whenhiphopdrovethebigcars,
"Nah, I will not have to explain. Why should I? Originally, this thread was about Iran, and we are off topic."
Don't ask me, your the one that posted it.
As far as Hitler goes, I could also say that Hitler would not have risen to power if he had been allowed to go to Art School. The obligation to intervene in Germany actually came after 1933 when Hitler finally assumed absolute power and it was obvious that domestic opposition had no chance of removing him and restoring democracy.
"Often, there are other possibilities of preventing a war than pre-emptively attacking. In many cases, military interventions are not the only solution, though I can understand you might think so, respecting that you are coming from a family with military experience."
I'm well aware of that and only believe the military option should be used when its clear that other options will not work and when the cost of not using the military option is greater than the cost of using the military operation.
Now on to Iran. The Bush Administration has made no arguement for a war against Iran. Iran is not currently in violation of any UN security council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. They have not invaded any countries in over two decades with the exception of Iraq. But Iran has been a supplier of terrorism against Israel and its threats by conservatives in the government to overrun the Persian Gulf during the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s cannot not be forgotten.
Still, Iran is not nearly as strong from a military point of view as Iraq once was. They also are not positioned geographically as well to threaten the worlds oil supplies like Iraq was. In addition, there is not a dictatorship like Iraq's Saddam in Iraq. Where Saddam had total power and was naive, a miscaculator, and totally unpredictable, government power in Iran is not totally in the hands of any single faction. The Mullahs do not have anywhere near the power that Saddam had. There are also some strong liberal factions developing in Iran.
Iran is not the police state that Iraq was and the population is very young and will get even younger in the next 20 years. Over the next 20 years, the population of Iran will overtake the population of Russia. The situation is ripe for change.
The biggest concern currently though is suspected aid being given to Al Quada and the possible development of Nuclear Weapons. Iran is not Saddam's Iraq and would not pose the same level of threat that Iraq would, even when Nuclear Weapons are brought into the equation. Still, there is the possibility for military action if it is found that Iran has become a haven for Al Quada. Also, a nuclear armed Iran may be to big of a risk to take.
Hopefully a more moderate government can come to power that will direct the country away from Nuclear Weapons development and possible support for Al Quada. But if that does not happen or in fact the reverse happens, a war would be likely.
As far as immediate military action, I think only a sudden strong link between Al Quada and Iran could create that. I could be wrong but I think Iran has a ways to go on the Nuclear question before it becomes necessary for possible military action.
As a country, Iran has far more to gain from working with the USA than from developing Nuclear Weapons or supporting any kind of terrorism. Hopefully the moderates in Iran can increase their power and stop any support for terror and nuclear weapons development.
One more thing, with Saddam gone and the Iraqi military destroyed, it is important that US troops remain in Iraq in significant numbers to deter any Iranian interference in the domestic affairs of Iraq. Although there have been some contacts made with Iraq's Shia population, so far any interference if you could call it that has been very limited or non-existent. Hopefully it will stay that way.
"Nah, I will not have to explain. Why should I? Originally, this thread was about Iran, and we are off topic."
Don't ask me, your the one that posted it.
As far as Hitler goes, I could also say that Hitler would not have risen to power if he had been allowed to go to Art School. The obligation to intervene in Germany actually came after 1933 when Hitler finally assumed absolute power and it was obvious that domestic opposition had no chance of removing him and restoring democracy.
"Often, there are other possibilities of preventing a war than pre-emptively attacking. In many cases, military interventions are not the only solution, though I can understand you might think so, respecting that you are coming from a family with military experience."
I'm well aware of that and only believe the military option should be used when its clear that other options will not work and when the cost of not using the military option is greater than the cost of using the military operation.
Now on to Iran. The Bush Administration has made no arguement for a war against Iran. Iran is not currently in violation of any UN security council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. They have not invaded any countries in over two decades with the exception of Iraq. But Iran has been a supplier of terrorism against Israel and its threats by conservatives in the government to overrun the Persian Gulf during the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s cannot not be forgotten.
Still, Iran is not nearly as strong from a military point of view as Iraq once was. They also are not positioned geographically as well to threaten the worlds oil supplies like Iraq was. In addition, there is not a dictatorship like Iraq's Saddam in Iraq. Where Saddam had total power and was naive, a miscaculator, and totally unpredictable, government power in Iran is not totally in the hands of any single faction. The Mullahs do not have anywhere near the power that Saddam had. There are also some strong liberal factions developing in Iran.
Iran is not the police state that Iraq was and the population is very young and will get even younger in the next 20 years. Over the next 20 years, the population of Iran will overtake the population of Russia. The situation is ripe for change.
The biggest concern currently though is suspected aid being given to Al Quada and the possible development of Nuclear Weapons. Iran is not Saddam's Iraq and would not pose the same level of threat that Iraq would, even when Nuclear Weapons are brought into the equation. Still, there is the possibility for military action if it is found that Iran has become a haven for Al Quada. Also, a nuclear armed Iran may be to big of a risk to take.
Hopefully a more moderate government can come to power that will direct the country away from Nuclear Weapons development and possible support for Al Quada. But if that does not happen or in fact the reverse happens, a war would be likely.
As far as immediate military action, I think only a sudden strong link between Al Quada and Iran could create that. I could be wrong but I think Iran has a ways to go on the Nuclear question before it becomes necessary for possible military action.
As a country, Iran has far more to gain from working with the USA than from developing Nuclear Weapons or supporting any kind of terrorism. Hopefully the moderates in Iran can increase their power and stop any support for terror and nuclear weapons development.
One more thing, with Saddam gone and the Iraqi military destroyed, it is important that US troops remain in Iraq in significant numbers to deter any Iranian interference in the domestic affairs of Iraq. Although there have been some contacts made with Iraq's Shia population, so far any interference if you could call it that has been very limited or non-existent. Hopefully it will stay that way.
