Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by KenH, Jan 15, 2006.
You think Iran is just daring us to invade?
Let's see here: Pay more at the pump or let the maniacs in Iran have nukes? The choice seems easy to me. Not much of a threat.
We don't have enough troops to invade and occupy Iran. And it's nuclear program is spread over 300 sites and buried underground. Our best hope is that those younger folk tired of the mullahs' dictatorship will overthrow them as they overthrew the Shah.
Easy to say that, Joseph, until you are faced with the reality of paying $6.00/gal. for gasoline and watching the economy go down the drain, government revenues drying up, and schools closing down.
Easy to say that, Ken, when you are facing the very real possibility of annihilation, unless you think this maniac is not capable of that, in which case, we have nothing to worry about. Just let him have the nukes. I am not quite as confident that he won't try to nuke us. When you are dead, all those issues you raised in the above post are meaningless.
First, it will take years for Iran to develop a nuclear bomb, if it does at all.
Second, even if Iran does develop nuclear weapons, why would Iran want to commit societal suicide by using them against Israel, Saudi Arabia, or whomever?
This is smelling so much like the stuff we heard in the news from our "intelligence" sources before we went into Iraq in 2003. Remember, Saddam Hussein was rather bellicose himself even though he really didn't have WMDs.
Because the president of that nation hates the west and is a maniac.
So because he is a maniac he wants to have himself and his nation obliterated?
It that is true, I figure there are other folks high enough up in the Iranian government who want to live who would take of him if necessary - if you know what I mean.
Our best hope is that those younger folk tired of the mullahs' dictatorship will overthrow them as they overthrew the Shah.
Our best hope? And if that doesn't work, we rely on what, hoping they have bad aim?
Ken, surely you have read enough in foreign affairs to know that the concern over a nuclear Iran is legitimate and nothing new. Even your arguments (over 300 sites) seem to confirm this. Is it a non-existent threat that is overblown by intelligence services, or is their program so spread out that we can't eliminate it? Which is it?
ftr...unsolved mystery I guess.
I found this kind of disturbing that someone would say this:
...in response to this:
So I guess we should just wait and see, and when the proof comes out that they are in fact, doing very bad things they shouldnt, we should do what then? Not whine about paying $6 a gallon for gas?
What are the priorities here anyway?
The priority is anti-war isolationism in favor of messing around with a do-nothing UN while Iran and Syria ubild their alliance to hide Iran's nukes and fight for Syria if there is any backlash for the Hariri assasination.
At the moment I think it is an overblown threat and I think their program is so spread out and buried that we can't destroy it.
If you notice in this suicide bombings we don't see the leaders like OBL blowing themselves up. I don't that this Iranian fella wants to be blown up in a nuclear retaliatory strike. And I reckon there are other folks in high places in Iran that don't want to be blown up either, even if the head honcho is really serious about using nuclear weapons.
I think we need patience in this matter.
I'll let pass that seeming glaring contradiction, but I'll ask this: how much patience? What would have to be demonstrated, by what level of evidence, to justify military action against Iran?
As of yet I have not seen any evidence presented that Iran is anywhere close to having even one nuclear weapon capable of detonation, especially not on the tip of a missle.
So, how close do they have to be for us to consider military action?
As Ken said, there are others there who want to live and may not believe the Mahdi is coming soon.
The simple fact is, that possession of a nuke or two is a lot more dangerous for a nation than to have none. We still have several thousand nukes, and we have delivery systems with accuracy standards so as to obviate any underground bunker system, even if it is buried in some Persian mountain chain. Israel has between 25 and 200 warheads, depending on who you believe. Iran threatening to detonate a bomb or two would be like someone holding a gun to their own head and saying, "back up, I'll shoot."
Given the instant rage followed by savage disproportionality which is historically our reaction to a serious attack, the use of an Iranian nuke or two on us or any of our allies would probably result in Iran not being safe for habitation for around 100,000 years.
Surely at least one Mullah can figure that one out.
We have thousands of nukes. Iran is a sovereign nation that may get a few. The question is what right do we have to interfere in their affairs?
And I agree with Major B.
Any particular nations that we have threatened to wipe off the face of the earth? Interference is one question, but moral equivalence with Iran??
No one has said anything about moral equivalence with Iran. The question is what right do we have to interfere in their affairs?
The answer is, we have no rights to do so. Iran would commit suicide if they used such weapons. This is probably being blown out of proportion much like Bush did with Iraq 4 years ago.
Let the Israelis take care of them if they view them as a threat. Israel is a sovereign nation that has proven they can defend themselves against Iran.