Iran... What will we do?

[JeffreyS]

Maybe if we have our most honorable 18 -21 year olds consistently be maimed and killed there for over a decade we can still listen to people try to justify it.

Seriously we need to prevent Iran from getting Nukes but I do not want our youngsters occupying Iran.

[acme54321]

Obviously Israel is already on top of this, I say we let them roll with it. They have superior aircraft to Iran so they should do ok. The Iran does reportedly possess Russian s-300 Sams though and if they do I'm not sure they are on the western border.

[BridgeTroll]

Obviously Israel is already on top of this, I say we let them roll with it. They have superior aircraft to Iran so they should do ok. The Iran does reportedly possess Russian s-300 Sams though and if they do I'm not sure they are on the western border.

Of course you realize that if Israel does it... we will be blamed anyway...

[ben says]

Funny we're so concerned with Iran, but not Saudi Arabia, an equally if not more tyrannical and dangerous place. Guess it's because we're "friends"....how cute.

[BridgeTroll]

Funny we're so concerned with Iran, but not Saudi Arabia, an equally if not more tyrannical and dangerous place. Guess it's because we're "friends"....how cute.

Well... that and they are not building nukes... and threatening the destruction of Israel.  Cute?  OK...

[JeffreyS]

I guess governments who call us their enemy concern us more than the ones who call us their friend. Saudi Arabia is not a good government but not as high a threat as Iran.

[ben says]

They already have nukes, and the only thing keeping them from being as dangerous as Iran is their repressive government. The House of Saud falls, so does their 'friendliness'...

I think one could make a strong argument they're more dangerous than Iran. Listen, we already know Iran is dangerous. What we don't know is how dangerous the Saudis are...the US sponsored repression there is likely to produce blowback...akin to the blowback we felt from our dealings with Afghanistan in the 80's & 90's.

[JeffreyS]

I don't see the logic that if bad governments already have nukes we should just look the other way and let nukes proliferate to more bad governments.

[JeffreyS]

I do think the Iranian people would be the USA friendlier of the two if they suddenly they were both free and open societies.

[BridgeTroll]

They already have nukes, and the only thing keeping them from being as dangerous as Iran is their repressive government. The House of Saud falls, so does their 'friendliness'...

I think one could make a strong argument they're more dangerous than Iran. Listen, we already know Iran is dangerous. What we don't know is how dangerous the Saudis are...the US sponsored repression there is likely to produce blowback...akin to the blowback we felt from our dealings with Afghanistan in the 80's & 90's.

No... they do not have nukes.  Please ben... make the case that SA is more dangerous than Iran...

[ben says]

They already have nukes, and the only thing keeping them from being as dangerous as Iran is their repressive government. The House of Saud falls, so does their 'friendliness'...

I think one could make a strong argument they're more dangerous than Iran. Listen, we already know Iran is dangerous. What we don't know is how dangerous the Saudis are...the US sponsored repression there is likely to produce blowback...akin to the blowback we felt from our dealings with Afghanistan in the 80's & 90's.

No... they do not have nukes.  Please ben... make the case that SA is more dangerous than Iran...

Like JeffreyS said, I do believe if the leaders were to cease, or if the borders were to open, the Iranian people would be friendlier towards the US aims and goals that the Saudis. Look at how they looked to the US for support during their Green revolution, for instance. I don't think the Iranian populace believes the rhetoric their government spouts.

The Saudis are a highly repressed people, more so than Iran. The only thing keeping the Saud family in power is US support. the Saudi population knows this, and more than resents us for it. If, again hypothetically, their borders were to open, or the house were to fall, they would want to do us much more harm than the Iranians.

We're making the same foreign policy mistake we've made for eons. Support highly repressive, dangerous, and violent governments because we share the same interests. Government falls, people resent and hate the people that held them in power (us). Playing sides is dangerous. It's called 'blowback', and it happens quite frequently.

Go to Saudi Arabia, check it out. Women still get stoned there for driving. It's a terrible place. Like waking up in your worst nightmare....like Margaret Atwood's the Handmaid's Tale.

[ben says]

And does anyone really believe Iran has the capability to off Israel? Really? They'd be digging their own grave and they know it.

Furthermore, I don't understand why one of the oldest civilizations on earth, the Persians, no matter who their hyperbolic leader is, don't deserve nuclear power.

Iran is about as dangerous as a balloon filled with hot air.

Saudia Arabia is like a bomb on a timer. During all of our lifetimes, something very bad will happen coming out of that country. You don't repress your people like that and survive forever (see Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc).

[BridgeTroll]

They already have nukes, and the only thing keeping them from being as dangerous as Iran is their repressive government. The House of Saud falls, so does their 'friendliness'...

I think one could make a strong argument they're more dangerous than Iran. Listen, we already know Iran is dangerous. What we don't know is how dangerous the Saudis are...the US sponsored repression there is likely to produce blowback...akin to the blowback we felt from our dealings with Afghanistan in the 80's & 90's.

No... they do not have nukes.  Please ben... make the case that SA is more dangerous than Iran...

Like JeffreyS said, I do believe if the leaders were to cease, or if the borders were to open, the Iranian people would be friendlier towards the US aims and goals that the Saudis. Look at how they looked to the US for support during their Green revolution, for instance. I don't think the Iranian populace believes the rhetoric their government spouts.

The Saudis are a highly repressed people, more so than Iran. The only thing keeping the Saud family in power is US support. the Saudi population knows this, and more than resents us for it. If, again hypothetically, their borders were to open, or the house were to fall, they would want to do us much more harm than the Iranians.

We're making the same foreign policy mistake we've made for eons. Support highly repressive, dangerous, and violent governments because we share the same interests. Government falls, people resent and hate the people that held them in power (us). Playing sides is dangerous. It's called 'blowback', and it happens quite frequently.

Go to Saudi Arabia, check it out. Women still get stoned there for driving. It's a terrible place. Like waking up in your worst nightmare....like Margaret Atwood's the Handmaid's Tale.

Been to Saudi Arabia... spent many months living amongst the natives in the city of Dahran.  For the most part... wonderful people and culture... very friendly to Americans.  They do not get stoned for driving... though it is still not legal for them to drive.  Alcohol use is forbidden.  They do have capitol punishment for drug use/smuggling.  it certainly is represive by our standards... even extremely liberal Bahrain (where I also lived) is repressive by our standards.

[BridgeTroll]

And does anyone really believe Iran has the capability to off Israel? Really? They'd be digging their own grave and they know it.

Furthermore, I don't understand why one of the oldest civilizations on earth, the Persians, no matter who their hyperbolic leader is, don't deserve nuclear power.

Iran is about as dangerous as a balloon filled with hot air.

Saudia Arabia is like a bomb on a timer. During all of our lifetimes, something very bad will happen coming out of that country. You don't repress your people like that and survive forever (see Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc).

if they get the bomb... YES.  I wouldnt have an objection to nuclear power... for electricity.  If you believe that is what they are developing you may be delusional...

[ben says]

And does anyone really believe Iran has the capability to off Israel? Really? They'd be digging their own grave and they know it.

Furthermore, I don't understand why one of the oldest civilizations on earth, the Persians, no matter who their hyperbolic leader is, don't deserve nuclear power.

Iran is about as dangerous as a balloon filled with hot air.

Saudia Arabia is like a bomb on a timer. During all of our lifetimes, something very bad will happen coming out of that country. You don't repress your people like that and survive forever (see Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc).

if they get the bomb... YES.  I wouldnt have an objection to nuclear power... for electricity.  If you believe that is what they are developing you may be delusional...

We could go back and forth for hours/days/weeks...useless. Albeit, I do feel like this is a good time for one of my favorite Noam Chomsky quotes: "Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune."

Maybe Iran is trying to get nukes? Let's suppose yes, they are. Do I think it's because they're going to drop one on the US or kill off Israel? No. That would be the suicide of the Iranian people & government, dictator and plebeian alike. Not even Ahmadinejad is that crazy. I'd say Iran wants one because of some sort of inferiority complex & a poor attempt at state security.

Seems hypocritical to be the only country whose actually used nukes on a population, yet preach about who gets to have one. Hypocritical at best.