Retired general: U.S. can live with a nuclear Iran

[bishop]

despite what st. reagan said, mutually assured destruction is a very solid theory. you nuke someone, expect to get nuked in return - i.e. nuking your enemy will not gain you anything.

i don't particularly buy the "mischeivous nation" argument, especially since iran's policies are all examples of blowback from our own imperialist policies. mishceivous nations are those constantly meddling in the affairs of other nations, and we are far more guilty of that than any other nation in the world.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: bishop despite what st. reagan said, mutually assured destruction is a very solid theory. you nuke someone, expect to get nuked in return - i.e. nuking your enemy will not gain you anything. i don't particularly buy the "mischeivous nation" argument, especially since iran's policies are all examples of blowback from our own imperialist policies. mishceivous nations are those constantly meddling in the affairs of other nations, and we are far more guilty of that than any other nation in the world.

Why this effort to infantalise countries with whom the USA has quarrells? Is it not possible that they too have their own interests and desires in the world independent of the USA?

[bishop]

let's delve into the two most well known reasons for why our governments don't get along (not to be confused with our people)... 1. we imposed the shah, a brutal authoritarian despot. 2. we supported iraq in the iran/iraq war and gave iraq the chemical weapons that were used on the iranians (we even blocked censure of iraqi usage of chemical weapons at the UN).

all of this goes back to my previous criticism of your "mischevious nation" argument.. i see us as being no better, when you own up to reality/history.


all said, we are no more and arguably no less mischeivous than other nations. we also have the capability to turn iran into a pile of ashes should they use nukes against us. we can, and should if need be, live with a nuclear iran.

we've already seen what the "war is a preferable option" mindset has yielded - and those fruits are pretty rotten if you ask me (re: quagmire).

[BobbyO]

Quote by: bishop let's delve into the two most well known reasons for why our governments don't get along (not to be confused with our people)... 1. we imposed the shah, a brutal authoritarian despot. 2. we supported iraq in the iran/iraq war and gave iraq the chemical weapons that were used on the iranians (we even blocked censure of iraqi usage of chemical weapons at the UN). all of this goes back to my previous criticism of your "mischevious nation" argument.. i see us as being no better, when you own up to reality/history. all said, we are no more and arguably no less mischeivous than other nations. we also have the capability to turn iran into a pile of ashes should they use nukes against us. we can, and should if need be, live with a nuclear iran. we've already seen what the "war is a preferable option" mindset has yielded - and those fruits are pretty rotten if you ask me (re: quagmire).

There has been a Shah in Iran for a couple thousand years. It was nothing imposed by the USA. Mosadegh (where this line of thinking usually comes from) actually was violating Iranian law by his efforts against the Shah. He was also quite the secular Moslem, being quite fond of the USSR and wishing to divide out religion and state. He was scarcely the poster boy for the Ayatollahs.
As far as the war, yep, the USA sold arms to Iraq. It also sold arms to Iran.

[The Decider]

Quote by: BobbyO There has been a Shah in Iran for a couple thousand years. It was nothing imposed by the USA. Mosadegh (where this line of thinking usually comes from) actually was violating Iranian law by his efforts against the Shah.

The CIA and other western intelligence agencies funded and participated in the military coup against Mosadegh. Are you denying that fact?

[bishop]

actually, it looks more like he's trying to suggest it doesn't matter.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: bishop actually, it looks more like he's trying to suggest it doesn't matter.

If you wish to argue that the overthrow over Mossadegh is what defines contemporary Iranian views of the USA, yes.

[bishop]

heh.. overthrowing a country's leader doesn't matter. and since you conveniently chose to ignore our role in the iran/iraq war, i'll assume you think that doesn't matter either.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: bishop heh.. overthrowing a country's leader doesn't matter. and since you conveniently chose to ignore our role in the iran/iraq war, i'll assume you think that doesn't matter either.

Heh...
Mosasadegh was a seculat PM, not an Islamic fundamentalist. The current regime would have no patience with him.

The usual critique of the USA role in the Iran/Iraq War is convoluted. The USA, it is usually (conveniently) forgotten sold weaponry to Iran (it is what made Oliver North a star).

Iranians, as a people, have generally tended to be sympathetic to the USA. Tens of thousands took to the streets in sympathy after 911. Moreover, the current confrontational policy of A-Jad toward the USA is not popular, to put it mildly (there is some speculation that the offer to lay a wreath at the WTC site is for domestic political consumption. There is a national election upcoming). His bleating that the USA embargoed the selling of barbed wire during the war was a reminder to Iranians that the USA was not a great help to them during that war.