Reply
Wed 25 Jan, 2006 12:41 am
There's been a lot of talk recently about Israel and/or the United States bombing the nuclear facilities in Iran. I wouldn't worry about that. I believe they are both bluffing.
In the first place, just the talk has kicked up the price of oil. In the second place, there is no proof that Iran really wants to develop nuclear weapons. So far, what the Iranians have done and propose to do are legal. They have a reasonable explanation for why they want to develop nuclear power. Oil is their biggest and most valuable export. The less they use for domestic purposes, the more they will have to export.
On the other hand, they are surrounded by nuclear powers - Israel, Russia, Pakistan, India and the U.S. (through its heavy presence in the Persian Gulf and Iraq). So maybe they do want to develop a nuclear bomb. Personally, I don't care if they do. Having lived most of my life with 30,000 nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them in the Soviet Union, I'm not going to worry about the Iranians having six or seven.
I'm not one of those people who think the world will end with a nuclear explosion. There have been a lot of nuclear explosions. We dropped two on Japan, and all the nuclear powers tested their bombs in the atmosphere as well as underground. Despite the urban legends about plutonium, we are all still here. A nuclear weapon is, after all, a bomb, and like all bombs there is a limit to its radius of destruction. As Brother Dave Gardner put it, the place to be when a nuclear bomb goes off is wherever you can say, "What was that?"
In the meantime, what the United States should do is talk to the Iranians, instead of talking at them, threatening them and insulting them. Civil discourse and honest diplomacy are too much to ask of this reckless and immature administration, which, despite evidence to the contrary, seems to believe it can bully the whole world into doing its bidding.
Right now, the U.S. is banking on getting the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council. Winning this vote is not a certainty, but even if the U.S. does, Russia or China would likely veto any attempt to apply sanctions on Iran. A high-ranking Chinese official has just publicly announced that Iran is to become China's major trading partner. Russia has a heavy investment in Iran's nuclear facilities. President George W. Bush is about to have his bubble of delusions pricked. We are not the world's only superpower, and there are plenty of people who don't jump when Bush snaps his fingers.
As for the Israelis, they would attack Iran in a New York second - if they had the capability, and I don't believe they do. If they take a northern route, they will need permission from Turkey to use its airspace. They won't get it. If they fly to the south through airspace we control, they would need our permission, and that's not at all certain. Moreover, they don't have the planes capable of taking enough ordnance to do sufficient damage to fortified, underground installations that are widely dispersed.
Iran, despite its problems, is not without the means to retaliate, whether attacked by Israel or the U.S. One thing the Iranians might do is wreck the oil facilities in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, as well as closing the valves on their own oil. This would throw the world oil market into chaos, and the world economy would quickly follow.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are far too close to the oil industry to risk that kind of worldwide economic train wreck.
Presumably, we didn't want Israel to have the bomb, but the Israelis built them anyway. Ditto Pakistan, India and North Korea. In the end, despite the hot rhetoric, if the Iranians want a bomb, they will probably end up building it. That might cause the Israelis to lose a little sleep - though not much, as they have 200 nuclear weapons - but it shouldn't bother us in the least.
The Iranians are just as sensible and levelheaded as anyone else. Don't buy the propaganda that they are all a bunch of crazies. They've been around a lot longer than we have. I would trust them with nuclear weapons as much as - perhaps even a hair more than - I trust Bush. Americans must stop allowing politicians and propagandists to scare them into reckless behavior.
C.Reese 2006
There is some sense to what he says here, I believe
The problem is that if more and more countries are allowed to acquire nuclear and biological weapons, including unstable countries, dictatorships, ones in sympathy with terrorism, etc., the weapons will somewhere, someway be used. Considering that a single nuke, even of the 3rd world sort, could kill hundreds of thousands of people or more, we cannot blithely allow this scenario to develop. I, for one, do not want to see New York, Madrid, London, or even Rapid City, South Dakota obliterated by a WMD. It's not good for any country to have nukes, but the unstable ones, dictatorships, and ones in sympathy with terrorism really must be stopped lest something awful happen down the road.
Unstable would include, I presume, Israel? So, why are they allowed to have WMD's?
pachelbel wrote:Unstable would include, I presume, Israel? So, why are they allowed to have WMD's?
I could debate that, but how does it relate to the point expressed in your thread and rebutted by me: that taking a lax attitude towards Iran developing nukes isn't very dangerous?
Because Iran is not an unstable country. It is a democratically elected government. Nor does it harbour terrorists as does America's ally, Pakistan. Pakistan is a dictatorship and very unstable. Why do they have the bomb?
Iran is between two unstable countries who possess the bomb, plus Russia to the north, they have every right to want to save their democracy. What would you do if Canada, Mexico and Cuba all had their separate atomic weapons programs, and the U.S. was told they could not have the bomb?
pachelbel wrote:Because Iran is not an unstable country. It is a democratically elected government. Nor does it harbour terrorists as does America's ally, Pakistan. Pakistan is a dictatorship and very unstable. Why do they have the bomb?
Iran is between two unstable countries who possess the bomb, plus Russia to the north, they have every right to want to save their democracy. What would you do if Canada, Mexico and Cuba all had their separate atomic weapons programs, and the U.S. was told they could not have the bomb?
Are you saying that Canada, Mexico and Cuba are unstable?
Intrepid wrote:pachelbel wrote:Because Iran is not an unstable country. It is a democratically elected government. Nor does it harbour terrorists as does America's ally, Pakistan. Pakistan is a dictatorship and very unstable. Why do they have the bomb?
Iran is between two unstable countries who possess the bomb, plus Russia to the north, they have every right to want to save their democracy. What would you do if Canada, Mexico and Cuba all had their separate atomic weapons programs, and the U.S. was told they could not have the bomb?
Are you saying that Canada, Mexico and Cuba are unstable?
I thought Canada was okay until they elected that bush licker the other day. :wink:
I don't believe you have given the administration in Iran a proper appraisal when you say things like
Quote:The Iranians are just as sensible and levelheaded as anyone else. Don't buy the propaganda that they are all a bunch of crazies. They've been around a lot longer than we have. I would trust them with nuclear weapons as much as - perhaps even a hair more than - I trust Bush.
and
Quote:Because Iran is not an unstable country. It is a democratically elected government. Nor does it harbour terrorists as does America's ally, Pakistan. Pakistan is a dictatorship and very unstable. Why do they have the bomb?
Because I do not believe you have given an honest appraisal I am therefore discounting your comments appropriately. The world needs fewer pro-terrorists voices.
If a leader states his intention is to eliminate another nation for no valid reason, and you call that leaders stable, you are either:
1. An Agent for that leader
2. A supporter of the elimination of Isreal
3. An idiot
4. All of the above.
You're not from the Milky Way pal. You're from a galaxy far, far away.....................
In the first place, I did not write the article.
In the second, he makes a lot of sense. Especially when he says:
'Americans must stop allowing politicians and propagandists to scare them into reckless behavior. '
Iraq was attacked because they THOUGHT they had WMD's. They did not. Rather than bomb another country, why not try talking to them? I realize wars are profitable, but unfortunately they result in loss of life, and not the lives of those who make the profits. i.e., Cheney and his cabal.
Hey - here's an idea - since it is Israel who wants to disarm the entire Middle East, except for themselves, of course, why not let Israel defend themselves? They do have plenty of WMD's, and are an unstable country if ever I saw one. Yet they seem to be left off of the 'terrorist' list.
Lastly, if you cannot debate without insults, why answer? Insulting a poster reveals that you really have nothing to say and no defense. Therefore I disregard you.
Were it not for all the hostility aimed Israel's way, they would not need all the defenses they have.
'President George W. Bush is about to have his bubble of delusions pricked. We are not the world's only superpower, and there are plenty of people who don't jump when Bush snaps his fingers. '
A GOOD THING FOR YOU TO REMEMBER, AMERICA.
If you actually READ the article, you will see that Iran is to become China's trading partner. China will most likely veto any sanctions on Iran. Since the US is heavily in debt to China, go figure.
Have a nice day.
America already is China's trading partner and we can exert quite a bit more pressure then Iran can muster.
McGentrix wrote:Were it not for all the hostility aimed Israel's way, they would not need all the defenses they have.
Course, it's merely my opinion, but perhaps Israel should ask why such hostility is aimed their way?
Ever hear of the Balfour Declaration established by the Brits? Here's a short quote from Arthur Balfour, Brit Foreign Secretary in 1917:
"In Palestine, we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country (Arabs) The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in agelong tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the prejudices of the
700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land".
So, perhaps, if Americans knew more about Arab history they would know why the Arabs hate the Jews, and rightly so. How would you like someone to come and take your land?
Good book to read: The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Sa'ud by Robert Lacey. Doubt you will read it, but before you criticize you should know your ground.
And don't give me that crappola about 'God gave them the land'. Moses took it and gave the same excuses as Hitler for his genocide.
Now the S&R group will begin.........refer you to above book, S&R. Knowledge, you know, is a good thing.
It's easy to hate the jews. People have been doing it for years and years.
You read all about the history of Israel
here.
The Jews have been in the area of Israel for longer than the last 100 years.
Israel should not NEED to ask why the hostility is aimed their way. They have dealt quite effectively with it thus far and will continue to do so going forward.
McGentrix wrote:America already is China's trading partner and we can exert quite a bit more pressure then Iran can muster.
Think so? It's an unequal trade balance with America owing the Chinese billions of dollars. China will do what is good for China. They are very patient people and much more savvy about what is going on in the world than America is.
The POINT is, Iran has cooperated fully with investigations, they are a democratic ELECTED government, and more stable than Israel.
McGentrix wrote:It's easy to hate the jews. People have been doing it for years and years.
You read all about the history of Israel
here.
The Jews have been in the area of Israel for longer than the last 100 years.
Israel should not NEED to ask why the hostility is aimed their way. They have dealt quite effectively with it thus far and will continue to do so going forward.
Yes, with the monetary help from the U.S. which puts the U.S. in harm's way from Arabs; what 9/11 was all about.
That the Jews have been in Arab country for the last 100 years means what, exactly? The Arabs were there centuries before. Who has land rights? The FACT that the British declared that portion of ARAB land for the Jews does not make it Jewish land. The Brits have and had no understanding of tribal lands. Once Americans begin to actually read and learn what is behind the hatred of the Jews, they may understand the present situation. Abdul Aziz, the founder of the House of Sa'ud (Saudia Arabia) said, "Our hatred of the Jews," he told Harold Dickson in 1937, "dates from God's condemndation of them for their persecution and rejection of 'Isa (Jesus Christ) and their subsequent rejection later of His chosen Prophet Muhammad".
A bit confusing that the Christians take the side of the Jews, who hate Christ, isn't it? Why aren't they siding with the Arabs, who have no hatred towards Jesus?
Israel has a great propaganda machine; guilt over something that happened over a century ago works on those gullible enough to not know the history of how they obtained the land they have stolen from the Arabs. Abdul Aziz never countenanced the Nazi 'final solution', even though he was an Arab. He was horrified by Hitler's extermination of the Jews, and he said so flatly to Lord Belhaven, the British Agent in Bahrain, when he visited the island in 1939. But his abhorrence was relative. There was no need for Hitler to have killed them, he said, just 'to have shorn them of their possessions'; for the Jews were, in his eyes, 'a race accursed by God, according to His Holy Book, and destined to final destruction and eternal damnation".
I'm sure the S&R gang can find passages to support that.
Look forward to more debate.
McGentrix wrote:America already is China's trading partner and we can exert quite a bit more pressure then Iran can muster.
Actually, the correct response to you would have been:
Can America exert more power over China? China will be protecting its interests in Iran. Since, as I said, America is in debt to China, their bargaining chip is their military, where they go about blowing people up who don't happen to agree with them. Has not an iota to do with terrorism, but has much to do with WHO controls the world's oil reserves. You can imagine that Albertans (a province in Canada) being second to Saudia Arabia in oil reserves, will be watching to see what the Americans are up to.
That Iran is being made to look like they are harboring WMD's as a limp excuse to invade is ludicrous. Can't Bush Adm come up with a newer excuse than that?
Huh. The only people I have seen discussing an invasion are here at A2k. Contingency plans are probably being made, but until the UN has attempted to intervene, I doubt the US has any intentions of invading Iran.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace