If Iran continued her nuclear project, will US attack it like attacking Iraq?
I hope not.
Do we trust that Iran can have it's own nuclear arsenal and not use it against Isreal?
Who would attack a country with a nuclear arsenal?
I think one of the reasons we attacked Iraq out of the three "Axis of Evil" countries was that the Administration probabally knew it didn't have nukes. No one wants to start a nuclear conflict; probabally not even Rumsfeld of Cheney.
Plus, with Iraq like it is, we literally don't have the manpower to invade the country. We could bomb it to hell, but that would just leave anarchy, and whatever order arose from the mess would definately be very resentful towards the U.S.
Does anyone seriously believe that the neocons care about the resulting anarchy and mess and the resentful feelings towards the US? They don't care a damn! The thing is, world capitalism has reached the final stage and total destruction is definitely on the cards now: capitalism is at its most ruthless stage and the bourgeoisie will stop at nothing to secure its short-term profits. Rumsfeld and Cheney are only concerned with that one thing - the US bourgeoisie's domination of world markets, and they will stop at nothing to achieve this... not even the use of nuclear weapons. The US administration has already done this with the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (read up on the history of WWII in a reputable historical source if you don't know what I'm talking about); what makes anyone think they have more scruples now, at this more desperate stage of capitalist competition for profits?
The challenge for US citizens who care to know the truth is to analyse the situation dispassionately, without patriotic lenses. The US government does not stand/fight for 'peace' and 'democracy' - it protects and furthers profitable ventures of its ruling class: that's its only reason for existence. It will do whatever it takes to secure those interests. I'm not even saying anything it (the US government) doesn't openly admit!
They're bastards, they're idiots, but I don't think their goal is to just cause anarchy and chaos in a country for no reason. Especially when the American Bourgeoise's interests are already being attacked by people who hate us becuase we have messed up their countries. We're not horribly popular anywhere in the middle east; bombing a huge country into the stone age would give millions of people direct reasons to commit themselves to the cause of destroying the U.S.
When around 1-2 billion people don't contribute anything to the Global economy (people in Africa, Central Asia, and other destitute places), I can hardly agree that Capitalism is in it's final stages. There is still tons of cheap labor to go exploit; much more expansion left to do.
Wait until there aren't these pools of millions of unemployed people who will work for nothing, then you'll see ruthlessness.
How would destroying Iran do anything to help the U.S.? That would only lead to a large country that hates us virulently, and will likely harm our interests in the very near future.
I'll bet you $15 that the Bush Administration will not use nukes in Iran. Or, we could just wait about 3 years and see.
That was a different Administration, if you'd care to remember. Furthermore, it was a totally different time. There was no threat of a nuclear retaliation at that time. Also, we were involved in an all out war with Japan, and hardly are in the same situation at all with Iran.
And might I ask you to analyze the situation without anti-american lenses? Every country looks out for itself, and every country has a certain level of corruption where the upper class has disproportionate control over the government. The U.S. government does bad in the world, certainly, but it is not a force of sheer selfishness and evil.
Ok, wasteofo2 - what you write here is, of course, very reasonable. The question is, how much reason prevails within the circles of those who hold the power? Have you read the report "REBUILDING
AMERICA’S DEFENSES: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" by The Project for a New American Century? Here's a relevant extract:
I realise this doesn't advocate the certain use of nuclear weapons - but the whole project outlined in this report is quite scary, and seems to be informing US foreign policy. Also, specifically on Iran, here's how the thoughts of those in power are going: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20050802.htm - note the very final statement in the last paragraph.
It's a bit more complex than just the availability of cheap labour, though, in my opinion: just as crucial as cheap production is the existence of markets - it's no good producing tons of goods that very few people can afford to buy. As people lose their jobs or are forced to accept lower-paid jobs and also to pay for basic resources (eg. clean water - currently being privatised on the IMF's stipulations) and essential services such as health and education, they also lose access to purchasing power. You can prop the system up with credit for a while, but eventually the whole thing will implode. What is the current account deficit in the US at the moment? What is happening in terms of personal bankruptcies? What are the statistics on joblessness and poverty?
Agreed, wastseofo2 - totally; it's going to get a lot, lot worse - and not in the far distant future... right now.
This is where, I believe, there may be a slight difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Essentially, the Democrats have a 'kinder face' and understand that one must approach these tasks of bringing the rest of the world to heel more 'politely', or in more covert fashion. Clinton's administration did not attack Iraq in quite the same way, but attack Iraq it did with the sanctions:
By the way, wasteofo2, what's this "our interests" you write about? Are these foreign policies really in all US citizens' interests? I guess the political perspective I use to analyse with prevents me from seeing the logic of how any government's policies are uniformly in the interests of all people (or even most people) in a country in which different classes exist. I always see things in terms of class interests.
$15... in three years? Well, ok... I hope I lose the bet, though:uhh:
Iraq was not at war with the US either - they didn't have WMDs or anything like that even, and look what happened there. Iran does not actually have to be at war with the US to be attacked (no country has to be at war with the US to be attacked, obviously - the US administration does exactly what it feels like wherever it feels like. Except re-China).
My apologies, wasteofo2 and anyone else I may have inadvertently offended. I do not believe that governments act in the interests of 'countries', and I certainly did not intend to insult ordinary American citizens - all my comments and criticisms are aimed at the decisions of those in power.
I think that even the current Administrations knows that they cannot attack Iran, and won't, unless something like Pearl Harbor happens again. I haven't read that report, but I have heard those goals set out be Department of Defense people, and all it seems to say is that America wants to be the best, and that we should try to do it. It sets out the goal to be able to be engaged in multiple conflicts at one, but we're clearly not at that point yet.
So the CIA doesn't know what they're talking about, what a shock. I dunno, I still just have a certain level of faith that no president would incite a nuclear conflict. Though there is the very real threat of Iran using a nuke on Isreal, what with this President's rhetoric about it. That'd be a rather tough situation to deal with there...
Sure the global economy is quite complex, and markets are indeed very important. But during the entire trend of Globalization, the same sort of pattern has been followed in developing countries. They are exploited by rich countries, until wages are competed up, and said developing country then joins the rank of industrialized, modern nations. Japan did it quite quickly. Germany did it remarkably well after the war. China and India are doing it on a mass scale now. Hell, the U.S. had to do it until the 1900's, except in the U.S.'s case, it was more like the populace was exploited by the rich within the U.S. Though we did make quite a bit of money selling agricultural goods to Europe all throughout our history.
Funny, I actually think it's going to get quite a bit better in the runup to complete Globalization. Things are certainly better in China and India today then they were 50 years ago, because of investment from foreign companies, allowing their populations to work and earn wages.
Better for some, certainly - for a very few. Worse for most.
Sorry, I'm not psychic!
Unfountrtly yes.Probally not in the next but I think Iran is going to contiue and there not going to stop because U.S. Troops are in Iraq and Afghanstain Iran is probally feel thertend by that(which is the same reason why North Korea is building nukes).Fontratlly I don't there's not going an Insugentcy like in Iraq or if there is it won't be as bad.Most of the Iranians support the U.S.
but the people who don't control the goverment and we learned how to fight Insurgents in the Middle East form Iraq and we also form Iraq not everone likes us invading there country
Iran/generic non westernised state seen to have a right leaning, islamic, government, can never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
This is the view of most western governments, especially the US. Ever since the Bay of Pigs fiasco where the US/USSR came so close to instigating nuclear war, man has lived in fear of a nuclear bomb being dropped in peace time by non friendly governments, now as terrorism has replaced Communism/Stalinism as the spectre haunting the west, the worry has come to the fore once more.
However, the fear has increased to include the fear of non-state sanctioned groups utilising nuclear weapons for lethal ends; and also state sponsored, though not in a primae facea sense, groups (similar in relationship to Hamas and Palestine).
Furthermore, the world has seen the problems in the USSR following the decline of the communist regime where nuclear facilities have been left to erode with little protection or safe guards. When a 'rogue' nation gains nuclear capability a worry of either selling to terrorists or theft becomes the issue alongside the worry of that state using the weapon themselves.
I may be mistaken but I think you are refering to the "Cuban Missle Crisis"?
The "Bay of Pigs" incident was an Anti-Castro revolution which was made possible by the US but didn't actually involve US troops. I could be wrong but I don't think this was exactly a major nuke issue in the cold war.
You're correct, TSA - The Bay of Pigs (Cuban name: Playa Giron) was a military attack organised by Cuban exiles who opposed Castro and were based in Miami and was backed by the CIA; it had nothing to do with nuclear weapons and occurred on 17 April 1961.
The so-called "Cuban missile crisis" occurred in October 1962.
My brain clearly disengaged and crumbled you are correct I am wrong, show me the hole to crawl into!!
I meant 'Crisis de los Misiles' - and this was a slightly major nuke issue (42 if I'm correct)!
That's nice question, I believe it will never do that. -lol-
Not a problem. Just wanted to point that out so you could avoid the mistake in the future.
If Iran posed nuclear threat to her neighbors, i support USA to incur military action on her.
I think everyone is forgetting a very important point here on this forum. US isnt going to bomb Iran - Israel will do that. Mark my words, if Israel recovers quickly from the loss of its PM, and a new leader is elected who has proper support in the Kneset (the Israeli paliment), Israel will bomb Iran (not with nukes) and destroy its nuclear capabilities. It is did that to Iraq 2 decades ago, and will do it to Iran now. Iran is just too close, and has a leader who is just to crazy, for Israel not to launch a pre-emptive strike.
I'm not going to respond to all that, but you keep saying things like the above while you know it is not true. You know that global poverty is half what it was 20 years ago (to say nothing of what it was 50 years ago) because we have discussed it a number of times and you have admitted you know it.
Stop saying things you know are not true.
You have to also realize that "this world *I* create" (sey kai yao ngoh dzou)
US military force is strong enough to burn your house down...No, that is not what I really mean.
Calm down, Russ - it is true that we have had many discussions about this issue. Never once have I conceded to your argument that global poverty is half what it was 20 years ago - I have conceded to other errors I have made in other discussions on other issues. I would not argue a case that I considered to be untrue; why should I? If all was right with the world, if it truly was getting better for all, why on earth would I want to argue the opposite case? Truly, I am not mad. So, to clarify...
This is my understanding of global poverty: while GDPs of 'developing' nations show an increase in wealth, this wealth is very unequally distributed. The GDP is a total; this total can increase without having equal benefits for all. While the local bourgeoisies in 'developing' nations may be profiting from capitalism (as attested by rising GDPs, for example), this is happening at the expense of the poor, who are getting poorer and whose living conditions are deteriorating at an alarming rate (education, health systems and basic social services are being privatised, making them inaccessible to poor people, for example). This is the case even in the 'developed' capitalist countries, the USA included. Reality is more complex than the simplistic outcome that measures such as GDPs suggest. This, in any case, is my understanding of and position on this topic.
Capitalism has good and bad parts. The good part is that it increases development, the bad part is unequal access to resources such as education, jobs and services.
Poverty is difficult to define. It can be measured in absolute terms with a baseline of 0 in which case it is probable that in percentage terms there are less people living in poverty today than 50 years ago but if measured in relative terms in respect to differential incomes within a given population I believe most folk would agree poverty has increased hugely over the same time period as the process of capitalism necessarily shifts wealth to the already wealthy.
The point being before arguing whether poverty has increased or decreased it seems necessary to agree what the definition of poverty should be.
So perhaps this question has become far more apt
Link to full sory : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4597738.stm
Separate names with a comma.