Trooper

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2290038.ece

well they have defied the UN about that most recent deadline. Do we have another Iraq on our hands when it comes to the UN and its enforcement of policies. I can see the UN putting up another dead line and saying if you don't give in by this one then you are in trouble, that can go on a few times before someone does something about it.

My opinion is they need to make a Arab sector of the UN, for the simple fact Arabs and the Muslim nations don't fit most of the other countries in the UN mold. Make that sector and put them in charge of issues like this in Iran. If those countries hate us so much why not let them be accountable to themselves, so when Iran does go nuts they have only themselves to blame.



Lets try and keep this thread civil.

tau_neutrino

Iranians aren't Arabs, though; they're Persian. An Arab/Muslim sector of the UN would likely alienate the region even more. What we need IMO is to integrate them into the modern world. Of course, that's easier said than done, and given that area's lack of forward thinking, perhaps implausible.

__________________



TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Trooper

thanks for the correction. I dont think it would alienate them, it would give them a sence of control. They dont like us because we seem to take control of every situation and other nations seem to expect us to. So giveing them control of their fellow country men would help keep them accountable.

Franko

I doubt the Iranians would ever want to be considered Arabs, and maybe clarify what you mean by 'control of every situation,' and 'giving them control of their country men,' giving who control of who? The reason I ask is because Iran is actually a very modern country, likely much to the chagrin of their leader, whatever his name is, with the helmet hair. Subsequently, I recall hearing about how his popularity is pretty much bottomed out in Iran precisely because of his saber rattling on the nuclear issue. So, I'm unsure if anyone really needs to step in to control the country, any attempt to do so may be repeating recent history on a much more catastrophic level. There is control, and there is the illusion of control, and it is usually the latter that gets people in quite a bit of trouble.

Arf

Building on what Comrade said Ahamdinejad is president of a Theocracy. That gives him very little actual power beyond what he can rally from the populace. Iran isn't as backwards as it is portrayed in the media, Ahamdinejad was not a front runner until the invasion of Iraq galvanized anti-American sentiment which, lucky for him, just happened to be the platform he was running on.

Despite how the media tends to dumb down the motivations of Iran until it's simply, "because they hate us" there's a lot more to the issue then anti-Americanism. As the threat of invasion begins to fade the Iranians will find they have less need of those who keep pressing the issue. Ahamdinejad's popularity, as it is now, will dwindle and he'll loose power.

__________________

War.mongeR1

I concur Arf. Their presidents is so unpopular already. He talks a lot of trash, but really he's just the puppet of the Ayatollahs there. The religious leaders are the one's with the real power. I saw a short on BBC World news once that was showing how their country is split about their sentiments. Some hate America, hate the jews, love their leaders, and the younger generation mostly wanted to get their act together, and become part of the modern world society. As much of a potential problem as Iran is, and it could be because they are hastily seeking nukes, they just might solve their own problems if we stay out of there. If we go to war with them, I just hope it's after this spring semester is over. I'd hate to get activated right before I'm supposed to graduate. But that's just my civilian selfishness coming back out. I'll do what I gotta do if it has to be done.

Wulfyn

Why not just build a big wall all around the middle east? We could then divide it up so that each other continent had its own area to meddle with?


Seriously tho I do think that warmonger makes a very good point. Look at what Japan was like a mere 75 years ago compared to how it is now. What's to say that Iran couldn't be a market technology leader in 75 years? I think the UN is being very hypocritical in its dealings with many of these nations, and I think that history has proven that meddling with their affairs can often slow down a move to peace.

__________________

Kerostasis

Actually, Japan was in pretty good shape 75 or even 100 years ago. It was like 1911 (mighta been 1906?) when they fought a war against Russia, the largest nation in the world, and thoroughly trounced them.

On the other hand, compare Japan 1910 to Japan 1850 and you have a point.

__________________