Islam is going Nuclear

[Vudak]

I've never worn a uniform, and I guess that if someone who has wants to say my opinion on topics of war doesn't matter, I really can't argue with them.  They're much better people than I.

But I am a civilian and last I checked a few of those 9/11 targets where civilian, as were numerous (want to say majority, don't have the facts) of the targets that have been hit in Israel.

So, though I probably don't have the right to say anything about the war or be hawkish, I think I'll just do it anyway and hope ya'll forgive me.  If our soldiers lose, I lose.  When I think they're being restricted or hindered in doing their job, or just getting shafted, I'm gonna stand up for them best I can, and either ***** for their cause, or send a phone card (I know, it's meager).  And when I see a nation that's poised to hurt the lot of us, I'm going to go hawkish and encourage them to go take care of that mess so cowardly ol' me can sleep safe at night.  I'll admit I don't have their courage, but I thank God they do.

If that makes me a poor American, or an insult to the soldiers, my apologies.  But thank you anyway.

[Stringer]

I think your observation is more on the mark, Toad.

[AlGorithm]

Toad previously wrote:
Having a President that continually suggests wiping another country off the face of the earth?

Noteworthy that you avoid naming the country which they wish to wipe of the face of the earth.
Would it be our problem if it was Syria?
Will it be our problem the next time Pakistan and India go at it?
Would we rush to defend China?
The topic of this thread, "Islam is going Nuclear", shows the real concern.

[Hangtime]

Anybody here really think that Israel will hesitate to strike pre-emptively with overwhelming force if threatened by an Iran in the final stages of a nuclear program?

Anybody think China, Russia or Pakistan will launch a nuke on Israel in retaliation for Israels pre-emptive blow on Iran's program.. and therby risk our automatic response in kind?

Iran's nuke program is a threat... to Iran. Nobody else.

[Yeager]

the average iranian doesnt seem to agree hang, they think they have a right like everyone else to the benifits of nuclear energy and aren't at all concerned about nuclear weaponry.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Hangtime
Anybody here really think that Israel will hesitate to strike pre-emptively with overwhelming force if threatened by an Iran in the final stages of a nuclear program?

Anybody think China, Russia or Pakistan will launch a nuke on Israel in retaliation for Israels pre-emptive blow on Iran's program.. and therby risk our automatic response in kind?

Iran's nuke program is a threat... to Iran. Nobody else.

Honestly I do not think russia or anyone else will support Iran in that way.  they might support it militarily and such, providing weapons and arms.  As far as actual military intervention I do not think Iran has many allies that will come to it's aid in a retalitory sense.

[Yeager]

I do not think Iran has many allies that will come to it's aid in a retalitory sense.
====
Maybe not with uniformed armies but the guys that lurk in pullover masks will be brought to bear.  An attack on Iran by any christian/jew military would unite all of islam in a grand sense.  Unlike the unifiying action of the iraqi occupation, which garners more mulim sympathy than active support.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Yeager
the average iranian doesnt seem to agree hang, they think they have a right like everyone else to the benifits of nuclear energy and aren't at all concerned about nuclear weaponry.

If they are determined to get nukes, then Israel will certainly accomodate them with a remarkably prompt and efficient delivery.

[uvwpvW]

Both Russia and China has invested heavily in Iran's oil industry. I suspect both will go to great lengths to defend their investments.

[Suave]

Iran will have nuclear weapons. The US will allow it, even the Isrealis will allow it. Because they know the only thing in the history of mankind that has ensured peace indefinitely between two nations that hate eachother is nuclear weapons. You see nuclear weapons mean mortal peril to the leaders of nations. And lo and behold, when the leaders of a nation realize that it's their own tulips on the line, they find peaceful solution.

Do you really think that nobody knew that india and pakistan were developing nuclear weapons?

Some will say that the religiosity of the nation of Iran will make MAD irrelevant. But I do not believe that the voices of reason in Iran are such simpletons. The president of iran, he's their Reagan. He stands up against the international community, he makes them feel like an iranian is somebody in the global scheme of things. We maintain allies in arabia that have said worse things about Isreal than he has. Bear in mind he lives in a place where the majority of people believe that Isreal orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Compared to the common Iranian, his views on isreal are liberal.

I'm not sure that mutual assured destruction is the correct way to describe what will happen to the pariah state that uses the bomb first. I think just "assured destruction" is a better phrase. Because even if the nuclear aggressor destroys the target country, that aggressor country will be destroyed by one of us other nuclear powers. And nobody else will so much as pen a word of dissaproval as the pariah state is dispatched. You'd be a simpleton to think otherwise, and like I said, I don't think the ranks of iranian leadership are populated wholy by simpletons.

[Hangtime]

^^

Ok, given the 'leaders' in iran are not simpletons, and given they know they'd be flash fried as a result of a ballistic missile attack on a neighbor state..

..what's to keep them from 'getting cute' and providing via cutouts to an orginization like hamas or AQ a suitcase (or conex can) full of death to be delivered to 'the great satan, with love and kisses'?

enh?

Tell me.. you assume that once these islamist nutball leaders you call 'liberal islamists' actually sleep with this stuff under their pillows and that they have 100% control of the people and agencies that are gonna be making the stuff?

Fantasy.

Our best bet is to offer the israli's access to our satellite intel (if they haven't already stolen it from us) and a clear air corridor with mid-air refulers if needed.

Afterwards, we can make indignant noises, compose strongly worded letters of disapoval in the UN mold and maybe cancel an few billion dollars in aid.

Wallah. Problem solved.

[Suave]

No it won't be solved, it will just be postponed and a lot of people will suffer and die.

America has been the most free, most prodigious and most physically insecure nuclear power with open borders for decades. If we can keep from losing a suitcase bomb, yes we actually had those, or nuclear artillery shell, then I don't feel so sure that Iran can't.

Iraq will be joining the nuclear gentlemens club soon too. It might be their first order of business after they democratically elect a fundementalist islamic government.

They might not go the route of Iran though, they might opt instead to be america's new Pakistan. That country where Bin Laden probably lives.

[Maverick]

Suave,

It is not the case that iran "can't" maintain security of it's nuclear arsenal, it's a question of why they should consider giving one to a terrorist organization as not maintaining control of the weapon. If that organization gets a weapon from iran because their stated goal of using it is the same as the stated goal of iran ie wiping Isreal off of the map it has NOT lost control of the weapon, they just got it launched with a plausible deniability that it in fact launched the attack they wanted.

With no real inspections who is to say that instead of 25 serial numbered weapons were created there were in fact 30 and those 5 unlisted weapons are made available to al queda, hamas, the taliban or any other organiation which shares the iranian presidents "liberal views". If the iranian president has "liberal views" compared to the rest of the population why should that make anyone feel more secure that the population would stop the use of their weapons on anyone who does not agree with them? If they are more adamant than their president that the great satan must die and Isreal should be wiped off of the map why should we feel confident that the weapons won't be openly used? Your statements are contradictory.

[Thrawn]

Wow, Bush is using the same arguements for Iran that he did with Iraq.  I guess that's not too surprising.  What surprises me is that people buy it.


"Rice: Iran Is 'Playing Games' With Offer By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 52 minutes ago
 

WASHINGTON -     Iran's offer to let a watchdog agency inspect the country's nuclear facilities is a stalling tactic to avoid U.N. penalties that would further isolate Tehran, Secretary of State     Condoleezza Rice said Sunday.

"I think they're playing games. But obviously, if they're not playing games, they should come clean. They should stop the enrichment, suspend the enrichment," Rice told ABC's "This Week."

Iran's deputy oil minister played down the chance of U.N. action, saying punishing Tehran would send oil prices even higher.

Tehran on Saturday offered to allow inspections if the     U.N. Security Council would turn the dispute over to its nuclear monitor, the     International Atomic Energy Agency. An agency report confirmed Iran had successfully produced enriched uranium and defied the Security Council's Friday deadline to stop the process.

Iran maintains it will not make nuclear weapons and does not need or want them. But the United States, Britain and France suspect the intent of the uranium enrichment program is to make nuclear warheads.

..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060430/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran

[Kurt]

Originally posted by dmf

Ever see Planet of the Apes? The forbiden zone used to be the east coast of the United States.

5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.