Will Iran be Bush's next target?

  • News
  • Thread starter Art
  • Start date
  • #51
SOS said:
There are many Christians who believe in the End Time or Last Days. The Rapture is a glorification that born-again evangelicals tend toward. However, I feel the percentage is much larger than most people realize--I posted a statistic back when of the % of Americans who believe the Bible to be literal. In any event, here's some reading for those who like:

http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers15.html

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/art...iew.cgi/38/8664 [Broken]

A 2002 Time/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the Book of Revelations are going to come true.
Eschatology is a vastly popular topic. Do you realize how many people who are only vaguely Christian or not even Christian at all believe these prophesies may come true? It's not so much a function of fundamentalism as it is a socialogical trend that has existed for centuries upon centuries. It's an interesting phenomena that the majority of people seem to want to be there to see the end of the world, like a collective death wish shearly for a desire to live in "interesting times".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
TheStatutoryApe said:
Eschatology is a vastly popular topic. Do you realize how many people who are only vaguely Christian or not even Christian at all believe these prophesies may come true? It's not so much a function of fundamentalism as it is a socialogical trend that has existed for centuries upon centuries. It's an interesting phenomena that the majority of people seem to want to be there to see the end of the world, like a collective death wish shearly for a desire to live in "interesting times".
True people have been preaching the world is coming to an end for centuries, and the difference now is believing in it versus hoping for it. The Rapture is a more glorified version of mainstream beliefs. Perhaps this is a reason for the phenomena, though the thought of suffering does not deter many people who feel it would be worth it to have the second coming. And they think jihad suicide bombers have crazy thoughts?
 
  • #53
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8942221/site/newsweek/ [Broken]

"Don't Make Hollow Threats -
With 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Tehran has many ways to retaliate against an American military strike."
Newsweek

...President Bush appears to be headed on a path that could teach him this lesson. Last week he responded to Iran's decision to resume work on its nuclear program by asserting that "all options are on the table" to stop Iran's nuclear development. He also implied that were Israel to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities, the United States would support it. Unfortunately, these are hollow threats, unlikely to have much effect other than to cheapen America's credibility around the world. (Within hours of Bush's statement, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder made clear that he would not support any such action against Iran.)

Airstrikes against Iran would be extremely unwise. They would have minimal military effect: the facilities are scattered, are reasonably well hidden and could be repaired within months. With oil at $66 a barrel, the mullahs are swimming in money. (The high price of oil and Iran's boldness are directly related.) More important, a foreign military attack would strengthen local support for the nuclear program and bolster an unpopular regime. Iran is a country with a strong tradition of nationalism—it is one of the oldest nations in the world.

Economic sanctions are the other weapon of choice. The United States already has them in place against Tehran—with little effect—and the chances of widening them are low. To get comprehensive sanctions against Iran, Russia and China would have to agree. But Moscow is helping build one of Iran's reactors, and China is busy signing deals to buy oil and natural gas from it. Both countries will condemn Iran's actions, but they will not shut down their economic ties with it.

Many Iranians believe that they should and will be a nuclear power. ...Last year, Iran's former foreign minister under the shah, Ardeshir Zahedi, argued that Iran should have nuclear weapons, and that under a different regime, Iranian nukes would be no more threatening than those of Britain. In fact, Iran's nuclear program was started by the shah in the early 1970s with American support.

Tehran is seeking a grand bargain: a comprehensive normalization of relations with the West in exchange for concessions on nuclear issues. It will never give up its right to a nuclear program, he argues, but it would allow such a program to be monitored to ensure that it doesn't morph into a weapons project. But the prize they seek, above all, is better relations with the United States. "That is their ultimate goal," he said.

There are lots of reasons to be suspicious of Iran. But the real question is, Do we want to try to stop it from going nuclear? If so, why not explore this path? Washington could authorize the European negotiators to make certain conditional offers, and see how Tehran responds. What's the worst that can happen? It doesn't work, the deal doesn't happen and Tehran resumes its nuclear activities. That's where we are today.
Iran has been pro-West through history far more than many other M.E. countries. The current embargoes do nothing, so why not try better relations instead? After all, we want allies and peace in the region. But no, no Iran is an "axis of evil" so:

...the Bush administration...remains unwilling to talk, let alone negotiate, on anything substantive. As with North Korea, the shift toward a less hostile policy is so slight that it can't possibly succeed. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether this new "soft" policy has been designed by Vice President Cheney's office, so that it fails, discredits any prospect of negotiating and thus returns us to the old policy...
Gosh, that Bush is unwavering in his position is so admirable, isn't it?

Four more wars! Four more wars! :eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
24
0
SOS2008 said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8942221/site/newsweek/ [Broken]

Iran has been pro-West through history far more than many other M.E. countries. The current embargoes do nothing, so why not try better relations instead? After all, we want allies and peace in the region. But no, no Iran is an "axis of evil" so:

Gosh, that Bush is unwavering in his position is so admirable, isn't it?

Four more wars! Four more wars! :eek:
Children often behave this way... he wants his candy and he's gonna get it.
Mine! All Mine!- daffy duck
why can't he be cool like Bugs? :tongue2:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
Lisa!
Gold Member
612
94
Hurkyl said:
I somehow suspect "retaileation" is a red herring: don't you simply wish for the annihilation of the U.S.?

It would be Americans' fault anyway. They must be crazy not to stop starting another war. Somehow I am surprised how some Bush is re-eleceted again and Americans didn't do anything about that. :confused:
 
  • #56
The progression of the diminishing motive for foreign invasion is quite interesting. The US got away with invading Afghanistan because of the tenuous notion that it had facilitated in a past comprimise of American national security. The US got away with invading Iraq because of the tenuous notion it had current means and inclination to comprimise American national security. The US is now justifying invading Iran because of it may, one day, procure the means to comprimise American national security, if so inclined.

What comes next? Invading a country on the grounds it WOULD comprimise American national security if it ever considered acquiring the means?
 
  • #57
Lisa! said:
It would be Americans' fault anyway. They must be crazy not to stop starting another war. Somehow I am surprised how some Bush is re-eleceted again and Americans didn't do anything about that. :confused:
Like.........?
 
  • #58
Art said:
The North Koreans are renowned for their paronoia and it appears current activity in the south by Korean and US forces isn't helping to reassure them. I'd have thought the last thing the US would need right now is to alarm the North Koreans when they potentially possess several nuclear weapons. http://www.canada.com/news/world/story.html?id=8e825582-15ef-408d-8a90-30ee180ba119 [Broken]
This is a little late, but I just read it and it amused me, not least because it rings so true that the reason the US would not consider military action against a country with WMDs is the worry that they might actually use them. What does it say about their evaluation of countries that it would consider military action against?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
Lisa!
Gold Member
612
94
El Hombre Invisible said:
Like.........?
It's not my job to think about it. They're living in a free and democratic country, so there are lots of ways for them to solve this problem.
If they re-elect Bush, they should accept all their choise's consequencies. If they didn't, as I said they should do sth about it!
 
  • #60
Skyhunter
BobG said:
Your terminology might be a little loose. 76.5% of Americans are Christians, but only about 16.3% are Baptists. While most of the Baptist groups are very fundamentalist, 16.3% would still be a high estimate for the percentage of Americans that are Christian fundamentalists.

Even if different religions share quite a few common concerns (for example, both Catholic and Baptist churches would both be in favor of banning abortion), they also have quite a few differences (for example, the Catholic church opposes the death penalty, while most Baptists are in favor of the death penalty).

Having TV shows and buying radio stations doesn't turn a small sect into the spirit of America. Your comments about Christians believing in prophesies about the rapture only apply to a small minority of the American population, not about Christians, in general.
And polls are meaningless. Here is a Recent Harris poll on evolution.

"Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not?"


6/17-21/05 Did 38% Did Not 54% Unsure 8%


"Do you believe apes and man have a common ancestry or not?"


6/17-21/05 Do 46% Do Not 47% Unsure 7%
More people believe we share a common ancestor than believe in evolution :confused: :confused:

Here is a Gallup poll:

To assess public opinion on creationism, Gallup asked:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?
Polled in November 2004, 38% of respondents chose (1), 13% chose (2), 45% chose (3), and 4% offered a different or no opinion. These results are also similar to those from previous Gallup polls, which extend back to 1982.
Now what was that about fundamentalism in the US?
 
  • #61
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Skyhunter said:
More people believe we share a common ancestor than believe in evolution :confused: :confused:
Maybe they believe that apes evolved from humans and not the other way around. (I'm joking, of course, but the poll would make sense if this were the case.)

Now what was that about fundamentalism in the US?
It's unchanged since 1982?
 
  • #62
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,028
16
El Hombre Invisible said:
What comes next? Invading a country on the grounds it WOULD comprimise American national security if it ever considered acquiring the means?
Several steps are ahead:

1) invading neutral countries that might, one day, decide not to consider not to acquire the means.

2) invading allies that might one day distanciate themselves, placing them in situation 1).

3) invading the US itself, on the grounds that one day, it might consider NOT to invade countries satisfying 2), and hence put itself at danger.

4) destroy themselves right now, because they might one day decide upon 3) and hence pose a big threat to the US, which has to be eliminated pre-emptively.

:rofl:
 
  • #63
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,028
16
Skyhunter said:
Now what was that about fundamentalism in the US?
Guh, a bunch of theocrats with nukes, scary !
 
  • #64
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
In spite of Iran's nuclear program taking the headlines, I think possible conventional weapons coming into Iraq from Iran are a little troubling.

An Iraq based on Shiite law would make a better neighbor for Iran than a pro-US neighbor would, so there's at least some credibility in the idea that Iran would like to see enough chaos in Iraq that the US won't be very picky about how we get out. Assuming, of course, Iran thinks it could help the Iraqi Shiites prevent an all out civil war from breaking out - we're having a hard time doing that, ourselves.

I don't think the US would bomb Iran based on the nuclear weapons program alone. But, there's always been a big risk of the Iraq invasion spilling over the border into Syria or Iran. I wouldn't be at all shocked to see the war spread over the border and into Iran.
 

Related Threads on Will Iran be Bush's next target?

Replies
88
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
44
Views
6K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
Replies
54
Views
9K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
92
Views
14K
Top