Well, *that* was productive...Follow

You and those Muzzies have something in common. You are both impatient.

Ok, Gwyn, I'll give you another three months-- even to the day. That'll be summer plus two days. My money is on Iran still giving us the finger. Why? Because they want to be the dominant force in the Middle East and to do that requires nukes. Iran + nukes = enemy of civilized world.

This isn't going to be resolved with talking. Given enough time Iran will be on the receiving end of a military strike/campaign/thermonuclear device. Allow me to highlight one particular word to prove my point: Ayatollah. These clerics aren't exactly known for levelheadedness or willingness to compromise.

Totem

Ok, thermo-nook-lee-are device. Better?

Totem

I read his speech to the Iranians, and thought it was very good. He said exactly what he should've said. It was refreshing, intelligent, and adult. It makes the Iranina's regime anti-US propaganda that little less effective. It's a good move ahead of the elections, eventhough I'm not optimistic about their result at all.

Still, good move. Tha Taliban thing is pretty good as well, trying to turn them into a political party. It's the only thing that can be done, really.

I'm not 100% convinced about what Obama is doing at home, but abroad it's got my complete approval.

So yes, run for the hills.

I'm not a proponent of such, but, if that's the plan, then we should definitely do that right now. Today even. America currently has the advantage. Wouldn't that be something? If America just said Fuggitt. We're tired of getting crap from the rest of the world. Tired of being called bullies and war mongers as we negotiate with nations we could most certainly annihilate.


Then unleash our entire ******** Not a police action style war, but an all out, utterly horrific blitzkrieg. Armageddon. Men, women, children , kittens and Teddy bears all disintegrated. Not a single living molecule to be found in all the land.


The rest of the World would disapprove, but Obama could address them with a single word... "Next"?


On a more serious note,( My reptilian, phallic blood lust has been quenched) I just don't see this ending well. I don't see how Obama can possibly give them the change they want. Ease sanctions? Sure, that could happen. Get off their *** about Nuclear weapons? Feasible, it's not like our chastising them is going to stop them. Remain neutral with regards to Israel? That isn't going to happen.


They will always have that "Zionist Infidels!" ace up their sleeves. Unless we go with Plan-B! We join with them and obliterate Israel! They'll never see that coming. Either way, eventually America is going to end up fighting someone, and getting sh*t for it too.


EDIT: I "bolded" Bold Text. I could use this opportunity to actually edit this awful rambling, stupid mess, but I'm lazy.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2009 9:51am by CoalHeart

The issue with Iran is that instead of a state such as, for example, Turkey, they reacted horribly to the departure of the colonial powers. They never established proper democratic institutions and were therefore ruled by an incompetent and pro-Western dictator for the first half of the twentieth century, which is partly what led to the revolution in 1979. The result is that the modern state of Iran has defined itself by its opposition to the West and to Western policies of secularization and democratic rule. For it to adapt to peace with the West would require a radical restructuring of the post-revolution government's theocratic ideology.

Which isn't to say that there's no solution. The US can't give them what they want, because what Iran wants is to leverage its natural gas wealth and military power (re: nukes) to essentially dominate the Middle East and export the concept of an Islamic revolution. What the US can and should do is contain Iran and its ambitions while avoiding conflict until the nation's government becomes more malleable, either by the election of reformist elements into power or by internal civil strife. I think that's what Obama is trying to do. It shouldn't be seen as capitulation.

I don't want to sound like a condescending *******, but you should really read up on the History between the US (and the UK, for that matter) and Iran. It's long and dirty. The Irananians have all the reasons in the world to be suspsicious about the US. I know it's so much simpler to have the "We're good, they're evil" mentality, but historically, our behavious towards this nation has been absolutely abysmal.

Having said that, I don't think the future is that bleak. The worst possible outcome is that Iran will end up with a nuke, which I don't think is that scary. Israel has some. Pakistan has some. Most countries in the world could have some if they really wanted to. I'm not saying this is a positive development, but it's a pretty natural course of action in a world that lacks any real centralised authority, or an enforceable collective framework for dealing with this issue.

I do think, however, that Iran will eventually calm down its rethoric. Most of its population is under 25, and they are pretty pro-US, in their actions if not their words. They watch US shows, buy US goods, aspire to a Western lifestyle (adapted to local customs, ofc), and most of all, they are almost as unaware about the US's actions towards Iran in the XXth Century as young Americans are today. Fundamentally, a majority of Iranians want to be accepted in the international community. In time, if we don't antagonise them too much, it'll calm down. There's no reason why Iran couldn't be like, say, Turkey. In time. And that's what Obama is trying to do. Get on teh good side of the Iranians that want dialogue and good relations.

The nuclear issue is thorny. I'll be brutally honest, I can understand the Iranian leadership. Their next door-neighbour was taken out in 3 weeks flat, because it kinda pissed off a US President. They are next to a nuclear armed country that they don't like, and that doesn't like them. They have been placed on the axis of evil. They pretty much know that their long-term survival depends on them getting a nuke. It's their only guarantee of long-term survival and independence. Regardless of the issue of civil energy, if I was an Iranian Ayatollah, I would be trying to get hold of the bomb.

And once again, I'm not sure we can do all that much about it. Yes, we can build international pressure, put forward SC Resolutions, impose sanctions, threaten invasion, let Israel attack the place, we can offer goodies and money and technology... But the knowledge is already there. The infrastructure is in place. The technology is widely available. If they really want to, they will get the bomb. If Lybia almost managed it, pretty much anyone can.

Today the problem is Iran, but tomorrow it'll be Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or Yemen. As time goes by it gets easire and easier to build a bomb. I don't think the "fireman" approach is the right one, fundamentally. There needs to be some serious rethinking with regards to how we deal with the issue of nukes in general, and on the long-term. We can't rely on the "Don't build nukes or we attack", since if anything it'll mean people will simply build the one thing that guarantees they won't be attacked. The EU, the US, China, all of us need to work on some proper framework. The NPT is a joke, disregarded by everyone. We desperately need something new. But it's super-hard in practice. So much so that we probably won't think about the issues of nukes on the long-term until someone finally shoots one off.

Until we invaded Iraq, we handled it by playing one against the other. Now we took out Iraq and Iran is becoming the dominant Muslim power in the region without many checks. Yay?

Maybe we should give the new Iraqi government nuclear weapons!

This word does not mean what you think it means.

Also, America could really do with another few trillion dollars of debt. As we can see, it's handling Afghanistan and Iraq fine at the same time, so adding another country to the list would be OK.

Yes, because the US army could clearly deal with another major invasion on a foreign country. Iraq and Afghanistan were taking care of themselves so well, and so cheaply, that attacking Iran was obviously an option.



Yes, just like the Republicans would rather play games than deal with the worst economic crisis since the cave-housing bubble of the Neanderthals.

Edit: I see you two have got this, and are quicker than me. I'll just get back to work then. Thanks a lot.


Edited, Mar 23rd 2009 3:58pm by RedPhoenixxx

I'm still waiting on someone in the world to give real evidence that Iran is working on building nuclear weapons.



No, we're not. So an attempt at peace was rejected, it doesn't mean the same thing as a declaration of war. You don't just go and bomb other countried because you don't get along too well...wait, I'm talking about America here...nevermind...





You're an idiot.




Let me try and say this really clearly. You had ABSOLUTELY NO reason to be in Iraq. You had and have ABSOLUTELY NO reason to be even considering going into Iran. Those supposed WMDs that Iraq supposedly had and that Iran is supposedly working on DO NOT EXIST. Prove me wrong.

Also, National Security? What ******* threat does a country literally half-way around the world pose to you? Sure, you'll say that they're harbouring terrorists who want to kill all Americans. So what? Do you even realize the odds of another attack like 9/11 occurring on American soil? This is not an argument you can use, it doesn't make sense. You could say that they're building Nuclear Weapons. Show me some ******* proof, cause, you know, there is a pretty big difference between trying to build a source of energy and actively building a weapon out of the same materials. Also, I'll just mention, that the government in Iran is very religious, very Muslim, which kind of indicates that they don't want nukes as it would go against their religion.

I want to hear an actual logical, rational, intelligent ******* argument for the ******** you spew. Come on, say something that hasn't been force fed to you by FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and all those other "intelligent people" you get your facts from.

Sure, I don't cite a source in my posts, but if someone called me on it, my next post would have links, quotes, pictures, videos, etc. I'd show my ******* work. You on the other hand, Virus, you just sit there and refuse to give us any proof of what you say.

...

/realizes he's ranting and walks away to go eat something

Peace negotiations take more than a day. So the first attempt failed, it doesn't mean you give up and bomb them. Give it time.