Is Iran goading the U.S.?

[HEthePrimate]

Is it just me, or does it seem like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his cronies are actually trying to goad the U.S. into a conflict? From what I understand, there is a lot of political division and infighting in Iran, but if they were at war with the U.S., they could be united by the proverbial common enemy, and the current regime would be strengthened. A bit of a gamble, but one with great potential rewards for Ahmadinejad (or, as I like to call him, "Ahmanutjob").

[Just_A_Guy]

If they want a conflict, I think it's for theological and not political reasons.

Iraq and Afghanistan have put up a heck of a resistance at the grass-roots level. But the bottom line is that, before we invaded, Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar were running those countries. Hussein is dead. Omar remains on the lam, hasn't moved in open society in over a decade, and has had a number of family members killed in NATO airstrikes.

For all his bluster, I suspect Ahmadinejad has gotten the hint. If he truly wants war I suspect it's because he expects to die (or at least suffer greatly) for his ideals, not because he's trying to feather his own political nest.

[Tyler90AZ]

Is it just me, or does it seem like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his cronies are actually trying to goad the U.S. into a conflict? From what I understand, there is a lot of political division and infighting in Iran, but if they were at war with the U.S., they could be united by the proverbial common enemy, and the current regime would be strengthened. A bit of a gamble, but one with great potential rewards for Ahmadinejad (or, as I like to call him, "Ahmanutjob").

I don't think for a second they are goading the US. Iran does not want conflict, they want power. That is the whole reason they want nukes, for power, not for destruction. If they can attain a nuclear bomb, we actually have to listen to them. Even the threat of a nuclear bomb makes Iran a country we have to pay attention too.

That is what I have hated about US international policy, since nukes hit the scene. The us has what I call a paranoid international policy. Anybody who even thinks about creating a nuke has to be dealt with. Although I understand that the fear is they will use it, which would no doubt be catastrophic. However, I think that paranoia is unjustified about 75% of the time. Like I stated earlier countries just want power. I don't see Iran using a nuke, when they know it would mean total destruction to their country.

With that said, I think you are referring to the fact that Iran will reveal nuclear achievements. In my mind, they are trying to deter conflict with that move. They are either going to show the world they are using nuclear energy for the right reason, which could possibly put the world against an attack on Iran. Think about how most countries did not support us going into Iraq, it could potentially be the same situation. The other option would be to show they are close or have created a nuclear bomb. With that option, if deemed legitimate by the US, they would have the power they desire. That is at least what I think they are thinking.

In conclusion, I see no reason for the US to even attack Iran. Why attack someone just because were paranoid? If the US stopped having a paranoid international policy, we would have far less enemies. The only time I would consider an attack, which would be air strikes, if there is verifiable intelligence that they plan to use the nukes on the US or an ally, including Israel. Other then that it is a waste of human lives and dollars we don't have.

[NeuroTypical]

Iran is in a tough spot. Historically, it is the country that gets invaded by everybody. They're muslim, so they're often at odds with the nonMuslim world. They're Persian, so they're often at odds with the Arabs. They have to balance their alliances and deals carefully between Saudi Arabia and the US. They have a cool deal where they can sneeze at the strait of Hormuz and alter the global economic system, so they're a power, even if their power comes from a threat.

I work with an Iranian expat, he figures the best thing that could happen to that country is if the US invaded and killed the top ten or twenty levels of government so the people could start fresh. I don't know enough about it to have such a strong opinion.

[annewandering]

They claim they are building nuclear power plants. Ok lets be a good neighbor and go help them get them build and set up properly. Do all we can do to help them out.

[HoosierGuy]

I'm seeing more goading from the U.S. I admit I've not read any books on Iran and I really should.

In Iran's defense, they can not be controlled by the U.S./West/Wall Street like other countries. Have you noticed we have our military it Saudi Arabia and their treatment of women is beyond horrible. And yet Iran stands on it's own feet and does not bow down

to U.S. oil companies and we view Iran as bad. Plus Iran does allow the women some rights more than Saudi Arabia.

Look at who would gain in a war with Iran - the U.S. military complex and oil companies (if we won a war and gained control of Iran).

One thing I've heard repeated many times over the last twenty years - Iran is made up of many different factions, including a peaceful non radical faction. We may be seeing on U.S. TV only the radical Iran faction.

I'm starting to see the U.S. religious radicals similar to the religious radicals in Iran. They seem cut from the same piece of cloth.

[Just_A_Guy]

Plus Iran does allow the women some rights more than Saudi Arabia.

You mean, like, the rights to get shot by an Iranian sniper in a pro-democracy demonstration, bleed out the last moments of her life on international television, have her own government ban her family from holding a funeral, and then have her death blamed on the CIA? Those rights?

We may be seeing on U.S. TV only the radical Iran faction.

Yeah; the one that happens to control the Iranian government. Funny, that.

[Tyler90AZ]

You mean, like, the rights to get shot by an Iranian sniper in a pro-democracy demonstration, bleed out the last moments of her life on international television, have her own government ban her family from holding a funeral, and then have her death blamed on the CIA? Those rights?

Yeah; the one that happens to control the Iranian government. Funny, that.

That is not a good enough justification for the USA to go to war and it never has. If going to war with Iran does not benefit our interests we will never go. However, it does, so it looks like we will eventually. If violence by regimes was good enough to go to war, the US would be in many different countries by now. The violence in Sudan is ten times worse then that in Iran, but going to war with Sudan does not benefit our interests.

It is my personal belief that mass murder is justification for war. However, I can't think of a time when America has gone to war for that reason.

[Just_A_Guy]

That is not a good enough justification for the USA to go to war and it never has.

I agree. Then again, the fact that a nation is socially progressive is not an argument against war, if the provocation is severe enough.

If going to war with Iran does not benefit our interests we will never go. However, it does, so it looks like we will eventually.

The scary thing is that it looks an awful lot like we've already engaged in acts of war against the Iranians--unless we really have had the Israelis doing our dirty work for us where the assassination of all these nuclear engineers is concerned--and they are beginning to respond in kind (recently tried to take out an Israeli diplomat (in India, I think?) who was en route to pick up his kid from an American embassy school).

As far as conventional warfare, though, I only see that happening if they close the Straits of Hormuz or if we finally commit to bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.

If violence by regimes was good enough to go to war, the US would be in many different countries by now. The violence in Sudan is ten times worse then that in Iran, but going to war with Sudan does not benefit our interests.

I think it's always a good moral reason to go to war; but nations rarely act on the basis of solely moral considerations.

It is my personal belief that mass murder is justification for war. However, I can't think of a time when America has gone to war for that reason.

Well, it's often sold to the people as the primary basis for the war; but it's not necessarily foremost in the politicians' minds.

[Traveler]

Historically, traditional Christianity has been much more of a threat to humanity than Iran. Interestingly the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants warn of pending wars and violence but a careful reading indicates that it is the threat within the hearts and minds of men in our own land that is the greater threat.

As for myself I distrust much more those that promise to give me something without asking for anything in return than those that threaten to take away something without giving anything back. The latter seem to be more honest and by personal experience less of an actual threat.

BTW this plays out for me concerning religion as well

The Traveler

[HEthePrimate]

I sincerely hope it doesn't come to war with Iran. It would be a lot uglier than Iraq or Afghanistan, and a lot more bloodshed on both sides.

It would be nice if the current government fell out of power and more moderate factions took over, but I'm not holding my breath. (Here's hoping they'll prove me wrong!) Eventually it may happen, but for now, the current rulers won't go without a fight. Obviously.

[Traveler]

I sincerely hope it doesn't come to war with Iran. It would be a lot uglier than Iraq or Afghanistan, and a lot more bloodshed on both sides.

It would be nice if the current government fell out of power and more moderate factions took over, but I'm not holding my breath. (Here's hoping they'll prove me wrong!) Eventually it may happen, but for now, the current rulers won't go without a fight. Obviously.

Just wondering - do you really think war with Iran is more probable than war between Republicans and Democrats in the USA - that already have access to all kinds of weapons of mass destruction? - As well as weapons of mass economic destruction - that are already being used?

The Traveler

[Guest]

Just wondering - do you really think war with Iran is more probable than war between Republicans and Democrats in the USA - that already have access to all kinds of weapons of mass destruction? - As well as weapons of mass economic destruction - that are already being used?

The Traveler

Traveler, reality check. Both Republicans and Democrats are Americans. Engaging in war between the two involving weapons of mass destruction, economic or otherwise, is going to kill both parties. Nobody wants to commit suicide in America. Of that, I'm fairly certain. Politics has always been divisive. That's why it is impolite to talk politics at a non-political dinner party. Today is no different from the time of Washington or Adams. Even the Civil War came and went without any intention of blowing up masses of civilians.

[Traveler]

Traveler, reality check. Both Republicans and Democrats are Americans. Engaging in war between the two involving weapons of mass destruction, economic or otherwise, is going to kill both parties. Nobody wants to commit suicide in America. Of that, I'm fairly certain. Politics has always been divisive. That's why it is impolite to talk politics at a non-political dinner party. Today is no different from the time of Washington or Adams. Even the Civil War came and went without any intention of blowing up masses of civilians.

Hmmmm: You should study the history of the USA Civil War. I do not know of a war where civilians as well as prisoners of war were treated worse – even including what the Japanese did to the Philippines during WWII. Many believe that the prophesies of Joseph Smith concerning Missouri were fulfilled during the “burning of the South” near the end of the Civil war. The entire state of Missouri was in essence burned to the ground and many southern Missouri soldiers returned home after the war to discover their families had been slaughtered.

But I would point to some other facts – prior to the “Great Depression” 90% of the farm land in the USA was under private ownership by families. After the “Great Depression” 80% of the farm land in the USA belonged to corporations of financial institutions. A similar thing has just happened with the stimulus as we all sat back and watched as all the remaining privately (family owned) loaning institutions were ruined and put out of business or taken over by hostile takeover.

Please review D&C 38:29

The Traveler

[Guest]

Hmmmm: You should study the history of the USA Civil War. I do not know of a war where civilians as well as prisoners of war were treated worse – even including what the Japanese did to the Philippines during WWII. Many believe that the prophesies of Joseph Smith concerning Missouri were fulfilled during the “burning of the South” near the end of the Civil war. The entire state of Missouri was in essence burned to the ground and many southern Missouri soldiers returned home after the war to discover their families had been slaughtered.

Yes, I did study the history of the US Civil War. You must be kidding me with the statement I bolded above. I guess you forgot the mass murder of Jews in World War II. The Kansas/Missouri strife does not hold a single candle to that!

But I would point to some other facts – prior to the “Great Depression” 90% of the farm land in the USA was under private ownership by families. After the “Great Depression” 80% of the farm land in the USA belonged to corporations of financial institutions. A similar thing has just happened with the stimulus as we all sat back and watched as all the remaining privately (family owned) loaning institutions were ruined and put out of business or taken over by hostile takeover.

And this is relevant to Republicans versus Democrats waging war against each other using weapons of mass destruction... how?

Please review D&C 38:29

The Traveler

This verse does not support the idea that Republicans and Democrats are going to wage war using weapons of mass destruction. This verse is fulfilled, not just by the Civil War, but every single day in our daily war against non-Christian values within our own homes.

[Tyler90AZ]

More Americans died in the Civil War then any other war. I don't think were afraid to kill each other over differences!

[Guest]

More Americans died in the Civil War then any other war. I don't think were afraid to kill each other over differences!

Of course. It's the only Americans versus Americans war of that magnitude. Americans don't usually kill other Americans in any other war.

It's not a matter of killing each other over differences. It's the idea that a Republican or a Democrat is willing to use weapons of mass destruction - including economic means - to settle their political differences. Which is rather silly. A Republican or a Democrat dropping a weapon of mass destruction is not only going to kill a Democrat or a Republican. It will kill everybody - Democrat or Republican. It would be different if you have a war between the State of New York versus the State of Florida. Sure, Rick Scott could possibly launch a nuclear attack against New York. Which is virtually impossible since Florida doesn't own a single warhead. Only the American military does. And they're not under the governor of Florida.

Edited February 16, 2012 by anatess

[NeuroTypical]

I've heard it said that the issues dividing left and right today, are wider and more divisive than those dividing north and south back then. We've enjoyed a handful of generations of US citizens not going to war against each other. It's easy to forget that we've done it at least twice in the past, and it is always happening in some country in the world.

Here's one vote for Traveler's notion being "not silly".

[Guest]

I've heard it said that the issues dividing left and right today, are wider and more divisive than those dividing north and south back then. We've enjoyed a handful of generations of US citizens not going to war against each other. It's easy to forget that we've done it at least twice in the past, and it is always happening in some country in the world.

Here's one vote for Traveler's notion being "not silly".

LM, The silly thing is the use of weapons of mass destruction. Not the war.

[volgadon]

Hmmmm: You should study the history of the USA Civil War. I do not know of a war where civilians as well as prisoners of war were treated worse – even including what the Japanese did to the Philippines during WWII.

I can think of a few that were far worse. The Armenian Genocide, the destruction of Galician Jewry in WWI, the Russian Civil War, WW2 and the various ethnic cleansings in it...

[NeuroTypical]

LM, The silly thing is the use of weapons of mass destruction. Not the war.

The history of warfare isn't exactly a study of people showing restraint. Although again, recent generations have only post WWII memories of US actions to go by.

Nope - still voting not silly.