Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jun 16, 2013, 06:51:38 PM
Never said it wasn't a legitimate concern, hence why I wrote "war hawks over here and in Israel" - I wasn't referring to our governments in general rather than some people/divisions in both our governments who want war because it is profitable in so many different ways. They (i.e. warhawks) love to have an excuse to spend more money on the military rather on civilian programs. A moderate Iranian president is sickly enough a bad thing to them, turning grand visions of lucrative war, power and big oil into a fizzling little pipe dream.
But most of those 'war hawks' I've heard comments from hold those position because of
legitimate concerns. In Israel's case, it's even more drastic, because they'd face a threat to their very existence if it became a nuclear power. America is large enough to absorb several strikes if it had to, as horrific as that would be. Israel is incapable of that.
They don't have those concerns because they want to spend money for the sake of it. They have those concerns because of the regime's track record and very public statements (some of which don't necessarily get reported in the media we, in the West, happen to listen to or read, because they requires translating first).
Politicians would love nothing
more than to spend as much money as possible, just keeping their voters happy. Guaranteed re-elections! When they're forced to spend it on defence-related concerns, it's either because they have personal experience of it or because intelligence is essentially forcing them to.
QuoteAs f***ed up as Iran is it is not a psychotic nation.
The nation, by way of its people, isn't. They, however, are not the ones in power. Just as an example, Ahmadenijad is now out, but was well known for being a 'Twelver'. Someone who believes they need to hasten the arrival of an messianic Islamic figure, by doing whatever they can to plunge the world into global war. The entire
regime is essentially founded on the principles of martyrdom - they'd
happily sacrifice millions of their people if they thought it would serve their ends.
Ordinary Iranians? Most of them are fine. I know some very cool Iranians. But they all pretty much agree that the regime is batshit insane.
QuoteThe loose cannon in the region is Israel, at least when it comes to foreign aggression.
If Israel truly wanted to, it could have annihilated all its enemies in the surrounding area, a
long time ago. If it was even half as aggressive as some make it out to be, the entire region would either be glass or assimilated into Israeli territory.
Doesn't mean it hasn't taken some wrong steps (as every nation does), but their military actions are taken with a defensive posture in mind. They've got the power to do a hell of a lot more. They choose (and much prefer) not to.
Remember, Israel does a great deal of trade. It would be a lot more profitable for them to simply get on with that and tourism.
QuoteIran is more of a cold war equalizer than a real threat to Israel.
Except it routinely calls for death and destruction to Israel, America and their allies, along with actively supporting and training terrorist groups.
At
best, even if they were somehow restrained from using a nuclear device on Israel (or America, considering they consider that an even greater enemy), you'd
still have to worry about them palming some off to other groups - and it
would spark a new nuclear arms race in the region. Other countries, like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, are
much more scared of what a nuclear Iran would do than even Israel is. To be honest, I'd be surprised if they weren't already gearing up to gain their own nuclear weapons because of how Iran is failing to be deterred.
And if you think Iran's a diplomatic pain now, imagine the kind of extortion it's going to carry out when it gets the leverage of nuclear threats (whether of a personal nature or simply saying it'll 'feel pressured by the present political climate' to let groups like Hezbullah have them).
QuoteProxy wars in the Middle-East is a long tradition, which we (the U.S.) have participated in from the get-go. The Middle-Eastern mess is all about proxy wars manufactured by conservatives from all camps, be it the U.S., Israel, Russia, Iran etc. A softer more moderate Iranian approach can only be considered a positive thing even if it's just for show. It's a gateway drug so to speak.
Wrong. The President's just a mouthpiece. Has very little power. The Supreme Leader is the one who's still calling the shots - and has no reason to change from the path they've been going down, all this time. The President can moderate very little.
And the West hasn't done nearly the same as what Iran has in the area. One could easily say that the Iraqi situation wouldn't have been nearly as bad as it had, were it not for the what Iran was constantly pumping over the border. Both in terms of arms, people, money and training. Quite a few reports over the years even pointed out how US troops were encountering Iranian Republican guard personnel.
The West has dirty hands, sure, but not nearly to the same degree. And let's not forget the plot which came to light in recent months, where Iran planned to blow up a restaurant on US soil, to get at Saudi diplomats. Utterly insane and tantamount to a declaration of war, but they were still happy to try and help it happen. That's the kind of mentality the regime has.
QuoteBut it is a step in the right direction. Slow change is still change, even if it seems superficial at first.
It only matters a damn if concrete steps in a moderate direction are taken. Otherwise, it's just lots of talk and happy smiles.
