Iran Missile Test

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by ysabel, Jul 9, 2008.

  1. ysabel

    ysabel /ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5

    BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran sends missile test warning

    What's going on here?
    Last month, Israel rehearsed for possible Iranian attack. This month Iranians show they are capable of defending and counter attacking should US/Israel attack. And both actions seem to justify each other's beliefs that the opposite will attack them at any time.

  2. Van

    Van Heavy Weapons Guy V.I.P.

    Well, the Iranian situation seems to be a complicated matter. I don't think it's going to end without problems. Hopefully full-blown war doesn't become the only option. But if they don't back down, do we have a choice?
    dDave and Mirage like this.
  3. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    I've always thought Iran was the problem, not Iraq.

    Unfortunately, the US has its dick stuck in Iraq at the moment and I would not be a fan of seeing us go into yet another war.
    Babe_Ruth likes this.
  4. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    So Iran can do absolutely nothing to harm Israel, but is getting closer to being able to maybe do so? Why do we even care about Iran again? Not seeing it folks, I'm just not seeing it.
    Babe_Ruth and Swiftstrike like this.
  5. Van

    Van Heavy Weapons Guy V.I.P.

    The problem is, that they were BOTH problems.
    Doc likes this.
  6. fleinn

    fleinn 101010 you don't see the entire "we're going to sanction you until you dance on the head of a pin to the tune we're whistling" as having anything to do with this, then? The membership in the WTO.. no?

    I hope someone kicks Merkel in the head and tells her to stop trying to get another back rub from Bush. Or at least makes her specify to the morons in the papers that she's not speaking for the EU, the Quartet, or anyone else but apparently herself, Bush and Blair (who is now a special middle east "envoy"), when she's mirroring the idea that nuclear enrichment must be halted as a condition for diplomacy with Iran.

    Seriously - where was the outrage when Israel didn't just threaten to invade someone, but actually struck targets in Syria, and invaded Lebanon - and that's not even a year ago (..leaving aside the entire Gaza problem).
  7. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    I think Iran just does it to keep oil prices high. They know the world will negotiate before any attacks, so they can back off - provoke -back off - provoke....

    Oil took a $10 dive in 2 days. Iran immediately tested 3 missiles. The thing about speculators running oil prices up is that when the momentum changes, the price can fall very rapidly. The lower oil falls the more missiles Iran will fire.
  8. Van

    Van Heavy Weapons Guy V.I.P.

    I was outraged. And because I was outraged, I supported Israel. They were blowing Israelis up and harboring terrorists.
    Doc likes this.
  9. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    ...let's just look at the facts. For I while I used to get daily briefings from a friend about how they were getting reports about Hizballah infiltrating the middle east, that Iran was behind it, and that soon the new Islamic caliphate would rise and crush Israel for good.

    But it turns out that the link between Hizballah in Lebanon and Iran is tenuous, and does not stretch to involve more than relatively minor support in form of money. In addition, there appears to be no sound plan about coups being orchestrated - Hizballah just doesn't work this way, and appears to have little interest, or skill, in actually holding government positions. We also know that they would not succeed if they did seize power, as they are dependent to a fair extent on support from the west to have money to pay people in government. Neither can a country live on aid for any length of time - therefore, Hizballah would not rise to power. (Please question that argument, and specify the scenarios where you see it's possible that Hizballah would, for example with the help of Iran, turn into a regional political force).

    At the same time, Israel has the blessing of the west, it has a military, it has money. And it strikes, repeatedly, targets inside countries they border with - whether that is in response to "existential threats" such as North- Korean nuclear phantom missiles in Syria, or whether it is against evil terrorists in Lebanon. Or if it is to maintain military interests such as a buffer- zone towards outside forces large enough to control.

    And we can of course disagree about the methods being used on either side, or the status of Israel - or perhaps the solution to the future state of Israel as a non- jewish state, against a two- state solution.

    But I don't think it's too much to ask that people do not suggest a war against Iran is legitimate based on the idea that it wants to destroy Israel, or can destroy Israel. And that we instead look for explanations for the current predicament in terms of that Iran responds to a certain amount of rising threats and increasing incursions in the border area towards the north and Afghanistan (more here).

    While we also perhaps can take into account that if the US attacked Iran, and caused a close down of Hormuz, or some of the refinaries blew up - there wouldn't be a $10 rise in oil- prices. Also, with the situation in Iraq and the surrounding areas, there's no need to do anything to increase the oil- prices. Due to the domestic problems, they also need to burn oil for electricity and fuel themselves. So try to consider whether one scenario or the other are remotely reasonable, before suggesting that Iran somehow can "control" the price here by randomly launching missiles.

    You should also know that the kind of rhetoric in Washington, and the prevailing acceptance for that narrative has made many in Iran consider a soft coup of some sort up to several times during the past few years.

    Because as long as the nuclear issue persists (that is, that they are robbed of the opportunity to use nuclear power to generate power - safely, with the technology they are supposed to be granted as long as they are signees to the NPT, and subject themselves to IAEA inspections - which they do... As long as this is not settled, they need to rely on regulated oil- exports for state revenue - that is, deals with various foreign governments and companies for building refinary capacity, and so on - and spending incredible amounts of this oil on electricity). As long as the nuclear issue persists - there is an excuse here to keep Iran from becoming a respected nation with normal ties to other governments. And besides that it is the leadership issue. And after that it's something else. So I know several people who would've been willing to accept another humiliation (like the five, six before - read your history books, please), and end this in the hope of a potentially better future.

    Since there are just so many things you can do in a country that is kept fairly badly in check by being dependent on the charity of other nations to achieve anything from an airline system to an effective communications network. War nearby certainly also does not help.

    So while I'm sure a lot of Iranians would drop the big one on either Israel or Washington if they could - consider the kinds of circumstances all of this actually takes place in. And try to interpret what we're doing in - if not from their perspective, then at least see what we're doing now in relation to what we have done before.
  10. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    Maybe I misunderstand, but I don't understand why you would say this:

    OPEC warns against military conflict with Iran - International Herald Tribune


    And another:
    Oil rebounds as Iran tensions flare: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2008

Share This Page