Iran executes people for being gay and rape victims. Iran executes foreigners without giving them a trial and without giving them access to legal assistance from their home country. by definition iran is a rogue country, it does not abide by international law. Iran is entirely undefendable in every respect.
Closing the strait of hormuz is an act of war against the entire global community, it is clearly written in international law. Iran know this. So to carry forward with it means they know they are intentionally breaking international law. Iran doesn't own the strait of hormuz, but they like to think they do. They honestly think they have a supreme right to hormuz, even though it's bordered by many countries. It's like if you shared a parking lot with 4 other business's and one of them decided they wanted to blockade the entire parking lot and claim complete ownership of it. To think you own a strait all the way up to the shores of the other countries that border it is preposterous, and very enlightening on irans totalitarian views. Irans stance on the hormuz would be like if the US said it owned the oceans on either sides all the way to the shore of england, japan, china, etc.
Say what you will about the previous wars, they were all justified in their own ways.
while they didn't go exactly as planned, the reason for that was because the US restrained itself. you can't bomb a terrorist cell if they're held up in a school, or if they surround themselves with their women and children. you can't easily fight those who use the innocent as human shields.
If anyone knew any actual history about iran, even just the last 50 years condemns them in the world community. a war with iran has been a long time coming and would be unavoidable.
There is no question over irans nuclear intention. they sealed that once they started building facilities deep in a mountain, a strange move for a peaceful nuclear energy program.
if they weren't developing weapons, they could make a joke of the US and let them bomb the above ground facilities and show in the wreckage that these were indeed peaceful facilities, then not only would there be backlash from the world community against the US, but the US would compensate them and apologize. Of course they can't go this simple route because they do have something to hide. They've been enriching uranium beyond even medical purposes, which is the highest you can go until it's no longer used for anything else but weapons. This fact is public knowledge even Iran can't deny. on top of that they've been developing neutron initiators which the only use for is to trigger nuclear explosions, and have been designing nuclear cores with suspiciously exact specifications to fit their shahab missiles.
Iran has brought everything upon itself. It started with them being suspicious with the nuclear inspectors, whether denying access to certain parts of facilities or entire facilities for seemingly no reason, or inspectors noticing that much of the facilities they were shown were actually a front that could have served no purpose in nuclear enrichment, etc. There was just a lot that was out of place. There were even facilities that iran didn't want the inspectors to know existed, and when the inspectors asked to see those, iran was shocked that they even knew they existed and declined access to them. very suspicious.
See, all iran had to do is allow nuclear inspectors to inspect its facilities and this entire problem would go away in an instant. That's all they ever had to do. If they had nothing to hide, there would be zero harm in complying. One has to ask why iran is willing to risk so much over something so simple if they had peaceful nuclear intentions.
Now some people might think like 'oh well that's like a violation of rights or something, you don't have to let police search you even if you have nothing to hide! so why should iran comply?'. well this is different because drugs in your pocket aren't going to kill millions of people in a nuclear fury.
Any reasonable country would have never let it get this far. But Iran is run be religious extremists from the dark ages.
We may be technically capable of leveling their infrastructure & military, but any such attack would likely scuttle the little progress that we've made in repairing our economy from the last fiasco (Afghanistan & Iraq). We're already $15 Trillion dollars in debt and adding to that by about a Trillion a year, another war would likely add $1.5-2 Trillion on top of that. Economists are already freaking about our current debt load, so much being added so quickly would probably send us into a deep recession, not the mini one we're just starting to pull out of.
Where are all of these "bully" attacks of which you speak? I don't recall the U.S. launching a single attack at Iran even though we've had a slew of attacks from THEIR proxies (i..e, Hezbollah/Hamas). The Khobar incident I alluded to above was just ONE instance.
What you don't appear to "get" is that we have held back from protecting ourselves and our interests from Iran for FAR too long. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a warmonger but you're confusing the bully/target.
You're tragically mistaken to underestimate Iran's intentions in the Middle East. They have as much innocent American blood on their hands as Libya's Qaddafi did. Iran maintains a VERY aggressive, anti-U.S. agenda and backing off ONLY empowers that agenda. It does NOT eliminate the danger.
Dr. Paul's views are beyond delusional when it comes to the issue of Iran.
I hope in 40 years Tehran can be as grand and as modern as any Asian city [or American city for that matter]. I hope that Iran can expand outwards and influence the world with their unique culture. Not with hate and violence. That is no way to make a mark.
I'm completely on board with those fiscal concerns, but the biggest threat to U.S. financial/economic strength comes from state owned enterprises (SOE's) in China, India and Brazil, NOT military threats from Iran.
Hopefully, you'll be able to access it. If not, you'll find the article in the February 3rd issue of The Wall Street Journal. It can also be found by Googling the title.
Afghanistan's official government sheltered and protected Bin Laden and Al Quaeda's physical infrastructure (training camps and such). They refused to hand over their 'guests' after those same guests were determined beyond a reasonable doubt to have perpetrated 9/11, which qualifies as an act of war. By sheltering the organization who executed 9/11, Afghanistan took responsibility for them. The US attack on Afghanistan was NOT pre-emptive in any way, it was provoked and fits the (somewhat absurd in concept) definition of a legal war.
It was just gravy that the Taliban were a bunch of misogynistic fanatical f**kers that the majority of the world were happy to see bombed to hell.
Iran has yet to fully comprehend what the U.S. is capable of doing to them. One would think they would have learned something from what happened just to the west of them in Iraq, but we're more than capable of reminding them AGAIN. The U.S. may not be good at nation-building, but we're hell-on-wheels when it comes to taking them back to the Stone Age.
Ronald Reagan should NEVER have allowed Iran to get away with the Khobar towers/Lebanon attack after their link to Hezbollah and that attack was confirmed. He should have taken the fight STRAIGHT to the Revolutionary Guard and Mullahs with pin point missile attacks.
First, I'd like to say that I agree with you: Taking out sensational "Iran" from the headline and replacing with Country, you get something as obvious as "Country threatens to hit any [other] country used to attack its soil" which all of a sudden seems commonsensical. This is something the US and indeed many many other countries have done and continue to do.
What I do not understand, however, is your claim that America was justified in her strikes of Afghanistan. What exactly were these justifications? 911? Oil? AlQaeda? I was of the impression that by now, everyone understood that America's preemptive strikes on Afghanistan were immoral, unjustified and illegal o_O.
There's some misunderstanding about both incidents so I thought I would shed some light on both incidents. It appears Iranian-backed Hezbollah had ties to both attacks, including the Khobar Tower attacks in Saudi Arabia and Marine Barracks in Lebanon.
Uhh, mister saddam-did-911, it was AlQaeda who bombed the Khobar Towers, not Iran. It was Iran/Hezbollah which bombed the USMC barracks in Lebanon, though.
But the US gifted Lebanon to Syria and Hezbollah as thanks for Syria's help against Saddam during the first Gulf War.
Middle Easterners are so quick to screw each other over that they almost make Americans look honest by comparison - Almost.
How many ways can I say this before you "get" it? Iran is the PROVOCATEUR in the ongoing conflict, NOT the U.S. Their history and rhetoric PROVE it. As further proof, catch ONE speech by the Iranian President at the UN, then compare it to the U.S. response. Geopolitical events fail to support your thesis.
The REASON "mutually assured destruction" DOESN'T work on Iranian Shiite radicals is because they think martyrdom is a GOOD thing. Imagine what one of their suicide bombers would accomplish if they could drive a truck with a thermonuclear weapon strapped to it. The world can't afford to be as naive as you are being.
Do yourself a favor and educate yourself about cultural differences. Cultural ignorance always contributes to poor geopolitical judgment.
cantstopwontstopFeb 6, 2012Buried
Iran executes people for being gay and rape victims. Iran executes foreigners without giving them a trial and without giving them access to legal assistance from their home country. by definition iran is a rogue country, it does not abide by international law. Iran is entirely undefendable in every respect.
Closing the strait of hormuz is an act of war against the entire global community, it is clearly written in international law. Iran know this. So to carry forward with it means they know they are intentionally breaking international law. Iran doesn't own the strait of hormuz, but they like to think they do. They honestly think they have a supreme right to hormuz, even though it's bordered by many countries. It's like if you shared a parking lot with 4 other business's and one of them decided they wanted to blockade the entire parking lot and claim complete ownership of it. To think you own a strait all the way up to the shores of the other countries that border it is preposterous, and very enlightening on irans totalitarian views. Irans stance on the hormuz would be like if the US said it owned the oceans on either sides all the way to the shore of england, japan, china, etc.
Say what you will about the previous wars, they were all justified in their own ways.
while they didn't go exactly as planned, the reason for that was because the US restrained itself. you can't bomb a terrorist cell if they're held up in a school, or if they surround themselves with their women and children. you can't easily fight those who use the innocent as human shields.
If anyone knew any actual history about iran, even just the last 50 years condemns them in the world community. a war with iran has been a long time coming and would be unavoidable.
There is no question over irans nuclear intention. they sealed that once they started building facilities deep in a mountain, a strange move for a peaceful nuclear energy program.
if they weren't developing weapons, they could make a joke of the US and let them bomb the above ground facilities and show in the wreckage that these were indeed peaceful facilities, then not only would there be backlash from the world community against the US, but the US would compensate them and apologize. Of course they can't go this simple route because they do have something to hide. They've been enriching uranium beyond even medical purposes, which is the highest you can go until it's no longer used for anything else but weapons. This fact is public knowledge even Iran can't deny. on top of that they've been developing neutron initiators which the only use for is to trigger nuclear explosions, and have been designing nuclear cores with suspiciously exact specifications to fit their shahab missiles.
Iran has brought everything upon itself. It started with them being suspicious with the nuclear inspectors, whether denying access to certain parts of facilities or entire facilities for seemingly no reason, or inspectors noticing that much of the facilities they were shown were actually a front that could have served no purpose in nuclear enrichment, etc. There was just a lot that was out of place. There were even facilities that iran didn't want the inspectors to know existed, and when the inspectors asked to see those, iran was shocked that they even knew they existed and declined access to them. very suspicious.
See, all iran had to do is allow nuclear inspectors to inspect its facilities and this entire problem would go away in an instant. That's all they ever had to do. If they had nothing to hide, there would be zero harm in complying. One has to ask why iran is willing to risk so much over something so simple if they had peaceful nuclear intentions.
Now some people might think like 'oh well that's like a violation of rights or something, you don't have to let police search you even if you have nothing to hide! so why should iran comply?'. well this is different because drugs in your pocket aren't going to kill millions of people in a nuclear fury.
Any reasonable country would have never let it get this far. But Iran is run be religious extremists from the dark ages.
jhw539Feb 5, 2012Buried
Why is this news? Duh. America would do - has done, in its justified strike against Afghanistan - the exact same thing.
ano233Feb 6, 2012Buried
We may be technically capable of leveling their infrastructure & military, but any such attack would likely scuttle the little progress that we've made in repairing our economy from the last fiasco (Afghanistan & Iraq). We're already $15 Trillion dollars in debt and adding to that by about a Trillion a year, another war would likely add $1.5-2 Trillion on top of that. Economists are already freaking about our current debt load, so much being added so quickly would probably send us into a deep recession, not the mini one we're just starting to pull out of.
eraptorFeb 5, 2012Buried
Where are all of these "bully" attacks of which you speak? I don't recall the U.S. launching a single attack at Iran even though we've had a slew of attacks from THEIR proxies (i..e, Hezbollah/Hamas). The Khobar incident I alluded to above was just ONE instance.
What you don't appear to "get" is that we have held back from protecting ourselves and our interests from Iran for FAR too long. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a warmonger but you're confusing the bully/target.
You're tragically mistaken to underestimate Iran's intentions in the Middle East. They have as much innocent American blood on their hands as Libya's Qaddafi did. Iran maintains a VERY aggressive, anti-U.S. agenda and backing off ONLY empowers that agenda. It does NOT eliminate the danger.
Dr. Paul's views are beyond delusional when it comes to the issue of Iran.
laborerFeb 6, 2012Buried
I hope in 40 years Tehran can be as grand and as modern as any Asian city [or American city for that matter]. I hope that Iran can expand outwards and influence the world with their unique culture. Not with hate and violence. That is no way to make a mark.
eraptorFeb 6, 2012Buried
I'm completely on board with those fiscal concerns, but the biggest threat to U.S. financial/economic strength comes from state owned enterprises (SOE's) in China, India and Brazil, NOT military threats from Iran.
Here's what I'm referring to:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577198833989249406.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_2
Hopefully, you'll be able to access it. If not, you'll find the article in the February 3rd issue of The Wall Street Journal. It can also be found by Googling the title.
jhw539Feb 6, 2012Buried
Afghanistan's official government sheltered and protected Bin Laden and Al Quaeda's physical infrastructure (training camps and such). They refused to hand over their 'guests' after those same guests were determined beyond a reasonable doubt to have perpetrated 9/11, which qualifies as an act of war. By sheltering the organization who executed 9/11, Afghanistan took responsibility for them. The US attack on Afghanistan was NOT pre-emptive in any way, it was provoked and fits the (somewhat absurd in concept) definition of a legal war.
It was just gravy that the Taliban were a bunch of misogynistic fanatical f**kers that the majority of the world were happy to see bombed to hell.
laborerFeb 6, 2012Buried
The war is not against the people of Iran, though their 'leaders' would make us engage in that ugly fight.
Our fight is against intolerance in the world, violent religious fundamentalism.
Look at what happened in Asia.
Who would have guessed at time WWII, or the Korean War or the Vietnam War that current day Seoul and Tokyo would look as they do.
That Japan would be the 3rd largest economy in the world. That South Korea could go from nothing to a major economic player.
Specifically, look at where the US got involved, and where they didnt.
South Korea vs North.
If only those Korean people could have been spared the years of famine and hardship brought on by their 'leaders'.
laborerFeb 6, 2012Buried
How about their own comments?
Didnt you just see Khamenei speak? He calls Israel a cancer that they wont back down from destroying.
We have EVERY reason to believe they would.
Im_High_TechFeb 6, 2012Buried
^ Good Stuff.
eraptorFeb 5, 2012Buried
Iran has yet to fully comprehend what the U.S. is capable of doing to them. One would think they would have learned something from what happened just to the west of them in Iraq, but we're more than capable of reminding them AGAIN. The U.S. may not be good at nation-building, but we're hell-on-wheels when it comes to taking them back to the Stone Age.
Ronald Reagan should NEVER have allowed Iran to get away with the Khobar towers/Lebanon attack after their link to Hezbollah and that attack was confirmed. He should have taken the fight STRAIGHT to the Revolutionary Guard and Mullahs with pin point missile attacks.
uthmanFeb 5, 2012Buried
First, I'd like to say that I agree with you: Taking out sensational "Iran" from the headline and replacing with Country, you get something as obvious as "Country threatens to hit any [other] country used to attack its soil" which all of a sudden seems commonsensical. This is something the US and indeed many many other countries have done and continue to do.
What I do not understand, however, is your claim that America was justified in her strikes of Afghanistan. What exactly were these justifications? 911? Oil? AlQaeda? I was of the impression that by now, everyone understood that America's preemptive strikes on Afghanistan were immoral, unjustified and illegal o_O.
eraptorFeb 6, 2012Buried
There's some misunderstanding about both incidents so I thought I would shed some light on both incidents. It appears Iranian-backed Hezbollah had ties to both attacks, including the Khobar Tower attacks in Saudi Arabia and Marine Barracks in Lebanon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing
jaketyson85Feb 6, 2012Buried
plz dude, dont be so paranoid. iran has ZERO chance of doing jack s**t to us anyway. we would drone them into oblivion before they could even fart.
tylorlilesFeb 6, 2012Buried
its not that hard. remember london was devastated by the v-2 rockets.
tylorlilesFeb 5, 2012Buried
im calling that bluff(iran's) and raising iran 2 CSG's and a SSBN.
sanmanFeb 6, 2012Buried
Uhh, mister saddam-did-911, it was AlQaeda who bombed the Khobar Towers, not Iran. It was Iran/Hezbollah which bombed the USMC barracks in Lebanon, though.
But the US gifted Lebanon to Syria and Hezbollah as thanks for Syria's help against Saddam during the first Gulf War.
Middle Easterners are so quick to screw each other over that they almost make Americans look honest by comparison - Almost.
eraptorFeb 6, 2012Buried
@nerys,
How many ways can I say this before you "get" it? Iran is the PROVOCATEUR in the ongoing conflict, NOT the U.S. Their history and rhetoric PROVE it. As further proof, catch ONE speech by the Iranian President at the UN, then compare it to the U.S. response. Geopolitical events fail to support your thesis.
The REASON "mutually assured destruction" DOESN'T work on Iranian Shiite radicals is because they think martyrdom is a GOOD thing. Imagine what one of their suicide bombers would accomplish if they could drive a truck with a thermonuclear weapon strapped to it. The world can't afford to be as naive as you are being.
Do yourself a favor and educate yourself about cultural differences. Cultural ignorance always contributes to poor geopolitical judgment.
tylorlilesFeb 6, 2012Buried
correct. they had joined the taliban which was using afghanistan as a base.
uthmanFeb 5, 2012Buried
I thought that the majority (entirety) of the pilots on the alleged planes in the 9/11 attack were from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?