Be a Supporter!

Replace Iran's government?

  • 1,516 Views
  • 35 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Ranger2
Ranger2
  • Member since: Jan. 28, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Replace Iran's government? Feb. 20th, 2012 @ 12:29 AM Reply

Let's say that the US decides to attack Iran because it is developing (sound familiar?) weapons of mass destruction.
Here are the facts:
-Iran is currently facing sanctions from NATO countries, the EU, and the United Nations. How well they're working depends on who you talk to.
-Iran is an extremist Shia Islamic state. There is no free speech, little to no freedom of religion, and homosexuals are hanged in public.
-Iran is virulently anti-West and anti-Israel. Its allies include Venezuela, Syria, and its trade relations are improving with Russia. It has repeatedly threatened the state of Israel and the West.
-Iran is building nuclear weapons despite sanctions. It is not even hiding them like Saddam did; it is openly flaunting it.
-Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, especially to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and according to the US, the Iraqi insurgency

If we are to attack, should we do like what we did in Iraq in 1993/8 or 2003? In 1993 and 1998, we attacked an enemy country that was developing weapons of mass destruction by cruise missile strikes and bombings. We destroyed the enemy's weapons, but did not invade and did not try to overthrow the government.

Or should we invade and remove the whole thing like we did in 2003?

There are pros and cons for each side, and it also depends on who the US would attack Iran with. Would you be ok with removing Iran's government as long as we had the blessing of the UN? Should we go ahead and overthrow the Ayatollah no matter what? Or should we stick to cruise missiles and precise bombings?

Personally I believe that we must bomb Tehran and attack Iran's missile sites without overthrowing the government. I would be fine with us doing it on our own, although preferably we'd do it with NATO, and with the blessing of the UN. I think one thing we've learned from Iraq is that it can be better to have a stable enemy country than an unstable new ally.

ClickToPlay
ClickToPlay
  • Member since: Jan. 23, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 20th, 2012 @ 12:57 AM Reply

At 25 minutes ago, Ranger2 wrote:

I'm getting tired of your kind of people and government myself actually, so why don't we take turns destroying both?


All Eyez On Me.

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 20th, 2012 @ 03:06 AM Reply

At 2 hours ago, Ranger2 wrote: Let's say that the US decides to attack Iran because it is developing (sound familiar?) weapons of mass destruction.
Here are the facts:

Here's one, if a government should be replaced that is not your goddamn business, that's the people who propagate the government's business.

-Iran is currently facing sanctions from NATO countries, the EU, and the United Nations. How well they're working depends on who you talk to.

Ok? Great.

-Iran is an extremist Shia Islamic state. There is no free speech, little to no freedom of religion, and homosexuals are hanged in public.

Doesn't sound half as bad as states we support.

-Iran is virulently anti-West and anti-Israel. Its allies include Venezuela, Syria, and its trade relations are improving with Russia. It has repeatedly threatened the state of Israel and the West.

Anti-West? Anti-US sure, Anti-Israel sure, but it's not looking to invade the West, it's looking to expel its influence.

-Iran is building nuclear weapons despite sanctions. It is not even hiding them like Saddam did; it is openly flaunting it.

Yah and when they get them they'll..... do nothing they'll just sit there in case another nation threatens its sovereignty like you know what's been happening in like all of Iran's history for the past 100-200 years. You have to remember, if they fire one nuke 1,000 more nukes from Israel and pretty much all of Iran's neighbors who harbor US missiles will destroy every bit of the nation, so Iran is not looking for a world war of course.

-Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, especially to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and according to the US, the Iraqi insurgency

Because the US is such an unbiased source for news about Iran...... But otherwise we've done the same in the past, and to them the past is hugely relevant today which is something most Americans don't seem to understand about the Middle East......

There are pros and cons for each side, and it also depends on who the US would attack Iran with. Would you be ok with removing Iran's government as long as we had the blessing of the UN? Should we go ahead and overthrow the Ayatollah no matter what? Or should we stick to cruise missiles and precise bombings?

What? Freakin' let the regime crumble from the inside out goddamn it, force it to spend more money on military projects, cut off it's economy, you know like what the US did with the Soviet Union.

Personally I believe that we must bomb Tehran and attack Iran's missile sites without overthrowing the government. I would be fine with us doing it on our own, although preferably we'd do it with NATO, and with the blessing of the UN. I think one thing we've learned from Iraq is that it can be better to have a stable enemy country than an unstable new ally.

Because it's so clear all the time that the military puts giant pointy arrows on its missile sites.

We already have North Korea, a government much more oppressive, threatening and insane than Iran, and it's rather harmless so I doubt Iran would be much different.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 20th, 2012 @ 10:18 AM Reply

There is definitely a strong pro-west group in Iran. How well they would recieve the west when the West was rolling tanks through their neighborhoods... Well, I don't know.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 20th, 2012 @ 05:10 PM Reply

At 16 hours ago, Ranger2 wrote: Let's say that the US decides to attack Iran because it is developing (sound familiar?) weapons of mass destruction.

As a flimsy, not very substantiated excuse for invasion? Yes, yes it does.

-Iran is currently facing sanctions from NATO countries, the EU, and the United Nations. How well they're working depends on who you talk to.

Yeah, I'm going to go with not well since they can trade in something other then dollars or euros for oil. That also lead to an interesting article in the other thread that speculated that is the REAL reason the US has such a mad on to invade Iran. They want to protect the Petro-Dollar monopoly.

-Iran is an extremist Shia Islamic state. There is no free speech, little to no freedom of religion, and homosexuals are hanged in public.

All bad things, but that has what to do with our need to invade? Especially since we support and condone dictatorships in other nations with the exact same, or worse human rights records. Our biggest trade partner is China, they have one of the worst human rights records of any permanent UN member (oh, and there's Russia calling me up to remind me they're record sucks almost as bad, thank you Russia).

-Iran is virulently anti-West and anti-Israel. Its allies include Venezuela, Syria, and its trade relations are improving with Russia. It has repeatedly threatened the state of Israel and the West.

Threats are fun, doesn't mean you can carry them out. Saddam threatened the West on an almost daily basis, we toppled him and found out it was nothing more then political saber rattling to please the hard liners and make himself seem strong. Iran is doing much the same, I just don't see them as stupid enough to launch an overt attack or they would have done it already. Next!

-Iran is building nuclear weapons despite sanctions.

That HAS NOT been proven. It is a contention without irrefutable evidence. So this should not be on a list marked "facts"

It is not even hiding them like Saddam did; it is openly flaunting it.

Except Saddam didn't HAVE a nuke, or any other WMD! This has been proven. Do me a favor, turn off FOX News and other pro-Conservative bullshit factories and go read some actual news. The Bubble is not your friend, The Bubble is bad!

-Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, especially to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and according to the US, the Iraqi insurgency

According to the US...who never gets anything wrong! But yes, they are a state sponsor of terrorism, which is really the only solid reason I've seen to pay attention to, or worry about Iran and what it's up to. But this again is no justification because look Saudi Arabia, one of our great allies. Saudi Arabia PRODUCED most of the 9/11 hijackers.

If we are to attack, should we do like what we did in Iraq in 1993/8 or 2003?

No, we shouldn't attack period because there's no solid reason to at this point.

In 1993 and 1998, we attacked an enemy country that was developing weapons of mass destruction by cruise missile strikes and bombings.

That's not why we attacked in 1993. That was more of a border dispute.

We destroyed the enemy's weapons, but did not invade and did not try to overthrow the government.

True.

Or should we invade and remove the whole thing like we did in 2003?

No invasions, no bombings, no need.

There are pros and cons for each side, and it also depends on who the US would attack Iran with.

Cons outweigh any perceived "pros".

Would you be ok with removing Iran's government as long as we had the blessing of the UN?

Nope, especially since I don't see us getting it. Plus we don't need to have yet another war.

Should we go ahead and overthrow the Ayatollah no matter what?

No.

Or should we stick to cruise missiles and precise bombings?

We should stay the fuck home until there's an actual solid reason for invasion other then some political misdirection BS.

Personally I believe that we must bomb Tehran and attack Iran's missile sites without overthrowing the government.

Well, of course you believe we should attack them...

I would be fine with us doing it on our own, although preferably we'd do it with NATO, and with the blessing of the UN. I think one thing we've learned from Iraq is that it can be better to have a stable enemy country than an unstable new ally.

Iraq isn't entirely stable, and Afghanistan probably falls right back into the hands of the Taliban the minute we leave. We suck at nation building, always have, probably always will. We should have learned long ago not to try and force a regime out, but that we should support popular revolutions and then try to become friendly with the new government that rises from the aftermath.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
Ranger2
Ranger2
  • Member since: Jan. 28, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 20th, 2012 @ 06:44 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 16 hours ago, Ranger2 wrote: Let's say that the US decides to attack Iran because it is developing (sound familiar?) weapons of mass destruction.
As a flimsy, not very substantiated excuse for invasion? Yes, yes it does.

No, just that there was a disarmament crisis before the invasion of Iraq.

-Iran is currently facing sanctions from NATO countries, the EU, and the United Nations. How well they're working depends on who you talk to.
Yeah, I'm going to go with not well since they can trade in something other then dollars or euros for oil. That also lead to an interesting article in the other thread that speculated that is the REAL reason the US has such a mad on to invade Iran. They want to protect the Petro-Dollar monopoly.

There you go again with the conspiracy junk.

-Iran is an extremist Shia Islamic state. There is no free speech, little to no freedom of religion, and homosexuals are hanged in public.
All bad things, but that has what to do with our need to invade? Especially since we support and condone dictatorships in other nations with the exact same, or worse human rights records. Our biggest trade partner is China, they have one of the worst human rights records of any permanent UN member (oh, and there's Russia calling me up to remind me they're record sucks almost as bad, thank you Russia).
-Iran is virulently anti-West and anti-Israel. Its allies include Venezuela, Syria, and its trade relations are improving with Russia. It has repeatedly threatened the state of Israel and the West.
Threats are fun, doesn't mean you can carry them out. Saddam threatened the West on an almost daily basis, we toppled him and found out it was nothing more then political saber rattling to please the hard liners and make himself seem strong. Iran is doing much the same, I just don't see them as stupid enough to launch an overt attack or they would have done it already. Next!

Saddam attempted to assassinate President Bush in 1993. Iran tried to assassinate a Saudi national in the US a few months ago. I think that's a bit more than saber rattling.

-Iran is building nuclear weapons despite sanctions.
That HAS NOT been proven. It is a contention without irrefutable evidence. So this should not be on a list marked "facts"

Then those UN inspectors in Iran are in there for nothing, right?

It is not even hiding them like Saddam did; it is openly flaunting it.
Except Saddam didn't HAVE a nuke, or any other WMD! This has been proven. Do me a favor, turn off FOX News and other pro-Conservative bullshit factories and go read some actual news. The Bubble is not your friend, The Bubble is bad!

I'm a Democrat, and I don't watch Fox News. But thanks for showing your uneducated bias by trying to label me. Stop reading Russia Today and the Guardian.

-Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, especially to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and according to the US, the Iraqi insurgency
According to the US...who never gets anything wrong! But yes, they are a state sponsor of terrorism, which is really the only solid reason I've seen to pay attention to, or worry about Iran and what it's up to. But this again is no justification because look Saudi Arabia, one of our great allies. Saudi Arabia PRODUCED most of the 9/11 hijackers.

This isn't about you really thinking that Iran is harmless. This is more of your anti-American bias.

If we are to attack, should we do like what we did in Iraq in 1993/8 or 2003?
No, we shouldn't attack period because there's no solid reason to at this point.

In 1993 and 1998, we attacked an enemy country that was developing weapons of mass destruction by cruise missile strikes and bombings.
That's not why we attacked in 1993. That was more of a border dispute.

Or should we stick to cruise missiles and precise bombings?
We should stay the fuck home until there's an actual solid reason for invasion other then some political misdirection BS.

What would that be? Let's say we have clear proof Iran is planning to attack. Would you be ok with a pre-emptive strike?

Iraq isn't entirely stable, and Afghanistan probably falls right back into the hands of the Taliban the minute we leave. We suck at nation building, always have, probably always will. We should have learned long ago not to try and force a regime out, but that we should support popular revolutions and then try to become friendly with the new government that rises from the aftermath.

We suck at nation building? How's Germany doing? South Korea? Japan? They're the products of US nation building.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 20th, 2012 @ 10:00 PM Reply

At 2 hours ago, Ranger2 wrote: No, just that there was a disarmament crisis before the invasion of Iraq.

There was no "crisis" just the trumped up and manufactured charges by the Bush administration who attempted to turn that into a "crisis". Don't try to argue very documented recent history. Iraq was a farce, and this is looking like exactly the same sort of farce, except that we know Iran has a definite nuclear energy program, so the current administration and anybody else looking at war feels like it's easier to turn that into a nuclear weapons program.

There you go again with the conspiracy junk.

It was actually a well written and sourced article, from a respected news source. Would you like a link? Also how's come my pointing out this speculation is "conspiracy junk" but the lies that got us into Iraq, and the speculation that pushes towards Iran are somehow much more better and credible? Is it just because the latter serves your purposes and opinions better then the former? Because that's my bet personally.

Saddam attempted to assassinate President Bush in 1993.

Which was irrelevant to the Iraqi invasion of 03, and not the stated reason for the war in 93, the stated reason was protection of Kuwait. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1019-05.htm. The fact that it also looks to be not true helps too. Get out of The Bubble, it's a trap.

Iran tried to assassinate a Saudi national in the US a few months ago. I think that's a bit more than saber rattling.

Source?

Then those UN inspectors in Iran are in there for nothing, right?

Just because there are inspectors there doesn't mean there's weapons. It just means the UN wants to make sure that Iran:

a) doesn't have weapons

and

b) aren't building weapons

Just like in Iraq, you know, when those inspectors kept coming back and saying there were no weapons but your hero W said they were wrong, or lying, and there were weapons?

I'm a Democrat, and I don't watch Fox News.

Could have fooled me the way you are touting blatantly false and bullshit right-wing Republican talking points.

But thanks for showing your uneducated bias by trying to label me.

I thought the label fit since you were acting textbook like that, I've never met a single Dem or liberal who likes George Bush as much as you seem to, and certainly not one that still believes his bullshit cover stories for Iraq.

Stop reading Russia Today and the Guardian.

Because clearly you're showing me up by upping the ad hominem level. Good work!

This isn't about you really thinking that Iran is harmless. This is more of your anti-American bias.

No, this is me saying that while Iran is not harmless, they are also not worth an invasion. But you're right, it is anti-American to disagree with your government. No American ever has disagreed with their government, that's crazy. Oh wait, right, The Revolution. It's perfectly American to hold your leaders responsible and call them out if they're trying to drive you off a cliff, or not protect your interests. If all you got is ad hominem son, don't reply.

In 1993 and 1998, we attacked an enemy country that was developing weapons of mass destruction by cruise missile strikes and bombings.

We have not proven Iran is developing WMD. Iraq was attacked in 93 because they attacked Kuwait, it was not about WMD (we knew they had some, since we GAVE it to them) except for our fears they might use some of the stuff we gave them. 98 was about regime change because Bill Clinton believed Saddam was a threat, and there was that little scandal he was having at the time...politics isn't simple kiddo, and the bosses don't always tell us the whole truth.

What would that be?

A bomb, bomb making materials, scientists known to make bombs working in their nuclear program. Those are good metrics don't you think?

Let's say we have clear proof Iran is planning to attack. Would you be ok with a pre-emptive strike?

Sure, any reasonable person would. If Iran is clearly planning to attack, then it is absolutely ok to pre-empt them and stop that attack. But that's not what's happening here, so I'm just going to guess you're trying to gauge how close to the pacifist category I fall into.

We suck at nation building?

We do indeed. We install governments, and they tend to be corrupt, unpopular, and fall.

How's Germany doing?

We didn't build that. West Germany was propped up by our allies with our help. East Germany was under Russian control and then the two merged and forged their own way. Germany is not a valid example.

South Korea?

We didn't install that government, we just fought to defend it and keep the North from swallowing it.

Japan? They're the products of US nation building.

Nope, Japan isn't either. Japan surrendered, formed their own government after the war and drafted a Peace Constitution.

China is an example of a nation building attempt though (failed corrupt government replaced by current communist government), Cuba is (install Castro, he turns), Vietnam (attempt to secure the South, get asses kicked, communist North swallows south). So yeah, we SUCK at nation building!


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 20th, 2012 @ 10:24 PM Reply

At 21 minutes ago, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 2 hours ago, Ranger2 wrote: Japan? They're the products of US nation building.
Nope, Japan isn't either. Japan surrendered, formed their own government after the war and drafted a Peace Constitution.

Actually, we did build Japan. Having read much of the SCAP reports written during the occupation of Japan, this is most definitely the case. It is also widely rumored (by very reliable folks) that The Japanese Constitution was MacArthur's baby, and that he possibly even wrote much of it.

I will 100% agree the Japan is the exception and not the rule, and thast the circumstances in Japan post WWII were there perfect storm of conditions that allowed us to rebuild at all.

lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 21st, 2012 @ 06:05 AM Reply

At 7 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: Actually, we did build Japan.

Nation building really should mean nation building and not country building or state building. You can build a well but if the people end up in a tribal argument over who gets to use it when it'll only serve as a source of conflict. You can build a girls' school but if the people refuse to send their daughters to it then it's a waste of concrete. You can tell some installed leaders to write a pro-democratic semi-secular constitution but if the people don't care about these principles then it's dead letter from the start.

The Japanese had, as a nation, long evolved socially and intellectually beyond tribalism. When their country was wrecked, the people knew how to rebuild. Same in Germany. Afghanistan on the other hand, despite some experiments with modernism in the cities in the '50s and '60s, has an enormous heartland in which the people did no go through a hundred+ years of social evolution, and after thirty years of gruesome conflict even the people of the cities are utterly traumatised. The US did not have to "build" the 100+ years of evolution in Japan that it will need to build in Afghanistan. I'm not even sure to what extent you can force social change on shame cultures if you don't do it brutally. The Japanese could see the post-war regime as the continuation of what they had acheived themselves during the Meiji era. A lot of Afghan clerics and tribal leaders on the other hand just see Western attempts to force gender equality and freedom of speech on their country as a humiliation.

Iran is actually interesting in this respect, because it has a decent self-educated middle class and, unlike Iraq, it is largely a nation-state. But yeah, if the US invade Iran, I don't think that the Iranian people will ever see the casus belli as even remotely just, and considering the large uncontrollable border regions with Shi'a-minded Iraq I don't think there's a lot to achieve. If the US force the 'Green' pro-democracy movement in Iran to form the core of the new government then it will permanently mark them with the stain of a collaborator.

The earliest insurgency that the US will have to quell, though, might well be the one of the (now US-minded) Sunni Jihadis near the Afghan and Pakistani border. As Sunnis, they can count on a lot of foreign support. As Shi'ites, this will be harder for Iran. They only have the Hezbollah and Iraq as natural allies, with Alawite-controlled Syria on the verge of collapse.

lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 21st, 2012 @ 06:11 AM Reply

At 7 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: Actually, we did build Japan. Having read much of the SCAP reports written during the occupation of Japan, this is most definitely the case. It is also widely rumored (by very reliable folks) that The Japanese Constitution was MacArthur's baby, and that he possibly even wrote much of it.

Rereading my post, I'm not sure if I made my point clear enough, so allow me to reformulate: the Japanese as a nation in '45 were a multi-storey apartment building with a damaged roof, where the only "building" that the US needed to do was fix the roof. In Afghanistan, '01, they had to build it from the ground up, in a swampland. The challenge levels are almost uncomparably different.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 21st, 2012 @ 06:24 PM Reply

At 11 hours ago, lapis wrote: Rereading my post, I'm not sure if I made my point clear enough, so allow me to reformulate: the Japanese as a nation in '45 were a multi-storey apartment building with a damaged roof, where the only "building" that the US needed to do was fix the roof. In Afghanistan, '01, they had to build it from the ground up, in a swampland. The challenge levels are almost uncomparably different.

;;;
Maybe I'm just being picky
But I don't believe Nagasaki or Hiroshima were apartment buildings with leaky roofs !
What concerns me is the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons on another country, is now telling us we are in danger of Iran making a nuclear bomb !

EXCUSE ME USA
but I am not convinced you are correct
I am not convinced you don't have a different agenda
& I certainly don't give a shit if Iran does make an atom bomb.

Seeing as the USA has enough of them to destroy most of the life on this planet.
The US & Soviet union supposedly have around 25,000 nukes.
THe other nuclear countries have around 1-5 thousand

North Korea has a couple for fucks sakes
Iran having a couple isn't going to change the fact that the US could turn that entire country into a melted nuclear landscape where nothing could live for thousands of years.

So USA... as the worlds nuclear bully withthe only record for attacking another with nuclear bombs , fuck off with the rhetoric & fix your damn economy....that in my opinion is a much bigger problem than whether Iran has a nuclear power plant or 6 and a few nuclear bombs !


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 21st, 2012 @ 08:58 PM Reply

At 14 hours ago, lapis wrote: Rereading my post, I'm not sure if I made my point clear enough, so allow me to reformulate: the Japanese as a nation in '45 were a multi-storey apartment building with a damaged roof, where the only "building" that the US needed to do was fix the roof. In Afghanistan, '01, they had to build it from the ground up, in a swampland. The challenge levels are almost uncomparably different.

Definitely get yuour point, and that is why I said Japan was the perfect combination of factors that allowed us to nationbuild successfully. And yes, we did nation build. There are numerous things engrained in the psyche of modern Japan that were brainchildren of SCAP.

However, I don't like you analogy. It indicates that Japan was somehow either more advanced or more ready. That was not the case at all. It's purely cultural. Japan has a history of very Western style warfare. That is, when armies won or lost the people altered their allegiances accordingly. While surrender was considered taboo, Japanese history is full of situations in which surrender was common. Turkic (and Vietnamese) military history prides itself on never ending guerilla warfare. In these cultures, there was no surrender and to change allegiances was worse than death.

Th-e
Th-e
  • Member since: Nov. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 21st, 2012 @ 10:40 PM Reply

My take on this:

1. Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons in any case. They wouldn't use their nuclear weapons, but it would allow them to send terrorists to attack whoever they want without fear of retribution. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. If Iranian-based terrorists destroy the Empire State Building, and we retaliate by attacking Iran, prepare for nuclear war.

2. If we simply attack certain targets and then leave, the regime will rebuild and accelerate their nuclear program. And it would likely be a covert weapons program. Let's not forget that they could also close the Strait of Hormuz and wreak havoc on the world by cutting off all that oil.

3. After any attack on Iran has taken place, Hamas and Hezbollah will unite with Iran to boost its terrorist campaign against Israel, and America would be vulnerable if they contributed to the war. Eliminating the regime would restrict funding to terrorist groups, weakening them in the long term. Keeping the regime intact would keep terrorists and their supporters safe Iran. It would also encourage more Al Qaeda terrorists to come to Iran, knowing the West won't attack them there.

Right now, the question is about if we should invade Iran in the first place (a tough question indeed). But if we do go to war, I definitely believe the regime should be toppled.


Feel no mercy for me. It will only cause you to suffer as well.

lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 22nd, 2012 @ 07:23 AM Reply

At 9 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: why I said Japan was the perfect combination of factors that allowed us to nationbuild successfully.

No, because if we go back to my analogy, this would say that the apartment building of the Japanese nation also had to be built from the ground up, just that the conditions were more favourable, like that the region would less often be hit by mudslides or hurricanes. While what I'm saying is that a lot of the work had been done already by the natives, work that they can claim as their own.

It may be semantical nitpicking, and I'm not even sure if we disagree about details or core issues, but I do think that the degree to which the peoples can claim their governments as their own is important (but not that important) in shame/honour cultures such as Japan or, say, the Arab countries. That's why I think that political Islam has a big edge over Western-imposed ideologies sich as liberalism or "patriotism"(i.e. loyalty to the mere lines on a map that are countries such as Iraq and Jordan) in the Middle East: it is indigenous. But I mostly think that there's a big craving for an indigenous political ideology because their economies are doing like crap, which is also simply because there are too many young people for a limited job market.

Of course, the shame/honour culture part ties into what you write later on about willingness to surrender. I agree that there's a cultural element, but I'm not convinced that Japan and countries in the Middle East are so different culturally regarding this issue. And I'm too much of a materialist to put a lot of importance on culture, and to see it as an almost immovable thing. I believe that, generally, cultural change follows economic change.

There are numerous things engrained in the psyche of modern Japan that were brainchildren of SCAP.

Hmm, what specifically did you have in mind when you wrote this?

However, I don't like you analogy.

Well, I do.
*sticks out tongue*

It indicates that Japan was somehow either more advanced or more ready. That was not the case at all.

If Japanese farmers were all illiterate and staunchly conservative, and a US-installed regime had to force social change in the heartlands without the help of a self-bred middle class that wanted stability more than anything, I think the late '40s and '50s in Japan would have looked radically different. Not saying that it couldn't have been done, but I guess not in a way that's palatable to modern-day Western voters.

It's purely cultural. Japan has a history of very Western style warfare. That is, when armies won or lost the people altered their allegiances accordingly. While surrender was considered taboo, Japanese history is full of situations in which surrender was common. Turkic (and Vietnamese) military history prides itself on never ending guerilla warfare. In these cultures, there was no surrender and to change allegiances was worse than death.

Yeah, I don't know. The Turkic peoples of Central Asia were also brought into line by the Russians, before and during the USSR period. But if you're right than this bodes well for a US occupation of Iran, because the Persians have a history of being occupied and transformed by foreigners, although in the end they always rewin their indepedence.

At 8 hours ago, Th-e wrote: It would also encourage more Al Qaeda terrorists to come to Iran,

Al-Qaeda is ferociously anti-Shi'a. Al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq focused nearly all their effort on blowing up Iraqi Shi'ites. A Western occupation will probably be good for al-Qaeda because Western forces are probably less able than the Iranian government to control the Sunni-dominated border region with Afghainstan and Pakistan. People should not think that just because George W. Bush coined the term "War on Terror", this means that there's one unified front of terrorists to fight against. For example, if the Assad regime in Syria were to fall, this would be a short-term victory in the conflict with Iran, but a long-term blow in the war against al-Qaeda.

frigi
frigi
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 22nd, 2012 @ 01:16 PM Reply

I think we should just keep out of the middle east's business and let them blow each other up. If they do start attacking us, then we turn their countries into big craters. Zero survivors. Let the world know that if you fuck with America, we wont just bomb you, we will wipe you out completely off of the face of the Earth.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 23rd, 2012 @ 12:27 AM Reply

At 1 day ago, Th-e wrote: My take on this:

1. Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons in any case. They wouldn't use their nuclear weapons, but it would allow them to send terrorists to attack whoever they want without fear of retribution. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. If Iranian-based terrorists destroy the Empire State Building, and we retaliate by attacking Iran, prepare for nuclear war.

But...Iran is already a state sponsor of terrorism...and we don't attack them when terrorists we know they've given funding to attack us soooo...what exactly changes if they have a nuke? We don't attack them now without one...fail.

2. If we simply attack certain targets and then leave, the regime will rebuild and accelerate their nuclear program.

The one that we haven't got solid evidence their developing? That one?

And it would likely be a covert weapons program.

Well, it would have to be covert if it was happening, since nobody wants them to have one.

Let's not forget that they could also close the Strait of Hormuz and wreak havoc on the world by cutting off all that oil.

Which they can do right now, and they are starting to retaliate against sanctions by cutting off oil.

3. After any attack on Iran has taken place, Hamas and Hezbollah will unite with Iran to boost its terrorist campaign against Israel, and America would be vulnerable if they contributed to the war.

Supposition is fun. What makes you really believe this outcome is guaranteed? Just because those "terrorist" Muslims stick together? Pfffh.

Eliminating the regime would restrict funding to terrorist groups,

Possibly, as long as another terrorist sympathetic repressive regime doesn't rise up. Which is possible if we go tromping through Iran with tanks and bombs and guns. Let's not forget the Ayatollah replaced in a popular revolution the very unpopular US backed Shah.

Keeping the regime intact would keep terrorists and their supporters safe Iran.

Show me where that is happening now? Because I think Iran is smarter then to harbor terrorists since it would just give trigger happy America an excuse to launch that attack they've been a' wanting.

It would also encourage more Al Qaeda terrorists to come to Iran, knowing the West won't attack them there.

Again...show me where that's happened now, or has happened? Fuck, this could wind up actually HELPING Al Qaeda if we destablilize Iran...it certainly helped them in Iraq (Saddam actually kept them OUT, once we removed him, they rolled in).

Right now, the question is about if we should invade Iran in the first place (a tough question indeed).

Not really. It's only tough to trigger happy folks who believe that America would NEVER launch an unjust war, and that somehow foreign wars don't impact us at home.

But if we do go to war, I definitely believe the regime should be toppled.

If we went to war, that'd be the only outcome we'd gun for...and that concerns me, because we do NOT have a good track record with rebuilds for that. The last time we meddled in Iran's government, we paved the way for the current regime to begin with.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 23rd, 2012 @ 10:59 AM Reply

At 3 days ago, Ranger2 wrote: Let's say that the US decides to attack Iran because it is developing (sound familiar?) weapons of mass destruction.
Here are the facts:
-Iran is an extremist Shia Islamic state. There is no free speech, little to no freedom of religion, and homosexuals are hanged in public.

;;;;
So ?! Saudi Arabia is a Sunni state monarchy run as a dictatorship & the USA has a saudi dick so far down its throat its peaking out of your ass !
What about Bahrain ?
THey used their military as well as help from Saudi Arabia to murder unknown numbers of their citizens...but not a peep out of Washington or the mainstream media about that (surprise, surprise)

-Iran is virulently anti-West and anti-Israel. Its allies include Venezuela, Syria, and its trade relations are improving with Russia. It has repeatedly threatened the state of Israel and the West.

;;;
So ?! The USA is a warmongering bulley who has as its latest claim to fame, it has destroyed Iraq, destroyed Afghanistan, destroyed Lybia , bombing Pakistan, Yeman, Somalia& is covertly supplying weapons/financial aid to Syrian rebels & exactly what difference does it make if rebels are killing civilians or the governemnt is doing it ? IMO there is no difference they are still DEAD.
Not only that secret US prisons in foreign countries, Guantanamo bay the USA, & people like you give out this 1 sided spin about all these terrible countries & you are not only doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE !
YOU ARE DOING WORSE AUTROCITIES IN EVEN MORE PLACES & SHOULD KNOW BETTER !

-Iran is building nuclear weapons despite sanctions. It is not even hiding them like Saddam did; it is openly flaunting it.

;;;
Prove that please.
THere is no proof of them building a bomb THERE IS PROOF they are , as is their right as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, working to building their own nuclear power stations & being able to be self sufficient in providing the fuel for the reactors.

-Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, especially to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and according to the US, the Iraqi insurgency

;;;
So is Saudi Arabia, why are you not nuking them ?

Personally I believe that we must bomb Tehran and attack Iran's missile sites without overthrowing the government. I would be fine with us doing it on our own, although preferably we'd do it with NATO, and with the blessing of the UN. I think one thing we've learned from Iraq is that it can be better to have a stable enemy country than an unstable new ally.

;;;
According to the IAEA, there are as yet no nuclear missles....so exactly how do you attack, what as yet doesn't exist ?


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 42
Programmer
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 23rd, 2012 @ 11:03 AM Reply

what should be done is the CIA should support and fund political opposition parties and armed insurgents in Iran. political subversion is the best way to do it unless if you want to bomb the ever loving Allah out of them.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 23rd, 2012 @ 01:12 PM Reply

At 2 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: what should be done is the CIA should support and fund political opposition parties and armed insurgents in Iran. political subversion is the best way to do it unless if you want to bomb the ever loving Allah out of them.

Strange, as it was exactly that sort of tactic that lead to the Islamist Revolution in the first place...

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 42
Programmer
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 23rd, 2012 @ 07:11 PM Reply

At 5 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 2 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: what should be done is the CIA should support and fund political opposition parties and armed insurgents in Iran. political subversion is the best way to do it unless if you want to bomb the ever loving Allah out of them.
Strange, as it was exactly that sort of tactic that lead to the Islamist Revolution in the first place...

true but better to democrats its a better alternative than blowing all of the major cities in the country to hell with daisy cutters.

I prefer bombing the hell out of em and just putting in political party the people wanted in the last election AchmeI'mhomefordinnerdad rigged.
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 23rd, 2012 @ 07:28 PM Reply

IAEA report
You may not like the publication but IAEA info is available elsewhere & these figures can be refuted if you can find it, please post your rebuttal.
& manistream US media IMO is also very biased
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/23/iran-the-iaea-and-the -parchin-site/


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 42
Programmer
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 23rd, 2012 @ 07:34 PM Reply

At 2 minutes ago, morefngdbs wrote: IAEA report
You may not like the publication but IAEA info is available elsewhere & these figures can be refuted if you can find it, please post your rebuttal.
& manistream US media IMO is also very biased
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/23/iran-the-iaea-and-the -parchin-site/

OOOOH A agency associated with the benevolent UN! and by a left wing newsletter HOW INFORMATIVE!!

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 23rd, 2012 @ 08:07 PM Reply

At 30 minutes ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: OOOOH A agency associated with the benevolent UN! and by a left wing newsletter HOW INFORMATIVE!!

Dismiss the left wing paper all you want, but don't dis the UN. It's nowhere near as useless as regular folks think. If you take time to study what it does aside from make resolutions, it is a very upstanding and well regarded legal institution.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 42
Programmer
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 23rd, 2012 @ 11:51 PM Reply

At 3 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 30 minutes ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: OOOOH A agency associated with the benevolent UN! and by a left wing newsletter HOW INFORMATIVE!!
Dismiss the left wing paper all you want, but don't dis the UN. It's nowhere near as useless as regular folks think. If you take time to study what it does aside from make resolutions, it is a very upstanding and well regarded legal institution.

the UN is one of the most anti-american institutions out there the it violates the american constitution (just google it im not gonna argue it because it will be never ending). the UN is GREAT its sooo effective when tied down by many sub laws and lines of red tape(which would even make the United states Congress and Senate proud) overall there are nothing but a bunch of squabbling children having tantrums and blaming each other and trying get something out of the PIE?
not to mention its overall effectiveness Food given by the UN in Shithole third world countries in Africa are took by the crates to corrupt governments who Bogart it for themselves when given to them by UN for them to distribute to the people but keep it for the politicians or Warlords who use it to keep their control in regional areas. Or Peacekeeping forces not being able to fire a round off due to their strict ROE due not to "SULLY THE GOOD NAME OF THE UN" when even being fired upon in africa. In the 80s and 90s the Civil wars that happened and the UN PKF came in and got massacred due to INEXPERIENCE you know what the local governments hired groups like Executive Outcomes who took out Gurellias trained by Che Guevara himself! AND ELIMINATED THE THREAT.

and dont get me started about the UN's peacekeeping forces and sex abuse and the UTTER FAILURE the UN has done with nuclear energy and weapons with North Korea and Iran.

all the UN is a useless organization ran by bureaucratic liberals. if you want actual USEFUL legal institutions NATO and the EU are good examples.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 24th, 2012 @ 12:11 AM Reply

At 4 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: Dismiss the left wing paper all you want, but don't dis the UN. It's nowhere near as useless as regular folks think. If you take time to study what it does aside from make resolutions, it is a very upstanding and well regarded legal institution.

They don't bomb or blow shit up nearly enough for Tony...he's a real lost cause in explaining that there are other ways to deal with "problems" for America on the world stage then military force.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
ClickToPlay
ClickToPlay
  • Member since: Jan. 23, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 24th, 2012 @ 05:33 AM Reply

At 5 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
At 3 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 30 minutes ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: OOOOH A agency associated with the benevolent UN! and by a left wing newsletter HOW INFORMATIVE!!
Dismiss the left wing paper all you want, but don't dis the UN. It's nowhere near as useless as regular folks think. If you take time to study what it does aside from make resolutions, it is a very upstanding and well regarded legal institution.
the UN is one of the most anti-american institutions out there the it violates the american constitution

Your own presidents violate their own constitution.
The point of it was never to be "International American" policy, although it is, and no matter how hard you try and convince anybody otherwise, that won't be true.

just google it im not gonna argue it because it will be never ending).\

You mean because you cannot argue.

not to mention its overall effectiveness Food given by the UN in Shithole third world countries in Africa are took by the crates to corrupt governments

Yes, and promintent members of the UN strangely are the same countries who less than 100 years ago, took part in..? Ahh yes, colonizing those same 'shithole third world countries'.
Jeez, you need to get real, any country in Africa, or South America and Asia, have more than a thousand times the culture and history, and even importance, than any Western, racist, real shit-hole country out there.

who Bogart it for themselves when given to them by UN for them to distribute to the people but keep it for the politicians or Warlords who use it to keep their control in regional areas.

You mean given to them.

Or Peacekeeping forces not being able to fire a round off due to their strict ROE due not to "SULLY THE GOOD NAME OF THE UN" when even being fired upon in africa.

I won't deny that, some very great, and humanitarian people have come from the UN, and while they have probably saved thousands of lives, they've also failed in resolving a lot of the crisis today, and don't give me bull shit about it's not their job, when it is exactly that.

Kashmir
Iraq
Somalia
Palestine

And those are just a tiny, tiny few.

In the 80s and 90s the Civil wars that happened and the UN PKF came in and got massacred due to INEXPERIENCE you know what the local governments hired groups like Executive Outcomes who took out Gurellias trained by Che Guevara himself! AND ELIMINATED THE THREAT.

Don't talk about shit you don't know. If you're going to believe everything they throw at you, then there nothing I can do but pray you grow a brain.


and dont get me started about the UN's peacekeeping forces and sex abuse and the UTTER FAILURE the UN has done with nuclear energy and weapons with North Korea and Iran.

And Israel, US, Pakistan, just some of the unnerving countries that also hold Nuclear weapons

psst! One of them have even used it before!

all the UN is a useless organization ran by bureaucratic liberals. if you want actual USEFUL legal institutions NATO and the EU are good examples.

True, and false.
NATO, EU are shit, too.


All Eyez On Me.

BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 24th, 2012 @ 04:56 PM Reply

At 16 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: the UN is one of the most anti-american institutions out there the it violates the american constitution

;;;
You don't have a US Constitution except as a relic from your beginning.
THe US governemnt today doesn't follow it & all you have to do is read the Constitution, then read about the Fed its unconstitutional, American money today is unconstitutional, the powers of the President, unconstitutional, the NDAA is unconstitutional, declaration of war on terror unconstitutional, it goes on & on & on.
So please tell us why an organization that ISN'T AMERICAN should bother or care about the US Constitution


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 42
Programmer
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 24th, 2012 @ 05:58 PM Reply

At 48 minutes ago, morefngdbs wrote:
At 16 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: the UN is one of the most anti-american institutions out there the it violates the american constitution
;;;
You don't have a US Constitution except as a relic from your beginning.
THe US governemnt today doesn't follow it & all you have to do is read the Constitution,

because its been added on to.

then read about the Fed its unconstitutional, American money today is unconstitutional,

actually its in the grey area since the federal reserve acts as the countries central bank. and as long as the US congress makes a amendment and then a congressional act its completely legal -or grey.

the powers of the President

is under the Executive branch and acts as Head of state, commander in Chief and entrusted with Diplomacy.

the NDAA is unconstitutional, declaration of war on terror unconstitutional, it goes on & on & on.

a act signed by congress funding money for american interests isn't unconstitutional.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 25th, 2012 @ 01:59 AM Reply

At 7 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: because its been added on to.

Not so as to give the government the broad powers they now enjoy...that's public apathy and the bill of goods they were sold about how we need government intervening in and monitoring every activity so as to beat the terrorists.

actually its in the grey area since the federal reserve acts as the countries central bank. and as long as the US congress makes a amendment and then a congressional act its completely legal -or grey.

Not necessarily, Congress can't make a Constitutional amendment by themselves (which you should know if you passed basic Civics) nor are they allowed to make a law that violates the Constitution (unless nobody cares that they're doing it).

is under the Executive branch and acts as Head of state, commander in Chief and entrusted with Diplomacy.

Also those powers are clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and have drastically and pretty much illegally been expanded in the last decade and change.

a act signed by congress funding money for american interests isn't unconstitutional.

If it violates the Constitution it clearly is. Under your logic Congress could sign an act that bans speech condemning the government and it'd be completely constitutional and legal as long as it's "for american interests". Clearly you've never actually READ The Constitution.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Replace Iran's government? Feb. 25th, 2012 @ 06:18 AM Reply

At 5 days ago, Ranger2 wrote: Here are the facts: (...)
-Iran is building nuclear weapons despite sanctions. It is not even hiding them like Saddam did; it is openly flaunting it.

U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb:

Even as the United NationsâEUTM nuclear watchdog said in a new report Friday that Iran had accelerated its uranium enrichment program, American intelligence analysts continue to believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb. Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of AmericaâEUTMs 16 intelligence agencies. (...)

In Senate testimony on Jan. 31, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, stated explicitly that American officials believe that Iran is preserving its options for a nuclear weapon, but said there was no evidence that it had made a decision on making a concerted push to build a weapon. David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director, concurred with that view at the same hearing. Other senior United States officials, including Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have made similar statements in recent television appearances. (...)

Yet some intelligence officials and outside analysts believe there is another possible explanation for IranâEUTMs enrichment activity, besides a headlong race to build a bomb as quickly as possible. They say that Iran could be seeking to enhance its influence in the region by creating what some analysts call "strategic ambiguity." Rather than building a bomb now, Iran may want to increase its power by sowing doubt among other nations about its nuclear ambitions. (...)

"I think the Iranians want the capability, but not a stockpile," said Kenneth C. Brill, a former United States ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency who also served as director of the intelligence communityâEUTMs National Counterproliferation Center from 2005 until 2009. Added a former intelligence official: "The Indians were a screwdriver turn away from having a bomb for many years. The Iranians are not that close." (...)

IranâEUTMs efforts to hide its nuclear facilities and to deceive the West about its activities have also intensified doubts. But some American analysts warn that such behavior is not necessarily proof of a weapons program. They say that one mistake the C.I.A. made before the war in Iraq was to assume that because Saddam Hussein resisted weapons inspections âEU" acting as if he were hiding something âEU" it meant that he had a weapons program.

As Mr. Kay explained, "The amount of evidence that you were willing to go with in 2002 is not the same evidence you are willing to accept today."