club. Period. Sanctions will be useless against the theocratic regime. It will only drive the price of oil up and hurt the most reluctant U.N. Security Council members as the Russians, Chinese, and Europeans have their economies tied to Iranian oil, directly. The U.S. has not bought Iranian oil for 10 years, but the global market would go into a supply AND demand oil price surge. If anything, sanctions will only embolden any post operation Iranian insurgency since sanction only hurt the people under the dictator of the country being sanctioned. However, we have to make sure that the global perception is that the Administration exhausted every diplomatic option before military contingencies were utilized. The EU3 talks failed miserably and stalling is not an option because the Iranians are too close to possessing "the bomb". Letting Israel take care of the issue is a lame way out, since we would be blamed for it anyway since the Coalition owns the airspace between Israel and Iran. Besides, they don't have the technology to penetrate the bunkers where the 4,000 centrifuges are. We can hope to cripple the program for another five years if we hit every piece of mechanism. However, if we take the strike a little more seriously and broaden it to neutralize the Iranian terrorist leadership, we have a real chance for regime change. Operational contingencies have been on the drawing board for almost a year now; so all the libbies worried about another occupation can relax. A big part of why we set up camp in Iraq was to have logistic superiority for the upcoming Iranian military castration. March is the best time for combat in that theater. Stay tuned. [:D]
Listen, the Israelis have the BEST intelligence services coupled with the best commando units that can penetrate any theater on demand. So instead of playing YOUR wait and see attitude Mr. AMGod, you could have easily predicted the "faux pas" of just taking out their leadership. They are all rotten, I tell you, to the core. Years of brainwashing that we are evil and out to get their wealth (which is ours anyway) has developed a cadre of fearless rag heads ready to strap a belt and pull the cord. Oh, like you said, there is no reason to occupy since it will take a few years for the radioactivity to subside after we follow up with a volley of peace sticks.
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome