News Will Israel back us if we attack Iran?

[Nothing000]

Which terrorists? Are you trying to say that the Iranian nation is full of terrorists?

YES, the Iranian government funds terrorism! Have you never heard of Hezbollah?

 

[Nothing000]

Do they? So why doesn't there government admit to it?

I do not know about this.

 

[EL]

Dude, Israel is not only powerful, but all the western countries have their back.

So that would push US into the war anyway...you just wanted Israel to do the dirty work first, so that you couldn't be blamed this time...

 

[Nothing000]

No, I think YOUR COUNTRY, and other European countries should quite being panzies and step up.

 

[Nothing000]

Don't you see, these people hate you. I have no idea why you are deffending them.

 

[Anttech]

They do. They are one of the nuclear powers of the world.

No they dont, you are totally wrong! Israel does NOT admit to having Nukes!

http://www.tzemach.org/fyi/docs/beres/june01-01.htm

 

[Anttech]

Don't you see, these people hate you. I have no idea why you are deffending them.

Because I have many "muslim" friends, and they are not terrorist! I find you very Racist! And they do not hate us...

 

[EL]

No, I think YOUR COUNTRY, and other European countries should quite being panzies and step up.

Yeah you're completely right. Let's invade some country for some false reason! That's cool, yeah!
(American flag waving in the background.)

 

[Nothing000]

I am not racist. The fact is that extremist muslims hate any other religion or way of life. Can you dispute that?

Like I said earlier, the religion of islam needs to incorporate more tollerance of other religions and change with the times just as most other mainstream religions have. I understand not all muslims are extremists. But it is these muslims responsiblity to stand up and attempt say that Islam needs to learn how to conform to the process of globalization.

 

[Nothing000]

Yeah you're completely right. Let's invade some country for some false reason! That's cool, yeah!
(American flag waving in the background.)

Very valid point. I am glad you shared that with us.

 

[EL]

Don't you see, these people hate you. I have no idea why you are deffending them.

No they don't. We have plenty of Iranians living here in Sweden, so I know. It's because of patetic attitudes like yours that US is not very popular nowadays.
When did I defend Iran's nuclear program?

 

[Nothing000]

I have got to go to school. It has been great chatting with you guys. I will talk to you later.

 

[EL]

I am not racist. The fact is that extremist muslims hate any other religion or way of life. Can you dispute that?

And that is not the case among extremist christians (for instance in US) or extremist buddhists, or extremist hindus, or...
Point is, you're a victim of the anti-muslim propaganda.

 

[Anttech]

Which Grade are you in?

 

[Nothing000]

No they don't. We have plenty of Iranians living here in Sweden, so I know. It's because of patetic attitudes like yours that US is not very popular nowadays.
When did I defend the Iran's nuclear program?

Extremist muslims do hate you. "Progressive" muslims do not. All I am saying is that these non-extremists need to stand up and let there voice be heard more, instead of allowing the extremists represent their religion.

 

[Anttech]

What has that got to do with Iran's nuclear program?

 

[Nothing000]

We have all made valid points. This has been a wonderful discussion. But I have to go to school. I will talk to you all later.

 

[EL]

Extremist muslims do hate you. "Progressive" muslims do not. All I am saying is that these non-extremists need to stand up and let there voice be heard more, instead of allowing the extremists represent their religion.

Completely agree. But when did you say that? I thought you wanted to "wipe them out"?

 

[Nothing000]

What has that got to do with Iran's nuclear program?

Because the reason Iran can not be trusted with a nuclear program is because they are a theocracy that supports the extremist muslim philosophy.

 

[Burnsys]

I think Nothing000 post are a perfect example of what the US media has done to American people, Nothing000 is a reflection of the avergare uninformed american who "Make up his mind" from the mainstream media.

 

[Nothing000]

Completely agree. So?

So, what? That was my point.

Got to go to school. Talk to you later.

 

[Nothing000]

Why do you guys hate america? I just don't get it. If you answer this question I will have to read it later, and respond then. Because I am going to be late for school.

 

[EL]

So, what? That was my point.

Got to go to school. Talk to you later.

See my edited version.

 

[Anttech]

Actually I think Nothing000 posts are a perfect example of someone with little to no knowledge about what there are talking about, ranting hatred in a misinformed extreemly young and naive way! It can happen in any place in the world, hatred has no place, and what we need is some UNDERSTANDING (and EDUCATION!)! Of course the US media doesn't help.. But this is supposed to be an accedemic type forum!

 

[EL]

Why do you guys hate america? I just don't get it. If you answer this question I will have to read it later, and respond then. Because I am going to be late for school.

When did I say I hate america?
I hate some people in america yes, but I hate some in Sweden too...
You're putting words in my mouth I have never said.

 

[Anttech]

When did I say I hate america?
I hate some people in america yes, but I hate some in Sweden too...
You're putting words in my mouth I have never said.

You didnt, don't worry I think its self-evident...

 

[EL]

I think Nothing000 is mainly driven by fear.
Fear has always been a substantial ingredience in US society.

 

[EL]

You didnt, don't worry I think its self-evident...

What is self-evident?

 

[Anttech]

What is self-evident?

That you didnt say that you hate America...

 

[EL]

That you didnt say that you hate America...

Good. For a while I thought you ment it was self-evident I hated america although I didn't say it!
To make it clear: I do not hate americans in general!

 

[Burnsys]

I do hate america... 's Goverment...

That is another trick the media uses, acording to them people around the world hate america for no reason. When actualy everybody hate america's government for they foreing policy.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I do hate america... 's Goverment...

That is another trick the media uses, acording to them people around the world hate america for no reason. When actualy everybody hate america's government for they foreing policy.

Hopefully ol' Bush will be somewhat hobbled after November this year.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

SD, it has been all over the news. It's the very reason we are having this conversation - why the governments are having the rhetoric-war.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1488020

Sorry but I know they are enriching uranium I meant to say for nukes. I have read reports by the IAEA about the enrichment facilities in Iraq, it is fairly common knowledge and has been for a while that they are enriching Uranium or at the very least that they had facilities to do so which is pretty much the same thing, this is why the whole thing kicked off in the first place, sorry about that

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Extremist muslims do hate you. "Progressive" muslims do not. All I am saying is that these non-extremists need to stand up and let there voice be heard more, instead of allowing the extremists represent their religion.

Oddly enough due to the internet in Iran, many Iranians are big fans of western and in particular US culture, there is more hatred on your side than on the other I would imagine, just because some minority voice starts indiscretely shouting doesn't mean he represents a whole country. Iran is a democracy of sorts, but a religous one, OK it's not the same as a two party system but at least you get to chose which religous leaders you want representing your country. This sort of one sided uninformed sounding off is not really productive. Do some research into the subject before you judge a religion a race or a whole people. I really hope that this sort of opinion based on one sided media is not common in the US.

Oh and for your information, the only media I tend to watch regularly ATM is yours on forums like this, I rarely get to see the BBC ATM. Which would make me a wolf amongst sheep, as I do not subscribe to it wholly without digging deeper.

 

[Moonbear]

Note to all: Before posting further replies in this thread, please remind yourselves of the P&WA forum guidelines, especially with regard to keeping discussion CIVIL. This thread has been pruned, and further need to moderate will result in it being locked, and those whose posts necessitate that moderation will take a 3-day vacation from PF.

 

[Cyrus]

[deleted - You can choose to be part of the problem or part of the solution, cyrus. -Russ]

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry but I know they are enriching uranium I meant to say for nukes. I have read reports by the IAEA about the enrichment facilities in Iraq, it is fairly common knowledge and has been for a while that they are enriching Uranium or at the very least that they had facilities to do so which is pretty much the same thing, this is why the whole thing kicked off in the first place, sorry about that

No prob - the question of whether or not they intend to acquire actual nuclear weapons is obviously much more complicated. It requires sifting through the rhetoric to decipher their real intentions, which can't ever be an exact science.

So the relevant questions then become:

1. What do you (or Bush, or the UNSC, or Israel's new leader) think the odds are that Iran will acquire or will attempt to acquire nuclear weapons?
2. If they acquire nuclear weapons, would they be willing/likely to use them?
3. Based on the above, would it be prudent to stop them?
4. If yes, how far should we go to stop them?

 

[Anttech]

1. What do you (or Bush, or the UNSC, or Israel's new leader) think the odds are that Iran will acquire or will attempt to acquire nuclear weapons?
2. If they acquire nuclear weapons, would they be willing/likely to use them?
3. Based on the above, would it be prudent to stop them?
4. If yes, how far should we go to stop them?

I'll take a pop at that :)

1. Iran will eventually make nuclear weapons.. But not in the foreseeable future IMHO
2. No they wouldn't use them, if they had no need to use them. Ie I don't think they would be the aggressors. They have no need to. The only war I could see happening there would be an inward war of factions, ie cival war.. And I don't think Nukes would be used in this situation.
3. No its not prudent to stop them, nothing but pain and blood will come from fighting Iran, the world needs peace not more Wars between the so called "west" and ME
4. see above

 

[BobG]

No prob - the question of whether or not they intend to acquire actual nuclear weapons is obviously much more complicated. It requires sifting through the rhetoric to decipher their real intentions, which can't ever be an exact science.

So the relevant questions then become:

1. What do you (or Bush, or the UNSC, or Israel's new leader) think the odds are that Iran will acquire or will attempt to acquire nuclear weapons?
2. If they acquire nuclear weapons, would they be willing/likely to use them?
3. Based on the above, would it be prudent to stop them?
4. If yes, how far should we go to stop them?

1. Considering Israel, Pakistan, and India have nuclear weapons, I'd say the odds were good that Iran would attempt to develop nuclear weapons. It'll take a few years, but once they're able to create fuel for nuclear power plants, the leap to nuclear weapons is almost more a matter of quantity than a leap in technology - if they also develop a means to deliver nuclear weapons.

2. If they developed nuclear weapons and a reliable method of delivering them, they would use the threat of them. They'd be unlikely to actually fire them, but having nuclear weapons would give them greater freedom to act in the Middle East region - the possession of nuclear weapons would prevent other countries from punishing them with military force.

3. You don't stop knowledge or technology. You slow it down. Any action to slow progress needs to be accompanied by some other long term solution. This is another benefit of acquiring nuclear power. A country becomes a 'partner' in international relations that has to be bargained with instead of a third world country that can be pushed around. The major powers use trade agreements that benefit the new nuclear power enough that the new power can't afford to wage war against the major powers, anymore. It's almost like striking it rich and getting to sit next to the owner of your old company at the elite country club.

4a. A few 'pinprick' strikes, even at particularly key locations, just slows the pace of progress. The hardware has to be replaced, but the knowledge and experience have already been obtained.

4b. Instead of buying off the new power, you install a new, friendlier government. Installing a new shah has gone out of fashion. Installing a democracy is the new rave, in spite of the fact that the new Middle East democracies seem to put a spotlight on the cultural differences between the Middle East and the West.

4c. Buying them off with increased trade would do a better job of reducing differences between the cultures. Al Jazeera has commercials, the same as American TV, and McDonalds, Coca Cola, et al, can slowly rot Middle Eastern culture from within* (sounds cynical, but, from Islamic fundamentalists point of view, this is the big problem with the West, regardless of the rhetoric about Israel, etc).

Aside from the problems inherent in option 4, the 'who decides' part is the most unsettling of all. I don't relish having the Bush administration decide or implement anything of this magnitude. It would be better if either the UN took the lead or the problem were pushed along to the next President.

------------------------------------------------------------------

* - How often has a foreign country stepped in, taken a local product (such as a favorite drink), and turned that country's own local product into a national, profitable product, or even a product for export?

I know Coca Cola tried this in Russia with one of their traditional drinks, but Coca Cola had to come up with one version of the drink for the whole country. Traditionally, there had been a lot of variation in the drink from one locality to the other, so Coca Cola's version didn't get very high reviews from locals - most thought it was a poor imitation of their locality's particular version.

Most used to have problems even getting that far, since it usually seems more efficient to make an already existing product more appealing to the new market since the foreign company may have little insight into the new market's culture. It's hard to believe multinational corporations still haven't made much progress in this area, but you don't hear much about it.

 

[EL]

So the relevant questions then become:

1. What do you (or Bush, or the UNSC, or Israel's new leader) think the odds are that Iran will acquire or will attempt to acquire nuclear weapons?
2. If they acquire nuclear weapons, would they be willing/likely to use them?
3. Based on the above, would it be prudent to stop them?
4. If yes, how far should we go to stop them?

Good questions russ. I'll give them a try:

1. That's a tough one. According to the Iranian government's behaviour one is easily lead to the conclution that they will attempt to acquire nukes. On the other hand, if they really wanted to, would they behave as they currently are doing? I don't have a good answer.
But what I think is important is to realize there are cultural differences which may be hard to understand for us westerns. I think "pride" is a keyword. Like it was for Saddam Hussein who more or less acted like he had something to hide, when there in reality were no WMD's.

2. If they really are out for getting nukes, and actually also succeeds with that, I'm afraid that, with the current government, my guess will be yes.

3. We should definitely stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. (Which we should for any other country aslo.)

4. Important is to not do anything rash. Only as an absolutely last way out, and with waterproof evidences, there should be an open attack.
I don't think another war based on "false intelligence reports" (to be kind) is a good idea...
UN support for any military action is very important.
What should be done immediately is to support the rebellious groups in Iran and get rid of the current government. I think that with a strong support it could be achieved quite soon.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

1,2&3 are summed up mostly by the previous posters opinions

4) anything but land invasion, this I think would be a disasterous idea.

Someone told me that one of Irans enrichment facilities was supplied by the US, obviously for peaceful reasons but that is interesting

 

[Anttech]

I just watched a broadcast on Iran after yesterdays news annocument that they have enriched Uranium to >3% Basically the gist was they will need to make 3000 cascading centrafuges to enrich weapons grade uranium, so they are not far away... What an interesting dilema:

The US and Iran won't talk, so that leave Russia and China to negotiate with them on what they should do. Will Iran either accept Russia's proposal and let them enrich Uranium for them, or will they go it alone... How the world order is changing! A ME country that can and will stand up for itself interests!

A War with Iran won't happen, its insain to think that a military option is valid, it just isnt.. The only country that would be "Brave" (or stupid) enough to attempt an attack on Iran would be the US, with there history of pre-empting over the past decades, but they simpley cant. The people of the US don't have the stomach for another war, and the Military don't have the resources for a full scale attack... If the US attacked Iran, Iran would simpley attack Iraq, and I think we all can see the consequences of what that would entail, total cival war, and perhaps genocide in Iraq... The US's legacy in the ME would be one of death not democracy.

So that leave good old negotiation...

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

If it were anyone but Bush and the Republican war machine I'd agree, but if past history is any indication, who knows? The US hasn't exactly gained a reputation for avoiding dead end conflicts in the past

 

[tarbag]

The Americans did much enemy because of Israil. They unconsciously make war against their own interests. The Iranians are not only the enemis of Israil, there are all the Arab people. One should not count on the emirs, they are only temporary. If Iran will have nuclear weapon soon it will never have war there, that will be peace. The Americans are not afraid of the use of the Iranian nuclear weapon but they are afraid which they will not be free to make what they want. When somebody has the nuclear weapon it will become wiser.

 

[pcorbett]

ISRAEL should wipe them out , huh? A bit of arrogance here. On the contrary, my Arab friends tell me that were it not for the U. S. support, Israel would be pushed into the sea by now.

Like they did in '48?

It is the only country that backs Israel so they are lucky in this respect and depend on the U.S. for their existence.

The United States guarantees Israel's security. Israel, on the other hand, has shown itself quite capable of fending for its own existence.

What do you think of that?

I think if Arab men were masculine enough to fight, they'd come out into the field rather than hide behind or attack innocent women and children.

 

[pcorbett]

Someone told me that one of Irans enrichment facilities was supplied by the US, obviously for peaceful reasons but that is interesting

Someone was wrong. Gerald Ford lost the race before US-Iran Nuclear Cooperation went ahead and Carter killed it. Pre-revolutionary Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and participant in the IAEA inspectorate, would have acquired a complete nuclear fuel cycle solution that would have undergone the same NPT safeguards as other signatories. Clearly it's a good thing the agreement fell through; post-revolutionary Iran's commitment to non-proliferation--at the risk of understatement--is dubious.

 

[mathwonk]

with all the crazy stuff going on, it was sobering to me to realize that one of the most important original books on algebra we written by a muslim, the great Iranian mathematician, Muhammed al Khawarezmi, in 830, while he was court astrologer to the Caliph in Baghdad.

so we have a great debt to this culture we are currently destroying, that we often forget.

 

[Bystander]

That's only through quadratic equations; it was a partial education of Islam by the Hindus who had done the general cubic solution and were playing with quartics at the time --- asserting that there would have been no exchange of information between Europe and India, "great debt," is a bit over the top.

 

[Office_Shredder]

with all the crazy stuff going on, it was sobering to me to realize that one of the most important original books on algebra we written by a muslim, the great Iranian mathematician, Muhammed al Khawarezmi, in 830, while he was court astrologer to the Caliph in Baghdad.

so we have a great debt to this culture we are currently destroying, that we often forget.

Yes, their culture used to be enlightened. But so was the Romans'... do we tithe Italy each year to thank them for their engineering brilliance 2000 years ago?

 

[Arian]

Well...I am not going to read 7 pages of posts...me lazy :)
But Iran...we do know that basically all the young people who like our laid back and watch the ladies dance culture are being held back by the theocratic government...
So, give the college people guns, make um love us and a 2nd Iranian revolution!