Iran tops the list of "potential trouble-spots" worldwide, according to US Vice-President Dick Cheney. But Mr Cheney said diplomacy was the best way, for the time being, to ease the crisis over Iran's nuclear plans. As George W Bush began a second term as president, Mr Cheney said the US did not want to another war in the region. Iranian leaders, who reject suspicions they are building nuclear weapons, have said US forces will not risk a "lunatic" attack on their country. President Mohammad Khatami said Tehran was fully prepared to defend itself but it did not expect the US, already overstretched in Iraq, to mount an offensive. Well for that reason I hope the war in Iraq lasts forever. that was not serious before any hippies start throwing stones at me Full story here again!
Isn't North Korea a bit further down the nuclear path than Iran? Not too mention the disgusting state the majority of the NK population lives in... Not saying Iran is paradise, but I would think strategically and morally NK was more important...
America dosn't have the balls to attack North Korea, nor do they have the balls to even mention the situation in that area considering they caused most of it (again).
Yeah, deja-vu or what? Nope, they're gunning for Iran alright. At the moment they're just doing damage projections to see if they can get away with it.
Oh right, but nothing to do with the state in Iran? *cough*1980s*cough* The problem with Korea is that they are a nuclear power already. They are in a position to potentially level LA. While I don't have a problem with this, it tends to leave people a little unnerved when you tell them "We're going to declare war with a nation that could make your home a radioactive wasteland for the next 150 years... so you might want to take a vacation." Now, if you had a few surrounding bases to conduct operations from... places close enough that you could strike before they could launch anything, and close enough that there was at least a 70% chance of shooting anything down on the western side of the pacific... Operations in Japan, Australia, and Russia would be good... but that's only on one side of Korea and would make mobility rather akward seeing as two of them are seperated by waters... Sun Tsu says that the key to victory is to force the enemy to fight on two fronts... If it were possible to attack Korea from the west as well... Victory would be assured (assuming no beaurocratic BS from Washington like in Vietnam and some areas of Iraq), and it would be quick. Unfortunately, however, while that does protect the US, it still wouldn't protect US interests and NK would probably still hit the south with devestating force. Not to mention the possibility of China becomming involved. The germans figured out very quickly that it's difficult to fight an army that has two men for every gun. So while it would be lovely to say go to war with NK, at some point you have to say "That might be more than we can bite off right now." Now, if/when China realizes that NK is trouble, we might see something begin to form, but I doubt that will happen.
I think this is a huge mistake. The younger generation of Iranians is very unsupportive of their fundamentalist regime. If we start a war there then we risk turning these possible future allies into enemies. I think the right approach today is deterrence, not all out war. We have the power to cripple their nuclear program without firing a single bullet. This would be the wise thing to do. get bent
*cough*Saddam Hussain*cough* Translation: We've been there. Attempts by the West to defeat the Iran regime then have left us with a wonderful legacy. Are we going to try and make a new mess that will backfire on us ten years later?
The US = the Anti-Christ.. Right? I still think that we should threaten to take ALL of our EVERYTHING out of EVERYWHERE, money, troops, interest, etc and see how much people still hate us. Yea, yea, yea... I know that will never happen, nor can we do it, but that's how I feel sometimes.
The fact is the over 50% of the Iranian population is under 25ish. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html And they are working actively to move toward an open, democratic, and islamic state. And most importantly, they are doing it on thier own. It's a slow change and one that will be, god willing, the most stable in the region. Democracy has to be from the ground up, it can not be installed through force. Just look at Iraq. Of all the idiotic things this adminastration has done; the way we have handled Iran has been the most worrisome. At a time when big strides were taking place, when a reformist was elected; at a time when they needed our quiet moral support, we decided to label them an Evil regime. That played right into the hands of the old guard. There is a real chance that Iran will be a peaceful, islamic democracy in the next 5 to 10 years. The demographics show that. The young Iranians want a to live life, to hold hands, to watch TV, to fall in love, to have a voice in their government. But they have to be the ones to find the way to do that. They have to find the balance of faith and democratic values, just as America did, just as Turkey did. If we wade in, guns blazing, we will destroy any chance of that happening. The people will dig in, the society will radicalize, and the hardliners will rejoice at the chance to take over again. An "insurgency" will kill more people, and the chaos will harbor more terrorists. The Iranians need power, to fuel an slowly growing economy. And nuclear power is the best bang for the buck. The rest of it is all political show boating to get a bit more aid from western countries. I'm willing to bet the most Iranian citizens aren't thrilled by the idea of having nuclear weapons sitting around the country. And I wonder how many American citizens are crazy about the idea of invading and not finding anything......again.
America only invades countries that don't actually have any WMDs. Real threats like North Korea they wouldn't dare touch because....they have WMD's Sorry Dad & the rest, not trying to stir up trouble just a little homour I don't think the US should invade anyone let alone NK
Bush has gone on record that he will not go into Iran. He has said this many times in fact. The only thing that he wants is to allow UN nuke regulators to go into there and make sure they are using the nuke material for peacefull energy generation like they say they are. The government knows all about the younger people wanting a change within the country and last I knew, we are supporting this.
Well then why do they have Iran at the top of the list? EDIT: If they are aware that change IS happening then why the bully attitude and fear tactics?
Note that I said: "we". I have said a number of times in the past that the UK, and my native Holland, and many other countries besides are collaborators in this little game. I am an equal opportunities cynic. Apart from that, I am not sure what you want me to say... the US (and several other Western players) did support Saddam Hussain, ans sell him weapons when he was already gassing his own civilians. The US trained and supplied Osama Bin Laden when he was doing his Afghanistan tour. The US (and again several other Western players) did invade Iraq with the present mess as a result. So what do you want me to make of that?
I have a list.. Just because they are on the top of a list doesn't mean that we plan on attacking them. Iran has always been a point of concern for the US govt and I've heard this many, many times. That wasn't really directed at you, that was a broad statement. I was pretty much voicing what many Americans feel... Know what I'm saying?
Man I am glad somebody backed me up on this. (with facts no less!) The problem is that the culture of Iran and the opinions of the youth there are not known in America at all. Calling Iran part of the axis of evil was one of the biggest diplomatic blunders Bush made in his first term. The youth of that nation is poised to revolutionize that country for the better. They could have easily become one of our strongest allies in the middle east. Instead, our own regime paints them as a terrorist state bent on nuclear war. Just goes to show you the short sightedness of this administration. They don't think about the future at all.
How could they have become our stongest ally in the mid-east? There's no way that would happen as long as the current regime is in power. In addition, it is in fact a terrorist state BECAUSE of the current government over there. If and/or when the youth take over and make it a Islamic democracy, I whole heartedly feel that they will become friends with the west and we will welcome that.
Then let's start befriending them a little bit, not alienating them (as we seem to be rather good in doing, generally). Acknowledge them for what they are, but treat them how you want them to be. "Love your enemy. It'll confuse the hell out of them"
That's what he actually meant... That it will BECOME one of our strongest allies, eventually, on it's own, without anyones so called help or liberation.
They aren't going to want to be our friends if we bomb them now and call them an evil terrorist state. The dinosaurs in power there will be on the way out soon. Taking a hard line stance againt them is going to play right into the hands of the fundamentalists, keeping them in power. Hasn't this already been proven? Reality Check: There is more than one way to contain a nuclear threat than by dropping bombs on them. We were able to defeat the Soviet Union in this way. I feel that the type of diplomacy and tactics that were required to contain the Soviet Union are all but lost on the current crop of leaders. All they understand is using force. It just flat out doesn't work. Dropping bombs is not a long term fix to the problem Cop-out Just because many parts of the world rely on our aid does not exempt us from scrutiny. People who question what the heck our leaders are doing have some vaild points.
sometimes i agree with dad. The US should just pull out everyone and everything, how many more countries will hate the US. I can guarentee that we will just get more criticism for sitting around helping outselves while other countries destroy each other. Granted something like that happening is quite unrealistic as mentioned. There are many countries that are working on getting their hands on nukes, I dont think they are doing it becuase they are truely evil to the bone like sometimes thought. I can understand NK or Iran wanting to have nukes or already having nukes. We as the US have nukes. I think it helps make many people feel a little more safe with the thought that no country would get away with nuking the US and not getting a nice thank you nuke in return. But when a country is throwing threats at other places and making pretty obvious that those nukes will be used on someone or something then yeah maybe some action needs to be taken. Not by the US always either. The UN should be dealing with this. If we keep overstepping the UN in matters like this then we are just gonna come across as a country that wants to control the world and have the final say in how things happen instead of keeping a peaceful planet for a little while. this is a nice discussion, very good points made by all so far.
