I think therefore I am ... an enemy of the state.
The government of Iran is not irrational. Put aside matters of state religion, women's rights, censorship. Iran is not any more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other nation that has such capabilities. The cascade of destruction from ANY country using nuclear weapons would be disastrous, including the U.S., France, India, Israel, Russia, others. Your StackExchange friend, FeralOinkRe rationality, rule of law, order: Iran is not riddled with out-of-control corruption. Compare with Nigeria. Nigeria is an oil-rich nation but operates most production facilities at merely 40% capacity, must even imports refined fuel! Iran doesn't do that! Iran is a force to be reckoned with in a potentially volatile part of the world. But Iran is not Afghanistan, nor the Balkans, with structural economic (and other) faults, lack of government order. The past few weeks in 2012, as well as Feb 2011, saw tensions in international and sovereign water ways of Iran and neighboring countries. Barbs were exchanged in the international press. Nothing bad happened. Not last year, not this year. Iran's government is more functional, more stable, with a decently educated population. It is unlikely they find the prospect of a war with anyone, in the Middle East or elsewhere, to be a desirable outcome.The U.S.'s foreign policy is unclear, lacking in the obvious motives of self-defense, or even open imperialism. The "war on terror" is an awful idea. The U.S. cannot sustain a constant state of foreign conflict, indefinitely! Yet that appears to be what is going on, continuously since 2002, and intermittently throughout the preceding 40+ years. There needs to be peace time, and when necessary, periods of war time which come to a discrete, finite conclusion.I am a U.S. citizen and I love my country. I don't want us to be in wartime conflict on two or three fronts for years at a time, particularly since the "fronts" are not adjacent to our sovereign territory. Terrorist actions on U.S. soil, e.g. World Trade Center, must be responded to decisively. That doesn't necessarily mean going to war though. Let the CIA, or military counter-intelligence do their job. Don't drag all of the country of Iraq into this if WTC 9/11 wasn't an act orchestrated by the gov't of Iraq. If there is a perceived need to go to war against Iraq, explain why, do it, and leave. Don't link one event (WTC) with Saddam Hussein for convenience sake. Hussein and his sons were quite appalling as leaders, but it isn't clear to me as to why the U.S.A., on the other side of the world, needed to address this. Why not let countries who are closer, more directly affected, and in most cases, blessed with great oil wealth, decide how they want to address problems in their own neighborhood. I don't like the idea of comparing the U.S. with Iran as far as a threat to the world. I think that Iran's neighbors have better intuition about Iran than the U.S. Iran held its military exercises, announced production of highly enriched uranium fuel etc. but nothing bad happened. Given that it hasn't, it seems like Iran is participating in the world community much as others do now (sabre rattling, show of strength, and rational).
Hello Feral.I agree with you. The US government has no legitimate reason to attack Iran. Iran hasn't invaded or attacked a country in the last 100 years. That was the main point of my post. The US has deployed troops all over the world in various different countries and we are supposed to believe that Iran is the threat? Please.Good to hear from you.Ed
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.