Report: Iran Paying Taliban to Kill U.S. Troops

Originally posted by utherpendragon
It seems to me Irans nuke obsession is for offensive measures not defensive.

Offensive? No. There's no credible scenario. Decades of systematic dehumanization of foes might make it possible to come up with one that relies on the suspension of geopolitical reality, historical perspective and human nature. I've heard, for instance, "Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the map so that's what they will do with nuclear weapons". Yeah, sure. Might work on the tabloid front pages or have a kind of "Two Minute Hate" quality for the drum beat to war. But, as I said, there is no credible scenario.

Originally posted by FMF
Offensive? No. There's no credible scenario. Decades of systematic dehumanization of foes might make it possible to come up with one that relies on the suspension of geopolitical reality, historical perspective and human nature. I've heard, for instance, "Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the map so that's what they will do with nuclear weapons". Yeah, sure. Mig ...[text shortened]... te Hate" quality for the drum beat to war. But, as I said, there is no credible scenario.

If I were in Isreal I dont think I would be viewing statements like that as a tabloid head line sort of thing.

So,I gather you are saying Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is all bluff? Means nothing?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
It seems to me a nuclear deterrent is unfounded because if the U.S. had plans for a military action resulting in a regime change that they could of done it by now.

And yet the threats to attack Iran, whether they be overt or implicit - even the ostentatious pronouncements about how nuclear strikes are under consideration alongside conventional means of attack - continue unabated. No wonder Iran seeks a nuclear deterrent. You look at the region, look at the map, look at who has nuclear weapons, where they are deployed, who is friendly and who is not - it could scarcely be clearer that a nuclear deterrent is necessary in Iranian eyes.

Originally posted by FMF
And yet the threats to attack Iran, whether they be overt or implicit - even the ostentatious pronouncements about how nuclear strikes are under consideration alongside conventional means of attack - continue unabated. No wonder Iran seeks a nuclear deterrent. You look at the region, look at the map, look at who has nuclear weapons, where they are deployed, who ...[text shortened]... who is not - it could scarcely be clearer that a nuclear deterrent is necessary in Iranian eyes.

I wonder if the run of the mill moderate Iranian citizen feels this way or just the fundamental zealots in power.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
So,I gather you are saying Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is all bluff? Means nothing?

Ahmadinejad is a here today gone tomorrow politician whose stock in trade is rhetoric and bluff and whose position - president - is not a very powerful one. Ronald Reagan was by far a more powerful politician and yet his talk of Nicuraguan communists invading the southern U.S. and taking over your country was seen as the rhetorical bluff that it was. Tony Blair suggested the other day that radical Islam is the biggest threat facing the world. Nobody serious about world issues takes such self-serving rhetoric seriously. Iran is a pragmatic regional power that has, in many ways, run circles around the West for three decades. So. You reckon Ahmadinejad is a really important figure then and that he could decide to have Iran commit suicide?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
I wonder if the run of the mill moderate Iranian citizen feels this way or just the fundamental zealots in power.

I have friends working for NGOs in Iran (or who used to). Not a scienticfic survey, but a source of real life information from intelligent friends whose analysis I take on board. Apparently, many of your typical middle class professional Iranians would favour a nuclerar deterrant. Perfectly understandable.

Originally posted by FMF
I have friends working for NGOs in Iran (or who used to). Not a scienticfic survey, but a source of real life information from intelligent friends whose analysis I take on board. Apparently, many of your typical middle class professional Iranians would favour a nuclerar deterrant. Perfectly understandable.

Do you gather many of your typical middle class professional Iranians would favour a regime change?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
It seems to me a nuclear deterrent is unfounded because if the U.S. had plans for a military action resulting in a regime change that they could of done it by now.

It seems to me Irans nuke obsession is for offensive measures not defensive.

What would they gain by using nuclear weapons offensively?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Do you gather many of your typical middle class professional Iranians would favour a regime change?

Are you serious? Do average Iranians want democracy and free and fair elections or do they prefer a dictator? What do you think?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Do you gather many of your typical middle class professional Iranians would favour a regime change?

Regime change orchestrated by a foreign power? Yes a few. But mostly yer typical middle class professional Iranians want to change it themselves as quickly or as slowly as they can, whilst remaining alive, and having a real say on what it is changed to. The few - around that NGOs dinner table - that would welcome U.S. intervention probably number as many as those who support the status quo. So I hear.

Originally posted by FMF
Regime change orchestrated by a foreign power? Yes a few. But mostly yer typical middle class professional Iranians want to change it themselves as quickly or as slowly as they can, whilst remaining alive, and having a real say on what it is changed to. The few - around that NGOs dinner table - that would welcome U.S. intervention probably number as many as those who support the status quo. So I hear.

Alright. Its the wee hours of the morn here and quite frankly,I am appalled we got through a night w/out insulting one another.
Until next time, good night!

Originally posted by FMF
[b]Ahmadinejad is a here today gone tomorrow

Who was there before Ahmadinajad? Who will be there after? The same with US presidents. Are they really much different than the other? Basically you place an empty suit in these posts with pretty much the same political backing.

The real question is will the regime change? Nope, not unless it is overthrown. Is the regime in Iran a danger to world peace? Well lets see, they have conducted a war against Israel via terrorist groups and continue with inflammatory rhetoric towards them. They have waged a war in Iraq and Afghanistan via insurgencies with the US and continue inflammatory rhetoric, and now they are a hairs breath away from developing nukes. The only reason the US or Israel would attack them would be because of WMD's.

Having said that, do you really think that the world will be a safer place if the Iranians develop nukes?

Originally posted by whodey
The real question is will the regime change? Nope, not unless it is overthrown.

Well if you're writing an airport novel or a PlayStation game plot then, bingo, you've asked the right question, and you've answered it in the way that'll get you the gig. Your six word analysis could even double as the trite tagline on the cover.

Originally posted by whodey
Having said that, do you really think that the world will be a safer place if the Iranians develop nukes?

Apart from the U.S. using them offensively in 1945, nuclear weapons have always been a military deterrent. Countries that develop and deploy them always do so in order to make themselves safe and the world a safer place for them. So, yes, I do believe that the world will be a safer place for Iranians if their government develops a nuclear detterent.

Originally posted by FMF
Apart from the U.S. using them offensively in 1945, nuclear weapons have always been a military deterrent. Countries that develop and deploy them always do so in order to make themselves safe and the world a safer place for them. So, yes, I do believe that the world will be a safer place for Iranians if their government develops a nuclear detterent.

It has been a deterent for the secularized nations. However, what about theocracies? Do they look at death the same way? In fact, what about the children blowing themselves up in the streets of Israel? Would they do so if it was not for the 72 virgins awaiting them?

Wait a second. If a "martyre" dies who is a child, will the 72 virgins still be awaiting him? I say Allah needs to impose age limits for this sort of thing!! 😠