Will the U.S. go to war with Iran?

I don't belive, that IRAN has anything common with Al-Quaida. The Iran is a shiit state, Osama bin Laden and his man are fanatical sunit-muslim. You could see the different in Afghanistan - Iran nearly go to war against the Taliban (witch in things of religion were near Osamas position) after they murdered many shiits. To say Osamas organisation ist connected to Iran is much more unbeliveble than the lies, that he is a friend of Saddam. Iran support shiit-Organisation, that is right. But would a war change this? No one could ever control such a large country, and I see no opposition, which would do this after coming to power with american help. Even the students would fight - most of them - if America try to conquer her country. And don't forget - Iran is much stronger than Pakistan, which has "the bomb" too (I mean, it is not so easy to sunk down to chaos). A Bomb in the hand of a warlord, THAT would be dangerous. A bomb in the hand of the iran I think would never used - only to selfedefense. If they ever WANT the bomb, what is not shure for now. The iran leadership isn't crazy. Have they started any war since they came to power? I can't remember. A war would only make the hardliner stronger. And iran terrain isn't desert. There tanks and so can't move so well. How would control such a great area? Such terrain? America? How many man they must have for that?

A war against Iran would be not only a crime. He would be something much more worse (in this world)- a failure.

 

Those type of refences to a nation of people as a "problem" is certainly not going to help anything.

Oh, don't be so childish. I was referring to the problem that Iran as a nation might pose, and I'm sure you know that very well.

What is fanaticism? You are just throwing around terms.

Fanatacism is extremism. It's undeniable that the Iranian leadership and those who keep it in power are far more extreme in their religious views than those who fulfill a similar role in Libya, Syria or Iraq (the three countries which I'd referred to).

He and his advisors believe in forcibly ending the axis and remaking the Middle East.

Codswallop. This is just the standard conspiracy theory with no factual basis. George Bush, with the support of a huge chunk of the international community, congress, and his own citizens, decides to take action against Iraq - and suddenly it's a colonisation plan for the entire Middle East?

Iran and Syria are coming up soon.

As I was saying earlier, I don't think invasion at this point is needed against Iran - for the reasons stated above; it's regime is more threatening than its people. But that's also the case in Iraq - and invasion doesn't always mean that you're out to get a country; like Iraq, it could just mean you're out to get a regime. I do not think, though, that pure containment and carrot-encouragement will work with Iran - there has to be some threat of engagement should they continue to threaten Western interests (i.e., by developing nuclear weaponry).

- Scarlet.

 

I've come to the realisation that the US is merely continuing the traditions of the British Empire - remaking the world in our image.

And I now say 'go for it', just don't cry a few years from now when you've been led into a war by your blundering leaders.

Imperial Tip#4: Use flags.

 

A superpower, almost by definition, would remake the world in its image. That's cultural influence, and it's unavoidable.

The question is whether the remaking in their own image is deliberate, or a result of its status. One's morality is questionable, the other is just a matter-of-fact.

- Scarlet.

 

Well Empire building is all about expanding the sphere of influence and power of that superpower.

Present-day Americans, like their British predecessors, feel that they possess moral superiority vis a vis the foreign others. That moral and intellectual superiority was apparently all the justification they needed to impose upon other nations. The British brought civilisation to the world, Americans are trying to bring democracy.

Unfortunately, you can give Civilisation and Democracy to others, but you cannot force such concepts upon them. It is ultimately up to them how they want to live. Once the Brits were kicked out of, or left colony X, chaos reigns and the natives revert back to the warring tribal existence they had known prior to British interference (this is particularly notable in Africa). So in the end, what can you do?

Best just to leave them alone.

 

Well Empire building is all about expanding the sphere of influence and power of that superpower.

Deliberately, with the direct intention of altering another state or culture with that influence and power. If America rises in stature, like it does, either economically or militarily, that doesn't mean it's necessarily Empire building.

Present-day Americans, like their British predecessors, feel that they possess moral superiority vis a vis the foreign others.

What's the basis for this statement? If by moral superiority you mean belief in the superiority of their values, those values are more or less Western values in general, possessed by MANY countries. And anybody with a different set of values to another will think their values superior, or they wouldn't hold them, so this is quite a useless statement.

That moral and intellectual superiority was apparently all the justification they needed to impose upon other nations. The British brought civilisation to the world, Americans are trying to bring democracy.

Democracy has existed since long before American influence. Even modern-day representative democracy has existed longer. America is the main exporter thereof, but I don't think it is fair to claim that they have ever imposed it on a country as a matter of choice; those countries which gained democracy as a result of American influence, as Iraq will, gained it as a result of other actions or reasons.

Unfortunately, you can give Civilisation and Democracy to others, but you cannot force such concepts upon them.

That I agree with, but you still have yet to validate the claim that America is forcing the concept of democracy upon anyone. I agree that a before-undemocratic Iraq will gain democracy soon, but that's because its regime was removed and it has to be replaced by something; and I'll bet that its people are much more in favour of democracy than another dictatorship.

It is ultimately up to them how they want to live.

Exactly. But without democracy, how can they exercise that 'want'? You're talking about people democratically not wanting democracy, which is a contradiction. People in countries X, Y and Z can want democracy all they want, but how are they to achieve that if their leadership doesn't?

Once the Brits were kicked out of, or left colony X, chaos reigns and the natives revert back to the warring tribal existence they had known prior to British interference (this is particularly notable in Africa).

This is not a rule. The wake of British colonisation still exists in many African countries, and some of the practises instilled by the British continue to exist. I don't know of any case of outright reversion to that which existed before. And you can hardly argue that America itself reverted back to its pre-colonisation state. In fact, I think any country that even MOSTLY reverted is an exception to the rule.

So in the end, what can you do?

Personally, I hate the idea of empire-building. I don't think hegemony should be imposed upon anyone. However, I do think it's America's right and duty to export those values which it believes are right - not only because I agree with them mostly, though, I wouldn't be so silly as to state that wasn't a factor, but also because doing so is a natural outcome of possessing superpower status. It's setting an example if you will.

However, I think this is getting off the topic of the Iranian question. It seems that everyone, including myself, is either totally opposed to invasion under any circumstances, or only prepared to consider it as a last resort. But what other options are there? Full containment? Or a blend of containment and engagement, such as that which I favour? And how could those policies be implemented?

- Scarlet.

 

Engagement would certainly isolate the Ayatollah, and perhaps the Pasdaran, whilst getting the moderates on a pro-Western platform.

Ender supports engagement with Iran.

E_S

 

Can't U.S juz leave everything alone and not interfere with other nation's problems.
Declaring war with nations would only make things worse.War si not pretty especially when civillians are involved. I say the U.S be banned to declare war again.
---
-I just want peace, May Peace Be Upon Yousa

 

I dont think América is going war with iran nor north korea. Its very complicated in both cases (partuculary north korea, because of china). Syria is much easier then both. It has a baath party ruler like iraq; It is the only country helping militarly iraq...; it controls lebanon; it is vital to hizzbolah opeating in lebanon, despite hizzbolah being controled by iran. Plenty of reasons for military action, or at least international sanctions (like in the case of lybia)

 

Jedismuggler, dangerous or not, the US cannot go to war and overthrow by force the government of every country that 'might' have nothing to lose. That's a quick way to get the US isolated.

Peace,

V-03

 

"I don't know of any case of outright reversion to that which existed before."

Try Somalia and Zimbabwe for starters.

"And you can hardly argue that America itself reverted back to its pre-colonisation state"

Useless statement, there was nothing to revert back to, the natives had been either wiped out or assimilated and the colonists were dominantly of British origin.

"I don't think hegemony should be imposed upon anyone. However, I do think it's America's right and duty to export those values which it believes are right"

Lol, this sounds like a big contradiction. You, like many Americans, don't like OTHER PEOPLES' hegemony, but you're alright with your own.

"It's setting an example if you will."

Too bad it's a lame example. Strong arm politics never works in the long run, it serves only to isolate the US. Even Britain will get tired...

Wolfowitz, like Rumsfield, should be fired, for voicing their stupid opinions on television where the world (and Iran) can hear them. Don't like Iran or Syria? Keep it to yourself until the war in Iraq is over.

Sometimes I think these two characters want to start World War 3 with the Arab world.

The US will go to war with Iran, it's just a question of when.

 

EDIT:

Actually, forget it. I'm not going to argue back. This topic is about Iran, and if I want to have another of these pointless discussions with an anti-American, I'll go pick one on the American Empire topic.

I'd prefer to discuss the Iranian problem, and will try not to make any more posts that don't concern it.

- Scarlet.

 

"if I want to have another of these pointless discussions with an anti-American"

That's a constructive way to end the discussion. Why are you seeking to antagonise me when you want to stay on topic? Why do you paint me as an anti-American, dismissing my opinions as pointless, then expect me not to respond?

I'm not Anti-American. I'm anti-American Empire. I'm sorry if you don't see the difference.

 

Jedi_Xen:
See the fundamental difference between Iraq and Iran is Iran has elections, actual elections.

Surely you're not saying that that's the reason U.S. troops are in Iraq right now.

War with Iran would be mad and I seriously doubt that it will happen although given my opinion of the present US administration I wouldn't be at all surprised to see another target get picked once Iraq has been dealt with.

Indeed. Our bloodthirsty president needs to quench his desire for death and destruction somewhere.

---

As for war in Iran, a move towards it is quite possible - and probable. But I don't see any point in it, and I don't think it'll pass as easily in the U.S. - thank goodness.

Btw, when President Bush pointed fingers in his "Axis of Evil" speech, did he actually imply that he would attack and reform those countries? And if so, what justification did he present?

 

I'm not Anti-American. I'm anti-American Empire. I'm sorry if you don't see the difference.

No, you're anti-American if you disagree with core American traditions and values. Democracy is one of those values, and you're against it being exported through non-forceful means, as you have demonstrated. Either that, or you wilfully tried to make my comments about non-violent democratic export into pro-imperialistic rhetoric.

- Scarlet.

 

Vaderize03:

I never said that we should. I do think that Iran may require steps if they follow the PRC's lead in their reaction to a student uprising. At that point, we would have to make a decision about dealing with the theocracy in that country.

 

"No, you're anti-American if you disagree with core American traditions and values"

Where have I expressed diagreement about core American traditions and values? (whatever they might be)

If you accuse me of twisting your words into pro-Imperialistc rhetoric, then at least don't put the words of others into my mouth.

"you're against it being exported through non-forceful means"

I had to read this a few times to make sure I got it right. You've misunderstood me, I'm against democracy being exported through FORCEFUL means. My Pro-Imperialistic
rhetoric was just my attempt at trying to reflect American actions and attitudes using a mirror they've expressed alot of discontent with over the last century.

 

Then we're in perfect agreement, and we're bickering about nothing.

You're thinking that I'm saying that it is our duty to export democracy forcefully, and I'm thinking that you're saying that democracy shouldn't be exported at all. Bah.

- Scarlet.

 

Where have I expressed diagreement about core American traditions and values? (whatever they might be)


You know that "core" american traditions and values, well the traditions I know, but the values are scattered so "traditional" you'd have to go back a long time before America was America.

 

"Then we're in perfect agreement, and we're bickering about nothing."

LOL, Woops! Sorry Scarlet.

 

"No, you're anti-American if you disagree with core American traditions and vales"

Man, Dubya has everyone speaking like him now! Soon people will be calling people from Greece, Grecians!

As for "exporting" Democracy, why is Dubya the one who should determine what form of government another sovereign nation should have? Who is he to decide that?

 

Well who should do it, YOU? These people have been living under dictatorship for decades, they don't know how to run a country right now. That is why we are helping them try to get back on their feet, and they will, to have a country of their own.

 

Surely you're not saying that that's the reason U.S. troops are in Iraq right now

What I am saying, and please pay attention this time, it cant get any simpler, is with Iraq change can only come from the outside. In Iran the change will come from the inside. Do you comprehend this time?

 

"As for "exporting" Democracy, why is Dubya the one who should determine what form of government another sovereign nation should have? Who is he to decide that?"

Why are you fixated on him? It's been US policy since Wilson to promote self-determination and democracy! This isn't a unique position of the last 2 years, much as both anti-Bush and anti-Clinton people would like to believe!

 

Dubya is President right now. And correct me if I was wrong, but I don't recall Clinton invading and occupying any nation in the name of "exports."

And Confederate, I am sorry you don't think "these people" know how to run their country, but again, that is no justification for declaring war on a nation and completely occupying it. And it's not even the reason Dubya gave.

Once again, the reasons for this war shift daily.