Is that a sabre rattling in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

[Flash Walken]

Iran is now Officially a new news story.

Lots of diplomatic and militaristic muscle flexing going on, and the media oligopoly is leading the way:

Iran Calls Iraq arms charges 'all lies'
Military offers evidence of Iran arming Iraqi militants
U.S., Iran could be starting new `proxy war,' experts say
Official: Arrow can deal with future Iran nuclear missile strike
Al-Qaida suspects color debate over Iran

The Stennis will likely arrive in the Persian Gulf region in mid- to late February. This will give it about a two-month overlap with the Eisenhower which, since its arrival in the region in late October, has been moving between the Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.

The Stennis' deployment to the Persian Gulf has been scheduled for months, so its movement there is not in response to anything Iran has recently done. The timing just happens to coincide with the recent U.S. decision to increase its force in Iraq and with statements from U.S. diplomats about increasing pressure on Tehran.

If the United States does decide to surge its naval capacity in the region and intensify its military pressure on Iran, the Eisenhower could remain in the Gulf past April. Meanwhile, the USS Harry S. Truman, which recently finished a round of flight deck certifications in the Atlantic in preparation for its 2007 deployment, could deploy as early as April. This could put the Truman in the Persian Gulf with the Stennis and the Eisenhower, should it stay over, placing three U.S. carrier strike groups in the region.

Even if the Eisenhower returns and the Truman moves into the region, the United States would demonstrate its ability to maintain two carriers in one place for an extended period of time. However, if this potential surge goes beyond three carrier strike groups, the USS Nimitz and the USS Roosevelt -- like the Reagan -- are at stages in their operational cycles at which they could be deployed on relatively short notice if needed.

The United States could have six carriers deployed to the Persian Gulf relatively quickly if it wanted to. If that were to occur, Tehran would certainly have reason to be concerned.

U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean

edit: also, hilarious

[icarus]

Could the direction of Iran gone even more in a complete opposite direction after psycho Ahmadinejad succeeded Khatami?

Bellicose religious zealots should not lead world powers. Hopefully two of the ones who do don't take things to the boiling point here.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by icarus

Could the direction of Iran gone even more in a complete opposite direction after psycho Ahmadinejad succeeded Khatami?

Bellicose religious zealots should not lead world powers. Hopefully two of the ones who do don't take things to the boiling point here.

I really don't think it has. I think this is mostly psyche softening for what's coming next.

How often have we heard this guy is a psycho? The Holocaust issue seems overblown, though I have a hard time understanding what his problem is. I don't think any of the rhetoric is any different, there's been no real aggressive action by Iran...Nothing seems to warrant all this undue attention they are receiving.

[Flash Walken]

http://english.people.com.cn/200702/...09_348614.html

another good article with iranian perspective

edit: two more
http://english.people.com.cn/200702/...07_348016.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200702/...07_348187.html

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Nothing seems to warrant all this undue attention they are receiving.

Well the pursuance of a nuclear programme and crackdown on human rights is enough to convince me that the negative attention Iran is getting is due.

This additional to Ahmadinejad's own personal quirks such as claiming God entranced the world's delegates as he spoke before the UN, that victims of a plane crash were martyrs who Iranians must follow, and that the Muslim equivalent of the Apocalypse is near.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by icarus

Well the pursuance of a nuclear programme and crackdown on human rights is enough to convince me that the negative attention Iran is getting is due.

This additional to Ahmadinejad's own personal quirks such as claiming God entranced the world's delegates as he spoke before the UN, that victims of a plane crash were martyrs who Iranians must follow, and that the Muslim equivalent of the Apocalypse is near.

I think it is important that my position be known before I reply, just to avoid confusion, but I view Iran as a brutally oppressive theocracy, and feel that should be noted.

With that out of the way, I have a couple of questions. First, is it intrinsically wrong to persue a nuclear program or in this case, only because it is Iran? Second, if it is the latter, what is the criteria for determining the eligibility of nations for nuclear power programs?

[Azure]

If you think Iran is a brutally oppressive theocracy...doesn't that give you reason enough to not let them pursue a nuclear program?

This seems a bit different from what NK is/was trying to do.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

With that out of the way, I have a couple of questions. First, is it intrinsically wrong to persue a nuclear program or in this case, only because it is Iran? Second, if it is the latter, what is the criteria for determining the eligibility of nations for nuclear power programs?

For one, any nation that has publically stated that another nation should not exist should be reason to not allow them nuclear weapons.

[tanguay44]

First of all, I am extremely wary of Iran and its president. I know that Iran has a progressive youth that is very Westernized, or at least moderate, and I hope they have greater influence over their nation, and sooner rather than later. However...

If Iran's peaceful rhetoric (they apparently urge diplomacy in Iraq, not force) can be dismissed, then why not its anti-Semitic, sabre-rattling rhetoric? The good words are empty, the bad ones will be backed up any minute, according to some.

Also, the U.S. classifying Iran as too brutal to posess nuclear technology might seem ironic to some in that region and the world over, considering that the West are currently the invaders in the Middle East, not the other way around.

[Azure]

I figured this argument would turn too that.

If the US has nuclear weapons, why can't Iran?

And BTW, the US invaded Iraq, which most wouldn't agree with, including me, and Afghanistan, which most would.

So they still have Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, SA, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and the Palestinian territories left to invade. If they are invading the Middle East.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

I figured this argument would turn too that.

If the US has nuclear weapons, why can't Iran?

Why don't you answer that argument, because it's pretty essential to the topic.

Iran hasn't attacked one of it's neighbours in thousands of years. I can't even recall what would've been the last military aggression by Iran...Cyrus during the foundation maybe? A thousand years. Think about that. An Ethnically homogenous society of multiple millions of people haven't attacked a neighbour in thousands of years. In the last 15 years the US has invaded Iran's neighbours 3 times. The US is the only country that's ever used a nuclear weapon aggressively. The US itself violates the anti proliferation treaty.

Who's more of a threat?

And i'm begging someone to say we need to bring Iranians democracy.

[Azure]

I'm not even going to start.

If you're naive enough to put the US and Iran on the same page, thats your problem.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not even going to start.

If you're naive enough to put the US and Iran on the same page, thats your problem.

hahahahahahahaha, excellent rebuttal!

You must be on the debate team at your school.

I know it's uncomfortable to challenge ourselves and our perceptions, but go ahead and give it a try. If you look at the historic record, you'll notice perhaps a 200 - 1 scale of aggressive actions for the US and Iran respectively. It's not even close to comparable. The worst thing Iran has done internationally is be consciously misinterpreted by western media sources in relation to their stance on Israel.

Why is the United States allowed to actively seek the destruction of a state (the soviet union), while Iran can't even say it?

Do you notice any kind of slight double standard here, or is just a matter of them being scary ayrabs?

[Azure]

Why was the Soviet Union allowed to actively seek the destruction of a state(the US)....oh right, we must blame the US first.

The US has been a major player on the world stage for almost a century. Iran has just recently made enough noise to warrent a look.

Perhaps we should start looking at the governments of each country, and how they treat their own citizens. You know, freedoms and such.

[Azure]

Also, its not a matter of them being scary Arabs.

There is a fundamental movement within Islam that would kill to get their hands on a nuclear bomb. Scary indeed, especially when the people they would target, like you, think the US is a more dangerous country.

Because, well, we ALL know the US is actively seeking to destroy another country through nuclear means.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why was the Soviet Union allowed to actively seek the destruction of a state(the US)....oh right, we must blame the US first.

The US has been a major player on the world stage for almost a century. Iran has just recently made enough noise to warrent a look.

Perhaps we should start looking at the governments of each country, and how they treat their own citizens. You know, freedoms and such.

:dismay:

I'm having a hard time believing you aren't playing some elaborate prank on me, trying to get me to write back all huffed and puffed. You do know that Iran was the worlds first empire, that the country/empire was founded in the 6th century b.c.e.? For god's sake it predates Islam and is responsible for algebra.

Iran is directly involved in some of the most important events in the last century. Don't act like it's panama or something.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

:dismay:

I'm having a hard time believing you aren't playing some elaborate prank on me, trying to get me to write back all huffed and puffed. You do know that Iran was the worlds first empire, that the country/empire was founded in the 6th century b.c.e.? For god's sake it predates Islam and is responsible for algebra.

Iran is directly involved in some of the most important events in the last century. Don't act like it's panama or something.

Please tell me you aren't comparing now aday Iran to the early mesopotamain cultures...which included areas where now aday Iraq, Israel, Lebanon and Egypt now sit.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

:dismay:

I'm having a hard time believing you aren't playing some elaborate prank on me, trying to get me to write back all huffed and puffed. You do know that Iran was the worlds first empire, that the country/empire was founded in the 6th century b.c.e.? For god's sake it predates Islam and is responsible for algebra.

Iran is directly involved in some of the most important events in the last century. Don't act like it's panama or something.

Go cry me a river.

I was talking about the last century, which is the timeframe of the US having such an effect on the world stage.

Since you're in the business of comparing the 2 countries...

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

For god's sake it predates Islam and is responsible for algebra.

Ah yes, the old "Iran-invented-a-mathematical-system-millenia-ago-and-therefore-couldn't-harm-a-fly" argument. It was just a matter of time before it popped up.

Cries echoing in the streets: "There is no way Iran could be arming Iraqi insurgents--they are too busy thinking about polynomials!"

Seriously though, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by icarus

Ah yes, the old "Iran-invented-a-mathematical-system-millenia-ago-and-therefore-couldn't-harm-a-fly" argument. It was just a matter of time before it popped up.

Cries echoing in the streets: "There is no way Iran could be arming Iraqi insurgents--they are too busy thinking about polynomials!"

Seriously though, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

maybe you ought to read more than one line of my posts instead of spending your time thinking of those wonderfully pretentious replies.