Iran - what is the truth

Lev, I'm wasn't trying to be snotty and I apologize if it came out that way. Your discussion of the homeless, the Apostle Paul, and stealing from hotels has nothing to do with the Middle East situation, their stranglehold on us through oil, or the different methods to take away the power oil has on us by switching to other sources of energy.
The 'cleaning up your own backyard' reference, I took to mean stop driving gas-guzzling monsters and forcing our government into VALID research into good alternatives to oil.
Peace, Out.

 

Nothing happens in this world with complete isolation from anything else. Everything is related in some way, shape or form, no matter how loosely. To think otherwise would be naive. I realise the homeless person on the street has a very vague indirect effect on anything in Iran. However, the bigger picture of how we deal with situations in "our back yard" is indicative of how we deal with other back-yard situations that do directly effect outcomes in Iran. Does everyone jump to feed the homeless? No! Does everyone jump to down scale their gas guzzling rigs to bleed lining the pockets of oil-merchants in Iran? No! People are the same, no matter what the "back-yard" issue being dealt with. Hence the acronym NIMBO. tell them what they should be doing - you can bet your bottom dollar they will do the opposite - human nature across the board.

That aside, to go to the trouble of making a post about how I was off-topic (when after all - this is the Lounge - ongoing hijacking of threads ad infinitum, and as I recall it was not me who initially turned the Iran debate in that direction anyway) is quite petty considering the amount of threads I have to moderate (yours included) in the tech forums that are of absolutely no technical benefit whatsoever. Either there is either some hypocrisy here, or some disgruntledness around recent thread deletion. Either way, it has no place in these forums

 

This thread was very interesting until it went astray. If you can't see that you helped that...
Lounge or not, this thread HAD a TOPIC for discussion and that continuing link was destroyed.
And what editing the tech threads has to do with anything? (I haven't seen one of mine edited in ages) Matter of fact have been asked by another mod to help him take on some other areas because he is overloaded and have received PMs from another on my good work.
The only thing I am disgruntled with is a good topic destroyed.
I give up. You win because your a moderator.

 

I do see that and have acknowledged that. What I also acknowledged is that I was not responsible for changing the topic of this thread initially, yet you decide you are going to address the topic change through making an example of a moderator. If you had a problem with the course of the thread, you should have stated that when it INITIALLY got changed. It's not like you don't read the forums at least hourly to notice.

End of THIS part of the discussion.

Continue...

 

Thanks for bringing this back around.
I hadn't considered how this relates back to those times, including the Cuban Missile Crisis (which, i remember scaring the bejeezus out of my folks and me in turn) There were a lot of Nuclear Emergency drills then.
It is terrible to think that there is even mention of using tactical nukes against Iran. IF there is a bomb out there controlled by terrorists, who do they (our gov't) think it will be used on? Do they think dropping one of ours in Iranian territory will help keep them from using it on us? This whole situation is mad.

 

I've read everything in this thread- took awhile, but well worth the time.

At the core of this issue is American foreign policy. In our efforts to make the world better place, we are actually making it worse. We have given terrorists all the more reason to hate us.

Iran is NOT a terroist organization. They are a country feeling threatened by the presence of a global superpower (the United States) who is throwing its weight around quite rashly.

As said, the world is connected. Newton's third law also applies to more then physics. For every force there is a reaction. Every action has consequences.

For example we have devoted millions to developing an artificial heart. That is needed to aid those ailing from heart disease. A leading cause of heart disease is red meat. Red meat is in high demand and its production is profitable. Cattle ranchers in Brazil destroy the rain forest to produce more. The dollars and dollars we have spent fixing the consequences of our dietary choices could be aiding the starving. Giving food to starving people in African countries destroys their agricultural industry, making them less able to feed themselves as a people.

The connections in this world are complicated. Everything is interwoven, tangled together, and part of a larger whole.

Any action we take w/ regards to Iran will have consequences, therefore any action we take, dove and hawk alike, needs careful consideration and prudence.

What can you do?

On a small scale this maybe giving the hungry a meal, on a large scale this is diplomacy that unites us together for the greater good, not diplomacy that tears us apart.

If we all look at the world through the glasses of a common goal, it will be and become a better place.

 

I could have never said it better myself Mr. gimp. Us against them or them against us, neither will solve the world's problems. It's too bad that someones 'god' gets all the blame. *sigh* I want to see discussion and not dogmatic beliefs being bandied about!

 

NASA's entire budget for 2007 for ALL 262 of their space-related programs was just under $17 billion (less than 0.8% of our total national budget), so I'd say your numbers are just a bit off.

The average STS flight cost is $397-414 million. There are currently 146 national programs that cost U.S. taxpayers more (the space program costs the average taxpayer per-year less than 10% of what they spend on an average single-month cable bill) and and show less tangeable results than NASA's programs.

Also, we're much more than just "pretty pix from space", but it's always been a waste of time trying to get that point across to the general public.

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Oh how I wish Chris still posted here.

 

I heard yesterday that Congress approved 70 billion of the 200 billion dollars our president asked for to fight his war for another year. That's over 15 shuttle flights.
And I for one would rather see that used for ''pretty pictures'' from space.
What doesn't seem to be getting said here is that politicians or nations don't fight wars. Our young men (and women) do!. Many of whom don't want to be there, don't know why they're there, are scared of dying every minute they're there (and many will), and who will have to live the rest of their lives with the physical and emotional scars that being there will put on them.
War should only be a last result, when every other possible avenue has been tried and failed. And only if there is a very real possibility that the results of the war are less then the possible result of no war.
Just before the war in Iraq started, North Korea had a nuclear program going (one capable of creating weapons grade material) That problem was worked out through political means. (Even though the guy in power there is crazier than any Middle Eastern dictator)
Why is the first thing our president wants to do is attack Iran? Wouldn't world sanctions against them work? Trade sanctions work well, if a country has no income they can't fight a war, fund expensive research, feed their people, or any of the things that a country needs to do to be a country.

Edit: I just read this. MY figures were wrong or the report i heard yesterday was.
In a 90-3 vote, it approved a further $189bn (£94bn) for the campaigns in Iraq and also in Afghanistan.

 

Keep in mind Congress had to approve his request, and it's currently a Democrat-controlled congress at that. If they are so dead-set against his war money, all they have to do is vote no. And they don't. They even dropped their end-date stipulations on this funding. Bush catches all the hell, but all in Washington are hypocrites. Go figure.

 

Thats not quite true if the army doesn't have the funding they will have less,gear,weapons and manpower to fight which will lead more of them to die,until the current administration says "we're pulling out" cutting funding would be a death sentence to many troops,I'm similarly annoyed that our troops funding is being cut even though non of them are being pulled out and they are being sent on more and more dangerous operations in Afghanistan every day.

 

Spending aside, we're stuck there. We created political chaos there, we've replaced a dictator with roving gangs of murderers (who only kill in the name of god of course.) Its quite the quagmire- pull out now and Iraq stays in hell. Stay in Iraq, get flack from the world, get hated more by the Iraqis, further increase stability making the hell worse while making it better.

That said, were would the manpower come for an invasion of Iran? We're streched to thin as it is. Conscription? Fat chance, like Rikky said they aren't enough jails to hold those that refuse to go. Perhaps we can higher some more mercenaries, of blackwater and the like. The logistics is a nightmare, to the best of my knowledge, we've never been involved in conflicts this large with a all volunteer army.

Economic consequences? Oil obviously comes to mind, the Saudi oilmen don't really care for the "shia dogs" (iranians.) so maybe they will increase production to make up for the loss of Iranian production. I kid myself, no they will take advantage of the astronomical oil prices that ensue, you think $3.00 a gallon is bad? It can get worse. I'd like to tell you that war with Iran would screw up the energy markets, and is a bad thing, but screwed up energy markets only mean one thing- higher profits.

Social consequences? I believe that if we continue to meddle in the middle east that Muslims will either unite against the common enemy (us) or they one group, perhaps the Sunni's will use it as an oppurtunity to attack the Shia's. Dividing the region even more But then again, even our temporary allies will get sick of us eventually.

It was said earlier in this thread that America likes to forget its past, the Middle East doesn't.
I friend of mine is a Muslim, I quote her "Over there they believe the crusades just happened yesterday." This war is being seen as a modern day crusade. Our motives are energy security, but they see it as an assault on their Holy Land.

The friction point is Jerusalem. If world war three occurs (no Mr. Bush it won't be Iran who starts it) it will begin with the conflicts in Israel.

We reap what we sow.

 

Grumbles original post was asking what the situation was. Is this February 2003 all over again? Is this the calm before the storm? De we actually have diplomats with some patients and foresight working on this?

 

Eventually we will have to leave. I don't necessarily like it, but what passes for a government in Iraq is disinclined to try to do their jobs. Those who do are targets. All we can do is make a good faith effort, let them know in advance when we've had enough (at which time they may actually get their stuff together... Nah).

I think Afghanistan will come together and be a success story. Different story, different outcome.

Since the CIA disclosure about Iran I don't think they have much to worry about. Bush has been neutralized on this issues, which was the CIA's intent I'm sure. The other side is Iran also knows we could change our minds if they give us cause, so their is some slight hope that when we get someone with a brain in office it can be worked out. I'm pessimistic about it, but it could happen.

 

I am wondering how true the CIA reports are after reading this:

Of course this last could be pure mis-leading propaganda.
I am also wondering what was meant by "insuring security" of the plant. Will it be security guards or will it be anti-aircraft batteries, ground-to-air missiles, and mobile radar?

 

Israel is run by religious radicals(fundamentalists, extremists- same thing.). Why we favor them i don't know. Just like the groups of Islamic extremists they are volatile, impossible to reason with, and blinded by religious ferver.

Iran has the right to develop nuclear power. But of course, only we, the united states, can have nuclear weapons, anyone else who has them is dangerous. So hypocritical.

Iran's ambitions are peaceful. If we are worried about terroists somehow stealing material- we should be more worried about the Stock Piles of the former USSR, ensuring everything is accounted for.

 

I don't agree, gimp. They are a country surrounded by enemies and although it is true that they can be a bit paranoid (well-earned paranoia after WWII and the wars of the 70's), they are merely worried about surviving as a nation.

Anyone has a right to nuclear power, but that fact that Iran is a questionable country (peaceful intentions?) makes their nuclear program questionable. Why did they develop uranium enriching technology? It can only be useful towards making weapons. If their intentions are to supply power for their country, why are they spending so much on a nuclear program. They have the richest supplies of oil and natural gas right there.

As far as nuclear weapons go, it would be great if NO ONE had them. I think that trying to keep more nuclear weapons from being developed is a good thing. Russia is an extremely large country and it is impossible to account for all their nukes. I believe even the US can not account for every one of ours and that is very sad.

 

Muskie, Israel is surrounded, they fight for survival. Agreed. However, because they're Judeo-Christian, they get a blind eye at times. Preemptive strikes are not always justified.

As far as Nuclear Weapons go, my point was double standards. We feel threatened by an Iran with Nuclear technology. My guess is they feel threatened by us. An animal when corned is most vicious/desperate. Any nation feeling threatened may act rashly. I'm not defending Iran, just pointing out what the consequences of our diplomacy.

It is odd that Iran would pursue Nuclear energy considering their resources. Lets investigate fully before we condemn.

 

@ gimp, good points and good discussion.
Keep it up, everyone. I like it when my brain hurts from too much info. LOL

 

Here's a washington post article on this event. Here's the link.

Its quite unnerving. It was an honest mistake, but it could have been avoided. What if the wrong missiles were loaded on a plane during a combat mission?

 

Let the countries leaders have a boxing match to decide the outcome :boxing

 

Lol Grumbles. Hmmmm Ahmadinejad vs. George

 

Just heard on the news that Russia has delivered its first shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran. Are the Russians doing this on purpose to agitate the rest of the Western world?
G

 

Something puzzles me and maybe some one has an answer. This is a statement about The UN Security council and sanctions it has made regarding Iran's "Nuclear Enrichment Program." (which is real or non-existent depending on where you read)

Now, if I remember correctly,
Russia is a member of the UN Security Council.
Iran needs fuel for it's reactor to run.
That reactor can be used to en-rich uranium.
That fuel was just sold to Iran by Russia.
Is it just me or is Russia violating UN sanctions? Why is this being allowed? What good is the UN, if it's own Security Council members violate it's own sanctions?
Does anyone have input on this?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7147463.stm

"Atomstroiexport said the containers of fuel had been inspected and sealed before delivery by the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7125701.stm

"The declassified summary of the report, which draws together information from the US's 16 intelligence agencies, says with "high confidence" that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 "in response to international pressure"."

 

Thanks, Shane....now I am asking more questions.

OK, let's say that for once U.S. Intelligence agencies are on the money this time. Why was that UN sanction passed in 2006? If there is no reason to worry about Iran's nuclear weapon's program, (and we shouldn't because U.S. intelligence is NEVER wrongrolleyes) then why did the most powerful nations in the world waste time passing a sanction against selling Iran anything that could be used towards uranium enriching? Have they done the same to every country out there that has reactors capable of uranium enrichment?
If anyone wonders why I am asking what may seem like stupid questions, it's because although I live in a country that I love, fought a war for, and live off a pension provided by that country, I know that our government thinks most of us can be fooled by a few well said words. Our newspapers are full of propaganda, the press gets told only what the government wants them to know, and I for one want to know what the real reasons are if there is to be another war that we can't afford or justify.
Looking into all I can find on this situation, it seems every other fact conflicts with the fact before it.

 

Re: Iran - what is the truth?

If you want to understand Mid-East politics, and why things are the way they are, and why there will never be any definite resolution to 'The Middle East Question', then one must make a study of the history of the region - especially after WWI, and beyond.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3860950

You have all heard of Colonel T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia). His Story is an interesting one. He was sent, basically as a means of extending British influence, in what was then known as Mesopotamia (Iraq), and the Arabian Peninsula.

An interesting report by Colonel Lawrence himself, circa 1920 can be found here:-

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1918p/mesopo.html


Okay, so now the United States, which has taken on the onus of 'World Policeman' from the former British Empire, ever since the British were basically told to get out and mind their own business in the Suez Crisis.

Times haven't changed much in the last century. The fact is, the mid-east still hasn't successfully recovered from the 500+ years of Turkish rule under the Ottoman Empire. The players have changed from the British/European powers of post WWI to the United States and the Middle East. The goals of resources, territory, and political influence remain the same, regardless of any attempts to obfuscate the matters with notions of so-called ‘peace and freedom’.

Another interesting read:-

http://dzarkhan.wordpress.com/category/serbia/

Also interesting to note, the post WWI policies of creating a Yugoslavia, supposedly to pacify the waring Balkan races also ties into this web of Colonialism, interference and intrigue. And the recent wars in that region.

 

Excellent point Musksnipe. Getting this question answered honestly is the hard part

 

Wow I am a neophyte in a land of giants. I thought I knew alot of hx (ie Pre and Post WW2) but you guys are way above my headrolleyes Also sorry for leading everyone off thread. Im new at this. Thanks Lev for the help. The issue of Iran is so complex. Unlike Pre WW2 times when we were somewhat isolationalist we are now entangled? in the global community. So should we just turn our backs and ignore situations like Iran or should we intervene and if we do how? I for one am glad Im not president since the issues are so complicated. I really enjoy the debate though.

 

Iran's ambitions to develop nuclear power has never been the issue. ALL the world's leadership will happily assist and have offered to assist Iran in this endeavor. However, Iran want's centrifuges and enriched uranium and breeder reactors(plutonium) and nuclear weapons. They are using the same playbook that Pakistan used. Heck, they are using the same enabler - Pakistan+USSR - Iran+Russia. There is far too much propaganda flying around about the rights to produce nuclear power, most of it by an uninformed press which is basically too lazy to research even a few meager facts. I live in a country that uses nuclear power. Our nuclear power doesn't require enrichment (no centrifuges) - doesn't produce weapons grade byproducts, but it can burn plutonium from bombs, thorium, or any other dangerous nuclear "waste" and it's fuel is naturally occuring Uranium(238). However, this reactor is totally useless to Pakistan, Iran, USA, Russia, England, France..... etc. because it doesn't do a thing toward building nuclear bombs. It is called CANDU and it only produces power - no bombs, and it's for sale. Look it up on the Wikipedia - CANDU

 

Prometheos, you're right about the propaganda flying around, it is hard to discern fact from fiction. My knowledge of Nuclear technology is limited. I understand the principles, but am by no means a physicist. You mention Pakistan and the way they acquired a Nuclear Weapon. To the best of my knowledge, the acquisition of Nuclear Weapons by both Pakistan and India still has not been approved by the UN. Correct me if I'm wrong. Kashmir being a friction point, there is obvious concern here.

If it is given that Iran is pursuing Nuclear weapons then their goal is undoubtedly to gain influence or leverage of some kind. My question then is what leverage, and why?

 

Destruction of the the State of Israel and to force the USA and it's allies out of Middle Eastern Politics. That's only a guess, though. LOL

 

Lol muskie, i was looking for someone's guess at a plot- not the goals.

 

OK, they want nuclear energy. That's OK.
They want to enrich their own uranium fuel. That's not OK.
Russia supplying the fuel. That's OK, if they retrieve the same fuel.
Who is going to ensure that there is none missing?
There has already been problems with watchdog programs in the Middle East and most fail. How are they going to follow through on this?

I think it's time to go build that "fallout shelter/PC room" I always wanted.

 

Excellent point to make. The Iranians will hide any evidence anyway

 

That really makes me question.

 

Agreed gimpster, when they don't allow the inspectors in until they have had time to cover up any suspicious activity :banghead

G

 

I'm worried, I'm of draftable age.

 

Don't worry, they'll make a man of you.

Honestly, if the government tries to get a draft going for an unwanted Middle East War on two fronts (Iran and Iraq), there would be a serious outcry from the public. There are too many of us, that vividly remember Viet Nam.

 

lol Rikky mentioned that earlier. It still weighs on my mind though. Could I die for this country? yes. Could I kill someone for my country? probably not.

 

@ gimp.... You'd be surprised what a person can do out of unconscious reflexive action. That's how heroes are made. Adrenaline, reflex, and fear make a very good combination for keeping people alive. I did some things when I was in the service, that if I would have had time to think before hand, I certainly doubt I would have chosen to do them.:eek

No need to worry though..... This situation will end up being upstaged by some other big crisis, the news world will center on that, and Iran's nuclear ambitions will be forgotten about, UNTIL they have a bomb. (I'm psychic) LOL That seems to be the way nowadays.
Yes, I am cynical about how today's events are handled by the government and the news. That's how North Korea got forgotten and in the mean time their missile program is getting closer and closer to being able to lob a warhead into our mainland. :mad

 

Thanks muskie.

You're right about our ADD of sorts regarding the media. Its quite pathetic. Every problem gets overlooked when something new comes along. We aren't finding solutions- just something else to draw our attention.

 

Thats the way governments like it to be

Keep the populace as distracted and confused as possible, stops us paying attention to all of the things that actually affect our daily lives

 

Couldn't have said that any better Shane

Down with governments :hammer

 

Your PM has some good news, Shane.

 

Yes, he is like a cool breeze on a hot summers day (sounds like an advert )

Finally a leader with a backbone - very confusing, surely it can't last

off topic, but he helped to stop the Japanese 'scientists rolleyes' hunting humpback whales in the southern ocean for a year or two as well :cool

Will be very interesting to know what his on-going stance will be on the 'instability' of other middle-eastern countries and how much right or responsibilty other countries have in determining their internal politics and international relations

 

I believe you have to follow military actions as far back as possible in order to understand the mind set of political goings on at any given point . It is a basis for hatred toward the US that festers for decades. Every action from the US feeds the fire until there is a catastrophe such as 911, not to mention it was tried before in 1993 only to fail with the destruction of the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center (perhaps in hopes it would fall if the foundation was destroyed)
In the 80's it was Iran we were at odds with and with the help of Iraq got the release of hostages. (Another story to look up) A person can not say that one particular incident set off this ridiculous war, it is a serious of events that goes back far then most were born. In order to make an accurate comment you would have to study the actions (what were made public) like a chain linking one event to another. Which I believe impossible because you never get the whole truth. Even those who know cannot reveal facts in fear of being tagged a traitor.

Anyway here is a starting point -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

PS my own personal opinion, the US wants to be the only country to have weapons of mass destruction.

 

By the way how do you feel watching this joker making light of the main reason for starting the war to begin with? Personally it pisses me off him joking while thousands die.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKX6luiMINQ

 

Seems Pakistan is the problem now. Fortunately the Russian and Chinese governments have much more to lose in the Iran, Pakistan, N. Korea mess than we do. We did our part, Saddam and Sons are foot notes in history. Unfortunately we will have to keep a foot on the ground in the region until the people of the region have a say in their governments, not just the mullahs and ayatollahs.

Bug

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address
Monday, March 4, 1861