| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Who is more "right" about Iran?; Stratfor v. "you can't reason with Iran" | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 7 2006, 05:47 AM (214 Views) | |
| Axtremus | Sep 7 2006, 05:47 AM Post #1 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Many times now, we've seen Stratfor analyses that portray the Iranians as a shrewd, cunning bunch that lays down a series of clever traps for us and our allies to step into, all designed to make Iran more powerful, more influential in the Arab/mid-East region. Stratfor assumes that it is possible to make compromises with the Iranians. Also many times, we've seen arguments that are premised upon Iranian "irrationality" -- that the Iranians would soon put their own existence at risk and deploy a nuke once they acquire one, that there can be no compromise to be made with the Iranians. I submit that the two views are mutually exclusive -- that a state that is bent on making itself the dominant regional power (the Stratfor view) cannot also be the same state that so lightly put its own existence at risk, for if a state ceases to exist, it ceases to have any chance to become a dominant regional power. So who do you think is right? The Stratfor folks, of the bunch that says "you can't 'reason' with Iran" ? |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Sep 7 2006, 06:08 AM Post #2 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Shrewdness and irrationality are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One can have entirely irrational strrategic goals and still engage in shrewd tactics to get there. Hitler started out pretty well in this regard (e.g. outflanking the Maginot Line by attacking through the Ardennes)until irrationality infected his tactics (e.g. the failure to have the Sixth Army break out and withdraw from Stalingrad when it was clear that they could not be resupplied). I think Iran would eventually be forced into serious miscalculation as well but, for now, their tactics are quite rational. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Sep 7 2006, 08:12 AM Post #3 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Leaving aside a bunch of blustering bravado and stupid statements, when have Iran's action shown it to be irrational? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Sep 7 2006, 08:16 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Sep 7 2006, 08:24 AM Post #5 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
They have not, so far and you should have seen that was my point. Unless you are confusing ambitions (strategic goals) with tactics (actions). Stripped of their "bravado" their goals might even seem entirely rational. The problem is that talk of obliterating Israel with nukes should (rationally) be taken as more than mere bravado. Especially when coming from a government that is feverishly developing nukes. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Sep 7 2006, 10:03 AM Post #6 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
And this then justifies the US going to war against them at this time? Or is this the basis on which you claim we are already at war with them? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Sep 7 2006, 10:07 AM Post #7 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
I said they are already at war with us. Sooner or later we will have to return the compliment. Preventing them, by any means necessary, from acquiring nukes would go a long way in demonstrating our seriousness on the matter. Failing to do so would be tantamount to surrender because we would then no longer have any viable options but to cede the entire region to their hegemony. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Sep 7 2006, 01:39 PM Post #8 |
|
Are you kidding me? |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









12:56 AM Jul 11