PDA

View Full Version : Iran - the future



penguinsfeet
01 Mar 10,, 15:24
Hi there,

Why is Israel so worried about Iran getting “the Bomb”. Would Iran attack Israel if they acquired it, even if they did not “nuke” them?

I can’t see even Iran being stupid enough to “nuke” any other country, or even invade any neighbouring countries using the threat of using a nuke to subdue them.

Will America definitely go to “any and all” lengths to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capability? Is it possible that we could see America attack/invade Iran?

What would be the likely outcome if America did “get heavy” with Iran?

Could we see a replay of the "Guns of August"?

Traxus
02 Mar 10,, 16:56
Almost every thread in this forum talks about at least one of these issues. There are no simple answers to any of those questions, it really depends on who you ask.

Swift Sword
03 Mar 10,, 14:55
What would be the likely outcome if America did “get heavy” with Iran?


If we use history as a guide, it is fair to say that the Iranians will remain as long as the Zagros Mountains remain.

In a 5,000 year time frame, you learn to fight Persians at Court and in Mesopotamia, not in what is Iran proper.

Regards,

William

Dreadnought
19 Mar 10,, 17:27
A funny comparrison:

Iraq's elections are almost completed counting wise which has taken the last several days.

Iran completed their vote "counting" in 4 hours before announcing dinnerjacket as president. Whats this tell you?:rolleyes:

Bluesman
19 Mar 10,, 17:49
Hi there,

Why is Israel so worried about Iran getting “the Bomb”. Would Iran attack Israel if they acquired it, even if they did not “nuke” them?

I can’t see even Iran being stupid enough to “nuke” any other country, or even invade any neighbouring countries using the threat of using a nuke to subdue them.

This question reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the regime. It starts with an assumption that the advancement of Iran's interests are the goal. This is a mistake.

“We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”
-Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Father of the Iranian Revolution

astralis
19 Mar 10,, 18:58
well, keith,

if i were israel i'd be afraid of iran with a bomb, too, simply because iran has stated many times that it wouldn't mind seeing israel erased. always take threats seriously.

as an american, i see iranian actions against the US, and note that all of them have been towards an advancement of Iranian interests vice bringing about the worldwide Islamic revolution.

for instance, how are iranian-iraqi relations with the iranian seizure of the oil well? similarly, what other instances can we find where iran has done something for the islamic revolution but against her own interests?

if you could find me -anything-, either here or classified RED team analysis, i'll admit straight up here i was wrong.

Bluesman
19 Mar 10,, 19:37
well, keith,

if i were israel i'd be afraid of iran with a bomb, too, simply because iran has stated many times that it wouldn't mind seeing israel erased. always take threats seriously.
Nobody takes it more seriously than ME, mate. I just think that nobody BUT me takes 'em at their word. You see, they've been very obliging about telling us what they're all about, and the Swift Swords of the world simply won't believe that they're serious.

They are.

And I believe you make YOUR mistake in not seeing this through their eyes: you are a creature of the State Department, and as such, believe in the old structure that we have always existed in: nation-states are the units that deal with each other, have authority, have power. Khomeini only acceded to the fact that this is how it is NOW, but in God's Earthly Kingdom, which his heirs will usher in, nation-states are NOTHING, just man-made constructs that signify nothing but pride and ungodliness.


as an american, i see iranian actions against the US, and note that all of them have been towards an advancement of Iranian interests vice bringing about the worldwide Islamic revolution.
Again, you think that's the goal. It isn't. It is a means to an end. Iran is NOTHING but a way to launch something far greater, if you happen to be an Islamic fanatic.


for instance, how are iranian-iraqi relations with the iranian seizure of the oil well?
That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about: if that's not an exact Foggy Bottom take on what is absolutely and completely a negligible non-point, I've never seen one. IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER. But you striped-pants boys keep focusing down on the minutae of Big Power Diplomacy, and completely lose sight of Big Picture Millenarianism, and this oil well or that international boundary line squiggle won't help us in understanding our fanatic enemy that just happens to be Iranian, ALSO a negligible fact, when seen in the light of Islamic fanaticism.


similarly, what other instances can we find where iran has done something for the islamic revolution but against her own interests?
At this time, they happen to coincide. A suicide bomber always has a last meal, does he not? He nourishes his body right up until 'splodey-time. Well, Iran is the first suicide NATION. But until they're ready to launch Armageddon, they're going to be taking care of the only vessel that can carry God's Holy Will out someday.


if you could find me -anything-, either here or classified RED team analysis, i'll admit straight up here i was wrong.
It's right in front of you.

You're not wrong, you're just not reading the rest of the map. You go to the edge of Terra Cognita, and beyond it is where a visionary like Khomeini beckons. Imagine Khomeini (and his heirs) saying: 'GOD will always be mightier than any state, even THIS one that we imperfect but devout men of God have wrought, 'IRAN'. It is a means to an end, nothing more.'

Up to now, fortunately, the Iranian play has been to advance the Islamic Revolution by the good ole way through the power of the nation-state. It has been fortunate for us that the vessel containing the Islamic Revolution has been a targetable, vulnerable, imperfect means that we can check with all of the familiar means of power avaialable to us in abundance. At a certain point along this path, they will diverge along a route that will abandon the utterly unimportant relic of 'Iran'. It will cease to have meaning, just as Khomeini always saw. It can get them to 'HERE', and then God will take them the rest of the way. If you love your country, you're just an idolator, and to PROVE that you don't give a dam' about it, as God demands of all good Muslims...use it as the match that lights the fuse.

astralis
19 Mar 10,, 20:23
keith,


Up to now, fortunately, the Iranian play has been to advance the Islamic Revolution by the good ole way through the power of the nation-state. It has been fortunate for us that the vessel containing the Islamic Revolution has been a targetable, vulnerable, imperfect means that we can check with all of the familiar means of power avaialable to us in abundance. At a certain point along this path, they will diverge along a route that will abandon the utterly unimportant relic of 'Iran'. It will cease to have meaning, just as Khomeini always saw. It can get them to 'HERE', and then God will take them the rest of the way. If you love your country, you're just an idolator, and to PROVE that you don't give a dam' about it, as God demands of all good Muslims...use it as the match that lights the fuse.

that's what makes me uncomfortable about the analysis. yes, you could very well be right...but their behavior has been otherwise.

and seeing as how their country is currently turning into a military dictatorship, for the life of me i can't think of a single military dictatorship that is certifiably insane for martyrdom. especially a military dictatorship where the people are, at the very least, restless...

Bluesman
19 Mar 10,, 20:29
keith,



that's what makes me uncomfortable about the analysis. yes, you could very well be right...but their behavior has been otherwise.

and seeing as how their country is currently turning into a military dictatorship, for the life of me i can't think of a single military dictatorship that is certifiably insane for martyrdom. especially a military dictatorship where the people are, at the very least, restless...

Are you kidding me? You can't think of one?

How 'bout Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? BOTH sought death in battle, a Wagnerian Gotterdammerung on a Viking funeral pyre for the former, and glorious war-sacrifice on behalf of a god-emperor for the latter?

DUDE...come ON. That's what they LOVE: visions of death to the last man and mass destruction. FANATICISM: look up the definition.

astralis
19 Mar 10,, 20:41
keith,


How 'bout Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? BOTH sought death in battle, a Wagnerian Gotterdammerung on a Viking funeral pyre for the former, and glorious war-sacrifice on behalf of a god-emperor for the latter?

martyrdom what they aimed for when they had no chance at victory, facing that or humiliating surrender to the allies (and it's telling they both chose surrender). that's not what they -wanted-.

what they wanted was for their empire to dominate the world, and they took realistic, fairly predictable moves to make that happen-- ie they were rational players.

Ararat
19 Mar 10,, 21:11
This question reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the regime. It starts with an assumption that the advancement of Iran's interests are the goal. This is a mistake.

“We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”
-Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Father of the Iranian Revolution

The Mullahs are not Iran! You ask any decent Iranian and he will tell you "We are Irani first, Muslims second". Tomorrow is Iranian New Year celebration (Aid e no roos) that predates Islam. Mullahs try very hard to ban it; Iranians will never allow it, not this. You cannot put all Muslims in one bag especially Iranian people.

The Mullahs will not nuke Israel for several reasons one being the chance to damage Jerusalem (future state of Pals as they see it) and Al Asqua Mosque…..other than that I agree nuclear Mullahs (if they actually can acheive it) are a very bad idea.

Bluesman
19 Mar 10,, 21:24
keith,



martyrdom what they aimed for when they had no chance at victory, facing that or humiliating surrender to the allies (and it's telling they both chose surrender). that's not what they -wanted-.

what they wanted was for their empire to dominate the world, and they took realistic, fairly predictable moves to make that happen-- ie they were rational players.

AND nationalistic. That's what you're missing. Do NOT get into history, here, because I used them as two examples of what you couldn't for the life of you think you'd ever seen.

The BIG DIFFERENCE, the CRUCIAL POINT, is that they were both nationalistic when there was a nation-state, the interests of which they attempted to advance. When there was NOT...you see what I mean?

S2
19 Mar 10,, 22:40
"The Mullahs are not Iran! You ask any decent Iranian and he will tell you 'We are Irani first, Muslims second'.

Could be. Possession of nuclear weapons, however, isn't an issue that I sense is divisive inside Iran. Seems a lot of folks from all sides of the Iranian body politic are together on that one.

Parihaka
19 Mar 10,, 22:44
The Mullahs are not Iran! You ask any decent Iranian and he will tell you "We are Irani first, Muslims second".

The Iranian people are irrelevant, as their last 'election' demonstrated. By this I mean they don't have a voice.

Ararat
20 Mar 10,, 04:52
Could be. Possession of nuclear weapons, however, isn't an issue that I sense is divisive inside Iran. Seems a lot of folks from all sides of the Iranian body politic are together on that one.

Nuclear energy right? Doesn’t matter, this regime cannot be trusted and I wished there was a way to remove/kill them, and if they are pursuing weapons then they either want it for protection or want to join the Nuclear club with bargaining chips. Don’t look at them Mullahs like that; they are not stupid to start lunching nukes, even if attacked, this is in my humble opinion guys.

Parihaka they never had a voice. A desperate battle for democracy crushed ruthlessly.........nothing to do with election.

God bless United States of America and the Iranian people is all I can say.

Coup De Grace
21 Mar 10,, 13:44
Letting a power hungry dictator achieve weapons of mass destruction is not a very good idea. Even if they won't use it themselves, they can easily hand it to someone who will and wouldn't mind the consequences, such as El Qaeda or Hizbollah. It was also previously mentioned that Ahmedinejad has threatened Israel's existence in public several times.

S2
21 Mar 10,, 14:01
"...weapons of mass distraction..."

Is this an example of your academic mediocrity? Don't allow your eagerness to post to interfere with solid editing technique.

We don't know you well enough yet to appreciate your odd sense of humor...if it is that.

Coup De Grace
21 Mar 10,, 15:14
"...weapons of mass distraction..."

Is this an example of your academic mediocrity? Don't allow your eagerness to post to interfere with solid editing technique.

We don't know you well enough yet to appreciate your odd sense of humor...if it is that.

More like an example of mild ADD combined with lack of sleep.. and this is where the "distraction" part becomes comic. :biggrin: