User	Comment
Melf	posted 12-Jul-2008 9:27am   I dunno.
southernyankee	posted 12-Jul-2008 10:07am   Stepped up? No, I am guessing that they had their weapons to begin with. Also, I've heard that there are susptions that the test fires were photoshopped because they weren't successful.
Biggles	posted 12-Jul-2008 10:26am   I doubt that was the only factor, but I imagine that the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan played a part.
Enheduanna	posted 12-Jul-2008 11:32am   Probably, especially given all Bush's posturing about using military force against Iran. However, I'm not convinced that they're trying to build up their defenses to actually defend themselves. I think they're just trying to show off a little in order to make a show of strength not just to the US but also to other countries in the Middle East. They're like a big, crazy peacock showing its tail. Only their tail isn't really all that impressive, so they had to Photoshop some of it in.
jettles	posted 12-Jul-2008 12:07pm   i said yes but it is hard to say what leaders are thinking. it does seem logical in some ways at least to posture a little to the world as north korea did. and i also think that we, the US, is a little unreasonable in asking other countries to disarm when we are no longer reducing our arms. i would imagine that we are fairly scary to be around!
bill	posted 12-Jul-2008 12:20pm   I'm sure it's a factor, but not the only factor. I would assume Iran's defense program was stepped up more in the 80s when they were at war with Iraq. It also seems likely that Iran's motives are not entirely defensive, especially given their involvement in Lebanon and open aggression toward Israel. Iran/US relations haven't been good for decades. I'm tired of the saber rattling, though. I'd like to think that the people of Iran and the US are all tired of it and we'd all welcome a change. In many ways, we're not so different and the threats made by our leaders (on both sides) are out of place and counterproductive. Maybe Obama can change things, we'll see.
JessicaWoman99	posted 12-Jul-2008 2:55pm   No it could be anything to do with Iran and maybe they are mocking the U.S. by putting on a show
Frostbrand	posted 12-Jul-2008 3:24pm   Yeah. They used have a burgeoning pro-Democracy movment, they sent troops into Afghanistan alongside ours, candlelight vigils were held by thousands on the streets of Tehran after 9/11, then Bush makes his Axis of Evil speech, and next thing you know, Mahmoud Ahmadinthehead, the tiniest tyrant, gets into power. Gee, Iranians, out of fear of being attacked by a foreign power, put a lunatic in the Presidency. Where have we heard that sad tale before? Don't tell me, it'll come to me.
icurok	posted 12-Jul-2008 5:07pm   Not quite. Iran's defense program is about joining an arms race started by someone closer to home.
kcthedog	posted 12-Jul-2008 7:39pm   Yes
ausfox	posted 12-Jul-2008 7:42pm   No idea
Pomeranian	posted 13-Jul-2008 5:19am   It's hard to take seriously any threat from a country that sucks at photoshop.
Iseult	posted 13-Jul-2008 11:02am   I don't think so.
cloudhugger	posted 13-Jul-2008 7:05pm   No, I don't think so. There is much more in the air.
Kristal_Rose	posted 13-Jul-2008 11:08pm   Yes. I don't believe in military solutions, but if I did, and were in Iran's shoes I'd probably beef up the defense program instead of disarming, considering how well that worked for Iraq. - Most of the rest of what people are saying here seems to me as much a factor though.
Matty	posted 14-Jul-2008 8:44am   This is hard for me to answer. I suppose from the perspective of a tree, one can easily make a bewb-for-tat relationship between Iran's missile tests and the current US position on Iran. However, from the perspective of the forest, Iran has been taking anti-US actions for many years now and building its forces for a long time. The most salient Iranian action taken against the US is still the hostage situation of 1980. So, to suggest that Iran has just recently stepped up its defense program is wholistically inaccurate and short-sighted.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to Matty) posted 14-Jul-2008 9:52pm   I know they've long had a military program. Their 1967 ongoing dispute with Iraq over Thalweg river borders was a huge component no one seems to have brought up. All I 'm really trying to bring up for this survey though is the reactionary component to recent US demands. I find it bizarre or ignorant that anyone might consider the issue from Iran's perspective after these last half dozen years of US-MidEast involvement, and imagine they would choose to comply with a disarmament request.
Matty	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 15-Jul-2008 9:15am   > I know they've long had a military program. Their 1967 ongoing dispute > with Iraq over Thalweg river borders was a huge component no one seems > to have brought up. No one brought up the Iraqi-Iranian troubles because it had nothing to do with your question. > All I 'm really trying to bring up for this survey though is the reactionary > component to recent US demands. I find it bizarre or ignorant that > anyone might consider the issue from Iran's perspective after these > last half dozen years of US-MidEast involvement, and imagine they > would choose to comply with a disarmament request. What on earth is so bizarre? Most nations/people like to improve relations with others and often do so through concessions. Further, most people agree that nuclear missles are a bad thing. Unless you think that Iranians are vastly different than most people, then a request for a nuclear non-proliferation agreement would seem run-of -the mill. Did you really analyze what you had to say, or were you just playing the role of ultra-liberal, Bush-hating rehtorician ? I can't imagine how any negotiations that would reduce muclear armaments could be considered ignorant or bad. I am by no means a fan of George Bush, but that doesn't mean he can never take an appropriate action, unless, of course, you are an idealogue.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to Matty) posted 15-Jul-2008 2:01pm   "a nuclear non-proliferation agreement" - Did we offer to stop building nukes? I'm not saying it wouldn't be great for us and the rest of the world, I'm just saying that from Iran's perspective, I absolutely can't see what they have to gain. I haven't heard we were offering anything in bargain, and if the Iraq pattern were to repeat, the request to disarm could be taken as an indication of impending invasion, and merely a request to surrender the easy way, before war starts (although again, if Iraq's any cue, even officially surrendering means half a million may still yet die). So what would you do if you were Iran, and why? What would you have done if you were Iraq? We put them in a 'Damned if you do, damned if you don't position, and I can't imagine any other nation is going to trust us in such matters for another decade or two now. My opinions here have nothing to do with being liberal or Bush supporting, otherwise I might suggest immediate unconditional surrender combined with a national sit-in policy. Even if I fully supported Bush, I'd have to ask the same thing. If cops asked someone to drop their gun, then shot them after they complied, then asked the same thing of me, I'm sure I'd try something different, regardless of my political affinities. From a just planet perspective, I don't see how this is appropriate action. What right do we have to ask them to disarm if we don't disarm ourselves? I could perhaps see it if we had earned the right to call ourselves the world's policeman over the decades, but our wars and miitary support have been just as much about self-interest or strategic alliances as defending any random underdog from bullies. I would like to see Iran disarm, but the only just way I see to do such a thing is to create a UN which equally defends any nation from agression, and equally inspects for and collaboratively halts prohibited weapons in any nation, including the US. The intelligence capability to go far beyond SALT exists now, but we won't do that because defense is still our primary industry. My local congresman even had to author a bill preventing american companies from selling arms to countries we were at war with. If I had my way, we'd have an international ban on hand-guns and automatic rifles too. Heck, I'd probably do away with rifles as well, let sports hunters go back to bows, and issue carefully monitored licenses for bear guns in wilderness territory. At the very minimum, our side of a concession should be to not support folks like Israel. If you ever read any of Sadam's stuff, that was his big beef, and not any problem with America directly. We've had a habit of arming competing neighbors, or arming one side and letting the Soviets arm the other. Now that we hope to maintain bases in Iraq, we suddenly care what the neighbor has. I'm still of the theory that the oil cronies are absurdly hoping for a trans midEast-Asia pipeline.
Matty	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 15-Jul-2008 3:09pm   Blah, blah, blah; what a bunch of mental masturbation. This is just more globalist, America and Israel are bad, bullcrap. If you can't recognize that negotiations that could potentially lessen nuclear arms prior to a forceable military action is appropriate, then what esle is there really to say? Summarily, I will leave you with this thought: we are about to go to war with Iran; talking to them first is good.
Frostbrand	(reply to Matty) posted 15-Jul-2008 4:46pm   > Blah, blah, blah; what a bunch of mental masturbation. > This is just more globalist, America and Israel > are bad, bullcrap. > Your porblem is that you fail to see the foolishness of the situation. The Bush Administration won't negotiate with iran until they give us everything we want. Well, if they do that, what would there be to negotiate about? Imagine going into a courtroom like that. "I won't present the evidence that your client is guilty until he pleads guilty." > If you can't recognize that negotiations that > could potentially lessen nuclear arms prior to > a forceable military action is appropriate, then > what esle is there really to say? > Negotiations have to be done in good faith for them to work, and the Bush Administration has done little if anything in good faith over the past 7 years. And you can't use the "9/11 changed everything" excuse, because Bush was flagrantly breaking his year 2000 campaign promises during the first 9 months of his term. > Summarily, I will leave you with this thought: > we are about to go to war with Iran; talking to > them first is good. I hope we don't go to war with Iran. They are as nationalistic as we are, and if we bomb them, only a moron like Bush or an early-stage Alzheimer's sufferer like McCain would think that the people in the paths of those bombs would blame their own government as oposed to us. We will be fighting the entire country, and we are re-learning in Iraq, what we first learned in Vietnam. You fight the whole nation, you will lose.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to Matty) posted 17-Jul-2008 1:18am   I'm at least signing a petition to stop the blockade. It's my position that we should have left them alone in the first place. We have no excuse to go to war with them in the first place. Comparing the virtue of negotiations is absurd, when compared to something of our doing in the first place. If we had left them alone, I expect they would have taken more sweet time on the missile program, but instead we urge them to esacalate by launching a blockade, which somewhat implies a next phase of war. That war was immanent was evident to me back before war on Iraq was declared, and not because of their nuclear program, but because of Bush's apparent imperialism plans. If you dig through my ancient posts I'm sure you'll find my prophetic warnings (nothing psychic, just speculative analysis of motives). Any bully is bad. I don't single out Israel and the US (hence my equitable UN defense plan.). I just happen to believe more in the 'turn the other cheek' strategy. I have yet to meet any entity except for the rare spiritualist who doesn't match scorn or anger with more hostility themselves. Negotiations are great when fair. You appear to think military action is appropriate if they don't surrender their position. Yet somehow I doubt you'd find it fair if Iran insisted we disarm instead.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to Matty) posted 17-Jul-2008 2:27am   Something else I can point out: Russia, China, and India are each all more threatened by Iran, and each all more capable of forcing their position on the matter, but they don't. We are the ones with the most motive to establish a westernized foothold South Eurasia coast, and the only ones who can act in Iraq without increasing tensions in the balance of local super-powers. For the time being they are happy to watch us bankrupt ourselves while weakening the territory they will want soon anyhow, much like the Reagan cold war tactic. The only reason it can even go on is that those who stand to gain here are 'global' companies who will prosper from the processes and resulting changes even if the US does go bankrupt, and likely collaborate with some of the three eurasian powers in the future.
docgbrown	posted 25-Jul-2008 5:31am   No they have been working on it way longer than that and are wackos

 
Link this survey: http://surveycentral.org/survey/29506.html

Hits: 1 today (304 in the last 30 days)

Google Search: