US allows Iran its nuclear bomb

[irishScott]

The Irsishscott delusion is and remains here, "Doesn't sound like Hamas (the now elected rulers of Palestine) or any major part of the Iranian government (largely the subject of this thread), whom you say should be allowed to possess nukes, is willing to compromise."

Go ahead, dwell in a stupid past, for every nutty Arab, we can cite an equally nutty Israeli. Its exactly the wrong song man, and can only lead to infinite bloodbaths on all sides.

At some point in time people of good will on all sides can and will come together and make a just peace. The human race has always demonstrated that ability, and if we did not, us humans would know no peace. The point being, countless past conflicts have been resolved over the course of world history, and its always done in the same way.

And Irishscott is an absolute idiot if he does not consider Israeli settler parties and Netanyuhu as some of the worst actors in the entire mid-east. Achmadinejad is certainly an bad actor idiot also, but that is really the current mid-east problem, the rational moderates on all sides have been driven out of the debate, leaving only extremist idiots in charge.

The point is and remains, the moderates on all sides can and will return to the debate, once extremists idiots on all sides are discredited.

Go ahead irishscott, extol the virtues of Israeli settler parties, and gag all maggots in the process.

In return, I will promise not to extol the non existent virtues of various Arab extremists.

And where have I extolled the virtues of Israeli settler parties? I've mentioned several times in this very forum that Israel should stop building settlements so as to get some international support if nothing else. I've also mentioned that peace will not occur so long as they continue to build them.

And for every nutty Arab, you cannot cite an equally nutty Israeli. Sure both sides have their fanatical minorities, but in terms of percentages the Arabs have a whole lot more, and more than a few are in charge of their governments.

As for ackmadinajhad, I couldn't care less. He's a figurehead at their finest. It's the people keeping him in power that have me concerened.

And you're exactly right about one thing. The moderates have to return to the tables. This will, however, only happen when the fanatics are, on all sides, simultaneously denied influence. Good luck with that ever happening.

Bottom line: I disagree with a lot of Israeli policies, but compared to most of their adversaries they might as well be shitting gold.

 

[lsquare]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the Russians and Chinese would likely use their ICBM's to bomb the USA, because we had gone bonkers insane and were dangers to the entire world.

That is the whole idea of mutual assured destruction, the country using their nukes first become a danger to all countries.

And after crying wolf in Iraq, no one in the UN will trust the USA to invade countries by conventional means. Never mind the fact that the USA does not have the military means to invade Iran on the ground.

The Russians and Chinese won't attack the US if Iran were to initiate a Middle-Eastern War. Second, China has no capacity to wage a war hundreds of miles away from its border. Will the Russians intervene? It's hard to say on that matter. It's no secret to the Russians and Chinese that the US is not necessarily bluffing about the prospect of war.

Well, unlike you, I have no doubts that the US can fight a war against Iran. The question is whether the pros outweighs the cons of fighting a war against Iran.

As for MAD, there's no prospect of that happening. Realistically speaking here, neither Russia nor China will want to wage a war against the US for Iran's sake. Both countries would love nothing more than to see the US bogged down in another quagmire in the region.

 

[lsquare]

South Korea has mentioned that it will pursue nuclear weapons in response to the North's program if it isn't stopped.

That's bullshit! SK has no need to pursue developing nuclear weapons because its security is already guaranteed under the US nuclear umbrella. So no, you're still wrong.

 

[irishScott]

That's bullshit! SK has no need to pursue developing nuclear weapons because its security is already guaranteed under the US nuclear umbrella. So no, you're still wrong.

Hmmm. After some research turns out my info was out of date (back to 1991). However, doesn't change my argument. Any non-aligned, minimally influenced nation that has nuclear reactors also has or is pursuing nuclear weapons.


And apparently there is some doubt (rightfully so IMO) about the efficacy of the US nuclear umbrella.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special...ar-weapons-in-South-Korea/UPI-51191256130461/

 

[lsquare]

Hmmm. After some research turns out my info was out of date (back to 1991). However, doesn't change my argument. Any non-aligned, minimally influenced nation that has nuclear reactors also has or is pursuing nuclear weapons.

I don't have the date with me, but SK did do research that was related to the development of nuclear weapons, but it was no official government policy nor did they ever created nuclear weapons. There's no need for them to do so.

And apparently there is some doubt (rightfully so IMO) about the efficacy of the US nuclear umbrella.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special...ar-weapons-in-South-Korea/UPI-51191256130461/

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. NK has nothing to stop the US from retaliating with nuclear weapons should they ever deploy such a weapon. The US can use bombers and missiles to deliver such a weapon. Not to mention that there are thousands of nukes at their disposals so even if one failed, I'm confident the other ones will succeed.

 

[irishScott]

I don't have the date with me, but SK did do research that was related to the development of nuclear weapons, but it was no official government policy nor did they ever created nuclear weapons. There's no need for them to do so.



Well, you're entitled to your opinion. NK has nothing to stop the US from retaliating with nuclear weapons should they ever deploy such a weapon. The US can use bombers and missiles to deliver such a weapon. Not to mention that there are thousands of nukes at their disposals so even if one failed, I'm confident the other ones will succeed.

It's not a matter of them being able to stop us, it's a matter of weather our government has the balls to follow through on its promises in this regard. Frankly I don't see it, and South Korea is one of the few countries whom I actually wouldn't mind seeing nuclear weapons proliferate to.

But this is another thread.

 

[lsquare]

It's not a matter of them being able to stop us, it's a matter of weather our government has the balls to follow through on its promises in this regard. Frankly I don't see it, and South Korea is one of the few countries whom I actually wouldn't mind seeing nuclear weapons proliferate to.

If the US doesn't go through with its promise to retaliate with nuclear weapons against NK if they use it against SK, then US credibility would be permanately damaged. Japan and our European allies would lose confidence in us. US national security would actually be weakened if we don't have the guts to go through with our words.

But this is another thread.

Agreed.

 

[ElFenix]

the US has been f-ing iran in the ass for the last 50 years so the least we could do is give them a reach aro, er, the bomb.

 

[zsdersw]

No. The best way would to be to bomb them into submission. No more appeasement.

No, that would be the worst way. It would seed more anti-American and anti-democratic sentiment, and destroy the generational march toward democracy that Iran is on. How much would bombing them into submission cost us, in the long run, in troops, money, potential terrorist attacks? A lot.

Our options are not as black-and-white as "appeasement or bomb the shit out of them". If you think they are, you're a fool.

 

[werepossum]

I'm no fan of Obama's foreign policy, such as it is, but I don't think he can stop Iran from getting the bomb anymore than could Bush short of a war. Iran has learned from Iraq's mistake and has built its nuclear program in a hardened and distributed fashion, so we would have a difficult time knocking it out as would Israel.

I don't agree that Iran will have democracy any time soon though. It's possible that had Obama supported the supporters of democracy during the last rigged elections, that might have happened. But had it failed we'd have had another war and democracy would be even more tightly linked to America and the west. I think Iran is in no danger of losing its classification as a destination fit for a king-sized enema any time soon. Shame, as they are smart people (with some hot women.)

 

[zsdersw]

I don't agree that Iran will have democracy any time soon though.

Nowhere did I say it would be "soon". I said it was a generational change.. and that takes at least a couple decades. That's also why I said it wouldn't be sensational; there's little about slow, gradual, incremental changes to spin into a soundbite that'll grab ratings.

 

[lsquare]

No, that would be the worst way. It would seed more anti-American and anti-democratic sentiment, and destroy the generational march toward democracy that Iran is on. How much would bombing them into submission cost us, in the long run, in troops, money, potential terrorist attacks? A lot.

Our options are not as black-and-white as "appeasement or bomb the shit out of them". If you think they are, you're a fool.

I agree! More often than enough, we let emotions gets the worse out of us. Look at Iraq as an example. It was so easy bombing the shit out of the Iraqis, but look at where we are today and how badly we affected geopolitics in the region. Had we not ousted Hussein, we could have let a madman keep the other group of mad men in Tehran in checked. Of course we're doing this in hindsight, but still look at how much American power has declined over the past decade. The last thing the US or its allies need is to get stuck in another quagmire. Iran is no China and I have no doubts that we can bomb the shit out of their military as well. The problem is the cost of fighting a war against Iran.

 

[lsquare]

I'm no fan of Obama's foreign policy, such as it is, but I don't think he can stop Iran from getting the bomb anymore than could Bush short of a war. Iran has learned from Iraq's mistake and has built its nuclear program in a hardened and distributed fashion, so we would have a difficult time knocking it out as would Israel.

I don't agree that Iran will have democracy any time soon though. It's possible that had Obama supported the supporters of democracy during the last rigged elections, that might have happened. But had it failed we'd have had another war and democracy would be even more tightly linked to America and the west. I think Iran is in no danger of losing its classification as a destination fit for a king-sized enema any time soon. Shame, as they are smart people (with some hot women.)

In a way Obama is just continuing Bush's policy of engaging Iran. I'm not a big fan of Obama either, but this is not Obama's work. Despite what some people say, Bush began serious engagement with the Iranians during his second term. Of course they didn't made a big deal out of it because some of the neocons wanted outright war with the Iranians.

I don't think Iran will have western style democracy any time soon. That should be the least of our worries. The US and its allies should do all that it can to stop the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapons and if it can't, it should work towards containment and outright war if both options fail. War should absolutely be the last option and must never be taken off the table.

 

[werepossum]

Nowhere did I say it would be "soon". I said it was a generational change.. and that takes at least a couple decades. That's also why I said it wouldn't be sensational; there's little about slow, gradual, incremental changes to spin into a soundbite that'll grab ratings.

Maybe. We'll see, but I frankly doubt I'll see a free Iran in my lifetime. I think the pro-Islamist theocracists outnumber the pro-democracists by a health margin.

In a way Obama is just continuing Bush's policy of engaging Iran. I'm not a big fan of Obama either, but this is not Obama's work. Despite what some people say, Bush began serious engagement with the Iranians during his second term. Of course they didn't made a big deal out of it because some of the neocons wanted outright war with the Iranians.

I don't think Iran will have western style democracy any time soon. That should be the least of our worries. The US and its allies should do all that it can to stop the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapons and if it can't, it should work towards containment and outright war if both options fail. War should absolutely be the last option and must never be taken off the table.

I don't think we have any practical way of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons short of war under Bush or Obama, and war after Iran gets a nuclear weapon would make no sense unless Iran is actively attacking us or Iraq or Israel. In practical terms, unless China and Russia get on board with our efforts they are non-starters. Obama has even less juice with the EU than did Bush, and I think China and Russia both see a nuclear Iran as worth the small threat to themselves for the threat to the USA.

 

[lsquare]

Maybe. We'll see, but I frankly doubt I'll see a free Iran in my lifetime. I think the pro-Islamist theocracists outnumber the pro-democracists by a health margin.



I don't think we have any practical way of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons short of war under Bush or Obama, and war after Iran gets a nuclear weapon would make no sense unless Iran is actively attacking us or Iraq or Israel. In practical terms, unless China and Russia get on board with our efforts they are non-starters. Obama has even less juice with the EU than did Bush, and I think China and Russia both see a nuclear Iran as worth the small threat to themselves for the threat to the USA.

Absolutely. Like I said before, nothing would please Beijing and Moscow than to see Washington D.C on the defensive. A preoccupied US would leave Russia and China with greater room to promote their agenda. This is why the US should do what it can to irritate both the Russians (Missile Defence in Eastern Europe) and Chinese (Taiwan). It's becoming apparent to me that the Russians and Chinese sees this as a zero-sum game.

 

[Lemon law]

IMHO, lsquare is engaged in simple cold war thinking by saying, "Absolutely. Like I said before, nothing would please Beijing and Moscow than to see Washington D.C on the defensive. A preoccupied US would leave Russia and China with greater room to promote their agenda. This is why the US should do what it can to irritate both the Russians (Missile Defence in Eastern Europe) and Chinese (Taiwan). It's becoming apparent to me that the Russians and Chinese sees this as a zero-sum game."

Its exactly the stupidest thing the US can do, sure we can gig China and the USSR into another arms race, Russia has taken the peace dividend that comes with an end to their military spending, and they are dripping in oil wealth. China has massively industrialized, and now supplies the US with consumer goods. While US industrial and manufacturing capacity has shrunk to record lows.

Where is the US going to borrow the bucks to engage in a new arms race, Russia and China can afford it, and the USA no longer can. As it is, the US military is almost over committed in two fool games quagmires of our own making.

In short, its long past time to engage in more pissing contests.

As China has discovered Mao, who famously remarked, power flows out of the barrel of a gun was wrong. Because power flows out of economic productivity that the USA has foolishly lost.