The PNAC won't like this... Iran Story

[Azadre]

Because we aren't fighting to win the war. We are fighting to "win the hearts and minds of Iraqis" and thats not going so well.

We can't "win" without that though.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

true...but currently, what we are doing is not working to win the Iraqi's hearts and minds.

 

[Hygro]

and neither will much else that results in a U.S. victory

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

A US victory would be if the insurgents were neutralized or surrendered, or simply stopped fighting, and Iraq's elections went as planed, ushering in the new Iraqi Democracy. Then the US could go back to fighting the War on Terror like we should be doing.

 

[PantheraTigris2]

Actually, oil is not the ideal fuel for electricity generation. The beauty of oil is that it is a transportable energy source - which makes it a more valuable energy source than (say) natural gas. Economically, it does make more sense for Iran to sell the oil than burn it themselves, especially given the rising oil price / scarcity.

Well, nuclear certainly isn't the way! When was the last time the U.S. built a nuclear reactor (excluding naval vessels)...? It's been so long, (almost 25 years - since Three Mile Island) that it's a growing concern that the ones we DO have (which provide over 20% of our domestically produced power) are not going to live too much longer.

But you don't see us building new ones, do you? No. But it's okay to just go ahead and let Iran.....

...well, whatever. I said I was out of this 'debate' and I meant it.

 

[Sanaz]

A US victory would be if the insurgents were neutralized or surrendered, or simply stopped fighting, and Iraq's elections went as planed, ushering in the new Iraqi Democracy. Then the US could go back to fighting the War on Terror like we should be doing.

The "election" that is proposed is completely rigged, and in no way resembles a democracy. Just another lie brought to you by Bush and his boys. Make no mistake, the soldiers are fighting in Iraq for no good reason.

If there were a ture democratic vote, the "wrong" people would be elected. Possibly Sistani or one of his associates, which are supported by Iran. The US needs to oppress Iran and Iraq both to keep the balance of power from posibly shifting away from Israel in the region (and in reality, Israel's survival may depend on this). These are all connected - you can't separate the oppression/occupation in Iraq from the resistance to allowing Iran to pursue their nuclear power (and possible/probable weapons) program from the US support for Israel. It is all the "US Middle East Policy", and it is all related to who can have power and who can not. And unfortunately these lines are not drawn between the "right and wrong" or the "good and bad", but along "who will give the US oil and allow a strong military presence", and who will not. This is why the entire thing is a mess, and isn't getting better until the US leaves the region, which of course will not and can not happen.

As someone else mentioned, the US doesn't need to "play nice" with Iran because Iran is not powerful like China. But if Iran has nuclear weapons, and can strike against Israel, the entire situation changes and the US (and the rest of the world) need to "play nice". Translate "play nice" to mean "don't attack/occupy/destroy" like Iraq. And people are surprised at the mad scramble for Iran to gain nuclear capabilities while the US is preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan, and elections and a failing economy. This may be their only chance. Iran's interests are not the same as US interests, because the US is not particularly interested in the survival or destruction of Iran or the entire Muslim world. Needless to say, Iran is interested in this survival.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

I don't think the US should back dictators regardless if they are pro-us or anti-us. I also don't think the US should wimper away from countries just because they have nuclear weapons. If China wanted to conquer the world, it very well could, but due to our foreign policy, we wound'nt do a darn thing about it until its to late.

 

[ainwood]

Well, nuclear certainly isn't the way! When was the last time the U.S. built a nuclear reactor (excluding naval vessels)...? It's been so long, (almost 25 years - since Three Mile Island) that it's a growing concern that the ones we DO have (which provide over 20% of our domestically produced power) are not going to live too much longer.

But you don't see us building new ones, do you? No. But it's okay to just go ahead and let Iran.....

...well, whatever. I said I was out of this 'debate' and I meant it.

No new nuclear station has been ordered in the US for 25 years, and only one is being built in western Europe, in Finland. Germany, Belgium, Holland and Sweden are to phase out existing plants, and Austria, Denmark and Ireland have stated policies against nuclear. In many other places, including Britain, there is little or no public support.

Nuclear has, however, found an important niche market in Asia. Of 27 stations now under construction worldwide, 16 are in China, India, Japan and South Korea. China and India both intend at least to quadruple their nuclear output and have started nine new power plants in the past four years and have 10 more under construction.

link

Just because the US isn't building more nuclear power plants doesn't mean they aren't viable.

 

[silver 2039]

How long will it take for America to realize it won't be a supepower forever and other countries are going to rplace it? If Iran wants nukes give them nukes they're more stable than North Korea or Pakistan are.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

I think the US government already realizes that the US won't be the lone superpower forever, so they are attempting to slow the progress of other nations that do not support them. A Band-Aid type fix at best....

 

[amadeus]

How long will it take for America to realize it won't be a supepower forever and other countries are going to rplace it?

This isn't about being a "superpower," this is about not having New York City turn into a pile of smoldering rubble. And you'd better watch out too, your nation could be next on the fundamentalist chopping block.

If Iran wants nukes give them nukes they're more stable than North Korea or Pakistan are.

And if Iran wants to destroy Israel, we should just let it?

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Interesting how I agree with about 90% of what you say, but you never respond to my posts.

About Silver, how do you know what country he is from?

 

[Sanaz]

About Silver, how do you know what country he is from?

I think the Indian flag gives it away. The LOC is (probably) the Line of Control between Kashmir and Pakistan. It's in his avatar.

 

[amadeus]

So yes, you do share the same interests as Iran, this is more and more true.

It is not in our interest to reopen the concentration camps, which is what Iran would do if they had the power to.

 

[amadeus]

Interesting how I agree with about 90% of what you say, but you never respond to my posts.

Are you talking about me? If you are, I can't say I know what you're talking about...it's easy to miss stuff sometimes.

About Silver, how do you know what country he is from?

He's our resident Hindu hypernationalist.

 

[Uncle Sam]

If there were a ture democratic vote, the "wrong" people would be elected.

Well yeah, but its better that they get a free and more liberal country than they elect religious leaders and are just as oppressed as always. And Silver, the U.S. won't remain the only superpower forever, but we'll still remain the top superpower, don't worry about it.

 

[Sanaz]

Well yeah, but its better that they get a free and more liberal country than they elect religious leaders and are just as oppressed as always.

It's better that they have a government that the American people are happy with than the Iraqi people are happy with? That logic is completely lost on me.

 

[Neomega]

It is not in our interest to reopen the concentration camps, which is what Iran would do if they had the power to.

Always such over-dramatized, sensationalist, pandemonious tripe.

Well just hae to cause enough collateral damage to stop Iran.

edit: who knew, the correct term is pandemoniac.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Well, the Muslim extremist wing hates Jews because they hate Israel, but I don't think they'd bother with Hitler's approach. It would be more like a door-to-door slaughter.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Yes, let's let Iran have nuclear weapons. As long as we're doing this, let's send some of our Minuteman and Trident technology over to them, too. How about moving our B-2 bases to Tehran, and don't forget to leave the keys in the ignition, and make sure it's unattended at all times, with the flight instruction manuals translated into Farsi.

andrew, you wouldn't let Pat Robertson have a handgun, why do you trust Iran?

When did he say he trusted Iran? He's legitimately pointing out a minor hypocrisy. If a nation such as America which goes around invading "rogue states" which pose zero threat to itself or its interests has nukes, then why not let smaller nations which have started a grand total of zero wars over the past sixty years and have never used weapons of mass destruction have nuclear weapons as well?