Let's look at it like this:

Iran wants to get a nuke. It also wants to inflict 'harm and pain' upon the United States. If we add these two facts together, what'll be the result? It's not a perfect equation, but you can see where I'm going with this, and how I can interpret as a threat involving 'nuclear fire'.

I realize I may be stretching it a bit, but really, what else is Iran threatening us with that could inflict 'harm and pain'? There is oil of course, but I see it simply as a threat involving the exchange of nuclear weapons.


Well, there was a time of when people did have it, but even then, it took a big 'push' to snap 'em into it.

The "harm and pain" threat was only a threat in retaliation for a threat of being dragged before the Security Council and being put under sanctions by the UN.

So many threats, it's like a game of chicken.

Yeah, just a tad too many "ifs" for me. Plus I think like an economist. Supposively the CIA thinks the Iranians are 3-10 years from a nuke. When oil is a ever present concern without the threat of war. Nuclear or otherwise.

Actually, that may be how Iran views the situation as well -- America as a stocky bully. I wonder if that was intended.

I think so. The Canadian media tends to not like the U.S. so much.

No foreign press likes the US. We're like this big fat target or something. That make's me sad. :(

The terrain of Iran in addition to the size both in terms of land and population, could make a conventional attack difficult and an occupation impossible when you consider the ethno-cultural makeup of the population, and the current difficulties the U.S. has encountered in occupying Iraq, which would likely reoccur in Iran in much greater magnitude if a theoretical invasion were to take place.

One thing is for sure: Any war with Iran would be unprecedented because of the amount of multinational support needed to pacify a country of this size and the risk of a nuclear fallout against U.S. interests in the region. Furthermore, the full effect that an invasion would have on oil prices would have to be factored into the potential risks of war, although the full scale of that effect is difficult to assess, but under no circumstances will it be positive.

An embargo on Iran might do wonders to their temperament. The surrounding countries and Europe have far more to worry about than the United States does in this case.

And those surrounding countries you neglected to mention; India, Pakistan, and China. One of which has a permanent veto on the Security Council. All of which are starved for oil, particularly Iran's oil.

I don't see a embargo working at all. Even if China didn't use their veto, they could still do something far worse to retaliate. Dump their dollar reserves. No country is stupid enough to fight a conventional war with the US. Economic warfare is something else entirely.

Furthermore, what's Venezuela going to do? Chavez is tight with Iran, and he's not exactly considered a friend to the US government. That'd just give him a opportunity to follow through with any of his crazy threats.

You have to look at the big picture. Either way, this doesn't bode well for the US.

Soooo, assuming that our national security advisors actually take advice from online gaming/audio forums, what would you people suggest that the USA should be doing here?

Compromise. Or start dusting off the nuke launch codes.

*edit* Hopefully the world isn't that insane for the second option. Surely someone else has a better idea.

Did you just ask that question in the GFF Political board? Are you kidding me? Nobody here is going to be able to answer that one because it is far to easy to criticize without offering a better solution to the problem. It's one thing I've noticed on this forum, people love to bitch but rarely are able to give better workable solutions.

Isn't that true for every person discussing politics, including politicians?

I smell a draft comming.

I doubt that will happen in the near future. The military has said it frankly that it doesn't want people who don't want to be there and truth be told I wouldn't want to serve next to some asswipe that doesn't want to be there and didn't have the brains to get into college.

Iran is a problem. But see, we have this OTHER unneeded problem in Iraq...

And before anyone says I'm totally anti-war, I have no problem with the war in Afghanistan. But Iraq is ridiculous. Unnecessary and ridiculous.

edit: If there's a draft, this country will go apeshit. Parents and children across the nation will be protesting damn near violently. Believe it.

No there are a good number of reasons why we went to war with Iraq, I don't really care if you agree with them but the fact is we are there and will finish what we started before we leave.

Iran is making themselves a large thorn in the side of a number of large and powerful countries with all of the things they have been saying. Shit rolls down hill, sadly for Iran it will probably roll over them. They will reap what they sow.

Y'know, I actually heard an interesting idea on NPR a few nights ago while I was delivering pizzas. Basically, it involved Bush threatening the Iraqi government with pulling out if they didn't shape up. It made sense in a strange sort of way (the people in power need the U.S. troops in order to maintain power, remove troops, remove power, they want to maintain power, thus they will want to keep troops in Iraq).

That's be a great way to piss off more Iraqis, democrats, and pretty much everyone else. :rolleyes:

Perhaps on this matter it would be more prudent for us to let the EU take the brunt of the negotiations with us simply nudging them onwards making sure the issue doesn't die down. But if Iran does so much as flinch towards actually using one of their black market bought nukes ('cuze we all know when they say they're enriching uranium purely for peaceful purposes that they're telling the truth) then we'll step in and take whatever drastic action required, provided the EU and UN hesitates, which they probably will.

Oil?
How would you justify the occupation of Iraq?

You seem to be new at PP, so let me just tell you to pipe down before opening a can of worms. We've all argued to death on the implications of the Iraqi War. This thread is about Iran now.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Just because he doesn't know what he's talking about doesn't mean he can't pretend that he knows what he's talking about.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...and2/teach.gif

As for compromise, what if the other side isn't willing to compromise? What’s more, why should they when they know they can get away with whatever they want? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Iran in the wrong by violating a number of treaties with its current actions, actions with which there shouldn't be a need to compromise on as the treaties weren't supposed to be violated to begin with?

I laugh whenever I hear about people say that China will attack the US or vice versa. It will NEVER happen. Their economies rely TOO MUCH on each other. It's not going to happen. Ever.

You have pretty much no evidence to make such a claim, other than dependent economies. Right.

Iran is beginning to show the world just how off their rocker they really are. I don't think they are capable of backing down because their delusions of grandeur.