1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Iran close to war nukes

Discussion in 'World Politics' started by Libsmasher, Sep 25, 2008.

  1. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    This is troublesome for sure. Although one shouldnt be surprised this situation has come about. I hope cooler heads will prevail and that nuclear weapons never be used again.


    So what should we do then? Right now, we cant do squat about it. Iran is militarily isolated for the most part. We dont have the troops, treasure, or political will for another war. Personally, I am one who would rather directly engage my potential enemies than ignoring them until the situation escalates into conflict.

    We need Iran to crumble from within, and by targeting thier young poppulation who are apparently in general moderates.
     
  3. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Maybe the EU will finally wake up and do something now.
     
  4. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    Israel will nuke them. There is no other way. The UN and EU have seen it and done nothing.

    The only real question is, will the USA be on the side of Israel or not. and that depends on who the president is.
     
  5. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is rich coming from the nation that was adamant that Iraq had WMD.

    They didn't, the UN was right to hold back and most countries in Europe did not support the war because they also knew there was no proven case for WMD.

    So yet again we have the US distorting the truth to it its lardass would-be warrior class so that they can salue the flag every day and talk about kickin ass.

    Thousands of miles away with risk of return ass-kickin

    No wonder Hollywood had to pretend it was the Indians who were the baddies.

    You guys are just insane
     
  6. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think Israel will nuke them - Israel keeps it's nukes for a last resort if they are about to be overrun. They will attack the facilities, and then the responsibility for all the ensuing new conflict will rest squarely on the shoulders of all the people who swallowed the Obama/euro theory that the raving anti-semtic islamofascist ahmadinejad could be simply talked out of his present path.
     
  7. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Israel is not going to nuke anyone...
     
  8. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    I agree, Israel would hopefully only use them as a last ditch thing.
    I doubt it. I dont entirely believe the media reports of previous accounts of the ability of carry out air strikes in Iran. Unless they have somehow secretly aquired the F-22 or similar airframe, the logistics arent there without the use of American support. Plus one would have to be naive to assume the Iranians havent learned the lessons from Osirak.
    Huh? How do you figure? Do you want war with Iran? An end to civilization?
    Because the current policy of of making public threats against all parties involved, and pretending to ignore the other is pointless. It hasnt in any way shape or form worked against them developing WMDs. It only managed to spurr thier desire and investment in the programs.
     
  9. Vyddo

    Vyddo New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Indeed, The Iranian leader is a model human being .. His view's aren't insane, he isn't after Nuclear weapons, he isn't funding terrorists organizations.. He hasn't made outrageously insane comments about Israel and the US... yup, the US is definitely the "insane" part of this equation.
     
  10. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The US lied about Iraq having WMD just so that it could con the nation into supporting a war against it.

    The US is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in anger.

    The US supplies Israel and Pakistan with nuclear weapons.

    Maybe the US should just **** off and shut its hypocritical mouth
     
  11. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Libsmasher, Bunz posed a fair question: instead of talking to them, what would you have us do? We're more or less pushing the limits of economic sanctions as it is, and I sincerely doubt that anyone out there, Obama included, has the dipomacy skills to get everyone else to shut themselves off from Iran.

    Consider the advice of Teddy Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

    The current standoff with Iran carries inherent parallels with the situation in Europe in the latter half of the thirties. Okay, fine. The reason all diplomacy failed with Hitler was that the "big stick" part of the equation was missing. He had absolutely nothing to fear from Britain and France, had little to fear from an isolationist United States, and finally managed to broker a treaty with the Soviet Union.

    Today's "negotiations" with Iran aren't going so well because we're not exactly "speaking softly." How do you suppose it makes the Iranians feel, hearing people asking our presidential candidates, "Would you be willing to go to war with Iran?"

    Instead, we should focus on the lessons of the fall of the Soviet Union. The other side knew what we were capable of doing to them - they didn't need to be reminded. So, with our big stick in hand, we spoke softly. Even the famous "Tear down this wall!" statement was "soft" in that it did not overtly threaten war; the way in which it was delivered made it seem more a statement of moral necessity than an imperative carrying a threat (Reagan's speechwriters = geniuses).

    Those are just my thoughts on the matter. The Bush Administration has demonstrated a complete lack of subtlety around every corner. While that brute logic may have helped in dealing with North Korea, it's gotten us into this mess with Iran. And, to be honest, I'm not sure that at this point all the subtlety in the world could get us out of it.
     
  12. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How can the US expect to be taken seriously on the subject of who can and can't have nuclear weapons?

    If you supply one state in the middle east you can't complain when their enemy wants them too.

    After all, the US is always banging on about nuclear deterrent.
     
  13. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Detterence only works if the scales are even. Now, I know what you're thinking - giving both sides nukes makes the scales even, right? Wrong. Take a good, long look at Israel's history, from its inception in 1947 up until this year. How many times have a number of their neighbors banded together to attack them? For Israel, detterence is having nuclear weapons to counter the conventional weapons of their neighbors. When their neighbors start getting nuclear weapons...the scales shift again.
     
  14. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This luantic sixth-century type regime simply can't be allowed to have nuke weapons. When the US gets hard evidence that they are assembling them (which is about the only thing left) we should support Israel in taking out the facilities, with intelligence and military resupply.

    I'm sorry, but this is the Obama theory - if you speak nice to islamofascist tyrants, they'll give up and be nice ever after. The one thing that my study of history has taught me is that dictators only understand only one thing - force. Remember Stalin contemptuously said "how many divisions does the pope have"?

    That's just not true - when Reagan entered the white house, the soviet union was being aggressive all over the world, and had hugely armed up in the face of Jimmy Carter's retreat and appeasement policies. Reagan launched one of the biggest arms buildups in american history. Reagan's later-obtained KGB file described him as "a man for whom words and deeds are the same" - it was not only Reagan's words, but his deeds, that made him one of the instrumental factors in the collapse of the soviet union.
     
  15. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oh I see, so you can only have nukes if you are small country facing large opponents.

    Where does Pakistan fit in with this?
     
Loading...

Share This Page