One thing that's not talked about a lot, but should be of grave interest... Being that China and Russia are probably the only serious military threats in the world (to the US)...what's their official stance on Iran and would they support us if we chose force in that region? Curious what you're thoughts are on this......
I was under the impression that iran was one of china's major oil suppliers they are developing oil fields there http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3970855.stm I don't think they would look favorably on using cutting there supply
I would seriously hope that China and Russia would be against any kind of US attack/US Invasion of Iran, just like most sensible nations will be Rick.
ya, China will oppose any initiation of war. Is it a typical american thought? why would only other nations the serious military threat to the world? Why wouldnt americans think that they are the biggest threat to other nation? Don't tell me because you are too good and all others are evil. It's not the way other people will think of USA.
Maybe. Given the context of your reply, I'm not sure you understood the meaning of what I wrote. No, I was being relative. A country like the Philippines is not a relative threat to America, since it's military capabilities aren't of the same magnitude...although China and Russia have a higher capability. Therefore the idea is it's more dangerous to piss them off. Why would you ask useless questions without understanding the context of my thoughts/concerns? I won't tell you any of that, actually. I'll tell you to actually understand what one means before acting or behaving in a manner the insinuating and insulting.
AGS, do you think highly of the current Iranian adminstration and do you trust them with a nuke? Forget Israel and the US for a moment.
According to your link. I'm hoping it's a bluff, and Iran will make some sort of deal. I'm not really liking the idea of shaking things-up with them...being that there's more things to worry about.
Well Rick, I admire any nation that fails to be bullied and as the US has hundreds of nukes and Israel has them too (although they fail to admit it, just like they fail to conform with anything ) and it would take Iran an absolute minimum of 10 years to develop anything close to a nuke I would have to say yes sir.
I believe the question was fairly straightforward, "do you trust them with a nuke." Not whether they "stand up to the bully," or that "it will take forever for them to get a nuke." I was actually more trusting of the Reign of the Ayatollahs under Khomeini. I think Khomeini was a shrewd, calculating politician, who simply capitalized on nascent movements on the ground to come to power, and to stabilize the regime. The current guy is whacked. In my scholarly impression, of course.
I trust them, they are developing nuclear power for peaceful reasons, don't buy all the bullshit idiots like Bush, Cheney and the rest of the crazy gang spoonfeed you with all the time mate.
I agree with your point that Ahmadnijad is a crack person . Iran has suffered a lot due to his childish acts . It is because of this , the aytollah ( highest authority) has choosen to ignore him and has shown his displeasure. It is because of this that he lost the local elections o Rafsamjani ( considered as moderate).He is running out of time . He should understand that world politics is not just played on cheap publicity..
Yeah - I just didn't bother explaining that I stopped feeding from a spoon when I developed independent thought, for I knew the explanation would land with a resounding, dull thud.
I'm Iranian. I don't trust the Iranian administration with Nukes. But I fully support them (even if they are developing nuclear bombs). You have to look at Iran as a country that has been bullied around for many years, and surrounded by U.S and Israel forces (which are not their allies) as well as Pakistan (Much more extremist than Iran) and India who have nukes... It is only logical for Iran to want to have the capability to defend themselves in case of a war. Also, they look at North Korea and Iraq. North Korea has nuclear power, and is much more dangerous to world than Saddam was, but no one touches them (because of their nuclear capability). But Iraq was invaded... So Iran developing a nuclear bomb (which I don't personally think they are), is only logical.
Well, that's good to hear. And oddly this isn't good to hear....I understand you don't want them to be attacked, because there's people you care for, and you may not shine well on the US government's actions....but to 'fully' support anyone is weighty. Israel and the US generally will not f' with people they don't think are threatening. Accords of peace among certain countries and western influences have shown this to be true (in middle east). While I'm sure many situations may be questionable to people, western influences only demand reason....if they're responded with irrationality, they often correspond it with seemly irrational manners. Pakistan has nukes and their country is insanely bad/dangerous. It's very hard for me to perceive persistant and constant peace there. It seems too backwards/extreme for peace to remain. Although the leader there has been walking that tightrope for sometime. I hope that remains. Sounds logical, but they must realize that the words they utter sends a message. And that message is 'no'. Isn't the 'supreme leader' even telling the admin in Iran to shut-up a bit. Iraq history of violence is more modern. The leader's within were more vocal and drew their own attention. NK was very stealthy (even though we had our supiscions), and part of the reason America didn't attack them is China. We didn't defeat North Vietnam because of them, and we didn't invade NK because of them. Iraq had no real allies to fear. I'm not going to assert they are. That would be like drawing a conclusion from a negative [I'll leave that to athiests]. But they're exacerbating the problem by not allowing in UN inspectors. If they're not doing it, fine, we'll just see it flow away as a problem.