Ahmedinejad and nukes

[JerrySeinfeld]

Thoughts?

[M.Dancer]

Didn't need to think about that at all.

[geoffrey]

I'll pass on having someone better suited for a mental asylum having nukes.

[Charles Anthony]

Didn't need to think about that at all.

Me neither.

I'll pass on having someone better suited for a mental asylum having nukes.

Like who?

[Riverwind]

Thoughts?

Wrong question. The correct question is:

Which set of circumstances is less distasteful:

1) Starting a war with yet another Muslim country which would likely cause huge disruptions to the world oil supply and further inflame the Islamic world (leading directly to even more terrorist attacks).

2) Accept that Iran might get the bomb and hope that the MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine will ensure that no bomb ever gets set off.

Anyone who thinks that it is possible to stop Iran from getting the bomb without creating yet another generation of suicidal Jihadists is crazier than Ahmedinejad.

[geoffrey]

Thoughts?

Wrong question. The correct question is:

Which set of circumstances is less distasteful:

1) Starting a war with yet another Muslim country which would likely cause huge disruptions to the world oil supply and further inflame the Islamic world (leading directly to even more terrorist attacks).

2) Accept that Iran might get the bomb and hope that the MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine will ensure that no bomb ever gets set off.

Anyone who thinks that it is possible to stop Iran from getting the bomb without creating yet another generation of suicidal Jihadists is crazier than Ahmedinejad.

Do we need to start a war to prevent it? What about a tactical strike, do you think Iran would retaliate?

[Charles Anthony]

Do we need to start a war to prevent it? What about a tactical strike, do you think Iran would retaliate?

What the hell is the difference???

[Riverwind]

Do we need to start a war to prevent it? What about a tactical strike, do you think Iran would retaliate?

There are many nuclear installations distributed around the country - some in the middle of populated areas. Any tactical strike would require multiple waves of cruise missiles and bunker busting bombs that would inevitably cause a significant number of civilian casualties. Furthermore, such attacks would not eliminate the threat - they would only delay it. My feeling is using excessive force against Iran today would make it much more likely that nukes would be used when Iran is finally able to build a bomb. MAD worked for 50 years during the cold war - it can work with Iran too.

Incidentally, both Russia and China have radical Islamic groups creating trouble within their countries. Russia and China do not appear to be that concerned about Iran acquiring nukes which suggests that they do not believe that Iran would let terrorist groups have access to the technology even if they had it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Do we need to start a war to prevent it? What about a tactical strike, do you think Iran would retaliate?

There are many nuclear installations distributed around the country - some in the middle of populated areas. Any tactical strike would require multiple waves of cruise missiles and bunker busting bombs that would inevitably cause a significant number of civilian casualties. Furthermore, such attacks would not eliminate the threat - they would only delay it. My feeling is using excessive force against Iran today would make it much more likely that nukes would be used when Iran is finally able to build a bomb. MAD worked for 50 years during the cold war - it can work with Iran too.

Incidentally, both Russia and China have radical Islamic groups creating trouble within their countries. Russia and China do not appear to be that concerned about Iran acquiring nukes which suggests that they do not believe that Iran would let terrorist groups have access to the technology even if they had it.

MAD only works with rational people.

Someone who claims a "qolden aura" surrounds him while he speaks o the UN, denies the holocaust and outwardly states his intention to "wipe Israel off the map" doesn't qualify.

In his most recent address to the UN he finished with his desire for the coming of the "12th Imam" or the "Hidden Imam". Anyone who understands Islam knows the firm belief that armageddon must precede the coming of the 12th Imam.

A religious fanatic intent on the annihalation of an entire race and who clearly announces his desire for armageddon to the UN general assembly doesn't qualify as a very good lab-rat for a new "MAD" theory.

Or on a much simpler basis, how can Mutually Assured Destruction work for a man that speaks for a religion that's chief non-oil export is suicide bombers?

[Riverwind]

MAD only works with rational people.

Ahmedinejad is puppet put in place by the Mullahs who have the real power. I believe the Mullahs are as rational as the Communists in China or the authoritarians in Moscow. I question the sanity of the latter two groups of people as well but I not afraid that they will start a nuclear war.

Or on a much simpler basis, how can Mutually Assured Destruction work for a man that speaks for a religion that's chief non-oil export is suicide bombers?

How many suicide bombers have come from Iran? I have not heard of any. However, bombing the country would be a really good way to create legions of them.

[JerrySeinfeld]

MAD only works with rational people.

Ahmedinejad is puppet put in place by the Mullahs who have the real power. I believe the Mullahs are as rational as the Communists in China or the authoritarians in Moscow. I question the sanity of the latter two groups of people as well but I not afraid that they will start a nuclear war.

Or on a much simpler basis, how can Mutually Assured Destruction work for a man that speaks for a religion that's chief non-oil export is suicide bombers?

How many suicide bombers have come from Iran? I have not heard of any. However, bombing the country would be a really good way to create legions of them.

Take a look around Iraq. Who is it you think is promoting disruption in Iraq? Who supports Hezbollah? The bombing of the Jewish centre in Buenos Aires? The FATWA against Salmon Rushdie? Iran is a key source of Islamic fundamentalist support throughout the world.

[Riverwind]

Take a look around Iraq. Who is it you think is promoting disruption in Iraq? Who supports Hezbollah? The bombing of the Jewish centre in Buenos Aires? The FATWA against Salmon Rushdie? Iran is a key source of Islamic fundamentalist support throughout the world.

So? The US and the Russians did the same thing during the cold war when they thought it would help them politically. Neither side handed over nukes to the people fighting in these various wars by proxy. Iran is a mature society with a long history - this means that common sense and self-preservation will prevail in the long run no matter what inflammatory rhetoric gets tossed around in the short term.

I find it disturbing that so many people are talking about going to war with Iran today after the fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. By that definition there are a lot of people in leadership positions in the US gov't that are certifiably insane.

[myata]

Just out of curiousity, is it intended to be a "yes, me too" show of support thread or an exercise in asking loaded questions perhaps for a future opinion poll?

[Remiel]

I heard once that there was a person from a former US administration or the US military that said that if -anyone- had launched a nuke at them, they would of launched at -everyone-. Like stupidity, insanity is not monopolized by any one group.

[sharkman]

Wow, I can't believe there are people who think if Iran wants nukes, they should have them. A guy who has kooky hatred for Jews and wants them wiped off the map should never have nukes. If we were talking about a white leader who hates blacks and wants nukes to blow up an African nation, me thinks there would be more unity in response. Are blacks better than Jews? (Hnt: No.)

Why is the reason given for allowing Iran to have nukes that another war would be bad? I promise you there will be a war after Iran strikes Israel, and it won't be of the limited tactical strike variety. It would also have the high risk of escalation to world war status. All because the Iranian president hates Jews and wants nukes. Is that a stupid cause for a war or what? Let him have nukes and there will be a very messy war that he starts.

[Charles Anthony]

Wow, I can't believe there are people who think if Iran wants nukes, they should have them.

Do you think it is possible to prevent it?

[M.Dancer]

Wow, I can't believe there are people who think if Iran wants nukes, they should have them.

Do you think it is possible to prevent it?

Good question. Can anyone get this question to Saddam Hussien?

[Figleaf]

The poll asks the wrong question: 'Should he be allowed to develop an nuclear weapon?'

Right now, as a signatory of the Non-proliferation treaty, Iran IS NOT allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. However, the fact is that on three months notice signatories can withdraw from the Non-proliferation treaty. If he does this, then he IS ALLOWED to develop a nuclear weapon.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Take a look around Iraq. Who is it you think is promoting disruption in Iraq? Who supports Hezbollah? The bombing of the Jewish centre in Buenos Aires? The FATWA against Salmon Rushdie? Iran is a key source of Islamic fundamentalist support throughout the world.

So? The US and the Russians did the same thing during the cold war when they thought it would help them politically. Neither side handed over nukes to the people fighting in these various wars by proxy. Iran is a mature society with a long history - this means that common sense and self-preservation will prevail in the long run no matter what inflammatory rhetoric gets tossed around in the short term.

I find it disturbing that so many people are talking about going to war with Iran today after the fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. By that definition there are a lot of people in leadership positions in the US gov't that are certifiably insane.

ACTUALLY if you look at the past 3 decades the US and world policy toward the middle east would be insane under your definition - that's why we're taking a different tact now.

If you believe Michael Moore and the rest of the squeemish left media, yes it's time for an "exit strategy". But I can't even fathom the press and even lefties in the 40's talking about an "exit strategy"from WWII.

It takes a long time to defeat these a**holes. They have the long term resolve...do we?

[M.Dancer]

But I can't even fathom the press and even lefties in the 40's talking about an "exit strategy"from WWII.

Start fathoming.....

When Roosevelt said at the casablanca confernce that the Allied goal was the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan (but not Italy) the ripples were felt across the oceans....many including in the British war cabinet felt that an unconditional surrender ultimatum would steal the will of the enemy and keep them in the fight longer than necessary. Churchill himself had doubts about it and pressed to leave Italy out of the statement in order that if they fell from Hitler's grasp they would sue for terms.....

One thing that stands out, at least in the British political conduct of the war was how many times Churchill was called to defend his and his generals performance before parliament where open and often heated debate took place. Nothing was sacred. And if it was too sensitive for open debate they had a secret session.

In the end I believe Churchills opinion was that the debates strengthened the nation.

[JerrySeinfeld]

But I can't even fathom the press and even lefties in the 40's talking about an "exit strategy"from WWII.

Start fathoming.....

When Roosevelt said at the casablanca confernce that the Allied goal was the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan (but not Italy) the ripples were felt across the oceans....many including in the British war cabinet felt that an unconditional surrender ultimatum would steal the will of the enemy and keep them in the fight longer than necessary. Churchill himself had doubts about it and pressed to leave Italy out of the statement in order that if they fell from Hitler's grasp they would sue for terms.....

One thing that stands out, at least in the British political conduct of the war was how many times Churchill was called to defend his and his generals performance before parliament where open and often heated debate took place. Nothing was sacred. And if it was too sensitive for open debate they had a secret session.

In the end I believe Churchills opinion was that the debates strengthened the nation.

OK - pretty good stuff. And it actually even strengthens the argument for staying with Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, even in bigger wars we have historically questioned ourselves but stuck with it and come out victorious.

Syicking with Iraq should be a cakewalk if it weren't for squeemish media having a fit with every car bomb. The USA has lost about 1 month's worth of Vietnam casualties in this entire Iraq war - hardly 'cause for an exit strategy.

[M.Dancer]

But I can't even fathom the press and even lefties in the 40's talking about an "exit strategy"from WWII.

Start fathoming.....

When Roosevelt said at the casablanca confernce that the Allied goal was the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan (but not Italy) the ripples were felt across the oceans....many including in the British war cabinet felt that an unconditional surrender ultimatum would steal the will of the enemy and keep them in the fight longer than necessary. Churchill himself had doubts about it and pressed to leave Italy out of the statement in order that if they fell from Hitler's grasp they would sue for terms.....

One thing that stands out, at least in the British political conduct of the war was how many times Churchill was called to defend his and his generals performance before parliament where open and often heated debate took place. Nothing was sacred. And if it was too sensitive for open debate they had a secret session.

In the end I believe Churchills opinion was that the debates strengthened the nation.

OK - pretty good stuff. And it actually even strengthens the argument for staying with Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, even in bigger wars we have historically questioned ourselves but stuck with it and come out victorious.

Syicking with Iraq should be a cakewalk if it weren't for squeemish media having a fit with every car bomb. The USA has lost about 1 month's worth of Vietnam casualties in this entire Iraq war - hardly 'cause for an exit strategy.

Iraq is a failed expedition. A quagmire even. Not like the quagmire that the NDP see in Afghanistan, they are just using that term because they think the next fed election is between them and Bush.....but a real quagmire. If they leave they leave their entire reputation and plan destroyed. They have no choice but to stay. They do have a choice though, of biting the bullet and increasing their troop levels to an unprecedented size in this conflict. They had a chance before the war to actually win, but the political leadership failed. Rumsfeld failed. Bush failed because he belived Rumsfelld could win with the fewest troops possible.....their only hope is they double the number of troops there and keep them double fo another 2 4 years......otherwise 4 years form now youwill be reading how oil exports are still 60% of pre war levels and the monthly death toll of iraqis averages 1400.......

[Riverwind]

OK - pretty good stuff. And it actually even strengthens the argument for staying with Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, even in bigger wars we have historically questioned ourselves but stuck with it and come out victorious.

In WW2 there was a clear enemy and the there was a way to measure success (i.e. the surrender of Germany and or Japan). Furthermore, there was a immediate danger to the countries involved (nightly bombings of London). This bogus war on terror has no way to measure success because you cannot prove a negative (e.g no terrorist attacks in 500 days - does that mean we won ) Furthermore, there is real evidence that fighting terrorism with war is like fighting oil fires with water: it accomplishes nothing and just makes the problem worse. In WW2 it was pretty obvious that removing Hitler from power would solve the problem.

Syicking with Iraq should be a cakewalk if it weren't for squeemish media having a fit with every car bomb. The USA has lost about 1 month's worth of Vietnam casualties in this entire Iraq war - hardly 'cause for an exit strategy.

It would be worth staying in Iraq if Iraq had some connection to the problem. The fact is that Iraq had no connection to terrorism and was a bogus war justified by idiots who think complex social problems can be solved with a cruise missile. There will be no peace in Iraq until the Americans leave and let the various factions rip each other apart for a few years. Once they have figured out that they have no one to blame but themselves they will figure out some way to get along.

[JerrySeinfeld]

OK - pretty good stuff. And it actually even strengthens the argument for staying with Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, even in bigger wars we have historically questioned ourselves but stuck with it and come out victorious.

In WW2 there was a clear enemy and the there was a way to measure success (i.e. the surrender of Germany and or Japan). Furthermore, there was a immediate danger to the countries involved (nightly bombings of London). This bogus war on terror has no way to measure success because you cannot prove a negative (e.g no terrorist attacks in 500 days - does that mean we won ) Furthermore, there is real evidence that fighting terrorism with war is like fighting oil fires with water: it accomplishes nothing and just makes the problem worse. In WW2 it was pretty obvious that removing Hitler from power would solve the problem.

Syicking with Iraq should be a cakewalk if it weren't for squeemish media having a fit with every car bomb. The USA has lost about 1 month's worth of Vietnam casualties in this entire Iraq war - hardly 'cause for an exit strategy.

It would be worth staying in Iraq if Iraq had some connection to the problem. The fact is that Iraq had no connection to terrorism and was a bogus war justified by idiots who think complex social problems can be solved with a cruise missile. There will be no peace in Iraq until the Americans leave and let the various factions rip each other apart for a few years. Once they have figured out that they have no one to blame but themselves they will figure out some way to get along.

The establishmen of a democratic west-friednly state in the middle of the middle east with a strong American miltary presence has stirred up all kinds of muslim fanatacism - which clearly illutrates Iraq's importance to the issue of terrorism.

If you don't believe your lyin' eyes just ask bin laden who refers to the Iraq war as WWIII between the USA and Islamic radicals.

A quagmire with only 3,000 US deaths? Gosh - I'll tak that quagmyre anyday.

But you are right - we should increase the presence and get more serious over there - right now they barbarians think they're winning.

[Riverwind]

The establishmen of a democratic west-friednly state in the middle of the middle east with a strong American miltary presence has stirred up all kinds of muslim fanatacism - which clearly illutrates Iraq's importance to the issue of terrorism.

Sure, it proves my point that the US created a problem which did not exist before it invaded Iraq. If it had left Iraq alone there would less terrorism today and a reformist president would likely still be in place in Iran (the election of Ahmedinejad was yet another consequence of the American invasion).

If you don't believe your lyin' eyes just ask bin laden who refers to the Iraq war as WWIII between the USA and Islamic radicals.

Bin Laden can say whatever he wants - it does not make it true.