Iran will be a threat [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Iran will be a threat


ray23&27
04-03-2012, 05:26
The world we live in is a dangerous dark alley. We can't forget that Russia still has many nuclear-tipped intercontinental rockets against which we have no reliable defense. But the problem is going to become much more complicated and scary:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295102/iran-s-win-win-win-bomb-victor-davis-hanson

No good choices for the USA. We take 'em out or we don't. Either way, the future is not going to be fun.

coastal4974
04-03-2012, 05:35
That tiny country? They pose no threat to us. :whistling:

Glock30Eric
04-03-2012, 06:36
You are drinking the MSM's kool-aid that Iran is the threat to our country. They won't do a damn, unless we wage a war against them then they would have a reason to build a nuke weapon, of course.

Brucev
04-03-2012, 10:01
Re: OP. Hum... with iraq and afghanistan slipping away, and the former ussr non-existent, the military industrial complex must find something to use to gin up support for more deficit spending to support their lifestyle.

The Machinist
04-03-2012, 10:09
I wonder who the next "threat" will be after we've wasted God knows how much money in Iran.

kirgi08
04-03-2012, 10:31
Iran became a threat under Carter.As ta us going ta war there,I doubt it.What we need ta do is stay the hell outta Israels way when they do.'08.

ray23&27
04-03-2012, 10:57
I suggest reading the article I linked in my post. And then think about the arguments presented in that article.

It's not just about a threat of an attack, which would be improbable unless the mullahs actually believe their own fevered religious pronouncements about the emergence of a new world out of fire and chaos. I doubt they believe it. I think it is mere propaganda to intimidate the rest of the world and to persuade some of thir own impressionable, brainwashed citizens to seek martydom. My concerns have more to do with the clout a nuclear strike capability would give Iran in relations with its neighbors and with Europeans. It is about the USA finding itself diplomatically isolated in a hostile world.

If we were utilizing our own massive oil, coal, and natural gas resources that exist within our borders and off our shores, we would not have to care quite as much about that region.

I'll have no more to say. I had stopped contributing to internet forums and will stop again. The level of discourse is too often devoid of careful assessment of what one says. It tends to be knee-jerk reaction based upon the talking points and prejudices that have been absorbed from questionable sources.

marchboom
04-03-2012, 11:00
Iran isn't as big a threat to the US as obama is. He will give away the show to Iran, Russia, China, etc.

obama has no intention of doing anything that will provide security for our country.

FLIPPER 348
04-03-2012, 11:20
If we were utilizing our own massive oil, coal, and natural gas resources that exist within our borders and off our shores, we would not have to care quite as much about that region.



We do, so much so that we export them. And we use do not import any oil from Iran.

ScubaSven
04-04-2012, 19:12
I'll have no more to say. I had stopped contributing to internet forums and will stop again. The level of discourse is too often devoid of careful assessment of what one says. It tends to be knee-jerk reaction based upon the talking points and prejudices that have been absorbed from questionable sources.


Actually, a careful assessment leads to the conclusion that war with Iran is a bad idea. You are the one promoting a knee-jerk reaction. We are not the world's police force. It's time we start learning from history and avoid knee-jerk reactions to regional matters.

juggy4711
04-04-2012, 22:07
We do, so much so that we export them. And we use do not import any oil from Iran.

While the second sentence is unintelligible the first makes a bold and potent claim. We do export oil but perhaps if the laws/regulations on refining oil here were not jacked up to begin with, domestic oil companies would not have the financial need to do so.

RC-RAMIE
04-04-2012, 22:24
While the second sentence is unintelligible the first makes a bold and potent claim. We do export oil but perhaps if the laws/regulations on refining oil here were not jacked up to begin with, domestic oil companies would not have the financial need to do so.

It's a world market driven by profit the company will sell it where they make the most money at.


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

juggy4711
04-04-2012, 22:36
It's a world market driven by profit the company will sell it where they make the most money at.


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

Yep which is exactly my point. How f'ed up do the regs/restrictions have to be that shipping oil across the planet is more profitable than selling it here?

ray23&27
04-05-2012, 07:29
We do, so much so that we export them. And we use do not import any oil from Iran.

Oil flows into the global market. Price and availability are dependent on what happens in any areas of major oil production. Closure of the Straight of Hormuz would result in sharply higher prices here and everywhere else, and could result in actual shortages and gas lines, with concomitant damage to our economy.

Most of the oil we consume is produced in this hemisphere. Some of the oil produced in Alaska is shipped to China because it makes economic sense to ship it there. It is a global market, affected everywhere by what happens anywhere.

ray23&27
04-05-2012, 07:38
Actually, a careful assessment leads to the conclusion that war with Iran is a bad idea. You are the one promoting a knee-jerk reaction. We are not the world's police force. It's time we start learning from history and avoid knee-jerk reactions to regional matters.


Against my better judgement, I will say more.

You did not read my post carefully. I did not advocate attacking Iran. I merely pointed out what Hansen's article discussed: that there is a dilemma in deciding which course will be worse, letting Iran develop a nuclear strike force or attempting to destroy their nuclear program.

One of the reasons I end up turning away from internet forums is because I always find myself confronted with distortions and exaggerations of what I have said. I enjoy conversation and I like disagreement and argument about what I actually say, but I don't enjoy spending a lot of time correcting careless, sloppy versions of what I have said that are posted by someone who merely likes being a critic so much that he creates strawmen which are easier to argue against than what was really said.

lancesorbenson
04-05-2012, 08:18
Against my better judgement, I will say more.

You did not read my post carefully. I did not advocate attacking Iran. I merely pointed out what Hansen's article discussed: that there is a dilemma in deciding which course will be worse, letting Iran develop a nuclear strike force or attempting to destroy their nuclear program.

One of the reasons I end up turning away from internet forums is because I always find myself confronted with distortions and exaggerations of what I have said. I enjoy conversation and I like disagreement and argument about what I actually say, but I don't enjoy spending a lot of time correcting careless, sloppy versions of what I have said that are posted by someone who merely likes being a critic so much that he creates strawmen which are easier to argue against than what was really said.

Ok, then what specifically are your concerns regarding increased Iranian clout with its neighbors and Europe?

Cavalry Doc
04-07-2012, 06:46
You are drinking the MSM's kool-aid that Iran is the threat to our country. They won't do a damn, unless we wage a war against them then they would have a reason to build a nuke weapon, of course.

There is plenty of cool-AID being served on all sides of this issue.

Do not underestimate the fact that not everyone is motivated by the same things you are motivated by. Not everyone wants peace.

ScubaSven
04-10-2012, 15:02
Ok, then what specifically are your concerns regarding increased Iranian clout with its neighbors and Europe?

As seen above, he does not do well when asked to explain or justify his beliefs.

czsmithGT
04-10-2012, 16:36
Against my better judgement, I will say more.

You did not read my post carefully. I did not advocate attacking Iran. I merely pointed out what Hansen's article discussed: that there is a dilemma in deciding which course will be worse, letting Iran develop a nuclear strike force or attempting to destroy their nuclear program.

One of the reasons I end up turning away from internet forums is because I always find myself confronted with distortions and exaggerations of what I have said. I enjoy conversation and I like disagreement and argument about what I actually say, but I don't enjoy spending a lot of time correcting careless, sloppy versions of what I have said that are posted by someone who merely likes being a critic so much that he creates strawmen which are easier to argue against than what was really said.

I think I'm probably in the minority but I believe Iran thinks it more advantageous to them to have an ongoing threat of developing deliverable nuclear weapons than to actually build them.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 17:07
I think I'm probably in the minority but I believe Iran thinks it more advantageous to them to have an ongoing threat of developing deliverable nuclear weapons than to actually build them.

If they were after the same things that most normal people are after, you'd be right. It's a heck of a bargaining chip. Unfortunately, these guys might actually believe their Ayatollahs about what is required to bring about the return of the 12th Imam.

Not everyone is motivated by the same thing. If everyone wanted peace, there would have been no wars.

walt cowan
04-10-2012, 17:19
no such thing as a boggie man.

Cavalry Doc
04-11-2012, 10:36
no such thing as a boggie man.

Nope, but there is an Ayatollah. Bad people exist. I've met plenty of them. Pretending that everyone on the planet is benevolent and trying to dismiss any other possibility is not the smartest course of action.

Do you own any guns? Why?

hamster
04-11-2012, 10:54
Iran is run by the same kinds of corrupt crooks who run this country. They will do everything to preserve the status quo and maintain their power/wealth. Iran is no threat to us.

The article quoted in the OP is quite frankly the dumbest thing I've ever read... but if you use their "regional containment" metaphor of China containing North Korea, India containing Pakistan... then why did they conveniently ignore Israel's ability to contain Iran? Why? Because the writers of the article are pushing an agenda. Start buying some ETFs and mutual funds for defense contractors folks, looks like someone is beating the drums for another costly war to take us further into debt.

MoneyMaker
04-11-2012, 11:31
never happen

Cavalry Doc
04-11-2012, 12:02
Iran is run by the same kinds of corrupt crooks who run this country. They will do everything to preserve the status quo and maintain their power/wealth. Iran is no threat to us.

The article quoted in the OP is quite frankly the dumbest thing I've ever read... but if you use their "regional containment" metaphor of China containing North Korea, India containing Pakistan... then why did they conveniently ignore Israel's ability to contain Iran? Why? Because the writers of the article are pushing an agenda. Start buying some ETFs and mutual funds for defense contractors folks, looks like someone is beating the drums for another costly war to take us further into debt.

Nope. Iran is run by a different kind of corrupt crooks. The ability to discern differences is an important skill set.

They are a potential threat. Right now, that's it. They may someday become a real threat. If they have no intentions of building and using a nuke outside of their own borders, fine, leave them alone. If they do have the intention of doing so, then some countries could act now, wait until it appears to be imminent, or wait until after they launch the first volley.

I don't know what the right answer is, but the powers that be will be betting real lives that they know the best course of action.

The day that an Iranian nuke goes off outside of their borders, many, including me, will be wondering why no one took action to prevent it.

It's ok to admit there is not yet enough information to know for sure what should or should not be done. If anyone does have all the answers, they probably don't post here.