Russian MP Says US To Attack Iran Late March

.. and gas prices would dominate the election campaign and the republicans would lose seats ... not gonna happen. i agree with blatham here.

0 Replies

Who would like to see Iran announce in a couple of years that it has produced, say, 3 nukes, and will defend itself if anyone tries to stop it from producing more? You know, like the North Koreans have done?

0 Replies

should have thought long term about that... too late now....

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

.. and gas prices would dominate the election campaign and the republicans would lose seats ... not gonna happen. i agree with blatham here.

hopefully you are correct...but at this point bush has nothing to lose and lots of income to gain.....at the heart of bushco I don't think they give a **** about their fellow republicans any more than they give a **** about anyone else... and they certainly don't give a **** about the effects of their actions either short or long term.....what they are interested in is being so rich they're permanently above the fray....IMO

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Who would like to see Iran announce in a couple of years that it has produced, say, 3 nukes, and will defend itself if anyone tries to stop it from producing more? You know, like the North Koreans have done?

Effectively, a senseless question as it leads you nowhere helpful.

Who wished that Pakistan would gain nukes? Or India? Or Israel or anyone? Who wouldn't take back that technology and proliferation if, magically, we could do it?

Proliferation is an unfortunate fact. Much that the US could have done in the past (and in the present) to diminish this proliferation has been avoided for shorter term strategy reasons, nutty or sane.

Likely, Iran will gain nuke technology and, unfortunately, there is probably very little anyone can do about it. An attack on Iran would please the heck out of armageddon fruitcakes and the Dr. Strangeloves in the Pentagon (and their corporate cronies) and some of those well-fed Park Avenue thinktank boys, but for actually living and sane creatures, it would be a fukking nightmare.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

An attack on Iran would please the heck out of armageddon fruitcakes and the Dr. Strangeloves in the Pentagon (and their corporate cronies) and some of those well-fed Park Avenue thinktank boys, but for actually living and sane creatures, it would be a fukking nightmare.

Forget them. Even the Islamic radicals would love that, because they'd be able to twist the events and say, "Look, the US is an Imperialistic bastard. This is proof that our all out Jihad against the West is justified."

0 Replies

Economic sanctions will be imposed long before any military escalation occurs. I don't know if Iran can afford to cut off ties to the rest of the world like North Korea did. The people in Iran are not as obediant.

0 Replies

<nods>

0 Replies

On the other hand, I don't know if the rest of the world can afford to cut off ties to the Iran like it did to North Korea. North Korea isn't the world's fourth largest oil producer.

0 Replies

My <nod> was to Wolf, but it works either way...

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

...Likely, Iran will gain nuke technology and, unfortunately, there is probably very little anyone can do about it. An attack on Iran would please the heck out of armageddon fruitcakes and the Dr. Strangeloves in the Pentagon (and their corporate cronies) and some of those well-fed Park Avenue thinktank boys, but for actually living and sane creatures, it would be a fukking nightmare.

What will nuclear bombs in the hands of terrorists who use them to kill millions in cities be, then?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Economic sanctions will be imposed long before any military escalation occurs. I don't know if Iran can afford to cut off ties to the rest of the world like North Korea did. The people in Iran are not as obediant.

That seems to be the only option available. But sanctions don't always work the way we hope they will. And, likely, there will be oil price consequences for us in such a strategy too.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

On the other hand, I don't know if the rest of the world can afford to cut off ties to the Iran like it did to North Korea. North Korea isn't the world's fourth largest oil producer.

Right.

0 Replies

I am willing to pay more for gas to insure a nuclear free Iran. Better to pay dollars than lives.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

blatham wrote:

...Likely, Iran will gain nuke technology and, unfortunately, there is probably very little anyone can do about it. An attack on Iran would please the heck out of armageddon fruitcakes and the Dr. Strangeloves in the Pentagon (and their corporate cronies) and some of those well-fed Park Avenue thinktank boys, but for actually living and sane creatures, it would be a fukking nightmare.

What will nuclear bombs in the hands of terrorists who use them to kill millions in cities be, then?

Like the evil commies did with their nukes? Like Sadaam was hours away from doing with his WOMD arsenal?

If we are going to find sane and workable solutions to this serious issue of nuke proliferation, then we better drop all the exaggerations and inexactitudes.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
blatham wrote:

...Likely, Iran will gain nuke technology and, unfortunately, there is probably very little anyone can do about it. An attack on Iran would please the heck out of armageddon fruitcakes and the Dr. Strangeloves in the Pentagon (and their corporate cronies) and some of those well-fed Park Avenue thinktank boys, but for actually living and sane creatures, it would be a fukking nightmare.

What will nuclear bombs in the hands of terrorists who use them to kill millions in cities be, then?

Like the evil commies did with their nukes? Like Sadaam was hours away from doing with his WOMD arsenal?

If we are going to find sane and workable solutions to this serious issue of nuke proliferation, then we better drop all the exaggerations and inexactitudes.

So, are you saying that if Iran secretly stockpiled nukes, there is little real chance they would give or sell them to terrorists? Or perhaps you are saying that terrorists in possession of nukes wouldn't be likely to use them? Where is the exaggeration, may I ask?

0 Replies

Quote:

I am willing to pay more for gas to insure a nuclear free Iran. Better to pay dollars than lives.

How do you know;
1. Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
2. Even if Iran was to develope them what makes you so sure she would use them.

What prevented war between U.S. and Russia? Nuclear weapons. What prevented India and Pakistan from going to war? Nuclear weapons.

No one is afraid of a conventional war; but a nuclear war? That's different. If, for the sake of argument, Iran was to develope nuclear weapons she knows very well that if she uses them she will be bombed to oblivion. Same holds true if she gave them to terrorists.

What nuclear weapons does for Iran is to prevent her from being bullied by U.S. and Israel, both of whom are nuclear powers. If I was Iran I would want them for the same reason Israel wanted them; for self defense.

I don't think nuclear weapons is the reason Bush wants war with Iran any more than WMD's were the reason we attacked Iraq. It's the oil bourse he's afraid of.

We're not afraid of being destroyed militarily; we're afraid of being destroyed economically. That's how Osama and the Teliban beat Russia in Afghanistan. They beld her dry and that's what Iraq is doing to us now.

0 Replies

The exageration is in the suggestion that Iran wants nukes in order to use them. As Xingu points out, the value of nukes is in deterence, not in using them. Once they are used, the gloves are off, and Persia gets turned into a parking lot.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The exageration is in the suggestion that Iran wants nukes in order to use them. As Xingu points out, the value of nukes is in deterence, not in using them. Once they are used, the gloves are off, and Persia gets turned into a parking lot.

If more and more countries, including ones that are sympathetic to terrorism, ones that are unstable, and ones that are ruled by despots, are allowed to develop WMD, surely the WMD will eventually be used.

0 Replies

As is the case with Pakistan?

How about India, South Africa, Israel, North Korea?

Nuclear non-proliferation was a good idea proposed for cynical reasons. Originally, both the United States and Russia wanted to be sure the Chinese didn't get nukes. It didn't work. Pakistan, India, Israel, South Africa and North Korea have all demonstrated that a well-funded research project conducted by competent physicists can produce atomic weapons. The big boys wanted to be sure no one else could join the nuclear club, because the equations were difficult enough as it was. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Your entire position is predicated upon the assumption that an Islamic state must necessarily be irresponsible with respect to terrorists. Pakistan is not an Islamic state, but anyone who cannot see the extent to which Islamic fundamentalist fanaticism grips that nation is living in la-la land. I wonder if you got this worked up over the idea that the Israelis were building nukes.

0 Replies

Russian MP Says US To Attack Iran Late March

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know