| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should the US invade Iran. |
| Yes. Because they have on WMD. |
|
42% |
[ 3 ] |
| Yes. Because they are a repressive muslim society. |
|
14% |
[ 1 ] |
| Yes. Because they support terrorists and helped blow up the WTC. |
|
14% |
[ 1 ] |
| Yes. Because they will set us up the bomb! |
|
28% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 7 |
|
| Author |
Message |
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The Nuclear Power Beside Iraq
It may be too late anyways.....
| Quote: |
| Now that Iran unquestionably intends to build a nuclear bomb, the international community has few options to stop it—and the worst option would be a military strike |
| Quote: |
| About Iran��s intention to build a bomb, there is no serious disagreement among Russia, China, France, and the United States. Iran has dropped its pretense of benign intent. It refused the compromise that Russia formally proposed late in 2005 (though a new round of negotiations was announced early in March). Last year��s elections, the most democratic in that nation��s history, transformed the leadership—by making it more anti-Western and harder-edged. The attainment of an Iranian bomb might provoke Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other neighboring countries to begin nuclear programs of their own, and might make the terrorist groups Iran supports throughout the region feel they can attack with greater impunity. Dealing with Iran is now considered an international crisis. |
| Quote: |
| The inconvenient truth of American foreign policy is that the last five years have left us with a series of choices—and all of them are bad. The United States can��t keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, for obvious reasons. It can��t withdraw them, because of the chaos that would ensue. The United States can��t keep prisoners at Guantánamo Bay (and other overseas facilities) indefinitely, because of international and domestic challenges. But it can��t hastily release them, since many were and more have become terrorists. And it can��t even bring them to trial, because of procedural abuses that have already occurred. Similarly, the United States can��t accept Iran��s emergence as a nuclear power, but it cannot prevent this through military means—unless it is willing to commit itself to all-out war. The central flaw of American foreign policy these last few years has been the triumph of hope, wishful thinking, and self-delusion over realism and practicality. Realism about Iran starts with throwing out any plans to bomb. |
So, in theory, the feasability of a tactical strike against Iranian Nuclear facilities has come to pass, and the Iraqi War has left the world open to the very real threat of a Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East. The US can't attack the real threat, but it can't afford not to attack, if the author's suppositions are correct. What will Russia and China so, since the threat to their nations is more critical than to the US? Would Israel act in its own interest without the backing of the US? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:15 am Post subject: Re: Not the U.S. .....The world |
|
|
| JAWINSEOUL wrote: |
| ...the perception that America operates alone in these matters. |
It is nice that the other countries you list will support U.S. leadership on this issue. But the truth of the matter is that without U.S. leadership on this issue those other countries would do nothing until it was all over -- and then they would complain that the U.S. should and should not have acted.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:32 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| There is a very real possibility that NK already has the bomb. Does that mean we must attack them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think given Kim Jong Il's motivations and the general geopolitical situation in northeast Asia that the answer is a definite no. Containment is a viable option here (or it should be). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:26 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Was containment a viable option in Iraq?
What do you exactly mean by "containment"?
Do we have weapons inspectors in NK?
Does Iran have an ICBM? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
What about proliferation?
Nobody has been doing a very good job of containing NK's exporting of delivery systems.
Certainly not arguing for a NK strike, just pointing out that there is no consistant policy anyone can point to.
And what about Nuclear proliferation policy as it applies to India? Israel?
Maybe that's the way it has to be these days- each country has to be analyzed and dealt with according to conditions unique to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Iraq was a f##kup, and I was vocal about my opposition to that war before that *beep* started. Iran may be a different animal, although I don't think nuke bunker-busters are in order here. I am American, but I am also disturbed by recent trends towards non-diplomacy. A change in the American administration is on my birthday wish-list.
On the other hand, a weak-wristed approach to Iran will send the wrong signals. Catch-22, in a way... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAWINSEOUL
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject: Re: Not the U.S. .....The world |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| JAWINSEOUL wrote: |
| ...the perception that America operates alone in these matters. |
It is nice that the other countries you list will support U.S. leadership on this issue. But the truth of the matter is that without U.S. leadership on this issue those other countries would sit on their asses and do nothing until it was all over -- and then they would complain that the U.S. should have acted. |
This could have my an additional point made during my post. I agree 100% |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stratfor podacst for April 10 is very interesting, in that it discounts Hersch's New Yorker Article, puts recent Iranian Gulf exercises in perspective and ties in the latest announcements on the subject by Egypt and Saudi Arabia on Iran.
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/posting.php?mode=reply&t=55083 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Erm, if Hitler had been dictator of a two bit country like Iraq or even a small potatoes country like Iran, he wouldn't have mattered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I want the US to invade Quebec. Then they can get rid of all those Nazi laws they have concerning language and hold free elections, where they decide to come back to Canada as they are now missing the rather large nest egg Canada continuously gives them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I heard from the US ambassador to Canada's wife that there are WMDs in Chicoutimi... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LL Moonmanhead
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Location: yo momma
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iran get their first nukes. Nothing is done.
Iran now have the technology and can start piling up. Nothing is done.
10 years pass. It's 2020. Iran have enough nukes to destroy the whole of Europe (to literally destroy it. Kill hundreds of millions of people and wipe out major cities) and are working on a missile that can reach US shores. Tensions raise. In the worst case the whole of Europe could be in danger. Scenario: some islamist fanatic in the Iran military helps terrorists get their hands on one of the nukes. a month later suitcase nuke goes off in Washington DC. US launch a full scale attack on Iran. Iran, noting the approaching missiles, launches it's full arsenal on Europe. This is NOT impossible.
These religious nutcases (100x worse than Bush, to the right from Pat Robertson.. who treat women as servants and cattle and believe all sort of apocalyptic nonsense) they simply can NOT be allowed to command a 'nuclear military'.
Their facilities should be bombed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Reminds me of Saddam creating "mushroom clouds" over Washington or Tony Blair's "45 minutes" threat.
It is obvious that the Neo-Cons want to bomb Iran as well. According to Seymor Hersch the nuclear attack option is still on the table. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numazawa
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: The Concrete Barnyard
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| I heard from the US ambassador to Canada's wife that there are WMDs in Chicoutimi... |
Yes, and it's called "family-size poutine." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
