|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
�An attack would increase the likelihood,� Scott D. Sagan, a political scientist at Stanford University�s Center for International Security and Cooperation, said of an Iranian weapon.
The George W. Bush administration, it turns out, reached an even stronger conclusion in secret and rejected bombing as counterproductive.
The view among Mr. Bush�s top advisers, recalled Michael V. Hayden, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was that a strike �would drive them to do what we were trying to prevent.� |
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sunday-review/how-to-help-iran-build-a-bomb.html
| Quote: |
�It�s one of the best-known secrets,� said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. �We know that Iran does not have nuclear weapons. We know that Israel has nuclear weapons.�
But according to Kristensen, the U.S. intelligence community estimates that Israel has 80 to 90 nuclear warheads.
Recent history demonstrates that Israel hasn�t hesitated to use force to stop its neighbors from joining the nuclear weapons club. In 1981, Israeli jets destroyed an Iraqi weapons facility and in 2007 Israeli fighters bombed a Syrian facility. The IAEA later said the facility was likely a nuclear reactor. |
http://news.discovery.com/tech/israel-iran-nuclear-weapons-121004.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Whether one believes Iran is close to a bomb, doesn't have one or whatever, the point is that there is no reason to attack or bomb Iran. Even if they have or are close to having a nuke. If that's the case they will NOT use it. |
Why do you think Iran is a rational actor? |
The chairman of the joint chiefs has stated iran is rational. Defer to him. |
Right. So what is rational about them pursuing nukes? Protests have begun again, this time about the currency and poor economcy. It's clear the cause.
How can the regime rationally view the program as a way to ensure its stability? That once it gets nukes, the US, Israel et al will reduce their cyber attacks and other forms of espionage? That it will take the threat of Israel or the US from attacking Iran totally off the table? Would there even be that threat if not for this program??
Not directing these questions towards you, I'm just trying to get an idea of the Iranian government's perspective. I'm certainly not an advocate of attacking Iran, but I do wonder what the regime is thinking and what it would do with the nukes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
How can the regime rationally view the program as a way to ensure its stability? That once it gets nukes, the US, Israel et al will reduce their cyber attacks and other forms of espionage? That it will take the threat of Israel or the US from attacking Iran totally off the table? Would there even be that threat if not for this program??
Not directing these questions towards you, I'm just trying to get an idea of the Iranian government's perspective. I'm certainly not an advocate of attacking Iran, but I do wonder what the regime is thinking and what it would do with the nukes. |
According to an article I read last week, which I now can't seem to find, there are some that believe it will simply be used as a means to flex some muscle when it comes to Western powers trying to influence how the middle east is shaped. If I remember correctly, which I'm quite possibly wrong about this, this is also why the U.S has to play nice with Israel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Whether one believes Iran is close to a bomb, doesn't have one or whatever, the point is that there is no reason to attack or bomb Iran. Even if they have or are close to having a nuke. If that's the case they will NOT use it. |
Why do you think Iran is a rational actor? |
The chairman of the joint chiefs has stated iran is rational. Defer to him. |
Right. So what is rational about them pursuing nukes? Protests have begun again, this time about the currency and poor economcy. It's clear the cause.
How can the regime rationally view the program as a way to ensure its stability? That once it gets nukes, the US, Israel et al will reduce their cyber attacks and other forms of espionage? That it will take the threat of Israel or the US from attacking Iran totally off the table? Would there even be that threat if not for this program??
Not directing these questions towards you, I'm just trying to get an idea of the Iranian government's perspective. I'm certainly not an advocate of attacking Iran, but I do wonder what the regime is thinking and what it would do with the nukes. |
Look at what's happening all around them. First Iraq then Afghanistan, not to mention what happened in Libya. Then you also have to remember that we supplied and supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. I think that the threat of a U.S. attack against them was real before the program came online, and looking at the leverage countries like North Korea and Pakistan have due to their weapons, it seems fairly rational to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Whether one believes Iran is close to a bomb, doesn't have one or whatever, the point is that there is no reason to attack or bomb Iran. Even if they have or are close to having a nuke. If that's the case they will NOT use it. |
Why do you think Iran is a rational actor? |
The chairman of the joint chiefs has stated iran is rational. Defer to him. |
Right. So what is rational about them pursuing nukes? Protests have begun again, this time about the currency and poor economcy. It's clear the cause.
How can the regime rationally view the program as a way to ensure its stability? That once it gets nukes, the US, Israel et al will reduce their cyber attacks and other forms of espionage? That it will take the threat of Israel or the US from attacking Iran totally off the table? Would there even be that threat if not for this program??
Not directing these questions towards you, I'm just trying to get an idea of the Iranian government's perspective. I'm certainly not an advocate of attacking Iran, but I do wonder what the regime is thinking and what it would do with the nukes. |
Look at what's happening all around them. First Iraq then Afghanistan, not to mention what happened in Libya. Then you also have to remember that we supplied and supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. I think that the threat of a U.S. attack against them was real before the program came online, and looking at the leverage countries like North Korea and Pakistan have due to their weapons, it seems fairly rational to me. |
Iraq: that is even more reason for them to drop the nuke program! Had Saddam not been so evasive and opaque, the invasion would have been a lot harder to "legitimize" to the American people.
Afghanistan: 9/11. What's your point? Iran was actually quite happy the USA "removed" the Taliban and had a semi-cordial relationship with the USA at least initially in regards to Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. Iran has also gained a lot of influence in the western part of Afghanistan. I'm sure things have deteriorated significantly, but more due to other issues than Afghanistan.
Libya: Even more reason for Iran to drop its nuke program. Qadaffi became open, the West became his best friend. Opened up the economy and helped him out. Sure, you're referring to NATO. The people rose up and it was clear that it would be easy to assist. An opposite case is Syria, where the west has NOT gotten involved. No nukes. Syria can inflict more damage on vital allies (Israel, Jordan, Turkey, etc) and is very heterogeneous. Iran is much more similar to Syria than Libya in demographic mix and it's connection to groups that can do damage to US and our allies' interests. This has been demonstrated by Iranian supported terrorist attacks. Point being Iran can already inflict damage and its network of support is a big reason why the USA has already been reluctant to engage in military action.
The Iran-Iraq War: uh yeah, but we also gave Iran weapons. That whole Iran-Contra affair ring a bell?
North Korea also has leverage because it borders a very close ally and can inflict billions of dollars of damage on the ROK via artillery. It had leverage even before it had nukes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Whether one believes Iran is close to a bomb, doesn't have one or whatever, the point is that there is no reason to attack or bomb Iran. Even if they have or are close to having a nuke. If that's the case they will NOT use it. |
Why do you think Iran is a rational actor? |
The chairman of the joint chiefs has stated iran is rational. Defer to him. |
Right. So what is rational about them pursuing nukes? Protests have begun again, this time about the currency and poor economcy. It's clear the cause.
How can the regime rationally view the program as a way to ensure its stability? That once it gets nukes, the US, Israel et al will reduce their cyber attacks and other forms of espionage? That it will take the threat of Israel or the US from attacking Iran totally off the table? Would there even be that threat if not for this program??
Not directing these questions towards you, I'm just trying to get an idea of the Iranian government's perspective. I'm certainly not an advocate of attacking Iran, but I do wonder what the regime is thinking and what it would do with the nukes. |
Look at what's happening all around them. First Iraq then Afghanistan, not to mention what happened in Libya. Then you also have to remember that we supplied and supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. I think that the threat of a U.S. attack against them was real before the program came online, and looking at the leverage countries like North Korea and Pakistan have due to their weapons, it seems fairly rational to me. |
Iraq: that is even more reason for them to drop the nuke program! Had Saddam not been so evasive and opaque, the invasion would have been a lot harder to "legitimize" to the American people.
Afghanistan: 9/11. What's your point? Iran was actually quite happy the USA "removed" the Taliban and had a semi-cordial relationship with the USA at least initially in regards to Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. Iran has also gained a lot of influence in the western part of Afghanistan. I'm sure things have deteriorated significantly, but more due to other issues than Afghanistan.
Libya: Even more reason for Iran to drop its nuke program. Qadaffi became open, the West became his best friend. Opened up the economy and helped him out. Sure, you're referring to NATO. The people rose up and it was clear that it would be easy to assist. An opposite case is Syria, where the west has NOT gotten involved. No nukes. Syria can inflict more damage on vital allies (Israel, Jordan, Turkey, etc) and is very heterogeneous. Iran is much more similar to Syria than Libya in demographic mix and it's connection to groups that can do damage to US and our allies' interests. This has been demonstrated by Iranian supported terrorist attacks. Point being Iran can already inflict damage and its network of support is a big reason why the USA has already been reluctant to engage in military action.
The Iran-Iraq War: uh yeah, but we also gave Iran weapons. That whole Iran-Contra affair ring a bell?
North Korea also has leverage because it borders a very close ally and can inflict billions of dollars of damage on the ROK via artillery. It had leverage even before it had nukes. |
f you look at each case individually, like you just did, you can find ways in which each situation as a whole is different than Iran's, but taken together they present a picture where the United States, or NATO, is willing to come in and overthrow regimes it doesn't like when the opportunity presents itself. They Syrian situation is different, in that Syria hasn't been the focus of the United States in the same way that Libya or Iraq was, and Iran has been since the hostage situation. The almost personal sense of hostility that exists between American and Iran just isn't there in regards to Syria.
As to the point about the Iran-Iraq war, yes we gave both sides weapons, and supported Saddam, and yet later we killed Saddam. If Iran has nukes, they can prevent that sort of meddling in the future, at least theoretically. Also, Iran surely realizes that the reason Iran and Iraq both got weapons was because America wanted them to kill each other as much as possible. As to the Iraq invasion, it shows that America is willing to attack another country without being first attacked, and without a high quality of evidence. I'm not saying that it is in the best interest of Iran to get weapons, and I hope they do not, but that their desire to do so has several rational points in favor of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Whether one believes Iran is close to a bomb, doesn't have one or whatever, the point is that there is no reason to attack or bomb Iran. Even if they have or are close to having a nuke. If that's the case they will NOT use it. |
Why do you think Iran is a rational actor? |
The chairman of the joint chiefs has stated iran is rational. Defer to him. |
Iran a rational actor?
Iran�s Timeline of Terror
November 4, 1979
Fifty-two American citizens are taken hostage by �students� loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini. They are held for more than a year, until January 20, 1981. The kidnappings are part of the Iranian revolution, which serves as a model for Sunni terrorist groups like Ayman al-Zawahiri�s Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
April 18, 1983
Iran�s master terrorist, Imad Mugniyah, orchestrates the first significant Islamist suicide attack against America: the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Establishing a modus operandi for terrorists in the years to come, the attacker utilizes a van packed with explosives.
October 23, 1983 Using massive truck bombs, Hezbollah�s suicide bombers simultaneously attack the U.S. Marine Barracks and a housing complex for French Paratroopers in Beirut, Lebanon. Al-Qaeda would later adopt simultaneous suicide bombings as its preferred method for committing attacks.
December 12, 1983
Iranian-backed terrorists bomb the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait. A close relative of Imad Mugniyah is convicted by a Kuwaiti court and sentenced to death for his role in the bombing. Other attackers,
also supported by Iran, are imprisoned. The terrorists come to be known as the �Kuwait 17� or �Dawa 17.� 75 iran�s proxy war against america
March 16, 1984
William Buckley, the CIA�s station chief in Beirut, is kidnapped and later tortured-to-death by Imad Mugniyah�s Hezbollah. Buckley�s kidnapping is one in a series of Hezbollah�s kidnappings from the early 1980s through the early 1990s. Dozens of Americans are kidnapped and Hezbollah frequently demands an exchange for the Kuwait 17. Hezbollah�s kidnappings lead to the biggest scandal of President Ronald Reagan�s tenure, the Iran-Contra affair, after the Reagan administration agrees to exchange arms for the hostages.
September 20, 1984
Hezbollah terrorists strike the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut with a truck bomb.
December 3, 1984
Mugniyah�s operatives hijack Kuwait Airways Flight 221. The hijackers attempt to barter for the release of the Kuwait 17.
June 14, 1985
Mugniyah�s terrorists hijack TWA Flight 847. Once again, the hijackers attempt to barter for the release of the Kuwait 17. When the hijackers� demands are denied, they beat and kill a U.S. Navy serviceman, Robert Dean Stethem, who happened to be on the flight. Incredibly, Germany granted parole to one of the hijackers in December 2005.
According to Ali Mohamed, a top al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, Ayman al-Zawahiri�s Egyptian Islamic Jihad partners with Iran in a planned coup attempt in Egypt. Tehran trains EIJ terrorists for the coup attempt, which is ultimately aborted. Iran also pays al-Zawahiri $2 million for sensitive information concerning 76 national security studies the Egyptian Government�s plans to raid several islands in the Persian Gulf.
1991
Iran and Sudan, then the world�s only Islamist states, forge a strategic alliance. They begin to jointly export terrorism throughout the world.
April 1991
Hassan al-Turabi hosts the first Popular Arab Islamic Conference in Sudan. The conference provides a forum for disparate forces in the Middle East who oppose American presence in the region to come together. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iraqi and Iranian representatives all attend the meeting.
February 26, 1993
Terrorists connected to al-Qaeda and the global terror network bomb the World Trade Center using a rental truck packed with explosives. The bombers� colleagues plot a follow-on attack against landmarks in the NYC area. There is no known evidence that Iran had a hand in these events. It is clear, however, that several of the plotters had ties to Hassan al-Turabi�s Sudan. Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the spiritual leader of the two leading Egyptian terrorist groups (both of which will join al- Qaeda) and who was living in the New York metropolitan area, is later convicted for his involvement in the attacks. Reports surface that he and his organization received financial assistance from Iran.
1993
According to Ali Mohamed, Imad Mugniyah and Osama bin Laden meet in Sudan. Bin Laden expresses his desire to model al- Qaeda after Hezbollah. In particular, bin Laden expresses interest in Mugniyah�s bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983 77 iran�s proxy war against america and similar attacks. They agree to work together against America and the West.
1993
According to Jamal al-Fadl, an al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, bin Laden meets a leading Iranian sheikh in Sudan. The purpose of the meeting is to put aside any differences between their competing brands of Islam in order to come together against their common enemy: the West. The meeting is just the first of several between bin Laden and Iran�s spiritual leaders.
1993
Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps train al- Qaeda�s terrorists in camps in Sudan, Lebanon and Iran. Among the terrorists trained are some of bin Laden�s most trusted lieutenants and al-Qaeda�s future leaders.
1993
Egypt and Algeria cut off diplomatic ties with Iran. Both nations accuse Iran and Sudan of supporting Sunni terrorism, including terrorist groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. Egypt will blame Iran for supporting both the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Group throughout the 1990�s.
November 13, 1995
Two bombs are detonated, nearly simultaneously, at the Saudi National Guard training facility in Riyadh, killing five Americans. The suspects are captured and confess to being inspired by Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden denies responsibility, but praises the attack. It is likely al-Qaeda�s first terrorist attack inside the Saudi Kingdom. 78 national security studies
November 19, 1995
An al-Qaeda suicide bomber destroys the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. The CIA�s Bob Baer later learns that Mugniyah�s deputy assisted al-Qaeda in the attack and that one of bin Laden�s top terrorists remained in contact with Mugniyah�s offi ce months afterwards.
May 1996
Bin Laden is expelled from Sudan, but the 9/11 Commission reports that �intelligence indicates the persistance of contacts� between al-Qaeda and Iran even after al-Qaeda�s relocation to Afghanistan. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda maintain an ongoing presence in Sudan, despite not being �formally� welcome.
June 21 - 23, 1996
Tehran hosts a summit for the leading Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups. It is announced that the terrorists will continue to focus on U.S. interests thoughout the region. Mugniyah, bin Laden, and a leading member of the EIJ reportedly forge the �Committee of Three,� under the leadership of Iran�s intelligence chief, to focus their joint efforts against American targets.
June 25, 1996
Hezbollah terrorists, operating under the direction of senior Iranian officials, bomb the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Saudi Arabia. Contemporaneous reports by both the State Department and the CIA note that al-Qaeda is also suspected of playing a role. The 9/11 Commission would later find �indirect evidence� of al-Qaeda�s involvement. The evidence includes intelligence indicating that al-Qaeda was planning a similar operation in the months prior and that bin Laden was congratulated by other al-Qaeda operatives, including Ayman al-Zawahiri, shortly after the attack. 79 iran�s proxy war against america
July 1996
According to Bob Baer, the Egyptian Islamic Group�an ally of bin Laden�s al-Qaeda�is in contact with Mugniyah.
1996
According to Bob Baer, there is �incontrovertible evidence� of a meeting between bin Laden and a representative of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS).
August 7, 1998
Al-Qaeda�s suicide bombers simultaneously destroy the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. It is al-Qaeda�s most spectacular attack prior to 9/11. The attack is clearly modeled on Hezbollah�s attacks in the early 1980s. Indeed, the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible were trained by Hezbollah in the early 1990s. There is evidence that Iran also provided explosives used in the attack.
October - November 2000
Imad Mugniyah and his lieutenants personally escort several of the 9/11 muscle hijackers out of Saudi Arabia on flights to Beirut and Iran. In all, eight to ten of the hijackers travel through Iran on the way to 9/11.
December 2000
Ramzi Binalshibh, al-Qaeda�s key point man for the 9/11 plot, applies for visa at the Iranian Embassy in Berlin. His visa application is approved.
January 31, 2001
Ramzi Binalshibh arrives at Tehran International airport. He does not return to Germany until February 28, 2001. The purpose of his trip to Iran remains a mystery. The 9/11 Commission does not mention Binalshibh�s trip to Iran. 80 national security studies
Early September 2001
Binalshibh flees to Iran shortly before the 9/11 attacks.
September 11, 2001
Nineteen al-Qaeda hijackers execute al-Qaeda�s largest operation to date, killing nearly 3000 Americans. Many of the details surrounding the plot, including who financed the attack, remain a mystery.
October 2001
According to a high-level Taliban detainee at Gitmo, Iran offers the Taliban Government assistance in retreating from Afghanistan.
October 2001
Numerous press reports indicate that Iran aids the retreat of hundreds of al-Qaeda and Taliban members from Afghanistan. Some al-Qaeda operatives enjoy safehaven in Iran to this day. Among them is Said al-Adel, who is reportedly the third highest ranking member of al-Qaeda and was trained by Hezbollah during the early 1990s, and Saad bin Laden, Osama�s heir apparent.
April 11, 2002
Al-Qaeda carries out the first attack ordered by bin Laden since 9/11: a suicide bomber destroys a synagogue in Tunisia, killing nineteen people. According to NBC News, Saad bin Laden contacted the cell responsible for the attack from his safehaven in Iran. Suleiman Abu Ghaith, bin Laden�s spokesman, also claims al-Qaeda�s responsibility for the attack from his abode in Iran.
End of 2002 - Spring 2003
According to former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, senior al-Qaeda leaders discuss the acquisition of nuclear weapons from their safe haven in Iran. In fact, al-Qaeda�s �nuclear 81 iran�s proxy war against america chief,� Abdel al-Aziz al-Masri, is one of many senior terrorists living in Iran.
May 12, 2003
Under orders from Saif al-Adel and Saad bin Laden, who are operating from Iran, al-Qaeda�s terrorists simultaneously strike three separate housing complexes in Riyadh Saudi Arabia. Another al- Qaeda agent thought to be responsible for the attack flees to Iran before he can be captured.
May 16, 2003
One dozen al-Qaeda bombers attack several targets in Casablanca, Morocco. Saad bin Laden, living in Iran, is reportedly in contact with the cell shortly before the attack.
2004 � present
Iran supplies advanced IED technology to the insurgents in Iraq. There is growing evidence of Iranian support for both Sunni and Shiite insurgency groups in Iraq. Iran continues to harbor senior al-Qaeda leaders as the terrorist network reorganizes.
January 20, 2007
IRGC and Hezbollah terrorists kill five American soldiers in Karbala, Iraq
January 2007 � present
Numerous IRGC and Hezbollah terrorists, who are responsible for arming and training terrorist groups in Iraq, are captured by American and Iraqi forces. 82 national security studies.
October 09, 2007
The Claremont Institute. �Iran�s Proxy War Against America, (PDF)� Evidence of Iranian links to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups regardless of their Sunni, Shiite or Palestinian sympathies.
http://demediacraticnation.blogspot.com/2007/10/irans-timeline-of-terror.html
Why does the US have to accept it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This NY Times op-ed is pretty good IMO. Gave me a better understanding of Khameni's POV. Of course who knows how accurate it is, but I think the writer's logic and reasoning is solid.
| Quote: |
But in Iran, there is no such ideological fluidity [compared to China]. Religion � in the form of politicized Islam � is the foundation of the state and the sole source of clerical leaders� legitimacy. Without a rigid Islamist ideology, the ayatollahs would become irrelevant.
For Ayatollah Khamenei, China is a model to avoid and its journey from defiance to pragmatism a path to resist. He is therefore seeking to fully transform the Islamic Republic into a police state manned by reliable revolutionaries. |
| Quote: |
And Ayatollah Khamenei and his allies don�t mind being ostracized by the international community; they welcome the isolation. They fear the subversive impact of Western engagement, which helped foment the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. They also know that China�s integration into the global order came at the steep price of relinquishing its ideological patrimony.
For now the Islamic Republic endures like other autocracies in the Middle East. But the alienation of the population and the fragmentation of the elite will mean an uneasy future. With its politics so polarized, Iran cannot sustain its legitimacy on the basis of economic performance, backed by oil. The violence of 2009 severed an essential bond between the state and society. |
And I think that's why Iran IS a threat: its head leader's legitmacy is 100% religous. He has secured his power by keeping the economic and political reformers in check (to put it mildly). He clearly is an idealogue and cares about keeping the current government system. Having nukes would help ensure that happen.
What a POS. He really has done more damage to Iran than any other person or group. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iran has supported terrorism. Their government isn't 'nice'. That doesn't make them a surety to aribtrarily use a nuke.
North Korea and Pakistan have committed or supported terrorism in various forms. Both have nukes and aren't going to use it. NK has acted far, far crazier than Iran, much crazier leader and won't use their nuke.
If the leader of Iran was bent on destroying Irsael or whomever in a suicide mission they would have done so already in a war. They won't do it. The leader may be 100% religious but he's rational enough NOT to want to commit the middle east to suicidal armageddon.
Countries that have nukes have steps. In every country that has it, they do NOT have a system where only one person can send it. Its a system where a group of people be it generals, scientists (as in Pakistan) and others must comply. Any one person can refuse and it halts the ignition. Even NK's leader can not arbitrarily do it.
Iran is no more crazier than NK and other countries. The threat is overblown. All that will happen with them with the bomb is that they have guaranteed they will never be invaded. Their leader as well as the generals involve have families. They won't sacrefice them an themselves over blowing up Israe. In the unlikely even they do, they KNOW that there will be middle east left for anyone to enjoy and this includes the holiest cities (Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem).
It won't happen. Again, Iran with a nuke is not a good thing. Its not something anyone wants, myself in included but they are not going to use it arbitrarily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One clarification: I didn't mean to imply Iran would use the nukes or use them in an offensive matter. I was just saying I now have a better understanding on why the Iranian government is so determined to have those nukes. Makes a little more sense now.
And I disagree about North Korea and its rulers. I don't think they've been crazy whatsoever and have been quite rational. Their actions are very easy to understand. They simply have used nukes to maximize what they can get out of the rest of us to keep their regime afloat. Totally get that.
Lastly, I think Pakistan could become a danger as well (if not already). While I don't believe its government has any desire to use nukes, there is an increasing presence of fundamentalism within the Pakistani military that could become a problem. I also am not confident that the barriers to those nukes (either through obtaining them or using them) are sufficiently high. So far so good, but time will only tell.
edit: left out the keyword of not (as in not confident) in the barriers Pakistan has in place.
Last edited by bucheon bum on Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The bombing of Iran hinges on the results of the Presidential election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| The bombing of Iran hinges on the results of the Presidential election. |
How have you determined this? It seems to me Obama and Romney are equally unlikely to attack Iran at present, but also equally likely to attack a breakout nuclear weapons Iran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| The bombing of Iran hinges on the results of the Presidential election. |
How have you determined this? It seems to me Obama and Romney are equally unlikely to attack Iran at present, but also equally likely to attack a breakout nuclear weapons Iran. |
Bolton has made it clear that he�s rooting for American diplomacy to fail and has repeatedly called for a rush to war with Iran. Gov. Romney needs to be clear with the American people: Does he believe there�s still time for diplomacy to work? Or is he ready to take us to war, like his advisor John Bolton is advocating? � If Gov. Romney shares his advisor John Bolton�s views that it is time for the US to go to war with Iran, the American people deserve to know. -former Defense Department official Mich�le Flournoy
| Quote: |
| John R. Bolton, the U.N. ambassador during the George W. Bush administration and specialist on arms control and security issues, is said to be a leading candidate for secretary of state. |
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/20/inside-the-ring-military-hit-for-correctness/?page=2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Right. So what is rational about them pursuing nukes? Protests have begun again, this time about the currency and poor economcy. It's clear the cause. |
The current and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the current sitting Secretary of Defence have stated again and again that Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons program and hasn't changed their minds and decided to build one.
So to answer this question: "So what is rational about them pursuing nukes?" it must be TO KILLLL ALL DEM JEWWSSSS
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9597042/Israel-abandons-plans-for-imminent-Iran-attack.html
| Quote: |
Defence officials told Israel's Haaretz newspaper that Israeli intelligence had gathered evidence that Iran had used part of its enriched uranium stockpile.
The quantity of material involved was enough to delay efforts to produce a nuclear weapon by eight months.
The Israeli conclusions support findings from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) that half of Iran's 20 per cent enriched uranium had been diverted to produce power rods for a reactor developing isotopes to treat cancer.
|
..or to treat Iranian citizens when they get cancer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/10/ecumenical-deal-crumbles-as-christian-denominations-press-on-us-aid-to-israel.html
American Protestants are starting to push back. Here's how the organised Judaic community responds:
| Quote: |
| "The blatant lack of sensitivity by the Protestant dialogue partners we had been planning to meet with has seriously damaged the foundation for mutual respect.� He also called for other Jewish leaders to boycott the event as well. |
..take our ball and go home.
It is going to be a lonely world for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
