Iran's nuclear weapons

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Iran is not a totalitarian regime. In fact, there is a large contingent of young, liberal and educated people in Iran that are pushing for a more secular government.

I would have agreed with that years ago when they had what appeared to be elections. They then did a 180, and there is no longer any credible evidence that there the Iranian government is still on a path of progress. The Iranian government is actively oppressing citizens who disent.

Were it not for nuclear weapons, I would say that we could give them the benefit of the doubt. There are still Ayatolahs in power who have publicly stated that they will use a nuclear weapon on Tel Aviv when they are able.

[Rudey]

Iran is a theocracy. There has never ever been any question on that.

-Rudey

[Kevin]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss

Were it not for nuclear weapons, I would say that we could give them the benefit of the doubt. There are still Ayatolahs in power who have publicly stated that they will use a nuclear weapon on Tel Aviv when they are able.

So you'd suggest invading? If Tel Aviv is nuked, maybe we can get the French and Germans to join our coalition.

Yeah, we should probably wait for that.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ktsnake
So you'd suggest invading? If Tel Aviv is nuked, maybe we can get the French and Germans to join our coalition.

Yeah, we should probably wait for that.

Why invade? Why not bomb? Just delay weapons production until the country itself evolves. Truly though Iranians are a very proud people. I can't think of another group that comes as close. With or without the theocracy, they will support that aim until there is some sort of education towards them to help them understand that is nothing to be proud of and a waste of their resources.

-Rudey

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by ktsnake
So you'd suggest invading? If Tel Aviv is nuked, maybe we can get the French and Germans to join our coalition.

Yeah, we should probably wait for that.

I didn't suggest invading as a first option. I am saying that the US can not present an invasion as a credible option because our military is over extended. And I am also saying that Iran will not respond to diplomatic channels in a honest way.

Also, as Rudey also posted, we can not simply waiting for internal regime change. If they develop a nuke before regime change, not only will regime change become less likely, but a nuke may be used. I suggest that a nuke may be used, because Iranian Ayatollahs have said that they will use a nuke if they get their hands on one. I don't know how credible that is, but it is grossly irresponsble to discount such promises.

If diplomatic channels are useless, and the pressure of full military intervention lacks credibility to be effective, than Rudey may be suggesting the only responsible option; surgical strikes on Iranian installations similar to what Israel did to Iraq many years ago.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss


If diplomatic channels are useless, and the pressure of full military intervention lacks credibility to be effective, than Rudey may be suggesting the only responsible option; surgical strikes on Iranian installations similar to what Israel did to Iraq many years ago.

Why not just turn the Israelis loose on Iran (or at least threaten them with this). If they can no longer be a responsible citizen of the world, we can no longer guarantee their protection and safety from those very well-armed folks to their west. I'm sure that given a chance, Israel would just love to blow some stuff up. They're very good at that. Maybe 2nd only to the US.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Why not just turn the Israelis loose on Iran (or at least threaten them with this). If they can no longer be a responsible citizen of the world, we can no longer guarantee their protection and safety from those very well-armed folks to their west. I'm sure that given a chance, Israel would just love to blow some stuff up. They're very good at that. Maybe 2nd only to the US.

Israel has declared it's intentions to not allow Iran to go nuclear. I hope they stick to it.

Just so you know the world burned Israel and condemned it after Israel attacked Iraq's Osirak reactors. Why wouldn't they when France and Russia were busy making money off nuclear proliferation?

-Rudey

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Rudey
Israel has declared it's intentions to not allow Iran to go nuclear. I hope they stick to it.

Just so you know the world burned Israel and condemned it after Israel attacked Iraq's Osirak reactors. Why wouldn't they when France and Russia were busy making money off nuclear proliferation?

-Rudey

The "world" at large is quietly anti-semitic. I don't think Europe has changed much in that respect from the climate that existed there pre-WWII.

It stupifies me when I see the world's reaction (condemnation) to Israel defending itself from terrorists that intentionally target women and children.

I don't think that Israel is largely concerned with what the French think. If France and Israel got into a fight, who would you put your money on?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ktsnake
The "world" at large is quietly anti-semitic. I don't think Europe has changed much in that respect from the climate that existed there pre-WWII.

It stupifies me when I see the world's reaction (condemnation) to Israel defending itself from terrorists that intentionally target women and children.

I don't think that Israel is largely concerned with what the French think. If France and Israel got into a fight, who would you put your money on?

Israel I would say but that's because Israel has so many constraints against it and can't afford to mess up along with the fact that practice makes perfect and Israel has been practicing from the day it was born. To give them their due, the French were key military backers of Israel until the 6 day war. But yes, anti-semitism is deeply inbred into the world and Europeans sweat it through each and every pore on their body.

-Rudey