Two things first a concession on my part, I agree there is no evidence to a direct link of the iranian government and a desire to attack the U.S.Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
The second point, the availability of purchasing materials in former soviet satellites. I have heard this for years, yet it never comes to fruition and I believe absolutely there is a will to get this material. So why hasnt it been obtained yet? I question its availability first, and second, the resolve and expertise of terrorists who wish to obtain it.
Yes I am positive that the U.S. economy can handle the deficit and increases in oil prices, we have before. As far as who controls the straights of Hormuz I dispute your claim, as of right now there are two carrier strike force groups in that area, I put forth the claim that should control of the straights become contested, U.S. naval forces could rest control from Iran.You have noted this sanguine attitude before, and I admire your fortitude. You are aware that a great deal of the world's oil comes through the Straits of Hormuz, I'm sure, and that Iran controls those straits?
I do concede that it would disrupt oil supply and have a negative impact on the world economy, i disagree as to the degree of impact, and i disagree as to the length of time the oil from Iran would stop flowing, unless they have another income generator?
I allow for serious consequences, I dont suppose it will be business as usual, however I dont concede that the U.S. economy, and those reliant on its consumption will heave it overboard. Yep we will all take a hit, but unless someone else starts consuming billions of dollars of goods a year its in everyones intrest to keep the U.S. economy afloat.When oil hits $200 a barrel the hour after starting a war, your government is going to tax gas even more? When China sells its stock holdings in the US because the economy is going to freefall, your business community is going to sit back and clap? And whither the US economy, so crashes the world. I suggest that an action against Iran will have much more serious consequences than you allow.
China may sell, and yep that would hurt a lot, but where praytell would they be investing thier profits after that? Oh wait, that 10% economic growth they have enjoyed was somewhat predicated on thier manufacture of goods sold abroad.
Until China shifts its economic policy of manufacture growing its economy (not likely in the next 5-10 years) they need our consumption.
thats just it, I dont know what there intent is. I do know I dont want to gamble on it, considering my countries history of antagonism towards tehran I dont blame them either. But I cant change the past, I can change the future though, and there in lies the key to it all. No one wants to look forward here, using the past a measurement for a present condition leaves out the possible future outcome.But as I understand it, you are objecting to the intent to use such a weapon offensively. Verifying that they are working towards is irrelevant, in that we agree they are - but if they keep it for defensive purposes, I cannot see the objection on "intent" grounds.
This is why we need to go to Tehran right away, and talk one on one, not some silly security meeting in Iraq, we need to know what thier intent is for our selves and act accordingly.
Short of that happening, what are we left with to measure it? The actions of the other side, thats really it. Nothing would make me happier then to normalize relations and purchase loads of Iranian oil and everyone go home with thier ball and play.
But Iran dosent seem to want that either do they? This isnt a one way street here.
Because of the obvious answer, the genie is out of the bottle for them. Sorrry to keep it simple, your thoughtful example deserves more, but you answered it yourself in the end. Iran dosent possess the genie yet, and we arent talking to them.Here's a case to judge for intent. Pakistan is a Muslim military dictatorship which is constantly supplying weaponry to terrorists fighting another of your allies, India. They have overtly threatened to use their nuclear bomb against that ally, a thriving democracy. They also supply arms and support to insurgents fighting NATO troops in Afghanistan. Just today, the Religious Affairs Minister has announced that suicide bombings in the UK are an appropriate response to the British government awarding a knighthood to a novelist. They are actively shielding the most wanted terrorist of all, bin Laden, from justice at your hands. They refuse to recognise Israel at any level and many senior politicians have called for her destruction as a state.
Yet they say, they are your friends. What is their intent? How can it be measured to be different from the words expressed and actions in Iran? Why are they not on the list for pre-emptive invasion (aside from the obvious "they have a bomb" answer?)
Okay but its clear the direction its heading, neibhors invaded, aircraft carriers in hormuz, UN sanctions, deals offerred by the EU backed by the U.S. Yet we are still here, debating thier intent, why? because while its logical to assume they are intelligent enough to not want suicide, its nieve to think all they want is security.I note it as a fact because I have never met a group of ordinary people that harbour a desire to be annhiliated by nuclear strikes. I concede your point about the control of mechanisms, but Iran does have a lot of powerful factions that don't want any sort of confrontation with the US. My argument is that even those who bluster about it are intelligent enough to know it is just hot air because they are not suicidal.
The hot air dosent suggest it, nor does thier willingness to move forward with the program after the UN security council unanimously told them not to. So you want to hope for the best? Your entitled, its my country there shouting death to in thier mosques.
On this point I concede, I didnt at first but I think you might be right. Allowing the Iranians to crow a bit isnt the end of the world.Yes, it is up to the USA since it is the US that has refused point blank all these years to recognise the Islamic republic and has waged war by proxy on them. They are also in the position of power, and are the ones threatening to invade. I will concede that the Iranians could make it easier, but they know that the US is the one who needs peace more. Also, Ahmadinejad will need a bone to throw to his people, and allowing him to be the big "I am" for a few weeks is a small price to pay compared to the damage a war with Iran will bring.
Bookmarks