IRAN-Where Will It End?

[big_teee]

Iran Continues to work on Nuclear Fission.
NATO and US, Boycott and Post Sanctions on Iran.
Iran Threatens to Shut Down the Straight of Hormuz.
Iran Sentences Ex Marine to Death Sentence.
Iran Nuclear Scientist Bombed and Killed.
Iran Blames the US and Israel.
This has the Possibilities to Drive The Price of Oil Through the Roof!
So the Question, is where will it end.
What do you think The Free World Needs to do with Iran?
Terry

[Bill Moore]

Turn Israel loose!
I think they are being subtle now taking out the eggheads one at a time.

[big_teee]

Turn Israel loose!
I think they are being subtle now taking out the eggheads one at a time.

I Agree!
However the Ex-Marine Death Sentence, gives different and new dimension?
T

[hasserl]

Keep in mind that Saudi Arabia and the other Arab countries don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons any more than the West does. The killing of the nuclear physicist yesterday could very well have been done by the Arab contingency, though nobody is mentioning that right now. They prefer to keep a low profile and let the West, i.e. the US and Israel, take the heat. If, for instance, Israel was to take action against Iran to destroy their nuclear program, you would not hear a word of protest from the Arab countries, none of whom trust Iran or are pleased at all with their aggression.

[Mark Hammer]

About 5-6 years ago, I was reading an article on the Brookings Institution website pondering the "What should we do about Iran?" question. I wrote back to the author, describing an article I had read in our local newspaper, about a year or more before the invasion of Iraq. The article was an interview with an Iraqi ex-patriate who was a research physicist, and had left Iraq because conditions were lousy for people like him, he was grossly underpaid and underfunded, and he felt he got a raw deal compared to people with his skillset working in Europe or North America (scientists DO keep tabs on the state of professional perks and compensation rates). Moreover, a lot of his physicist buddies had also left Iraq for the same reasons.

After reading the interview, I was not the least bit surprised when Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors (GREAT band name, by the way!) failed to find anything in Iraq that wasn't rusty and abandoned. Quite simply, you need the resident brain power to fuel weapons initiatives. They don't ALL have to be Werner Von Braun, but if you don't have a stable crew, you won't get anywhere.

So, I suggested to the writer of the Brookings policy paper that maybe the strategy to implement with Iran was to have industry and government recruiters combing the parking lots of Iran's best post-secondary engineering and physics departments, making bright people tasty offers. The idea intrigued him immensely. Whether anything happened with it, I don't know.

Certainly the targetted assassination strategy, apart from being illegal and immoral, has had limited utility. Israel thought it would solve all their problems, but it hasn't. The CIA thought it was doing the right thing with that strategy, but the world is not a better place because of it. There was a brief period where Israel's strategy of flying in and bombing a military installation to turn back the clock worked well, but I think that period is now past its expiry date.

Why do people think something radical needs to be done about Iran? Why do we feel we are gaining something by preventing them from having capacity for regional détente? Do we want Saudi Arabia to be the permanent "big player" in the region? I'm every bit as irritated b the actions of the Iranian government, the Revolutionary Guard, and the religious police, and Ahmedinejad's annual anti-Israel ravings at the U.N. as anyone here, but that doesn't mean military action is called for. Why play the game?

I think it is also fair to suggest that Iran's sabre rattling also comes at a time when they know that there is little appetite for military expenditures amongst all the western nations trying to get their fiscal house in order. Sometimes, when you walk past a house with a barking dog, you just need to keep walking without looking back at the dog if you want the barking to stop.

[jmaf]

"There are two things which are infinite, the universe and the stupidity of humankind. I'm not too sure about the universe yet." (Or something like that.)
- Albert Einstein

[big_teee]

So, I suggested to the writer of the Brookings policy paper that maybe the strategy to implement with Iran was to have industry and government recruiters combing the parking lots of Iran's best post-secondary engineering and physics departments, making bright people tasty offers. The idea intrigued him immensely. Whether anything happened with it, I don't know.

I guess it was presumed that it a Grenade or a Bullet was Easier or cheaper.
Also for discussion is the Issue with the Straights of Hormuz.
I am retired and selfish in my Motive, but we Don't need 5 or 6 dollar a Gallon Gas right now!
T

[big_teee]

"There are two things which are infinite, the universe and the stupidity of humankind. I'm not too sure about the universe yet." (Or something like that.)
- Albert Einstein

What's your Point!
BTW I like the Avatar!
B_T

[jmaf]

What's your Point!
BTW I like the Avatar!
B_T

Hihi. Glad you liked it. LabSeries L5, solid state though But the King is allowed to use solid state and still sound like the King.

The point about the Einstein quote?? This is how the entire world is watching this Iran/USA/Israel thing: http://i.minus.com/ic0kW4.gif

Bah, another war....turn on CNN.

[big_teee]

Hihi. Glad you liked it. LabSeries L5, solid state though But the King is allowed to use solid state and still sound like the King.

The point about the Einstein quote?? This is how the entire world is watching this Iran/USA/Israel thing: http://i.minus.com/ic0kW4.gif

Bah, another war....turn on CNN.

Agreed!
Don't Forget Murphy's Law.
Whatever Man Can F-Up, He will, and at the Worse Possible Moment!
T
Edit**
My Daddy Said that He Knew Murphy Was an Optimist!

[jmaf]

Agreed!
Don't Forget Murphy's Law.
Whatever Man Can F-Up, He will, and at the Worse Possible Moment!
T
Edit**
My Daddy Said that He Knew Murphy Was an Optimist!

That's right. This is the worst possible moment. I used to fill my gas tank with 20 Reais( about 20 dollars back in 1998 ) - today it's R$ 130 (U$ 65) minimum for a full tank.

So your dad knew Murphy! That's pretty cool, the guy coined one of the greatest popular wisdoms ever....I think of Murphy's law at least twice a day on average.

[hasserl]

Why do people think something radical needs to be done about Iran? Why do we feel we are gaining something by preventing them from having capacity for regional détente? Do we want Saudi Arabia to be the permanent "big player" in the region? I'm every bit as irritated b the actions of the Iranian government, the Revolutionary Guard, and the religious police, and Ahmedinejad's annual anti-Israel ravings at the U.N. as anyone here, but that doesn't mean military action is called for. Why play the game?

Well, just to play Devil's Advocate here, there is the fear that if Iran does acquire nukes, then Saudia Arabia will also go about acquiring them, as will Turkey (who already houses US nukes) and other states in the area. The theory is that it will greatly accelerate nuclear armament, in a vastly unstable part of the world; not a situation most people find very comforting. There is also the problem with Iran being a huge sponsor of international terrorism, and the fear that nuclear weapons will likely end up in the hands of those that are likely to use them on US or on Israel. And should that happen the world will be a very different place than it is today. You think the TSA and Homeland Security are bad now? You aint seen nothing yet. Lost enough individual liberty to the Patriot Act and Defense Authorization Act? Think you might loose a bit more if nuclear weapons end up in the hands of terrorists and are used someplace? And think the world economy is bad now? What do you think will happen in the case of a nuclear explosion in a major US city? Think the markets might crash? Think your retirement fund might loose some value? Think you might end up out of a job? Think you might loose your house and all your belongings? End up living out of a van down by the river? Think working on guitar amps and electronics for fun and profit might be the last thing on your mind? So, does that explain why some people might think something needs to be done about Iran?

Not that I buy into all of that. I'm kind of a Ron Paul guy. I'm just not too sure about his foreign policy ideas though.....

[jmaf]

Just watch this and you don't need another word on the subject: Hardball with Chris Matthews

[hasserl]

I would caution against making too much of anything you see/hear from Chris Mathews or Hardball. Chris is notoriously biased in his handling of issues, and speakers that he has on his program are carefully chosen for the slant or spin they will put on the story.

[Chuck H]

So... The question is (?) "Is it OK to censor the military prowess of a nation??? While I do agree with the general population of the planet that it's probably bad for Iran to have WMB's (I wouldn't give a sadistic child a kitten and a pocket knife on the same day for similar reasons), I have a hard time understanding how it's accepted that a nieghboring nation can blow up their military installations to abate military growth. The US is still a world power. What if the USSR had decided that we'd gone far enough with our technologies and taken whatever measures they deemed necessary to halt progress. Would that reasoning have been acceptible to the US and the rest of the world? And what EXACTLY is the difference between this scenario and Israel using military force to abate Iran's nuclear program???

It all comes down to $$$ anyway. The US manipulates the entire arena so that it can remain a world power. Confusing to me then is why the US decides to fabricate the rules in this circumstance but allowed China to advance so rapidly in taking over the world manufacturing market. Like I said, it all comes down to $$$. Seats in US corporations are making too much money shipping US materials to China with no taxes and re-selling the products back to the US. This is going to be the demise of the US. Individual greed allowed to prosper under the rights of capitolism. Not that I'm not a capitolist. But isn't it reasonalble that if it'sOK to allow Israel to bomb Iran for the purposes of maintaining control in the region that some US internal faction, recognizing the ultimate detriment of big corporate greed, should be allowed to bomb such companies in the interest of preserving the American way of life? Isn't that the exact same reason we allow Israel to bomb Iran?

What about the issue of increasing carbon in our environment due to fossil fules??? This is of great concearn to me. Should I be allowed to bomb BP oil since it is certainly all for the greater good.

Face it. Someone besides the lower and middle class makes decisions on how it's ALL going to go down before knuckleheads like us even start discussing it.

Honestly... No matter how it gets spun or how many angles there are to the discussion it always amounts to the same thing. The top 1% manipulate ALL things so that they can have what they want in THIS life.

Someone give one valid reason why Iran shouldn't be allowed to pursue military advancement like any other nation. That is, one reason that isn't "because we're afraid of what they'll do... Who isn't afraid of any well appointed military?

[jmaf]

I would caution against making too much of anything you see/hear from Chris Mathews or Hardball. Chris is notoriously biased in his handling of issues, and speakers that he has on his program are carefully chosen for the slant or spin they will put on the story.

I take such caution with every mainstream media outlet. I listen to internet radio a lot, one of these days I "tuned" into some guy named Alex Jones. Jesus....the world is being taken over by communist aliens from mars. So I take stuff with a grain of salt naturally.

But these folks were on the air and that's MSNBC so I figure: either they're going to get debunked in 5 minutes, or maybe they've got a point. I've since been to CNN and Reddit and nobody's debunked their theory yet, in fact, quite the contrary....

But anyway, so much for afterhours news analysis. I just hope more lives aren't lost, nobody needs another war right now.

[Chuck H]

I just hope more lives aren't lost, nobody needs another war right now.

Nobody ever needed any of the wars. Contrary to my previous post (and to demonstrate that I'm not entirely blind to the other side of the issue), when you allow power mongering there comes a point when you can't just stay indoors and avoid the issue because someone will bust down the door and take all your stuff. Maybe even kill you.

I'm glad Iran doesn't have WMB's. I might even say I'm glad that their progress is kept in check. But it doesn't mean I can pretend it's righteous.

[jmaf]

Nobody ever needed any of the wars. Contrary to my previous post (and to demonstrate that I'm not entirely blind to the other side of the issue), when you allow power mongering there comes a point when you can't just stay indoors and avoid the issue because someone will bust down the door and take all your stuff. Maybe even kill you.

I'm glad Iran doesn't have WMB's. I might even say I'm glad that their progress is kept in check. But it doesn't mean I can pretend it's righteous.

I dig what you're saying, and during my rush hour car jams I've thought about Iran having WMD's. I like to think in extremes to see if something makes sense. I think, wait if it's bad for Iran to have a nuke, let me pretend then that someone GAVE them a bunch of nukes. What would they do..... If you think about the scenarios presented by the mass media, you'll see all of them are ridiculously childish.

So they keep repeating "Iran can't have WMD's because they'll wipe Israel off the map or give them to terrorists."

But wait a minute..... Osama Bin Laden, the worst terrorist ever, wasn't caught in Iran, he was caught in a country which has nuclear weapons...

This is not like Hitler is standing outside your door and you must take action. This is more like your crazy f'n neighbor is yelling "let's kill El Niño" out his window and wants you to help him shoot imaginary invaders.

[big_teee]

I dig what you're saying, and during my rush hour car jams I've thought about Iran having WMD's. I like to think in extremes to see if something makes sense. I think, wait if it's bad for Iran to have a nuke, let me pretend then that someone GAVE them a bunch of nukes. What would they do..... If you think about the scenarios presented by the mass media, you'll see all of them are ridiculously childish.

So they keep repeating "Iran can't have WMD's because they'll wipe Israel off the map or give them to terrorists."

But wait a minute..... Osama Bin Laden, the worst terrorist ever, wasn't caught in Iran, he was caught in a country which has nuclear weapons...

This is not like Hitler is standing outside your door and you must take action. This is more like your crazy f'n neighbor is yelling "let's kill El Niño" out his window and wants you to help him shoot imaginary invaders.

You guys are having too much Fun!
He was caught in Pakistan, and Yes they do have the Nukes.
Personally I hope there is a Day that all Countries are without Nuclear.
We did downsize a couple of times with USSR.
I am hoping that North Korea will not take up where Kim Left off.
I realize the UN is far from Perfect, but hopefully there will be a day of world Denuclearization.
We still need to watch the lil B____ds in Iran!
T

[Chuck H]

All points are valid. Too bad the decisions are made by people with alterior motives. Our choice is to live with it, or don't live. Influencing the outcome isn't even a possibility for mere mortals.

[Mark Hammer]

About 10 years ago, I had an Iranian student in one of my classes, and in discussion outside of class, he told me how Tehran's population had mushroomed to a barely manageable 10 million, as a consequence of the Iran-Iraq war and so many migrating away from that western border. Essentially Tehran became the victim of an internal refugee problem. I suspect a lot of those less urbane types who relocated to Tehran are partly responsible for Mahmoud Amedinejad getting elected as first Mayor of Tehran and eventually President. There IS a reason why the guy never wears a tie.

What's my point? Iran doesn't give a rat's ass about the U.S., or even about Israel. What so many long-time observers will tell you is that it simply wants to be BMOC in the Persian and Muslim world. It wants to be in that little universe what the U.S. is in the NATO/UN/OECD world. It wants to be bigger news than Bahrain, than Qatar, then Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAR, Dubai, Syria, Jordan, and even Pakistan. And it wants leverage to do so. That leverage sometimes comes by bombastic acts at the UN, by brinksmanship with the superpowers, and by Shia-on-Sunni violence. So any weapons it would acquire or develop would be for applying leverage locally.

Now, do nuclear weapons, when deployed, have a predictably confined (spatially and temporally) effect? Not really. Does Iran need another refugee problem with folks crowding their borders from neighbouring states that have just been "blowed up real good"? I would imagine all those current transplant residents of Tehran who voted for Amedinejad would say "No".

Besides, whatever economic lousiness that globalization imposed on many parts of the world, one of the good things it has done is made it so that you can't blow up one part without it having dire economic consequences in a whole lot of other parts. And Iran can't live off of pistachios and oil alone.

[Chuck H]

Besides, whatever economic lousiness that globalization imposed on many parts of the world, one of the good things it has done is made it so that you can't blow up one part without it having dire economic consequences in a whole lot of other parts. And Iran can't live off of pistachios and oil alone.

So all the politics and posturing are really just a guise to hide the fact that were a bunch of pimps and whores.

[tedmich]

the only guaranty that a country won't get invaded or bombed is nukes; lets hope they get a couple and the US munitions Mfg. get to "dump" their products elsewhere. Without Mfg. "conflicts" money for pentagon is ripe for cutting, Brookings/think tanks too.

[Mark Hammer]

Not sure what you mean. Expand a bit.

[hasserl]

So... The question is (?) "Is it OK to censor the military prowess of a nation??? While I do agree with the general population of the planet that it's probably bad for Iran to have WMB's (I wouldn't give a sadistic child a kitten and a pocket knife on the same day for similar reasons), I have a hard time understanding how it's accepted that a nieghboring nation can blow up their military installations to abate military growth. The US is still a world power. What if the USSR had decided that we'd gone far enough with our technologies and taken whatever measures they deemed necessary to halt progress. Would that reasoning have been acceptible to the US and the rest of the world? And what EXACTLY is the difference between this scenario and Israel using military force to abate Iran's nuclear program???

Seriously Chuck? You're seriously analogizing Iran and the US?

It all comes down to $$$ anyway. The US manipulates the entire arena so that it can remain a world power. Confusing to me then is why the US decides to fabricate the rules in this circumstance but allowed China to advance so rapidly in taking over the world manufacturing market.

I think you're exaggerating the ability of the US to control or "manipulate" global economic development. China has advanced because they have moved toward economic freedom and the US has declined as they have moved away from it

Like I said, it all comes down to $$$. Seats in US corporations are making too much money shipping US materials to China with no taxes and re-selling the products back to the US. This is going to be the demise of the US. Individual greed allowed to prosper under the rights of capitolism.

It's basic economics and free markets forces. If you want to "save" the US, the answer is really pretty simple, turn towards economic freedom. The natural forces that exist in a free market will always seek equilibrium. Competition improves the breed. There is nothing wrong with a strong competitor like China, if you don't like the way things have developed the problem is not with US corporations, it is with politicians and the policies they put in place. If you seek a change to reverse a shift in manufacturing strength from the US to China, then you need to change the politicians and the policies that have resulted in that shift.

Not that I'm not a capitolist. But isn't it reasonalble that if it'sOK to allow Israel to bomb Iran for the purposes of maintaining control in the region that some US internal faction, recognizing the ultimate detriment of big corporate greed, should be allowed to bomb such companies in the interest of preserving the American way of life? Isn't that the exact same reason we allow Israel to bomb Iran?

Wow! You're way out on a limb there buddy. Dude, the problem isn't the corporations, it is the government. The corporations are only doing what corporations do. If the tubes in a vintage amp burn up because you've changed the power transformer to one excessive voltage, the problem isn't with the tubes, the problem is with the transformer. Getting angry with the tubes doesn't do any good, they're just doing what tubes do. Taking out your anger on the tubes will not help, addressing the voltage problem will.

What about the issue of increasing carbon in our environment due to fossil fules??? This is of great concearn to me. Should I be allowed to bomb BP oil since it is certainly all for the greater good.

Of course not, first of all there is no proven problem with increasing carbon in our environment, from fossil fuels or anything else. If that is of great concern to you, then you really need to educate yourself better on the whole topic. But, even if it were, BP is not even the largest supplier of fossil fuels, ExxonMobile is about twice as large; but even ExxonMobile is peanuts compared to the big guys in the oil industry, I.e. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, etc. ExMo controls about 3% of the worlds oil reserves. Bombing them would not yield very much reduction in the production of fossil fuels.

Face it. Someone besides the lower and middle class makes decisions on how it's ALL going to go down before knuckleheads like us even start discussing it.

Honestly... No matter how it gets spun or how many angles there are to the discussion it always amounts to the same thing. The top 1% manipulate ALL things so that they can have what they want in THIS life.

Someone give one valid reason why Iran shouldn't be allowed to pursue military advancement like any other nation. That is, one reason that isn't "because we're afraid of what they'll do... Who isn't afraid of any well appointed military?

Well, I thought I gave some pretty good, rational reasons above. Certainly some worth consideration, no? Have you ever even heard Ahmadinejad speak? Have read ANYTHING about Iran and state sponsored terrorism? Do you think it is all a figment of imagination? Google

[hasserl]

I take such caution with every mainstream media outlet. I listen to internet radio a lot, one of these days I "tuned" into some guy named Alex Jones. Jesus....the world is being taken over by communist aliens from mars. So I take stuff with a grain of salt naturally.

But these folks were on the air and that's MSNBC so I figure: either they're going to get debunked in 5 minutes, or maybe they've got a point. I've since been to CNN and Reddit and nobody's debunked their theory yet, in fact, quite the contrary....

But anyway, so much for afterhours news analysis. I just hope more lives aren't lost, nobody needs another war right now.

Yeah, you really have to take it ALL with a grain of salt. I don't think there is one source of unbiased news these days, EVERY source puts a spin on their reporting. Chris Mathews and MSNBC are some of the worst of the whole bunch.

[J M Fahey]

Israel the WEST ????????

I think teaching Geography should be compulsory.

[Mark Hammer]

Jacobo Timerman ( Jacobo Timerman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) was a Jewish Argentinian newspaper publisher and journalist who was jailed and tortured during the military junta years. When he was finally freed, he ended up moving to Israel. It didn't take very long before he moved back to Argentina in disappointment with what he found there. I read an interview with him once, maybe it was a book excerpt, in which he said "I thought Israel was in Europe (implying the culture was akin to what he was used to). It's not. It's in the Middle East."

Even those who ought to know better make the mistake and think of Israel as part of "the West".

[hasserl]

Israel the WEST ????????

I think teaching Geography should be compulsory.

Maybe not geographically, but politically and economically it is. Sometimes you have to think in a little broader terms. I'm quite aware of the location.

[J M Fahey]

Dear Friends, rest assured that I think in *very* broad terms.
Much broader than what some of you may imagine.
That´s why I do not get hooked in the latest trend pushed by (quite ignorant by the way) Journalists but refer to straight History.

And, what does History tell me?:

1) Israel has a *very* old tribal conflict with
a) Babylon (A.K.A Iraq), please check Babylonian captivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
b) Assyria (mostly Iraq, part of Persia/Iran ) , please check Assyrian captivity of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
c) Persia (A.K.A. Iran) although, curiously, Persians are the least villains of the History, because they freed the Israelites and let them go back to build the Second Temple.

2) Persia/Iran has not attacked anybody for over 2000 years.
Make that 2500 and you will be closer. Now that´s a record !!

Israel has been pushing others to fight its wars for them. (guess who)
No, not only USA but France and the British Empire too.

Old History? ..... maybe .... but much alive today, and affecting our future as well.

[hasserl]

Funny, I thought Israel has only been in existence for ~60 years. Maybe teaching of history should be compulsory.....

[J M Fahey]

Fully agree, it should.

[big_teee]

2) Persia/Iran has not attacked anybody for over 2000 years.
Make that 2500 and you will be closer. Now that´s a record !!

History might have been different, If they had their hand on the Nuke Button all this time.
Like I said before about the UN not being perfect.
Hopefully whatever World decisions are made Concerning Iran, will be supported and share through Nato and the UN.
Peace,
Terry

[km6xz]

Your evidence that Mathews distorts the facts?

If anything he is pretty conservative, but too even handed and willing to compromise to allow a net-positive outcome to be called conservative in the current practical definition.

[hasserl]

Dude, I don't know what version of reality you live in where you think Mathews is conservative, but whatever. Call the sky green too if it makes you happy.

I didn't say he distorts facts, I said he is "biased in his handling of issues", and "speakers that he has on his program are carefully chosen for the slant or spin they will put on the story."