Iran calls to destroy Israel, solves the "who's gonna hit Iran's nukes" question.

Mycroft said:
In what way do you classify Iran as a third world country? They're wealthy, educated, enjoy a high standard of living and are capable of building nukes.
Click to expand...

You forgot to add "...and they don't kiss US hinie", because that's the main reason why they make you nervous. They're not your boys. See, I believe Pakistan to be politically much more unstable than Iran. But you don't see americans freaking out because Pakistan has the bomb. Why do you think that is, Mycroft?

I suggest you spend some time here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
 
Orwell said:
You forgot to add "...and they don't kiss US hinie", because that's the main reason why they make you nervous. They're not your boys. See, I believe Pakistan to be politically much more unstable than Iran. But you don't see americans freaking out because Pakistan has the bomb. Why do you think that is, Mycroft?

I suggest you spend some time here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
Click to expand...
Yes, whether or not someone is allied with me has a lot to do with whether or not I want them obtaining certain capabilities. I see nothing wrong with that. That's called the instinct of self-preservation. It is simply survival.

But for what its worth...I'd rather Pakistan and India not have nukes, either. But I am much more concerned about Iran.
 
Orwell said:
You forgot to add "...and they don't kiss US hinie", because that's the main reason why they make you nervous. They're not your boys. See, I believe Pakistan to be politically much more unstable than Iran. But you don't see americans freaking out because Pakistan has the bomb. Why do you think that is, Mycroft?

I suggest you spend some time here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
Click to expand...


Ummmm...I think maybe the calls to "wipe Israel from the map" and "anyone who sides with them will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations fury" might be what makes people nervous. Not the fact that they don't kiss US ass.

I haven't heard anything similar from Mushareef lately.
 
Ralph said:
Ummmm...I think maybe the calls to "wipe Israel from the map" and "anyone who sides with them will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations fury" might be what makes people nervous. Not the fact that they don't kiss US ass.
Click to expand...
They've been spewing that kind of rhetoric for almost 30 years now. Yawn. And each time the US barks back with thinly veiled threats of invasion and bombings, it reenforces the hold on power of the Iranian hard-liners.

Ralph said:
I haven't heard anything similar from Mushareef lately.
Click to expand...
Mushareef could be toppled.
 
Freakshow said:
I didn't say "most" did. I said that the existence of SOME humans that want to do those things will never change.

You aren't at all addressing the issue. You are continuing to retreat to a point of saying "If we would just be nice, everybody else would be nice, too."
Click to expand...

Freakshow, if one country isn't nice, then beat it with a big stick. But don't do it alone: get the international community on your side.

Compare the first Gulf War, to the recent invasion of Iraq:

The first gulf war had UN approval, the backing of all the US's major allies, and even the support of a few Arab nations. It was a major multilateral operation. There was some protesting, but nothing major.

The invasion of Iraq was pretty much a unilateral action, justified with very nebulous claims, which had virtually no support from your allies, and no clear UN mandate. Result: the US was isolated, the disapproval was wide spread, and the support for the action minimal. And now a good chunk of the world hates your government's guts, and the US is stuck alone in Iraq. The Un won't take over, and the allies don't want to get involved.
 
Orwell said:
They've been spewing that kind of rhetoric for almost 30 years now. Yawn. And each time the US barks back with thinly veiled threats of invasion and bombings, it reenforces the hold on power of the Iranian hard-liners.


Mushareef could be toppled.
Click to expand...

Refresh my memory.

How many times was Israel invaded by hostile Arab nations?

I don't think it would be wise to brush it off as the usual rhetoric...
esp. if I was an Israeli citizen.
 
Ralph said:
Refresh my memory.

How many times was Israel invaded by hostile Arab nations?
Click to expand...
Twice: 1948, 1973. And Israeli invaded hostile Arab nations too: the 1956, 1967 wars and the Lebanon operations. The '56 war was fought on Egyptian soil. 1967 was a so called "preventive war". Israel also occupied the south of Lebanon in the late 70s, early '80s.

Is your memory refreshed?
Ralph said:
I don't think it would be wise to brush it off as the usual rhetoric...
esp. if I was an Israeli citizen.
Click to expand...
If you don't brush the usual rhetoric, you're doing exactly what the hard-liners want you to do. Don't react to words, these guys are all bark and no bite. React to actions. And react proportionally and reasonably.
 
Last edited:
these guys are all bark and no bite.[/QUOTE]



Of course.....and their nuclear program is just to generate electricity.
 
Ralph said:
these guys are all bark and no bite.
Click to expand...



Of course.....and their nuclear program is just to generate electricity.[/QUOTE]

As I said before, I don't think an Iran with nukes is any more dangerous than a Pakistan with nukes. Besides, short of a full invasion (which is pretty unrealistic at this time), there's not much you can do about it. So better keep our heads cool and try to see if there's any way to negotiate something.
 
Orwell said:
As I said before, I don't think an Iran with nukes is any more dangerous than a Pakistan with nukes. Besides, short of a full invasion (which is pretty unrealistic at this time), there's not much you can do about it. So better keep our heads cool and try to see if there's any way to negotiate something.
Click to expand...
Good advice, but what gets me fretful is the impression, verging on conviction, that PNAC-strain neo-cons are advocating a new foreign involvement to direct public attention from domestic - dare I say parochial? - issues. So an ineffective strike against Iran is not ruled out by it's ineffectiveness vis-a-vis an Iranian nuclear capability. The Israelis "took out" Iraq's nuclear capabilites in Operation Babylon, but 20 years later the US was invading Iraq partly because of it's nuclear program. Allegedly. When you're my age, putting something off 20 years ranks as procrastination. But the political mind has much closer time-horizons.
 
Orwell said:
As I said before, I don't think an Iran with nukes is any more dangerous than a Pakistan with nukes. Besides, short of a full invasion (which is pretty unrealistic at this time), there's not much you can do about it. So better keep our heads cool and try to see if there's any way to negotiate something.
Click to expand...
What about what Israel did with Iraq? No invasion. Just hit the nuclear sites from the air, and go home. We wouldn't even have to send planes. We could do it with Tomohawk cruise missles.

I don't know about the difference in the two scenarios, in terms of radiation risks. Maybe someone else here has more info on that and can comment.
 
Last edited:
Orwell said:
Freakshow, if one country isn't nice, then beat it with a big stick. But don't do it alone: get the international community on your side.

Compare the first Gulf War, to the recent invasion of Iraq:

The first gulf war had UN approval, the backing of all the US's major allies, and even the support of a few Arab nations. It was a major multilateral operation. There was some protesting, but nothing major.

The invasion of Iraq was pretty much a unilateral action, justified with very nebulous claims, which had virtually no support from your allies, and no clear UN mandate. Result: the US was isolated, the disapproval was wide spread, and the support for the action minimal. And now a good chunk of the world hates your government's guts, and the US is stuck alone in Iraq. The Un won't take over, and the allies don't want to get involved.
Click to expand...
Um...uh...er...what does that have to do with what we were talking about?

I believe we were talking about this:
1: You believe human nature can change, and that we should resolve our problems that way. I contend that is not possible, and that human nature does not change.
2: You believe that evaluating people/organizations based on their history and views is not relevant at all to whether or not said people/organizations should have a specified capability. You state that if one can have it, then everyone should have it. I disagree.
 
Orwell said:
As I said before, I don't think an Iran with nukes is any more dangerous than a Pakistan with nukes. Besides, short of a full invasion (which is pretty unrealistic at this time), there's not much you can do about it. So better keep our heads cool and try to see if there's any way to negotiate something.
Click to expand...
Good advice, but what gets me fretful is the impression, verging on conviction, that PNAC-strain neo-cons are advocating a new foreign involvement to direct public attention from domestic - dare I say parochial? - issues. So an ineffective strike against Iran is not ruled out by it's ineffectiveness vis-a-vis an Iranian nuclear capability. The Israelis "took out" Iraq's nuclear capabilites in Operation Babylon, but 20 years later the US was invading Iraq partly because of it's nuclear program. Allegedly. When you're my age, putting something off 20 years ranks as procrastination.
 
CapelDodger said:
Good advice, but what gets me fretful is the impression, verging on conviction, that PNAC-strain neo-cons are advocating a new foreign involvement to direct public attention from domestic - dare I say parochial? - issues. So an ineffective strike against Iran is not ruled out by it's ineffectiveness vis-a-vis an Iranian nuclear capability. The Israelis "took out" Iraq's nuclear capabilites in Operation Babylon, but 20 years later the US was invading Iraq partly because of it's nuclear program. Allegedly. When you're my age, putting something off 20 years ranks as procrastination. But the political mind has much closer time-horizons.
Click to expand...
One night of air operations to get 20+ years of Iran not having nukes? If we assume for a moment that the operation will be successful, what further objections do you have? Iraq wasn't getting close to nuclear capabilities now, either. The one operation by Israel got more than 20 years, wouldn't you agree?
 
Freakshow said:
Um...uh...er...what does that have to do with what we were talking about?

I believe we were talking about this:
1: You believe human nature can change, and that we should resolve our problems that way. I contend that is not possible, and that human nature does not change.
2: You believe that evaluating people/organizations based on their history and views is not relevant at all to whether or not said people/organizations should have a specified capability. You state that if one can have it, then everyone should have it. I disagree.
Click to expand...

I've never suggested that we need to radically change human nature: I don't share your particular opinion on human nature, and I believe that most of the changes that are needed are essentially political. The comparison between the first Gulf War and the Iraqi invasion is a suggestion of a way how things could work, and you'll notice that it doesn't involve any major changes to human nature.

Often, conservative leaning people invoke "evil human nature" as a way to justify their particular points-of-view. I've always thought that it sounded just like an excuse for maintaining the status-quo.
 
Last edited:
Freakshow said:
What about what Israel did with Iraq? No invasion. Just hit the nuclear sites from the air, and go home. We wouldn't even have to send planes. We could do it with Tomohawk cruise missles.

I don't know about the difference in the two scenarios, in terms of radiation risks. Maybe someone else here has more info on that and can comment.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems that no one is quite sure how far along the Iranians are. It seems that no one knows were their facilities are. It also seems that there's a good chance the facilities are spread out all over Iran. Actually, it seems that no one quite knows what's going on with the Iranian nuke program. Considering the past dismal failures of US intelligence, I think you can pretty much forget about Tomahawk strikes, unless you wanna repeat the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant fiasco...
 
merphie said:
Iraq doesn't?
Click to expand...

??? You mean Iran? Iran has been under the same political regime (Islamic republic with a kind of partially democratic system with elections and all) since 1979. Iraq was ruled by the same guy (Hussein) since 1979. Pakistan has been periodically oscillating between military dictatorship and civilian "democratic" rule ever since its creation in 1947... By the way, Pakistan is also an Islamic republic, and Islamic extremists have been extremely active in its territory... If Ben Laden is still alive, there's a pretty good chance he is hiding in Pakistan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom