What do you think is going to happen with Iran

Post Reply New Topic

I say we are looking at going after Iran next. The nutjob president of Iran keeps threatening both the USA and its allies.

Lots of mountains. Cities. Excellent terrain for the defenders, bad for the invaders, about three times the size of Iraq, and people usually don't like invading armies very much.

What would we do if we won? Try to establish a democracy?

It's a messy situation, but I believe the best thing they can do now is stay and finish. They should NOT have gone in in the first place (especially under the bs they did go in under), but now that they're there, there is little option. Imagine if they were to leave - too much chaos. No doubt the leaders of both Australia and America will lose their positions.

And by the way, didn't John Howard say that all our troops would be home by Christmas (for the Australians here)? The dirty liar.

Also, I seriously don't understand how leaders of countries can break their election *PROMISES* and still be in. Shouldn't that be illegal or something? For many, it would have been the basis upon which many people voted for them.

Sorry for the OT-ness.

Iran is a potential ally. They really should fire their conservative government, though.

One of the domographic things about Iran is that it is a very young country, about 3/4 of its population has no memory of the 1979 revolution that swept the current theocrats into power.

This population is also not at all enamored with their current leadership. Even though they are devout Shiite Muslims, a large number of them want to wear 'western' style clothing, listen to 'western' style music, etc, and share zero hatred towards the USA. In fact, Iran is the ONLY place in the Muslim world where spontaneous prayer vigils broke out after the 2001-09-11 attack on the USA. These younger people do not at all follow the 'Death to America' line of the 1979 revolutionaries, instead they desparately want the USA to reopen its embassy in Teheran.

The current Iranian leadership usurped its way into power and this huge younger crowd has them scared silly, only the repression typical of such governments is what is keeping them in power. Stay tuned.

Mike

That's why they're a potential ally. Just for perspective, Britain is technically a monarchy. A toothless monarchy operating at the sword-point of a powerful parlaiment, but a monarchy, nontheless.

If Iran really has nukes, invading them would mean doom for the invading country.

Iran will give up the nuclear weapons program if we offer them something that
can allow them to "save face" with their own people. So can both sides find that
thing? I say we agree to sale them parts for all their US made military equipment

Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. In fact, they're being extremely open about their ventures into nuclear energy. The problem is that the conservative governments of the West have ther heads too far up their butts to see them as anything other than towel-head lunatics when even the towel-heads are nothing but a bunch of stuffy, old men.

Look, if you want to find the real problem child of the Middle East, take a long look at Syria. They are evil in its purest form.

1) There trying to enrich uranium to a much higher amount needed for a fission reactor
(IAEA has confirmed that allready with air samples). Its much more expensive to
over enrich. So their not doing it for later dilution.

2) Absolutely no way does it make economic since for them to be enriching uranium
on their own. Thats the issue the enrichment plant. For the extremly small amount they
need for civilian nuclear powerplants for the next 20 years to invest tens of billion in
enrichment in 2006 is utterly insane. The same money invested in an S&P index fund
would make for more money(or any good investment).

3) They absolutely are trying to make a nuclear weapon.

An invasion is out of the question. Even Bush knows this.

They could have a number of purposes for it, and, besides, they fall far short of the degree of enrichment that would be needed to create a weapon.

Is there any evidence of this whatsoever, or did you hear that while you had your head up Rush Limbaugh's ass, admiring his s**t?

Iran isn't a threat. At all. Alienating them any further, however, could turn them into one.

Simple psychology - You cannot tell others your way is better even when it is, it causes those who are wrong to cling onto those thoughts

Telling the middle east to straighten up or be killed will result in the latter - War has yet to solve a problem, if anything, it will just create them (WW1 and what followed setup WW2 which setup Cold war which branched off into many things)

I think that having more respect for them would do wonders. And perhaps convince them to help us mount a full-scale invasion of Syria. Hisssssss! Syria is no good. Nonono good. Seriously bad vibes.

True they have not expanded the number of centrifuges to produce large amounts
of highly enriched uranium. But Iran publicly stated a very large number of planned
centrifuges. The first plant was a proof of concept.

Not sure why your resorting to name calling. I'm not favoring going to war. I did not
even mention that I give a d*mn about their nuclear program. Maybe you buy into the
Iran's "energy" program. Why does a country that is such a major oil producer import soo much gasoline? Whould not building an oil refinery make more since to protect their enery future? They mention they want to enrich their own uranium to protect future fuel supplies so why not protect the gasoline supply? Look they should
build all the nuclear power plants they want. But if they keep trying to enrich uranium
they will be attacked. Its just that simple regardless if its right or wrong.

Yes, Iran has always been ambitious. If their economy continues to develop, they'll need increasing amounts of energy to drive it. This is common sense.

And medicine and aerospace and industry and so on and so forth. Nuclear materials have myriad uses beyond levelling cities.

Perhaps they don't want to. It's perfectly likely that they'd prefer not to rely upon oil wealth. Ill-gotten gain is against their religious principles.