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

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

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...

You might want to look at the international events that Iran has been apart of in the last century. They're hardly a johnny-come-lately.

Ever heard of Iran-Contra? Suez Canal? Pretty significant events you might want to aquaint yourself with, though, it IS far easier to simply say 'cry me a river' and avoid any sort of accountability to posts you make.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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

Maybe you might want to contribute something of relevance to the discussion of whether or not Iran should be considered a threat instead of talking about ancient history and the USA, both of which are irrelevant.

[Ayrahb]

Flash, I have to say that I am surprised that you bother to continue this conversation given the other participants' previous posting records on similar issues.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by icarus

Maybe you might want to contribute something of relevance to the discussion of whether or not Iran should be considered a threat instead of talking about ancient history and the USA, both of which are irrelevant.

Well, I asked you a question, what are the qualifications for being a nuclear power? If safety is a concern, wouldn't a nation that hasn't attacked a neighbour in a thousand year have a good track record? Doesn't prior history count at all?

I'm still waiting for you to contribute something other than a weak attack at minor, contextless, parts of my argument. I mean, you aren't even attempting to refute me, You're just burning straw men.

Does anyone want to seriously discuss this, or are we all happy to jitterbug down the road?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You might want to look at the international events that Iran has been apart of in the last century. They're hardly a johnny-come-lately.

Ever heard of Iran-Contra? Suez Canal? Pretty significant events you might want to aquaint yourself with, though, it IS far easier to simply say 'cry me a river' and avoid any sort of accountability to posts you make.

Oh you mean when Iranian students took 63 American hostage?

The only reason the Contra event is remembered was because it was a scandal.

And what does Iran have to do with the Suez Canal?

And thanks for your meaningless contribution Ayrahb.

[Azure]

Perhaps you should review your history a bit better Flash...

Iran/Iraq war lasted 8 years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_war

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Perhaps you should review your history a bit better Flash...

Iran/Iraq war lasted 8 years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_war

To be fair, Flash stipulated that Iran had not "attacked" anyone in thousands of years. In the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqis were the aggressors.

On the other hand, Iran is known to have a covert hand in arming militant groups outside of Iran--Hezbollah being the classic example, but recently there are indications that Iran is arming Shi'a militia groups in Iraq, something the U.S. is not crazy about.

Of course, this is a problem of the U.S.'s own making. By toppling Iraq's Sunni ruling class, they have essentially, in the long term, radically shifted the power balance between Sunni and Shi'a in the middle-east. As a result, it's not wrong to say that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has emboldened Iran and made them more powerful in the region. They're also free to rattle their Sabres because they know that the U.S. is bluffing; they no more have the military might to invade Iran than Canada does.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

To be fair, Flash stipulated that Iran had not "attacked" anyone in thousands of years. In the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqis were the aggressors.

On the other hand, Iran is known to have a covert hand in arming militant groups outside of Iran--Hezbollah being the classic example, but recently there are indications that Iran is arming Shi'a militia groups in Iraq, something the U.S. is not crazy about.

Of course, this is a problem of the U.S.'s own making. By toppling Iraq's Sunni ruling class, they have essentially, in the long term, radically shifted the power balance between Sunni and Shi'a in the middle-east. As a result, it's not wrong to say that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has emboldened Iran and made them more powerful in the region. They're also free to rattle their Sabres because they know that the U.S. is bluffing; they no more have the military might to invade Iran than Canada does.

The US may be overstretched to the degree that it cannot engage in a comprehensive land campaign of Iran, but it certainly has the capability to make things tough for Iran.

Carrier groups have planes and planes have bombs.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

The US may be overstretched to the degree that it cannot engage in a comprehensive land campaign of Iran, but it certainly has the capability to make things tough for Iran.

Carrier groups have planes and planes have bombs.

True enough. But "make things tough" is a different proposition than invading and establishing command and control--which is probably what it would take to get Iran to abandon their nuclear ambitions. Let's not forget that Ahmadinejad (sp?!) is probably crazy--and not that well liked in Iran anyway. A war with the U.S., especially a relatively powerless U.S., might be just the tonic he needs to rally the people behind him.

Also, it's a mountainous region, far larger than Iraq, and far more militarily powerful, with more money, more stability as a regime, etc. etc. There's a reason they're rattling their sabres right now. I don't think Iran is very afraid of the U.S. at the moment--which may be the gravest miscalculation Bush has made--overestimating the ability of the U.S. to use their military might to influence the actions of others.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

True enough. But "make things tough" is a different proposition than invading and establishing command and control--which is probably what it would take to get Iran to abandon their nuclear ambitions. Let's not forget that Ahmadinejad (sp?!) is probably crazy--and not that well liked in Iran anyway. A war with the U.S., especially a relatively powerless U.S., might be just the tonic he needs to rally the people behind him.

Also, it's a mountainous region, far larger than Iraq, and far more militarily powerful, with more money, more stability as a regime, etc. etc. There's a reason they're rattling their sabres right now. I don't think Iran is very afraid of the U.S. at the moment--which may be the gravest miscalculation Bush has made--overestimating the ability of the U.S. to use their military might to influence the actions of others.

If the Americans can locate Iranian nuclear facilities, they will take it out from the air. The Israelis did exactly this to the Iraqis in the 1980s and destroyed their nuclear program. The Americans can't occupy anybody right now, but their capabilities are far from exhausted. The Iranians may be saber-rattling, but it's just bluffing. No one can go toe-to-toe with the Americans in any kind of shooting war. If Ahmanidenjad (sp??) really wants to play with the nuclear powers, he better be prepared to go all of the way. I don't think the Americans would prove hesitant to use their own weapons if they felt severely threatened.

[RougeUnderoos]

There was an article about Iran in the Globe on Saturday. This Ahmadinejad character apparently isn't too popular. He has flushed the economy of the country with some crazy policies like increasing worker's salaries by 40%, which lead to wicked inflation and unemployment. They've even had gasoline shortages. They've shown student protests against him on state television, which is run by the religious nuts (who are the real power). And the young people don't like him at all, which is a problem, because 70% (wow) of the people are under 30 years old.

Obviously I'm no expert and I just read one article, but it sounds like his time in the big chair won't last too long.

But for the time being he is building a fancy mosque out in the sticks, and he expects some guy who disappeared a thousand years ago will one day climb out the well at that mosque, and Jesus will be with him.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

If the Americans can locate Iranian nuclear facilities, they will take it out from the air. The Israelis did exactly this to the Iraqis in the 1980s and destroyed their nuclear program. The Americans can't occupy anybody right now, but their capabilities are far from exhausted. The Iranians may be saber-rattling, but it's just bluffing. No one can go toe-to-toe with the Americans in any kind of shooting war. If Ahmanidenjad (sp??) really wants to play with the nuclear powers, he better be prepared to go all of the way. I don't think the Americans would prove hesitant to use their own weapons if they felt severely threatened.

I love how neither of us can confidently spell Ahmadinejad. I STILL can't!

I guess on the merits we'll have to agree to disagree to some extent. I think that the U.S.'s military capabilities are somewhat exaggerated. Dropping a few bombs on a few buildings isn't going to end a nuclear program, especially if the Iranians are smart enough to use the landscape to their advantage. In a "shooting war"--by which I take it you mean a war involving both land and air aspects, then as with Iraq, everything depends on how you define your victory conditions. Could they invade? Sure. Could they prevent a large-scale insurgency that would make the invasion costly in the long run? They couldn't do it with a smaller and weaker country in Iraq--why would we suppose it to be possible in Iran? Not to mention the fact that Iran's military literally dwarfs that of pre-invasion Iraq, both in terms of size and equipment.

One of the consequences of the Iraq invasion is that we have to live with a more powerful and emboldened Iran. I for one think that's pretty scary.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There was an article about Iran in the Globe on Saturday. This Ahmadinejad character apparently isn't too popular. He has flushed the economy of the country with some crazy policies like increasing worker's salaries by 40%, which lead to wicked inflation and unemployment. They've even had gasoline shortages. They've shown student protests against him on state television, which is run by the religious nuts (who are the real power). And the young people don't like him at all, which is a problem, because 70% (wow) of the people are under 30 years old.

Obviously I'm no expert and I just read one article, but it sounds like his time in the big chair won't last too long.

But for the time being he is building a fancy mosque out in the sticks, and he expects some guy who disappeared a thousand years ago will one day climb out the well at that mosque, and Jesus will be with him.

That's my understanding too--which is yet another way in which he benefits from a belligerent stance toward the U.S., which everyone can agree that they hate. Whether it's a gamble that will pay off--who knows.

I'm inclined to say the world would be better off without him in the "big chair" as you put it--but I'm not enough of a student of Iranian politics to know who would replace him. It could be a "devil you know" scenario, I guess.

[Looger]

america in iraq and afghanistan is the best thing that could have happened to the sickos running iran, they were really on their way out.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There was an article about Iran in the Globe on Saturday. This Ahmadinejad character apparently isn't too popular. He has flushed the economy of the country with some crazy policies like increasing worker's salaries by 40%, which lead to wicked inflation and unemployment. They've even had gasoline shortages. They've shown student protests against him on state television, which is run by the religious nuts (who are the real power). And the young people don't like him at all, which is a problem, because 70% (wow) of the people are under 30 years old.

Obviously I'm no expert and I just read one article, but it sounds like his time in the big chair won't last too long.

But for the time being he is building a fancy mosque out in the sticks, and he expects some guy who disappeared a thousand years ago will one day climb out the well at that mosque, and Jesus will be with him.

You could take a look at the Zimbabwe thread from a few days ago, look at the hyper-inflation and the causes from the last decade in that country and see how the economic situation in Iran is eventually going to play out.

The article you were talking about:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...International/

Pages 3 and 4 are where you want to be for the economic situation . . .

Mr. Ahmadinejad has responded in an especially blunt fashion: He has increased government spending dramatically, by 27 per cent in last year's budget. He spent $1.5-billion on grants to young married couples, and forced banks to make low-interest loans (effectively grants, since repayment is not required) to low-income families and small businesses; he ordered workers' salaries increased by 40 per cent; he regulated the price of housing and set state-determined prices for numerous goods.


But the main effect of his economic policies, which have maintained the heavily state-owned economy that produces hardly any revenues beyond oil incomes, has been galloping inflation and rampant unemployment.

And in the final insult, Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, has run into severe gasoline shortages. It has had to import billions of dollars' worth of gasoline, because it has neither enough refineries to serve its people nor the investment to exploit its full reserves. More than 6 per cent of the oil it drills is lost to leakage, and there is no apparent interest in fixing the leaks because the state monopoly has little incentive to do anything.

The society, one former Finance Ministry official tells me, is “dying of petroleum poisoning.”

This is no secret to anyone living in Tehran, the most car-clogged city in the world. The government has fixed the gas-pump price at 8 cents a litre, far below the cost to produce it (Mr. Ahmadinejad introduced a bill this month to raise the price — in five years, when he will be out of office). Tehran, with 7 million people, has three million cars on the road, and 1,500 new vehicles registered every day.

In Narmak, his old neighbours, who should be his most loyal supporters, are turning against Mr. Ahmadinejad.

“This past year and a half has been very difficult for us,” says Hamid, 20, who with his father runs Istanbul Greengrocers, where the President used to shop. “Prices for all the fruit and vegetables have doubled. It's the inflation that's done it. And people can't afford to buy more than the absolute minimum of produce, because 100 per cent of their salary is taken up with rent, which has doubled.

Increasingly greater inflation numbers seem likely. It won't matter if Iranians hate Americans . . . . like the common man everywhere, they'll eventually be more concerned with their personal plight.

I had earlier posted this analysis from the LA Times with similar information:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Nobody is going to invade Iran. . . . that was as obvious before Iraq as it is now. Flattening it from the air is a different thing.

Still, the Iranian president would be the only guy with a nuclear bomb who sincerely believes that Armageddon is a good thing and something to look forward to . . . . in fact, as soon as possible. Mutual Assured Destruction is not a deterrent . . . . and that would be a first in the history of nuclear weapons.

Cowperson

[Looger]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129144/

JAKARTA, Indonesia - A top U.S. general said Tuesday there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces hunting down militant networks that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and that some of the material used in the devices were made in Iran.
“That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. “What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers.”
His remarks might raise questions on the credibility of the claims of high-level Iranian involvement, especially following the faulty U.S. intelligence that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Perhaps you should review your history a bit better Flash...

Iran/Iraq war lasted 8 years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_war

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh you mean when Iranian students took 63 American hostage?

The only reason the Contra event is remembered was because it was a scandal.

And what does Iran have to do with the Suez Canal?

And thanks for your meaningless contribution Ayrahb.

hilarious.

I'm going to back to ignoring you now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

To be fair, Flash stipulated that Iran had not "attacked" anyone in thousands of years. In the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqis were the aggressors. On the other hand, Iran is known to have a covert hand in arming militant groups outside of Iran--Hezbollah being the classic example, but recently there are indications that Iran is arming Shi'a militia groups in Iraq, something the U.S. is not crazy about. Of course, this is a problem of the U.S.'s own making. By toppling Iraq's Sunni ruling class, they have essentially, in the long term, radically shifted the power balance between Sunni and Shi'a in the middle-east. As a result, it's not wrong to say that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has emboldened Iran and made them more powerful in the region. They're also free to rattle their Sabres because they know that the U.S. is bluffing; they no more have the military might to invade Iran than Canada does.

You think the US is bluffing as far as air strikes are concerned? They might not have the troops to invade Iraq, but they certainly have the firepower. Same thing with Israel...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

hilarious. I'm going to back to ignoring you now.

About time.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Azure

About time.

Ever google a posters nickname?

http://www.mwot.org/new-people/886-hi.html