Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 109

Thread: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel/War in Iran!

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Member Member Alexander the Pretty Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    4,979

    Default Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel/War in Iran!

    Since this attempt at opening a discussion has failed, I shall try again, hopefully more clearly.

    Can Iran be trusted with nuclear weapons - ie, explosive devices based on nuclear fission?

    As a sovereign nation, should they be allowed to purchase such devices? What if they design and construct them without foreign aid?

    What effects will the acquisition of nuclear armaments on Iran's part have in the Middle East and the world? Good or ill?

    Note: to keep the discussion on track, minimize discussion of Israel.

  2. #2
    Member Senior Member Proletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Far up in the Magnolia Tree.
    Posts
    3,550

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    It's unfathomable to me that anyone in their right mind would think Ahmadinejad has the intellectual or emotional faculties to bear this sort of power.

  3. #3
    AKA Leif 3000 TURBO Senior Member Leet Eriksson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    n0rg3
    Posts
    3,510

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    I don't think iran will use them, becuase they know the consequences, but i still say no to nuclear weapons.

    I know i'll mention isreal, just bare with me ok.

    Isrealis nuclear weapons is destablising the region, i'm all for defending themselves, but nukes is not the way. But anyways, in my honest opinion, the US should be more active and start monitoring Iran, Iran did allow inspectors, so they should start there. So long as no more nuclear powers are added to the roster i'm fine.
    Texas is Gods country! - SFTS
    SFTS = The rest =


  4. #4

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    Everyone arms, or everyone disarms. Why should Isreal have them when others don't? or Russia or the US, or China? If Iran gets them who is going to want them next?

  5. #5
    The Usual Member Ice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Northville, Michigan
    Posts
    4,259

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    NO. Anyone that says Isreal should be wiped off the map really should not have that kind of firepower. Furthermore, I can't remember the exact quote, but he said a while ago about how they should kill all the Christians and Jews.

    For those reasons and about thousand others, i say NO. Don't try to convince me otherwise, because my answer is concrete.



  6. #6

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    I think nucular weapons should be Dissarmed by All and I also beleve that They should NEVER be built by any 1 EVER again.

    So Thats a definative NO,
    --
    I dont like one country telling people what to do all the time,
    If a 3rd world country needs Power to expand and the Best way for them to do that is to build a nucular power plant.
    I say let them build one.

    I beleve ALL countrys Should Be allowed to create NUCULAR Power.....

    However 1st thing this happens, The americans Start demanding that they stop.

    I know thats off topic.
    But i wanted to say it any way.

  7. #7
    A very, very Senior Member Adrian II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,748

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    Quote Originally Posted by Proletariat
    It's unfathomable to me that anyone in their right mind would think Ahmadinejad has the intellectual or emotional faculties to bear this sort of power.
    The development of such weaponry always has a profound effect on the society and political system of the country involved. That is because its possible use invites equally massive retaliation from the opposition, so crucial decisions are never left to single leaders or grey eminences.

    It is a paradox: because the possession of nuclear arms invites possible massive retribution, it leads to more responsible behaviour. This is merely a rule of experience, not a physical law or a logical necessity.

    The development toward nuclear arms is nearly always controlled by military and technical experts, whilst the outcome dictates the establishment of all sorts of cautionary procedures and (confidential) international agreements, hotlines, etcetera.

    At the time of the Indian nuclear tests (1998) the governing Hindu-fascists in Delhi were spouting the worst kind of rhetoric, comparing their nuclear missiles to Hindu phalluses and other symbols of manhood that would wipe out the Pakistani foe. Islamabad responded in kind. However, to close observers it was clear that both governments were merely playing to the gallery of their public opinion, whereas behind the screens they were sealing off all possibilities of abuse or mistaken assumptions on the part of the opposition. A new sense of security resulting from their nuclear arms has brought the two counties closer instead of widening the gap between them.

    Let us hope that the development of an Iranian nuclear capability will have a similar effect in the Middle East. Much of Ahmadinejad's language seems to be a reaction to perceived foreign threats, some of which (Israel, U.S.) are only too real.

    Chances are that as soon as Tehran possesses a usable nuclear weapon, it will establish a hotline with Tel Aviv.
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

  8. #8
    Back in black Member monkian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Casnewydd, Cymru
    Posts
    2,034

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    Good post dude, sounds enitrely feasible.
    Look what these bastards have done to Wales. They've taken our coal, our water, our steel. They buy our homes and live in them for a fortnight every year. What have they given us? Absolutely nothing. We've been exploited, raped, controlled and punished by the English — and that's who you are playing this afternoon Phil Bennett's pre 1977 Rugby match speech

  9. #9
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,454

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    Quote Originally Posted by AdrianII
    The development of such weaponry always has a profound effect on the society and political system of the country involved. That is because its possible use invites equally massive retaliation from the opposition, so crucial decisions are never left to single leaders or grey eminences.

    It is a paradox: because the possession of nuclear arms invites possible massive retribution, it leads to more responsible behaviour. This is merely a rule of experience, not a physical law or a logical necessity.
    A valid point for consideration. I suspect that you are correct. The USA has certainly been reluctant to use atomic/nuclear weaponry since observing the results of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- despite finding ourselves in tactical situations where nuclear weapons would have been a tactically useful tool [notably against the massed "volunteer" Chinese forces that attacked UN forces in North Korea].

    My concerns with the spread of nuclear weapons technology really aren't connected to the States that possess them (as you say, they have a valid fear of retribution to deter silliness), but to the degree of security that these weapons and materials have in various countries. An extra-national organization that came in possession of a poorly secured weapon would have little to deter them from using it [e.g. Just who would we nuke if a terrorist cell detonated a TNW in Tel Aviv. Even were the group supported by Hussein in Damascus, would Israel feel justified in wiping a largely innocent city out when the nation involved began denying culpability? The terrorists might get off a free shot.]

    I know countries have a vested interest in securing their nuclear weapons better than anything else they have, but just how large will the nuclear club grow before someone slips up. Heavens, states of the former CCCP already have problems with this.


    The USA and other nuclear powers may have no "legitimate" right to prevent the acquisition of same by another sovereign country -- but it is almost certainly in our interest to prevent it. Following the 9-11-01 attacks, it seems possible that any US administration would have a lot of incentive to err on the side of caution and security despite the cost to international relations and good will.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  10. #10
    Jillian & Allison's Daddy Senior Member Don Corleone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    7,588

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    Agreed Seamus. I seriously doubt Iran would actually be foolish enough to directly use nuclear weapons. But given their track record of supporting global terrorism, I'm more worried about what they'll be giving their friends in Hamas and Islamic Jihad, then claiming they had nothing to do with it.

    Somebody mentioned selling them the technology. I totally disagree with that. I believe part of the process has to be developing it on your own, with your own scientists. Somebody also mentioned it would provide an effective deterrant to Israel. As far as I know, Israel has engaged in offensive actions twice: 1) when they bombed a nuclear weapons research facility in Iraq and 2) when they invaded Lebanon and secured the Lebanese/Israeli border which the Syrians were using to shell positions within Israel. So I don't know how much stock I put in that argument.

    And Adrian, I'm sorry, I fail to see the correlation between Israli/US agression towards Iran and President Ahmadinejad's expression of his desire for the destruction of Israel, other than in indirect terms. Maybe you could provide me with some more information on this? Maybe beginning with where Iran has been the victim of US or Israeli agression in the past few years?

    Interesting take on the India/Pakistan conflicts in the 90s. While I'll agree that the Indians made some foolishly irresponsible statements at times, as they say it takes two to tango and Pakistan seems to get off rather lightly in the analysis.

    All that being said, I still hold that the sovereignty of nations is absolute, and if Iran has the brainpower to develop nuclear weapons on their own, nobody else has the right to prevent them from doing so. We do have the right to prevent them from using them offensively or sharing them with 3rd parties, but that's not the root question of this thread.
    Last edited by Don Corleone; 01-12-2006 at 17:48.
    "A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."
    Don Vito Corleone: The Godfather, Part 1.

    "Then wait for them and swear to God in heaven that if they spew that bull to you or your family again you will cave there heads in with a sledgehammer"
    Strike for the South

  11. #11
    A very, very Senior Member Adrian II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,748

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
    An extra-national organization that came in possession of a poorly secured weapon would have little to deter them from using it (..)
    Point taken. But here the India-Pakistan situation is instructive as well because of a major departure from the Cold War equation as we (thought we) knew it.

    During the Cold War the dominant view held that mutually assured destruction was most pertinent among 'enduring rivals' such as the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union and China, etcetera. Because their differences were ideological and determined by issues of classic (territorial) power politics, not by otherwordly concerns, they would act or respond rationally to perceived threats and opportunities. Neither would cross the nuclear threshold because the consequences were deemed 'unthinkable'.

    Of course we will never know whether this is true; the mere fact that nuclear war did not occur does not prove that mutually assured destruction was the sole or even the main operative principle. According to some modern strategic thinkers, the success of Cold War deterrence may have been a question of 'luck'...

    Enter India and Pakistan, two enduring rivals: they had been at odds since 1947, they had waged three conventional wars and were preparing a fourth because of lingering suspicions that the other side might go nuclear at any moment.

    When both went nuclear in 1998, the theory of deterrence was put to a new test since their main difference was not territorial or economic, but religious (Muslim versus Hindu, even though India would officially deny the latter as its state religion). And the otherwordly orientation of religion could be expected to make the 'unthinkable' thinkable after all.

    Instead, the formal acquisition of nuclear weapons by both states introduced a whole new dynamic to their relationship.

    1. First off, the formal announcements, actual tests and published nuclear doctrines on both sides served to clear the air. Both nations now had the 'bomb' and there was no more room for festering suspicions on the subject.

    2. Secondly, both were forced to think in terms of mutual destruction. They discovered the need for consultation, as well as mutual and international cooperation, in order to prevent escalation. India and Pakistan had always refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (1996) on grounds that they were discriminatory and merely prolonged 'nuclear Apartheid'. After 1998 they began to think like Americans and Europeans. And they learned fast: the 1999 Kargil skirmish was contained in the same manner as the superpower stand-offs of the Cold War.

    3. Thirdly, religion apparently does not make elites less selfish and less bent of their own physical and political subsistence. Mind you: even amid the horrific proliferation practices of Dr Khan throughout the 1990's, no nuclear materials or production secrets were ever sold to non-state groups. Pakistani officials who contemplated such a sale were fired or even shot.

    The tentative conclusion should be that religious regimes behave rationally (i.e. along the same lines as non-religious state actors) and that there is no reason to fear an Iranian nuclear weapon more than an Indian or Pakistani one. That is reassuring.

    But this does not exclude the possibility you mentioned: that nuclear technology ends up in the hands of religious non-state actors who think the 'unthinkable'. The only reassurance we have in this case is classic deterrence: any state that is even remotely involved with a non-state actor in the pursuit of nuclear arms will itself risk total annihilation. Remember that every atom in every single nuclear charge in the world has its fingerprint, which allows its origin and trajectory to be traced in detail. My personal view is that this has prevented nuclear terrorism until now, notwithstanding the fact that Pakistan, Libya, the former states of the USSR and other nations have been leaking nuclear materials and knowlewdge for decades. But of course it may have been just luck...
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

  12. #12
    Jillian & Allison's Daddy Senior Member Don Corleone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    7,588

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    My apologies, I'm getting my boogeymen mixed up. Iran supports Hezbollah, not Hamas, not that I'd care to be in the clutches of either group.
    "A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."
    Don Vito Corleone: The Godfather, Part 1.

    "Then wait for them and swear to God in heaven that if they spew that bull to you or your family again you will cave there heads in with a sledgehammer"
    Strike for the South

  13. #13
    The very model of a modern Moderator Xiahou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in the cloud.
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
    Can Iran be trusted with nuclear weapons - ie, explosive devices based on nuclear fission?
    No.

    As a sovereign nation, should they be allowed to purchase such devices? What if they design and construct them without foreign aid?
    No.

    What effects will the acquisition of nuclear armaments on Iran's part have in the Middle East and the world? Good or ill?
    Worst case ill, best case none. When we're dealing with nuclear weapons and a country run by fundamentalist clerics, we can't risk ill. I don't care if they are a soveriegn nation- you cant just sit by and wring your hands if your neighbor is building a giant cannon that's pointed at your house and say to yourself 'What can I do? It's their land'
    "Don't believe everything you read online."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  14. #14
    Oni Member Samurai Waki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Portland, Ore.
    Posts
    3,925
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    If Iran gets nukes, then I say Madagascar should get nukes!

    Long Live Madagascar!

  15. #15
    The Usual Member Ice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Northville, Michigan
    Posts
    4,259

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    The speech by that nutjob makes me answer even more concrete then before. I'd be willing you use military action to take him out if it were necessary.
    Let the Flames Against me Begin.



  16. #16
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    Iran in a treaty stated that in order to recieve aid and assistance in developing their nuclear energy that they would not use the gained knowledge to pursue nuclear weapons.

    As we know treaties between nations are not enforcable by the International Community - unless one of the nations involved in the treaty wish to enforce the treaty,

    Iran has the ablity and the soverign right to attempt to build nuclear weapons in violation of the agreed upon treaties, if it so desires

    However the converse is also true. Nations that signed the treaty with Iran, can attempt to enforce the agreed upon treaty if they so desire.

    Its really a damned if you do - damned if you don't scenerio

    Edit: Incomplete sentence was corrected
    Last edited by Redleg; 01-12-2006 at 07:07.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  17. #17
    Mystic Bard Member Soulforged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Another Skald
    Posts
    2,138

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    Iran in a treaty stated that in order to recieve aid and assistance in developing their nuclear energy that they would not use the gained knowledge to pursue nuclear weapons.
    As said previously (and knowing your point before hand) the treaty was sentenced to death from the begining, just by being asimetrical. An unjust law shouldn't be respected, and the further generations shouldn't be paying with their economic prosperity for the mistakes of their predecessors.
    Born On The Flames

  18. #18
    |LGA.3rd|General Clausewitz Member Kaiser of Arabia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Munich...I wish...
    Posts
    4,788

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    If Iran can have nukes, so can I.

    Why do you hate Freedom?
    The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Senior Member Reenk Roink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,353

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel/War in Iran!

    No you can't, me and Just a Girl (ShambleS) have divided up the world already...

    Sorry, try again in the power struggle after one of our deaths...

  20. #20

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel/War in Iran!

    Quote Originally Posted by AdrianII
    The U.S. tried to deliver a lethal blow to Al Qaida in Afghanistan in 2001. It didn't work out. It tried to do so in Iraq in 2003. It didn't work out.
    The Taliban, who directly supported the operations of Al Qaida, were thrwon from power. As a result, Al Qaida is no longer in the position of open operation that they were in before the war. Lethal blow? No. Limb-chopping blood-letting blow? Yes.

    As for Iraq, that is a developing situation that is hard to understand by some folks who have no patience and would rather sit back eating Doritos and watching Comedy Central. Not that this is you. But this is a huge portion of lazy westerners who have no stomach for sacrifice and dedication. History will judge this, not you or I or Michael Moore or anyone else for that matter.

    Can we try to keep the topic on Iran and not go down the Iraq rabbit hole please? You brought it up. I just answered what you presented as a fact, when it is just your opinion.
    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Einstein

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    The Backroom is the Crackroom.

  21. #21
    Mystic Bard Member Soulforged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Another Skald
    Posts
    2,138

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    No particular person, nor a corporation, not even any government can be trusted when having weapons of mass destruction in their hands, or the technology to produce it. However this has it's limitations and Iran is using it for civil development as stated so I don't see anything wrong.

    The polemical treaty of Non Proliferation (1968) signed by almost all sovereing nations (with the exception that all of the five permanent members of the UN can still have weapons of mass destruction) was from the begining a failure, born asimetrical and still generating problems in international relationships.

    This was always a question of hipocresy. Now when affecting a nation with a polemical government, wich probably needs it for generating work and devoloping production, all comes to the safety of the entire world. I admit that Ahmadinejad is a bit of a worry, at least for what he says, but there's something that I found profundly unjust with that treaty, wich shouldn't be respected by any nation, and it's that they aren't in a line of equality.
    So if the question is you should be worried, well I already answered, but if it's "it should be allowed", of course, as long there's other nations that are allowed, then I don't see why this particular one don't. Perhaps it all comes to the administrative or even moral superiority that some nations are believed to have, but that I don't eat.
    Born On The Flames

  22. #22

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    Quote Originally Posted by Soulforged
    Perhaps it all comes to the administrative or even moral superiority that some nations are believed to have, but that I don't eat.
    Yes, good point. Perhaps some nations have more motives to use them than others though? At this point in time. Everything can change ofcourse.

  23. #23
    Dyslexic agnostic insomniac Senior Member Goofball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Victoria, British Columbia
    Posts
    4,211

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    I say no nukes for Iran. The reason that no nuclear holocausts have yet occurred has been because of the mutually assured destruction theory. Unfortunately, that concept only works if the political leaders of nuclear powers are rational and believe that the benefit of a nuclear war (wiping out the enemy) does not outweigh the cost (being wiped out).

    This does not apply in a theocracy, especially an extremist one like Iran's. To Iran's leaders, the benefit of a nuclear exchange (wiping the Israelis off the map) might appear far greater than the cost (being sent to meet Allah earlier than originally scheduled). In fact, they might see it as a "win/win," given that matryrdom is held in such high regard by religious extremists.
    "What, have Canadians run out of guns to steal from other Canadians and now need to piss all over our glee?"

    - TSM

  24. #24

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    I tend to agree with Don Corleone and Seamus on this issue.

    The greatest threat is not from national use of nuclear weapons, but from "extra-national" use, as Don put it.


    The loss of a major Western City would be met with dancing in the streets by the middle eastern majority.

    The Iranian President is right about one thing: There is a war between the West and radical Islam. The battleground is the psyche of the muslim male and the goal of the West is to impose tolerance on state-sponsored muslim extremism. The goal of radical Islam is unoppossed oppression, total obediance, and the spread of dictatorial theocracy throughout the world.


    We must win their minds. However, this is a difficult process because it requires the destruction of institutional hatred, such as that espoused by Ayatollah Nutjob, as well as the imposition of democracy and individual liberty.
    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Einstein

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    The Backroom is the Crackroom.

  25. #25
    karoshi Senior Member solypsist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    New York New York
    Posts
    9,020

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    get this thread back on topic or bye bye

  26. #26

    Default Re: Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel

    It's difficult to keep Israel out of this discussion as you mentioned, because the security of Israel is tied to the nuclear capabilities of Iran. Period.

    A nuclear empowered Iran is a "clear and present dnager" to the the existence of Israel. I think that Crazed Rabbit is right. Iran may be willing to commit a self-sacrifice in order to destroy Israel. This is a somewhat unique challenge when compared against more rational nations which seek self-preservation.

    Adrian II, true as it may be that the leaders of Iran are cowards, it is contendable as to the motivation of the leadership there.
    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Einstein

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    The Backroom is the Crackroom.

  27. #27

    Default War in Iran!

    ...Is inevitable!

    The path to war is being lit by Iran itself.

    Article showing similarities between Iraq and Iran.

    Sounds familiar?
    IRAQ

    WMD

    Signatory of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty accused of holding weapons of mass destruction including a nuclear arms programme. UN weapons inspectors were expelled from the country on the eve of the 2003 war.

    CONCEALMENT

    Confirmed to UN in 1995 that it had a clandestine nuclear weapons scheme following revelations by Saddam Hussein's brother-in-law who had defected. Before 2003 invasion, regime was accused of concealing WMD from UN inspectors.

    MISCALCULATION

    Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, 5 March 2003: "It serves the interest of no one for Saddam to miscalculate. It doesn't serve the interest of the United States or the world or Iraq for Saddam to miscalculate our intention or our willingness to act."

    SECURITY COUNCIL

    November 2002: Iraq threatened with military action unless it co-operates with UN inspectors. US leads invasion without Security Council backing.

    IRAN

    WMD

    Signatory of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty accused of working on nuclear weapons programme. UN weapons inspectors are at work in the country.

    CONCEALMENT

    Confirmed to UN in 2002 that it had a clandestine nuclear programme after revelations by Iranian dissidents. Iran was accused by Britain, France and Germany yesterday of "concealment and deception".

    MISCALCULATION

    White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 11 January, 2006: "The Iranian regime has made a serious miscalculation.If negotiations have run their course and Iran is not going to negotiate in good faith, then there's no other option but to refer the matter to the Security Council."

    SECURITY COUNCIL

    12 January 2006: Britain, France and Germany call for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Failure to reach agreement could give US hawks - and Israel - an excuse for unilateral military action.
    I don't agree with the left-leaning statement of U.S. and Israeli "excuse for military action" since peace and cooperation is always preferable to war, even by us hawks. The article still has some valid points.


    I know we have a topic on Iran already, but the purpose of this thread is to discuss the very real possibility of war, the process of getting to that point, who the major players will be, the regional and global implications, etc.re:conflict.


    With the Israeli political scene a mess, will the acting PM take the necessary action when Iran's capabilities become clear? Will Israel set the stage by bombing Iran as they have done in the past when Iran sought nuclear capabilities? Clearly, the answer is yes. But what will the reaction of Iran be? Will they make the mistake of retaliating against Israel? Let's hope not, because then the poor Iranians will suffer a horrible fate thanks to their own radical leadership.

    What say you, oh Orgahs?
    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Einstein

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    The Backroom is the Crackroom.

  28. #28

    Default Re: War in Iran!

    reading the news overt the past few weeks.......
    .....the similarities were starting to get a little disturbing anyway.

    I heard that Russia is now putting pressure on Iran too. In fact I've got the impression that some of the waverers on Iraq are sliding into place in the "quit it Iran" group.

  29. #29

    Default Re: War in Iran!

    About a week after they Atacked iraq.
    They were saying They should have attacked Iran,
    Then that went all quiet.

    It seems as though its re emerging....

    What was it nostradamus said that would destroy the world around about now?
    A great ball of fire from the east wasnt it?

    Good.
    Bout damn time this planet was given back to the animals

  30. #30

    Default Re: War in Iran!

    Nostradomus is an idiot. Focus. This is gonna happen. I just hope the U.S. is smart enought to let Europe lead in some areas on this (even though France and Germany would rather let Iran have the bomb, those weak-kneed cowards).
    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Einstein

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    The Backroom is the Crackroom.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO