What is the reason, for a war against Iran ?

[the_tyrant]

I have to pitch in here:

China and Iran is fundamentally ideologically incompatible.

No problems with China, after all, China is "Communist" while its economical policies are more capitalist than actual "Capitalist" countries. Chinese people know and accept (or even like) this doublespeak.

Iran however, might very well object to the Chinese Ideology. Or as I will quote here: "The people have not been raped enough by the 'ideologies' to learn to enjoy the lies and hypocracy."

Why would this prove to be a problem?

Islam and communism has always had conflicts. Now in the Chinese textbooks, Islams is being attacked from all angles. Theocracies like Iran are being portrayed as "Backward" and "Ridiculous".

Add the new Chinese anti religion campaign, and I can just see the conflict sparking here.

Chinese people know that it is just talk, it is just for the government to save face. The amount of religious Chinese people increase with every passing day, and as long as the religious organizations do not cause trouble, the government never does anything.

Now the thing is, Iran is a heavily ideologically motivated nation. I doubt they would turn a blind eye and ignore this. Even if their secular leadership is willing to, their religious leadership is probably not willing to ignore this. There has been minor conflicts caused by this in the past, but nothing major yet.

Iranians are very proud (as of now), they are probably not willing to accept a compromise with China. After all, Pakistan had a rocky relationship with China before a string of total military defeats to India.

In conclusion, Iran might work with China now. But I really do not expect a long term alliance or relationship. The moment Israel and the US stop being a problem with Iran, I would bet on the likelihood of conflict between Iran and China.

[Platapus]

Why a war with Iran?

Well the Military Industrial Complex needs a "boogieman" in order to get funding. Russia is getting old. It is tougher to stir up scary things about China as they are just too busy making money.

North Korea has a big army, impossible terrain, and even though they could never win, they could cause a lot of damage to countries we like lose-lose situation.

Who else can we use to instill fear??? AQ? They are fragmented and besides there is no real money in fighting non-conventional non-state actors. We need carriers, submarines, bombers, and missiles $$$$ that's where the real profit is.

Remember, we are facing Draconian cuts to the military. We desperately need a circumstance where congress can say "well, sure we intended to cut the military as a means of bringing spending down... but after xxx we (ahem) (cue straight face) 'have no choice' but to plus up military spending."

So who don't we like who is surrounded by other countries we either don't like or don't like all that much?

And it has to be a country with a culture different from ours and one where we don't have a lot of citizens (voting significant numbers) from that culture???

And just to play it safe, it really should be a country that does not have the ability to directly attack the US proper.

It should also be a country that most citizens don't know much about so they will rely on the media for their propa... uh I mean information.

So why a war with Iran?

Why not? It is custom made for our purposes.

Yeah, I am THAT cynical about our foreign policy.

[Skybird]

That the IAEA - not really a friend of US policies, since some months is warning openly of a nuclear weapons program, and effectively has U-turned on its former polciies especially under Al-Baradei, seems to habe taken no note of?!

That the CIA has been ordered in 2002 and 2003 to produce the "evidence" needed by the Bush administration to giove an excuse for the Iraq war, and got terribly burned over its staged claims of mobile bio-weapon labs, Anthrax production and the Iraqi bomb program still going on - that this CIA now may be very shy and desperately tries to avoid making the same mistake again, seems to be an unreasionable thought now?

The the IAEA openly has objected the CIA claim, is of no interest?

The the same CIA that took orders by Bush to produce the wanted "evidence" may also accept orders by Obama to produce the wanted absenc e of evidence, is a far-fetched thought?

That Obama wants to keep pressure on Israel to discourage them from stirking at least before the US elections, and that Obama in general is very uncomfortable over going to war with Iran, must not be mentioned?

That Iran has been monitored and reported since some years now to move key sites of its research and production program deep into mopuintaisn and thus can give up the open, more vulenrable sites it used before, is invalid a finding now?

That Iran is developing carrier systems and fuses for nuclear bombs (and only for these), is meaningless?

That Iran has a completely understandable interest, from its perspective, to go after the bomb, is sneaking to the point from where to go into the final production stage so to make reaction time for the West as short as possible, and that both the current regime as well as all rivals of Amadinjadh - even the hilariously so-called "moderates" that the West loves so much - have publicly announced to continue the program, mjst not be taken serious?

That the risks of a nuzclear arms race b etween Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, is incalculatable, takes place in a totally instabile region driven by centuries-old hostilities and religious hysteria , must not worry thre world?

Proliferation has meanwhile become a word of the past, not having meaning anymore?

The CIA was not to be trusted in the past. It was not to be trusted in 2003. But now, when it claims something that fits a personal opinion and fulfills the hiunger for wishful thinking on the matter of peace and freedom - then it suddenly is trustworthy again?

Well.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Why a war with Iran?

Well the Military Industrial Complex needs a "boogieman" in order to get funding. Russia is getting old. It is tougher to stir up scary things about China as they are just too busy making money.

North Korea has a big army, impossible terrain, and even though they could never win, they could cause a lot of damage to countries we like lose-lose situation.

Who else can we use to instill fear??? AQ? They are fragmented and besides there is no real money in fighting non-conventional non-state actors. We need carriers, submarines, bombers, and missiles $$$$ that's where the real profit is.

Remember, we are facing Draconian cuts to the military. We desperately need a circumstance where congress can say "well, sure we intended to cut the military as a means of bringing spending down... but after xxx we (ahem) (cue straight face) 'have no choice' but to plus up military spending."

So who don't we like who is surrounded by other countries we either don't like or don't like all that much?

And it has to be a country with a culture different from ours and one where we don't have a lot of citizens (voting significant numbers) from that culture???

And just to play it safe, it really should be a country that does not have the ability to directly attack the US proper.

It should also be a country that most citizens don't know much about so they will rely on the media for their propa... uh I mean information.

So why a war with Iran?

Why not? It is custom made for our purposes.

Yeah, I am THAT cynical about our foreign policy.

I must say that I completely agree with what you said.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Why not? It is custom made for our purposes.

Yeah, I am THAT cynical about our foreign policy.

We don't need all those mental gymnastics, we still owe them for 1979, especially that Ahmadinejad guy who was one of the ringleaders.

[Stealhead]

I think we got them pretty good for 1979 when that US Navy ship accidentally shot down an Iranian Airliner in 1988 killing all 290 people on board.The Islamic Jihad bombing of the Marine Barracks killed 241 Marines and no one was killed in the embassy take over and the Men that died during Eagle Pull died because of poor planning not by Iranian bullets so their deaths I blame on the DOD and we just left their bodies as well Iran made a postage stamp of a burned airman.

So I think death wise we are about even.

Ahmadinejad was in no way involved in the embassy take over in 1979.That misinformation can be explained in the statement by Platapus;

"It should also be a country that most citizens don't know much about so they will rely on the media for their propa... uh I mean information."

With this line of thinking why not start the Civil War again I think we southerners owe you northerners for burning down Atlanta.

The Japanese could say that they owe us the deaths of a few hundred thousand US citizens for the Japanese one killed by fire bombing in 44 and 45.

Such ideas are very poor reasons to go to war in a modern world in particular.How many thousand Iranian and American soldiers must die to satisfy what is owed?

Some kid beat me in a fight when I was 10 years old I must track him down and beat him in hand to hand combat I owe him.

[Catfish]

I do not agree with that the US is owing "them" (Iran) something, for 1979.
Then maybe Argentina also owes the US something for 9/11, 1973 ? Or the Philipines ? Or the Indians ?
This all was generations ago, and people talking about "not to forget history" often (!) only want to stir the pot, for their own revenge.
Because, imho, few have ever really (!) learned from history.

Iran had been built up as a bulwark against communism by the west, its army in the 1970ies was the 4th biggest worldwide, armed by a lot of western nations including Germany b.t.w.. Oil was also important, at that time it was more british BP than US companies, but ...
The main enemy then was communism, the USSR and its influence, not Islam. Against that, there was Israel.

As well the forced inthronization by the west, of Shah (king) Reza Pahlewi, did not go well with the iranian population, especially when he began to kill and torture his own subjects en masse. He was just a very bad dictator, much worse than Saddam Hussein, but if the devil himself was anti-communist the west would have welcomed him.

Which is what i meant with Ayatollah Khomeini would never have stood a chance, if the iranian people would not have been harrassed by its own government before - this was pure despair, and they wanted to get rid of the Shah. They blamed the Shah on those who had inthronized him - the west. Big chance for a religious, or at least anti-western regime.
(This is also what i mean with we have not really learned from history, "we" are still mostly supporting the wrong nations, and the wrong regimes - Libya was the first time done better, but the west was not used to support the people other than militarily, and just overslept the chance of taking influence on a democratic birth of a new republic)

And on the contrary to the "usual revolutions", the one in Iran was a relatively unbloody one - sure the military shot at demonstrants, but instead of running away there were more deomstrants by the minute, filling up the rows without shooting, until the commanders (wisely) decided to retreat to the barracks instead of massacring their own people.

Imho the iranian regime still justifies its own reign by the deeds of the Shah.
A better idea than bombing would be to strategically place persons at the right points, and slowly convince the people of a better way of life. As said before, most Iranians do not have anything against the US, or Israel. Just tell them, convince, also admit faults and failures in the past, generate trust and reliance, exchange students. If this is done properly and sustainably, any unfree regime will overthrow itself in the long run.
This, is certainly not the short fuse solution the media or whoever are wanting us to believe is necessary.


Israel: Other than the US, they face a threat directly and have to act accordingly. But why don't they try to alter the perception of "the arabs" instead of cluster-bombing and assassinating everything thus generating more hate and terrorists ? What is with clandestine operations, changing from within ? Those student exchanges i mentioned, civilian spy jobs (well i take it they do, but to what extent?), or just talk and exchange well-nown persons like actors, spokesman, whatever. Certainly this is not easy, but Israel has shown it is intelligent enough and could - with the political will.

Certainly even for non-religious western young (dumb) folks it is easier to follow those left slogans and beliefs like how "jews kill innocent arabs and drive them from their land", and then settling there. The problem is this is easier to understand for a dumbnut than what lies behind. In the long run, there can only be the chance of education, for the arabian generations to come. So why do not help them and fill the vacuum ? You will storm open doors ..

Even if Israel makes a necessary military strike, why are they content to then hold back and wait for the next threat to happen ? Why don't they actively act bilaterally civilian and militarily, trying to convince ? I understand especially jews do not want to wait, not wanting to act the victim anymore after centuries of pursuit and being conveniently blamed for all by others, but i think they will not succeed if they do not build up a second branch of civilian persuasion.


I still do not know what you mean with China and Iran, as a reason for war between the US, and Iran ? A substitute war, a warning ?
Iran selling oil for Yen ?
Or is it Israel asking the US to help ?
While the cynical idea of the weapons industry needing a new playground and a pretext for funding the military, i am not convinced this alone is the truth ?

So why a war with Iran?

Why not? It is custom made for our purposes.

Yeah, I am THAT cynical about our foreign policy.

Well said.
You miss out one reason though.......
It was spelled wrong last time

Well, they did attack sovereign US territory in 1979 (embassies are just that),

How many times are you going to repeat that nonsense tater?
Would you like to go through it again so you can say "ooops I got it wrong" again?
How long would it be until you repeat the same mistake again ......and again and again?

we still owe them for 1979

Someone is on the same brainlevel as the mad mullahs who say you still owe them for 1953

[Sammi79]

Why?

I think because Israel and by proxy USA governments feel a need to keep their position as the top military power in the ME, Israel because of its small size and feelings of vulnerability and USA because of cold war politics and oil.

and besides,



Regards, Sam.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I think we got them pretty good for 1979 when that US Navy ship accidentally shot down an Iranian Airliner in 1988 killing all 290 people on board.

Accident versus deliberate action. Not the same thing.

Ahmadinejad was in no way involved in the embassy take over in 1979.That misinformation can be explained in the statement by Platapus;

"It should also be a country that most citizens don't know much about so they will rely on the media for their propa... uh I mean information.

Except that it's not the media who is saying this but the hostages themselves. Now call me crazy but I tend to believe them over you or the media and certainly over politically motivated CIA reports.

With this line of thinking why not start the Civil War again I think we southerners owe you northerners for burning down Atlanta.

Maybe you traitors should have thought about that before you tried to desert your country.

The Japanese could say that they owe us the deaths of a few hundred thousand US citizens for the Japanese one killed by fire bombing in 44 and 45.

Maybe the Japanese could say that if we were to ignore the fact that they brought it upon themselves by attacking us in the first place.

Such ideas are very poor reasons to go to war in a modern world in particular.How many thousand Iranian and American soldiers must die to satisfy what is owed?

Some kid beat me in a fight when I was 10 years old I must track him down and beat him in hand to hand combat I owe him.

Sorry but you loosing a childhood fight does not compare with an organized attack on sovereign American territory nor does it compare with the kidnapping and illegal detention of American diplomats. Many of the problems we have today stem from our weakness and inaction during that time.

[Catfish]

^
Defending "your" values all over the world, by force, will probably not win you the hearts of the world ?

So what do you say about the forced inthronization of the Shah, by "the west", or better US and UK ? So iranian people did not like this, especially when it turned out Shah Pahlewi was just a bad dictator.

I am sure argentinian people did not like it as well, when the CIA killed the democratically elected president Allende ?

You have helped and supported Bin Laden, as long as his terrorism was directed towards Russia.

You have helped and supported Saddam Hussein, before he did what he always did, only this time against Saudi-Arabia - which is also a befriended dictatorship itself.

And you call the temporary occupation of an embassy (without killing a diplomate) an attack against America, after what you did ?

I guess hipocrisy knows no limits

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^
Defending "your" values all over the world, by force, will probably not win you the hearts of the world ?

Winning "the hearts of the world" is an impossible task and it's a waste of time trying. No matter what our country does we will still be hated, if for no other reason than jealousy for our success.

So what do you say about the forced inthronization of the Shah, by "the west", or better US and UK ? So iranian people did not like this, especially when it turned out Shah Pahlewi was just a bad dictator.

"Just a bad dictator" is a huge oversimplification. Was the Shah bad for extending suffrage to women? His economic and social reforms? How about his modernization efforts? Even if you discount that he still was a less oppressive leader than the mullahs which run the country now.

I am sure argentinian people did not like it as well, when the CIA killed the democratically elected president Allende?

You've been watching too much Michael Moore. A theory does not fact make. If you have some kind of proof that the CIA murdered Allende then post it or withdraw the accusation.

You have helped and supported Bin Laden, as long as his terrorism was directed towards Russia

.

We didn't help bin Laden. We assisted the Mujahadeen to combat the Soviet invasion of their country. There is no evidence that he ever recieved aid or training from the US government. That's two unsupported claims you've made.

You have helped and supported Saddam Hussein, before he did what he always did, only this time against Saudi-Arabia - which is also a befriended dictatorship itself.

And you call the temporary occupation of an embassy (without killing a diplomate) an attack against America, after what you did ?

An embassy is a nations sovereign territory and attacks upon it are acts of war. End of story.

Maybe the Japanese could say that if we were to ignore the fact that they brought it upon themselves by attacking us in the first place.

So the Iranains can say it because you overthrew thier government and supported a dictator to try and secure Iranian resources.
Well done august you just justified the mullahs

sovereign American territory

I suppose its a politcally motivated cover up when your government says its embassies are not soveriegn american territory.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by August

Accident versus deliberate action. Not the same thing.



Except that it's not the media who is saying this but the hostages themselves. Now call me crazy but I tend to believe them over you or the media and certainly over politically motivated CIA reports.



Maybe you traitors should have thought about that before you tried to desert your country.



Maybe the Japanese could say that if we were to ignore the fact that they brought it upon themselves by attacking us in the first place.



Sorry but you loosing a childhood fight does not compare with an organized attack on sovereign American territory nor does it compare with the kidnapping and illegal detention of American diplomats. Many of the problems we have today stem from our weakness and inaction during that time.

You really need to learn when someone is being sarcastic.

Yep I am a traitor I have Southern heritage some distant relatives fought for the CSA come and arrest me.But some also fought for the US Army as well oh and my mother was born in Iran (left way before the 1979 revolution) shall I be drawn and quartered?

Exactly what former hostage says that Ahmadinejad was the ring leader? I have never seen or heard anywhere such a claim be made that was proven to be true they base this off of a picture of a man that looks like Ahmadinejad.And it is not my media I do not own nor do I trust it so you not lay claim of ownership at my feet.Even the CIA checked into this and said that he was not involved.

Perhaps many of the problems we have with Iran are problems that we created by placing the Shah of Iran in charge in the first place we backed a despot that killed many Iranians and resulted in the revolution in the first place(the CIA backed the Shahs entry into power by the way) it should not be overly shocking that they kind disliked the American government.I see the situation in Iran since 1979 as an excellent example of how to shoot yourself in the foot.

And lets not forget Iran Contra which involved the US government selling arms to Iran though the Israelis in exchange for the release of hostages being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Iranian government is most defiantly not to be trusted and they have done and supported some foul deeds but there is no reason to get into an all out war with Iran. Waste of time seeing as with every passing day the regime in Iran grows more unpopular by the minute.


@Catfish "You have helped and supported Bin Laden, as long as his terrorism was directed towards Russia." there is no evidence to support this claim what so ever.In an abstract manner perhaps by the supply of weapons and funds to the ISI who gave them out to the Afghans but it is very well known that Bin Laden used his own money and money from backers in Saudi Arabia in his support of Mujaheddin against the Soviets he did not need any money or aid from out side sources.(outside his click)

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

You really need to learn when someone is being sarcastic.

Is that what you call that?

Yep I am a traitor I have Southern heritage some distant relatives fought for the CSA come and arrest me.But some also fought for the US Army as well oh and my mother was born in Iran (left way before the 1979 revolution) shall I be drawn and quartered?

Let me guess you're being sarcastic again...

Exactly what former hostage says that Ahmadinejad was the ring leader? I have never seen or heard anywhere such a claim be made.And it is not my media I do not own nor do I trust it so you not lay claim of ownership at my feet.Even the CIA checked into this and said that he was not involved.

You mean the same CIA that claimed Saddam was buying Nigerian yellowcake uranium? You believe them over the hostages themselves? Do some research on your country's history. Here i'll get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...hostage_crisis

Several former hostages allege that during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis Ahmadinejad was one of the key individuals holding Americans inside the embassy.
A former Iranian secret agent said that the allegations were untrue: “I’m opposed to Ahmadinejad’s policies and thinking but he was not involved in the hostage drama nor in the assassination of an Iranian opposition Kurdish leader in Vienna.”[11] A classified CIA report says the claim is not proven.[12]
With Ahmadinejad's recent publicity, five former U.S. hostages Dr. William Daugherty (who worked for the CIA in Iran), Kevin Hermening, David Roeder, US Army Col. Charles Scott (Ret.), and US Navy Capt. Donald Sharer (Ret.) have alleged that Ahmadinejad was one of the leaders of the Iran Hostage Crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, during their 444-day captivity starting on November 4, 1979. All of the above-mentioned hostages have claimed that Ahmadinejad is the man whom they remember from their captivity. Ahmadinejad denies his presence in the embassy, other hostages are unsure about the identification and the CIA has reportedly questioned this identification.
Col. Charles Scott, now seventy-three, recently told the Washington Times[13] that "He was one of the top two or three leaders; the new president of Iran is a terrorist." Col. Scott claimed to recall an incident when Ahmadinejad berated a friendly Iranian guard who had allowed the two Americans to visit another U.S. hostage in a neighboring cell. Col. Scott, who understands Persian, said Ahmadinejad told the guard: "You shouldn't let these pigs out of their cells". Donald Sharer, a retired Navy captain who was for a time a cellmate of Col. Scott at the Evin prison in northern Tehran, remembered Ahmadinejad as "a hard-liner, a cruel individual". "I know he was an interrogator", said Capt. Sharer, now 64. Former hostages William Daugherty and Kevin Hermening also claim he was involved.
Scott and Roeder have also expressed certainty that Ahmadinejad was present at their interrogations. Scott asserted his certainty forcefully, stating: "This is the guy. There's no question about it. You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him." Both men, along with Sharer and Hermening, have stated their recollections of Ahmadinejad as an "extremely cruel" ringleader. Of the above men, only Hermening has expressed that he was not immediately sure that Ahmadinejad was involved in the Hostage Crisis.
However, former hostages USAF Col. Thomas E. Schaefer (Ret.), Paul Lewis (a former Marine embassy guard), and Barry Rosen (former embassy press attache) have expressed uncertainty regarding whether Ahmadinejad was actually involved. Schaefer stated that he does not recall Ahmadinejad by face or name, and Lewis expressed noticing a vague familiarity upon seeing Ahmadinejad's picture, but said that he could not be sure if Ahmadinejad was actually the same person as his captor. "My memories were more of the gun barrel, not the people behind it," stated Lewis. Rosen, while not claiming to personally recognize Ahmadinejad, professes to believe those who do claim to recognize the new Iranian President-elect. "When you're in a situation like that… it doesn't go away" Rosen stated.

the CIA backed the Shahs entry into power by the way

Re-entry into power actually. Another way of putting it was righting the wrong done his father during WW2 when the Soviets and Brits violated Iran's neutrality and occupied the country.

And lets not forget Iran Contra which involved the US government selling arms to Iran though the Israelis in exchange for the release of hostages being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

And this makes Iranians mad at us how?

The Iranian government is most defiantly not to be trusted and they have done and supported some foul deeds but there is no reason to get into an all out war with Iran. Waste of time seeing as with every passing day the regime in Iran grows more unpopular by the minute.

I can agree with that but this thread is about reasons for a war against Iran not reasons why we shouldn't. I have posted the ones I can think of but I make no claims as to their advisability at this point.