UN imposes sanctions on Iran.

[Nobody]

Iran new what they were getting themselfs into when they didnt give in to un demands. But you know the only people who will suffer are the poor not the people who actually make the decisions.

 

[Insane_Panda]

I didn't say invasion, I said bombing. And there are also other indicators, like pundits on tv. Furthermore, it would take just one sinking of the Maine to turn public opinion.

Which pundits? Most respectable journalists and pundits see the error in any attempt at the bombing of Iran and its nuclear facilities, and view such an action as impossible. Many, including myself, would support such an action had not we been involved in an unproperly conducted failure of a war and had all diplomatic solutions been exhausted. Furthermore, you seem to forget something. Pundits do not govern our country, nor do people on an internet forum. Senators, Representatives, and Presidents do. Most, if not all elected officials know that any action against Iran is a ridiculous notion at this time. Bush knows this (and he is hardly the warmongerer you paint him - had he been one, this war in Iraq qould have been carried out with much more success. Rather, Bush has been proven a rather incompetant idealist and due to his concerns more for political popularity than actually running this war, we are left in the boat we are in) and so do all his cabinet members.

There's a reason why these people have been able to been elected to our government. Let me give you a hint as to why: It's not 'cause they are stupider than us.

 

[Neomega]

Which pundits? Most respectable journalists and pundits see the error in any attempt at the bombing of Iran and its nuclear facilities, and view such an action as impossible.

Not the ones from the American Enterprise Institue.

Many, including myself, would support such an action had not we been involved in an unproperly conducted failure of a war and had all diplomatic solutions been exhausted.

Yes, and obviously expect good results too, but I am not so optimistic.

Furthermore, you seem to forget something. Pundits do not govern our country, nor do people on an internet forum.

Time named "me" the person of the year.

Are you trying to discount the power of the news media?

Are you trying to discount the growing power of the internet community?

Are you trying to discount the power of the people, who elect our leaders?

Most, if not all elected officials know that any action against Iran is a ridiculous notion at this time. Bush knows this (and he is hardly the warmongerer you paint him - had he been one, this war in Iraq qould have been carried out with much more success. Rather, Bush has been proven a rather incompetant idealist and due to his concerns more for political popularity than actually running this war, we are left in the boat we are in) and so do all his cabinet members.

Not according to rick Santorum. he said Bush expects war with Iran in 2007.

There's a reason why these people have been able to been elected to our government. Let me give you a hint as to why: It's not 'cause they are stupider than us.

Well they were stupider than me.. I knew that Iraq would be a failure. Go figure.

 

[amadeus]

I wish Iran had nukes. Then I wouldn't have to worry about America doing something stupid like bombing them.

No, then you'd have to worry about Iran using them. Think, McFly, think.

 

[Neomega]

No, then you'd have to worry about Iran using them. Think, McFly, think.

No, I don't think I would have to worry about it, and I wouldn't. I already worried about the soviets using it, and I think they were more dangerous than ahmedinijad. They actually invaded other nations.

 

[Insane_Panda]

Are you trying to discount the power of the news media?

Are you trying to discount the growing power of the internet community?

Are you trying to discount the power of the people, who elect our leaders?

No, I am trying to discount your simple minded point of view. I don't know about you, but from what I watch (the major news Networks such as MSNBC and CNN), no one with any wide support is calling for an invasion or bombing of Iran. Infact, those who do support such a thing are regularly questioned by those who run the shows on the Media on wouldn't such an action be rather stupid, due to the current events in Iraq. Furthermore, Civfanatics, though it is part of the internet, is not a part of the influential blogosphere. And again, I do not see anywhere massive support for an invasion of Iran. I see maybe a couple advocating such a move. You forget that our country is made up of 300 million people - most, whom, according to polls, are sick of the current war.

And finally, though the people do elect their officials, they are not incharge of the government. The founders of our constitution specifically set up the electoral college not as a means to squander the power of the people, but as a means to prevent mob rule and over-idealism, which, as can be seen by the election of the Nazi party to power in Germany, can bring chaos. I don't see what your point is regarding this though, as the majority of the American people do not even support the current war in Iraq, muchless any further wars.

Time magazine, though a very respected magazine (one which I subscribe to), is in its business to sell magazines. What better way to sell magazines than to put an interesting cover and pick an interesting person of the year? That does not mean that a bunch of forummers will decide the course of American foriegn policy. If it did, I would jump off a bridge.

Not according to rick Santorum. he said Bush expects war with Iran in 2007.

Are YOU trying to discount the power of the people, who elect our leaders? Rick Santorum was ousted from his seat for good reason. And can you attribute this or is it merely something you pulled from nowhere?

Yes, and obviously expect good results too, but I am not so optimistic.

No one expects good results. Not even those who support the bombing of Iran. Those who support such a measure support it as the best of a bunch of bad choices which happen to be our only choices. Those who support military action acknowledge the consequences, yet ultimately believe that such consequences are justified by the need to remove the Iranian nuclear threat.

Well they were stupider than me.. I knew that Iraq would be a failure. Go figure.

Did you now? Well, then I believe you should just be president! The Iraq war was a mistake in judgement, yes, but that does not mean you are smarter than those in our government. I'd rather have Condolezza Rice or Dick Cheney running our government than a guy who plays Civilization alot as our leader.

 

[Neomega]

No, I am trying to discount your simple minded point of view.

I asked you once, nicely.

I don't know about you, but from what I watch (the major news Networks such as MSNBC and CNN), no one with any wide support is calling for an invasion or bombing of Iran.

Invasion, no, bombing, yes. And like I said, one sinking of the Maine... retort?

Furthermore, Civfanatics, though it is part of the internet, is not a part of the influential blogosphere.

Of course it is. The "blogosphere" is composed of hundreds of thousands of small parts.

And again, I do not see anywhere massive support for an invasion of Iran.

Why do you insist on arguing with soemthing I never said. Invasion is not an option. This si the second time I will have to clarify I said bombing. I really do not care to do it again.

I don't see what your point is regarding this though, as the majority of the American people do not even support the current war in Iraq, muchless any further wars.

A majority of people probably would have opposed ivading Iraq too, if it wasn't for 9-11. Like I said, one sinking of the Maine.

That does not mean that a bunch of forummers will decide the course of American foriegn policy. If it did, I would jump off a bridge.

Who does determine foreign policy?
A democracy is, and always has been, about discussion.
And if this forum is so irrelevant, why are you wasting time on here?

Are YOU trying to discount the power of the people, who elect our leaders? Rick Santorum was ousted from his seat for good reason. And can you attribute this or is it merely something you pulled from nowhere?

I don't lie. You can google it yourself. I don't run around and do people's research for them anymore.

No one expects good results. Not even those who support the bombing of Iran.

I beg to differ. You can find quite a few optimistic talks of "just bomb their facilites.. or have Israel do it... it is quite a common meme.

Those who support such a measure support it as the best of a bunch of bad choices which happen to be our only choices. Those who support military action acknowledge the consequences, yet ultimately believe that such consequences are justified by the need to remove the Iranian nuclear threat.

The so called "last resort"

Did you now?

Yes I did. Look it up here on these forums. I also protested the war, becaus ei knew it would be bad for America. And of course, thanks to these forums, adn the Daily Show, I knew I was not alone, allthoguh there were times I certainly felt like an isolated traitor of the country I love.

Well, then I believe you should just be president!

Sarcasm is very unbecoming, and rarely funny.

The Iraq war was a mistake in judgement, yes, but that does not mean you are smarter than those in our government. I'd rather have Condolezza Rice or Dick Cheney running our government than a guy who plays Civilization alot as our leader.

I don't play Civilization alot, maybe 2 or three hours a week when averaged.

I do however read alot of news and statistics, especially related to foreign relations, and have been doign so for about 10 years. This I do probably 3 or 4 hours a day on average.

But it did not take alot of reading or study of the Soviet Union a la Rice, to know why Iraq would fail. I just put myself in the shoes of the Iraqi people, and understood they would resist. It's about understanding human nature, and the plight of those who have suffered injustice.

 

[Insane_Panda]

I beg to differ. You can find quite a few optimistic talks of "just bomb their facilites.. or have Israel do it... it is quite a common meme.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-muravchik19nov19,0,1681154.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Finally, wouldn't such a U.S. air attack on Iran inflame global anti-Americanism? Wouldn't Iran retaliate in Iraq or by terrorism? Yes, probably. That is the price we would pay. But the alternative is worse.

Finally, if you switch my use of Invasion with the word bombing, the message still stands. That is all I shall say on this issue anymore.

 

[Neomega]

Finally, if you switch my use of Invasion with the word bombing, the message still stands. That is all I shall say on this issue anymore.

Not really, very few people advocate invading, but quite a bit more advocate bombing, because they think we can do it "in and out".

You were arguing that no-one was advocating invading, to which I will to a large extent agree, but I think there is still large support for a bombing campaign.

Might I also add, that between the ages of 10 and 17, I read the entire paper every day. Ages 18 - 21, I became by and large politically inactive, but came back into politics around age 22. All in all, I have been keenly interested in politics, as long as you have been alive.

So I really do not appreciate you calling me simple minded or stupid.

 

[skadistic]

Good, at least I dont have to worry about Iran getting their hands on nukes to use against us.

This won't stop them I hate to say. These sanctions will nothing to stop Irans nuke weapons programme. It won't stop the crazy president and the imams from building bombs or sending funds and weapons and bomb componants to Iraq for the Al sader army to kill sunnis. It wont stop the funding and arming of hamas and hezbolla so it can attack Israel or Fatah. Just like sanctions didn't stop NK. It means nothing and Iran knows it. The UN can pass every resolution it wants ever nation in the world knows they can't/wont back it up with military force.

 

[Sidhe]

This won't stop them I hate to say. These sanctions will nothing to stop Irans nuke weapons programme. It won't stop the crazy president and the imams from building bombs or sending funds and weapons and bomb componants to Iraq for the Al sader army to kill sunnis. It wont stop the funding and arming of hamas and hezbolla so it can attack Israel or Fatah. Just like sanctions didn't stop NK. It means nothing and Iran knows it. The UN can pass every resolution it wants ever nation in the world knows they can't/wont back it up with military force.

And backing it up with military force works? What are you suggesting?

 

[Neomega]

This won't stop them I hate to say. These sanctions will nothing to stop Irans nuke weapons programme. It won't stop the crazy president and the imams from building bombs or sending funds and weapons and bomb componants to Iraq for the Al sader army to kill sunnis.

Is there any proof available Iran is funding Al Sadr. Indeed, is there any proof they (the Iranian government) are funding the insurgency at all?

 

[Nobody]

I do however read alot of news and statistics, especially related to foreign relations, and have been doign so for about 10 years. This I do probably 3 or 4 hours a day on average.

.

Thats more than the president! Bi da bom PISH *drum noise*(oh george you just got served ***** rolfpwned... thank you ill be here all night)

 

[Ball Lightning]

If America's way of controlling the world is through encouraging capitalism and democracy, then I am all for it. Much better than the likes of Khamenei or Ahmedinajad enforcing their ideas of a theocratic dictatorship over everyone.

America has done far more for this world than any other nation. This internet, your computer, are products of American intiution and American style free-enterprise. Your right to freely debate as you wish on this forum is a product of American ideals. I respect your right to your opinions, but I cannot respect what you say when what you say has no rational argument or thought behind it, but is instead rather mindless, angsty drivel that you cling to because you feel wronged in some way or through your own insecurities.

Ahmedinajad's statements concerning the destruction of other states are unwarranted, and irresponsible. The American invasion of Iraq, by contrast, was a completely legal invasion, and an invasion which, had it been carried out properly, would have been good for the middle east. The intelligence may have been faulty, but it was not, contrary to your conspiracy theories, fabricated so that America could freely invade the nation of Iraq. The Iraq war, in many ways, has been a failure, but to compare the actions of America to the statements of Ahmedinajad is simply stupid.

Yes, they did do that, but that doesn't mean that they can just go and blast any country which MIGHT use nukes against them. America probably could've got Iran to have all there activities watch but America insited that they should be sanctioned.

Iran new what they were getting themselfs into when they didnt give in to un demands. But you know the only people who will suffer are the poor not the people who actually make the decisions.

Your 'Demands' is exactly what i'm talking about, that is NOT democratic. And America has a very strange way of taking countries over. They attack first, then discover there intellegence was wrong later.

 

[skadistic]

And backing it up with military force works? What are you suggesting?

Force works when its overwhelming. If the leaders of Iran or NK or any other despotic nation thought the UN could or would actualy remove them from their cushy place they would take sanctions and resolutions seriously. Knowing nothing will happen to them they don't care. I'm suggesting the goverment of Iran and NK will only respect having their personal lives but directly in harms way. Are you suggesting that talks and resolutions and empty threats have swayed any despotic/tryanical leader to play by the rules?

Is there any proof available Iran is funding Al Sadr. Indeed, is there any proof they (the Iranian government) are funding the insurgency at all?

Yes. Not that its proof but take a look here.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/

Some reports also suggest that Iran’s interference in Iraq has included funding, safe transit, and arms to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.

Now I don't have access to these reports. And you'll say its not proof anyway. Unless you get a till reciept saying Al sader was given money and ammo you wont be swayed.

 

[Neomega]

Yes. Not that its proof but take a look here.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/

Actually, I just read it, and it says nothing of Iran's involvment in the insurgency.

So the correct answer would be, NO, not "yes, here is a link to something unrelated."

Now I don't have access to these reports. And you'll say its not proof anyway. Unless you get a till reciept saying Al sader was given money and ammo you wont be swayed.

Of course you don't. All you have is speculation and anecdotes.

what is more believable?

A. Funding from Iran is coming form the government?

or

B. Funding from Iran is coming from underground Islamic networks?

In case you didn't know, the answer is clearly B. Which is why I am getting pretty tired of the ABSOLUTELY BASELESS accusations I see tossed around on here over and over again that the Iranian government is funding the insurgency. They clearly do not need to.

 

[skadistic]

Actually, I just read it, and it says nothing of Iran's involvment in the insurgency.

So the correct answer would be, NO, not "yes, here is a link to something unrelated."

Did you read what I quoted? That came from the link.



Of course you don't. All you have is speculation and anecdotes.

what is more believable?

A. Funding from Iran is coming form the government?

or

B. Funding from Iran is coming from underground Islamic networks?

In case you didn't know, the answer is clearly B. Which is why I am getting pretty tired of the ABSOLUTELY BASELESS accusations I see tossed around on here over and over again that the Iranian government is funding the insurgency. They clearly do not need to.

Are you suggesting that the "underground islamic networks" are not directly funded by the government? But like I said unless you see a reciept you won't be happy. Brittian has launched a inquary into Irans funding of shia fighters in Iraq would that be proof enough when its concluded if it says Iran is? As for absolutly baseless:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.iran/index.html

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/041122/22iran_2.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301390.html

 

[Neomega]

Are you suggesting that the "underground islamic networks" are not directly funded by the government? But like I said unless you see a reciept you won't be happy.

I hear-tell Iraq has WMD's. Everybody had evidence.

So yeah, I want a reciept. I also want a good motive.

Asked how much money Iran has given the Mehdi Army this year, the official said, "I don't have a good estimate, but I'll tell you, it's in the millions of dollars."

Only millions, over four years?

The official said that high-grade military explosives and specialized timers are among the "boutique military equipment" moving from Iran into Iraq.

Like the Anthrax from an American Army base? Or like the thousands of US Army guns that somehow find their way to gun trade shows? One is strictly controleld, one is not, so easy to control.

(for the answer, explosives can easily be smuggled form a base by a devout jihadist from Iran's 350,000 man army pretty easily)

The official said Iran wants "control of surrogates" in Iraq, not an easy task because Iraqi Arab nationalist groups, not pro-Iranian groups, have more grass-roots support.

Iran has "only has a window of opportunity" before historic animosities between Arab Iraq and Persian Iran prevail, he said.

How big is this so called window of opportunity? Why was the "military official" anonymous? Is that the way to give an official statement of which you are certain? NO.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other U.S. military leaders have talked about Iran's funding of the insurgency, but generally have been reluctant to directly blame the Tehran government.

If you got proof, level the blame... but wait, let me guess... Rumsfeld knows where these phantom groups are, he knows where they are, they are in the east west south and north somewhat.

 

[GenMarshall]

If the Iranians do start developing the bomb dispite other nations telling them no. Then I would have to side that we should strike them down and bomb them back to the age of the Persians.

No way I want to experiance a Nuclear Scare that my grand parents had to endure during the 1950s and 1960s.

 

[Neomega]

If the Iranians do start developing the bomb dispite other nations telling them no. Then I would have to side that we should strike them down and bomb them back to the age of the Persians.

No way I want to experiance a Nuclear Scare that my grand parents had to endure during the 1950s and 1960s.

You think that would save you?

If we attack Iran, the world will get intensely more scary.

1. The stock market WILL crash. No doubt about it. It didn't happen for Iraq, because everyone thought Iraq II would be like I. But after watching Iraq II, the market would definitely react to war with Iran negatively.

2. I lived through the soviet scare of the 80's, it really was not that bad at all.

3. Iran is hardly the superpwoer, or rising superpower that the USSR was.

4. Attacking Iran would ENRAGE the world, Including China and Russia, and guarantee very cold relations and mistrust of America in the world community. It is inevitable they would see the United States as being the appeased.

5. We arelady have 100's of thousands of angry arabs, Iran would give us hundreds of thousands more angy persians... and you know how those durn muslims can be, all you have to do is kill a couple hundred thousand of them, then a few of them think they are allahs righteous sword of jihad. Welcome to an america saturated by terrorism, alone, isolated, and recieving very little intelligence support from anyone.