What should be do about Iran?

[True_Avery]

I do not tolerate bigots who spew hateful and disgustingly offensive claptrap.

 

Thankfully, no one will have to stand this particular one anymore.

Thank you, and I apologize for losing my temper in my last few posts.

 

Anyways, maybe we can put a topic together from the remains of this thread.

[Jae Onasi]

Whoa, you people were busy while I was offline.

 

Let's steer this in a more positive direction.....

 

Questions to consider--

1. is Iran a problem, and if so, what is the nature of the problem

2. Assuming Iran is a problem, is it the entire country, or is it the ruling council, or just Ahmadinejad?

3. What should be done if Iran develops nukes, if anything?

4. What countries benefit from Ahmadinejad remaining in power?

5. Does Ahmadinejad really like Hugo Chavez?

6. How much oil does their country produce, and who has the most to gain/lose from a potential war there?

7. If there is a war, who would be the likely principals?

8. Who has the best chance of getting Ahmadinejad to settle down?

9. Is Ahmadinejad serious about his views on Israel? If so, what, if anything, should be done? What actions would trigger a reaction from Israel?

10. Is there a point at which Ahmadinejad needs to be stopped, and if so, where does the line in the sand get drawn?

 

Just a few things.....

[Totenkopf]

Let's steer this in a more positive direction.....

 

Questions to consider--

1. is Iran a problem, and if so, what is the nature of the problem?

Iran, in it's current incarnation, is a problem. Untill the radical islamic government is brought down (preferably toppled from within, but with the help of a good push as necessary), there will continue to be a solid base of support for trouble in both Lebanon and Iraq.

 

2. Assuming Iran is a problem, is it the entire country, or is it the ruling council, or just Ahmadinejad?

I'd say it's primarily the mullahs of the ruling council, Ahmadinejad and the etremists that support that government. If what is constantly reported is true, that the average Iranian is actually pro-western/US, then that would seem to be the case.

 

3. What should be done if Iran develops nukes, if anything?

This is the crux of the matter. Pakistan already has a bomb (many), but is thankfully distracted by the Indians, who also have them. I'd say that if the current regime develops nukes, it may become necessary to strike sooner than later.

 

4. What countries benefit from Ahmadinejad remaining in power?

Iran, Syria, Russia, China and any other pro-islamicist government out there. No doubt the Rosie O'Donnels of the world would say the US (or at least its MIC) does as well.

 

 

5. Does Ahmadinejad really like Hugo Chavez?

Not sure it really matters. The old saying.....my enemy's enemy is my friend...comes to mind.

 

 

6. How much oil does their country produce, and who has the most to gain/lose from a potential war there?

Not sure this is really relevant b/c the key is to basically control the whole region through actual power or denial (like a scorched earth policy) of oil to the developed world. Barring the second part, then the first part would be the oil producing countries (OPEC and others) and international oil traders who benefit most from a hike in prices. This could also include governments in the west whose tax revenue would increase as the taxes are often tied to a percentage of the price of gasoline sold to it's "citizens/subjects/marks/patsies (like in me and you).".

 

7. If there is a war, who would be the likely principals?

Iran, the US and Israel are the most likely principals.

 

8. Who has the best chance of getting Ahmadinejad to settle down?

Depends on how sane the man really is. If he really believes in the 12th(?) Imam, perhaps noone.

 

9. Is Ahmadinejad serious about his views on Israel? If so, what, if anything, should be done? What actions would trigger a reaction from Israel?

Most obvious would be an actual missle strike into Israel from Iran (I'm thinking LOW probability here). Most likely would be seriously stepped up aid to Hamas et al to strike at Israel "remotely" (more likely). My guess is that Ahmadhinejad needs to believe that any attempt to take out Israel will mean the end of the region. If he's sane that should be enough. If not, the Chinese curse....may you live in interesting times...may end up applying.

 

10. Is there a point at which Ahmadinejad needs to be stopped, and if so, where does the line in the sand get drawn?

The line has already been drawn. It remains to be seen whether his opponents keeping drawing more lines or actually do something more constructive/destructive in response to his continual provocations.

[Darth InSidious]

This last post did raise some questions, so I thought I'd answer them. I shall attempt to remain level-headed in this.

 

Umm you arnt out poodle, your our ally. But in all honestly you do what we tell you to do lol. (no offense)

That's not a description of an ally. That's a description of a vassal state. What makes it worse is that you didn't even need to conquer us - our own let you do it to us.

 

Dont forget England was a very brutal country in your past.

And that justifies America being a brutal country now...how?

As in killing off tons of scott's,

They were hardly purges. There were rebellions, mingled with propaganda and misunderstanding and politics. And had they led to civil war, that would have been far worse.

 

trying to rule over america

We ruled America. I suggest you check your facts on what actually was the cause of taxation without representation. There's a lot of misunderstanding on the subject.

 

and world conquest.

And we were unique in that...how?

 

Oh and your the only country to actually do a crusade, 3 of them I think.

So...Clermont is now part of England?!

 

Get your facts straight. Pope Urban II called the First Crusade at Clermont in France in 1095. The main players were the French and Germans. England actually put practically nothing into the First Crusade. The Second and Third were, if I understand them correctly, really attempts to prop up the rapidly ailing Crusader States, and the Fourth Crusade was manipulated by the Doge of Venice to trash Byzantium.

 

First of all you are wrong, secondly, you clearly know next-to-nothing about the Crusades.

 

Also, to back up my facts. The Muslim relgion is a very violent one. They did a fox news special on it.

Oh, well then! It must be Gospel truth! The first rule of all journalism: There is no unbiased reporter.

If you are not Muslim they tell you to become Muslim. If you dont convert they think you are a infadel and will kill you.

That's a gross generalisation, and an attitude surrounding which there is much debate and disagreement among Muslims, as I understand. And how is killing people who don't follow your religion much different from killing people who don't follow your political model?

 

/endrant

None of that is hate, it is fact.

Well thank you for your input, Your Holiness!

 

1. is Iran a problem, and if so, what is the nature of the problem?

 

The nature of the problem is that a theocracy is developing nuclear weapons. (And for Achilles et al., I would be equally disturbed if Tibet, or the Vatican started developing nukes.)

 

2. Assuming Iran is a problem, is it the entire country, or is it the ruling council, or just Ahmadinejad?

 

I think that the political structure is radicalised and I think that people in key positions are willing to use nuclear weapons.

 

3. What should be done if Iran develops nukes, if anything?

 

I'm not sure anything we do wouldn't only exacerbate the prolem. Switch away from oil, coal and gas.

 

4. What countries benefit from Ahmadinejad remaining in power?

 

I doubt we will be entirely sure until after the current political system in Iran collapses. Politics is a shady business, no matter how you profess to conduct it.

 

5. Does Ahmadinejad really like Hugo Chavez?

 

Probably not. And I doubt Chavez really gives much of a damn about Ahmadinejad, either.

 

6. How much oil does their country produce, and who has the most to gain/lose from a potential war there?

 

I last heard that it was the third largest producer of oil, coal and gas in the world. Anyone in control in Iran will have an increasing stranglehold on the rest of the world...

 

7. If there is a war, who would be the likely principals?

 

The US and Iran, 'though I fear it would spread into an all out East-West conflict...

 

8. Who has the best chance of getting Ahmadinejad to settle down?

 

Ayatollah Khamenei?

 

9. Is Ahmadinejad serious about his views on Israel? If so, what, if anything, should be done? What actions would trigger a reaction from Israel?

 

No idea. I think the only solution is to switch away from oil/coal/gas and thereby rob Iran of its greatest bargaining power. I don't know what would trigger a reaction from Israel, but I suspect a good answer would be 'not much'. Although with the current problems facing Ehud Olmert, right now I doubt there's much, and I would like to think that Israel may start to be a little less jumpy from now on.

 

10. Is there a point at which Ahmadinejad needs to be stopped, and if so, where does the line in the sand get drawn?

 

I don't know. Frankly, I pray we don't get to that point.

[JediMaster12]

The nature of the problem is that a theocracy is developing nuclear weapons. (And for Achilles et al., I would be equally disturbed if Tibet, or the Vatican started developing nukes.)

But don't forget that this particular theocracy is under the influence of a religion that indicates war or Jihad is a good thing according to the interpretations of the extremists. Yes there are wars that are fought over religion but with one where it is said that in the name of Allah kill the infidels is one I'd rather be wary of.

[GarfieldJL]

Fox News is actually a pretty good news source, this morning alone I saw MSNBC's news coverage doing a commentary on Iraq. They had a bunch of 'experts' I use the term loosely and it was basically who could bash President Bush the most. Seriously, when Fox News has debates concerning Iraq, they usually have people on both sides of the issue, whereas the so called unbiased MSNBC does not.

 

That being said, Eric's comments while many of them could be better worded, he did make some valid points.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274934,00.html

 

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

 

Not sure if other media outlets aired this considering it isn't "Politically Correct" however the study speaks for itself.

 

The Vatican doesn't preach violence, nor does it fund suicide bombings, neither does Tibet. I'd be much less concerned about the Vatican having Nuclear potential then I am about Iran.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Fox News is actually a pretty good news source, this morning alone I saw MSNBC's news coverage doing a commentary on Iraq. They had a bunch of 'experts' I use the term loosely and it was basically who could bash President Bush the most. Seriously, when Fox News has debates concerning Iraq, they usually have people on both sides of the issue, whereas the so called unbiased MSNBC does not.

The fact that MSNBC sucks doesn't negate the fact that Fox News sucks.

[Totenkopf]

Question, though, JMAC, is whether it sucks b/c it's consistently incorrect in its reporting or b/c its "slant/ideology" isn't in alignment w/its critics? I've noticed this tendency, as has Prime, that many of us label sources as crappy w/o really showing why they are so beyond perhaps personal biases. What exactly is your "axe to grind" w/FOX in particular (GarfieldJL has at least indicated his problem with MSNBC et al)?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I have a problem with most news sources in general. They've been turned into sources of profit for the corporations that own them, they've given up on actual investigative journalism, instead reporting on frivolous garbage. However, at least most news agencies have the decency to just be lazy, whereas Fox goes the extra mile to misinform people and reduce debate to several red faced idiots screaming at each other for 30 minutes.

[GarfieldJL]

To be blunt, Fox News actually does its own investigative reporting.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276355,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/americas

 

The fact Fox News isn't lazy is why they didn't report those bogus pictures in the Israeli/Lebanon war as the gospel truth, they took the time to check them and discovered they were fraudulent and reported it as such.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

What a crap example. It's the equivilent of the unlucky reporter who gets stuck with having to stand in a hurricane and say it's windy out. And not reporting those "bogus pictures" is their job. They shouldn't be praised for something like that - I'm not letting them off the hook just because most news organizations don't have journalistic standards.

[GarfieldJL]

You misunderstand, they reported the fact that the pictures were bogus, when other news agencies were reporting the bogus pictures as though it was the gospel truth.

 

Fox News also went after CBS when they aired the story with the bogus documents less than two months before the Presidential Elections of 04. That hardly sounds like someone whom isn't doing a good job on reporting now does it?

[True_Avery]

News is biased. No news station is politically neutral because nobody would watch it. The closest damn thing I have found to a politically neutral news program would be Daily Show and the Colbert Report... and they are both on comedy central.

 

We could debate this to the end ofthe earth, but the fact of the matter is we cannot convince eachother to change news station by simply debating. I am not pointing a finger at any one person, but once a kool-aid drinker almost always a kool-aid drinker (You can look up the meaning of that is you'd like). Lets get back onto the topic at hand instead of debating which news station is more "accurate."

[Nancy Allen``]

Let's see if we can derail this bigoted flame war.

 

1. is Iran a problem, and if so, what is the nature of the problem

 

It's leader for his unabashed hatred for Israel and the Jews, then appearing all buddy buddy.

 

2. Assuming Iran is a problem, is it the entire country, or is it the ruling council, or just Ahmadinejad?

 

I'm sure there would be Iranians that share his views, but in a sense it's much like Iraq in that the problem wasn't the country, it was Saddam.

 

3. What should be done if Iran develops nukes, if anything?

 

Israel has the right to first strike against threats to their nation, something they would undoubtably use if this happened. If Iran are close bring in Patriot missile defence systems to Israel, as well as further bolstering of Israel's military with American hardware (Apache helicopters, F15s, ect).

 

4. What countries benefit from Ahmadinejad remaining in power?

 

I would argue terrorism that is funded by Iran, specifically Palestinion terrorists who are reward by killing Israelis, but someone might prove diffirently.

 

5. Does Ahmadinejad really like Hugo Chavez?

 

There's a bit of a diffirence between liking and allying with, and if there is any sort of alligience then certainly action should be taken. War? We'd be stretching ourselves pretty thin with Afghanistan and Iraq already.

 

6. How much oil does their country produce, and who has the most to gain/lose from a potential war there?

 

This is one of the big problems with going to war, we'll have the "all about the oil" arguements all over again.

 

7. If there is a war, who would be the likely principals?

 

Defending Israel, which wouldn't fly well given the hatred held towards Israel. What other principals could there be?

 

8. Who has the best chance of getting Ahmadinejad to settle down?

 

CIA style room service? Seriously if the UN have voted for Israel's right to exist then a united coalition against Ahmadinejad would have a good chance of having him back off, as I picture him as wanting to look good, politically good. If he loses support for his intentions with Israel, and if he knows he would lose by going to war with them (which he would if he knew that by going to war with Israel it would bring in America and it's allies to turn his country into the newest Middle Eastern parking lot) then he would want to scrape back support.

 

9. Is Ahmadinejad serious about his views on Israel? If so, what, if anything, should be done? What actions would trigger a reaction from Israel?

 

As much of a these comments make him I think he's smart enough to know that any action against Israel would be his doom. I think he's bluffing, trying to act big, but at the same time maybe hopes to draw support from others, Syria perhaps, so that he can act. How would Israel respond? We saw last year with their bombing of Lebanon, they would exercise their right to first strike against threats to their nation.

 

10. Is there a point at which Ahmadinejad needs to be stopped, and if so, where does the line in the sand get drawn?

 

I'm wondering if maybe that line had already been crossed, people can't say the sort of things he does and support the things he does, Palestinion terrorists, anti Jew\anti American sentiment. As for stopping him, what do you have in mind? Politically censoring him? Removal from office? Forcing an election? Assassination? War?

 

And yeah, the bigotry, FFSFTS.

[GarfieldJL]

Nancy the United States doesn't buy oil from Iran.

 

As far as Iran sponsoring terrorism they are known sponsors of Hamas and Hezbollah among other groups. They are also supplying IEDs to insurgents in Iraq, in addition to training if not their own special forces attacking US troops in Iraq. It is believed Iran recently tried to bomb Saudi Arabia's oil wells with a 9/11 style attack.

 

Ahmadinejad has called for the total annihilation of Israel and said the holocaust never happened. Israel to be blunt is an ally of the United States and I'm not certain but I think Israel is an ally of several European Countries. Not sure about the European Countries but the United States will act to defend its allies. My Grandfather was one of the US soldiers to liberate concentration camps in World War II.

 

Concerning the News front, I watched the Republican Debate on CNN last night and they did a much better job than I expected them to, granted I had extremely low expectations. They didn't do quite as good of a job as Fox News did in my opinion, but they did a lot better than MSNBC did. One has to consider the media in all this, because the media is where people typically get their information concerning what is going on in the world. The reason I trust Fox News is because in all honesty they are held to a much higher standard than the other media outlets. This was demonstrated in 2004 with the fraudulent memos that Dan Rather used to try to slander the President of the United States. The only major media outlet that went after CBS was Fox News. Fox News went after CBS concerning this immediantly, bloggers called into question the authenticity of the memos practically before the 60 Minutes II piece ended. MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CNN all didn't call into question the authenticity of the memos which by the way were in a Font that wasn't even in use when the Memos were supposedly written. Even if the memos were scanned and then printed, the original font would have been preserved because scans usually are in image format. It's been demonstrated that other news agencies will immediantly jump on Fox News whenever they get the chance trying to discredit them, often shooting themselves in the foot because Fox News actually did research. So that's why I trust Fox News more than other media outlets (including the BBC and CBC (example 2006 Lebanon/Israeli Conflict)).

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

You misunderstand, they reported the fact that the pictures were bogus, when other news agencies were reporting the bogus pictures as though it was the gospel truth.

 

Fox News also went after CBS when they aired the story with the bogus documents less than two months before the Presidential Elections of 04. That hardly sounds like someone whom isn't doing a good job on reporting now does it?

As I said before, other news agencies not doing their jobs does not let Fox off the hook. And fact checking isn't an example of fine investigative journalism.

 

Other news organizations aren't the only ones who make mistakes such as that anyway, airing "news" segments produced by the Bush administration verbatim is far from adhering to the standards they should be held to.

[Darth333]

What about getting back on topic (Iran) ?

 

If you wish to discuss journalism practices/bias, feel free to start a new thread

[Nancy Allen``]

America not buying oil from Iran, that would ark up the anti war crowd on the issue of oil even more.

 

Iran sponsering terrorism? That would figure. What do we do about it though?

 

The Holocaust, frankly it pisses me off that people denied it happened. I half believe Shin Bet should take action. In fact, on Ahmadinejad I'm surprised they haven't tried anything.

[JediMaster12]

More likely they are posturing, playing "chicken" as it were. It is like coming toe to toe and trying to see which one blinks first. We've had other situations that are similar like during the Cuban missile crisis. It is a tactic that never fails to get people aroused. The suspense builds and then you are waiting until one decides to make a move.