(03-03-2015 03:13 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 02:52 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 02:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's my take on what's going on. Don't have a link, except to 45 years of experience dealing with the region in the military, on the job, and for holidays.

Iran's ultimate objective is not the destruction of Israel. Iran's ultimate objective is the restoration of the Persian Empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. Now, Arab leaders aren't exactly onboard with that idea, particularly since they would lose their jobs in the process. But if Iran can unite the Arab in the streets against a common enemy--Israel--then they have a means to overthrow unwilling Arab leaders from within. If Israel attacks Iran, they will do so with the blessing of most Arab leaders, and probably with at least covert assistance from many of them. But the Arab general population will not lean the same way. And that is potentially very destabilizing to the entire area.

I have heard suggestions that Obama has decided to forge an alliance with Iran and is siding with them as a result. I don't know whether that is true or not, but it certainly explains some acts that are hard to understand otherwise.

I hardly disagree....but please explain why we shouldn't let them duke it out and deal it with it downstream?

Exactly...we can then deal directly with whatever emerges from that mess...

From an American security perspective, as long as Iran doesn't get nukes then the region can do whatever the major players want. The issue for the US is twofold and revolves around the global access to oil and the alliance with Israel.

therefore, if we allow.....Israel will be there to stop it....

all I see is back the historical status quo US position and let 'em trash the joint.....we'll pick up the pieces....

this is why god doesn't mean whatever one thinks it does.....

(03-03-2015 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's my take on what's going on. Don't have a link, except to 45 years of experience dealing with the region in the military, on the job, and for holidays.

Iran's ultimate objective is not the destruction of Israel. Iran's ultimate objective is the restoration of the Persian Empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. Now, Arab leaders aren't exactly onboard with that idea, particularly since they would lose their jobs in the process. But if Iran can unite the Arab in the streets against a common enemy--Israel--then they have a means to overthrow unwilling Arab leaders from within. If Israel attacks Iran, they will do so with the blessing of most Arab leaders, and probably with at least covert assistance from many of them. But the Arab general population will not lean the same way. And that is potentially very destabilizing to the entire area.

I have heard suggestions that Obama has decided to forge an alliance with Iran and is siding with them as a result. I don't know whether that is true or not, but it certainly explains some acts that are hard to understand otherwise.

Great post. Destabilization in Arab nations is a great thing for Iran. Saddam gone was also a great thing for them as it allows them more influence in Iraq than they had before.

While I prefer no Islam to any form of Islam, the brand of Shia islam is definitely more palatable in my opinion. Shia Islam places more of a focus on modern teachings, while Sunni's are exceptionally conservative and old school in their beliefs. This is because the teachings of Shia islam evolved over time. They believe in a clear lineage of power following Muhammad's death while the Sunnis do not. The Shia interpretation of Islam has evolved over time as successive Imams and their councils interpreted Islam. The Sunni beliefs are more firmly rooted in the past. Most Sunnis do not even consider Shias muslim.

Even the batshit crazy Komeini favored keeping science and religion largely separate in Iran's educational system. In Iran they even teach evolution in schools and they have well respected scientific research programs.

Shias are also considerably more friendly to women than the Sunnis. While they are far from equals in society, education, suffrage, and a number of other rights are offered to women that aren't found in Saudi Arabia or other Arab Countries.

I've said this multiple times, but if Iran ever shakes the Ayatollah and the mullahs from having actual political power, Iran should be our greatest ally in the middle east. Obviously Islam will never be completely separate from politics in Iran, just as we have religious groups in the U.S. influencing law, but getting them out of the formal power structure would be a great thing for the world.

I hope it happens someday in my lifetime because I would really love to visit Iran and see the history and culture without fear of being questioned and/or detained simply because I'm an American.

(03-03-2015 03:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Netanyahu wants the U.S. to do what's best for Israel, regardless of any impact on the U.S.

yepper........$$$$$ support in the 5-star portioning....

(03-03-2015 03:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Netanyahu wants the U.S. to do what's best for Israel

That's his job. Looking out for #1.

It's funny how all the people on this board that love to flaunt how terrible Obama's approval rating is (and it is rightfully terrible), ignore that Netanyahu's approval rating in Israel is even worse, sitting at around 38%.

Netanyahu is not well liked or respected in Israel. He has the support of the hard line right in Israel, but they're not a large chunk of the population.

My girlfriend's sister got her medical degree in Israel and spent 5 years living there (came back to the states in 2012). We've talked extensively about her time there. She said the majority of the people she met in Israel were "ethnically Jewish" but they weren't practicing Jews. They were Jewish in the same way people who celebrate christmas here but don't go to church are christians. Those people make up the majority of Israel and they are not fans of Netanyahu. She lived in several places in the country including Be'er Sheva, Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv and she studied psychiatry, so her clinical time there was largely spent talking to Israeli citizens, so I fully trust that she has a very broad view of the makeup of Israeli people and politics.

Netanyahu has a higher approval rating in the U.S. than he does in his own country because people in the U.S. don't understand actually Israel. All they know is defending everything Israel does is doing God's work. Israel could literally implement genocide as a policy and they were still have staunch defenders because Israel has to exist for Biblical prophecy to be fulfilled.

(03-03-2015 04:00 PM)Niner National Wrote:  It's funny how all the people on this board that love to flaunt how terrible Obama's approval rating is (and it is rightfully terrible), ignore that Netanyahu's approval rating in Israel is even worse, sitting at around 38%.

Netanyahu is not well liked or respected in Israel. He has the support of the hard line right in Israel, but they're not a large chunk of the population.

My girlfriend's sister got her medical degree in Israel and spent 5 years living there (came back to the states in 2012). We've talked extensively about her time there. She said the majority of the people she met in Israel were "ethnically Jewish" but they weren't practicing Jews. They were Jewish in the same way people who celebrate christmas here but don't go to church are christians. Those people make up the majority of Israel and they are not fans of Netanyahu. She lived in several places in the country including Be'er Sheva, Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv and she studied psychiatry, so her clinical time there was largely spent talking to Israeli citizens, so I fully trust that she has a very broad view of the makeup of Israeli people and politics.

Netanyahu has a higher approval rating in the U.S. than he does in his own country because people in the U.S. don't understand actually Israel. All they know is defending everything Israel does is doing God's work. Israel could literally implement genocide as a policy and they were still have staunch defenders because Israel has to exist for Biblical prophecy to be fulfilled.

Some truth to this, but at the same time you must concede that genocide has already been declared AGAINST Israel by most of their surrounding neighbors. So it would be like fighting fire with fire.

(03-03-2015 04:03 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 04:00 PM)Niner National Wrote:  It's funny how all the people on this board that love to flaunt how terrible Obama's approval rating is (and it is rightfully terrible), ignore that Netanyahu's approval rating in Israel is even worse, sitting at around 38%.

Netanyahu is not well liked or respected in Israel. He has the support of the hard line right in Israel, but they're not a large chunk of the population.

My girlfriend's sister got her medical degree in Israel and spent 5 years living there (came back to the states in 2012). We've talked extensively about her time there. She said the majority of the people she met in Israel were "ethnically Jewish" but they weren't practicing Jews. They were Jewish in the same way people who celebrate christmas here but don't go to church are christians. Those people make up the majority of Israel and they are not fans of Netanyahu. She lived in several places in the country including Be'er Sheva, Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv and she studied psychiatry, so her clinical time there was largely spent talking to Israeli citizens, so I fully trust that she has a very broad view of the makeup of Israeli people and politics.

Netanyahu has a higher approval rating in the U.S. than he does in his own country because people in the U.S. don't understand actually Israel. All they know is defending everything Israel does is doing God's work. Israel could literally implement genocide as a policy and they were still have staunch defenders because Israel has to exist for Biblical prophecy to be fulfilled.

Some truth to this, but at the same time you must concede that genocide has already been declared AGAINST Israel by most of their surrounding neighbors. So it would be like fighting fire with fire.

No doubt and I don't think Israel would ever enact such a policy, but Israel is untouchable among hard line Christians because Israel is a key component of Revelations.

My point was obviously taken to the extreme, but that is because it is true. If Israel and jews ceased to exist, it would invalidate the Bible as God's message. Therefore, anything they do, good or bad, will garner the support of strict followers of the Christian faith. They need the jews.

(03-03-2015 03:40 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Great post. Destabilization in Arab nations is a great thing for Iran. Saddam gone was also a great thing for them as it allows them more influence in Iraq than they had before.

Our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan greatly assisted Iran's ambitions

Quote:While I prefer no Islam to any form of Islam, the brand of Shia islam is definitely more palatable in my opinion. Shia Islam places more of a focus on modern teachings, while Sunni's are exceptionally conservative and old school in their beliefs. This is because the teachings of Shia islam evolved over time. They believe in a clear lineage of power following Muhammad's death while the Sunnis do not. The Shia interpretation of Islam has evolved over time as successive Imams and their councils interpreted Islam. The Sunni beliefs are more firmly rooted in the past. Most Sunnis do not even consider Shias muslim.

Best explanation I've ever heard of Sunni v. Shia was from a State Department intel guy who said that, in Christian terms, think of Shia as Roman Catholic and Sunni as fundamentalist. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but not a huge one. And it's pretty consistent with the differences you note.

Quote:Even the batshit crazy Komeini favored keeping science and religion largely separate in Iran's educational system. In Iran they even teach evolution in schools and they have well respected scientific research programs.
Shias are also considerably more friendly to women than the Sunnis. While they are far from equals in society, education, suffrage, and a number of other rights are offered to women that aren't found in Saudi Arabia or other Arab Countries.
I've said this multiple times, but if Iran ever shakes the Ayatollah and the mullahs from having actual political power, Iran should be our greatest ally in the middle east. Obviously Islam will never be completely separate from politics in Iran, just as we have religious groups in the U.S. influencing law, but getting them out of the formal power structure would be a great thing for the world.
I hope it happens someday in my lifetime because I would really love to visit Iran and see the history and culture without fear of being questioned and/or detained simply because I'm an American.

Had the Shah and his successors remained in power, Iran probably would be a great, if not our greatest, ally in the region today. We've participated or acquiesced in the overthrow of governments in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and tried to do it in Syria. In virtually every case (possibly not in Afghanistan), the successor regimes have been worse than the ones we helped overthrow. Getting the hell out and letting them duke it out is probably not likely to produce significantly worse results than we have gotten by getting involved.

5 Reasons Israel Won't Attack Iran

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/f...-iran-9469

Is there any doubt Iran would use a nuke if they had one?

Does anyone seriously believe they have enough self-control to avoid blowing up Israel or anyone on their sh-t list?

Looks like Patty Murray didn't like Bibi much. Or maybe that bean burrito she had for breakfast was producing a reaction.

A class I had in college presented in the exact opposite. Sunni's more modern. Shia fundamentalists. This actually surprises me quite a bit that you present it the way you do.

(03-03-2015 05:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Is there any doubt Iran would use a nuke if they had one?

Yes.

(03-03-2015 05:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Does anyone seriously believe they have enough self-control to avoid blowing up Israel or anyone on their sh-t list?

Yes.

There is hardly anyone outside of a flat out terrorist that doesn't realize that any state who starts launching nukes is just inviting destruction of either them or the planet as we know it. If Iran does actually want nukes, it's only for an equalizing of their enemies nukes.

(03-03-2015 05:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 05:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Is there any doubt Iran would use a nuke if they had one?

Yes.

(03-03-2015 05:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Does anyone seriously believe they have enough self-control to avoid blowing up Israel or anyone on their sh-t list?

Yes.

There is hardly anyone outside of a flat out terrorist that doesn't realize that any state who starts launching nukes is just inviting destruction of either them or the planet as we know it. If Iran does actually want nukes, it's only for an equalizing of their enemies nukes.

Iran is the largest sponsor of terrorism on the planet Tom.

(03-03-2015 05:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A class I had in college presented in the exact opposite. Sunni's more modern. Shia fundamentalists. This actually surprises me quite a bit that you present it the way you do.

Shias have the hierarchy with the mullahs like Catholics with bishops. Sunnis tend to be more Koran literalists. As for modern, the most modern and western-leaning countries in the region are in the "Shia crescent"--Gulf States, Iraq, Iran (certainly under the Shah, maybe not now), Turkey, coastal Syria, Lebanon. Not sure what your prof was trying to teach you.

(03-03-2015 05:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A class I had in college presented in the exact opposite. Sunni's more modern. Shia fundamentalists. This actually surprises me quite a bit that you present it the way you do.

That's like arguing Hitler or Stalin.

(03-03-2015 05:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 05:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Is there any doubt Iran would use a nuke if they had one?

Yes.

(03-03-2015 05:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Does anyone seriously believe they have enough self-control to avoid blowing up Israel or anyone on their sh-t list?

Yes.

There is hardly anyone outside of a flat out terrorist that doesn't realize that any state who starts launching nukes is just inviting destruction of either them or the planet as we know it. If Iran does actually want nukes, it's only for an equalizing of their enemies nukes.

They would never launch a nuke from their own territory. But I'd bet my pension they'd give one to a terrorist group to detonate on a ship near Tel Aviv or NYC.

(03-03-2015 07:50 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  They would never launch a nuke from their own territory. But I'd bet my pension they'd give one to a terrorist group to detonate on a ship near Tel Aviv or NYC.

Tel Aviv isn't their target.

Baghdad and Ankara and Istanbul and Cairo and Alexandria and Damascus are their targets.

With what's going on in Tikrit, they're well on their way to having Baghdad, at least as a puppet. And with nukes, they'd have a leg up on getting a few more of those targets under their control.

(03-03-2015 02:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's my take on what's going on. Don't have a link, except to 45 years of experience dealing with the region in the military, on the job, and for holidays.
Iran's ultimate objective is not the destruction of Israel. Iran's ultimate objective is the restoration of the Persian Empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. Now, Arab leaders aren't exactly onboard with that idea, particularly since they would lose their jobs in the process. But if Iran can unite the Arab in the streets against a common enemy--Israel--then they have a means to overthrow unwilling Arab leaders from within. If Israel attacks Iran, they will do so with the blessing of most Arab leaders, and probably with at least covert assistance from many of them. But the Arab general population will not lean the same way. And that is potentially very destabilizing to the entire area.
I have heard suggestions that Obama has decided to forge an alliance with Iran and is siding with them as a result. I don't know whether that is true or not, but it certainly explains some acts that are hard to understand otherwise.

I hardly disagree....but please explain why we shouldn't let them duke it out and deal it with it downstream?

I tend to favor letting them duke it out and dealing with it downstream. But there's one problem--oil. We don't really get that much from the region, but it's more than none. Get rid of our dependence on their oil, and we could severely reduce our profile in the area. Let China, India, and Japan take care of it.

Cut back consumption as much as we can, meet those consumption needs with green energy as much as possible, and to the extent that we have to rely on traditional sources, get that energy as cheaply and safely and securely as we can. That's why Keystone makes sense. But it's not going to happen until this administration is gone--if then.

(03-03-2015 10:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 02:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's my take on what's going on. Don't have a link, except to 45 years of experience dealing with the region in the military, on the job, and for holidays.
Iran's ultimate objective is not the destruction of Israel. Iran's ultimate objective is the restoration of the Persian Empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. Now, Arab leaders aren't exactly onboard with that idea, particularly since they would lose their jobs in the process. But if Iran can unite the Arab in the streets against a common enemy--Israel--then they have a means to overthrow unwilling Arab leaders from within. If Israel attacks Iran, they will do so with the blessing of most Arab leaders, and probably with at least covert assistance from many of them. But the Arab general population will not lean the same way. And that is potentially very destabilizing to the entire area.
I have heard suggestions that Obama has decided to forge an alliance with Iran and is siding with them as a result. I don't know whether that is true or not, but it certainly explains some acts that are hard to understand otherwise.

I hardly disagree....but please explain why we shouldn't let them duke it out and deal it with it downstream?

I tend to favor letting them duke it out and dealing with it downstream. Butcher's one problem--oil. We don't really get that much from the region, but it's more than none. Get rid of our dependence on their oil, and we could severely reduce our profile in the area. Let China, India, and Japan take care of it.

Cut back consumption as much as we can, meet those consumption needs with green energy as much as possible, and to the extent that we have to rely on traditional sources, get that energy as cheaply and safely and securely as we can. That's why Keystone makes sense. But it's not going to happen until this administration is gone--if then.

Im beginning to think that todays "dog and pony" show was to let everyone know that the Iran is going to have nukes and there is nothing Israel or the US can do about it. I see fear in the PM. He came here to incite us to act because he knows he CANT and WONT do anything. Owl...you may be right. He may well know that we are trying behind to strike an alliance with Iran after this all shakes out...and he is TERRIFIED that might happen. There is MUCH more going on here than we know.