2006-04-12

Iran: A Terrorist Threat or Another Excuse?

Please post comments to this! I want to know what people think. Is Iran going to destroy the US? Is the Bush administration going to invade?

For Bush, it's a matter of having an excuse to get rid of the country he still claims is provoking resistance in Iraq. Iran has been a threat since 2003 because it shares a border with Iraq, so Bush probably will invade for his own reasons.

While it's true that the US army would wipe out Iran long before it could do much to the US, it might appeal to the Jihadist mentality to take as many "infidels" with them as possible.

11 comments:

Dylan Schaffer said...

While the New Yorker and other media outlets report that Defense is operational when it comes to Iran, I stronly suspect this is an attempt to put pressure on the less hardline members of the Iranian power structure, rather than real war planning. We're already essentially bankrupt, and we can't possibly afford to bomb Iran, occupy Iraq, and continue to support social programs (SS, Medicare/Aid) that people in this country consider a birthright.

As for Iran, actually, I do consider them to be a serious threat. They will all but control Iraq shortly, and at least the present government is filled with loonies who deny the Holocaust &tc. That said, the worst thing we could do would be to bomb. Eventually (as I think would have occurred in Iraq had we been patient) the younger generation will tire of the Mullahs and demand all of the great stuff we love: Starbucks, Mission Impossible 9, &tc. If we go in now, we'll just create a new generation of would be martyrs.

Anschel said...

Eventually, a new generation will tire of violence, but it may be idealistic to expect it to happen in one generation. After all, the Crusades lasted more than 100 years altogether. A peaceful generation will come, but possibly not within our lifetimes.

Louise Simba said...

"Eventually a new generation will tire of violence". Do you have any idea how idealistic that is? Assuming that we get even the majority of a generation to tire of violence, one person is enough to start a war. And the only way to prevent that one person, is to either convince them (which will prove impossible in some case or another) or to take measures to mentally or physically prevent them from starting a war. This requires violence.
Just a note that I feel like making:
This point actually doesn't have much to do with the original discussion, but I'm gonna make it anway:
Also, let's assume that they don't want to start a war, let's just say that there's a kid who wants to have an arguement with their sister over the cereal. I would define war as an extreme fight or arguement which may or may not have anything to do with weapons or physical attacks. Then, if the kid who wants his sister's cereal is the extent of arguements/fights on earth, we can take my definition of war and see that extreme is a relative term. Voila, we have war again.

This peaceful generation will never come. Sorry for being cynical...

Anschel said...

On the contrary, a post-WWII Europe has already become peaceful and anti-war. And it doesn't take just a few loonies to start a war. It takes a few charismatic loonies.

Louise Simba said...

The people who want war tend to have a way of getting it. There's a difference between being "peaceful and anti-war" and actually no war. I agree that things have a chance of getting better, it's just a question of how much better.

Anschel said...

Forgive me for bluntness, but you're wrong. Plenty of people want war and don't get it, TV evangelists who want everyone else dead. But the one or two who have the charisma to get followers end up starting a (world) war and so we remember them. They are few and far between but we forget the others.

Cullen said...

Leaving aside Bush's motivations for bringing Iran to our attention, I'm not sure why anybody rational would be more worried about Iran than about North Korea. One is rattling something that may be a saber soon; the other has a saber factory.

I do agree with Dylan that the U.S. currently just doesn't have the money to do much invading and that economics will probably prevail. As for the eventual new generation, I don't see any reason to expect anything much different than what we've come to expect over the last 13,000 years or so. Reading Guns, Germs and Steel does a lot for putting these things in perspective.

Anschel said...

Over the course of maybe a thousand years nothing will be very different, but over maybe a hundred years there may well be a period of peace while the victims of the wars in the middle east are still alive

qamm said...

Iran itself is not a threat to the USA. Isreal has more to worry since there monopoly on the nuclear bombs(in violation of the NNP) is going to disaper. America wont dare go after Iran because it actually might have a bomb and would nuke isreal and try to go after another american allie would defintly cut off oil supply. also Iran has a very good army and defence so it would be quite hard. and the USA is boged down in Iraq.

qamm said...

that is npt not nnp

Moneybookers Casino said...

Speak to the point