1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Will We Fight Iran?

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Cthippo, 8 Mar 2006.

  1. FredsFriend

    FredsFriend What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    20 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    486
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read that as "We have visited their sites, not found anything, been told to be 110% sure that they don't have any weapons, is it possible to be that sure?, i wish we had access to all of their documents.
    Nothing is said about them not being given access to the Iranian sites just that they should be as transparent as possible, very different thing. First is doing something wrong second is them telling Iran "Well you haven't done anything wrong, but you had better make sure you don't".

    So basically the US but Islamic then.

    I think that it's a bit rich calling for one side to compromise without any from the other.

    I'm a bit sick of the US and to a lesser extent the UK telling everyone that they aren't allowed Nuclear weapons because they are bad and that they aren't grown up enough to handle them. All the while not really dismantling our own stocks.
     
  2. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,653
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    Wait, where have I heard that before?... Oh, yeah, when talking about Saddam Hussein's "WMD". :duh:

    I said it then, and I'll say it now: A dictator's business is to stay in business. There is no gain whatsoever in supplying a bunch of gung-ho terrorists with expensive and complicated nukes only to have them inevitably traced back to you (after which it is, most definitely, Game Over). Particularly if you consider that terrorist loyalties are like leaves in the wind. The only government crazy enough to support terrorists so far, has been the US (think: Osama), and it came back to haunt them.

    We're still "briskly" overthrowing Iraq several years later...

    Read that bit about Face again, will you?
     
  3. Will

    Will Beware the judderman...

    Joined:
    16 Jun 2001
    Posts:
    3,057
    Likes Received:
    2
    Errrm...am i misunderstanding you here?

    I can think of plenty of other states that fund or funded/trained terrorists...Syria (Hezbollah & Hamas), Iran (Hezbollah IIRC), Libya & the IRA during the 1980s, the Soviets & the IRA.... also add Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and many of the other Gulf states to supporters of Al-Qaeda, if we're going to blame the US for the same, for they were responsible for a very significant portion of the funding and equipment that reached the Afghan Mujahadeen during the 1980s (in fact, even Israel sent some captured Egyptian weapons to Afghanistan for use by the Mujahdeen :eeek: , many of whom went on to be associated with Al Qaeda and similarly militant groups across the Arab World).

    :)
     
  4. RotoSequence

    RotoSequence Lazy Lurker

    Joined:
    6 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    4,588
    Likes Received:
    7
    Nexxo, I think youre going a little Anti-USA in excuse of all others; while we dont have the full story from both sides, Its not entirely fair to assume that, because you have more facts about our side, and know the results of policy, that that policy and people's singular reaction to it is the sole source of world problems.
     
  5. Stuey

    Stuey You will be defenestrated!

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    10
    I do believe that compromise is about giving and taking. Perhaps the US could assist in financing the reactor development if Iran moved the facilities into russia. Other than that, I completely support the notion that their nuclear activity HAS to be monitored. If they refuse to allow monitoring, then they shouldn't be allowed to act in secret.

    It's like a 12 year old boy who says he wants a lighter and will get a lighter. He says that he wants it so he can sleeve his PSU and use heat-shrink tubing. An older cousin (or family friend, or bully, for you anti-US folk) says he'll supervise the process. The 12 year old refuses to be supervised and claims he won't burn things even when nobody is watching. He absolutely refuses to be supervised. Should someone with the power to do so prevent him from acquiring a lighter. The offer's been made that he can mod the PSU in a more trusted atmosphere. Still, refusal. If the child REALLY wanted to mod the PSU and really WASN'T going to burn things, then it's in his favor to agree to supervision. Most young males WILL burn things if given the chance and lack of supervision.

    Imagine the boost in power Iran would get if they did in fact develop nuclear weapons. An irrational regime should not have that kind of international power. And you can say the hostile comments are all talk, but there's no way to be certain of that, and I don't know about you, I'd rather be safe than sorry. That seems to be the consensus because there aren't a lot of dissident voices out there. Right now, pretty much all of the major nations support pulling Iran in front of the security council. Bush isn't stupid enough to act without unilateral support this time around. Germany, France, and Russia all spoke out against Iran's president at least several times in the past few months in response to his comments. This time around, they'll be on board and influence any resolution the UN deems necessary.
     
  6. warchild

    warchild What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    So...who's monitoring The U.S. nuclear weapons... ? :eeek:
     
  7. Stuey

    Stuey You will be defenestrated!

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    10
    A while back I read that the govt wanted to develop small tactical nukes for uses such as bunker busting, but I think the projects are defeated. I'm pretty sure they still have research going somewhere.

    I also remember reading for a class that the US had to give money to Russia to maintain their nuclear stockpile to avoid accidents due to degredation.

    But as for who's monitoring the US nuclear weapons... good question. Who's monitoring the UK? Who's monitoring France? If a country has nukes, fine. Most of the countries who have nuclear weapons today are not run by radical regimes. Well, Chirac said he'd respond with nukes in case of terrorist attack, and some of you are definitely going to say Bush runs a radical regime.

    The fact is, no country should possess nuclear weapons, but there's no way that's happening, additional countries should be prevented from acquiring them. And no, that's not my personal opinion, that's my interpretation of world opinion.

    You could say that things might equal out if everyone had nukes. But, even if every nation eventually acquired nukes, the most powerful nations would always be a step ahead.

    This is all one gigantic mess =( .
     
  8. Ab$olut

    Ab$olut What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2004
    Posts:
    590
    Likes Received:
    1
    if it does happen I bet the uk are dragged in just like the other two conflicts :( bush and blair are too close I wonder what tony thinks of all this maybe he might oppose it but its doubtfull
     
  9. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,653
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    OK, I admit I went a bit over the top there. Of course many governments have a history of supporting whatever terrorists/freedom fighters (delete as appropriate) happen to suit their current purpose. But that includes the US, UK and mainland European nations as much as any Middle Eastern countries that we are so fond to point fingers at.
    I would challenge you on that. Our governments claim to know an awful lot about the other side: WMD in Iraq, nukes in Iran... But when it comes down to our various messes things go awfully quiet, and if you happen to point some out you are labeled as "unpatriotic". We are so fond of pointing out how others are mad, bad and dangerous to know, and we are supporters and defenders of those values and principles we so thoroughly rape and violate in the process of "defending" them. And people are actually buying it wholesale. That doesn't make our governments any different from theirs though, and doesn't make us any different from the dumb masses in Iran egged on to hate and attack the West by their demagogue's rethoric. And at least they don't go around saying they are democratic and believe in free speech and self-determination.

    And we are talking (I assume) about very specific issues concerning the Middle East, not "all the problems in the world".

    That's a nice analogy, Stuey83, but reveals rather a lot about our point of view. Who is to say that we are the "responsible adult" and Iran the "12-year old"? Patronising, moi?

    Here's my variation: a 12 year old boy says he wants a lighter and will get a lighter. He says that he wants it so he can sleeve his PSU and use heat-shrink tubing. Another 12 year old says he'll supervise the process, because he's had a lighter for a while so he thinks he knows his stuff. And anyway, he sort of liked being the only 12 year old with a lighter on the block --made him feel more powerful and important than the other 12 year olds. He really doesn't like the idea of having to share that postion with another kid now.

    The 12 year old refuses to be supervised and claims he won't burn things even when nobody is watching. He absolutely refuses to be supervised --especially by another 12 year old boy who, in his opinion, is not in any way smarter or better at using a lighter than him, especially considering he set fire to the curtains once, burned the Neighbours' Japanese cat during an argument, and has set fires in the fields at the back of the house and done other irresponsible stuff like that. And anyway, some other 12-year olds down the road also got lighters and some got to do stupid irresponsible things with them, and no-one challenges them about it.

    So this 12 year old feels it's all a bit unfair. He suspects that this is not about how safe he is with the lighter, but that the other 12 year old just doesn't want to give up some of his power and importance. And because this 12 year old is smaller than that really big Korean 12 year old kid with the lighter down the road for instance, it is easier to pick on him instead. So he refuses to be supervised by the other 12 year old. Who does he think he is?
     
    Last edited: 10 Mar 2006
  10. RotoSequence

    RotoSequence Lazy Lurker

    Joined:
    6 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    4,588
    Likes Received:
    7
    Your analogy suffers from the problem being that the USA's nuclear weapons program was only used during the second world war militarily, though they did a boatload of testing, some in some not so nice places.

    On the one hand, you have the USA who has caused problems in the past with the "lighter," albeit just comparing it to setting fire to a Japanese cat is utter BS - it was World War Freaking Two fro crying out loud. What about the Soviet Union though? What about France? What about the Britons who worked on the same types of projects until we gave nuclear technology that actually worked ;)

    But enough of that tangent. its not just the 1 USA 12 year old Iran refuses to respond properly to - its the entire world of nations, 12 years old or not, that Iran isnt listening to with open ears.

    So the question becomes, do you let this 12 year old, 12 years old or not, continue to run about with the would - be arsonist crew who doesnt appear to care about the dangers of playing with fire?
     
  11. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,653
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    If you can compare nukes to "lighters", I can compare WW2 to "an argument". Do not quible about the semantics of an analogy, FFS. :rolleyes:

    Same thing applies. But it is not them that are breathing down Iran's neck right now (at least not without US encouragement). But interestingly, it was France, with UK agreement, who gave Israel the materials and expertise required to start their own secret nuclear defense programme in the 50's. You know, the one Israel succesfully kept hidden from us for decades.

    It was not an issue until the US made it an issue --in fact, turned it into a crisis.
    Again, pure assumption. Everybody assumed Saddam was handing out the nerve gas to any terrorist hick queueing up at the palace in Baghdad. Turns out he wasn't. Why? Because there was nothing in it for HIM. Now the US assumes that Iran will spend millions of money, years of effort and valuable expertise on making nukes (which would take about ten years) just to hand them over to some terrorist groupies to play with.

    Look, how many times do I have to say this? A dictator's business is to stay in business. Do I have to write this in flashing neon pink? Do I have to draw a picture? There is no point whatsoever for Iran to hand nukes to terrorists. Because they would inevitably use them, and they would then inevitably be traced back to Iran. It would be total, inevitable, absolute suicide. Terrorists nuke Israel? Israel nukes Iran. Terrorist nuke Manhattan Island? US nukes Iran. And every single one of its Muslim neighbours will distance itself from the whole affair and let Iran be turned into a plate of radioactive glass.

    But like with Iraq, Bush has his own agenda here. Like with Iraq, what was a contained issue is escalated into a crisis. Like with Iraq, we hear a lot of assertions backed up by no substantial fact. And you are all falling for it all over again, hook line and sinker.
     
    Last edited: 10 Mar 2006
  12. RotoSequence

    RotoSequence Lazy Lurker

    Joined:
    6 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    4,588
    Likes Received:
    7
    You are utterly stuck on this tangent, which is still based on assumptions of your own. What on earth makes you think they would only go through terrorists for nuclear weapon useage? What makes you think that they wouldnt potentially some time launch nuclear weapons at Israel because they decided they wanted a final solution?

    Israel doesnt have the reaction time to launch missiles. Even during the cold war, the USA wouldnt have time to prepare many of its nuke sites for launch before a Soviet bombardment would anhilate millions. Iran on the other hand, which is only a few hundred miles away from Israel, could easily anhilate the nation. Yes, they would be destroyed. However, Islam values martyrdom against its enemies, the biggest in the Arab world being Israel. You think they wouldnt sacrifice themselves for the destruction of the Jewish state which they hate so much? Knowing what kind of government Iran has in place, and the beliefs which they have, it is a serious consideration, and a good reason to try to alleviate the situation; if these inspections dont work, which they seem to have failed as the IAEA has been impaired a fair degree from knowing just exactly what the nation is up to, and the USA doesnt trust them, rightfully so or not, the USA, and its NOT just the USA alone for ****s sake, wants to make sure they don't pull something nuclear. Whether they are too considered about this state over another isnt the problem being faced, its this one.
     
  13. Mafney

    Mafney What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    23 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    I sure hope we don't start a war with Iran, I quite like living. Dont particulary want a Nuclear Holocaust anytime soon...
     
  14. warchild

    warchild What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    This Iran issue kinda remind me " The Minority Report" a film by S.Spilberg.

    Catch a criminal before he committing a crime... :duh:
     
  15. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    102
    I think Nexxo's point is fundamentally correct. As evidence, i present the last 50 years of life under Mutual Assured Destruction. To the best of my knolegde, no leader in history has ever knowingly comitted his nation to a war that would unquestionably result in it's destruction. Leaders only go to war when they are sure they can win, even though in the end they are somtimes wrong. In today's world, no leader anywhere can be sure of anything except messy defeat in the event they use nuclear weapons, even by proxy.

    Put simply, Nukes are regime insurance, and really not useful for anything else. Remember, no nation posessing them has been forecefully overthrown by an external threat. Iran, much like North Korea, wants to be left alone to conduct their nation as they see fit. North korea has gained that security, Iran may or may not be seeking it.
     
  16. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,653
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    Whoa, whoa, hold on. You are the one who presented the argument that Iran was a 12-year old who shouldn't be allowed a lighter because he had renegade arsonist friends: you are the one who argued Iran will hand nukes to terrorists. I'm simply saying that is not the case (and for the record: the statement: "A dictator's business is staying in business" is based on a range of psychological research into the dynamics of dictatorship and demagogy, not just my personal gut feeling).

    Now you suddenly argue that Iran itself will nuke Israel. I already explained why that simply will not happen (thanks for reading my posts anyway...). Even if Israel doesn't get a counter-strike off in time (extremely unlikely: it is why they have nukes in the first place), the US will do the honours for them. They can nuke Iran from the comfort of their ships and subs in the Gulf, and if that doesn't do it, they have those nifty $2billion-a-piece Stealth Bombers with nuclear capability, and a whole friggin' fleet of B52's buzzing around the globe with nukes on permanent standby. Trust me, if Iran nukes Israel, it is radioactive toast. You know it, I know it, Iran knows it.

    I think you are confusing the position of a small-fry suicide bomber with that of a political dictator/demagogue. You will note how Osama Bin Laden has never strapped on a Semtex corset himself. He has enough morons to do that for him. Similarly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks a good talk to please the crowd, and won't mind some followers sacrificing themselves on the altar of Islamic principles, but he is simply not going to risk his own neck or powerbase. Neither are any of the other people at the top of political or religious institutions there. You have to seriously start to make a distinction between what politicians say and what they do.

    Over 50% of the population of Iran consists of young (median age: 24.23), well-educated, fairly liberal professionals. You don't see them chanting in the square at President Ahmadinejad's speeches --they are too busy leading their middle-class, fairly liberal lives. They have kids, they have careers. They don't feel like dying on a point of dogmatic principle. They have a considerable share of the vote (in fact, the majority) so President Ahmadinejad does well to heed their opinions. However people seem to think (again) that Iran is just filled with foaming-at-the-mouth inbred camelherd fundamentalists who can't wait to go to Paradise for the destruction of Israel. Wake up and smell the paranoia.
     
    Last edited: 11 Mar 2006
  17. RotoSequence

    RotoSequence Lazy Lurker

    Joined:
    6 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    4,588
    Likes Received:
    7
    His words, not mine. I also did not create the 12 analogy, I elaborated on it :p
     
  18. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,653
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    OK, "you" plural. :p

    (BTW, your post here: sheer quality! :thumb: :hehe: )
     
  19. Stuey

    Stuey You will be defenestrated!

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    10
    LoL, I never said that he shouldn't have the lighter because of arsonist friends; I said that a 12 year old male will inherently possess the desire to play with fire and will light things ablaze at the first possible opportunity.

    Also, can psychological standards really be used in analyzing fanatics? There fanactical people out there who raise their children with the mindset that in murdering their enemies (especially in the process of self-sacrifice) will raise them to martyr status or at the very least make them much more favorable in their god's eyes.

    I think it is unfathomable for a typical person to understand the mindset of a fanactical parent who would be thrilled if their children were to become suicide bombers. I would assume that as a result of their fanaticicm some unpredictability should be factored in analyzing their behaviors.

    Similarly, when dealing with a president who may share that same mindset, I'm not sure that saying "a dictator's business is to stay in business" is 100% accurate. By all means, it deserves merit, but I don't think it could be considered with absolute confidence. Although I am naive in terms of human psychology, I know that in the physical sciences there are always uncertainties.

    Although it may be typical for a dictator to behave in attempt to try to retain his position for as long as possible, there could be more to it. Perhaps the pres. of Iran instead wants to leave a legacy behind and be immortalized in history. Perhaps he wants to be the leader who destroys Israel and the US, or he wants to further spread Islam throughout the world by use of force (nuclear persuasion??).

    N. Korea was safe from invasion even before they claimed they had nukes. Invading N. Korea whould have required the full force of the US military without a guaranteed victory. It would have been a disaster and nothing useful could have been gained from it.
     
    Last edited: 13 Mar 2006
  20. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    102
    What the Iranian leadership inherently posses is a desire to be independent of the west for their domestic energy needs and a desire to remain in power. Iran may be an exporter of crude oil, but they import much of their refined products and I believe a portion of their energy. Everything they have done so far has been consistent with these goals.

    Everyone agrees that even if Iran were actively seeking nuclear weapons (and I'm NOT conceding that they are) they are at least 5-10 years away from building one. Currently they have somthing like 20 centrifuges operating, and maybe materials to make 6000 more, but making highly enriched uranium on a weapons production scale would require somthing like 30,000 centrifuges operating for several years. On the other hand, that 6000 centrifuge array would be more than adequate to produce low enrichment reactor fuel. The "crisis" that now exists is wholly artificial and is driven by the US attempting to tell Iran that they cannot do somthing they are specifically allowed to do under the NPT.

    The good news is that I think US domestic politics are going to pass this particular issue by in the next few months and everyone will forget about it. THE IAEA will report Iran to the security council who will study the issue for a few months and then pass some half-assed sanctions that no one will pay any attention to and life will go on. Iran will enrich their uranium for their reactors. Worst case realistic scenario? in 5 to 10 years Iran tests an atomic bomb in an empty piece of desert, everyone goes ape until the realize that it really doesn't matter and life goes on. Fortunatly I don't think the US has either the capability or the political will to invade Iran and nothing else will have much of an effect.
     

Share This Page