Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

Mostly because one functional atomic weapon (I.E. not fission, fusion) could wipe Israel of the map.

AIUI (and I may not) it's not going to be a fusion weapon.  Uranium enrichment is the name of Iran's game, not a Telemark-style heavy water production facility.

Still bad enough, nuking anybody with a fission weapon.  (Sum Of All Fears, anyone?  Book version, please, the filmic 'reboot' of the Jack Ryan saga lacks something...)


I think the main thing is that Iran is doing Iraq-style brinkmanship... but are better at keeping it on the brink rather than forcing (or giving a good excuse for) direct action against itself.  Quite a bit helped that there's now a phobia against such action, thanks to that little dalliance in their neighbour, but perhaps also by the fact that it actually appears a more certain threat.  NK are also good at that.  And for much the same reason insofar as they can at least keep up the appearance of (if not be actually) being crazy enough to tip things over if their bluff is called...  Not that they could hurt (much of) the US, with what they've got, but it effectively took just one pistol shot to start WW1, and it's a good bet that while it could just be one, small shot, it'll be a helluva lot more power in the opening event.


Essentially, I think the public in the US (and allied countries) fear Iran because they know that Iran dislikes the US/UK/allies-thereof and they might just do something about it.  Gone are the days where it's effectively the national policy of the Soviet Union to hate America so much (indeed, in most of what supersedes the USSR, the US is a better friend than a number of  nearer countries, some of whom were Soviet, at one point).  China doesn't have too many reasons to attack several of its best customers, even with its ability to do so.  All in all the 'old foes' are only slightly more likely to attack as Canada is to march across the 45th parallel and have another go at burning Washington DC.

'Rogue states', though, are always a concern.  In the days of asymmetric warfare, who knows who is nibbling away at who-else's infrastructure?  From cyber attacks to seemingly independent explosive 'outrages' within a country.  And not just covert operations, but outright False-Flag ones, and possibly even False-False-Flag operations...  But these are issues that the higher-ups in Langley and Thames House and whereavyer have to deal with.  The information as distilled to the public is that Iran Is A Threat^TM.  And there you're subject to various smudging and blurring of concepts that made it Popular Opinion that Saddam==Osama.  A clearly incorrect viewpoint that was probably encouraged when it helped grease the wheels, by various people in charge of making those wheels of public opinion turn in the right direction.


I have no doubt that Iran could be a threat.  I wouldn't label them (or, more accurately, the controlling hierarchy) as Kill On Sight because of this, but at the same time it'd be a brave President/CIA director/whoever to not consider all the options needed to "get the retaliation in first".  Put them on paper, at least.  There's far less likely things been considered (historically, consider War Plan Red, or something else from the rainbow, and I bet there's something more contemporaneous sitting in a federal vault, somewhere).


In the end, if it comes to war, it will be because (to paraphrase Captain E. Blackadder, HoUG) it would have been too much trouble not to go to war.  It's not inevitable, of course, but Interesting Times are certainly a risk given how the main parties are dealing with each other, and my probably-biased western POV tends to want to put the blame upon the Iranian high command (or perhaps the power behind their collective thrones)...


Anyway, that's my take, and doubtless wrong in key respects.

[zilpin]

I tend stay out of these arguments, and just listen, silently chuckling at the buzz-words thrown back and forth.
My favorite is when someone white spouts mildly (or overt) racist rhetoric about Iranians.
See etymology of 'Iran' and 'Aryan'.

[Leatra]

I don't know much about this topic myself but all I know is, Saudia Arabia has oil.

And Sunnis are less crazy and less BURN-ALL-THE-INFIDELS kind of people than other muslims. There are some people here hide their true religion. I know this because I live in Turkey.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Actually, Turkey is pretty much the single most progressive Muslim majority nation on the planet, and it has nothing to do with most Turks being Sunnis. It mostly has to do with the actions of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who was a truly great man and is almost solely responsible for Turkey's modern success.

[nenjin]

I also really think you shouldn't start down the "Sunnis act one way, Shiites act another" path. While that may be true in some arenas, saying one is less crazy than the other isn't fair, respectful or informed. If you wanna talk about Sunni/Shiite religious observances, that's one thing. Trying to say one hates Americans more than the other though isn't a claim you can substantiate. Plenty of Sunnis hate America, plenty of Shiites hate America, and the opposite is equally true.

[Lord Shonus]

Mostly because one functional atomic weapon (I.E. not fission, fusion) could wipe Israel of the map. More than half of Israel is desert, so one bomb can irradiate the rest to such a degree as to make it certaintly a place you woulnd't want to live, and a smaller area unlivable for sustained periods of time. Now of course that samll area would mena less to big countries like the US, but that small area could be Tel Aviv, whose metrpolitian area is home to 1.2M people ou tof Israel's 7.8M.

No, it couldn't. Hundreds of nuclear weapons were detonated in deserts during the early cold war, including ground-level demolition tests (in other words, maximum possible fallout). The area is not radioactive now. There was radioactive damage to the nearby city of Las Vegas, but that simply caused an slight uptick in cancer rates decades later, rather than rendering the area uninhabitable. To have any significant effect toward making an area uninhabitable, you would need specially-doped warheads, and would have to detonate dozens of them, not one. Combine that with the fact that only the five classic members of the "nuclear club" have been known to make third-generation fission or first-generation fusion bombs, the idea of Iran being able to construct anything more powerful than Fat Man (except smaller) is highly unlikely. That does not mean that Iranian-built nuclear weapons would be anything but a disaster, but the larger threat would be muscling/enticing other Islamic nations into a new coalition against Israel or threatening deployment of nuclear-tipped mines and torpedo to close off the Persian Gulf.

[Reelya]

I don't know much about this topic myself but all I know is, Saudia Arabia has oil.

And Sunnis are less crazy than other muslims. I know this because I live in Turkey.

I'm not so sure about Sunni's in general, Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization.

"Al-Qaeda is intolerant of non-Sunni branches of Islam and denounces them with excommunications called "takfir". Al-Qaeda leaders regard liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis, Ahmadiyyas and other sects as heretics and have issued attacks on their mosques and gatherings. Examples of sectarian attacks include the Yazidi community bombings, Sadr City bombings, Ashoura Massacre and April 2007 Baghdad bombings."

You live in a majority Sunni nation, are you sure that your media represents the totality of Islam in an unbiased fashion?

My personal favorite brand of Islam is Sufism, which has been highly persecuted in both Sunni and Shia countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism

[nenjin]

The sufis do seem like the sect least likely to act out in violence for anything other than self-defense. But they've been a marginalized group for a very long time now.

[Leatra]

Actually, Turkey is pretty much the single most progressive Muslim majority nation on the planet, and it has nothing to do with most Turks being Sunnis. It mostly has to do with the actions of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who was a truly great man and is almost solely responsible for Turkey's modern success.

Our prime minister does not respect our Father. He doesn't say it but his actions mean it. A member of the Turkish National Assembly called Atatürk a dictator. He started a big fight after saying that but still, our government is narrow-minded. Yes, Atatürk had to take some measures which can be seen a little autocratic but he did it by getting other members to vote for him. Then he started supporting other parties to get rid of the "single-party state" title.

We are progressing backwards. If Ataturk saw Turkey today he wouldn't be pleased. Most people here think like this. We just appear different to other countries. I'm not a patriot but it's still saddening to see my country like this.

I also really think you shouldn't start down the "Sunnis act one way, Shiites act another" path. While that may be true in some arenas, saying one is less crazy than the other isn't fair, respectful or informed. If you wanna talk about Sunni/Shiite religious observances, that's one thing. Trying to say one hates Americans more than the other though isn't a claim you can substantiate. Plenty of Sunnis hate America, plenty of Shiites hate America, and the opposite is equally true.

Yeah I didn't pay attention to it while generalising. Turkey has a different culture. Majority here hate USA too. They made a poll about it and if I remember right more than %70 hates USA.

I don't know much about this topic myself but all I know is, Saudia Arabia has oil.

And Sunnis are less crazy than other muslims. I know this because I live in Turkey.

I'm not so sure about Sunni's in general, Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization.

"Al-Qaeda is intolerant of non-Sunni branches of Islam and denounces them with excommunications called "takfir". Al-Qaeda leaders regard liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis, Ahmadiyyas and other sects as heretics and have issued attacks on their mosques and gatherings. Examples of sectarian attacks include the Yazidi community bombings, Sadr City bombings, Ashoura Massacre and April 2007 Baghdad bombings."

You live in a majority Sunni nation, are you sure that your media represents the totality of Islam in an unbiased fashion?

My personal favorite brand of Islam is Sufism, which has been highly persecuted in both Sunni and Shia countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism

Well, as a guy who doesn't care about religions or The Big Guy Who Lives On Clouds, I don't know what sunnis are thinking about this.

Sufism is persecuted because they interfered with the government. They start sects and put their noses in what they shouldn't. It's all for secularism. Secularism and religious fundementalism are dangerous topics in Turkey. But that was a long time ago and I respect some sufis. The word Sufism has a big meaning and it's not like what it used to be.

About unbiased media, unbiased journalists get kicked their way into the prison and the ass-licking media eats all the pies. I just see Sunnis as less jumpy. But we are still jumpy from time to time. We have lots of deists and atheists posing as sunnis here because it's not wise to make sure everybody knows your true religion if you want your limbs to be attached to your body. I can tell these fakers by just looking at their body language when they are talking about religions and I'm one of them.

[scriver]

Actually, Turkey is pretty much the single most progressive Muslim majority nation on the planet, and it has nothing to do with most Turks being Sunnis. It mostly has to do with the actions of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who was a truly great man and is almost solely responsible for Turkey's modern success.

...You just called Ataturk a great man. What the hell, MSH? Did you read some Turkish nationalist propaganda and turn into a fascist over night?

I also really think you shouldn't start down the "Sunnis act one way, Shiites act another" path. While that may be true in some arenas, saying one is less crazy than the other isn't fair, respectful or informed. If you wanna talk about Sunni/Shiite religious observances, that's one thing. Trying to say one hates Americans more than the other though isn't a claim you can substantiate. Plenty of Sunnis hate America, plenty of Shiites hate America, and the opposite is equally true.

For another example, I read an interview with a Syrian who said all the non-Muslims there are basically scared shitless because of what might happen if the current regime, which apparently doesn't oppress non-Muslims because of their faith. I don't currently remember whether the rebels are Sunni or just mainstream Shiite, though, since I know the dictator is from some special form of Shiite sect.

[Leatra]

Actually, Turkey is pretty much the single most progressive Muslim majority nation on the planet, and it has nothing to do with most Turks being Sunnis. It mostly has to do with the actions of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who was a truly great man and is almost solely responsible for Turkey's modern success.

...You just called Ataturk a great man. What the hell, MSH? Did you read some Turkish nationalist propaganda and turn into a fascist over night?

Are you trolling? Atatürk isn't a facist. He is respected by all countries. He is the Great Man of Turkey and every country has at least one. I respect Abraham Lincoln, does that make me indoctrinated by propaganda? It's not a bad thing to respect other leaders who doesn't belong to your culture.

This isn't facism. THAT is facism.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Actually, Turkey is pretty much the single most progressive Muslim majority nation on the planet, and it has nothing to do with most Turks being Sunnis. It mostly has to do with the actions of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who was a truly great man and is almost solely responsible for Turkey's modern success.

...You just called Ataturk a great man. What the hell, MSH? Did you read some Turkish nationalist propaganda and turn into a fascist over night?

I will not deny that Ataturk did some bad things. Sometimes such actions are necessary in the course of transitioning from a traditional society to a modernized one. For his day, Ataturk was a decent person, and his actions were, in net worth, more good than bad.

[Leatra]

I still don't understand why Atatürk is percieved as a fascist.

This is going a little off-topic but I just want to know if there is something I don't know.

[nenjin]

Same here. I could just go inform myself, but I'd rather here your guy's views on it. Then go do some research.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I too am wondering where scriver's extremely negative perception of Ataturk is coming from. While some of his actions were certainty questionable, none really warrant "fascist", especially in light of the positive changes that he made.