WHY is Iran a threat to the US?

Originally posted by rich23
Israel's invasion was a) a disproportionate response and b) planned in advance. They were just waiting for a casus belli which Hizballah were kind enough to give them.

In regards to "b", I think it would only be prudent to have as many well planned options on the table as possible, both offensive and defensive. I think you may be reading more into the preparation than you need to be. I don't think they were sittign there wringing their hands, cackling, and spoiling for a fight. Now, I won't dispute that Hizbullah gave them the excuse to use it, that'd just be silly.

Regarding "a", I'd argue the opposite, from a purely factual point of view. It seems to me that they didn't commit enough resources to do the job correctly, meaning that their opponents are still capable of waging war against them. They have been diminished and are by no means whole, but Hizbullah haven't been removed from the region.

Proportionality, in your case, is one of opinion, "Oh, the horror of it all..." and all that.

Originally posted by Gazrok
I had visions of the Japanese camps after Pearl Harbor, but for Muslims after 9/11. Thankfully, history didn't repeat itself, but one more such attack, and I'd wager we'd see it....and that's an awful realization. The moderates need to rise up and shatter this stereotype, or they're going to see the entire public at large, of the world's most powerful military, cheer on any idea of "getting them"....and that is exactly what Bush and his cronies are counting on.

Thank you for sharing your experiences. I share your concern about an anti-Muslim backlash... and there have been reports that Muslims in the US were rounded up rather indiscriminately and imprisoned without charge for considerable periods. It's pretty sobering reading some of the internees' reports, frankly.

It's difficult for the moderates, though. I was listening to a Radio 4 (BBC) programme a short while ago and there was a moderate Muslim trying to explain his position: in the interests of "balance" there was a hectoring woman who was armed with a whole bunch of MEMRI-sourced quotes of the kind we've been discussing in this thread... the whole tenor of the questions she was asking can be summed up with the old chestnut, "so have you stopped beating your wife?" It's obvious that many moderate Muslims will have some sympathy with the Palestinians and will be aware not only of the chaos in Iraq but of the history of the US intervention in Iran. For them to try and get across any kind of nuanced perspective is difficult even in the UK, let alone in the US.

PS I was just teasing with the "Godlike Supermod" crack

[edit on 28-8-2006 by rich23]

""In this stage we are trying to avoid confrontation," Vaeedi said.

He hinted that if Iran is subject to U.N. sanctions, it could cause problems for the United States.

"The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain but it is also susceptible to harm and pain," Vaeedi said. "So if the United States wishes to choose that path let the ball roll.""

www.cnn.com...

"an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage"

www.m-w.com...

By this definition, Iran has threatened the United States for taking any action to halt Iran's irresponsible nuclear development.

No, it's threatening retaliation if it's attacked. It's not threatening first strike. And as I said before, they stopped uranium enrichment for some time. That good will has now gone. You have yet to show that their development is "irresponsible".

I rather enjoy it when some tiny country stands up to the US, but some people just hate it.

He states bring harm, which they include as bringing sanctions against Iran. Good will, Ha. There is no "good will" on the topic of nuclear development of a state that openly sponsors terror. Dismissing inspections is irresponsible.

And technically you said, "No, it's threatening retaliation if it's attacked."

Well a threat is a threat, so I declare victory and am now moving on to the next thread that has a reserve of oiii..I mean tyranny.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by Nihilist Fiend]

[edit on 28-8-2006 by Nihilist Fiend]

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend

By this definition, Iran has threatened the United States for taking any action to halt Iran's irresponsible nuclear development.

How does saying "...it is susceptible to harm and pain... If the United States wishes to choose that path let the ball roll" a threat to the United States?

Why wouldn't Iran defend itself if it were attacked?

He also stated right above that:

"In this stage we are trying to avoid confrontation," Vaeedi said.

So could you point out where the actual threat was??

Originally posted by pstiffy


So could you point out where the actual threat was??

You need to read the second part of the quote as-well.

He is implying that if the US tries to halt Iran's nuclear quest, they will take that as the US causing harm to Iran.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by Nihilist Fiend]

Iran always denies any nuclear weapon ambitions. Always. They arent just lying. Our government is the one who lies, all the time. If you havent figured that out yet, I feel sorry for you

Why are they a threat? Simply because they refuse to go along with the NWO, and are threatening to switch oil sales to Euros...effectively destroying the US dollar.

I repeat. Iran is not a threat to you. The collapse of the fiat currency system would probably be the best thing to ever happen to America. They are a threat to the money men, the big bankers who control this country and whos only goal is to increase that control.

Originally posted by AscendedMaster
Iran always denies any nuclear weapon ambitions. Always. They arent just lying. Our government is the one who lies, all the time. If you havent figured that out yet, I feel sorry for you

Why are they a threat? Simply because they refuse to go along with the NWO, and are threatening to switch oil sales to Euros...effectively destroying the US dollar.

I repeat. Iran is not a threat to you. The collapse of the fiat currency system would probably be the best thing to ever happen to America. They are a threat to the money men, the big bankers who control this country and whos only goal is to increase that control.

I heard this about OPEC switching to euros about a year ago, which is why we invaded Iraq as well... makes alot of sense to me as to why our gov wanted to go to war, even if I don't agree with war for money.

I still think all of this boils down to geo-political control of energy assets to maintain global supremacy. This is very bad for the world, and all of the people on it, including the families who reap the profits, for they will pay in the afterlife.

even if I don't agree with war for money.

ALL wars are for money. That's all they are ever for, since the dawn of man.
It isn't what they are always CLAIMED they are for, but it is certainly the root of each and every one. Even the Crusades, and other so-called religious wars were about the money...when you really look into them.

Originally posted by Gazrok

even if I don't agree with war for money.

ALL wars are for money. That's all they are ever for, since the dawn of man.
It isn't what they are always CLAIMED they are for, but it is certainly the root of each and every one. Even the Crusades, and other so-called religious wars were about the money...when you really look into them.

I guess I am not for war then


Need to grow my hair out and break out the freedom rock man... TURN IT UP!!

Rich, you neglected to answer my questions:

Originally posted by craig732
But, perhaps I am mistaken, but how is Israel the agressor and without loss in this situation with Lebanon?

Were there not missles coming into Israel from Lebanon for some time before the Israeli "aggression"? Did Isreal not suffer casualties from these attacks staged from Lebanon?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Simple. Israel is the aggressor because they instigated the whole thing by sending troops into Lebanon to be kidnapped (actual plan, its documented). The are the aggressor because they killed at least 1000 Lebanese CIVILIANS. How many people in Israel died as a result of those rockets fired? Exactly. Not many. God Bless those who have died, may they rest in peace....but surely the casualty level is just a little one sided maybe?

Originally posted by craig732
Rich, you neglected to answer my questions:

Originally posted by craig732
But, perhaps I am mistaken, but how is Israel the agressor and without loss in this situation with Lebanon?

Were there not missles coming into Israel from Lebanon for some time before the Israeli "aggression"? Did Isreal not suffer casualties from these attacks staged from Lebanon?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I said that there had been a tit-for-tat conflict going on before Israel invaded Lebanon. That rather implies acceptance that missiles had been fired, but at least corrects the idea that it was somehow one-sided. That passage was intended to answer that question: evidently I should have spelled it out more clearly.

Let's also remember that Israel invaded, not because of rocket attacks, but because of the capture of its troops. It has been alleged that they were in Lebanon at the time they were taken, though this is a matter of dispute.

I never said that Israel was without loss. My use of the word impunity was meant to imply that Israel had suffered no punishment - not quite the same thing as loss - for its disproportionate use of force. That is, I think you will agree, a correct use of the word. The losses suffered by the Lebanese make the Israeli losses look rather insignificant by comparison.

I dealt with these matters somewhat obliquely, it's true - but then they are off topic.

I hope this satisfies your curiosity.

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
There is no "good will" on the topic of nuclear development of a state that openly sponsors terror. Dismissing inspections is irresponsible.

Iran voluntarily halted enrichment for some considerable time. That was a gesture of good will. The US has continually intimated that they're pursuing the development of nuclear weapons without any hard evidence (the superpower that cried wolf). The Iranians grew tired of being accused by the US and the delays to their nuclear power programme, and went ahead with their enrichment, which, as far as we can tell, is way under weapons grade.

And technically you said, "No, it's threatening retaliation if it's attacked."

Well a threat is a threat, so I declare victory and am now moving on to the next thread that has a reserve of oiii..I mean tyranny.

So. No nation is allowed to express a defensive posture against the mighty and wise United States. At least we know where we stand.

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend

Originally posted by pstiffy


So could you point out where the actual threat was??

You need to read the second part of the quote as-well.

He is implying that if the US tries to halt Iran's nuclear quest, they will take that as the US causing harm to Iran.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by Nihilist Fiend]

I read the entire article.

And why shouldn't they? The US does not have the right to tell other sovereign nations what to do or what they can/cannot have. The Iranian people have every right to have Nuclear Power.

So How do they pose a threat again??



[edit on 8/29/2006 by pstiffy]

saying they are a threat is just playing off of the nationalistic/militaristic fascist paranoia permeating middle america, or all the red states. Text RedIt is just another guise by the republican national socialists to justify war crimes and imperialismText Black

i guess i have to have a quote to chat....so more about iran, iranis are not arab or semetic peoples, no they are aryan arn ancient persia rivalled and even surpassed rome and greece in some areas. Christianity is basically zorastrianism evolved

Originally posted by rich23
I'm interested in clear, immediate, and specific threats, not vague fearmongering. Does that help? Also, I think it not unreasonable that economic reasons are not sufficient for an invasion.

I want to try and get to any real facts behind the hype. It's not as if anyone here has so far produced anything concrete or worthwhile - it's all just vague projections that seem not to stand up to any critical thought.

So you dont beleive that we should look to the future for possible threats? We should not be prepared for such and event to take place that would require us to meet a threat? Economics play a grand part in international politics, especially the politics of war. If you blockade a countries trade routes by sea nad air that hurts the economy and can be considered an act of war. While I do agree with you that Iran is not an immediate threat to the US mainland, but they could easily be ocnsidered a threat to our interests and assets in the region(ie Israel, Saudi Arabia) and a country should be able to act in such a way to protect those interests.

Originally posted by rich23
I'm hearing a lot of hype about Iran being such a threat to the US but... I can't quite see how. Do they have nuclear-tipped ICBMs? No.

But can you see how Iran could give their newly developed nuclear weapon to a country that does have missiles that can serve as ICBMs? Can you also see how they might give WMD's to terrorists that could find other ways to smuggle them into the U.S. that doesn't require a missile?

Do they have a fleet of submarines ready to mine the harbours of US ports? Don't think so.

Uh, actually, the iranians do possess submarines ...

Are they massing troops on the Mexican border, ready to invade from the south? Nuh-uh.

Better question would be are they sneaking terrorists into the U.S. through the porous mexican border? Some say they are.

So what is it that poses such a threat? Who can tell me?

Asked and answered (see above).

Hiding your head in the sand might buy you few more years of assumed peace and security, but what then?

Appeasement never works.


[edit on 8/29/2006 by centurion1211]