Ahmadinejad refuses to rule out nuclear weapons.

[parsifal]

I dont think it matters whether they are arab, or persian, muslim or christian. For whatever reason, these people do not think or have the same value system as us, and ther are elements of that society that think beheading people is morally okay, or sending twelve year olds into a crowded market is a way to get to heaven. For me its a small step from that kind of crime to lobbing nuclear bombs in the general direction of Israel.

Iran has already demonstrated its complete disdain for the west by its failure to comply with numerous calls to cease their nu8clear program....and we have reacted with our characteristic euro-based vaccilation and weakness. The Iranians have hosted holocaust denial oriented sessions. They sponsor terrorist organizations that destroy sovereign countries, and we do nothing about it. They display flagrant disregard for international protocls and diplomatic immunity and we do nothing about it......I think they are being greatly encouraged and tempted by our weakness to detonate a bomb, or six, by the way we behave.

What we need to do is demonstrate a zero tolerance for these people. They send in their suicide bombers, we send in our b-52s....they sponsor a terrorist organization, we confiscate their overseas assets and send the proceeds to the victims of their sponsored organzation , that kind of thing

Churchill showed the way as to how the Nazis needed to be dealt with 70 years ago. We have forgotten the lessons that we learnt all that time ago. We need to re-learn what we have forgotten.

 

[Colin1]

I dont think it matters whether they are arab, or persian, muslim or christian. For whatever reason, these people do not think or have the same value system as us, and ther are elements of that society that think beheading people is morally okay, or sending twelve year olds into a crowded market is a way to get to heaven. For me its a small step from that kind of crime to lobbing nuclear bombs in the general direction of Israel.

What we need to do is demonstrate a zero tolerance for these people. They send in their suicide bombers, we send in our b-52s....they sponsor a terrorist organization, we confiscate their overseas assets and send the proceeds to the victims of their sponsored organzation , that kind of thing

Churchill showed the way as to how the Nazis needed to be dealt with 70 years ago. We have forgotten the lessons that we learnt all that time ago. We need to re-learn what we have forgotten.

You've intertwined alot of sentiments here
and I'm having trouble bifurcating one from the other in order to answer:

There's no law against not having the same value system as us and there's a fair number of occasions where our insistence on imposing our value system on others has gotten us into trouble. Beheading/stoning/suppression of womens rights, however distasteful, are internal affairs and are unlikely to get thousands or even millions killed in a nuclear firestorm.

Sending a child suicide bomber into high-density social areas on the other hand, is an act of terrorism, not that of a sovereign state (that I know of).

None of the sovereign Arab nations are threatening to build a bomb in the face of international sanctions but Iran is. You are correct, it is irrelevant whether they are Arab, Persian, Christian or Muslim but in this case they are Persian and I doubt any Arab would welcome the mis-association simply because they come under the Islam umbrella.

Terrorist organisations may well contain high numbers of Arab players but whether radicalised at an early age or simply the choice of a disaffected citizen, it's a choice nonetheless and if all the terrorists involved in Al Qa'eda were somehow known to be Arab, it still doesn't make them a sovereign nation. Imagine the same flawed logic applied on the streets of Belfast...

Can you explain how a B-52 bomber strike is a rational response to suicide bombers?
Confiscation of their overseas assets make far more sense.

Parallels with Churchill's war on Fascism are few, for one he was fighting a uniformed, readily-identifiable enemy under a formal declaration of war; soldiers, tanks (and B-52s) made far more sense. Two, the world was a much bigger place in WWII and far less mobile. Three, the stakes weren't so high in the vanishingly small space of time it takes to detonate a nuclear warhead; it would take weeks of bombing to raze a city to the same degree of destruction and

i. at least you'd know it was coming
ii. you can move in straight after hostilities cease and start building again

I think we're already demonstrating zero tolerance, it's just that when you're fighting an invisible enemy, you've got to be much more careful about what you hit. As far as Iran is concerned however, they're running out of width to manoeuvre in; the incumbent is as unpopular with his electorate as he is with the international community and that's a war on two fronts just waiting to happen.

 

[Soren]

If Iran drops a bomb on Isreal EUROPE will respond immediately and bomb Iran back to the stone ages, and I am in no doubt that the US will get involved as-well. Europe stood by the US in Iraq Afghanistan, the US will do the same in the event Europe gets into a crysis.

 

[Butters]

Nice to see at least one rational response to the current situation...

Airstrikes at this stage of the game would only solidify the theocrats' hold on power. There is no evidence that the Iranians have any working A-bombs at the present time. Or that they would use them if they did.

JL

 

[Colin1]

If Iran drops a bomb on Israel, EUROPE will respond immediately and bomb Iran back to the stone ages, and I am in no doubt that the US will get involved as well. Europe stood by the US in Iraq Afghanistan, the US will do the same in the event Europe gets into a crisis.

The US carries Europe
we may be an commercial/industrial powerhouse but militarily we're a midget and what we do have lacks resolve. NATO whines and hides in the corner every time it's asked to bare its teeth and the UN doesn't even have any teeth to bare.

Rather than risk conflagration, Europe will send in the diplomats.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I think Russia would respond more then Europe would, which is actually not a bad thing.

 

[javlin]

I think Russia would respond more then Europe would, which is actually not a bad thing.

But hasn't Russia backed Iran for the last few years with trade and technology.I feel that Russia would align itself against the West for they have been playing already with the oil and natural gas moving into Europe.It's a touchy situation to say the least but one has to be concerned that the egg will be dropped one day.

 

[parsifal]

You've intertwined alot of sentiments here
and I'm having trouble bifurcating one from the other in order to answer:

Thats because you are trying to intellectualise the debate. This is precisely what the pacifist lobby did prior to WWII, and they played their part in costing the world 50 million lives. I put it to you that you are sentamentalising the argument as well, trying to slick up what is an old argument...."they are not all bad"....maybe, but they are bad for the way of life and the values that my society cherishes. That needs people to get sentimental and not try and cloud the issue with intelectualising and rationalising in what our system would call evil.

There's no law against not having the same value system as us and there's a fair number of occasions where our insistence on imposing our value system on others has gotten us into trouble. Beheading/stoning/suppression of womens rights, however distasteful, are internal affairs and are unlikely to get thousands or even millions killed in a nuclear firestorm.

Except when they start beheading, stoning or denying our rights. Bismark coined a term that is very applicable to these situations, its called realpolitik. Intellectualising the argument merely tends to get people killed in my book. Now, I am not saying we get all gung ho and start dropping bombs on every person who doesnt agree with us. But the iranians clearly do not have our interests at heart and they have to learn some important life lessons real quick. If we ***** foot around with these guys, that is going to reinforce their beliefs....they need to realize if they tread on our feet, we are likley to stomp back.

I dont try to moralise or politicise the argument in any way. We should call a spade a spade, and deal with it...

Sending a child suicide bomber into high-density social areas on the other hand, is an act of terrorism, not that of a sovereign state (that I know of).

Except that Iran sponsors organizations that do just that. These organization assassinate leaders they dont like, they lob shells into other countries and then cry war crime when that country retaliates. If you dont think Iran is sponsoring terrorist groups thenI dont know what planet you are from I am afraid

None of the sovereign Arab nations are threatening to build a bomb in the face of international sanctions but Iran is. You are correct, it is irrelevant whether they are Arab, Persian, Christian or Muslim but in this case they are Persian and I doubt any Arab would welcome the mis-association simply because they come under the Islam umbrella.

Are you kidding???? What about Pakistan. And in the case of the second pont you raise, there are Arab groups like Hezbollah and at least a dozen other organizations that receive finance, personnel, weapons, you name it, from Iran...

Terrorist organisations may well contain high numbers of Arab players but whether radicalised at an early age or simply the choice of a disaffected citizen, it's a choice nonetheless and if all the terrorists involved in Al Qa'eda were somehow known to be Arab, it still doesn't make them a sovereign nation. Imagine the same flawed logic applied on the streets of Belfast...


I agree, but why are you inferring this is my logic. My country have large numbers of disaffected groups, but they arent harvested and groomed to strap on bombs and blow thenmselves up for some ism. This is not a uniquely Arab phenomena, you are right, but iran has gallons of Arab blood on its hands for doing precisely the things you say they dont....

Can you explain how a B-52 bomber strike is a rational response to suicide bombers?
Confiscation of their overseas assets make far more sense.

These people do not think in terms of the 21st century. The principal of a massive retaliation may make them think twice about dropping bombs, recruiting children, supporting terrorist groups and the like. Its not sophisticated, and it is not the answer to every situation, but neither is the idea of appeasing their demands. Evil should not be rewarded, it should be punished


Parallels with Churchill's war on Fascism are few, for one he was fighting a uniformed, readily-identifiable enemy under a formal declaration of war; soldiers, tanks (and B-52s) made far more sense. Two, the world was a much bigger place in WWII and far less mobile. Three, the stakes weren't so high in the vanishingly small space of time it takes to detonate a nuclear warhead; it would take weeks of bombing to raze a city to the same degree of destruction and

i. at least you'd know it was coming
ii. you can move in straight after hostilities cease and start building again

The parralels to Churchill are that prewar, an intellectualised few brainwashed the majority into believing that war was obsolete, and peace must be maintained at any cost. This increased the cost of defeating the evil when finally it was realized it had too be done, and no amount of theorising and rationalizing would avoid.

The parralels to me in this debate are obvious, and it disturbs me that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Iran represents a clear threat to regional security, and through its sponsorship of terrorism, is a threat to the world in general. They need to be neutralized. We did it with Hussein, pre-2003, but didnt relaize it, we should apply a similar solution to iran. Its not pretty, it lacks sophistication and intellectual appeal, but the quicker its done, the less livesw will be lost

I think we're already demonstrating zero tolerance, it's just that when you're fighting an invisible enemy, you've got to be much more careful about what you hit. As far as Iran is concerned however, they're running out of width to manoeuvre in; the incumbent is as unpopular with his electorate as he is with the international community and that's a war on two fronts just waiting to happen.

I do agree with you, but people like this that are cornered, tend to lash out and become even more dangerous as the end gets closer

 

[vikingBerserker]

But hasn't Russia backed Iran for the last few years with trade and technology.I feel that Russia would align itself against the West for they have been playing already with the oil and natural gas moving into Europe.It's a touchy situation to say the least but one has to be concerned that the egg will be dropped one day.

Yea they have, but Russia really has/had nothing to fear from them. However, with nukes that would change everything.

 

[vikingBerserker]

There is one thing I learned while working with animals, you cannot reason with a rabid dog.

You cannot reason with an unreasonable person.

 

[Maestro]

The main problem is, if we strike first (like the US did with Irak), we will be seen (again) as the bad guys... Peoples will claim that we are there for oil and blah, blah, blah...

As a result, we shall be on our own against them, because foreign countries won't do anything if they don't feel directly threatened themselves. Do you honestly think that Germany, France or even Russia will send troops in if we strike first ? And Iran's military isn't like Irak's... I doubt we could win without some help.

Think of it that way : Europe thinks like the USA was thinking in both World Wars. They won't attack unless their own ass is at stake. (USA entered WWI when Germany sank the ship Lusitania in 1915 and then the Vigilentia in 1917. And they entered WWII after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.)

What I'm gonna say could sound harsh to some, but I think we should let Iran detonate an A-bomb on a foreign country first, then go in and bomb the living sh*t out of them. That way, Europe will realize that their situation is critical and will most likely join the party.

 

[Njaco]

Wow, we opened the "Political Section" !

Every nation in the world is unstable to a degree.
Every nation in the world has a gov that can change or threaten its neigbors.

But of all those nations, with all that they bring to the world, Iran and NK are the most dangerous at this time based on their level of threats, availabilty to do it and the will of the gov to do it.

Pakistan has its problems as do other nations but nothing on the scale of Iran and NK.

Butters your post # 46 had me thinking....

I don't think that the situation warrants running around yelling, 'The sky is falling! the sky is falling!", just yet... It's not 1939, Iran is not Nazi Germany, and Ahmadinejad is not Hitler, hyperbole to the contrary...

No but it could be 1941 Japan with a weak spiritual leader and a bunch of fanatics whispering in his ear...

 

[parsifal]

Your right NJ, we are headed for dangerous waters I think, maybe time to take the hands off the wheel for a bit

 

[Erich]

I go back to this..........someone in the US govt hierarchy promised he would get out and get our troops home, so with that being stated and made clear then I wait this twenty - 10 for my Velodrome. let the construction begin !

 

[Colin1]

What I'm gonna say could sound harsh to some
but I think we should let Iran detonate an A-bomb on a foreign country first, then go in and bomb the living sh*t out of them

Or possibly even insane
any Western power using the lives of foreign populations as checks and balances on the intentions of a despotic half-wit are no better than he is.
If (or when) they start chucking bombs back in retaliation, you can write off Israel and large portions of Europe as uninhabitable for the next few hundred years, not to mention a death toll running into millions. Unless of course you're counting on the US Missile Defence Shield to intercept every single one of them; impressive system but not a gamble I'd take with x million lives...

Your argument doesn't work on any level of rational thinking, if a lunatic stands up and starts running through the crowd at a ballgame waving a gun, do the Police think they should let him kill a fan first to ascertain whether the situation is critical or not, then go in and shoot the living sh*t out of him?

We need to make sure this angry little man never gets his hands on a nuclear weapon.

 

[Maestro]

Or possibly even insane
any Western power using the lives of foreign populations as checks and balances on the intentions of a despotic half-wit are no better than he is.
If (or when) they start chucking bombs back in retaliation, you can write off Israel and large portions of Europe as uninhabitable for the next few hundred years, not to mention a death toll running into millions. Unless of course you're counting on the US Missile Defence Shield to intercept every single one of them; impressive system but not a gamble I'd take with x million lives...

Your argument doesn't work on any level of rational thinking, if a lunatic stands up and starts running through the crowd at a ballgame waving a gun, do the Police think they should let him kill a fan first to ascertain whether the situation is critical or not, then go in and shoot the living sh*t out of him?

We need to make sure this angry little man never gets his hands on a nuclear weapon.

I agree 100% with the principle, here. However, as I stated earlier, I doubt any other countries would openly support us... (I.E. declaring war on Iran.)

That country is led by religious zealots who won't esitate to cry "Jihad" the minute we will attack them "without any provocation". Add this to the fact that everyone will see that war as a "war for oil", and you won't only be fighting Iran, but also all Muslim countries joining the Jihad... And this without getting any help from European powers.

That situation is kind of tricky, to say the least.

 

[Colin1]

Thats because you are trying to intellectualise the debate. This is precisely what the pacifist lobby did prior to WWII, and they played their part in costing the world 50 million lives. I put it to you that you are sentamentalising the argument as well, trying to slick up what is an old argument...."they are not all bad"....maybe, but they are bad for the way of life and the values that my society cherishes. That needs people to get sentimental and not try and cloud the issue with intelectualising and rationalising in what our system would call evil.

Far from it
What I am saying is let's make sure we've

- identified and singled out the bad guy
- got our priorities right

it is a Gulf Persian state that is attempting to build a bomb, not a Gulf Arab state. Let's concentrate on Iran.

Let's assume the situation reaches boiling point and we could also assume for argument's sake that this situation is resolved to the international community's satisfaction. Primary goal achieved.

Except that Iran sponsors organizations that do just that. These organization assassinate leaders they dont like, they lob shells into other countries and then cry war crime when that country retaliates. If you dont think Iran is sponsoring terrorist groups then I dont know what planet you are from I am afraid

Secondary goals may well fall into place as a matter of course; Hezbollah no longer have an active financier and while this doesn't necessarily mean the end of them, it does make life alot harder; with Iran out of the picture, who's going to take on Hezbollah as a going concern?

Tertiary goals such as stoning/decapitation etc are unlikely to be solved by this chain of events and may well never be but that is really a matter for the people of that state with international human rights lobbying lending support. This should not be interpreted as finding their punitive system agreeable.

There is nothing intellectual about my views, there is certainly nothing sentimental about them. I have simply chosen to identify the villain and prioritise his transgressions above all else that's going on in the region at this current time.

I'm from the same planet as you, weekdays only.

The principal of a massive retaliation may make them think twice about dropping bombs, recruiting children, supporting terrorist groups and the like

Despite the massive effort, they didn't think twice in Vietnam, why do you think Islamic suicide bombers would be any different? I don't think the Vietnamese were particularly 21st century either.

The parallels to Churchill are that prewar, an intellectualised few brainwashed the majority into believing that war was obsolete, and peace must be maintained at any cost. This increased the cost of defeating the evil when finally it was realized it had too be done, and no amount of theorising and rationalizing would avoid.

I don't believe I've insisted that 'war is obsolete', we simply need to make sure we don't infer a 'corporate blame' on the Gulf states. Ahmadinejad is currently wooing the moderate Arab states ahead of any conflict with the US and Israel; for their sakes, we need to be seen pointing the finger unmistakeably at Iran. If nothing else, I don't think the US military are 'theorising' about a new bunker-buster.

 

[Amsel]

Iran dismissed an end-of-2009 deadline imposed by the Obama administration and its international partners to accept a U.N.-drafted deal to swap most of its enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. The deal would reduce Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium, limiting—at least for the moment—its capability to make nuclear weapons.

The U.S. and its allies have demanded Iran accept the terms of the U.N.-brokered plan without changes.

Instead, Tehran came up with a counterproposal: to have the West either sell nuclear fuel to Iran, or swap its nuclear fuel for Iran's enriched uranium in smaller batches instead of at once as the U.N. plan requires.

This is unacceptable to the West because it would leave Tehran with enough enriched material to make nuclear arms.

Iran warns West it will make its own nuclear fuel

 

[vikingBerserker]

and it just keeps getting better.....

 

[Maestro]

and it just keeps getting better.....

Yep... Personnally I predict World War III will start really soon. But it is just my personnal opinion.