Iran again


PDA






chorlton
April 11, 2006, 04:48 PM
With today's news on enrichment bringing events closer to the almost inevitable conclusion, its seems we're down to not if but how:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1751128,00.html
A comment was made in the previous thread on this that of course the plan was developed but that is the Pentagon's job. This article suggests certain parties take the plan more seriously...

If you enjoyed reading about "Iran again" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hyunchback
April 11, 2006, 08:35 PM
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060411/D8GU3D2G1.html

This insistence comes from the same Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who claims the Holocaust never happened.

Clean97GTI
April 11, 2006, 08:47 PM
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why is it OK for other countries to have nuclear weapons and not Iran?

Sindawe
April 11, 2006, 08:56 PM
As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is doing exactly what it is entitled to do. The material that Iran has produced is NOT suitable for nuclear weapons. Iran on Tuesday declared that it has gained ticket to join global nuclear club by having successfully produced 3.5 percent enriched uranium, a technological leap in the process for nuclear power plant construction.

Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-04/12/content_4413134.htmBut what the hey, we can't let them A-rabs get anything nuclear, now can we? :rolleyes:

RealGun
April 11, 2006, 09:36 PM
Chavez turns to Iran on military, uranium

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 10, 2006

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is seeking to deepen ties with Iran, with discussions on holding joint military exercises and obtaining uranium, according to Bush administration officials.
Hamas also is talking to Caracas about sending representatives to Venezuela to raise money for the militant group's newly elected Palestinian government.
But relations with another ally, Russia, have soured over a deal in which Moscow is selling 100,000 AK-47s to Venezuela. The South American country was counting on receiving new rifles, but Russia has shipped a number of refurbished models, prompting Caracas to halt the deal, the U.S. sources said.
Mr. Chavez's continuing efforts to cozy up to Iran are of increasing concern inside the Pentagon and State Department.

balance of Washington Times article (http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060410-123504-8592r)

This partly answers the question why it is not okay for Iran to have nuclear technology and enriched uranium. You get fruitcake dictators allying with each other, allowing nuclear proliferation to spread like a disease.

Venezuela is the fourth largest crude oil supplier to the US, surpassed by Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. Search on [US oil suppliers] and look for a recently compiled listing. I think this would signal that it is time to replace Venezuela as a major supplier.

CleverNickname
April 11, 2006, 09:42 PM
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why is it OK for other countries to have nuclear weapons and not Iran?

Because they've sworn to annihilate another sovreign nation, and nuclear weapons go a long way towards making that reality?

Clean97GTI
April 11, 2006, 10:08 PM
Because they've sworn to annihilate another sovreign nation, and nuclear weapons go a long way towards making that reality?

Yes, and thats why other countries have nuclear weapons...as a deterrent. Iran can say a lot of things...brash Chinese Generals do it with some regularity regarding the USA. North Korea is an expert in international trash talking.

You haven't really answered my question though. The question is more about morals than intent. What makes the USA (or any other nuclear power) morally superior to Iran? How does that make it OK for one nation to have nukes and not OK for another?

ArmedBear
April 11, 2006, 10:25 PM
Morals, schmorals.

That stuff's for people whose job isn't to keep the rest of us from becoming a radioactive fireball.

It's not okay for Iran to have nukes because we (NATO and the permanent members of the UNSC) say it's not okay.

It's okay for India and Pakistan because they only want to nuke each other (in between cricket matches, anyway) and because the label in my shirt probably says "India" or "Pakistan" on it.

Yes, it's all a bunch of double-standard BS. But this ain't kindergarten and life's not fair.

That doesn't mean I think that we always make the right decisions, but I don't try to square large-scale military strategy with the same morality as applies to us in our daily lives in the 'burbs.

P.S. Didn't we all want a nuke when we were in grade school? No one let us have any, either.:D

Lennyjoe
April 11, 2006, 11:09 PM
Something aint right about all of this.

It seems like Iran is trying to egg us in on a fight. With all the talk on new missles, torpedos, and uranium I think they are trying to draw us in to a fight. There has to be some underlying reason for this. Maybe they think that if we get involved in Iran they can try to take over Iraq. Maybe they think our military is overtasked and cant handle a fight with them.

I don't know for sure what their motive is but it's making things pretty dicey in that area of the country. My question is, how much longer is Israel gonna wait before they take the gloves off.

Ok, now I can take off my tinfoil hat;)

Biker
April 11, 2006, 11:16 PM
Could be that Iran knows that we can't really do anything but bark. Or maybe they already *are* nuclear capable.
If Israel attacks, we'll end up paying for it.
In any case, I'm putting on my Tin Foil Easter Cap early.:)
Biker

neoncowboy
April 11, 2006, 11:21 PM
The question is more about morals than intent. What makes the USA (or any other nuclear power) morally superior to Iran? How does that make it OK for one nation to have nukes and not OK for another?

All that moral stuff (in the context of who may posess what kind of weapons, anyway) is just rhetoric.

The point is, we can have nukes and nobody can do anything about it (yet). Iran can't boast that same confidence though.

Basically, we get them because nobody is bad enough to try to take them away from us. Iran doesn't get them because there are bigger boys on the block (us and Israel) who dont' want them to have nukes and are big enough to kick their ass and take them away.

We'll see how it actually plays out.

Remington788
April 11, 2006, 11:25 PM
Well, this explains why gas went up another 15 cents.

Clean97GTI
April 11, 2006, 11:37 PM
yes neoncowboy, we all know that might makes right, but I think our use of might may be part of the reason our enemies want nuclear weapons.

I can certainly see why they would want them. When a nearby enemy power has them, and that enemy has a very rich and well armed ally, is it not prudent to arm yourself in a similar fashion?

Headless Thompson Gunner
April 11, 2006, 11:43 PM
Yes, and thats why other countries have nuclear weapons...as a deterrent. Iran can say a lot of things...brash Chinese Generals do it with some regularity regarding the USA. North Korea is an expert in international trash talking.

You haven't really answered my question though. The question is more about morals than intent. What makes the USA (or any other nuclear power) morally superior to Iran? How does that make it OK for one nation to have nukes and not OK for another?Do you think the world would be better place if Iran had the ability to turn entire cities into radioactive craters whenever it wanted to?

I don't.

neoncowboy
April 11, 2006, 11:45 PM
I can certainly see why they would want them. When a nearby enemy power has them, and that enemy has a very rich and well armed ally, is it not prudent to arm yourself in a similar fashion?

I guess it's worth a try...but all it's likely to get them is a severe ass whipping.

I hate American interventionism as much as anyone...but that's what our leaders do. And they make sure they have the biggest weapons of anyone to do it with.

What difference does the morals make? We're talking about the US Government...what do you expect them to do, the right thing?

Anyway, here we are in a mess with only one real solution...kill all of the enemy and all of their women and children. Wipe their whole religion and culture and genetic identity off the face of the earth. That's what they have in mind for us and the only way we can prevent it is to eliminate them.

Unfortunately, Americans don't have the sense to recognize this or the guts to deal with it...so the Iranians will probably win this one.

The American Republic...it was good while it lasted.

Headless Thompson Gunner
April 11, 2006, 11:54 PM
yes neoncowboy, we all know that might makes right, but I think our use of might may be part of the reason our enemies want nuclear weapons.

I can certainly see why they would want them. When a nearby enemy power has them, and that enemy has a very rich and well armed ally, is it not prudent to arm yourself in a similar fashion?Nobody is saying that Iran is foolish for wanting nukes. Quite the countrary...

The question is what's prudent for us? Iran has sworn to annihilate one of our strongest allies, and nuclear weapons would make that a very easy thing to accomplish. We're obligated to do what we can to prevent that.

It would be prudent for us to ensure that Iran cannot nuke us or our allies whenever it wants.

Or do you believe that it would be smarter to allow Iran to hold a proverbial knife to our throat?

BuddyOne
April 12, 2006, 12:12 AM
"a nearby enemy power"

Please document for me the allegation made that Israel is a "nearby enemy power." In the absence of Iranian threats, Israel hasn't declared itself an enemy of Iran, but Iran hasn't stopped talking nuclear aggression for the last five years.

One of the reasons that theocracies are so brittle is because they're easily turned into glass. The sooner the better.

Buddy

RealGun
April 12, 2006, 12:46 AM
It seems like Iran is trying to egg us in on a fight.

If you don't have WMDs, bluff. Worked for Saddam, who was afraid Iran would invade.

ArmedBear
April 12, 2006, 12:57 AM
Here's a long and link-filled piece describing the rationale for stopping Iran.

Right or wrong, this is the thinking of the thoughtful on the pro-preemption side.

http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/04/09-week/index.php#a001880

Kim
April 12, 2006, 01:03 AM
Let me see if I get this right. Liberals have been trying for years to disarm first the US then the rest of the world of nuclear weapons. Now they give us this relativism crap of Who are We to say Iran can not have nuclear weapons. After all they have as much right to have them as the evil USA. Never mind that it might be a bad idea that Iran have Nukes. They just might use them. But of coarse we might have to do something bad to prevent them from doing so. I guess we are evil and they are just trying to keep us in line so the world will be a lovely peaceful place. Yea I really understand that logic. I really wonder what a world with Iran with Nukes would be like. Maybe they could hold the whole world hostage with their Nukes along with their oil . Well that would be a good thing as the evil US just exploits the Middle East by buying that ole nasty oil anyways. Never mind a world wide depression could occur. Maybe Iran would really just nuke the little Satan Israel after all they are evil as they have persecuted the Palestinians. Maybe the Iranians will try to spread Islam by the sword as their prophet did and this time they will have Nukes to do so.. Yea a peaceful world. Let make sure and talk and talk and talk and maybe we will find out exactly what they will do. Surely they will just use this for peaceful energy reasons. Sure.

DRZinn
April 12, 2006, 02:06 AM
But what the hey, we can't let them A-rabs get anything nuclear, now can we?Iranians are not Arabs.

Sindawe
April 12, 2006, 03:39 AM
Iranians are not Arabs.Yes, I know. :rolleyes: = sarcasm.

RevDisk
April 12, 2006, 05:00 AM
While I'm not a big fan of Iran, I don't think an invasion of Iran would be a good idea. We could pull off an invasion. Sure, plenty of 'surgical bombing' and our troops in Tehran within 48 hours. Then nasty reality hits. The Gulf closed to all tankers, a very well armed and trained insurgency, etc etc.

Remember, Iran has a population of nearly 70 million and is slightly larger than Alaska. In comparison, Iraq has a population of roughly 27 million and is a fourth of the size of Iran. Additionally, Iran has the advantage of monitoring the US invasion of Iraq as a learning experience of insurgency. If they haven't made preperations for a possible invasion, they're dumber than a box of rocks.

An invasion of Iran would be many times more difficult than the invasion of Iraq. We have a military more experienced with insurgency, but also a bit worn from occupation. Materialistically speaking, we're already a bit short on critical items. An invasion of Iran would be very, very expensive. Just a wild guess, but I'd say a minimum of five times as expensive as the current Iraqi occupation.

It'd also require most of the deployable soldiers in the entire US Army not currently in Iraq, Afghanistan or South Korea. Maybe nearly all deployable soldiers. We wouldn't be able to field any major units in event of any crisis within the US. Imagine how badly Katrina would have turned out without any US military forces.

I don't think the US will conduct wide scale genocide or a nuclear first strike. I hope our elected leaders are sane enough to realize such options are not very wise. Last poll I saw, 60% of Americans are disproving of Bush's Iraq adventure, 38% supporting. If he started firing off nukes without a declaration of war from Congress, he'd be removed from office.

BuddyOne
April 12, 2006, 10:14 AM
By polls???

Buddy

Manedwolf
April 12, 2006, 10:37 AM
It seems like Iran is trying to egg us in on a fight. With all the talk on new missles, torpedos, and uranium I think they are trying to draw us in to a fight.

I see that as well. The thing is, they have at least a hundred or more Exocets (remember the Stark?) and who knows how many unstoppable nearly-Mach 3 Sunburns. The last assessment I'd read, a landside launch of a Sunburn...the crew of a ship out in the gulf would have less than TWENTY SECONDS to react before it hit. :eek:

Iran is not Sadaam's ten-years-broken military. They DO have a real military with lots of troops, planes, and lots and lots and lots of missiles.

I'm really wondering if they'd simply annihiliate the US Fifth Fleet in the gulf with a hellacious barrage of antiship cruise missiles if we do anything, to show that they have "strength".

Whether it's "right" or not is irrelevant, this administration has shown that it's not exactly the best on intelligence, and really, REALLY needs to go back to school and read Sun Tzu, as far as strategies.

As per Condi Rice's "we made thousands of mistakes", well, that's not acceptable. And doing it with Iran could leave us with a memorial of names longer than the Vietnam Wall.

seeker_two
April 12, 2006, 10:58 AM
If Iran really WANTS nuclear weapons, we should be good neighbors and give them some...

...would 2 or 3 ICBM's worth be enough? :evil:

As for Venezuela....

But relations with another ally, Russia, have soured over a deal in which Moscow is selling 100,000 AK-47s to Venezuela. The South American country was counting on receiving new rifles, but Russia has shipped a number of refurbished models, prompting Caracas to halt the deal, the U.S. sources said.

Someone call SOG or Century Arms. They need to put in a bid on THIS.... :D :D :D

LAK
April 12, 2006, 11:02 AM
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is seeking to deepen ties with Iran, with discussions on holding joint military exercises and obtaining uranium, according to Bush administration officials.
I wonder if the same deceptive elements who concocted the Niger story came up with this one ;)

Of course Venezuela is another "rogue nation" that is snubbing the global village and economic slavery for it's people. What a crime! They must be punished!

------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Camp David
April 12, 2006, 11:09 AM
While I'm not a big fan of Iran, I don't think an invasion of Iran would be a good idea. I doubt anyone is planning invasion under even the most extreme scenario; should Iran's beligerence and antagonism toward Israel, and the rest of the world, continue I would imagine that it would be attacked generally by air and stand-off weapons would be utilized: cruise missiles. Boots on the ground in Iran would not be a good idea since neighboring Iraq would be a target. It would be a USAF operation I believe. Additionally, there are still quite a lot of diplomatic sanctions to be engaged. My guess is that Jordan and the United States are working together now to see if they can pressure Iran to act civil; the United Nations needs to act against Iran now.

Biker
April 12, 2006, 11:15 AM
To play the Devil's Advocate, from Iran's POV, arming themselves with nukes is a necessity.
I don't believe that we'll ever withdraw from Iraq which means that they're essentially surrounded by nuke armed enemies.
Nukes are the only weapon that will guard them from future invasion, IMO.
Having said that, I hope they never get them and we can't be 100% sure they don't already have one or two.
It's a dangerous game we're all playing.
Biker

Headless Thompson Gunner
April 12, 2006, 12:50 PM
It's a dangerous game we're all playing.What's the alternative?

Camp David
April 12, 2006, 01:01 PM
First Strike Against Iran:

Rice Wants 'Strong Steps' Taken Against Iran
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191476,00.html
WASHINGTON Denouncing Iran's successful enrichment of uranium as unacceptable to the international community, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday the U.N. Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Tehran to change course...
~

Good... give them one more warning (Second Strike) then let loose the cruise missiles in my opinion... this madmad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad jeopardizes the entire region and could invoke nuclear anhilation... I am surprised the House of Saud has not yet become involved on behalf of all Muslims~!

Biker
April 12, 2006, 01:03 PM
I don't have an alternative. I'm glad that I don't have to make that decision.
Biker

ArmedBear
April 12, 2006, 01:37 PM
What's the alternative?

Well, there's the Libertarian Alternative. My party's national security platform is simple: just ignore them and the problems will all go away.

I don't really agree with that platform.:rolleyes:

It doesn't sound any more viable coming from Libertarians whom I like than it does coming from Loonie Lefties whom I don't.

RevDisk
April 12, 2006, 04:28 PM
I doubt anyone is planning invasion under even the most extreme scenario; should Iran's beligerence and antagonism toward Israel, and the rest of the world, continue I would imagine that it would be attacked generally by air and stand-off weapons would be utilized: cruise missiles. Boots on the ground in Iran would not be a good idea since neighboring Iraq would be a target. It would be a USAF operation I believe. Additionally, there are still quite a lot of diplomatic sanctions to be engaged. My guess is that Jordan and the United States are working together now to see if they can pressure Iran to act civil; the United Nations needs to act against Iran now.

With all due credit to the USAF, air strikes do not and cannot win a war. Only boots on the ground can do so. You can't change the Iranian government by air strikes alone. Also, I sincerely doubt the people of Iran will throw flowers into the streets as we blow up their infrastructure.

More than likely, such an air campaign will cause the ultraconservative elements to seize power. They will not likely take such an attack and do nothing in responce. My guess would be a full blown Shiite uprising in Iraq, and shutting down the Gulf traffic.

I guess it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. "We must go to war, to prevent war!" I guess people forget their history all too quickly. The last time we played around with 'regime change' in Iran (the Shah), things ended very badly. I suspect things will not go much better this time either.

Clean97GTI
April 12, 2006, 04:54 PM
The US is pretty bad at regime change judging by our history with it.

I'm a firm believer that only the people will be able to change things. If the people don't want to change things around, nothing is going to happen. We saw it in the Soviet Union right near its end. We are seeing it in Iraq now.

The opportunity here is to become friends with Iran's people. Take away the "great satan" stigma and you'll probably find that the Iranians can be reasonable people and that a religious theocracy isn't going to work anymore. It doesn't matter if the Iranians get nukes or not. They believe that they need them, so they will build them. If your enemies can use a certain level of force, prudence demands that you do the same.
While I don't want to see Iran gain nuclear capabilities, I hardly think that moving to block such a thing is going to win anything but a short term victory.
If they can't build them, they will buy them and there are plenty of places they can buy them from.

Tokugawa
April 12, 2006, 06:55 PM
According to the Swiss, Iran pulled out about 31 billion in deposits last week. And they have modified the shahab missle for a 4500 km range, enough to hit most of europe. And modified the nose cone to hold a nuke. All this is just protection, I think the real war is going to be economic.
We have let our economy become a house of cards, we have huge debt and NO personal savings to tide us over bad times. Imagine 5 or 10 dollar a gallon gas and the resulting repercussions.

Clean97GTI
April 12, 2006, 07:14 PM
Well Tokugawa, we can always count on certain Arab states helping to fund our deficit.
If our economy fails, they lose massive amounts of income both in oil and investments.

neoncowboy
April 12, 2006, 09:51 PM
If our economy fails, they lose massive amounts of income both in oil and investments.

Somehow, I doubt they'll care all that much when they see a) how much it hurts us and b) how much oil/gas China is able to consume over the next 20 years.

Art Eatman
April 13, 2006, 12:32 AM
For those who are wondering about any moral equivalency, the history isn't all that difficult. You only have to go back to 1979.

During the "Marbqar America!" stuff during the takeover/hostage of the US Embassy, we were held up as the Great Satan for all our evil ways: Our women wear bikinis, we dance to rock music, and we make evil movies. Our culture is evil and must be destroyed. You can add the fatwah calling for the death of Salman Rushdie as an indicator of their dislike for anything which--as they see it--insults Islam.

Today's leaders in Iran are no less hostile than the Ayotollah Khomeini. Another facet of this hostility is the money and training given to various international terrorists who operate against Israel.

Given this history of the existing rulers of Iran, the idea that they have nukes and delivery systems is anathema. Anybody who thinks this is just some sort of US foreign policy gone wrong just hasn't been paying attention for the last ten or fifteen years. Heck, even the last five or so...

Iran with nukes? An international version of turning a pedophile loose in a day care center.

If that's not enough, just look at a map of the area. Iran controls the access through the Straits of Hormuz, even without nukes. It doesn't take much Googling to learn how important those Straits are to your commuting or your summer's vacation travel, much less the cost of petrochemical-source consumer products.

Art

Lobotomy Boy
April 13, 2006, 12:37 AM
All that is true, Art, but what do you really think we should do about it? What are the likely consequences of any action we take? Could we accomplish anything other than driving the price of oil so high that the world sinks into economic depression by air strikes? Is our military strong enough right now to defeat Iran in a land war? If so, is it strong enough to occupy a defeated Iran? What are the consequences of initiating action against Iran and losing? What would any of these options mean for our chances of a positive outcome in Iraq or Afghanistan?

What alternatives do you see?

SIGarmed
April 13, 2006, 02:23 AM
Do a little research. Iran's society is suffering and their new president is pulling a hitler on them. It may be sort of way to galvanize the country.

This idiot president is actually trying to outlaw loans because charging interest is against islam. What do you think this kind of lunacy is doing to their economy? Their unemployment rate is something like 30%+. Many of their successful companies and businesses moved out after the new president was elected. Iranian money is leaving the country.

Day by day Iran is going down the drain.

Cellar Dweller
April 13, 2006, 04:25 AM
Air Force bombs the snot out of everything, Navy runs a gauntlet and will take losses, Army/Marine boots on ground come from WHERE exactly? Want to overextend the military in yet ANOTHER unpopular war?

Recruitment of new soldiers? Can't use the GI Bill if you're dead, can't go to college if you're stuck in a sandbox for 20 years on stop-loss.

OK, more Guardsmen can be mobilized and shipped to Iraq/Afghanistan. While they're getting acclimated, the Iraq situation will worsen. Economy tanks here as more Guardsmen leave their jobs for an indeterminate time + gas price increase + Fed prints and Congress spends more "funny money." You think there's no money and manpower for securing the borders now, add another $160+ billion (at least twice Iraq's) annual bill and see what happens.

Draft citizens? See above, add protests + concientious objectors by the thousands.

Draft "illegals" with the promise of fast-track citizenship? See both above + add "rich men exploiting minorities" protests.

Just economic sanctions...tried/failed for over 40 years against Castro and 12 or so against Saddam Hussein...

Just Air Force + Navy cruise missiles...Quaddafi come to mind? First Gulf War up to Iraq's borders?

Anyone else worldwide with a quarrel will be free to act, because there's no way the U.S. can conduct two wars + two occupations or one war + three occupations. If the U.S. is similar to Rome, then the President = Emperor Valens.

Lobotomy Boy
April 13, 2006, 08:32 AM
Cellar Dweller, throw in the fact that Iran sits atop the world's tastiest oil reserves, one just about every country in the world salivates over, and if our economy tanks, destroying our consumer power, many countries are more likely to sanction us than Iran.

A while back I was worried about the effects the Iranian oil burse would have on our economy. Hopefully I was wrong to worry about that, but it appears that the bungling diplomacy of the Bush Administration might accomplish the devestation I feared on its own, without any outside help.

odysseus
April 13, 2006, 02:28 PM
Given this history of the existing rulers of Iran, the idea that they have nukes and delivery systems is anathema. Anybody who thinks this is just some sort of US foreign policy gone wrong just hasn't been paying attention for the last ten or fifteen years. Heck, even the last five or so...

Iran with nukes? An international version of turning a pedophile loose in a day care center.

Couldn't have said it better.

Seriously, any comparisons to what we are doing in Iraq and what Iran is to the world are not accurate. The other day I heard a commentator make an excellent point that the leadership of Iran sees exactly what they need to do by looking at North Korea (not that they are the same). They see that the world (notably the US) has to seriously balance it's policies to N.Korea simply because of their tactical nuke ability. They want this on the world table. They want to slide into the UN and make all their neighbors fear them, and become the leader of militant Islam and kill any more inclinations of a movement of democracy and what they see as western ideology into their countries.

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