What to do about Iran?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by achilles28, Sep 20, 2012.

  1. achilles28


    The line we're told: Iran is run by irrational nutjobs intent on Israels destruction who will divert WMD's to terrorists at war with America.

    There's probably a lot of truth to that. Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs are definitely a few screws loose. The stories I hear from my Iranian friends - the Mullahs basically destroyed confidence in the economy and run it for their own profit. Big money not protected by Government has left Iran. Beautiful young girls are routinely labeled "journalists" so they can be drug off by the military and used as sex slaves by Government higherups. Some Iranians I know say Ahmadinejad is crazy enough to use the bomb if he gets it. Seems like a good enough reason to go to war, doesn't it?

    On the flip side, which countries aren't run by psychopathic, narco-dealing, pedophile-rapists, besides Western Democracies and Japan (and that's arguable..)? Africa, most parts of South America, Russia, Asia. Lets get real. The world is a cesspool of shit. Scumbags basically run most countries. Rebranding Iraq as a war against tyranny, well, that's a great PR stunt, but if we're going down that road, there's about 100 other dictatorships far worse than Iraq. Shall we invade those countries too? Clearly, the morality argument is a non-distinction meant to get the neer-do-well simpletons on board the case for war. Remember the clincher for Gulf War#1? The Kuwaiti babies that were (never) thrown out of incubators?!

    In my mind, it comes down to WMD. Ahmadinejad might be crazy enough to use the bomb against Israel or divert it to Al Queda, or whoever. Problem is, why haven't the Mullahs done this already? Iran possessed the technology and manufacturing capability to produce large scale biological and chemical weapons, for decades. Yet after the Iran-Iraq war, they renounced all chemical weapons, programs, and destroyed their stockpiles. If Iran was so intent on destroying Israel or attacking the US via proxy terror groups, why haven't they spiked Israels drinking water with VX nerve gas, weaponized plague, or given canisters of Ebola or sarin to Al Queda to spray in the NYC subway system? They've had the capacity to do this for over 20 years, yet nothing. Action speaks louder than words, ya?

    This is the logical dilemma we face from our leadership. All these so-called rouge states who are experts in bellicose rhetoric, fall down when its time to actually pull the trigger. Take North Korea. They actually have the bomb. And again, they're run by a bunch of psychopathic, sex-crazed loonies. Yet what's going on with them? All they do is chest-thump. No Abombs to Al Queda. No NK-made sarin going off in LA. They keep to themselves. For the most part, these little terrorist enclaves use WMD's as a deterrent against invasion. That's why they work so hard to get it. We don't see the United States saber rattling against any WMD armed State, do we? Only the ones who don't have weapons of mass destruction. The low hanging fruit. The easy prey that can't resist a conventional attack.

    Another problematic consideration is time. As time marches on, the technological know-how to develop and produce WMD's becomes more and more common. In 20 years, we'll be talking about attacking Nigeria or Ghana from developing a nuclear weapon. This will never end.

    As far as Iran goes, I think we should let them be. I don't condone their Government and hate what they're doing, but this shit of invading the world will never ever end. It could also easily escalate out of control, Russia and China draw some lines in the sand, and then we face a real nightmare scenario where real fucking nukes could be used against us. Let Israel go to war with Iran. They have over 400 nukes. That little postage-stamp in the middle east can protect itself, handily. In the event Iran did drop an a-bomb on Israel or the United States, then I would support a complete nuclear holocaust of Iran. Wipe the entire Country out. And I hate to say it, because it's a horrific thing, but an example would have to be made and any future threat destroyed.

    Realistically, we have two neocons running for President and another running Israel. Most likely Iran gets taken out shortly. Forgive the length.
  2. Miles Moreland (emerging markets investor) of Blakeney Management: specialty, Africa and Middle East, quote from the book Hedgehogging.

    A few surprising comments about Iran. He is bullish on Iran. The only ME country that has western style elections. All citizens male and female have equal voting rights. It has an elected parliament. The population is young and dynamic and very interested in western culture. They clearly are chafing under the harsh dictums of the mullahs. There is a rudimentary stock exchange. Big country, aggressive people, evoving towards democratic capitalism.

    It is possible that a prosperous, progressive, democratic Shite bloc of 100 million people that includes Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan could become a counterbalance to the smaller Sunni gulf states.
  3. achilles28


    Good point. Most Iranians are well-educated, progressive and forward thinking. My buddies here say the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad aren't even from Iran. They're an import from the Pakistani tribal areas. No shit. I don't know the history or why the Iranian people continue to support Ahmadinejad. The country is ripe for revolution and perhaps the Mullahs are using the bellicose rhetoric and specter of a Western threat to unify Iran around their theocracy? Look what happened to Bush's dismal poll numbers after 911....skyrocketed. Still, a peaceful solution is always better than war. Iran could be a great capitalist bastion, I agree. They are smart, hardworking mofos. Perhaps the angle here is to foment real, democratic revolution in Iran? Not another Western-style puppet or more smart-bombs?
  4. There is debate - among some - as to whether Iran is a rational actor or not. I think they are a rational geo-political actor, but extremely ruthless and ambitious. George Friedman wrote a very interesting article in which he feels that the prospect of getting nukes is Iran's greater power in the current nuclear drama, rather than obtaining atomic weapons.

    It's a free article.