Printable View
That's international politics. I don't want everybody to do as I do in every scenario. Yes, I want Iran to become a true democracy. No, I do not want Iran to become a nuclear power until they are clearly on our side and apt to stay that way. It's really common sense. The world is not fair, and it should not be fair if you want it to survive for another hundred years.Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
Exactly what you said - Tell em: "Welcome to the Club. Here are the rules, and here's the secret handshake.", whilst quietly shifting some NORAD resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
A good and practical reason would be - we can't stop them. We could only delay it and even that is questionable. The more they feel threatened, the more they will want nuclear weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
We are probably the only 2 who get his joke :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
It's a matter of whether you're afraid of them or not, feelings aren't necessarily rational either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
I think we should try to be friends with everybody anyway, whether they have a bomb or not, being friends is always preferable and usually both parties profit from trade and friendship.
From their point of view they have a need for nukes. That was my point, my friend ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
As for my own opinion? I don't want anyone to have nukes. It's a retarded weapon. But still, I'm a little torn, as an Iran with nukes would mean an Iran that won't get invaded by us, and I have to say that the chance of them actually ever using a nuke is minimal or non-existant, and the same goes for them giving the nukes to OBL(mainly because it would mean they're a legitimate target for nukes themselves). But still, my hate of nukes trumps that slightly.
Just because a country has nukes, doesn't make them safe from invasion. It's just hasn't happened... yet.
But, I'm with pretty much everybody else that thinks Nuclear Weapons are awful, and that nobody should have them.
I think a nuclear Iran may actually stabilise the area. It's a position that I find strange to reconcile, but I think it may well be the case. With nukes everyone is going to be a lot more careful when dealing with Iran, and threats of bombing raids and other aggressive intervention will dry up.
The aggressive talk of the US and Israel have in large part been used by the Iranian hardliners to justify their position. With that removed, and stable and steady relations increased, we might find that Iranian domestic politics matures. We may even get a democracy. Not that the US actually wants that in the ME, despite much lip service to the contrary. To the US "democracy" really just means access to key markets by US corporate interests.
As for the Al Quaida/Hamas connection to Iran - I think some of you need to do some reading about the political set up of the area. You are way off. Especially as you have 100 times more to fear from a nuclear Pakistan in that regard.
Can anyone really blame Iran for worrying, seeing as a massive, belligerent, nuclear superpower has invaded two of Iran's neighbours in recent years?
I'll allow it if Isreal and Iran finally wipe eachother off the map and let everyone get back to their lives.
I would have responded to Idaho's predictably anti-American post as well, but responding to four is quite enough I think.
True, but I'm sure that it would be possible to take a course of action to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
We should be afraid of a nuclear Iran, or indeed any other unstable nuclear power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Indeed it would be preferable, just not practical.Quote:
I think we should try to be friends with everybody anyway, whether they have a bomb or not, being friends is always preferable and usually both parties profit from trade and friendship.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The USA is an awful lot less belligerent than all of the other previous world superpowers. Besides, it can't and won't invade Iran based on public opinion alone, not to mention that it has little real reason to. This is a fallacy at any rate. If Iran is so concerned that the USA will invade, preparing nuclear material is only a provocation not only to America, but to the rest of NATO. Therefore, it is more likely that America would invade to stop a nuclear program then to invade if Iran did nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
We (the U.S.) are reaping what we have sown with our terrible actions with Iranian politics back in the Cold War. I don't have a proposed solution or plan on what we should do next, but I think we should always keep my first statement in my mind when we deal with international issues.
Well, the Iranians are clearly smarter than this guy. The Iranians hold all the cards and they know it. All they need to do is make a few noises about negotiating and then back out- rinse, repeat. Whenever the international community begins to find their backbones, Iran can just announce that they're prepared to agree to demands and everyone will back down. Then they can change their minds and start all over again- and there will never be any consequences. If they're really good, they can actually extort concessions from us while giving nothing in return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I think they learned it from the DPRNK. :yes:
I'm sorry, I don't understand. The guy says that while gaming as Iran, he managed to get everything he wanted. You go on to explain how Iran gets everything they want, saying Iranians must be smarter ... than the guy who did exactly the same thing in a simulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I'm missing something ...
Quote:
"We started out thinking we were playing a weak hand
Does that help at all?Quote:
The Iranians hold all the cards and they know it
So, the fact that the guy realized he actually had a strong hand in the gaming scenario makes him dumb? You're saying that the Iranians are much smarter because ... having lived through their actual situation, they're more keyed in to the political realities than a dude playing their role in a wargaming session?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Eh, never mind, it's a minor point anyway. It just read really weird.
I am not anti-American. I just observe the US and it's foreign policy with an analytical eye, rather than buying into the usual patriotic nonsense that many on this board believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
The USA is, I would argue, less bellicose and interventionist than have been most of the other "great powers" of history. That, however, is a very different thing than saying that we are non-interventionist.
One factor that has proven true over the last half century is that: if you have nuclear capability, the threat of direct military action against you by the USA drops off precipitously. If you do NOT have such a capability, the USA just might thump you around a bit depending on the political context of the moment in question.
So, if you want to eliminate that kind of threat to your nation/regime/whatever, develop a nuke capability.
Why wouldn't Iran seek such? From their perspective, it is eminently logical.
Stopping them from developing such a capability is rather simple as a concept, though it might prove a bit costly in execution: conquer them. If you are not willing to bleed enough to accomplish this, then shut up and get ready for a nuclear Iran. Sanctions and condemnations, even air strikes are ultimately piffle; none of these can do more than delay Iran unless Iran itself chooses to quit the effort.
As to what to do with a Nuclear Iran, the answer is simple: accord them a greater share of power "at the table." Love 'em or hate 'em, they will have a greater say in events regionally and/or globally. So, summarizing what Kukri said earlier, we'll simply have to cope.
I put my "long term" hopes in the development of controlled fusion power and constant boost spacecraft. Barring a diaspora of sorts, we will see nuclear weapons used. Far too many of the players are well aware that the use of even dozens of such weapons will not damage the biosphere beyond repair. Therefore, the use of such economical weapons to eradicate major points of opposition becomes a tenable strategy.
Have a nice day.
The Latin Americans might dispute this. It could also be argued that the US simply missed the opportunity - by the time it could start thinking about throwing its weight around, the globe was already largely divvied up between the colonial empires which were for the most part plain too big to mess with; and after they crumbled, it was all Cold War games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You may believe you see them through an analytical eye, but that eye is tainted with your bias. That is what makes you anti-American, as you tend to see everything in an anti-US light. You are not being analytical if every action is somehow the fault of the "aggressive American" or the "American imperialist aggressor." You are being critical, and overtly so to the extent where I believe it is fair to call you anti-American.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
But then, EMFM, can you claim to be unbiased?
Of course not, I didn't say I was. I do view my personal beliefs with regard to foreign policy as largely pragmatic, but even so they cannot be unbiased as they are opinions. Everyone is biased against something, the question is what, and to what extent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
America missed its greatest chance with Mohammad Khatami with its gunho policy of Bush jr and their views of Iran, which led to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gaining control of the country.
So who's fault is it?
Ultimately, Bush Jr did the biggest blows to US-Iranian relations at the critical time they could resolve the issues and get some work done.
So when some one like Obama gained power, the actions of Bush Jr. lead to the radical extremist president who commits a coup to have a stranglehold on his power which makes America unable to act diplomatically. Also, because of the actions of the Republicans and their foriegn policy in causing the recent mess, they some how believe that them causing this mess now gives them justification to cause more mess by invading them.
That is the modern day truth to the matter. However, EMFM might disagree with this, because he believes America is infallible.
(Another tibit of truth, Iran offered full support and assistance to America in the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as Iran has always had trouble with those regions funding militants against them. Bush jr told Iran them where to stick it their generous offers and denounced them as the Axis of Evil.)
Hardly. Believing America is infallible and being fair to the Americans are two very different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The Iranian government has been hostile to the United States for various reasons since the late 1970s. You can lay all of the blame for the ousting of Khatami squarely at the feet of George Bush, but it would be much more accurate to lay it at the feet of the Iranian Guardian Council. Khatami and the Reformists were unpopular with the Guardian Council, who did their best to sabotage him and his candidacy. To be honest, George Bush was correct in his Axis of Evil speech. It may have made him much more unpopular among Iranians, but the fact is that Iran was not a democratic country, and Bush wasn't referring to Khatami, but to the quasi-dictatorial control of Iran by the theocratic rulers who did support terrorism and so forth.
To lay the blame at the feet of America is convenient and undoubtedly popular, but it is an overly simplistic response to a complex issue.
And yet Khatami was elected. He [Bush] didn't even try communicating with him. I think if there would have been one way of gaining goodwill with the Iranian people is to have had direct one-on-one talks with Mohammad Khatami. And that chance was completely blown.Quote:
It may have made him much more unpopular among Iranians, but the fact is that Iran was not a democratic country, and Bush wasn't referring to Khatami, but to the quasi-dictatorial control of Iran by the theocratic rulers who did support terrorism and so forth.
Not freely or fairly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Really?Quote:
He [Bush] didn't even try communicating with him. I think if there would have been one way of gaining goodwill with the Iranian people is to have had direct one-on-one talks with Mohammad Khatami. And that chance was completely blown.
It was tried, but abandoned in favour of another strategy.Quote:
The Bush administration has abandoned hopes it can work with President Mohammad Khatami and his reformist allies in the Iranian government and is turning its attention to appealing directly to democracy supporters among the Iranian people, administration officials said.
The policy shift, which scuttles a five-year effort in which the United States tried to explore ways to work with Khatami and encourage a reform agenda in Iran, follows an intensive review within the administration over whether to adopt a harder line toward a government President Bush has labeled part of the "axis of evil."
A senior administration official said Bush has concluded with his senior foreign policy advisers that Khatami and his supporters in the government "are too weak, ineffective and not serious about delivering on their promises" to transform Iranian society. Instead, the official said, "we have made a conscious decision to associate with the aspirations of Iranian people. We will not play, if you like, the factional politics of reform versus hard-line."
Nevertheless, he made it to the position of President. I think by sending a message to Khatami we might have made a huge difference in the long run.Quote:
Not freely or fairly.
Yes, by indirectly calling 74 million people evil. It looks like we're still in the medieval "Either your with us or against us" stage. Well done, people.Quote:
It was tried, but abandoned in favour of another strategy.
After Vietnam, I thought we'd really learned.
It did not. My country was part of an Axis of Evil, and at no point did I think that 80 million of my countrymen were being called evil, directly or indirectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Don't drop it all on Bush. Clinton should have started talking with Khatami when he was elected, Guardian Council be damned.
The US government, as a whole, has problems letting go of grudges. Think Cuba. I'm amazed we get along with the Vietnamese as well as we do.
Watch:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
My next sentence was an acknowledgement of our efforts in Lat Am and globally since 1945. I said "LESS" bellicose -- which doesn't mean we weren't aggressive and opportunistic on several occasions. But even at the time, we had members of our own military decrying the wars for United Fruit.
Would we have been just as aggressive/acquisitive had we not gotten started a few hundred years later than the other Western powers? Impossible to say. I'd HOPE we'd have done better than that, but humans being humans I cannot be certain.
Well Vietnam is kind of special. Especially since My Lai; Agent Orange and other such unfortunate decisions; combine it with the facts Vietnam of today is not exactly the Viet Cong and that the US retreated (i.e. abandoned) south Vietnam with the consequences it had. Furthermore mutual economic interest tends to simplify mutual diplomacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
So all in all there is not really ‘something left’ for the US government to be begrudging the Vietnamese really.