This I won't have any trouble paying for.
LOL! make sure you post a facebook update when you're in the middle of tehran.
This I won't have any trouble paying for.
Wow, a very rare possible miscue. Did you just admit that without Israel being armed to the teeth it already would have been overrun by its millions of neighbors?And lets be fair to Israel here, had Israel not developed a military stance they never would have survived all the united Arab Army attacks after Israeli statehood was UN approved in 1948.
I can only speak to US troop numbers (there are a substantial amount of "paid fighting men" that aren't in the military.) We're due to be completely out of their country, save the Embassy guard force, in about 6 weeks. All brigade combat teams have withdrawn to Kuwait with many of them sending their soldiers back to the states. The only people remaining are the logistics people working feverishly to get everything packed up, handed over and to "turn off the lights."
I don't follow.
Feel free to Google news about Israel, and you'll find a couple days worth of articles citing US military sources saying "We don't think Israel is going to give us prior warning about attacking Iran."
You can also find a week's worth of articles about burgeoning US military bases struggling to deal with the largest number of redeployed US troops in a decade, and wandering what to do with all of them.
try to keep up with current events, son.
US to massively increase gulf presence after "withdrawal" of iraq"
LOL!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Wow, a very rare possible miscue. Did you just admit that without Israel being armed to the teeth it already would have been overrun by its millions of neighbors?
try to keep up with current events, son.
US to massively increase gulf presence after "withdrawal" of iraq"
LOL!
Of course you don't follow- you're being disingenuous once again. Should Israel attack, the IAEA inspectors will be on the next plane out, and Iran will set out in earnest to create nukes, regardless of how long it takes or how much it costs. They can create facilities even nukes can't take out, like Cheyenne mountain, well out of range of Israeli air strikes. They have the money, the technical expertise, and the manpower to do so. After that, it'd just be a matter of time until they test their first device. It's not like Uncle Sam will intervene, either, no matter how badly the Israelis want to think that we would.
Go rogue and you're on your own, guys...
Would you support admitting Israel into NATO and assuring it of protection? Or should the Jews simply remain defenseless in light of a billion Muslims whose scripts demand Jews to convert or die, some of them with nukes already?
why? You actually think that if Iran was armed or for that matter radical Muslims were armed with nuclear weapons that they would NOT use them??
You are so sadly mistaken.....
I thought Pakistan is a Muslim state?
Common misconception, they're actually a Scientologist state.
Woolfe asks a the question, "In all seriousness, NPT or no, we aren't going to get anywhere with non-proliferation if we aren't unified. You'd think the west could unify on this one issue, but apparently not."
So I ask Woolfe in the same spirit, would you support Israel giving up its nukes to make the mid-east a nuclear weapons free zone if Iran did the same?
I think total world unity could be achieved on that basis.
Nice job not quoting my other comments where I said that no currently nuclear armed nation will ever give up its nukes, which is all the stronger reason to prevent more countries from acquiring them. In answer to your question, sure, I support every nuclear armed nation not being nuclear armed anymore. If I could snap my fingers and expunge the existence of all nuclear weapons I would do so without hesitation. But I am working in the confines of what is possible in the real world. In that world, nuclear armed nations won't give up their nukes, and they can't be militarily forced to, for obvious reasons, while preventing new countries from acquiring them is difficult, yet possible. The world community has now failed, several times, with Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. It's time to stop failing.
- wolf
How do you suggest we stop failing?
Do a better job of securing nuclear materials, tougher sanctions, covert activity, and surgical military strikes as a last resort. Iran's nuclear development was concentrated in a smaller number of locations 5 years ago, and a strike was much more feasible then. Trouble is we had no credibility because of the Iraq/WMD debacle. I'm not saying we can prevent every determined country from acquiring them, but we can do better than sitting around mouthing off for 12 years while a country like Iran goes on its merry way. We dithered on this one, pissed away what credibility we have, and now it's likely too late.
None of these things would have prevented Iran from creating a nuclear weapon. Iran mines its own uranium, they are already sanctioned out the wazoo (and sanctions, once implemented do not change behavior). We used covert activity, but clearly we aren't going to James Bond everyone's WMD programs out of existence. There was also no way that we were going to bomb Iran's program in 2006 while we were furiously fighting to keep Iraq from imploding.
I guess my point is that we already do most of the things you are suggesting. It's not enough.
I disagree that a military strike 5 years ago would not have been effective. Your point about Iraq misses my point - we never should have been in Iraq to begin with. Not only were we too busy "furiously fighting" there, but Bush blew our international credibility on that war. Without it, we could probably have gotten broad NATO support for, and participation in, strikes against Iran. Along with Afghanistan, the Iran situation is yet another negative byproduct of Iraq. This was an administration that fire scatter shot and did not carefully pick its targets.
- wolf
Whether or not it would have been effective (and I have doubts about that as even by 2006 Iran's nuclear program was highly dispersed and significantly hardened), it was simply not possible. Not only that, but our intel as to Iran's nuclear ambitions was highly fragmentary at that time, as reflected by a 2007 NIE that determined Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf
With that in mind I just don't find your NATO strike scenario plausible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So what then is your solution to nuclear non-proliferation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I asked you on this thread, if you would support making the mid-east into a nuclear weapons free zone by also disarming Israel?
Still waiting for your response--and waiting---and waiting for an end to your hypocrisy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I asked you on this thread, if you would support making the mid-east into a nuclear weapons free zone by also disarming Israel?
Still waiting for your response--and waiting---and waiting for an end to your hypocrisy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I asked you on this thread, if you would support making the mid-east into a nuclear weapons free zone by also disarming Israel?
Still waiting for your response--and waiting---and waiting for an end to your hypocrisy.
A report from United Nations energy officials claims that Iran has already mastered the steps necessary to build nuclear weapons, putting the nation on the brink of joining the world's nuclear powers. The International Atomic Energy Agency is set to issue the report later this week, but The Washington Post unveiled its key details on Sunday.