If you thought Iraq was a "cakewalk", try attacking Iran

[Black Dog]

Upon further consideration M. Dancer's argument above exposes the goofiness of the proponents of the "bomb Iran" strategy. On the one hand, we're suppossed to see a nuclear Iran as a grave threat because its leadership is crazy and totally irrational and would thus be prone to launching nuclear strikes that would inevitably result in their own destruction. But on the other hand, these same crazy loons are expected to behave in a completely logical and rational fashion (by, for example, reconsidering their support for the Iraqi Shiite insurgency, assuming of course that they are supporting them currently) after they get bombed. How these people aren't totally paralyzed by the cognitive dissonance is a mystery to me.

[M.Dancer]

Even a rabid dog will shy away after a beating.......

[M.Dancer]

Iran has a 'legimate' need for nuclear weapons to defend itself against a US attack. They have as much right to possess nukes as China, Russia or the US for that matter. Furthermore, Iran's support of terrorism is no different than what the US did during the cold war in places ranging from Afganistan to Nicaragua.

It is true that the rhetoric coming out of Tehran is distrubing but there is evidence that the person spouting this rhetoric does not speak for either the real leadership in Tehran or the people as a whole.

Some much confusion, so little time.....

They have as much right to possess nukes as China, Russia or the US for that matter.

Actually and legally no.

1) they are signatories to the NPT. If they are in violation of the treaty then action may be taken against them. At very least there are sanctions. And if the violation is a threat to our safety and that of our allies then stronger measures are justified.

Furthermore, Iran's support of terrorism is no different than what the US did during the cold war in places ranging from Afganistan to Nicaragua

2)I'm not sure what moral equivalence has to do with the here and now, even if it was relevant. I suppose you could claim that the Sandinista genocide of the Mesquita indians is the same as the intentions of Tehran or what ever......

Iran has a 'legimate' need for nuclear weapons to defend itself against a US attack

3)Yeah....sure. So as well as championing Iran's repudiation of the NPT, you claim they need nuclear weapons to defend against a US attack, which would only be likely if Iran got Nuclear weapons........

Iran wants nuclear weapons, but not to attack the US or defend against a US attack.....they want it to leverage their power to be the reginal hegemon, to influence events in Iraq, to intimadate Saudi Arabia and of course, to be the heroes of Islam and terrorise jews.

[Black Dog]

Even a rabid dog will shy away after a beating.......

Ah yes: the argumnet from (extremely weak) analogy. Tell me why we should take that seriously?

[Riverwind]

Iran wants nuclear weapons, but not to attack the US or defend against a US attack.....they want it to leverage their power to be the regional hegemony, to influence events in Iraq, to intimidate Saudi Arabia .

Explain to me why Iran is acting any differently than the US, China or Russia. What you are basically saying is there are two sets of rules: one for thugocracies like China and Russia who are too big to attack and another for two bit powers like Iran.

This might not be such a big deal if Iran was alone, however, Iran is a very symbolic country for close to 1 billion Muslims in the world which means attacking Iran will simply make a terrorist attack by nukes more likely - not less likely.

What you fail to understand is that Muslims _believe_ that Iran has a legitimate right to have nuclear weapons and no amount force will change that.

The NPT itself is a joke. I have read estimates that Japan has all of the peices in place to build a bomb within 6-8 weeks if they needed to and you cannot really argue this was an accidental consequence of a civilian nuclear program. Do you advocate bombing Japan because they are 'violating' the NPT?

[M.Dancer]

Who the fuck cares what muslims think....our security is more important than kowtowing to their public opinion......

[Black Dog]

I think that Iran should either agree to abide by the NPT withdraw from it. But that's neither here nor there.

[M.Dancer]

The NPT itself is a joke. I have read estimates that Japan has all of the peices in place to build a bomb within 6-8 weeks if they needed to and you cannot really argue this was an accidental consequence of a civilian nuclear program. Do you advocate bombing Japan because they are 'violating' the NPT?

Let me know when they are and I will give you a serious answer to a ridiculous and spuious claim. Any technologicallly advance nation (Canada, Japan, Iataly) could build a bomb...and that's why thentreaty exists, no just for us but for backwards nations like iaran so they can benefit from the peaceful use of nuclear technology.

[Riverwind]

Who the fuck cares what muslims think....our security is more important than kowtowing to their public opinion......

Because bombing Iran will lead inevitably to less security - not more. We have been here before - 4 years ago people like you were trying to argue that invading Iraq would make us more secure. That was not the case. Why should anyone believe you when you claim that attacking Iran would make us safer?

[Black Dog]

Who the fuck cares what muslims think....our security is more important than kowtowing to their public opinion......

So why are you advocating a course of action that has a strong possibility of negatively impacting our security?

[Riverwind]

Any technologicallly advance nation (Canada, Japan, Iataly) could build a bomb...and that's why then treaty exists

Right. And every signatory reserves the right to build a bomb should circimstances require one. Japan is living in a dangerous neighborhood and their gov't would be incompentent if it did not ensure that they could go nuclear at a momment's notice. But that raises an interesting question - what purpose does the treaty serve if all of the signatories plan to repudiate it if necessary?

[Catchme]

Who the fuck cares what muslims think....our security is more important than kowtowing to their public opinion......

So why are you advocating a course of action that has a strong possibility of negatively impacting our security?

Mind boggling isn't it?

[GostHacked]

Where to start with this post......

M Dancer

Who the fuck cares what muslims think....our security is more important than kowtowing to their public opinion......

By that, they really don't give two shits about what you think. That is obvious. Or else they would have laid down the weapons and succumbed to the all might powerfull USA.

Some much confusion, so little time.....

We got time. Go ahead. I will wait a couple days and let you prepare your statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-P...feration_Treaty

The 5 NWS (nuclear weapon states) parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State.

So by nuking Iran, the US would violate the NPT and NWS agreements.

Also being a NPT state, the US has already violated it's agreements by supplying nuclear technology to Isreal and India. NON PROLIFERATION means, you don't give this stuff to anyone else. ANYONE ELSE.

On this note, the US wants to attack Iran before the nuclear programme is in full swing. Seeing how the US deals with North Korea (OMFG AXIS OF EVIL!!!) They have been in 'talks' for the last few years now. No headway at all there. So why TALK to NORTH KOREA, but supply the hypocritical rhetoric of BOMB IRAN NOW !!!!!!.

Continuing from Wiki

Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactors for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.

So Iran can have a peaceful nuclear programme like they state. And really this did not prevent North Korea from possessing nukes. India and Pakistan did not seem to get the same rhetoric with OMG THEY ARE BUILDING NUKES !!!! Has either one used them? No, they have them to prevent the other from attacking. So really all this NPT talk is just, useless.

So again, take your time Mr. Dancer. I await your responses.

Aren't bunker busters just some small form of nuclear weapon? Wait for it .....

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nucl...-animation.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1298463.htm

United States President George W Bush has included spending to promote research on new nuclear weapons, such as controversial bunker-busters, in his federal budget plan for the 2006 fiscal year

Eventhough the project had been axed, they were developing Nuclear bunker Busters. How many of these things have been used around the world? Not to mention Isreal got a huge load of Bunker Busters

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=3748

The delivery of at least 100 GBU 28 bunker busters bombs containing depleted uranium warheads by the United States to Israel for use against targets in Lebanon will result in additional radioactive and chemical toxic contamination with consequent adverse health and environmental effects throughout the middle east. Israeli tank gunners are also using depleted uranium tank rounds as photographs verify

Hey, aren't A-10 Warthogs using DEPLETED URANIAM in their ammo? Hmmm. Absolutely hypocritical of anyone saying Iran does not deserve to develople a nuclear programme (civilian or military) and then tout the USA for being the good guy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09...ael-nukes_x.htm

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said this month Israel is "taking measures to defend itself" — a comment that raised concern Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike along the lines of its 1981 bombing of an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak near Baghdad.

continuing from the article

In June, it signed a $319 million deal to acquire nearly 5,000 U.S.-made smart bombs, including 500 "bunker busters" that can destroy six-foot concrete walls, such as those that might be found in Iranian nuclear facilities.

This is why I don't see an issue with Iran and nuclear weapons. Considering how much depleted uranium is being scattered around by A-10a and Bunker Busters. Depleted Uraniam is still dangerous and very radio active.

So how about them morals??

[Catchme]

Where to start with this post......M Dancer

Who the fuck cares what muslims think....our security is more important than kowtowing to their public opinion......

By that, they really don't give two shits about what you think. That is obvious. Or else they would have laid down the weapons and succumbed to the all might powerfull USA.

Some much confusion, so little time.....

We got time. Go ahead. I will wait a couple days and let you prepare your statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-P...feration_Treaty

The 5 NWS (nuclear weapon states) parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State.

So by nuking Iran, the US would violate the NPT and NWS agreements.

Also being a NPT state, the US has already violated it's agreements by supplying nuclear technology to Isreal and India. NON PROLIFERATION means, you don't give this stuff to anyone else. ANYONE ELSE.

On this note, the US wants to attack Iran before the nuclear programme is in full swing. Seeing how the US deals with North Korea (OMFG AXIS OF EVIL!!!) They have been in 'talks' for the last few years now. No headway at all there. So why TALK to NORTH KOREA, but supply the hypocritical rhetoric of BOMB IRAN NOW !!!!!!.

Continuing from Wiki

Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactors for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.

So Iran can have a peaceful nuclear programme like they state. And really this did not prevent North Korea from possessing nukes. India and Pakistan did not seem to get the same rhetoric with OMG THEY ARE BUILDING NUKES !!!! Has either one used them? No, they have them to prevent the other from attacking. So really all this NPT talk is just, useless.

Aren't bunker busters just some small form of nuclear weapon? Wait for it .....

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nucl...-animation.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1298463.htm

United States President George W Bush has included spending to promote research on new nuclear weapons, such as controversial bunker-busters, in his federal budget plan for the 2006 fiscal year

Eventhough the project had been axed, they were developing Nuclear bunker Busters. How many of these things have been used around the world? Not to mention Isreal got a huge load of Bunker Busters

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=3748

The delivery of at least 100 GBU 28 bunker busters bombs containing depleted uranium warheads by the United States to Israel for use against targets in Lebanon will result in additional radioactive and chemical toxic contamination with consequent adverse health and environmental effects throughout the middle east. Israeli tank gunners are also using depleted uranium tank rounds as photographs verify

Hey, aren't A-10 Warthogs using DEPLETED URANIAM in their ammo? Hmmm. Absolutely hypocritical of anyone saying Iran does not deserve to develople a nuclear programme (civilian or military) and then tout the USA for being the good guy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09...ael-nukes_x.htm

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said this month Israel is "taking measures to defend itself" — a comment that raised concern Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike along the lines of its 1981 bombing of an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak near Baghdad.

continuing from the article

In June, it signed a $319 million deal to acquire nearly 5,000 U.S.-made smart bombs, including 500 "bunker busters" that can destroy six-foot concrete walls, such as those that might be found in Iranian nuclear facilities.

This is why I don't see an issue with Iran and nuclear weapons. Considering how much depleted uranium is being scattered around by A-10a and Bunker Busters. Depleted Uraniam is still dangerous and very radio active.

So how about them morals??

Very informative post thank you. I too am awaiting response

[White Doors]

Hey, aren't A-10 Warthogs using DEPLETED URANIAM in their ammo? Hmmm. Absolutely hypocritical of anyone saying Iran does not deserve to develople a nuclear programme (civilian or military) and then tout the USA for being the good guy.

Hmmm.. just picked this little nugget out.

Uhh.. DU ammunition does not a nuclear weapon make...

that would be like calling Saskatchewan a Nuclear power..

[Catchme]

Bad analogy white doors.

Depleted Uranium shells are lethal, just as lethal, as exposure to readiation from a nuclear blast. Most certainly there is not the instantaneious deaths for those close to the centre of a nuclear explosition, but the damage is the same.

The induction of DU weapons in 1991 in Iraq, the radio-active trash from nuclear plants broke a 46 year taboo. This Trojan Horse of nuclear war, an omnicidal weapon has since then continued to be used more and more. DU remains radioactive longer than the age of the earth ( estimated at 4.5 billion years. )

The long-term effects from over a decade of DU exposures are emerging in Southern Iraq. They are devastating. The increased quantities of radio-active material ( including non-depleted uranium), used in Afghanistan are 3 to 5 times greater than Iraq 199. In Iraq 2003 they are already estimated to be 6 to 10 times 1991 and will travel through a larger area and affect many more people, babies and unborn. Countries within a 1000 mile radius of Baghdad and Kabul are being affected by radiation poisoning , that includes the Capital, New

Delhi, where the ruling elite lives. The reported coming of an AIDS epidemic last year in India , down wind, may have a relationship to DU bombing in Afghanistan. If we think cancer is a problem now wait until more DU is released in wars against terror and for regime change, on mistaken Intelligence reports.

More than 500 tons of DU munitions have been dispensed in Afghanistan. Professor Yagasaki calculated that 800 tons of DU is the atomicity equivalent to 83,000 Nagasaki bombs in a paper presented at the World Uranium Weapons Conference in Hamburg in October 2003 ( 5 months ago ). The amount of DU used in Iraq in 2003 is equivalent to nearly 250,000 Nagasaki bombs ( Busby and Leuren Moret have calculated that 1900 tons of DU is equivalent to 60 TBq of Alfa and Beta particulate activity).

We need not ennumerate the DU munition types used in Iraq 199, Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001-04 and Iraq 2003. They have been dispensed by all air / ground and sea systems on innocent civilians. DU burns intensely and is very hard. It releases Uranium Oxide. The aerosol contains particles of 0.5-5 microns in size, once they are in the air or dust they are inhaled or ingested, including from contaminated soil. Once in the lungs one such particle is equivalent to having one XRay per hour, for life. Because it is impossible to remove, the victim is gradually irradiated. Still births, birth defects, leukemia, damaged central nervous systems and other cancers have been common in children born since 1991. Child leukemia has risen 600 % in areas of Iraq as reported by the Netherland Visie Foundation. Beyond just the health

consequences, DU munitions are in fact, weapons of Silent Mass Destruction in so far as the consequences of their usage are vast, indiscriminate and violate all Human Rights Conventions . Tora Bora , Kabu , Paktia , Karises or underwater supply tunnels have been contaminated forever. All this has been documented in a comprehensive paper Uranium wars : The Pentagon steps up its use of Radio-active Munitions, by Marc W. Herold to whom this paper owes sincere acknowledgement.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/articles/du_effects.htm

[Black Dog]

Depleted Uranium shells are lethal, just as lethal, as exposure to readiation from a nuclear blast. Most certainly there is not the instantaneious deaths for those close to the centre of a nuclear explosition, but the damage is the same.

Um...depleted uranium is not a hazard because of its radiation (duh: it's depleted). It's main effects are chemical in nature. IOW: it's toxic, not radioactive, so to cal it a nuclear weapon is just wrong.

[GostHacked]

Depleted Uranium shells are lethal, just as lethal, as exposure to readiation from a nuclear blast. Most certainly there is not the instantaneious deaths for those close to the centre of a nuclear explosition, but the damage is the same.

Um...depleted uranium is not a hazard because of its radiation (duh: it's depleted). It's main effects are chemical in nature. IOW: it's toxic, not radioactive, so to cal it a nuclear weapon is just wrong.

Depleted does not mean -not radioactive- it may mean it is not as deadly as a nuclear blast. But it is still radioactive. Mind if I give you a spent depleted uranium round to wear around your neck? Alot of this stuff is just laying around in Iraq. A whole wack load of small radioactive spots. Get enough of these in one area (straffing runs ect) and the amount of radiation goes up.

They are still radioactive and still deadly. Not INSTANT death, but can cause serious medical problems for humans and any biological life around. Not to mention contaminating the surrounding area and possibly the water.

[geoffrey]

Did you not take High School Physics or Chemistry? This is pretty basic stuff here.

The longer half life of the Uranium-238 Isotope means that it emits gamma radiation much more slowly than Uranium-235... it is still radioactive, but having a chunk in your bedroom for 50 years is unlikely to do anything to you. The glowing parts on your watch or that little chunk in your smoke detector emit far more radiation.

The alpha emissions from it are a concern if it's ingested, as then there is no barrier (clothing stops Alpha radition, as does pretty much anything) between the material and the cells at risk. Holding it right up to your skin might cause you some grief if you did it for awhile.