Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/6/2007 12:34:18 PM EDT
Just heard a retired general say we don't have a choice, and it won't turn out as worse as the 'doom and gloomers' say.

Furthermore, the Iranian 'needle dick' President is just a hot gas guy who doesn't have any 'real' power.



My view is... I don't think so. If Iran goes nuclear, so will Saudia Arabia and other nearby countries.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 12:44:38 PM EDT
Israel can't.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 12:45:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By innocent_bystander:
Israel can't.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 12:49:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By innocent_bystander:
Israel can't.


True.

But I don't think Israel can hit all of Iran's nuclear facilities on its own, imo.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 12:50:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BushmasterGuy77:

Originally Posted By innocent_bystander:
Israel can't.


Either Israel or the entire rest of the middle east (as we know it) doesn't have much time left. One or the other will give soon.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 12:51:42 PM EDT
Iran doesn't function like a normal nation state. It is a Theocracy. The most revealing statements about Iran's intentions come from Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader who says any Iranian who works for a better Iran is a pagan. He is more than willing to trade Muslims one-for-one for the death of 9 million Israelis and 300 million Americans because there will still be a billion Muslims left to rule the world.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 12:57:05 PM EDT
I believe we can. Iran knows that if they attempted something stupid, we would turn their entire country into a big glass parking lot.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 12:59:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By abnk:
I believe we can. Iran knows that if they attempted something stupid, we would turn their entire country into a big glass parking lot.


They WANT this. They have said many times before they WANT the end of the world.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 12:59:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2007 1:01:26 PM EDT by GGRNR]
Why not, we have lived with all the other countries having them. We just make it clear, you use them or transfer them and we wipe you out in a nuclear strike. 0h and if they want this we just give it to them!
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 1:03:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GGRNR:
Why not, we have lived with all the other countries having them. We just make it clear, you use them or transfer them and we wipe you out in a nuclear strike. 0h and if they want this we just give it to them!


I understand the point of these arguments.

However,

They transfer it... someone uses it on us.

We automatically gonna just 'nuke' Iran because we think they might have transferred it?

Furthermore, for a country that welcomes to die for a 'greater God', and destroy the 'great Satan'..... they might see it as a trade off.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 1:11:59 PM EDT
I figure we'll find out sooner or later.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 1:14:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DnPRK:
Iran doesn't function like a normal nation state. It is a Theocracy. The most revealing statements about Iran's intentions come from Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader who says any Iranian who works for a better Iran is a pagan. He is more than willing to trade Muslims one-for-one for the death of 9 million Israelis and300 million Americans because there will still be a billion Muslims left to rule the world.


now.. i dont like iran.. but i wonder how far we will go if iran continues along its present course of wild talk, continued building up of its nuclear program and sending arms and trainers to iraq, syria and lebanon, but nothing more.. somewhat like the old soviet union did against us and we did against the soviet union..

now.. lets suppose that iran decides that a jihad backed by nuclear weapons is the ultimate goal and the truly decide to kill everyone in the us. who here really believes they could build up enough nuclear weaponds and delivery systems to do that? once they use WMD on israel, the us, or europe, its over. you will see the first use of thermonuclear weapons ever in war (the a-bombs are not thermonukes). iran will be anihilated. gone in 24 hours or less.

can we live with a nuclear iran? i think so.. wont be fun. will they go jihad on the world? i dont think so.

but only time will tell.

i think the single biggest issuwe with nukes in iran is nukes in saudi arabia, supplied by pakistan, sunnis supported by saudi arabia in iraq and the possible destruction of the major oil producing part of the world, with world wide economic collapse following.. i think thats what this is all about in the end.. iran could just be crazy enough to take out the saudi oil fields with theater nuclear weapons/dirty bombs if pushed...

then of course, the tigris and euphrates dries up, and china marches 200,000,000 soldiers into the middle beast to claim whats left and only israel is left to defined the oil fields for the rest of the world, the yellowstone mega caldera having destroyed the united states....

but only time with tell, a time, times and half a time
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 2:50:36 PM EDT
We have ways of knowing where the weapons originated. I will just leave it at that!
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 2:52:58 PM EDT
Iran wants a fight, they think they can win because we are "over reached" and the libtards are on their side, and mohammad too
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 2:57:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GGRNR:
We have ways of knowing where the weapons originated. I will just leave it at that!


Something about how the Uranium leaves a signature kind of like a fingerprint.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 2:59:10 PM EDT
No we cannot live with the largest terrorist sponsor nation having nukes. Within 10 yrs they say oops we lost 20 small man portable ones.

Link Posted: 10/6/2007 2:59:26 PM EDT
Yes we can, but no, we don't want to. It complicates things too much, and limits freedom of action. Every ME action gets shunted through the "what would Iran do" filter. Its called being deterred. Neither the US or Israel want that, and I can understand why.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 3:02:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lildavid67:

Originally Posted By abnk:
I believe we can. Iran knows that if they attempted something stupid, we would turn their entire country into a big glass parking lot.


They WANT this. They have said many times before they WANT the end of the world.


These two statements aren't the same thing. The first is the end of THEIR world. The second is some bullshit fantasy by group of syphallitic old men who somehow got control of an otherwise vibrant country.

I have never understood how the population of Iran allowed themselves to be sucked into being led by such a steaming pile. The Iranians I know are arrogant, self-confident, and don't suffer fools. Makes them hard to work for. I can't for the life of me figure out how 6 months into the religious takeover after the Shah, a crowd of them didn't march on the Ayatolla Khoemani and hang him from a lamppost.

Oh wait, the Iranians I know CAME TO AMERICA. Must have left the weak sisters back home.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 3:02:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GGRNR:
Why not, we have lived with all the other countries having them. We just make it clear, you use them or transfer them and we wipe you out in a nuclear strike. 0h and if they want this we just give it to them!


Because they don't think in rational terms. Not too far of a stretch to think the largest nation sponsoring terrorism for awhile now could have a leader that would say a nuke will lead me to 72 virgins. The Iranians want big time to be westernized. The typical Iranian that is to say. The fundamentalist are as insane as they can be and they'd have no problem using nukes on some other country or their own country if they tried to get rid of the mullahs which might be happening internally fairly soon.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 3:05:11 PM EDT
I wish they would go nuclear.

It would give us cause to use our nukes on them
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 3:40:06 PM EDT
I take this question very literally. Yes, we can live with a nuclear-armed Iran. The world isn't suddenly going to end when they achieve their goal. Yes, as soon as they get it, then so will the rest of the Middle East, but I think that's inevitable... trying to keep information about how to do something out of the hands of people who want that information is very, very difficult. Look at how prevalent music/video sharing is... it's illegal, and a huge amount of money is being spent to fight it, but you can still freely download just about anything you want.

As for keeping the equipment needed away from them... that's like the wars between Israel and the Arab states. The Arabs can keep trying to defeat Israel over and over and over again. The Israelis can only fail once. Iran can keep attempting to buy the computers and precision machinery they need over and over and over again, and one day, they will succeed.

So, I hope out fearless leaders have contingency plans for that eventuality, because the day Iran announces to the world that it's a nuclear power, you can be sure they'll have hidden away the knowledge, materials, and machinery they need to crank out more bombs all over the place. We won't be able to make one surgical strike, nuclear or not, and forever end the threat... even if we did get everything in one strike, they could just start again, but they'd already have enough knowledge to start much further along.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 8:05:01 PM EDT
We are approaching the point where every shitty little country will want nukes. If Iran why not Turkey, Uzbekistan, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuala, Taiwan, Cambodia?

BTW Iran did sign the NPT at one time.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 8:16:01 PM EDT
Iran is run by religious zealots.

If they have the bomb, they intend to use it...not just as a deterrent to their enemies.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 8:16:22 PM EDT
too big of a gamble. i say hell no!
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 8:50:29 PM EDT
Abizaid: World Could Abide Nuclear Iran
By ROBERT BURNS – Sep 17, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) — Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran.

Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, "it's not inevitable."

Iran says its nuclear program is strictly for energy resources, not to build weapons.

Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course.

"War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can," he said. "On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests."

He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq.

He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance.

Abizaid's comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike.

Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem.

"I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said.

He described Iran's government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East.

"We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it," he said. He then added his remark about finding ways to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Abizaid made his remarks in response to questions from his audience after delivering remarks about the major strategic challenges in the Middle East and Central Asia — the region in which he commanded U.S. forces from July 2003 until February 2007, when he was replaced by Adm. William Fallon.

The U.S. cut diplomatic relations with Iran shortly after the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Although both nations have made public and private attempts to improve relations, the Bush administration labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil," and Iranian leaders still refer to the United States as the Great Satan.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 8:58:05 PM EDT
I predict Pakistan will soon become the real threat.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 9:13:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
I predict Pakistan will soon become the real threat.



Pakistan is a friend. They have worked with us for decades and have a much more western culture than you see on TV.

We have a closer relationship with Pakistan than any other state in the region.

Research the involvement of the Pakis in the Afghan war back in the 1980s. They really went to bat for us at the risk of their own country...

They have also been a big help in the GWOT.

Link Posted: 10/6/2007 9:53:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JaxxKat:
I dont know why anyone at this point would allow nukes to any of these insane people


It isn't a matter of us "allowing" them to have or get nukes. It's a question of them popping up one day saying, "Yeah... we got da bomb. What now, bitches?" We'll have two choices... "live with it", or start WWIII. My guess is, we'll live with it. Israel very likely won't (can't), and may receive a lot of secret support from us... gotta maintain "plausible deniability".

Hopefully, Israel will be able to take care of them with one swift, hard strike.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 9:55:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FedDC:

Originally Posted By Mattl:
I predict Pakistan will soon become the real threat.



Pakistan is a friend. They have worked with us for decades and have a much more western culture than you see on TV.

We have a closer relationship with Pakistan than any other state in the region.

Research the involvement of the Pakis in the Afghan war back in the 1980s. They really went to bat for us at the risk of their own country...

They have also been a big help in the GWOT.



We're friends with the Musharraf government, not "Pakistan". Mattl is right... Pakistan is one coup away from being a mortal enemy.
Link Posted: 10/6/2007 10:02:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By FedDC:

Originally Posted By Mattl:
I predict Pakistan will soon become the real threat.



Pakistan is a friend. They have worked with us for decades and have a much more western culture than you see on TV.

We have a closer relationship with Pakistan than any other state in the region.

Research the involvement of the Pakis in the Afghan war back in the 1980s. They really went to bat for us at the risk of their own country...

They have also been a big help in the GWOT.



We're friends with the Musharraf government, not "Pakistan". Mattl is right... Pakistan is one coup away from being a mortal enemy.


We have more friends in Pakistan than Musharraf. Half their army went to war college... ATA has massive programs there.

Even without that, much of Pakistan is very very western.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 1:48:07 PM EDT
Neither Israel or the U.S. can afford a nuclear Iran.

HH
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 1:54:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BushmasterGuy77:

Originally Posted By innocent_bystander:
Israel can't.

My give-a-fuck meter isn't even twitching.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 1:57:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GunLvrPHD:
We are approaching the point where every shitty little country will want nukes. If Iran why not Turkey, Uzbekistan, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuala, Taiwan, Cambodia?

You left off Israel. Especially funny because some major French politician called them a "shitty little country" a few years back. . . .
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 2:05:02 AM EDT
He wants nukes.

He wants to wipe Israel off the map.

I think it's a bad combination for the entire region.

Link Posted: 10/8/2007 2:58:57 AM EDT
Yeah we might turn them into a glass parking lot.... depends on who gets elected... Obama was saying that he was going to rid the U.S. of every single one the dumbf&ck.

j0hn
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:46:54 AM EDT
Nuke em til they glow.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 4:07:58 AM EDT
No, the US, nor anyone else in the world, cannot abide Iran (or any of the little unstable nations that exist worldwide) getting nuclear weapons.

They are a known terror sponsor. They routinely call for the US' and Israel's destruction. Not exactly the actions of mature, stable regimes that can be trusted with such weaponry.

Mind you I do not think that Iran is an existential threat to the US. But they COULD do some serious damage in various ways with only a few thermonuclear devices if we were their target, and if they decided to unleash them on Israel (to start the war that will bring their precious twelfth Imam back) it could very well be an existential threat. Sure there would be survivors but they cannot absorb the kind of casualties the US could.

Deterrence won't work with Iran either.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 5:34:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed:

Originally Posted By GunLvrPHD:
We are approaching the point where every shitty little country will want nukes. If Iran why not Turkey, Uzbekistan, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuala, Taiwan, Cambodia?

You left off Israel. Especially funny because some major French politician called them a "shitty little country" a few years back. . . .


I suspect Israel has more Nobel Laureates than all the other nations listed above, combined. Clearly, they do need nukes, more than any other nation on earth. And it's only fair since Jews invented the a-bomb and h-bomb.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 5:39:21 AM EDT
How many weapons, bombs, equipment, and people is Iran currently sending over the border into Iraq to help arm the terrorists we are fighting? And we should let nukes become a new item in their arsenal? To let Iran have nukes would be a disaster of immense proportions for us. They'd build them as fast, cheap, and haphazardly as possible and get them spread out to every group they could supply. I can't really think of many worse scenarios for us then that.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 5:56:27 AM EDT
It scares me about as much as Pakistan having nukes. I think it's possible to live with Iran having them, but I don't want to have to.
Air and Missile strikes are going to be against specific targets, known to the enemy, and with means known to the enemy. Those are probably going to be the best conditions you can expect.
I don't know what Iran's anti-air artillery looks like, but you'd better believe their nuclear facilities probably have plenty of it.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 5:58:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/8/2007 6:01:04 AM EDT by WinterBorn]
I'm sure we probably could.

But why should we have to?
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 5:59:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GunLvrPHD:

Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed:

Originally Posted By GunLvrPHD:
We are approaching the point where every shitty little country will want nukes. If Iran why not Turkey, Uzbekistan, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuala, Taiwan, Cambodia?

You left off Israel. Especially funny because some major French politician called them a "shitty little country" a few years back. . . .


I suspect Israel has more Nobel Laureates than all the other nations listed above, combined. Clearly, they do need nukes, more than any other nation on earth. And it's only fair since Jews invented the a-bomb and h-bomb.


In what must have been one of the 10 greatest political coups of the last half of the 20th century, France specifically, and Europe in general, dumped Israel on the USA. I believe that happened in 1966.

Not only was Israel removed from the welfare rolls of Europe and placed on the welfare rolls of the US, Europe also assured the US could never have a coherent Middle Eastern policy leaving Europe to prosper (financially) in the ME.

I'm certain Jews, I'm not as certain about Israelis, have more Nobel Laureates than all those listed countries combined.

5sub
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 6:11:30 AM EDT

Nukes were invented in the days of slide rules and vacuum tubes. I suspect in our lifetime there is going to be a lot of countries and organizations getting their hands on them. The technology is simply to old and too many people have had secret little programs to make them. I suspect a good number of countries have a few secretly stashed away already. So there is bound to be a nuke set off in some city in some country in are lifetime. I think America needs to remove the Jericho scenario from being a possibility. If a dozen nukes could cripple America we are making ourselves a tempting target. The electrical system needs to be made emp resistance. It doesn't need to be full proof, just good enough that everything doesn't stop working if there is a emp. Civil defence needs to be back with bomb shelters. Plus our leaders, military, and key infrastructure need to be run through practice scenarios of not just dirty bombs, practice for if full fledge nucleur war. Have infrastructure in place so the economy could keep working even if we are badly hit. Plu of course secure the border.

If that is all done then there will be no nucleur war. Our enemies would know America could not just be removed from earth so easily. Count just on the mutual assured destruction defense and someone will be crazy enough to try. We only got away with it before because few had nukes, well its going to become many.
As for Iran, its pretty much guaranteed Israel and Iran is going to war. Are troops are in the middle. So we are stuck in it.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 6:15:58 AM EDT
They HATE us.

End of story, no can do boss.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 6:21:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/8/2007 6:22:01 AM EDT by jrzy]

Originally Posted By FedDC:
Define "live".

If you mean, live as in some Americans survive...but millions die then yes, we can "live" with it.

If Iran gets Nukes, they will use them or allow them to be used through a surogate.

The universal threat and safety of nukes has been MAD. That does not apply here. MAD is a good trade for them...lots more Arab states and they would die as heroes.

Think about this: You are a minor blip on the worlds radar...your contry isn't overly rich, not all that important...but you manage to destroy a massive chunk of the world's only superpower. David vs Goliath and David wins even if he dies in the process. Picture NYC, WDC, Phili, Boston, Miami, LA, CO Springs, most Military Bases, etc...gone.

That then paves the way for a united Arab continent, their "caliphate" (the goal of the militant islamic movement) to finally unite as one and forcefully spread Islam to the rest of the world.

A now massively weakened America can not stop it because we implode from massive casualties and a total failure of infrastructure....

So, if you think all that is ok, then I guess we can live with a Nuke capable Iran.



iran is not an arab state.
They are persian.
They dislike arabs but are sorta bound to them by both being muslim.
Top Top