Iran

[River Boy]

In what way was Sept 11 not an act of war?

[willwallace]

Iran is just the same as many other dictatorships throughout history. A few leaders who maintain power by bestowing wealth and influence on the military-in this case the Revolutionary Guard. After the last elections held there, protests by the people of Iran were brutally suppressed. The average Iranian probably believes their leadership is crazy, and they are. Delusional leaders who believe in a mandate to rule the world, according to their perversion of the Islamist faith. Like Khadafy in Libya, they will deny that the masses are against them until the day those same people end up overthrowing or killing them.

[Peter Graham]

Originally Posted by River Boy

In what way was Sept 11 not an act of war?

Because it almost certainly wasn't launched by a nation state.

Acts of violence perpetrated by anything other than a nation state are terrorism.

Regards,

Peter

[Harpo]

http://presstv.com/detail/222475.html

"These are the voyages......."

I really hope it isn't a false flag 'opportunity', as stated many times in the comments.

[River Boy]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

Because it almost certainly wasn't launched by a nation state.

Acts of violence perpetrated by anything other than a nation state are terrorism.

Regards,

Peter

And the conflict is not with a nation state either. People call it a war nevertheless.

[paranoid marvin]

The US declared a 'War on Terror' where in the world is that?

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

Because it almost certainly wasn't launched by a nation state.

Acts of violence perpetrated by anything other than a nation state are terrorism.

Regards,

Peter

True, Peter. But, just out of interest, does that mean that nation states never commit acts of terrorism? Or are they always classified as war?

That strikes me as just a little convenient.

[paranoid marvin]

Depends which side of the fence you're on. One man's terrorist is another man's soldier - it's all a question of perspective.

[RJM Corbet]

News this morning President Obama talking about possible US military intervention in Iran, about 'keeping all options on the table'. Excuse? Nukes that don't yet exist, may never exist in any serious capacity, and which will still require the devlopment of delivery systems to become even a local regional problem. Iran knows if it nukes Israel, Israel will nuke back, a thousand times harder. That's how Israel does things. What would Iran gain? Its ridiculous to suggest. They're not that self destructive.

The west is protecting and ensuring its oil supply and supply routes against a future BRICs power bloc which will not have western interests much at heart.

Again, one can't comment on the right and wrong of it, it's our own way of life we're protecting, and that's a natural human tribal reaction to threat from other tribes. It's completely necessary, from a tribal standpoint.

But the earlier point is not to argue about nukes, etc.

Iran is a strategic objective, as were Iran and Afghanistan. But probably more important, in the big picture. Important enough to risk another 'Cuban Missile Crisis' type scenario with Russia and China, who would like to have Iran on their side of the bloc? Having been caught napping over Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody can win a war in Afghanistan, history proves. But the western presence there protects an important oil corridor.

The Straits of Hormuz are another such corridor, and Iran has lots of oil too. Its just interesting to sit back, knowing that an invasion of Iran has already been decided at the top, in my own humble estimation, and watch the propaganda exercise happening, that could be the start of serious global military conflict, put it that way?

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by RJM Corbet

Iran knows if it nukes Israel, Israel will nuke back, a thousand times harder. That's how Israel does things. What would Iran gain? Its ridiculous to suggest. They're not that self destructive.

They might be, RJM. The philosophy of the 'suicide bomber' writ large.

[Parson]

RJM the other possibility is that they might think that could destroy Israel or at least its ability to retaliate with the first strike.

[paranoid marvin]

Originally Posted by Parson

RJM the other possibility is that they might think that could destroy Israel or at least its ability to retaliate with the first strike.

That's the thing. How much reaction time would there be between launch and detection? Judging by how far apart the countries are, minimal. Tbh though I very much doubt that Iran will develop nuclear weapons - the Israelis will see to that,

As for not daring to launch because they might destroy each other; well that work when both sides are rational about it - but when you throw religion into the mix, then how far away is the suicide bomber from a national leader deciding to sacrifice his country and his people for his God?

[Parson]

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

That's the thing. How much reaction time would there be between launch and detection? Judging by how far apart the countries are, minimal. Tbh though I very much doubt that Iran will develop nuclear weapons - the Israelis will see to that,

As for not daring to launch because they might destroy each other; well that work when both sides are rational about it - but when you throw religion into the mix, then how far away is the suicide bomber from a national leader deciding to sacrifice his country and his people for his God?

If the Israelis can they will strike before there are atomic bombs. But there is a limit to even their military intelligence and ability to strike.

I suspect that even a third tier world power would be able to amass the knowledge and fissionables to put a bomb together if there were the will and no one interfered.

[Starbeast]

Israel has had multimillion dollar campaigns (now including the Iran situation) in which they flood the media with who they believe are the enemies of the world and want everyone to agree with them without question. They point the finger at who they don't like, and the U.S. attacks it, furthermore Israel pushes other countries (and the U.S.) to do their dirty work, because they're afraid.

I think the U.S. should stop listening to Israel's political leaders and cut their ties with them completely. Why should the U.S. get further into trouble with other countries because of what Israel doesn't like.

Israel is currently trying to push the U.S. to bomb the hell out of Iran, and for WHAT? So World War 3 can commence!

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Starbeast

I think the U.S. should stop listening to Israel's political leaders and cut their ties with them completely.

I understand your sentiments, Starbeast. But I think the U.S. should get more involved with Israel - to bring them to the conference table. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons then, rather than war, I think Israel should offer to give up theirs in exchange for all the Arab states staying nuclear free and I think only the U.S. is likely to have the political clout to bring that about.