|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 6, 2007 10:39:59 GMT -5
One of the main bones of contention is Iran's refusal to recognize Israel, which is why Ahmanijedad's actual statements have gotten blown out of all proportion, in addition to the economic incentive to sell advertising space. However just as survivors of the holocaust are not unjustified in thinking everyone's out to get them, Iranians have justification in being suspicious of the motives of the Jewish bankers who were responsible for Israel's creation in the first place. I think his attitude is more one of, by all means, let the Jews return to the land of their fathers if they so wish, but there's no need to use all the money and influence in the world to redraw political boundaries and evict the people already living there to do it, simply because you can. In Iran's history, there is the case of Cyrus the Great, who after sacking Babylon, simply told the Jews they could return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple if they wished and his policy in the holy land apparently did not extend beyond that. For this he is mentioned in the Bible 23 times, by name, 150 years before his reign. Oh I remember the Persians from history class. Our history book indicated that, contrary to their portrayal in that movie 300, the Persians were not as cruel as the other powers of the day. They allowed their colonies to maintain as much of their culture and religion as possible. The Persian court also was very cosmopolitan at that time. I also remember those prophecies ... in the Book of Daniel for instance. Back to the topic, I don't the U.S. can afford to invade Iran. The U.S. has already sunk $1.6 trillion on Iraq, and it can't afford to spend any more on an even bigger war, given that its own economic house is in disarray.
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 7, 2007 1:57:38 GMT -5
Back to the topic, I don't the U.S. can afford to invade Iran. The U.S. has already sunk $1.6 trillion on Iraq, and it can't afford to spend any more on an even bigger war, given that its own economic house is in disarray. - Would you think an invasion of Iran was justified if it could be afforded? Would you like to see one? Does this new intelligence change your thoughts in any way?
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 7, 2007 4:53:02 GMT -5
Back to the topic, I don't the U.S. can afford to invade Iran. The U.S. has already sunk $1.6 trillion on Iraq, and it can't afford to spend any more on an even bigger war, given that its own economic house is in disarray. - Would you think an invasion of Iran was justified if it could be afforded? Would you like to see one? Does this new intelligence change your thoughts in any way? I was only speaking factually. Morally, I don't think the war on Iraq was justified in the first place; and neither is any planned invasion of Iran. I did not read the article, but as far as I'm concerned, the new intelligence does not change my stance.
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 8, 2007 22:37:05 GMT -5
The rhetoric continues apace, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates : "Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents -- Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike," he said.
"There can be little doubt that their destabilizing foreign policies are a threat to the interests of the United States, to the interests of every country in the Middle East, and to the interests of all countries within the range of the ballistic missiles Iran is developing."- Does anyone buy this position? I'd very much like to hear a debate about it, it's something I know little about but it's looking like it could become one of the central geopolitical issues of our time.
|
|
Mr Brad Pitt
Full Member
Social Retard Spreading Sh.i.t
Posts: 467
|
Post by Mr Brad Pitt on Dec 8, 2007 23:22:12 GMT -5
The position of US government serves Iran's interests in a way, helping Mahmoud bragging about resistance against the so-called US imperialism.
Conversely, Iran's position is usefull for all the whole world against USA/war on terror/shock and awe sh.it in the mouth of US officials since 2001.
As usual, there's no smoke without fire. Offering some help to iraqi insurgents, like for making road-side bombs, costs little to Iran for a great ROI. Saddam being dead and DPRK a bit tricky to deal with, the "threat trick" becoming less and less effective at home, Mahmoud has been seen as the new public puppet for the Withe House.
|
|