Iran, The real issue, An open discussion, page 23

reply to post by nenothtu

---

The Original Nazi/Soviet Plan to take over the Middle Eastern as well as African Oil Fields was partially implemented by the Nazi's as they invaded North Africa. The Soviet part of this original plan that was Nixed when the Nazi's attacked the Soviet Union...was for the Soviets to Invade IRAN on both the East and West side of the Caspian Sea as well as Two Soviet Divisions Invasion of Turkey and as these Two Soviet Divisions swung West to drive toward the Med...Two other Soviet Divisions would follow behind the initial invading force where One would swing East into Iran and the other would travel South into Iraq then into Saudi Arabia.

Thus the Soviets would maintain control of the Oil Fields of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia...although these countries names were somewhat different at the time and would provide little to No resistance. The Nazi's would and did attack from Spain into Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia and into Egypt from Crossing the Med from Italy as well.

That was the plan originally. It changed somewhat...but not much. Countries like Syria and Palestine were an after thought as they did not contain Oil Reserves. As the Cold War Began...the plan of Invading Iran was thwarted by the U.S. involvement in that country as well as the U.S. placement of Nuclear Missiles in Turkey.

Even though the support of the Shah was a MISTAKE...it was the combination of a U.S. presence in Iran and Nukes in Turkey and the eventual entry of Turkey into NATO that forced the Soviet Union to Invade Afghanistan. And without U.S. support via the CIA and CHARLIE WILSON...the Soviets would have swept into Iran then into Iraq and then Saudi Arabia...this would have started WWIII. Split Infinity

reply to post by milominderbinder

---

Sorry, that completely disregards the response of the rest of the Middle-east to the Iranian possession of nukes. Iraq, the Saudi's, whoever takes over in Syria all "nuke up".

If your a history grad, then lets not forget the mechanism of others wars sucking us into theirs.... you left that out of your pat equation...as has Ron Paul....

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by milominderbinder

---

Sorry, that completely disregards the response of the rest of the Middle-east to the Iranian possession of nukes. Iraq, the Saudi's, whoever takes over in Syria all "nuke up".

If your a history grad, then lets not forget the mechanism of others wars sucking us into theirs.... you left that out of your pat equation...as has Ron Paul....

That was one of the more incoherent posts I've ever seen.

"whoever takes over in Syria all 'nuke up'." I'm not even sure what your trying to communicate.

However...as for other parties sucking us into their wars...yes...this is a HUGE danger. All the more reason to give Iran a bunch of Nukes. We would be very, very hesitant to invade Iran if they had nukes. However...it pretty much takes that option off the table entirely for everybody else in the region...INCLUDING RUSSIA AND CHINA.

The only real danger left would be the REAL religious nutcases in the region...the Israeli's...who ALREADY HAVE NUKES. So what's the answer? We just inform both Iran and Israel that the US will retaliate w/ our nukes against WHICHEVER one launches the first nuke.

Is it a "perfect" resolution...no...of course not. However...it's more realistic than thinking that the special interest groups that bribe our politicians will behave like grown-ups when it comes to foreign policy in the middle east.

As for the equation you reference...yes...there are several of them. It's a branch of mathematics called "Game Theory". There is an EXCELLENT open source mathematics program called "Gambit" which you can download for free and begin to play around with setting up your own games (again...as in "mathematics"...not as in "monopoly") and you can begin to play around with some of these concepts to see how Rational Actors behave in real life (again..."rational actors" as in mathematics...not in the colloquial sense which would imply that the Iranian government is "reasonable"). There are also a number of podcasts available for free download from iTunes U which feature full courses on Game Theory from some of the finest universities in the entire world. Personally, I would recommend the course that Prof. Ben Polak taught at Yale...again...free for any and all who are interested on iTunes U. However, I do also hear that MIT has an excellent course available in their new "open courseware" offerings...but I have yet to check that one out.

Once you start to understand the relative probabilities of this sort of a strategy failing you will likely change your opinion. Is it POSSIBLE that the mutually assured destruction approach would fail? Sure. It's just that the odds of it succeeding are several orders of magnitude greater than the odds that built Las Vegas and the odds of it failing are roughly akin to winning the Powerball WHILE being struck by lighting.

Here is the link to the Gambit software
Link: www.gambit-project.org...

Enjoy!

reply to post by milominderbinder

---

OK, let me make it simpler for you. A nuclear power Iraq increases the chance/need of other countries around to alson procure nuclear weapons. Iraq, the Saudi's and whomever ends up controlling Syria. That's just to start with. If that is incomprehensable for you, well, my sympathies....

reply to post by nwtrucker

---

My apologies, I should have my coffee before posting . I meant a nuclear powered Iran, not Iraq.

It has to stop somewhere. Iran is a very good place to stop the proliferation. Apparently a majority of middle east and european countries agree, not just the U.S.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by nwtrucker

---

My apologies, I should have my coffee before posting . I meant a nuclear powered Iran, not Iraq.

It has to stop somewhere. Iran is a very good place to stop the proliferation. Apparently a majority of middle east and european countries agree, not just the U.S.

No worries on the coffee...it happens to the best of us. I'm pretty much incapable of speech until I am properly caffeinated.

As for the "majority of the Middle East"...who is this "majority"? The only country I hear about that wants yet another foreign invasion of Middle East is Israel.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by milominderbinder

---

OK, let me make it simpler for you. A nuclear power Iraq increases the chance/need of other countries around to alson procure nuclear weapons. Iraq, the Saudi's and whomever ends up controlling Syria. That's just to start with. If that is incomprehensable for you, well, my sympathies....

Yes...I know. That's my whole point.

The only chances for stability in the Middle East are EITHER to give the various governments a bunch of nukes OR to render oil completely and utterly obsolete so that the entire region has little to no strategic value other than just being a chunk of mud that's sort of close to Russia and China.

The only one of these that's feasible anytime in the near future is handing out Nukes. So...Let Iran have the Nukes. And let's also give them out to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Turkey, and Syria.

I PROMISE you that there Israel will become incredibly cooperative about that 1967 border once they aren't the only one in immediate vicinity with nukes. Similarly...if we can't invade any of these hellholes anymore...then we can't continue to destabilize the region like we have been doing since more or less the day WWII ended.

I trust Iran with Nukes more than I trust our Congress with lobbyists.

reply to post by milominderbinder

---

Well, I suspect that Israel wouldn't wait for all those countries to develope/buy nukes. For the same reason that Israel isn't likely to wait for Iran to develope them. Or do you think Israel is bluffing? That they won't move on Iran?

With an apparent 100-200 weapons of their own, why should they wait? They lose their advantage.

Frankly, assassinating Iran's president makes the most sense. It allows the Iranians to perhaps get someone in power a little more in touch with his people and the world at large....

reply to post by SplitInfinity

---

Umm, you say that without US support for the Shah, the Soviet Union would have swept into Iran. Do you have any evidence for this?

That's the line MI6 fed to the CIA to gain their support for a coup. Why do you believe it?

reply to post by milominderbinder

---

What majority of countries? Well, maybe that's a stretch. I recall the Saudis for sure, Jordan isn't exactly fond of Iran. Lebanon. I was thinking Syria, but I can't recall specifically anything re the Iran and nukes. In general, I can't think of too many countries that would be thrilled that a neighbour had developed/obtained nukes.

The logic that if one has em, then everyone who wants em should have them is lost on me. Sounds more like a suicide pact than logic.

reply to post by nwtrucker

---

Seriously, you must know nothing about Iran. Why do you think assassinating Ahmadinejad would help Iranians elect someone more amenable to the West? He isn't even the major problem for the West. He controls very little of Iran's foreign policy. LOL.

reply to post by milominderbinder

---

Well, it could be that I just don't have a very firm grasp on the notion of "Social Justice". It would seem to me that, by relegation it to legislative actions, one has removed it from the realm of "Social Justice" and attempted to insinuate it into the realm of Legal Justice. In effect, one is attempting to legislate morality, and that seldom turns out well in the end, simply because there are so many different versions and conceptions of what constitutes "morality" floating around.

For example, most agree that killing folks for no good reason is a bad thing. It runs afoul, however, when we delve into what constitutes "good reason" from person to person.

In the matter of "wealth redistribution", I'm entirely against accomplishing said redistribution by legislative fiat. I don't have much, nor do I want much. I'm content to leave most of everything for someone else to gather. Where it starts raising my hackles is when someone else thinks it's my responsibility to gather it up to myself, and then just hand it over to them. Likewise, I don't expect anyone else to hand over to me what they have gathered to themselves. I'm all for letting everyone gather their own, and not taking more than they need. When we introduce legislation into that equation, however, some one, on one side or the other, is going to undergo oppression, simply by virtue of being forced into the economy of the collective. Forcing me to hand over what is mine to the collective down the street for their redistribution among themselves is no different at all that is forcing them to hand over what is theirs to a Carnegie, a Rockefeller, or a Rothschild. Highway robbery is highway robbery, regardless of the status of the perpetrator.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

---

You state what the US believed was the Soviet plan. But was it the Soviet plan? Do you have some evidence?

reply to post by milominderbinder

---

Agreed, Israel has their share of sins to answer for, in common with every other nation on Earth. I was responding specifically to the nuclear issue, however, since that is what the poster was harping on about.

I've no problem with Israeli nukes, and I've no problem with Iranian nukes. I just think that people and nations should abide by their word, and if they promise through a treaty obligation to do or not do any particular thing, they should stick by that. Nations, like individuals, are only as good as their word.

If Iran wants nukes, they should go for it - AFTER withdrawing from the NPT. I've never had a problem with North Korean nukes, either, BECAUSE they withdrew from the NPT.

If you give your word in a matter, either stick by it, or modify it until you CAN stick by it.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by milominderbinder

---

Agreed, Israel has their share of sins to answer for, in common with every other nation on Earth. I was responding specifically to the nuclear issue, however, since that is what the poster was harping on about.

I've no problem with Israeli nukes, and I've no problem with Iranian nukes. I just think that people and nations should abide by their word, and it they promise through a treaty obligation to do or not do any particular thing, they should stick by that. Nations, like individuals, are only as good as their word.

If Iran wants nukes, they should go for it - AFTER withdrawing from the NPT. I've never had a problem with North Korean nukes, either, BECAUSE they withdrew from the NPT.

If you give your word in a matter, either stick by it, or modify it until you CAN stick by it.

Seriously, is this an argument? So it is better for North Korea to create 100 nuclear missiles than for Iran to legally enrich uranium, just because Iran is member of an arbitrary treaty and North Korea isn't? Good as their word?

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by milominderbinder

---

Well, I suspect that Israel wouldn't wait for all those countries to develope/buy nukes. For the same reason that Israel isn't likely to wait for Iran to develope them. Or do you think Israel is bluffing? That they won't move on Iran?

With an apparent 100-200 weapons of their own, why should they wait? They lose their advantage.

Frankly, assassinating Iran's president makes the most sense. It allows the Iranians to perhaps get someone in power a little more in touch with his people and the world at large....

The last I heard, the estimate for Israeli nukes was a bit higher - around 300. I think it would be a while before Iran could balance that advantage in nuclear capabilities, even if they test fired their first nuke day after tomorrow. Israel has plenty of time to hedge their advantages. I personally would be hedging it in defensive measures rather than offensive, but that's just me. I'm not Israeli.

If Israel wanted to strike, offensively, then they should go for it, but with the understanding that they're on their own as soon as they tip the balance of offensive rhetoric into the venue of offensive action. Do what you want, but do it on your own and face the consequences. When talking - even talking tall - devolves into throwing schmittys, then throw 'em, and take your lumps. I personally wouldn't help them do a damned thing that wasn't defensive against an offensive action. Anything else is just stirring the pot and asking for trouble.

There is nothing to be gained by assasinating Yabba-Dabba-Jihad, or whatever that cat's name is. You can knock down as many Iranian figurehead presidents as you like, and there will always be more waiting in the wings, waiting their turn in the spot light, and singing the same old song as the guy you've got there now. You'll gain nothing but ire, and hand over propaganda points to the opposition by playing such silly-assed games.

Israel Uses a 13 Year Old Boy as a Human Shield
  Posted 15 days ago with 38 member flags

The Most Outrageous Hateful Rhetoric of All Time
  Posted 16 days ago with 37 member flags

Quotable Quotes from the Chosen Ones. Hate, Despise, Crush, Kill, Destroy...
  Posted 9 days ago with 37 member flags

Debate over a Nuclear Iran is just an Illusion- drop your preconceived opinions to see the reality
  Posted 1 days ago with 32 member flags

"Syrian rebels try to use prisoner for suicide bombing" video removed by BBC and NYT
  Posted 19 days ago with 27 member flags

‘US to Iran: In case of Israeli strike, don’t fire on our bases’
  Posted 8 days ago with 27 member flags

US Preparing for a Post-Israel Middle East?
  Posted 12 days ago with 26 member flags

Iran Bashing, Terrorism and Who Chose The Chosen People, Anyway?
  Posted 16 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: