Iran.
Deus_Ex_Machina
Join Date: 2004-07-01 Member: 29674Members
Join Date: 2004-07-01 Member: 29674Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Nukes? OMFGLOL!</div> Seriously now, I've heard several times that Iran will have weapons grade nuclear materials within 6 months. Now, Europe and the USA (a little) are antsy about this. IMO, if Europe feels unsafe when Iran has nuclear weapons, they should try to work something out. But the USA? Come on now, do we really have to be the world police.. again? And if so, why can't we save people in Sudan or deal with North Korea? But my biggest question is, how come the USA and Britain can have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons and Iran can't have one? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
Why cant you save the people in Sudan? Because you dont really want to. And neither does the rest of the world. No one gives a damn about them.
But why cant Iran have nuclear weapons? Are you crazy? That's like saying "why cant the criminal's get guns, and an organised communication network, and government funding - because the police get them and its not fair." These are not nice places, these are not nice governments. If you cant see that, if you've taken your liberalised view of the world to the point where you think its only fair to start dishing out nukes to theocratic and despotic governments - I'm not even going to bother arguing. In fact, most of them are characterised by a intense hatred of Israel - which does have nukes. You dont want a daily Cuban Missle Crisis going on.
Why cant you save the people in Sudan? Because you dont really want to. And neither does the rest of the world. No one gives a damn about them.
But why cant Iran have nuclear weapons? Are you crazy? That's like saying "why cant the criminal's get guns, and an organised communication network, and government funding - because the police get them and its not fair." These are not nice places, these are not nice governments. If you cant see that, if you've taken your liberalised view of the world to the point where you think its only fair to start dishing out nukes to theocratic and despotic governments - I'm not even going to bother arguing. In fact, most of them are characterised by a intense hatred of Israel - which does have nukes. You dont want a daily Cuban Missle Crisis going on. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This pains me, it really does, but I... have to... agree with Marine01... on all counts. There, I said it. Now I'm going to go take a shower.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only reason why those nations are prohibited to aquire nuclear weapons is to ensure political and military dominance in the middle east.
It is a sad fact that nuclear weapons are the only possible option to become a truely sovereing nation that is able to determin its political development completely independent of western dominace.
There, there, Skulk. There's a first time for everything. There's really not much to discuss here, and that's a shame. Most of the people before me said about everything there is to say.
It's a sad fact that we're only interested in saving human life when there's some political gain to be had, but that's the way the world is.
The only reason why those nations are prohibited to aquire nuclear weapons is to ensure political and military dominance in the middle east.
It is a sad fact that nuclear weapons are the only possible option to become a truely sovereing nation that is able to determin its political development completely independent of western dominace. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, I would think the reason is that they are bat **** crazy. That might have something to do with it.
It is a sad fact that nuclear weapons are the only possible option to become a truely sovereing nation that is able to determin its political development completely independent of western dominace.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, having nukes has really stopped the west from dominating China's political agenda.
Nuclear weapons are restricted because any time a new country gets them the standard political world order is dangerously upset. And yes the current world order is characterized by western dominance. But what would you rather have? Western dominance or mass destruction?
Western dominance is not something you can stop by increasing your military arsenal. Military dominance is a <i>feature</i> of western dominance, but it might be more correct to say that it's a byproduct of the economic dominance which happens to reinforce itself.
I'm not one to cheer for the status quo often but I'll vote for Bush over Iran any day.
<span style='font-size:6pt;line-height:100%'>(Not that I think the US or anyone else should have nukes either...)</span>
[edit: arg NS forum error futzed up my reply]
Why cant you save the people in Sudan? Because you dont really want to. And neither does the rest of the world. No one gives a damn about them.
But why cant Iran have nuclear weapons? Are you crazy? That's like saying "why cant the criminal's get guns, and an organised communication network, and government funding - because the police get them and its not fair." These are not nice places, these are not nice governments. If you cant see that, if you've taken your liberalised view of the world to the point where you think its only fair to start dishing out nukes to theocratic and despotic governments - I'm not even going to bother arguing. In fact, most of them are characterised by a intense hatred of Israel - which does have nukes. You dont want a daily Cuban Missle Crisis going on. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He said it best. ^^
~ DarkATi
The only way to make these kind of conclusons have a really complete understanding of the Iranian political system and political culture. Western (and in fact Eastern) media does a poor job of this and often just repeats the US government rhetoric (which condemns Iran as 'evil'). Iran is the most progressive state in the Middle East and, though it still may be controlled by religious authorities, it enjoys more popular support than US-supported Saudi Arabia.
Its also important to understand the US-Iran relationship in a historical context.
In 1953, in a US supported move, Shah Reza crushed Iran's fledgling democracy. With huge oil profits coming in from the US and Israel, the Shah built a strong military, which he used to prop up his unpopular government. The Shah was an autocrat, but the US continued to support him because of the cheap oil and his support for the US in the face of increased Soviet influence in the Middle East.
In 1979, when the Shah was deposed by the populist Ayatollah Khomeini, the revolution was condemned by the US for removing Iran as a US ally, even though the revolution was supported by the people of Iran. In 1980, a US-supported Iraq attacked Iran and used Western supplied chemical weapons against Iranian soliders. The estimates of Iranian casualties (off the top of my head) went from between 200000 to 600000 dead; Iraq suffered about half of that.
In the view of most Iranian citizens, the US has been behind the suffering of Iran, whether it be at the hands of the Shah or because of Saddam's dreams of military conquest. The anti-Americanism that many people associate with Iran is then understandable.
In light of this, comparing Iran's government to a 'criminal' and overgeneralizing it as 'not nice' doesn't reflect <b>any</b> understanding of the greater complexities of the situation at all. I'm also a little disturbed by the support that people posted for your comments. Please take the time to reflect on how your perceptions of Iran have been shaped by Bush's ideological denouncements of Iran and the media's uncritical view of this.
Thank you, you saved me some time writing about this.
I might add the following:
Turkey is an accepted member of NATO and suppplied by western nations with modern military equipment. Turkey is thus one of the major powers in the area. However, Turkey is not in any way a true democracy. Christians are not alowed to build churches, the government is empowered by military force and political opponents tend to disappear. This somewhat "changed" recently due to Turkeys interests in joining the EU, however, the majority of the country is deeply fundamentalistic and it still happens that people get executed for adultery.....
Until a few years ago, Turkeys government brutally opressed the Kurds within their borders.
The turks are damming up the Eufrat which is an important source of water for the region, thus severely harming Syria and Iraq.....
Yet, nobody condemed Turkey, because they are important for us.
It is so easy to close the eyes before things we don't want to see.....
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only way to make these kind of conclusons have a really complete understanding of the Iranian political system and political culture. Western (and in fact Eastern) media does a poor job of this and often just repeats the US government rhetoric (which condemns Iran as 'evil'). Iran is the most progressive state in the Middle East and, though it still may be controlled by religious authorities, it enjoys more popular support than US-supported Saudi Arabia.
Its also important to understand the US-Iran relationship in a historical context.
In 1953, in a US supported move, Shah Reza crushed Iran's fledgling democracy. With huge oil profits coming in from the US and Israel, the Shah built a strong military, which he used to prop up his unpopular government. The Shah was an autocrat, but the US continued to support him because of the cheap oil and his support for the US in the face of increased Soviet influence in the Middle East.
In 1979, when the Shah was deposed by the populist Ayatollah Khomeini, the revolution was condemned by the US for removing Iran as a US ally, even though the revolution was supported by the people of Iran. In 1980, a US-supported Iraq attacked Iran and used Western supplied chemical weapons against Iranian soliders. The estimates of Iranian casualties (off the top of my head) went from between 200000 to 600000 dead; Iraq suffered about half of that.
In the view of most Iranian citizens, the US has been behind the suffering of Iran, whether it be at the hands of the Shah or because of Saddam's dreams of military conquest. The anti-Americanism that many people associate with Iran is then understandable.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted for truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In light of this, comparing Iran's government to a 'criminal' and overgeneralizing it as 'not nice' doesn't reflect <b>any</b> understanding of the greater complexities of the situation at all. I'm also a little disturbed by the support that people posted for your comments. Please take the time to reflect on how your perceptions of Iran have been shaped by Bush's ideological denouncements of Iran and the media's uncritical view of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont think so. Unless you want to argue that now the Government in Iran is warm and fuzzy and caring - my point stands. Past history may explain why people feel the way they do, but it does not justify what they are doing now. I dont need Bush to call them an Axis of Evil before I think they're bad.
Huh? Being 'warm and fuzzy and caring' means you get nukes? Of course not. But then how do we really decide who is 'allowed' to build weapons and who is not? Should we even be deciding?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Past history may explain why people feel the way they do, but it does not justify what they are doing now. I dont need Bush to call them an Axis of Evil before I think they're bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please elaborate on 'what they are doing' and how this makes them 'bad'.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you tell me about one thing that actually makes them the evil people you want them to be?
Besides trying to gain political independence by nuclear capability and thus installing a nuclear stalement in the middle east? I might add, just in case you forgot, that such a nuclear stalement has actually been the reason why we had 50 years of peace.....
What is more likely to happen is that Israel will use its newly acquired bunker busters to pre-emptively airstrike Iran's nuclear sites, and Israel can use exactly the same language and reasoning the US/etc used to go into Iraq. This is unlikely but many times more likely than an invasion of Iran based on nuclear reasons blah etc...
Most people in Iran aren't happy with the government but then again alot of countries have that problem. I wouldn't classify that country as evil, and I'd go on holidays to Syria and Cuba..well..thats just a joke.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's really quite simple, if we can stop a country from building nukes and it's in our best interests, we well.
Obviously it is in America’s best interest to keep the number of hostile countries with nukes down to a minimum.
Should we be deciding? Yes. Not only were we the first country to invent and use the bomb, but we are currently the most powerful country in the world and its leader. The simple fact is, unless someone can stop us, we can decide what we like.
And yes...that was meant to sound arrogant. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Huh? Being 'warm and fuzzy and caring' means you get nukes? Of course not. But then how do we really decide who is 'allowed' to build weapons and who is not? Should we even be deciding?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Past history may explain why people feel the way they do, but it does not justify what they are doing now. I dont need Bush to call them an Axis of Evil before I think they're bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please elaborate on 'what they are doing' and how this makes them 'bad'. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Warm and fuzzy nations" may be read as Democratic nations. Small ruling theocrats who give people no say in Government, and repress pro-democracy protestors, are not warm and fuzzy. Given their obvious hatred of Israel, these are not the sort of people you wish to hand nukes. I've already explained why nukes in the Middle East is a bad idea - Israel already has them and everyone hates them. The Iranian government even sponsors terrorism in Israel, after those Soviets gave up back in 1990:
<a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/wmid15.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/15/ixworld.html' target='_blank'>Iran has taken over Israeli terrorism</a>
<a href='http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/menukes.cfm' target='_blank'>Iran, Israel, Nukes and terrorism</a>
<a href='http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41338' target='_blank'>Iran and Ladin</a>
<a href='http://www.terrorismfiles.org/countries/iran.html' target='_blank'>Salman Rushdie doesnt much like em either</a>
That's elaborate enough for me. Sponsors terrorism both at home aka Israeli marketplaces and abroad (Ladin and friends), <a href='http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/june/eu_iran_20604.shtml' target='_blank'>Human rights abuses</a>, hardline theocratic government.....
Seems pretty obvious to me what's going on here.
Should we be deciding who gets nukes? Absolutely. What sort of a fool would, in the dog eat dog world of international politics, want his opponent to get his hands on powerful weaponry?
Because Nukes are a sign of political/economical power . And we dont want those tiny little country to have some independence , dont we?
Btw , If USA/UK were the worlds police ,they would break into your house saying you have drugs in there and you would get arrested by seen pron in the Inet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Because Nukes are a sign of political/economical power . And we dont want those tiny little country to have some independence , dont we?
Btw , If USA/UK were the worlds police ,they would break into your house saying you have drugs in there and you would get arrested by seen pron in the Inet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
By your logic, a terrorist group that aquired a nuke would have political/economical power.
There's so many reasons we don't want Iran (or any m. eastern country) to have nukes.
#1. Instability
Your post was frighteningly funny, though. I can't even believe you said something like that.
Because Nukes are a sign of political/economical power . And we dont want those tiny little country to have some independence , dont we?
Btw , If USA/UK were the worlds police ,they would break into your house saying you have drugs in there and you would get arrested by seen pron in the Inet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By your logic, a terrorist group that aquired a nuke would have political/economical power.
There's so many reasons we don't want Iran (or any m. eastern country) to have nukes.
#1. Instability
Your post was frighteningly funny, though. I can't even believe you said something like that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted for truth.
ps. i havn't read anyhing but the first post of this thread.
But why cant Iran have nuclear weapons? Are you crazy? That's like saying "why cant the criminal's get guns, and an organised communication network, and government funding - because the police get them and its not fair." These are not nice places, these are not nice governments. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea too bad about Irans government b/c most of the people actualy want a secularised democracy, not the religous dominated one they have now.
But hey, after kicking out the Shaw anything change felt like a good thing so here we are now in our present day situation. bleh
"Warm and fuzzy nations" may be read as Democratic nations. Small ruling theocrats who give people no say in Government, and repress pro-democracy protestors, are not warm and fuzzy. Given their obvious hatred of Israel, these are not the sort of people you wish to hand nukes. I've already explained why nukes in the Middle East is a bad idea - Israel already has them and everyone hates them. The Iranian government even sponsors terrorism in Israel, after those Soviets gave up back in 1990:
<a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/wmid15.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/15/ixworld.html' target='_blank'>Iran has taken over Israeli terrorism</a>
<a href='http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/menukes.cfm' target='_blank'>Iran, Israel, Nukes and terrorism</a>
<a href='http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41338' target='_blank'>Iran and Ladin</a>
<a href='http://www.terrorismfiles.org/countries/iran.html' target='_blank'>Salman Rushdie doesnt much like em either</a>
That's elaborate enough for me. Sponsors terrorism both at home aka Israeli marketplaces and abroad (Ladin and friends), <a href='http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/june/eu_iran_20604.shtml' target='_blank'>Human rights abuses</a>, hardline theocratic government.....
Seems pretty obvious to me what's going on here.
Should we be deciding who gets nukes? Absolutely. What sort of a fool would, in the dog eat dog world of international politics, want his opponent to get his hands on powerful weaponry?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The world should be deciding, we have to be careful here....any unilateral action by US/UK against Iran without UN/world support would be an absolute catastrophic failure. North Korea is not in the news anymore, that doesn't mean its not a threat anymore.
The world would prefer a more democratic non nuclear Iran, the US would really really prefer it and the Israeli's feel its essential, as I said before I wouldn't be too surprised if the Israeli's took their own pre-emptive action, which would have its own terrible results.
Just about every arab country hates the Israelis and vice versa, the Iranians gaining nuclear weapons would form a balance in the middle east between Arab and Jew and would definitely heighten or precipitate its own middle eastern cold war....
The US/UK coalition know they could never take unilateral action against Iran without world opinion/UN/etc being completely on their side and with today's current climate (Iraq) that is just impossible.
More people worldwide are more educated and wise to America's dirty past so even intense propaganda is not having the effect it used to.
What you say about Iran marine1 is true, but crucially we can't decide if they have the nukes or not, we can pressure and bluff all we like, but using force is just impossible, even the most hardline hawks know its not even an option.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To shouts of "Death to America," Iran's parliament unanimously approved the outline of a bill Sunday [Oct 31, 2004] that would require the government to resume uranium enrichment, legislation likely to deepen an international dispute over Iran's nuclear activities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll let you take from that what you will.
The world would prefer a more democratic non nuclear Iran, the US would really really prefer it and the Israeli's feel its essential, as I said before I wouldn't be too surprised if the Israeli's took their own pre-emptive action, which would have its own terrible results.
Just about every arab country hates the Israelis and vice versa, the Iranians gaining nuclear weapons would form a balance in the middle east between Arab and Jew and would definitely heighten or precipitate its own middle eastern cold war....
The US/UK coalition know they could never take unilateral action against Iran without world opinion/UN/etc being completely on their side and with today's current climate (Iraq) that is just impossible.
More people worldwide are more educated and wise to America's dirty past so even intense propaganda is not having the effect it used to.
What you say about Iran marine1 is true, but crucially we can't decide if they have the nukes or not, we can pressure and bluff all we like, but using force is just impossible, even the most hardline hawks know its not even an option. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't be so quick to rule out force, the US is so far on "the worlds" bad side that I find it hard to believe destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities would causes us any harm from any country but Iran. The truth is no one in the Middle East wants Iran to have nukes but Iran.
Israel certainly has the most to lose, but do you think countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan want another potentially unstable neighbor with nukes?
That being said the possibility of the US/UK attacking Iran themselves is minimal.
As has been said if anyone is going to do it, it will be the Israelis, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s not if they well do it, but when.
Will Iran retaliate? Possibly. But they would be fighting such an uphill battle I don't see what they could gain. With American, British, and other countries militaries in both Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel right next door, they stand little chance pitting their army against our air dominance, and dominance in just about every other way.
The most I could see them doing is trying to launch conventional missiles into Israel, which could be deadly, but numerous precautions have been put in place long ago to deal with such a threat, it's not something they could maintain for very long ether.
I suspect the rest of the Arab world would remain fairly quiet; perhaps an upsurge in terrorist attacks but nothing major, as regional leaders breathe a sigh relief behind closed doors.
Destroying Iran's nuclear facilities by the US would have to be done by the US alone, it would take maybe 3 or 4 years of peace in Iraq before the UK would consider ever even stomaching using force in the middle east again (any other leader besides Blair would be long gone in UK today)...it wouldn't work, Iran needs nukes AND a saddam, painted slogans on the side of their missiles isn't enough nor is the hardline but not as hardline as plenty of other countries, government.
I predict that as long as the US is in Iraq they'll be loosing a few marines every week, which will make Iran look positively off the cards for many years to come...
One of these days when the news dies down and gets back to normality again that's what Israel is gonna hit Iran with 'pre-emptive tactical strikes' I think that Iran under current gov will definitely hit back with ranged missiles, which will drag Israel's airforce in then etc etc...You say that Jordan, Syria etc don't like nuclear neighbour on their doorstep, well Iran is third in line after Israel and the US, so I dont think its very high on their lists of pet hates right now.
Destroying Iran's nuclear facilities by the US would have to be done by the US alone, it would take maybe 3 or 4 years of peace in Iraq before the UK would consider ever even stomaching using force in the middle east again (any other leader besides Blair would be long gone in UK today)...it wouldn't work, Iran needs nukes AND a saddam, painted slogans on the side of their missiles isn't enough nor is the hardline but not as hardline as plenty of other countries, government.
I predict that as long as the US is in Iraq they'll be loosing a few marines every week, which will make Iran look positively off the cards for many years to come...
One of these days when the news dies down and gets back to normality again that's what Israel is gonna hit Iran with 'pre-emptive tactical strikes' I think that Iran under current gov will definitely hit back with ranged missiles, which will drag Israel's airforce in then etc etc...You say that Jordan, Syria etc don't like nuclear neighbour on their doorstep, well Iran is third in line after Israel and the US, so I dont think its very high on their lists of pet hates right now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You see the problem here is you seem to think that if we were to attack Iran, it would be some full scale invasion and installation of democracy, no?
While I would support such a movement, I realize America and her allies are in no shape, now or for some years to come, to do anything of the sort.
However the type of attack that would be used to remove Iran’s nuclear facilities could be as simple as 3-4 stealth bombers, or a dozen cruise missiles. I don't think many Americans want Iran to have nukes, and if we felt it necessary, I'm sure it could be done with out any extensive outrage, provided it was a swift and decisive attack. Again the only response that Iran could feasibly use are it's conventional missiles, which are not the most reliable in the world on their own, but when put up against the best anti-missile tech in the world, I’m sure it's a risk Israel will take, rather then having a nuclear capable Iran.
Iran’s army (and I say army because they have nothing else of real worth) would be a though thing to fight under good leadership in a battle where it was on the defense, not undefeatable, but certainly not the pushover that Iraq was. However on the offence they would be a joke, large numbers of their forces would be crushed before they even reached other ground units to fight, and even if they did, they would stand little hope of winning.
Iran is nothing but tough talk with very little to back it up with, why should we let them have nukes and actually let them have something to back it up with? If you can give me one good reason America should let Iran have nukes let me know.
The problem would be convincing the American public that it won't be another Iraq, and won't just harden our enemies' resolve further. It's doable, though.
Russia has discussed active intervention, not stopping short of nuclear retaliation in defense of the power station a Bushehr.
Even if one is to use the covert option, with out Russian intervention, the only way to stop it is to irradiate the gulf, by bombing an active nuclear reactor on it shore line. Which is not going to happen.
In terms of general foreign policy I say the following: Despite the fact that America is the most powerful military in the world, we as Americans need to realize that that might does not in fact make right.
Iran has supported terrorists in the past, against the soviets in Afghanistan, against Saddam in Iraq, financial funding to the Bosnian Muslims. The Lebanese, the Palestinians. We have an anti communist attack funding the muijhadeen, attempting to overturn a dictator, a defense against genocide, backing side in brutal civil war, and lastly funding an insurrection by refugees of the Israeli state. Of those 4 the Americans were involved in all of them in many cases on the same side.
I see Iran is posing much less of a threat to the world as, say, India having nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers just as an example. China is purchasing ballistic missile submarines, which were detected in Japanese waters earlier today. Assuming North Korea has as active nuclear program as I have been led to believe they have the capability to nuke Tokyo shortly and the us, Alaska, within a few years.
The world is deeply scary place and America is walking through it blind. If you are afraid of the Israel /Iran stand off lets look at Pakistan/ India. If you are worried about the proliferation of nuclear technology look to Russia. The phrase missing nuclear weapons sometimes scares me more that it should.
I am not arguing that Iran is not something to keep an eye on but there are much more pressing issues. America has its own wars to fight right now. Afghanistan is off the front page but it is not settled in any way. Iraq is a fairly obvious point to get to so we will skip it. Yasser Arafat's death has opened the Palestinians leadership.
So really I don’t see Iran as a top level issue in America’s defense.
Crazy Arab nation that hates Israel trys to build reactor, gets owned by Israeli bombers - tis the way of the world.
They did it last time and the Iranians didnt respond with force as you are suggesting Timmy - and even then the Israeli's consider that well worth the risk. If Iran wants to escalate a war against a country with nukes when it doesnt have them, then I've underestimated their stupidity. And nor do I believe the Israeli attack would lead to massive radiation contamination - there are weapons designed for hitting nuclear powerplants without causing that kind of damage.
Confused - I've never met a single person, American or not, conservative or not, that believes that might makes right. What us conservatives do believe is that we ARE right, we HAVE might, and we're going to use it.
It is in our "best" interest to keep the region unstable and the balance of power tipped towards certain allied nations.
That however, is not going to solve the problem nor is it goint to help stabilize the middle east. All it does is to prevent actual political and sozial developement, as foreing influence did on any nation in history that has ever been dominated by a foreing civilisation.
You want stability in the middle east? You want an end to terror is israel and peace in Gaza? Then bring balance to the region.
If Iran finally would aquire nuclear capability, Israel military dominace would come to an end. They could not threaten to retaliate on any agression with conventional military anymore, without fearing consequences. Israel now is able to do as they please as Israel is capable of nuking any army or any city.
If however an islamic nation is capable of doing the same, and declares any attack on its islamic allies as a direct attack against themselves, Israel cannot risk to attack. Both sides will threaten each other with their nuclear weapons, yet nobody will use them.
Nuclear weapons serve only one purpose. They prevent a war.
Why do you think Crushchov did empower cuba with nuclear weapons? To kill all americans? No, he did so, because the US did it first. They installed strategic nuclear weapons alongside the Sovjet borders, most notably in Turkey, where the Sovjets had next to no time for countermeasures.
These weapons on Sovjet borders were considered as a US preparation for a possible preemtive strike by the sovjet population and government.
Cuba was a poker game to rebalance the cold war. Chrushchov won, no war.
Do the same in the middle east and the region will stabilize. Both sides will be caught in the stalement. The Iran will threaten Israel to stop military actions against palestine and other islamic nations, Israel will say that any terroristic attack on Israeli military or civilians will be considered as a declaration of war and act acordingly. How fast do you think those nations will tell those terrorists to stop attacking israel? They will tell them with a gun if nessesary, believe me....