Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'

Originally Posted by Elcee

The U.S. is a corporately sponsored Dictatorship with Democratic tendencies employed to project the image of representation. Either way. We're all going to die.

And I thought I was cynical.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Tomzilla

I think we should; Iran threatened us with nuclear fire.

Since when? This whole issue is about preventing Iran getting a nuke. They only said 'harm and pain'.

Iran doesn't have to launch a nuke to really hurt us. They've remained quite passive on Iraq and could stir up a hornet's nest with that. As if Iraq needs it in it's current state. They could reduce or even refuse to export their oil, causing oil to spike well above 100 USD a barrel. People think current gas prices are bad, that would make it all the more worse.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Tomzilla

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'.

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.

Originally Posted by Tomzilla

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Gumby

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Robo Jesus

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Robo Jesus

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?

Who knows. I don't think I'm smart enough to answer that question really. Compromise could be anything from the Russian deal to handle the enrichment of uranium, to having Israel get rid of it's suspected nuclear arsenal and declaring the Middle East a nuclear free zone.

Originally Posted by Robo Jesus

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?

Technically I don't think there's any international law against the development of peaceful nuclear technology/energy. But which country has done that without building itself a few nukes? None that I know of.

America nor Israel can afford, nor will risk a "MAD"-like situation with Iran.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Canada comes to mind at first, I'm not positive but I think Japan as well. There may be others as well, (Germany?).

Slightly different situation. I don't think any of those countries have a nuclear reactor that's capable of pumping out weapons-grade plutonium.

Nuclear physics is not my area of expertise. I think there's a difference between the two kinds of reactors and processes applied. Something to do with how the uranium is enriched and processed by the reactor. Plus those countries allow IAEA oversight of their operations. Iran hasn't been forthcoming.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Okay, I stand corrected by some very knowledgeable people.

Originally Posted by YeOldeButchere

On top of that, they're trusted by most countries, and missing plutonium would likely not be that much of an international concern. Who'd believe someone saying "The Canadians are getting the bomb!"?

So very true.

Most amazing jew boots