Iran?

[Nevermore]

Do you think, considering the spy drones and commandoes in Iraq, we will invade them? We're accusing them of the same things we accused Iraq of, we're saying they have WMDs and we are saying we will consider military action if they don't stop thier Nuke programs.

[Ophiolite]

I voted that you were a pinko commie, for these reasons:

a) I assumed it was equivalent to the option "I'm buggered if I know"

b) I like being contrary.

c) For me pinko commie is a compliment and I wanted to thank you for opening a potentially interesting thread.

[Phi for All]

Do you think, considering the spy drones and commandoes in Iraq, we will invade them?

Absolutely not. SFN is a web-based science information forum, and as such has neither the right nor the capability of invading a sovereign nation. We find it difficult to collaborate on musicals and novels, much less a military offensive of this nature.

[Pangloss]

Rofl!

[ecoli]

Absolutely not. SFN is a web-based science information forum, and as such has neither the right nor the capability of invading a sovereign nation. We find it difficult to collaborate on musicals and novels, much less a military offensive of this nature.

 

I'm sure if we pooled our resources together, we could come with some capabilities.

 

But seriously, I don't the think the US will invade Iran. More and more members of congress seem to be tired of war, and are urging pullout from Iraq. Plus the US has its public image to think about - the world hates us enough as it is. Whether Iran should be invaded or not, I don't think its going to happen... but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[bascule]

Iran scares the shit out of me.

 

I mean, when my best hope is that Israelis fly in American-made planes over American-controlled Iraqi airspace to go bomb Iran and hope THAT doesn't cause a political clusterf*ck, the situation is bad...

[Sisyphus]

Assuming you're talking about the U.S. and not SFN, and considering that hardly anyone is still saying that the U.S. should have invaded Iraq in the first place, and them with increasing strain in their voices, I'd say it's not going to happen. In any case, it can't happen - at least not for a long time. They simply don't have the resources to fight the same kind of war in Iran that they're fighting in Iraq, and Bush would get lynched if he tried.

 

Luckily, I happen to think that Iran is basically harmless. Any weapons they are trying to develop are almost certainly not for offensive purposes. If they get nukes, they'll tell the world, because the best use for them is to deter an invasion. That's why N. Korea has them, anyway. Anti-Israeli and anti-American rhetoric is perhaps heartfelt but ultimately political and toothless, since actually using a nuclear bomb would only ensure their own catastrophic destruction. Plus, as I understand it, there is a strong and growing dissatisfaction within Iran about their extreme Islamist government, especially among the youth. If that's true, then there will be radical self-reform within a generation's time, anyway.

[ecoli]

Iran scares the shit out of me.

 

I mean' date=' when my best hope is that Israelis fly in American-made planes over American-controlled Iraqi airspace to go bomb Iran and hope THAT doesn't cause a political clusterf*ck, the situation is bad...[/quote']

 

Good thing Israel is not stupid enough to do something like that then. You do realize that Israel has never initiated war on another country, and there most likely not about to start now. The citizens and the Israeli army have enough to do at the moment then get invovled in an armed conflict in a different country... where did you even come up with this?

[bascule]

Good thing Israel is not stupid enough to do something like that then. You do realize that Israel has never initiated war on another country, and there most likely not about to start now. The citizens and the Israeli army have enough to do at the moment then get invovled in an armed conflict in a different country... where did you even come up with this?

 

Well, they kind of did the same thing to Saddam's nuclear enrichment program in the '80s, you know...

 

Also...

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3517059.html

 

JERUSALEM — Israel has not ruled out a military strike against Iran if the country advances further in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, a senior Defense Ministry official said Sunday.

 

Amos Gilad denied a Sunday Times article that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon already had a plan to attack Iran in March, saying Israel was working with the rest of the world to solve the matter with diplomatic means.

 

"Right now the situation requires the focus on the international issue of protecting the peace of world," Gilad told Israel Radio. "But it isn't correct to say that a country that is threatened should deny that it will ever consider a different option."

 

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Sunday: "Israel can not live in a situation in which Iran has the atomic bomb."

 

According to the newspaper report, Israel has a plan for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to stop the nuclear program. Sharon's inner Cabinet authorized the attack in a meeting last month, the newspaper said.

 

Sharon said earlier this month that the ability to take out Iran's nuclear program by force "of course exists."

 

Although Israel is preparing for the possibility that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, it will not lead the fight against the Islamic state's nuclear ambitions, Sharon has said.

 

Israeli warplanes destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, but experts say a similar strike would be difficult because of the dispersed nature of Iran's nuclear program.

 

The chairman of the parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Yuval Steinitz, suggested that Israel knew where Iran was conducting its nuclear program.

 

"Israel has acted well in regards to intelligence and deployed accordingly," Steinitz told Army Radio.

[john5746]

I voted no, since we have learned from Iraq. But, if there is another terrorist attack, and it can be blamed on Iran.... who knows.

 

I would look to see if the Admin tries to blame more problems in Iraq on Iran. If the situation starts to clear up in Iraq, then we might find ourselves trying to defend Iraq from Iran!

[ecoli]

Well' date=' they kind of did the same thing to Saddam's nuclear enrichment program in the '80s, you know...

 

Also...

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3517059.html

 

ahh, you know I had forgotten about that. But still, your original post made it sound like Israel was planning to attack Iran without reason. You know if Iran starts building nuclear warheads, Israel will be the main target.

[Sisyphus]

The main target of angry rhetoric, maybe. Whether they would actually use a nuclear weapon is a question of whether or not Iran's leaders are willing to sacrifice the lives of every single Iranian and the Palestinians they claim to support, as well as destroy their own Holy Land, all to prove a point.

[Bettina]

Luckily, I happen to think that Iran is basically harmless. Any weapons they are trying to develop are almost certainly not for offensive purposes.

 

Iran is not harmless. You have a moron in charge that wants Israel removed any which way, and now he is building nukes. Something is flawed with your pov.

 

Bettina

[Pangloss]

Not only that, but today he said in a speech that the Holocost was a myth.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402403.html

 

"They have created a myth in the name of the Holocaust and consider it above God, religion and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in an address carried live on state television.

 

The key phrase in that statement being "live on state television". Shades of the Odessa Steps....

[Nevermore]

Iran is not harmless. You have a moron in charge that wants Israel removed any which way' date=' and now he is building nukes. Something is flawed with your pov.

 

Bettina[/quote']

What makes you think they are devoloping nukes? They have nuclear power plants, but we have no reason to suspect that Iran is devoloping Nuke Weapons. And if they were, wouldn't Bush be waving proof in thier face? If they existed I'm sure our spy drones and commandoes would have atleast some evidence.

[bascule]

What makes you think they are devoloping nukes?

 

The source of their technology: the father of the Pakistani atomic bomb, A.Q. Khan.

 

If they were truly looking for peaceful nuclear power, why did they buy their technology from the head of the international nuclear black market (at the time)?

 

Iran is working on long range ballistic missiles, specifically the Shahab-6, the Iranian variant of the North Korean Taep'o-Dong 2.

 

Anyway, it's all circumstantial, but nuclear weapons are not something I want to give a country like Iran the benefit of a doubt about. They pose an existential risk to the human species.

[Pangloss]

What makes you think they are devoloping nukes? They have nuclear power plants, but we have no reason to suspect that Iran is devoloping Nuke Weapons. And if they were, wouldn't Bush be waving proof in thier face? If they existed I'm sure our spy drones and commandoes would have atleast some evidence.

 

If he did, would you believe him? And if not, then why present that to us as evidence that there is no nuclear weapons program?

 

There are three other flaws in your premises:

 

1) The attention focused on Iranian nuclear weapons is largely a European cause, not an American one. The EU, not the US, is leading the diplomatic efforts to put a stop to it. They're actually not getting enough diplomatic help from America, and have been asking for more.

 

2) The Iranians are saying that they feel they have a right to construct nuclear weapons, and have declared many times over the last few years their intention to do exactly that. They trumpet this intention on their state-run television. It's one of the political positions used by the ayatollahs to sustain nationalist sentiment which they use to maintain their hold on power in the face of a growing opposition movement. (And make no mistake: That's what all of this is really about.)

 

3) Iran exports 4 million barrels of oil per day. The Iranian people need a zealot-controlled nuclear power generation system like Florida needs more hurricanes.

 

People need to get off this "any bad news from the Middle East means Bush must be about to invade another country" nonsense. It's completely damaging people's perspectives.

[Pangloss]

Look at these little gems from President Ahmadinejad, in the very same speach yesterday.

 

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."

 

"Be certain that we will not back away one iota from our legitimate nuclear rights."

 

 

And here's a doozy:

 

"Our proposal is this: give a piece of your land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska so they (the Jews) can create their own state."

 

"Le-ben-sraum! Le-ben-sraum!" (and the crowds go wild....)

 

 

And you really gotta love this one:

 

"If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream."

 

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

 

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2005-12/14/article04.shtml

 

 

But hey, it's a good thing the world is so focused on how evil George Bush is. That's the politically aware western world for you -- we sure don't let anything slip by us, no sir!

[Nevermore]

I thought you, of all people, Pangloss, would not stoop so low as to strawman. I asked you if you thought we would invade Iran, and you frothed at the mouth, preaching the evils of Iran, and saying we need to shut up about our Glorious Leader.

I do not deny that Ahmadinejad is antisemitic scum. But that is besides the point.

I was not saying we would, nor was I speculating as to weather we should or should not invade. I simply want to have a civilized disscussion as to weather or not the U.S. will invade Iran.

[Pangloss]

My second post (#18 above), even including the final sentence, had nothing at all to do with you, Nevermore. It was an observation about the larger political issues in play in international politics and how the present situation reflects history.

 

If you're referring to the previous post (#17), most of that is a direct refutation of your position, and the last line, again, is not about you. I don't see why I can't be allowed to make an observation about the world's tendency to blame Bush for the world's ills, and meanwhile let another Hitler rise to power. That's my point of view, and it's as valid as yours.

 

Rather than shooting the messenger, why don't you try and answer my question, and address the flaws I pointed out in your premises?

 

As for 'civilized discussion as to weather [sic] or not the U.S. will invade Iran', might I remind you of your notion of what that means?

 

Bush fanboy!

[5614]

Iran has attacked Israel on many occasions recently and Israel has always responded in a politically correct way, ie. "we condem it" etc. Bush has responded in a similar way.

 

However after Iran's latest attack's (denial of the Holocaust) Bush said he was concerned about the country "whose president has declared the destruction of Israel as part of their foreign policy". Although I can't find the quote Bush also said something about being concerned that a country who wants nuclear power should have a president like this.

 

What I found a lot more interesting was Israel's response. After the previous politically correct responses Israel said:

"Iran's nuclear programme and its support of international terrorism represents not only a danger to Israel but for the entire Western civilisation... Thank God Israel has the means at its disposal to bring about the downfall of this extremist regime in Iran. There will be no second 'final solution'"

-- Raanan Gissin, a spokesman for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"'final solution'" obviously referring to the Holocaust.

 

Very interesting and IMO that was a very good response. I'm not (and neither was Israel) saying that Israel will attack Iran, and I'm uncertain whether USA (+ allies) will attack, however both USA and Israel are both seriously considering it.

 

I reckon whilst Israel does not want to start a war due to it's neighbours and USA doesn't want to start another war for many reasons, it would still be (IMO) the right decision and something that needs to be done before it is too late.

 

Israel "saved the day" last time Iraq had a nuclear enrichment programme but it was different... less political pressure and also the fact that last time the Israeli's knew exactly where to bomb, whereas now it's not so easy to say "go and bomb right there" because AFAIK no one knows exactly where Iran's nuclear plans/buildings are.

[ecoli]

good post 5614, I think you're assesement of the situation is right on target. Obviously nobody wants a war, but Israel (and other Western nations as well) should definately keep an eye on Iran, especially if it makes any more threats like this.

[5614]

Thanks... I'm sure others will disagree, but we all have our opinions!

 

Keeping an eye on a country does nothing, zero, 0 and is consequently useless.

 

To DO something you need an ACTION and actions are the only form of action.

 

And eyeing is not classified as an action! [see this post!]

[ecoli]

Thanks... I'm sure others will disagree' date=' but we all have our opinions!

 

Keeping an eye on a country does nothing, zero, 0 and is consequently useless.

 

To DO something you need an ACTION and actions are the only form of action.

 

And eyeing is not classified as an action! [see this post!']

 

But at least keeping an eye out now will give us the ability to act when the time comes... If we act too preemptively, then the world hates us because we attacked when they didn't have any weapons. For most people, words aren't strong enough for retaliation.

[john5746]

But at least keeping an eye out now will give us the ability to act when the time comes... If we act too preemptively, then the world hates us because we attacked when they didn't have any weapons. For most people, words aren't strong enough for retaliation.

 

It isn't so much about how the "world" feels about us, it is about if our actions will be justified. If we cannot justify our own actions, we may end up hating ourselves.

 

It looks like Iran has a stupid leader who is saying very stupid, outrageous things. So far, this is talk, so it should be handled with talk. I would be asking all these other Arab countries to condemn the SOB and his comments.