Iran: Hyperinflation is taking hold (SHTF)

[Coffee]

All countries attempt to act in their own best interest.  We are interested in Iran because they are ruled by a bat-shit crazy religious dictatorship that has the ability to disrupt the world's oil production and distribution-- which could create a serious SHTF and severe hardship for us.

Iran is expansionist in nature.  They meddle in the politics of practically every other country in their neighborhood, attempting to spread bat-shit crazy all over the world.  

No thanks.

This whole Libertarian idea that: if we just leave everybody else alone, they will leave us alone... is naive.  It ignores basic human nature: Rulers... especially dictators... want power.  And once they get power, they want more. And more.  It also doesn't provide a good answer for the fact that power abhors a vacuum.  Which means that: As we pull out (for example: Under a RP admin) ... the Russians, the Chinese and who-knows-who-else will move in to fill that power vacuum.  Just look at Panama: The Chinese now control the canal.  

No thanks.

[brick-house]

coffee wrote:

All countries attempt to act in their own best interest.  We are interested in Iran because they are ruled by a bat-shit crazy religious dictatorship that has the ability to disrupt the world's oil production and distribution-- which could create a serious SHTF and severe hardship for us.

Ten years in Iraq and Afghanistan are in our best interest?  You could make a pretty strong argument that our actions in Iraq have benefited Iran more than the U.S.  

Best interest gets blurred when other people's kids (no draft) are fighting the war and the war is financed by debt instead of the cost being felt by the taxpayers.   If there is no cost to the war, then interest in war will rise.  

The thing that gets me about the U.S. neo-conservative movement is that these guys are chicken-hawks.  They avoided Vietnam like the plague in their youth and in middle/older age are now extreme interventionist hawks.  

This whole Libertarian idea that: if we just leave everybody else alone, they will leave us alone... is naive.  It ignore the basic human nature: Rulers... especially dictators... want power.  And once they get power, they want more. And more.  It also doesn't provide a good answer for the fact that power abhors a vacuum.  Which means that: As we pull out (for example: Under a RP admin) ... the Russians, the Chinese and who-knows-who-else will move in to fill that power vacuum.  Just look at Panama: The Chinese now control the canal.

 

Right on about power.  Our military is an expansionist bureaucracy that seeks power and wants more,  thus there is always another bat-shit crazy dictator to go after.  

Dick Cheney (very sane) thought that an Iraq war was a bad idea when he was not in power.  He changed his tune when he was in power.

Dick Cheney 1994 quagmire interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

[Reub]

Coffee, you are a hundred percent right. It is exactly this kind of isolationist thinking that allowed the Nazis to almost conquer the world. Iran must be stopped. And soon!

[MediumTex]

Coffee, you are a hundred percent right. It is exactly this kind of isolationist thinking that allowed the Nazis to almost conquer the world. Iran must be stopped. And soon!

What will "stopping" Iran involve?

How will we know when Iran is "stopped"?

[stone]

Reub, I don't understand the comparison to the Nazis. The Nazis invaded other countries and murdered huge numbers of people. If all of the countries in the world were listed in order of despoticness, would Iran even come top? I definately want to avoid ever getting a government like they have here but "stopping" them sounds like an open ended quagmire that will only result in withdrawl after a decade of fighting leaving an even more unstable and dangerous situation in place.

[brick-house]

England did not defeat Nazi Germany and did not have the capability.   The bulk of the credit for the defeat of the Nazis was the Soviet Union, then the United States, and in third England.    The big English mistake was not made by Neville Chamberlain, but a generation before when they entered World War I.  

[Coffee]

Reub, I don't understand the comparison to the Nazis. The Nazis invaded other countries and murdered huge numbers of people. If all of the countries in the world were listed in order of despoticness, would Iran even come top? I definately want to avoid ever getting a government like they have here but "stopping" them sounds like an open ended quagmire that will only result in withdrawl after a decade of fighting leaving an even more unstable and dangerous situation in place.

Yes, they would come out on top. 

- They finance and arm Hezbollah.
- They finance, arm and prop up the government (or a big part of it) in Lebanon
- They finance, arm and prop up the murderous regime of Syria.
- They finance, arm and support terrorist movements that target women and children in Iraq.
- They interfere and influence Afghanistan.
- They routinely threaten to wipe other countries off the map and make a sport of calling for the slaughter of Jews, worldwide.


I could go on and on.

[stone]

Coffee, what about the war in the Congo where 5.4 million people have been killed since 1998 or Sudan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

[stone]

Coffee, my impression is that Iran just opportunisticly supports anyone who creates a nightmare for the US troops whenever US troops get involved in the region. Isn't it possible that Iran would never have considered getting involved in Afganistan had the USA not become embroiled there?

I have to stress how repugnant I find the government of Iran. An Iranian couple I know also share that view. Going to war is a massive step though. The misery it would create is vast isn't it?

[Coffee]

coffee wrote:

All countries attempt to act in their own best interest.  We are interested in Iran because they are ruled by a bat-shit crazy religious dictatorship that has the ability to disrupt the world's oil production and distribution-- which could create a serious SHTF and severe hardship for us.

Ten years in Iraq and Afghanistan are in our best interest?  You could make a pretty strong argument that our actions in Iraq have benefited Iran more than the U.S.  

Best interest gets blurred when other people's kids (no draft) are fighting the war and the war is financed by debt instead of the cost being felt by the taxpayers.   If there is no cost to the war, then interest in war will rise.  

The thing that gets me about the U.S. neo-conservative movement is that these guys are chicken-hawks.  They avoided Vietnam like the plague in their youth and in middle/older age are now extreme interventionist hawks.  

This whole Libertarian idea that: if we just leave everybody else alone, they will leave us alone... is naive.  It ignore the basic human nature: Rulers... especially dictators... want power.  And once they get power, they want more. And more.  It also doesn't provide a good answer for the fact that power abhors a vacuum.  Which means that: As we pull out (for example: Under a RP admin) ... the Russians, the Chinese and who-knows-who-else will move in to fill that power vacuum.  Just look at Panama: The Chinese now control the canal.

 

Right on about power.  Our military is an expansionist bureaucracy that seeks power and wants more,  thus there is always another bat-shit crazy dictator to go after.  

Dick Cheney (very sane) thought that an Iraq war was a bad idea when he was not in power.  He changed his tune when he was in power.

Dick Cheney 1994 quagmire interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

I don't know how to make a quote in a quote with this forum software, so I'll address each point briefly:

10 years in Iraq: Hindsight is 20/20.  Still, not a bad outcome.  We got rid of Hussein in Iraq, young girls are now allowed to go to school and women can drive. We have more of a central influence in the Middle East to thwart Iran and protect our oil interests.  Hussein is no longer funding and harboring terrorism.  Afghanistan: Combined with Iraq, we now had Iran flanked.  Taliban was driven out.  Al Queda crushed.  The only real argument that our actions in Iraq have benefited Iran more than the US is because the Democrats undermine our war efforts at every turn.  Iraq was starting to calm down and stand on it's own feet, until Obama started pulling the troops out.  

Other people's kids Dead-end argument.  If there was a draft, you'd argue that there should be a volunteer army so that people's "kids" can choose to go or not.

Neo-con chicken hawk argument:  Your argument suggests that only we should be governed (at least on issues of war) by a super-citizen, or citizen-soldier.  That only those who have served some how have a right to say whether we go to war.  Of course, then you'll make the argument that it's the war hungry generals and military establishment making the decisions.  So again... you've set up another false argument.

Expansionist military Last time I checked: The military was run by a civilian commander-in-chief.  The military does not set it's own agenda.  If they did, they'd probably get more funding rather than the cuts Obama is making.

Dick Cheney change of position So, in your opinion, leaders should be inflexible and recalcitrant?  They should always stick with a position even when current intelligence suggest that would be imprudent?

[Coffee]

Coffee, what about the war in the Congo where 5.4 million people have been killed since 1998 or Sudan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make with this? Is it the "We should be the policeman to the world" argument?

What's wrong with acting in our own best interest? We can't be the policeman to the world.  But we should act where it benefits us.  And remember: We give more charity than any other country, by far.

[Coffee]

Coffee, my impression is that Iran just opportunisticly supports anyone who creates a nightmare for the US troops whenever US troops get involved in the region. Isn't it possible that Iran would never have considered getting involved in Afganistan had the USA not become embroiled there?

I have to stress how repugnant I find the government of Iran. An Iranian couple I know also share that view. Going to war is a massive step though. The misery it would create is vast isn't it?

You're conjuring up that old "Blame America First" argument, here.  If you look at Iran's foreign policy, they meddle with everybody in the region, whether it has to do with us or not.  They are expansionist to their core and they have an ideological interpretation of Islam that demands that they spread it. Furthermore: They're run by a type of apocalyptic religious zealot.  Why is it so difficult for you to take them at their word (and their actions)?

Saudi Arabia, by the way, if completely freaked out by them and their expansionist policy.  Probably more than Israel, even.

[stone]

Coffee, I guess I think they are just like North Korea, they bluster. The posturing seems a bit like that of Northern Irish politicians. They use a persecution complex as a rallying call to garner domestic support. Getting drawn into their game seems a mistake to me.

[MediumTex]

One of the issues that often gets lost in the Iran discussion is that Persians have a tendency to look down on Arabs as an inferior people.

It's sort of weird that Iran professes to care so much about the Palestinians, and yet privately you hear Iranians talk about "dirty Arabs" and that sort of thing.

I think that we can all agree that the Iranian government is basically a religious thugocracy.  I still don't know what that means in terms of possible U.S. or Israeli military action.

What is the best case scenario for a military action against Iran?  It seems like anything that happens is unlikely to prevent Iran from eventually getting nuclear weapons if that's what they really want to do.

Hasn't the U.S. already gone down the road of regime change in Iran in the form of the government that existed prior to the 1979 revolution?  Isn't the current Iranian government basically the blowback from severeal decades of U.S. attempts to control the political situation inside Iran in the decades prior to the 1979 revolution?

[stone]

Coffee, mormons and Jehova's Witnesses have a religion that demands that they spread it. That's not such a crime is it?
Last time I had the Jehova's Witnesses knock on my door, they asked whether I was familiar with the Bible. I said, "sorry I've not heard of it" .

[Coffee]

Last time I checked they didn't try spreading it with the business-end of a rifle, though.

[stone]

Coffee, what do you consider a plausible worst case scenario if the West ignored Iran?

[Coffee]

One of the issues that often gets lost in the Iran discussion is that Persians have a tendency to look down on Arabs as an inferior people.

It's sort of weird that Iran professes to care so much about the Palestinians, and yet privately you hear Iranians talk about "dirty Arabs" and that sort of thing.

In my travel experience, the amount of unbridled "racism" (or prejudice) in other countries-- even one's with a reputation for pacifism-- has been pretty shocking, actually.

I think that we can all agree that the Iranian government is basically a religious thugocracy.  I still don't know what that means in terms of possible U.S. or Israeli military action.

What is the best case scenario for a military action against Iran?  It seems like anything that happens is unlikely to prevent Iran from eventually getting nuclear weapons if that's what they really want to do.

Best case scenario would be: We kill their nuke program and give an opportunity for the Green Revolution to come back and kick out the current regime. Who knows if that's possible at this point?  Maybe if we'd taken action sooner, we wouldn't be in this position, now?

Hasn't the U.S. already gone down the road of regime change in Iran in the form of the government that existed prior to the 1979 revolution?  Isn't the current Iranian government basically the blowback from severeal decades of U.S. attempts to control the political situation inside Iran in the decades prior to the 1979 revolution?

Nobody bats 1000.  To expect otherwise is pollyanna.

If Obama had thrown our support behind the Green Revolution, perhaps we wouldn't have to worry about a nuclear Iran right now.

[Coffee]

Coffee, what do you consider a plausible worst case scenario if the West ignored Iran?

Worst case? A nuclear attack on Washington.

[Coffee]

Coffee, I guess I think they are just like North Korea, they bluster. The posturing seems a bit like that of Northern Irish politicians. They use a persecution complex as a rallying call to garner domestic support. Getting drawn into their game seems a mistake to me.

I don't know anything about N. Ireland's politicians, but you have to judge Iran by both their actions and their words.  Their actions show that it's more than just posturing.

[stone]

Don't things like the green revolution depend on the credibility of not being foreign supported?

[stone]

Coffee, I'm sure you know a lot more about Iran than I do but to me its seems extraordinary that if they were left alone, they would nuke the USA. What motivation would that have?

I really think that if we kept ourselves to ourselves, then people in places like Iran wouldn't give us a thought.

[brick-house]

Yes, they would come out on top.

- They finance and arm Hezbollah.
- They finance, arm and prop up the government (or a big part of it) in Lebanon
- They finance, arm and prop up the murderous regime of Syria.
- They finance, arm and support terrorist movements that target women and children in Iraq.
- They interfere and influence Afghanistan.
- They routinely threaten to wipe other countries off the map and make a sport of calling for the slaughter of Jews, worldwide.


I could go on and on.

If we go to war with Iran, what happens to the price of oil.  What happens when we leave?  When will we leave?  Who fights and who pays?  

Don't the Saudis do a lot of financing, arming, and propping?  Didn't we finance, arm, and prop up the Shah of Iran?  Didn't we finance, arm, and prop up Saddam?   Haven't U.S. actions resulted in the deaths of women and children in Iraq and Aghanistan?

The turning point for me in my view of the U.S. foreign policy was Pat Tillman.  The U.S. Army lied about his death and tried to use it as propaganda.  If they were not caught in their lie, they would have let it continue.  Talk about moral rot, made me think what else is propaganda....

http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/16/t ... lman-story

[Reub]

"I really think that if we kept ourselves to ourselves, then people in places like Iran wouldn't give us a thought."

That is just ridiculous and pure conjecture. Ruthless, virulous regimes thrive on other's weaknesses and teeth-gnashing. They only respect strength. When such a regime, with international tentacles and having alliances with Islamo-Fascist terrorists, is about to create nuclear weapons and long-range missile systems that can reach every portion of the U.S. and Europe, not to mention our ally in Israel, they must be stopped. It is simply a matter of survival and self-interest. This is where I profoundly differ with Ron Paul and Harry Browne and why they are/were unelectable.

[brick-house]

Coffee wrote:

10 years in Iraq: Hindsight is 20/20.  Still, not a bad outcome.  We got rid of Hussein in Iraq, young girls are now allowed to go to school and women can drive. We have more of a central influence in the Middle East to thwart Iran and protect our oil interests.  Hussein is no longer funding and harboring terrorism.  Afghanistan: Combined with Iraq, we now had Iran flanked.  Taliban was driven out.  Al Queda crushed.  The only real argument that our actions in Iraq have benefited Iran more than the US is because the Democrats undermine our war efforts at every turn.  Iraq was starting to calm down and stand on it's own feet, until Obama started pulling the troops out.  

Other people's kids Dead-end argument.  If there was a draft, you'd argue that there should be a volunteer army so that people's "kids" can choose to go or not.

Neo-con chicken hawk argument:  Your argument suggests that only we should be governed (at least on issues of war) by a super-citizen, or citizen-soldier.  That only those who have served some how have a right to say whether we go to war.  Of course, then you'll make the argument that it's the war hungry generals and military establishment making the decisions.  So again... you've set up another false argument.

Expansionist military Last time I checked: The military was run by a civilian commander-in-chief.  The military does not set it's own agenda.  If they did, they'd probably get more funding rather than the cuts Obama is making.

Dick Cheney change of position So, in your opinion, leaders should be inflexible and recalcitrant?  They should always stick with a position even when current intelligence suggest that would be imprudent?

I did not say that Dick Cheney cannot change his position.  You are saying that hindsight is 20/20.  The hindsight you are talking about was stated by Dick Cheney (very eloquently and presciently) in 1994.  Question: Was Iraq a mistake?  How many Iraqi civilians (including women and children) died for a central influence.  

What you call a not bad outcome resulting in a central base and flanking of Iraq, I call a quagmire.  Are we permanently in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is the Taliban gone?  I thought we were negotiating with them.  

The other people's kids, neo-conservative, and chicken hawk is not a dead end argument just because you ignore it.    I did not make a false argument - you are making arguments for me and then stating that I am setting up a false argument.  It is very interesting that the neo-conservative movement is filled with folks that avoided Vietnam in their youth and became hawks in their old age.  

If you don't think that the military is an expansionist bureaucracy, then we just view things differently.