Iran Already Has Nukes?


PDA






roo_ster
January 20, 2006, 04:44 PM
The Case for Invading Iran (http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007981.php)

This one is well worth mashing the link and perusing.

January 19, 2006 01:24 PM
by Thomas Holsinger
...
Iran may already have some nuclear weapons, purchased from North Korea or made with materials acquired from North Korea, which would increase its threat to us from imminent to direct and immediate.
...
Iran’s mullahs are about to produce their first home-built nuclear weapons this year.
...
Iran has dramatically shortened the time required to acquire the necessary weapons-grade fissionable materials by purchase abroad of pre-enriched, but not yet weapons-grade, fissionable materials (not just from North Korea). Iran’s technicians already have the expertise to fabricate functional nuclear weapons. The latter opinion is held by, among others, Mohamed El Baradei, director-general of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, who said that Iran can produce nuclear weapons in a few months if it has the requisite weapons-grade fissionables: "And if they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponization program along the way, they are really not very far—a few months—from a weapon."
...
All estimates alleging that it will take Iran years to produce nuclear weapons assume that they will do so from scratch, but that is not the case. Iran purchased pre-enriched fissionables with the intent of “breaking out” in a short period to a fully stocked production “pipeline” of fissionables under enrichment at all stages of the process, from “yellowcake” at the low end to almost ready at the high end.
...
It is possible, and in my opinion has already happened, that Iran has purchased enough nuclear materials from North Korea to fabricate a few nuclear weapons and facilitate the following strategy. Iran could minimize the duration of a “window” of vulnerability to pre-emptive American or Israeli attack between their first nuclear tests (or announcement that they have nuclear weapons), and possession of enough nukes to deter attack, by postponing the announcement and/or first tests until they have a full-speed production line going – everything from enriching fissionables to weapons-grade and fabricating those into nuclear weapons, to stocks of finished nuclear weapons. At that point most or all of the latter will likely be of North Korean origin, but those will be quickly outnumbered by made-in-Iran ones under final assembly at the time of the announcement. I believe this is the plan Iran is following, and that the announcement will come late this year.
...
Whatever the reason, Iran’s mullahs no longer seem to feel a need to wait for final processing of fissionables, and fabrication of those into nuclear weapons, before their nuclear deterrent against the United States is ready. They act like they presently have that deterrent, and are proceeding to backfill their fissionable processing and weapons fabrication line before announcing that they have nuclear weapons. America’s election cycle plus the Bush administration’s fictitious budget estimates might also have a role in the timing of this announcement.

If you enjoyed reading about "Iran Already Has Nukes?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
antarti
January 20, 2006, 05:31 PM
If this is true, they won't have them for long...

http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=96976

rero360
January 20, 2006, 05:41 PM
hmmm.... doesn't sound good, however like in another thread about france using nukes, i think that would be a terrible idea, the vast majority of the iran populace is relatively pro west, personally I think that if any miltary action was to be taken against Iran the US should have a limited role in said action, we could post troops on the borders Iran share with Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent anyone from escaping, and providing some airpower for the initial airstikes to take out the C&C, after that I say we leave the ground war, to remove those in power, up to Isreal, France, perhaps England, and anyone else who wants to play.

Regardless, any action would have to be carried out vary carefully to prevent the populace from changing their views. while I've always believed that battlefield commanders should be able to wage war as they see fit, without restrictions placed apon them by politicians. I do belive in a situation like this all targets of infrastructure nature, roads, water supply, bridges, electricity, and the such should be spared, only hitting purely military and government targets. I'm sure there are aspects of this I'm missing, but this a purely top of the head thought on the matter.

Joejojoba111
January 20, 2006, 07:40 PM
No! Nonsense! It's not like some of us have been suggesting that we consider this possibility in Every Iran discussion:banghead:

MrTuffPaws
January 20, 2006, 09:52 PM
Considering how we have been handling NK (who has nukes), Iran just bought its self a free ticket to being left alone, save for maybe some sanctions that will do nothing other than hurt the common man.

Congrats Iran. You are now a member of the club nuke along with France, UK, US, Russia, a bucket full of Eastern EU countries, Israel, China, NK, and South Africa (though they said they got rid of them)...Did I miss anyone else....Oh yeah, India and Pakistan.

Standing Wolf
January 20, 2006, 10:16 PM
If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would have used them already.

ajkurp
January 21, 2006, 01:11 AM
If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would have used them already.

Like North Korea and Pakistan have. Like India has. Like Russia has. Like we have- oops, take us off that list.

Nope. Fact is, a country that has nukes has way too much to lose by using them. But they do make a great deterrent against a beligerent power.

To think that Iran would use them while all (except us) of the list above have refrained is to let the RNC control your higher brain functions.

Lupinus
January 21, 2006, 01:54 AM
Like North Korea and Pakistan have. Like India has. Like Russia has. Like we have- oops, take us off that list.

Nope. Fact is, a country that has nukes has way too much to lose by using them. But they do make a great deterrent against a beligerent power.

To think that Iran would use them while all (except us) of the list above have refrained is to let the RNC control your higher brain functions
And how many of these others are controled by religious fundies that are happy to teach people to strap a bomb to their chest and blow up a bus full of innocent people? Iran gets nukes, Iran will use nukes these are people not affriad to die, they want to die, they feel honored to die for their cause.

cslinger
January 21, 2006, 02:06 AM
Whether they are fundementalist or not any country has more to loose by using them then not. Sure some idjit, goat herding, terrorist who knows no better is one thing, you cannot retaliate against that but trace it back to the home country and you stand the risk of at the very least being economically cut off from the rest of the world and at the very worst being wiped off the face of the map and relegated to nothing more then a few pages in the history books.

Nukes, Bio Weapons, etc. are risky business for all involved. I still believe that the attacks perpetrated on 9/11 were never meant to cause the damage they did and that the repurcussions were much more then bargained for.

Remember if you piss off a culture, any culture, enough you need to be prepared for them to take retribution on you, and you need to take into consideration that the retribution may very well be on the level of genocide or something similar. I am not advocating genocide or the harming of innocents in anyway I am only trying to illustrate how thin the line between average law abiding, upstanding, religious, middle American is between that of a raving, wounded animal who would just as soon kill everything in its path to survive.

One thing 9/11 taught me is how people like Hitler could come to power. I saw the evil in my own heart and how easy it was to let it loose. I think even the folks running countries like Iran realize that they have to walk a fine line between fighting for what they belive is right and doing something that might very well bring a very unrightous wrath down on them.

Once again please do not take this post as anti muslim as it is not. I am only trying to illustrate how fragile the guise of civility is and how quickly a group of people could be convinced that it is in their better interest to wipe out another group of people. This is bad news because lots of regular joes and janes get wiped out when all the want to do is go to work, make a few buck and come home to their families. Maybe have a few beers inbetween.



Chris

slzy
January 21, 2006, 06:50 AM
if they did'nt mean to cause that much damage,why did'nt they break a stret lampout,or spray paintthe lions at the new york library? if these people could have ran a freighter with a nuke up the east river,they would have done it.

dfaugh
January 21, 2006, 11:32 AM
IMHO, IF they can manage to build a nuke (possible, maybe probable,but still questionable) its value is of a deterent value, much like the U.S. and U.S.S.R during the cold war.

If they were to actually launch a nuclear attack against anyone, they gotta realize (with the huge amount of U.S. firepower currently amassed in that area) that their entire country would be reduced to rubble in about 30 seconds.

That's not to say we (not just the U.S., but the international community) shouldn't do something about it, as they are crazy SOBs. But, I think the chances of them using a nuke for a first strike is improbable, though not impossible.

Lobotomy Boy
January 21, 2006, 11:34 AM
One thing is clear: people on this thread do not understand the difference between Arabs and Persians, between Iranians, Iraquis, Saudies, and Syrians. For example:

And how many of these others are controled by religious fundies that are happy to teach people to strap a bomb to their chest and blow up a bus full of innocent people? Iran gets nukes, Iran will use nukes these are people not affriad to die, they want to die, they feel honored to die for their cause.

How many Iranians have committed suicide bombings? Iran is a relatively modern, advanced country and is far from a ripe recruiting ground for suicide bombers. Those tend to come from more impoverished, backwards Arab countries.

if they did'nt mean to cause that much damage,why did'nt they break a stret lampout,or spray paintthe lions at the new york library? if these people could have ran a freighter with a nuke up the east river,they would have done it.

How many Iranians were on the planes that attacked our country on 9/11? If there were any, they were victims of the terrorists and not the terrorists themselves.

You folks are advocating the starting of a world war here, and you're doing so from a position of utter and complete ignorance. This is why our country is supposed to be a republic and not a democracy--to prevent the uninformed mobs from destroying the world.

Sindawe
January 21, 2006, 01:01 PM
You folks are advocating the starting of a world war here, and you're doing so from a position of utter and complete ignorance. This is why our country is supposed to be a republic and not a democracy--to prevent the uninformed mobs from destroying the world.Oh, you're no fun anymore! /Monty Python

Iran already has acces to Nukes? Perhaps a good thing, giving our sitting government pause to reconsider an attack on a sovereign nation sans a declaration of war. If you will recall, such an event made THIS nation rather upset 60+ years ago.

slzy
January 21, 2006, 01:49 PM
fox news site says the iranian president,speaking from damascus that syria and iran have formed a united front.the honorable whatever his name is also met with hamas,hezbollah,and various other palestine liberation groups.this may give some clue where his sentiments lie.

Duncaninfrance
January 21, 2006, 02:09 PM
Well here is my 10€ worth.

I would not trust ANY of them, including Israel, as far as I could throw the Empire State Building. They are all a bunch of double dealing sods. If it were not for the oil - yes oil, no one in the 'civilised' nations of the world would care a jot. Let them get on with their tribal infighting and sucking up. Pull out our troops, send back any immigrants who want to be radical in other countries and let them get on with it.

As a matter of interest, how many suicide bombers have you had in the States? The bastards who did it in London were as 2 faced as you could be and one was a blasted political refugee we gave asylum to. Talk about blowing off the hand that feeds you!

Partly our fault for dividing the middle east up after WW1.

We know a lot about terrorists in the UK - don't forget the IRA and Noraid. Need I say any more.
Duncan

BadAsh87
January 21, 2006, 02:28 PM
forget Iran launching a nuke themselves.. why have you people overlooked the fact they might provide them to terrorist groups? I mean.. we cant retaliate against a terrorist group. Iran is a known supporter of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and even al qaeda terrorists. This is a very serious threat, and I think the American people need to be prepared for a battle.
What I think will happen is this: UN sanctions fail.. the US launches a big ass airstrike to take out any of the nuclear equipment they can.

BadAsh87
January 21, 2006, 02:36 PM
I also forgot to mention that the iranians are not afraid to be destroyed. The president of iran himself said that the goal of his government is to bring about "The end times" so the 12th imam of Shiia islam can return from the well he went down in 941 AD. They believe he's the messiah apparently. And they believe he will not come back, until there is a time of "phenominal destruction." Lets get real people, these guys do NOT think like us or like anybody else. If they can wipe out israel and create destruction in the world, they will NOT care if they get destroyed themselves. They view it as their duty to god. These are very dark times, which is why we as a people need to develope a backbone against these thugs.

Biker
January 21, 2006, 02:59 PM
The 'nuke 'em till they glow' approach just won't work in this case. Too many variables and many potential unintended consequences. *If* Iran already has a nuke, and given their friends, this possibility can't be completely discounted, a pre-emptive strike by the US/Israel will give them all the grounds they need to retaliate. If they don't, what will China's reaction be? Iran supplies most of their oil.
When all is said and done, setting of a nuke in that region would be akin to one drunk shooting another in a room filled with armed drunks.
It could get fugly...
Biker

Joejojoba111
January 21, 2006, 03:26 PM
The religion doesn't stop at the Chinese border, and aiui there are some difficulties in the region because of that. Fact is that China might care most of all if Iran has nukes, out of self-preservation and the difficulty to annex parts of yet another nuclear armed country.

BadAsh87 has a point, about what if the weapon is given to terrorists. But those terrorists would have to be exceptional in organization, intelligence and capability.

Luckily nuclear activities can be monitored quite easily, even from space. The boys and girls in these agencies that deal with nuclear stuff are very sharp, and aiui there is very little that can be truly hidden in regards to nuclear weapons.

Biker
January 21, 2006, 03:31 PM
For some reason, I don't have a great deal of faith in our intel gathering capabilities nowadays. We're still looking for those wmd, I believe, and Bin Laden's head is still on his shoulders.
Ya gotta wonder...
Biker

itgoesboom
January 21, 2006, 03:45 PM
One thing is clear: people on this thread do not understand the difference between Arabs and Persians, between Iranians, Iraquis, Saudies, and Syrians. For example:

How many Iranians have committed suicide bombings? Iran is a relatively modern, advanced country and is far from a ripe recruiting ground for suicide bombers. Those tend to come from more impoverished, backwards Arab countries.

How many Iranians were on the planes that attacked our country on 9/11? If there were any, they were victims of the terrorists and not the terrorists themselves.

You folks are advocating the starting of a world war here, and you're doing so from a position of utter and complete ignorance. This is why our country is supposed to be a republic and not a democracy--to prevent the uninformed mobs from destroying the world.

1. Nobody has claimed that Iranians were on the planes on 9-11. Only that Muslim Terrorists were on the planes on 9-11.

2. The Islamic government that rules this country routinely rates as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism in the State Department annual report. Iran rejects the label and insists the organizations that it supports, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories, are resistance groups.
Thats a direct quote from the washington post.

3. You also seem to forget the bit of Iranian Terrorism where American Citizens were held hostage in 1979.

4. You claim that Iranian's don't do suicide bombings. Guess what. 15,000 Iranians have signed up to be "martyrs" and to do suicide bombings. Also from the Washington PostSo far, the group says, 15,000 people have completed a one-page form headed "Preliminary Registration for Martyrdom Operations." The form has space for a phone number and asks applicants to indicate whether they would prefer to explode themselves against U.S. forces in sacred Shiite Muslim cities in Iraq or Israeli forces in the Palestinian territories, or to kill Salman Rushdie

So far the only ignorance in this thread seems to be coming from the person who says that Iran isn't a threat.

I.G.B.

agricola
January 21, 2006, 04:06 PM
some points:

i) as has been noted, Iranians are for the most part not Arabs, they are Farsi-speaking Persians and have a long history of violent disagreements with other Arab nations. They are further separated by the whole Sunni - Shi'a dispute, a dispute which (as seen in Iraq) is probably the most sectarian hatred of all time at which there is no "step too far" in terms of what is and whats not an acceptable target.

ii) Iran having the bomb would be a massive filip for the Iranian administration both domestically and internationally, and would probably shelve any plans by the US to invade it. Those are the reasons why they desperately want a bomb, and why they will probably end up getting one.

iii) While the new President is hardline he is not so hardline as to use it, because he knows that the US backed by the rest of the world would glaze Tehran and anywhere else worthwhile. They are not of the "lets start a war between Muslims and the rest" type, largely because (as mentioned above and by others) historically speaking they have always been classed by al-Q types as being in the "the rest" camp.

In response to the last poster - Iran is a threat; but its a threat where we know where they are, are able to seriously hurt them at will both economically and militarily, and have several guns pointed at their heads - not only from the West, but also from supposed co-religionists and the Kurds.

Just because they are a threat doesnt mean that they should be taken out... I thought that was obvious from Iraq.

itgoesboom
January 21, 2006, 04:15 PM
In response to the last poster - Iran is a threat; but its a threat where we know where they are, are able to seriously hurt them at will both economically and militarily, and have several guns pointed at their heads - not only from the West, but also from supposed co-religionists and the Kurds.

The guns pointed at their heads don't mean anything with their new President in power. He is hoping for a confrontation and massive destruction in the hopes that it will bring about the messiah figure, the Mahdi.

Add into this the fact that he has called for the destruction of not only Israel, but the USA as well. That probably doesn't mean much to you in the UK, but that pisses me off quite a bit.


Just because they are a threat doesnt mean that they should be taken out... I thought that was obvious from Iraq.

Well, I do believe in taking action against those who are wanting to and are capable of inflicting damage unto us.

In this case, I am hoping that Isreal does the dirty work, and I am sure that they will. I don't think our forces are able to mount an offensive against a third country at this point, especially since we are still worried about NK and China. Two threats that I haven't advocated attacking BTW.

I.G.B.

Art Eatman
January 21, 2006, 07:02 PM
What we know about Iran as fact and not as conjecture is that ever since the Shah was run off for being too secular, the rulers have been sponsors for the anti-Israel terrorists.

We know they've publicly badmouthed the Evil West for the way we let our women run around "half nekkid". We're evil because of our rock music and our movies. It seems to me that this atitude is independent of the U.S. foreign policies.

Given what the leadership has unendingly said, and supported, I really doubt that their possession of nuclear devices and delivery systems will bring about more stability to the middle east.

I would not be at all surprised if Iran got some group to deliver a nuclear device into some western area and detonated it. It fits with their past behavior and public statements.

"Means, motive and opportunity." Okay, they've given us the motives; we're Evil, personified. The opportunity is no problem for anybody with a billfold the size of Iran's. The means is what's at issue, and they seem to busily working on that.

Art

rero360
January 21, 2006, 07:59 PM
Again I think it needs to be stated that its the leadership of Iran that is troublesome, the vast majority of the populace is relatively pro west, or at least neutral, IIRC 75% of the country is below 30 years old, or some age near that, its only the old hardliners that are causing problems.

itgoesboom
January 21, 2006, 08:15 PM
I think Art has, as usual, the best take one the situation.


rero360 said:
Again I think it needs to be stated that its the leadership of Iran that is troublesome, the vast majority of the populace is relatively pro west, or at least neutral, IIRC 75% of the country is below 30 years old, or some age near that, its only the old hardliners that are causing problems.

Rero,

That is true. I think the number is actually closer to 50% is under 30, but close enough. The problem is, those are the people that voted for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, because he promised that he would spread out the wealth from oil sales to the people of Iran. Ofcourse, he isn't able to do that, but he convinced all the young pro-western voters to vote for him, a hardline, anti-western candidate.

Those young voters, who we have been placing our hopes on, just went and did the worst thing possible for us (not that they really had a choice, all of the candidates were fairly hardline.)

I.G.B.

AZLibertarian
January 21, 2006, 08:20 PM
Based on nothing but the same ether everybody else is smelling around here, I'd say that Iran doesn't have nukes....yet. I have a hard time believing that the nutcase in charge over there wouldn't push the button himself on their first test firing...followed shortly thereafter with an attack on Israel.

However, I don't think we'll let Israel make a strike. I don't think they have the legs to pull if off in the first place, but it would completely coalesce the rest of the Mid-East against us. Not that everybody over there is our friend, but there is a fair amount of suspicion among the "Arab" Muslims towards the "Persian" Muslims, although not much of it is public.

Any attack we make will, I think, be strong on airstrikes, and short on land occupation. We'll take down their nuke facilities, their military, and much of their power grid. We may have to put in some unconventional ground troops, but they wouldn't stay long once their mission was complete. The intent of a US military action, would be to eliminate or delay their acquisition of nukes, and let democracy slowly creep over from Iraq. Putting in enough troops to bring them democracy today--a-la Iraq--just isn't possible. It would take far too many troops (probably require a draft here), and therefore isn't palatable.

Gun_nut
January 21, 2006, 08:21 PM
heres somthing i think iran has nukes to shoot at the Israleis or to attack us **probabble but not** or they have a secret allie to attack america *probly not* but this gives me all the more reasons to stock up on ammo..i say if they doo NATO should find something to do about it because the clock is ticking

agricola
January 21, 2006, 08:24 PM
The guns pointed at their heads don't mean anything with their new President in power. He is hoping for a confrontation and massive destruction in the hopes that it will bring about the messiah figure, the Mahdi.

I'd like to see the evidence you have for this.

Add into this the fact that he has called for the destruction of not only Israel, but the USA as well. That probably doesn't mean much to you in the UK, but that pisses me off quite a bit.

All of which is hardly unique in the Arab world, and it has a long been a staple of "demonstrations" in Iran since the revolution.

Well, I do believe in taking action against those who are wanting to and are capable of inflicting damage unto us.

Which would just be stupid; yes they can inflict damage on you, you can destroy them if they do. Thats why you have nukes.

Art Eatman
January 21, 2006, 08:44 PM
rero, you're right but you're irrelevant. :) (Me, I'm mostly irreverent.)

Just as the Iranian government doesn't have to deal with you and me, who could be hostile to the ideas of Bush and to the Israelis, our government and the Israelis have to consider the "probables" of the Iranian government--not those Iranians who would be friendly toward us.

Governments have to deal with governments, which is why we climbed in bed with so many (Bleep!) dictators during the Cold War years instead of the peoples themselves.

StatFor, by the way, thinks that the Iranian leadership is bluffing about the actual use of nukes. It is playing political word games to increase its own influence in the middle east.

Art

itgoesboom
January 21, 2006, 10:07 PM
I'd like to see the evidence you have for this.

Good introductory article: HERE (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/01/15/1137259944355.html)

Wikipedia Link on who the figure is: HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi)

There was another article out there, that talked about the President possibly being a member of a small sect within Shia Islam, and when I looked up what that sect was on wikipedia, it was a sect that believed they could bring about the end of the world by creating the proper conditions for the Mahdi to reapper. I can't find it now, but if I do find it, I will post that as well.



All of which is hardly unique in the Arab world, and it has a long been a staple of "demonstrations" in Iran since the revolution. .

Yes, but this is the first time that a hardline Muslim nation who has stated it's goals to be the destruction of America and Israel will have the ability to do it. Go read Art's post regarding that.

Which would just be stupid; yes they can inflict damage on you, you can destroy them if they do. Thats why you have nukes.

Once again, that only works against an enemy that isn't afraid to take damages. If they believe that an all out war would usher in the end of the world, and Islam would conquer all, then they are more than willing to go that route. We aren't dealing with logical minds here.

Ofcourse we could always ignore the threat. Appeasement worked so well when Neville Chamberlain did it, didn't it? Oh, wait, nevermind. :rolleyes:

If an enemy is intent on destorying you when they become strong, you should not let them become strong. Conflict is inevitable anyways. Might as well destroy them while they are weak, or prevent them from ever becoming strong.

I would have thought you British folks would understand that now.

I.G.B.

Lobotomy Boy
January 21, 2006, 10:23 PM
It's certainly starting to look like a world war is inevetible. This is going to get incredibly ugly.

itgoesboom
January 21, 2006, 10:27 PM
It's certainly starting to look like a world war is inevetible. This is going to get incredibly ugly.

Lobotomy Boy,

I will agree with you there.

I don't see a peaceful way out of this mess, not with the new President of Iran. It seems that we had pinned all our hopes on the younger generation of Iranians, and then they elected this guy.

On the other hand though, I don't see a good military action that will work without putting America, and the rest of the world for that matter, at increased risk.

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place, with few options, and time isn't exactly on our side.

Word is that Israel is going to strike Iran if diplomacy doesn't succeed by March.

I.G.B.

Lobotomy Boy
January 21, 2006, 10:32 PM
Hmmm. Isn't March when the Iranian Oil Boursa is supposed to go online?

itgoesboom
January 21, 2006, 10:54 PM
Hmmm. Isn't March when the Iranian Oil Boursa is supposed to go online?

Yup.

There is also a report out that Iran already has Nuke materials, and is planning a nuke test in March as well.

I don't know about the truthfulness of the report though, since it was put out by a group opposed to the current Iranian Gov't.

I.G.B.

SkunkApe
January 22, 2006, 05:14 PM
Oh, nevermind.

SIGarmed
January 22, 2006, 05:15 PM
Interesting thoughts on the problem discussed elsewhere:

The fear is not that Iran would attack us, but that they would produce countless small nuclear devices and turn them over to the terrorists whom they support. These would then be smuggled into many major cities in all the western nations for detonation.

http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/

I should add that the proliferation of suitcase nuclear weapons would be just as much a security nightmare for a rogue state as any other. If Iran could make such a weapon, so could Israel from fissile material obtained from third party sources. If a suitcase nuke went off in Teheran, who would have done it, the Israelis or the Saudis? Both would have an ample motive. A suitcase nuke detonating in Islamabad could point both to Tel Aviv and New Delhi. But likely rogue states, unlike the US, would be vulnerable to a low rate attack -- it will only take 2 or 3 nukes to bring a country like Syria to the McNamara's 'knee'. The suitcase nuke game is not one which always favors smaller powers.

Optical Serenity
January 22, 2006, 05:19 PM
I still see absolutely no choice but to attack them. The vast majority of their population greatly supports us, but if they see us fail to respond to these idle or perhaps not so idle threats, they may lose faith. And unless we really want another guerrila war like Iraq, we need to hurry the heck up and invade.

I hope the Pentagon is working overtime galore right now with preparing for this.

George W., we are behind you 110%!

Biker
January 22, 2006, 05:22 PM
I still see absolutely no choice but to attack them. The vast majority of their population greatly supports us, but if they see us fail to respond to these idle or perhaps not so idle threats, they may lose faith. And unless we really want another guerrila war like Iraq, we need to hurry the heck up and invade.

I hope the Pentagon is working overtime galore right now with preparing for this.

George W., we are behind you 110%!
Hope you didn't include me in "we". Just so ya know...
Biker

Helmetcase
January 22, 2006, 05:59 PM
1. Nobody has claimed that Iranians were on the planes on 9-11. Only that Muslim Terrorists were on the planes on 9-11.

Just curious, do you know the difference between a Shia and a Sunni? Extra points if you can tell me which ones were on the 9/11 planes. I'm glad you're aware that no Iranians were on the planes; now, can you tell us why that's significant for even more extra credit? (hint: Islam isn't a monolith.)


3. You also seem to forget the bit of Iranian Terrorism where American Citizens were held hostage in 1979.
Was that really terrorism? Or just some angry people who resented a puppet oppressive govt that we installed over there and were happy to see it go, and took hostages?


4. You claim that Iranian's don't do suicide bombings. Guess what. 15,000 Iranians have signed up to be "martyrs" and to do suicide bombings. Also from the Washington Post

Show me the example of the Iranian suicide bomber. Still waiting. What was his name? Where did he bomb? Who did he bomb? Take your time. (Hint: you're going to be a loooooooooooooooooong time looking, I think he's somewhere near Jimmy Hoffa).

So far the only ignorance in this thread seems to be coming from the person who says that Iran isn't a threat.
Who said Iran isn't a threat? Sure they are. But they're not a threat worth invading. Even our own intelligence services think they're a decade away from having a bomb. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html)

Malone LaVeigh
January 22, 2006, 06:39 PM
Like the prez tried to say once, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice..."

This thing is transparent. If this country falls for this again, there will be no excuse. We'll deserve everything that happens to us.

Helmetcase
January 22, 2006, 06:58 PM
This thing is transparent. If this country falls for this again, there will be no excuse. We'll deserve everything that happens to us.
Heh. PT Barnum, Groucho Marx, and Woody Allen all famously quipped that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the Average American. "We just got bombed by some tribal Saudi madmen under the influence of some charlatans living on a mountaintop in Afghanistan!"--ok, let's invade Iraq! "Osama bin Laden is out to get us!!!"--ok, let's take out Saddam Hussein! We'll fall for just about everything I fear.

As Herman Goerring said awaiting the hangman at Nuremberg in 1946, "Tell the people they're under attack and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same in every country."

SIGarmed
January 22, 2006, 07:12 PM
Heh. PT Barnum, Groucho Marx, and Woody Allen all famously quipped that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the Average American. "We just got bombed by some tribal Saudi madmen under the influence of some charlatans living on a mountaintop in Afghanistan!"--ok, let's invade Iraq! "Osama bin Laden is out to get us!!!"--ok, let's take out Saddam Hussein! We'll fall for just about everything I fear.

As Herman Goerring said awaiting the hangman at Nuremberg in 1946, "Tell the people they're under attack and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same in every country."

Yes it's really that simple.

http://www.liberty-products.com/rolleyes.gif

Optical Serenity
January 22, 2006, 09:42 PM
Yes, its true, Iranians are not terrorists, nor do I think they ever will be. However, I do believe that they are a huge threat. I don't see them at all the same as the Arabic countries out there. (Yes, there is a big difference between Persians & Arabs).

Now, why do I think they are a threat? They possess a navy, air force, even special forces. They have a huge population (over 60 million) many of whom are within the age of being drafted. They have a large land area, and plenty of money. We also didn't demolish them one time in 1991 like iraq. I think Iran would be a much more difficult war to fight. Do I think we should invade them? Yes, at some point. Do I think there is really any good way to do it without a large amount of casualities? Nope.

The scariest scenario is if the Muslim world would actually unite. If Iran, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, PLO, etc etc etc would actually unite...Until then, its all in shambles...

Helmetcase
January 22, 2006, 10:23 PM
[QUOTE=SIGarmed]Yes it's really that simple.
Well,...yeah, it is. :uhoh: And let's not ignore the elephant in the room--why are we even discussing it? Because when your credibility is strained, it's a little difficult to drum up support for what it would take to do anything other than lob Tomahawks at Iran.

Art Eatman
January 22, 2006, 10:36 PM
Optical Serenity, we're not talking about the "Gee, I wish I could go to a movie!" type of Iranian citizen. We're talking about the Iranian government, which has been a State sponsor of terrorism (money and training) since the fall of the Shah.

Is the guy who hires an assassin less guilty than the assassin?

Art

WvaBill
January 23, 2006, 12:35 AM
The Case for Invading Iran (http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007981.php)

This one is well worth mashing the link and perusing.


Like that little thing is going so well in Iraq. :rolleyes:

Biker
January 23, 2006, 12:46 AM
Optical Serenity, we're not talking about the "Gee, I wish I could go to a movie!" type of Iranian citizen. We're talking about the Iranian government, which has been a State sponsor of terrorism (money and training) since the fall of the Shah.

Is the guy who hires an assassin less guilty than the assassin?

Art
Well, if hiring assassins warrants an invasion, we're due for numerous reasons.
For the most part, Iran's state sponsered terrorist money has gone toward terrorist acts against Israel (course, same with the Saudis).
I fail to see how and why this warrants military action on our part.
Biker

Lobotomy Boy
January 23, 2006, 12:56 AM
IIRC, Iran funneled explosives to Hezbollah for the embassy bombing in Beruit that killed a pile of U.S. Marines about 20 years back. If state support of terrorism called for a U.S. invasion of a foriegn country, we had a lot better excuse for it back then then today. Fortunately for the planet Ronald Reagan wasn't bat's-ass insane, unlike the leaders and many pundits today.

Of course there was the small matter of Iran having sent explosives to Beruit that it bought from Ollie North in exchange for money to be funneled to Nicauragua to fund the Contras, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Headless Thompson Gunner
January 23, 2006, 12:59 AM
Like North Korea and Pakistan have. Like India has. Like Russia has. Like we have- oops, take us off that list.

Nope. Fact is, a country that has nukes has way too much to lose by using them. But they do make a great deterrent against a beligerent power.

To think that Iran would use them while all (except us) of the list above have refrained is to let the RNC control your higher brain functions.
This is absurd. I don't have a problem with France or Britain or the US possessing nukes. They're governed by mostly rational and friendly governemts. Iran is an entirely different matter.

Iran, as a country, may well have too much to lose. That doesn't mean their leadership (i.e. the folks who actually possess and control the bombs) wouldn't be willing to use them. Given his actions since taking office, President Ahmadinejad seems like he might just be crazy enough to try it. This is definitely NOT a good time to be a resident of Israel... :uhoh:

Frankly I don't care whether or not is is sensible for Iran to use its own nukes. I don't want them to have the choice. If this makes me a brainwashed RNC stooge, then so be it. It's far safer to be brainwashed by Karl Rove than to be threatened by a nuclear Iran.

itgoesboom
January 23, 2006, 02:31 AM
Show me the example of the Iranian suicide bomber. Still waiting. What was his name? Where did he bomb? Who did he bomb? Take your time. (Hint: you're going to be a loooooooooooooooooong time looking, I think he's somewhere near Jimmy Hoffa).
[/URL]

I showed you an article, that if you were willing to read the quote, told that Iranian citizens are signing up to be suicide bombers. 15,000. Iranian. Suicide Bombers.

Read the article. Read what I posted.

As for the rest of your rambling, I won't argue with someone who won't aree that kidnapping and taking hostages is terrorism.

:rolleyes:

I.G.B.

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 11:03 AM
I showed you an article, that if you were willing to read the quote, told that Iranian citizens are signing up to be suicide bombers. 15,000. Iranian. Suicide Bombers.
It'll be a first. Suicide bombers have been overwhelmingly Sunni. The Iranians are Shia. If it comes to pass, great. The Iranians have certainly supported terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, but it would be remarkable if they themselves began aggressively pursuing a Sunni-style political terrorism approach to the West. This is why I asked you if you knew the difference between Shia and Sunni. I see the answer is "no." Don't feel bad, apparently GWB didn't either when he took office.

Read the article. Read what I posted. I'd rather read some examples of you understanding the MidEast beyond what you read on Newsmax.

As for the rest of your rambling, I won't argue with someone who won't aree that kidnapping and taking hostages is terrorism.
You're misreading me, I'm not saying that the Iranians aren't capable of terrorism, clearly they've been involved in supporting terrorist activities in the past. But you're making some conflations that aren't supportable by the facts. For example, it was YOU who said "only Muslims were on the 9/11 planes." That's true, but it ignores the fact that NONE were Shia and NONE were Iranian. Terrorist do take hostages but not everyone who takes hostages is a terrorist. Girls eat ice cream, but not everyone who eats ice cream is a girl.

What I'm getting at is that your approach talks about the Iranians as though they're the same kind of threat as other terrorist threats we're facing or have faced, and that's inaccurate.

SIGarmed
January 23, 2006, 01:12 PM
[QUOTE=SIGarmed]Yes it's really that simple.
Well,...yeah, it is. :uhoh: And let's not ignore the elephant in the room--why are we even discussing it? Because when your credibility is strained, it's a little difficult to drum up support for what it would take to do anything other than lob Tomahawks at Iran.


Elephant in the room? It's not my fault that commi...er so called "progressives" or liberals have no backbone.
You are obviously from the anyone but Bush camp and your credibility is already shot. Please refrain from posting your propoganda. Leave it at the DU.

You're not fooling anyone.

Optical Serenity
January 23, 2006, 01:44 PM
Optical Serenity, we're not talking about the "Gee, I wish I could go to a movie!" type of Iranian citizen. We're talking about the Iranian government, which has been a State sponsor of terrorism (money and training) since the fall of the Shah.

Is the guy who hires an assassin less guilty than the assassin?

Art

Good point Art. Certainly no secret for people to point out that Iran has sponsored terrorism in the past with the Hezbollah.

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 01:46 PM
Elephant in the room?
Hey, that flash of light and loud thud was the point flying over your head. The elephant was the fact that the WMD fiasco hurt our credibility vis a vis intelligence gathering. Not whatever the hell it is you're griping about.

It's not my fault that commi...er so called "progressives" or liberals have no backbone.
We have plenty of backbone, including the backbone to call people out on their bull????. But if you want to degrade this conversation to ad hominem personal attacks, I'm sure that's fine. It's further testament to your inability to formulate a coherent, defensible argument--if what I'm typing has you so riled up that you have to engage in personal attacks, that says a lot more about you than me.

You are obviously from the anyone but Bush camp and your credibility is already shot.No, I'm from put the truth before personal and party line agendas camp. Why else would I have a pro-RKBA blog? My credibility is above reproach, and you damn well know it. Why else bother with such ad hominem attacks?

Please refrain from posting your propoganda. Leave it at the DU.

You're not fooling anyone.
Since you can't actually rebut any of my arguments and haven't posted anything other than personal attacks in your post, I'd say it's you that needs to refrain from posting propaganda. Talk about not fooling anyone...keep up the good work--making biased, incoherent blowhards look bad is my specialty.

SIGarmed
January 23, 2006, 01:49 PM
Hey, that flash of light and loud thud was the point flying over your head. The elephant was the fact that the WMD fiasco hurt our credibility vis a vis intelligence gathering. Not whatever the hell it is you're griping about.


We have plenty of backbone, including the backbone to call people out on their bull????. But if you want to degrade this conversation to ad hominem personal attacks, I'm sure that's fine. It's further testament to your inability to formulate a coherent, defensible argument--if what I'm typing has you so riled up that you have to engage in personal attacks, that says a lot more about you than me.

No, I'm from put the truth before personal and party line agendas camp. Why else would I have a pro-RKBA blog? My credibility is above reproach, and you damn well know it. Why else bother with such ad hominem attacks?


Since you can't actually rebut any of my arguments and haven't posted anything other than personal attacks in your post, I'd say it's you that needs to refrain from posting propaganda. Talk about not fooling anyone...

The truth hurts doesn't it?

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 01:49 PM
What truth would that be? The truth that I keep making you look bad? It doesn't hurt one bit. :neener:

Headless Thompson Gunner
January 23, 2006, 02:05 PM
Umm, neither of you are doing your respective cases any good. The only thing you've established is that you disagree with each other. Perhaps you could return to rational debate instead of name calling...


Can either of you provide sensible reasons for or against allowing Iran to posses nukes?

Can either of you name sound reasons why I/you/we personally would be better/worse off if Iran had the ability to turn entire cities into smouldering craters whenever it wants to?

SIGarmed
January 23, 2006, 02:07 PM
What truth would that be? The truth that I keep making you look bad? It doesn't hurt one bit. :neener:

Oh you know? The truth about those who like to pretend that the hostage taking in 1979 wasn't an act of terrorism. Typical revisionist leftists love to change history or warp things to their own reality. You expect anyone to actually take you seriously and then you call others blow hards? Give me a break.

What points were you actually trying to make? Convincing others that the past never happened?

Try harder.

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 02:09 PM
Umm, neither of you are doing your respective cases any good. The only thing you've established is that you disagree with each other. Perhaps you could return to rational debate instead of name calling...
For the record I've done no such thing, I've simply objected to him doing that as a debate tactic, and pointed out how ineffectual it is. Glad you noticed though. (ok, ok I did make the barb about incoherent blowhards...but I didn't address him specifically, and as noted below I am actually making arguments and not attacking people).


Can either of you provide sensible reasons for or against allowing Iran to posses nukes?
Sensible reasons to prevent Iran to prevent nukes--they're a known terrorist supporting state that engages in inflammtory rhetoric about our allies in the region.

Sensible reasons to not prevent them from acquiring nukes--it might well prove to be impossible in the long run, and bombing them might strengthen their lunatic theocratic fringe and making internal reform from more moderate, younger Iranians harder to come by.

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 02:10 PM
Oh you know? The truth about those who like to pretend that the hostage taking in 1979 wasn't an act of terrorism.

I've already stipulated several times that Iran is a terrorist state. Some dude in Penna. took a hostage the other day. Are Pennsylvanians terrorists?


Typical revisionist leftists love to change history or warp things to their own reality. You expect anyone to actually take you seriously and then you call others blow hards? Give me a break.
You expect people to take you seriously when you say others have no backbone or are engaging in propaganda?

Lobotomy Boy
January 23, 2006, 02:11 PM
Sigarmed, I'm frankly disappointed with your response. You suggest that Helmetcase go to the DU. If anyone's comments don't belong on The High Road, it is yours. I see nothing of any substance in your reply; I only see you resorting to personal attacks. If you have a point, you should take the time to make it. Any reasonable person following this exchange would conclude that you have no point.

Headless Thompson Gunner
January 23, 2006, 02:16 PM
Man, NOBODY has had a point these past few posts.

This is a worthwhile discussion. Until now it's been intelligent and informed. I hope you two knuckleheads haven't gotten this thread closed down... :mad:

SIGarmed
January 23, 2006, 02:22 PM
Sigarmed, I'm frankly disappointed with your response. You suggest that Helmetcase go to the DU. If anyone's comments don't belong on The High Road, it is yours. I see nothing of any substance in your reply; I only see you resorting to personal attacks. If you have a point, you should take the time to make it. Any reasonable person following this exchange would conclude that you have no point.

You have a right to an opinion. I've pretty much made a point but you probably don't like it. If anyones comments don't belong here it's those of the revisionists. Of course I didn't enter the thread to have to respond to naysayers, but I make no apologies.

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 02:23 PM
Man, NOBODY has had a point these past few posts.

This is a worthwhile discussion. Until now it's been intelligent and informed. I hope you two knuckleheads haven't gotten this thread closed down... :mad:
There are some important points. Iran does have a connection to terrorism, but not a history of tactical agression against neighbors. Point: they're probably a decade away from having a bomb, but they're a wealthy modern nation with the smarts to eventually find the means to have one unless we preemptively go to war against them...which might be extremely, extremely costly and cause serious headaches for decades...generations even.

Pointing out the TRUTH--even uncomfortable truths like "Iran doesn't have a history of tactical aggression against neighbors"--isn't revisionism.

Lobotomy Boy
January 23, 2006, 02:26 PM
Man, NOBODY has had a point these past few posts.

I disagree, Roland. I think Helmetcase brings up some good points that need to be considered in something as heart-attack-serious as declaring a war with a country that will be much more formidable than the insurgency in Iraq. Also, he kept the level of discourse on the high road, which Sigarmed most definitely did not.

Camp David
January 23, 2006, 02:38 PM
Pointing out the TRUTH--even uncomfortable truths like "Iran doesn't have a history of tactical aggression against neighbors"--isn't revisionism.

Would you consider Iran's Hostagetaking on November 4, 1979, from the United States Embassy in Tehran, agressive?

Would you consider Iran's Caspian Sea gunboat threats; i.e., July 23, 2001, when an Iranian gunboat and two jets challenged a research vessel working on behalf of British Petroleum (BP)-Amoco at the Araz-Alov-Sharg field in the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian Sea, agressive?

If Iran does not have a history of agression, which I disagree with but let's go with the assumption, it sure has one now, with Iran's bigmouth Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spouting off lately... I'll predict he gets squelched quick and it may come compliments of the USAF...

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 02:45 PM
Would you consider Iran's Hostagetaking on November 4, 1979, from the United States Embassy in Tehran, agressive?
Sure, it was a mob mentality move. But it's not an example of tactical (military) aggression against a neighbor.

Would you consider Iran's Caspian Sea gunboat threats; i.e., July 23, 2001, when an Iranian gunboat and two jets challenged a research vessel working on behalf of British Petroleum (BP)-Amoco at the Araz-Alov-Sharg field in the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian Sea, agressive?
I'd consider it sabre rattling. But you're missing the point. Iran does NOT have a history in modern times of attacking Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Armenia, etc., and the other countries in it's sphere of influence. There's a difference between that and being linked to terror groups. It's a different kind of threat.


If Iran does not have a history of agression, which I disagree with Feel free to disagree, that's your right and at least you're doing it politely, but I'd like to see an example of modern Iran attacking a neighbor. Remember, Saddam attacked them. With our blessing.


but let's go with the assumption, it sure has one now, with Iran's bigmouth Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spouting off lately... I'll predict he gets squelched quick and it may come compliments of the USAF...
I've already stipulated the same. There's a case that a blowhard rattling a sabre like that is asking to get Osirak'ed. But it won't be as simple as Osirak.

Camp David
January 23, 2006, 03:01 PM
Sure, it was a mob mentality move. But it's not an example of tactical (military) aggression against a neighbor...

Helmutcase... waiting for Iran to be aggressive could be fatal! As I recall, Bill Clinton didn't think Al Qaeda would be aggressive either; guess he was wrong! The United Nations has counseled Iran to cease its nuclear ambitions and it has continued its clear attempts to build a bomb... Iran, which is sitting on rather sizable oil resources, has no need for nuclear energy, so its nuclear bomb building is, in itself, a clear threat to its neighbors, most especially Israel.

Personally Iran's smackdown is long overdue; kicking its soccer team off the World Cup schedule is not a fitting punishment. Targeting and destroying Iran's uranium and plutonium enrichment plants is.

Headless Thompson Gunner
January 23, 2006, 03:10 PM
I disagree, Roland. I think Helmetcase brings up some good points that need to be considered in something as heart-attack-serious as declaring a war with a country that will be much more formidable than the insurgency in Iraq. Also, he kept the level of discourse on the high road, which Sigarmed most definitely did not.
Eh, if you say so.

Here's what I'm interested in: Why on earth would we consider it to be in our best interest to let Iran have nuclear weapons? So far all I've heard is that invading Iran would be difficult and costly (true) and that Iran isn't really a terrorist state (demonstrably untrue).

Is there anything new to add to the discussion?

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 03:19 PM
Helmutcase... waiting for Iran to be aggressive could be fatal! As I recall, Bill Clinton didn't think Al Qaeda would be aggressive either; guess he was wrong!

Holy red herrings batman! Actually BC and AG thought that AQ would be the biggest threat we faced going forward. We can only wish the succeeding administration payed attention to their admonishments. But if we get off on that tangent, this thread will be a trainwreck.

The United Nations has counseled Iran to cease its nuclear ambitions and it has continued its clear attempts to build a bomb... Iran, which is sitting on rather sizable oil resources, has no need for nuclear energy, so its nuclear bomb building is, in itself, a clear threat to its neighbors, most especially Israel. Kinda like saying you don't need a gun. You have the right to one, and they have the right to develop cleaner energy sources. They're swimming in crude but refinining it is a different story. Frankly I think everyone should start steering toward energy sources that don't fog up the air. I do agree that they should be discouraged from using that tech for nukes, but we've already established that. My question is whether the genie will get out of the bottle anyway.

Camp David
January 23, 2006, 03:23 PM
Actually BC and AG thought that AQ would be the biggest threat we faced going forward...Bull in its purest form; but let's not bicker about it here!

... they have the right to develop cleaner energy sources...Is environmental cleanliness what the Iranian Mullahs say they want, or to remove Israel from the face of the earth? You decide! ;)

Lobotomy Boy
January 23, 2006, 03:37 PM
Here's what I'm interested in: Why on earth would we consider it to be in our best interest to let Iran have nuclear weapons?

Here's the great leap of (ill)logic in this entire discussion: who is arguing that it is in our best interest to let Iran have nuclear weapons? I believe Helmetcase thinks we may act in Iran, and does not disagree with such action. He's just saying we need to be smart about how we do whatever it is we end up doing, and not just go in like a bunch of half-bright cowboys. Part of that is knowing who and what we are dealing with. If you make your tactical plans based on the gross misconception that the Persian Shiia are just like the Arab Sunni, you've already got one huge strike against you before you even lift a finger.

This is serious business and it cannot turn into a Rumsfeld-esque fustercluck or it will escalate into a devestating world war, one which we will lose.

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 03:38 PM
Bull in its purest form; but let's not bicker about it here!I'm reminded of Condi before the committee, "I believe it was a report titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US'". :neener:


Is environmental cleanliness what the Iranian Mullahs say they want, or to remove Israel from the face of the earth? You decide! ;)
Heh. I'm sure it's the latter, but the 3rd world countries that are emerging economic powerhouses are using fossil fuels, and it'll make our contribution to air pollution seem like a fart in the wind when that part of the world starts demanding the power usage we have hear. If we can get India, China, CIS, Iran, and the rest of the most populous countries in the world to use CLEAN, non-Chernobyl nuke plants, that's a good thing. Nukes are the answer...we just gotta make sure they use em for power plants and not making the Israelis glow in the dark. Not saying that we can really do that...but I'm not sure we can prevent them from getting nukes at all. We sure didn't prevent the Israelis, the Russians, the Pakistanis, the Indians, or the North Koreans either. Our record on that in the last 50 years is...spotty at best. ;)

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 03:39 PM
This is serious business and it cannot turn into a Rumsfeld-esque fustercluck or it will escalate into a devestating world war, one which we will lose.
Thanks!

LB said it a lot eloquently than I did...but yeah, that's what I'm trying to get across.

Thanks for the brainboost.:o

AZLibertarian
January 23, 2006, 04:16 PM
...This is serious business and it cannot turn into a Rumsfeld-esque fustercluck or it will escalate into a devestating world war, one which we will lose.I think the point missed here is that, like it or not, we already are in World War IV. The real difficulty is that this war is not a traditional "military" war, but one where economics, terror, nuclear ambitions, and religion all collide into a giant asymmetric fight. We have the military might to win this thing. What we do not have (yet), is the will to do so. We've begun the long-term, and least-destructive solution by taking down Saddam and planting the seeds of democracy, but we may not have the enough time to make that our only solution.

As to this being a war "which we will lose", I have to fall back on the question: What do you really believe in? For me, I believe that democracy and freedom are worth fighting for. A nuclear Iran will destabilze the Gulf terribly--to the point that our freedoms will be hurt. The fight to eliminate their nukes will destabilize the region too, but I would rather look towards a future where we (and those in the Gulf) had the freedom to choose our paths instead of the Islamofacism which would become predominant with a nuclear Iran.

Borachon
January 23, 2006, 04:37 PM
In 1940s, without computers and poor equipment the US made an atomic bomb in 4 years.

Iran has unlimited oil money, modern computers, and has been working on this for more than 10 years.

Pakistan built an atomic bomb within 10 years and it isn't an oil rich nation.

So do I believe Iran has nukes? Oh yeah.

Borachon
January 23, 2006, 04:41 PM
Oh...and by the way...why don't we just go to solar power and say to hell with all of them? If they wanna toss nukes at each other, then I think that's a problem that very quickly solves itself.

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 04:48 PM
To build a solar array big enough would require using up an entire state in the midwest. I nominate Kansas. :evil:

Headless Thompson Gunner
January 23, 2006, 05:00 PM
I think the point missed here is that, like it or not, we already are in World War IV. The real difficulty is that this war is not a traditional "military" war, but one where economics, terror, nuclear ambitions, and religion all collide into a giant asymmetric fight. We have the military might to win this thing. What we do not have (yet), is the will to do so. We've begun the long-term, and least-destructive solution by taking down Saddam and planting the seeds of democracy, but we may not have the enough time to make that our only solution.

As to this being a war "which we will lose", I have to fall back on the question: What do you really believe in? For me, I believe that democracy and freedom are worth fighting for. A nuclear Iran will destabilze the Gulf terribly--to the point that our freedoms will be hurt. The fight to eliminate their nukes will destabilize the region too, but I would rather look towards a future where we (and those in the Gulf) had the freedom to choose our paths instead of the Islamofacism which would become predominant with a nuclear Iran.
AZLib gets it.

We're already in a worldwide war, and have been for decades. Our current world war is as tangible as the Cold War was. That means it's real enough to be a very serious threat, yet still abstract enough that many can deny that this is so.

They have been attacking us and our allies since at least the late '60s. It's long past time to start defending ourselves. I'm thankful that we've finally done so in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope we don't flinch if it ever comes time to make a move against Iran.

Think of it as if Iran was a bank robber with the classic "gun in his jacket pocket". You don't know if the gun is real or not, but he's screaming like a lunitic, promising to kill you and everyone else in the room if he doesn't get his way. Do you treat him like he's a lethal threat? Or do you assume he's bluffing and take the chance that you're wrong?

Personally, I'd rather not take the chance. If the criminal doesn't want to take the risk of getting shot, then he shouldn't have pretended he had a gun and was anxious to use it.

The same goes for Iran. If they don't want to receive hostile attentions from Israel and the US (at minimum) and the whole world (at most), then they need to act like they're not a threat to the rest of us. Spouting apocalyptically holstile rhetoric while trying to develope nuclear weapons is NOT the way to convice the world that you have honorable intentions.

If Iran wants to be treated like a friendly, peaceful nation, then it needs to start acting like one.

Borachon
January 23, 2006, 05:03 PM
I nominate Kansas.

Too much grain is grown there. Don't want to shade it out of existance.

Let's do California instead! I don't mind shading it out of existance.:)

itgoesboom
January 23, 2006, 05:32 PM
It'll be a first. Suicide bombers have been overwhelmingly Sunni. The Iranians are Shia. If it comes to pass, great. The Iranians have certainly supported terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, but it would be remarkable if they themselves began aggressively pursuing a Sunni-style political terrorism approach to the West. This is why I asked you if you knew the difference between Shia and Sunni. I see the answer is "no." Don't feel bad, apparently GWB didn't either when he took office.

I didn't feel the need to answer that question since it had no relevance to the conversation. But since I also pointed out earlier that Shia believe in the hidden Imam, and that being one of the big concerns I have over Iran getting the bomb, you would think that maybe I understand a little bit about them. Read all of my posts before you consider me to not know what I am talking about.

If it comes to pass, great.

So you think it will be great that Iranians are planning on being suicide bombers?

Intresting.


I'd rather read some examples of you understanding the MidEast beyond what you read on Newsmax.

Talk about not reading my posts. Where did I say that anything I read came from newsmax? I believe that my sources were AP through the Sydney Morning Herald, Wikipedia, and Washington Post.


facts. For example, it was YOU who said "only Muslims were on the 9/11 planes." That's true, but it ignores the fact that NONE were Shia and NONE were Iranian

I was affirming what someone else had said. He tried to point out that there were no Iranians on the planes, I affirmed that and added, nobody had claimed there were Iranians, but that there were Muslims. Try not to take my posts out of context.

The full quote was "1. Nobody has claimed that Iranians were on the planes on 9-11. Only that Muslim Terrorists were on the planes on 9-11."

What I'm getting at is that your approach talks about the Iranians as though they're the same kind of threat as other terrorist threats we're facing or have faced, and that's inaccurate.

No, my post is that Iran is even more dangerous at this point. I pointed that out because of their belief in the 12th "hidden" imam, as well as the fact that their president believes he can bring that Imam out by creating chaos and causing a war.

My suggestion to you is if you would like to debate this intelligently, don't try to take my words out of context, and don't try to put words in my mouth.

I.G.B.

roo_ster
January 23, 2006, 05:33 PM
...My credibility is above reproach, and you damn well know it...

I am reminded of some small folk wisdom about "high horses" and "hold on to your hat size."

I thought "progressives" were all about "question authority?"

Oh, I get it, "Question authority...except mine, which is above reproach."

-----------

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide."
----James Burnham

Camp David
January 23, 2006, 05:40 PM
In 1940s, without computers and poor equipment the US made an atomic bomb in 4 years.

Iran has unlimited oil money, modern computers, and has been working on this for more than 10 years.

Pakistan built an atomic bomb within 10 years and it isn't an oil rich nation.

So do I believe Iran has nukes? Oh yeah.

The important part of the analysis is this; if Iran does have the capability (possible), equipment (possible), and materials (doubtful) to make a nuclear bomb, is it weaponized? Creating a bomb is not that difficult once you have the materials, but weaponizing it is the greatest difficulty. Enrichment of
materials is the 3rd part of creating a bomb; once it is weaponized it is ready to employ. I personally doubt Iran has enriched weapons-grade uranium quite yet. Note what Iran said today:

Iran Threatens Enrichment if It's Referred; Iran Threatens to Restart Full-Scale Enrichment of Uranium if Referred to U.N. Security Council
By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1533613
VIENNA, Austria Jan 23, 2006 — Iran will immediately retaliate if referred to the U.N. Security Council next week by forging ahead with developing a full-scale uranium enrichment program, a senior envoy said Monday.

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 06:14 PM
I am reminded of some small folk wisdom about "high horses" and "hold on to your hat size."

I thought "progressives" were all about "question authority?"

Oh, I get it, "Question authority...except mine, which is above reproach."

Now that's a fine example of an ad hominem personal attack. I'm not an authority. I don't pretend to be. I'm just another person. However, he did question my credibility, and essentially that's calling me a liar. I don't apologize to taking offense at that. Nor do I apologize for pointing out that you not knowing the difference between "credibility" and "authority" is rather embarrassing for you.

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 06:23 PM
I didn't feel the need to answer that question since it had no relevance to the conversation. But since I also pointed out earlier that Shia believe in the hidden Imam, and that being one of the big concerns I have over Iran getting the bomb, you would think that maybe I understand a little bit about them. Read all of my posts before you consider me to not know what I am talking about.
The fact that you didn't find it relevant was reason enough to question your understanding. The question that really matters is "are they going to attack their neighbors?" If you're conflating support for Hezbollah with military action, it indicates a lack of understanding.

So you think it will be great that Iranians are planning on being suicide bombers?

Intresting. Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Next. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


I was affirming what someone else had said. He tried to point out that there were no Iranians on the planes, I affirmed that and added, nobody had claimed there were Iranians, but that there were Muslims. Try not to take my posts out of context.If that was your intent, I stand corrected.

No, my post is that Iran is even more dangerous at this point. I pointed that out because of their belief in the 12th "hidden" imam, as well as the fact that their president believes he can bring that Imam out by creating chaos and causing a war. If that's really what's he's up to, his own people need to take him out. Because pursuing that course of action means the Israelis won't hesitate to nuke his ass, and they won't ask our permission.

PCGS65
January 23, 2006, 06:25 PM
I don't get it? I thought everbody wants to criminalize Bush for Iraq? I remember many, many people calling him a murderer for not finding WMD? I think we better wait till Iran nukes something that way we know for sure they have WMD. It seems like many are "war mongors" like Bush was labeled a short time ago? What happened to N. Korea? Are they no longer a threat or have they taken the back seat for now? Why go after Iran? Pakastan supports terrorism and has nukes and probably is hiding OBL!!

itgoesboom
January 23, 2006, 07:19 PM
The fact that you didn't find it relevant was reason enough to question your understanding. The question that really matters is "are they going to attack their neighbors?" If you're conflating support for Hezbollah with military action, it indicates a lack of understanding.

I only find it irrelevent considering you brought it up to say that Iranians haven't participated in suicide bombings, and suggested that it was because they are Shia and not Sunni. I corrected that, showing that 15,000 Shia in Iran have volunteered to be suicide bombers.

That makes the point irrelevant. Anything you say about the Shia being different than the Sunni in this conversation no longer matters, since they are proving to have the same goals, despite their differences in who they followed after Muhammad's death, and what books they consider to be trustworthy or reliable.

In this discussion, they are one and the same.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Next. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Actually it is. Here is your quote.

It'll be a first. Suicide bombers have been overwhelmingly Sunni. The Iranians are Shia. If it comes to pass, great.

My point in this is that:

1. Sounds about right coming from someone who initially denied that the Iranian Hostage crisis was an act of terrorism.

2. See how easy it is to take something out of context and make a person's argument look weak?

Ofcourse, the above is in context to what you said.

If that was your intent, I stand corrected.

Good, you can admit being wrong or incorrect. Thats a good start.

If that's really what's he's up to, his own people need to take him out. Because pursuing that course of action means the Israelis won't hesitate to nuke his ass, and they won't ask our permission.

His own people won't take him out. Once again, he was elected not by the hardliners, but by the population under 30 (the same demographic we have hoped would reject the hardliners) because he said he would redistribute the oil wealth within his country. Something he simply can't do with the way the power is distributed within his country. Infact, he couldn't even get his choice for Oil Minister affirmed by the Parliment. He had to settle after multiple attempts and have the former Deputy Minister fill the role.

Because he was elected by the younger generation, a group that the older hardliners are afraid of, they won't touch him, for fear of setting them off. Same reason why we can't take him out. If we did that, all of those young pro-western Iranians would all of a sudden decide that yes, America is the Great Satan.

As for the Israelis, I doubt they will use nuclear weapons. That is a hard line to cross, for any country. That is why it hasn't been done since 1945.

Instead, they will do conventional airstrikes, but they have limited range for their fighter/bombers, and so will need to be based in Northern Iraq if they want to successfully strike Iran's nuke facilities.

That means that we will have to give them aid in order for them to do that, and that will pull us farther into conflict with Muslim Nations.

I.G.B.

itgoesboom
January 23, 2006, 07:42 PM
Two more Gems of yours. :rolleyes:

I've already stipulated several times that Iran is a terrorist state. Some dude in Penna. took a hostage the other day. Are Pennsylvanians terrorists?


You already noted the difference prior to your question. One is a terrorist state, and another is a state that had a terrorist.

Pennsylvania does not condone or support terrorism.

Iran is a different matter.


I'd consider it sabre rattling. But you're missing the point. Iran does NOT have a history in modern times of attacking Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Armenia, etc., and the other countries in it's sphere of influence. There's a difference between that and being linked to terror groups. It's a different kind of threat.

Yeah, they don't attack other Muslim nations*. Good for them. :rolleyes:

They have stated that they will wipe Israel off the map. So I guess the real difference between Sunni and Shia, according to you is that Sunni's will attack any country, including other Muslim nations, but Shia will only attack Jews. Nice to know.

Although, they have also called for the destruction of the USA.

I.G.B.

*I didn't see that you included Armenia in that list at first, but no matter.

ghost squire
January 23, 2006, 08:08 PM
Everyone here should watch Syriana and 3 Days of the Condor... More truthful then 99.99999 percent of the "news" and errornet speak.

AZLibertarian
January 23, 2006, 09:33 PM
Everyone here should watch Syriana and 3 Days of the Condor... More truthful then 99.99999 percent of the "news" and errornet speak.Sorry, but a George Clooney film and a Robert Redford film include waaaay too much of their own political bias to count as "truthful" around my house.

Headless Thompson Gunner
January 23, 2006, 09:34 PM
"Syriana." Now there's an accurate and objective view of current international affairs. :eek:

"Bowling for Columbine" was a fair and impartial portrayal of gun ownership in America. "The Day After Tomorrow" was a scientific, fact-based story about global warming.

If you believe any of that, then perhaps you'd be interested in this bridge I own in New York. I've fallen on hard times, and I hafta sell it. I'll let you have it for a firesale price. :neener:

Art Eatman
January 24, 2006, 12:19 AM
This thread would have to improve greatly in order to work up to fire sale...

Art

Helmetcase
January 24, 2006, 02:43 AM
I only find it irrelevent considering you brought it up to say that Iranians haven't participated in suicide bombings, and suggested that it was because they are Shia and not Sunni. I corrected that, showing that 15,000 Shia in Iran have volunteered to be suicide bombers. I wonder what they're waiting for. If they want to martyr themselves against the West and Israeli, they don't have to drive very far for all the opportunity the Armoured Cav and infantry have to offer them.

That makes the point irrelevant. Anything you say about the Shia being different than the Sunni in this conversation no longer matters, since they are proving to have the same goals,
See, you're doing it again. They don't have the same goals. The Sunnis in Iraq are very nationalistic, and their goal is an independent Iraq that suits their political and financial interests. The Iranians obviously have very different goals. Every time you type something that amounts to "all them damn Muslims are on the same page", you jam that boot further in your craw.


Actually it is. Here is your quote.Yes, meaning great, you'll be proven right. I'm not holding my breath. If they wanted to play that game, what's stopping them from already playing it? It's not like the Iraqi borders are solid--they're anything but. Clearly they've got a different political agenda.

My point in this is that:

1. Sounds about right coming from someone who initially denied that the Iranian Hostage crisis was an act of terrorism. I guess you could redefine it as terrorism, but you're missing the point of the overthrow of the Shah and the rise to power of the Ayatollahs--it was a junta and a coup; in some sense you can define any hostage situation as terror, I guess. Big whup. The question at hand is whether we need to be militarily involved in disarming Iran, and some angry students taking some political prisoners in 1979 is NOT relevant to that discussion. So why you're harping on it is lost on me.

Good, you can admit being wrong or incorrect. Thats a good start. I'll be happy to admit I might have misread some or all of certain passages. That doesn't mean I won't confront wholesale misunderstandings of a complex, fluid situation head on when I see obvious conflations and incorrect assumptions.

That said, I largely agree with your tactical appraisal of the situation and that it won't be as simple as Osirak in 1981 to deny them the ability to work on nukes; you can bet they've learned from the painful lesson SH learned from that fiasco.

You already noted the difference prior to your question. One is a terrorist state, and another is a state that had a terrorist.

Pennsylvania does not condone or support terrorism. Just pointing out that a hostage situation and a political coup 27 years ago does not a terrorist state make. They're a terrorist state for an asspile of other reasons; but really arguing about it is moot anyway--what's of interest to me is their ability and desire to engage in tactical efforts against other nearby countries. Historically it's not been their balliwick, hence the erstwhile terror links.

Yeah, they don't attack other Muslim nations*. Good for them.In the tactical military sense, when was the last time they attacked anyone? They're more likely to be a terrorist pest than a tactical threat IMHO. Unless they seriously switch gears; and switching gears in such a fashion isn't something they can do discretely without us knowing about it. Or the Israelis. The reason states engage in that sort of shenanigans is that Iraq has learned twice in a row that going toe to toe with our military isn't such a hot idea.

They have stated that they will wipe Israel off the map.Yeah, but they've been saying that since Khomeini. The question becomes whether they have the tactical ability to do so and are gearing up to make it happen. Right now the answer is no, and no. If that changes, I can't see any way we can avoid smacking their heads around. But we're not there yet.

So I guess the real difference between Sunni and Shia, according to you is that Sunni's will attack any country, including other Muslim nations, but Shia will only attack Jews. Nice to know.Well, the Sunni-led Iraqis did attack the Shia dominated Iranians, but that's just one example. Really any such distinction like the one you posit would be too general to be of any use, and I wouldn't make it. So put the ole "Words In the Other Guy's Mouth" machine away.

Optical Serenity
January 24, 2006, 03:33 AM
Why is it that people believe that Iran does not have the materials to make a nuke?

According to the CIA world factbook:

Iran GDP: $551.6 Billion
Pakistan GDP: $385.2 Billion

Budget:

Iran:
revenues: $48.82 billion
expenditures: $60.4 billion

Pakistan:
revenues: $15.45 billion
expenditures: $18.42 billion


Pakistan made and tested nukes, and well, you can see from above, Iran is certainly a bit more wealthy.

Helmetcase
January 24, 2006, 08:39 AM
Heck, take away the theocratic tendencies and Iran almost as modern as some Eastern European nations. They've got a lot of western educated young people; those are the young people we'd hoped would provide the impetus for moderating the place.

ghost squire
January 26, 2006, 07:21 PM
Yes, its true, Iranians are not terrorists, nor do I think they ever will be.

Amazing, since the Iranian Revolutionary Guard trained Hizbollah and several other groups, including as far as I know al qaeda.

Oh and please name one thing you folks thing unrealistic about Syriana. If you want to know who has a political bias its you. Watch it and tell me you don't think these exact things have happened or will happen, or are happening now.

Jesus I don't even know why I bother.

RON in PA
February 7, 2006, 03:46 PM
Saw Syriana this past Sunday. Do I believe that big oil companies engage in bribery and corrupt practices? Yes! Do I believe that The CIA would like to influence the internal politics of oil producing countries so that the oil flows freely to these shores? Yes, but that policy will be formulated by the
President and his cabinet. Do I believe that the CIA will launch a guided missile to kill an Emir wannabe that might not have the best interests of the USA? Only if the Emir and his named successor want it and even then, highly unlikely ( I believe this is against US law). The movie had several threads that did not fit such as the making of the terrorist and just how did Cloony's character fit in.

Thought the portrayal of the Muslim religious teacher well done.

MinScout
February 7, 2006, 04:14 PM
I don't think we'll attack Iran overtly. I think a CIA-sponsored overthrow of the current government is much more likely. That's my guess.

NineseveN
February 7, 2006, 04:47 PM
Wow, this has been a fun thread, hopefully we'll keep it clean enough that it can stay open (hint, hint).

hso
February 7, 2006, 05:01 PM
Reactor grade enriched uranium is not the same as HEU which is not the same as weapons grade. It still takes significant enrichment to reach the weapons level and there's no indication that the Iranians have established that capability.

The process to go from unenriched to reactor grade is trivial compared to going from reactor grade to weapons grade.

OTOH should they continue with the development of enrichment capabilities they could develop this capability, but there's no indication that they're there yet. I would like to make sure that they never get that capability, but it's difficult to justify preventing them from being able to produce reactor grade U without the assumption that they will do something evil.

Coronach
February 7, 2006, 09:35 PM
1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.
2.) Multiple user registrations are prohibited.
3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.We have noted that the civility of L&P has been plummeting of late. Correlated with this is yet another resurgence of political posts that do not meet the criteria as outlined in the rules of conduct. Just because a post is 'political' does not mean it belongs here. It must address firearms issues or civil liberties issues directly. "Civil liberties are in danger because Bush lied, people died!" and "we will lose all of our guns becuase Hillary has anger issues!" will not cut it. Post directly, not obliquely, about how a given topic has an impact on RKBA or civil liberties.

Thank you,

Staff at THR

If you enjoyed reading about "Iran Already Has Nukes?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!