Exactly the same can be said of America.

Sacrieur, there is no such thing as a human right. There are civil rights. And it is the civil right of the government of Iran to run their country however they like. Now, if they invaded America it would be fine for America to fight back; to the very best of my knowledge they have not.

So a government may commit atrocities to a people that, largely, are not there by choice? It's an egregious offense to all of humanity-- united only under common person-hood. Our sentience, consciousness, and thought should not be abridged or deprived by any establishment without a due process of agreed just law. Certainly humans, being sophisticated and rational persons, can see that we are really one people, and an injustice to any one of us is an injustice to us all.

We cannot allow ourselves to fall into this trap. We must draw the line. There should be zero tolerance for this sort of behavior. It is not acceptable, rational, or just.

I repeat again that it is neither the right nor the responsibility of another country to invade another country to establish a better government, a better law, or peace (those things rarely happen in the event a country is invaded anyway). Now, if the civil magistrates of the country in which there are unjust laws were to imprison those leading the country thusly, or if they were to change those laws, then that's fine. Indeed, I am surprised that policemen in the USA don't arrest those congressmen who vote in unconstitutional laws.

We already did that back in 1953 (not because of their crimes, but because they weren't playing ball with the US and UK in regards to the oil industry). We basically took away their democracy and put the Shah into power.

And you wonder why they hate us.

You have a very nice summary, poison, but I feel like some people are TL;DRing it. Here's a nice little video that sums things up for those that prefer to watch instead of read:


The best thing to do would be to restore relations between the US and Iran, or prepare to face them as an eternal enemy. We have already corrupted their government and are currently the number one supplier for their enemies, and there has been no motion to change this anytime soon. I highly doubt we can become friends at this point, not because Iranians are heartless and ruthless opponents, but because we are.

---

That being said, I think we should not invade nor attack Iran anytime in the near future. The only time we should take action is through the U.N. if there is evidence of Iran developing nuclear weapons (as the U.N. should with any country that wants to employ mass destruction on another country).

If Santorum gets elected, that's the only way I see us attacking Iran.

I'm pretty sure Israel is going to start bombing their enrichment sites, and pretty much doing everything but all out war against them. All we're going to do is be supplying Israel, and while telling both sides to calm down.

I actually disagree with this quite a lot. If Iran has nuclear weapons, they can tell the USA and any other threat to bugger off or get nuked. Now, they probably would never actually use the nukes for fear of retaliation by the many other countries who also have nukes, but once they have their own nuclear deterrant they can prevent other countries interfering with their country.

I'm not sure where we are disagreeing "quite a lot"; I'm not saying we should sit tight until Iran has nuclear weapons, as that's how you've seemed to read my statement. On the contrary, I would not like Iran (or any country, for that matter) to obtain nuclear weapons, hence why I said the U.N. should take action if such a country was in the process of creating them.

Would you approve Israel to have nuclear weapons? Israel is currently suspected to have them already (and has refused to confirm or deny this suspicion). In fact, they are much more likely to have or be developing nuclear weaponry in comparison to Iran, but the only difference between the two is that Israel is allied with the United States. Unless you're buying purely into the fear campaign against Iran, you should be equally (if not more) concerned about Israel's nuclear program.

Uhhh if we're talking about crimes against humanity I think North Korea should be the the first target, with Iran a way way lower second. Buuuut, that would probably start the third world war.

And as for nukes, it isn't so much the country that we are worried about but the religion, or more broadly, the society/culture. These people think the world coming to an end is the best thing that can happen for humanity, and they are about to gain the ability to make that wish a reality...

I think you misunderstand me. I think it is FINE if Iran develops nuclear weapons. Well. I personally would prefer if all countries did not have nukes or weapons at all, but that's not going to happen, and it isn't my business nor anyone else's if Iran has nuclear weapons. Indeed, given that the USA has them and Iran doesn't, I'd say that to level the playing field Iran should get them.

Oh, I see; sorry for misunderstanding. Your proposed solution reminds me of "If everyone on the airplane had a gun, 9/11 wouldn't have happened." I'd rather not live in a world with global, mutual assured destruction, especially since (statistically speaking) if we increase the number of nuclear weapons around the world, we increase the chance of an extremist group to get hold of one to use against their enemies.

This is Serious Discussion: please cite these kinds of things.

Upon educated myself I am forced to change my opinion. I think Roy's solution would work best. But I cannot help but digress that crimes against humanity must be taken seriously, by both Iran and the US. Its a damn shame, too.

It only reinforces my hatred of corporate interest and the monetary system altogether. How many people have to die so the elite may earn their profits? This problem, I feel, is the true crime against humanity.

Unfortunately my own country has an even worse record than the US of interfering in Iran. To understand Iranian politics you have to understand the country's history of forever being muscled in on by foreign powers. There is a strong sense of being a perpetual victim state in Iran - here are some reasons why:

- 1200s - Persia invaded by the Mongols. Ilkhanate formed.
- 1400s - Tamerlaine conquers Persia. His Timurid Empire collapses after his death.
- 1500s to 1650s - Persia relatively independent of foreign influence (as the Safavid Empire)
- 1650s to 1730s - Safavid Empire declines rapidly. Pressured by Russia in the north, Mughal Empire in the east, rebelling Afghan provinces in the west and Dutch and British trading competition on the coast.
- Late 1700s to early 20th century - Persia sandwiched between Russian and British interests. Discovery of oil leads to British economic domination and monopolisation of oil fields with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (nowadays known as BP)

The rest of the history is quite well known. As the US became the world's pre-eminent superpower its interests became more important than Britain's in the area.

To Iran, the US protecting its interests in the region resonates very strongly with Iran/Persia's history of domination by foreign powers. It is hardly surprising that their political rhetoric is so belligerent and they resent the imposition of sanctions and so on. They feel that they are being prevented from being independent to manage their own affairs.

Iran is like a metaphoric squirt... basically no one wants to see a squirt become more powerful than the bully IE united states so this is why usa is trying to place heavy sanctions on Iran... There will always be the little guy and the big guy... its what the big guy does that makes the little guy react funny how life is like a playground sometimes.

Even in the 80's usa bullied them into submission


I did some research and found that Usa really doesn't want iran to get nuclear arms and if they do they'll just do anther fake war like they did with iraq...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iranian-scientist-killed-in-tehran-bomb-attack/2012/01/11/gIQAT1V7pP_story.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/13/why-iran-assassinations-are-backfiring-aiding-nuclear-program.html

I mean if trace back the time when iran and usa relations were good was probably around the time Russian - British "Great game" i mean the reason we had no negative involvement with iran is because they were thought of as small fish... now that oil is more important than ever iran is seen of as a threat... making it so the united states wants to destabilize the country or atleast desperate enough to sell of its assets at rock bottom prices.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Jan 14 2012, 12:14 pm by Tempz.

Really, it's not (at least not in the States). At least none of my history classes mentioned US intervention with Iran, and most people I talk to don't really know any history of Iran. Hell, I tell them that I'm half Persian and they don't connect that to Iran.

As far as I can tell, we had no relation with Iran during the Great Game. Where did you get this information that we were on "good" terms, and how does this relate to the discussion about Iran gaining nuclear arms?

Is that also the reason we have no negative involvement in dozens of other countries, including ones which would definitely not be considered "small fish"?

That's not at all why Iran is seen as a threat. Since you're interested in doing your own research rather than read what's been presented in this thread, look up the history of U.S. involvement in Israel and Iran, and Iran-Israel relations.

I've actually been giving this a lot of thought. I'm really stuck in the middle of this decision:

1) We allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons. This scenario would be infinitely beneficial to Iran and potentially harmless to everyone else. If Iran had a nuclear weapon, foreign powers would be forced to back off (mutual assured destruction philosophy). Really, all this intervention is what's causing issues and hatred within the country, and if that were to stop, we would be able to start building relations with the country. Israel most likely has nuclear weapons already (though they won't comment on whether this is true or not), so why shouldn't Iran?

2) We don't allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons. If Iran had nuclear arms, it could essentially become another North Korea. There are also religious extremists in the area, and mutual assured destruction is completely void to them due to the idea of martyrdom. Now, obviously, the same could be said for many areas around the world, and it's essentially just buying into the fear campaign; just because the Iranian government has nuclear arms doesn't mean it will fall into the hands of extremists. However, as I mentioned earlier, if you increase the number of nuclear weapons around the world, you increase the chance of an extremist group getting hold of one.

Of course, in our politics, it won't be a question on whether or not Iran should have nuclear weapons; it will be how and when we should stop them from getting nuclear weapons.

Hmm... well i did i know that us have been supplying billions of dollars to Israel =/

To be honest it isn't as well known as I'd like, and it doesn't suit either of our governments to offer the information as learning material, though it is widely available to interested people and at university level. Problem is that most people aren't interested in something until you put it in front of their nose and even then it can be a struggle.

Why do I keep hearing people mention North Korea having real nukes? Last I heard, they detonated something that was a fraction of the power of even the first atomic bomb, and that they haven't been able to progress any further.

Probably because it comes up in a Google search. The one test we know about was six years ago.

But perhaps comparing Iran to North Korea wasn't the best analogy, because the issue with North Korea more lies with its friendlier neighbor.

I should correct myself a bit here. Iran is indirectly about oil, just not oil for the States (we only get around 2% of our oil from Iran). China's main source for oil comes from the Middle East (58% as of now and projected to increase to 70% over the next few years), and as long as we have some control over the Middle East, we hold an advantage over China. So yes, oil does play as a diplomatic influence, but it's not that we necessarily want Iran's oil for ourselves.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 21 2012, 5:39 pm by Roy. Reason: Added source

They've conducted two tests, one in 2006 and one in 2009.


But perhaps comparing Iran to North Korea wasn't the best analogy, because the issue with North Korea more lies with its friendlier neighbor.

I believe oil from the middle east also goes towards Europe, who the US wants to keep happy. Obviously there's the whole "oil is fungible" aspect too. The US doesn't at the moment import much oil directly from the ME because Canada has become a large local supplier, but imports from the ME used to be a much greater contributor to the US energy budget (mostly from Saudi Arabia).