At what cost? Stoping Nukes

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes but there is a very large difference between the ideology of Russia at the time and Iran now, I think you know what i mean, and thats another topic in itself.

I think that they have one important thing in common - bluster for consumption at home, to divert their people from reality.

Perhaps your looking at the application of the technology through a historical prespective? Perhaps we assume for a minute that Iran is supply arms to Hamas, now one would think with all the controls Israel has that would be nearly impossible.

the fact is the delivery system dosent need to be an ICMB to do massive damage, one dirty bomb that goes off at the washington monument effectively shuts down the federal government. Again we come back to intent, do the iranians as a nation intend to do this? Do a minority in Iran intend to do this?

Iran doesn't need a nuclear programme to make a dirty bomb. If they had the intent, they could buy whatever they needed in Uzbekistan, or southern Russia. Shipping it to the US to detonate is an entirely different logistical exercise. I'm sure you will agree that al-Q'aeda has by far the most proven intent in this area, and they haven't been able to do it. There is absolutely no evidence that the Iranian government plans to attack the US mainland. There might be one or two crackpots who dream of it, but that's hardly enough reason to invade when there are better options.

All to easy to use the saddam argument, but okay I'll bite. A military strike in Iran will not "decimate" the US or the global economy. Secondly, debt is deceptive, the federal government could enact a .10 cent tax on gas tomorrow, bye bye debt. Our GDP is strong enough that if somone had thier drothers they could handle the debt fairly easily.

You have noted this sanguine attitude before, and I admire your fortitude. You are aware that a great deal of the world's oil comes through the Straits of Hormuz, I'm sure, and that Iran controls those straits? When oil hits $200 a barrel the hour after starting a war, your government is going to tax gas even more? When China sells its stock holdings in the US because the economy is going to freefall, your business community is going to sit back and clap? And whither the US economy, so crashes the world. I suggest that an action against Iran will have much more serious consequences than you allow.

Back to Saddam, yep we were wrong, but then again he didnt have the IAEA confirming he had centerfuges active, and a growing nuclear program. So it seems to me we have even more compelling data that suggests Iran is devloping its nuclear technology.

So we are back to intent only, verification has happened, we know they are developing it.

But as I understand it, you are objecting to the intent to use such a weapon offensively. Verifying that they are working towards is irrelevant, in that we agree they are - but if they keep it for defensive purposes, I cannot see the objection on "intent" grounds.

Here's a case to judge for intent. Pakistan is a Muslim military dictatorship which is constantly supplying weaponry to terrorists fighting another of your allies, India. They have overtly threatened to use their nuclear bomb against that ally, a thriving democracy. They also supply arms and support to insurgents fighting NATO troops in Afghanistan. Just today, the Religious Affairs Minister has announced that suicide bombings in the UK are an appropriate response to the British government awarding a knighthood to a novelist. They are actively shielding the most wanted terrorist of all, bin Laden, from justice at your hands. They refuse to recognise Israel at any level and many senior politicians have called for her destruction as a state.

Yet they say, they are your friends. What is their intent? How can it be measured to be different from the words expressed and actions in Iran? Why are they not on the list for pre-emptive invasion (aside from the obvious "they have a bomb" answer?)

You state that as fact, and maybe your correct, but the vast, vast majority isnt controlling the mechnisms of military and nuclear development.

I note it as a fact because I have never met a group of ordinary people that harbour a desire to be annhiliated by nuclear strikes. I concede your point about the control of mechanisms, but Iran does have a lot of powerful factions that don't want any sort of confrontation with the US. My argument is that even those who bluster about it are intelligent enough to know it is just hot air because they are not suicidal.

I'm all for diplomacy, one on one with the Iranians, now and the next president. on this we agree I have no problem with full relations with Iran and diplomatic normalcy. Is that what they want? Is it up to the U.S. exclusively to make the first move?

Oh wait, it was the U.S. backed (puppet if you like) government in Iraq that brokered the face to face over Iraq wasnt it? Or was it at Iran's insistance?

Yes, it is up to the USA since it is the US that has refused point blank all these years to recognise the Islamic republic and has waged war by proxy on them. They are also in the position of power, and are the ones threatening to invade. I will concede that the Iranians could make it easier, but they know that the US is the one who needs peace more. Also, Ahmadinejad will need a bone to throw to his people, and allowing him to be the big "I am" for a few weeks is a small price to pay compared to the damage a war with Iran will bring.

Yes it did, but Libya has hardly the resources that Iran does, Iran is a powerful country no one here disputes this or takes it lightly, and thats why when they chant in thier mosques "death to america" we take it seriously.

I note Libya because they were also international pariahs cast beyond the pale, and also had nuclear ambitions. Libya was not considered an irrelevant country fifteen years ago, but with diplomacy, they have abandoned terrorism and their nuclear programme.

There are lessons to be learned from talking to Libya, just as from invading Iraq.