Iran again

If Iran really WANTS nuclear weapons, we should be good neighbors and give them some...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

RevDisk said:

While I'm not a big fan of Iran, I don't think an invasion of Iran would be a good idea.

Click to expand...

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.

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

It's a dangerous game we're all playing.

Click to expand...

What's the alternative?

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~!

HTG...

I don't have an alternative. I'm glad that I don't have to make that decision.
Biker

What's the alternative?

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

If our economy fails, they lose massive amounts of income both in oil and investments.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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?

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.

Pre-emptive striking

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.