perhaps it would be better if Iran had nukes?

[donsu]

Israel and the bushmilhousegang don't seem to bother countries that have nukes.

Israel has already told Iran they would bomb them and smirk and co. can't wait to attack and get all the gas and oil under their thumbs.

what's a country to do that's under the gaze of the US and Israel. If you say they should shape up and do what the bushmilhousegang and Israel want them to do, then you back US/Israel domination of the world? If you say Iran is run by the religiously insane just turn and look at the W.H. for relligious insanity.

no, I don't think Iran wants to attack other countries even if they had nukes.

[cali]

1. Don't think a nuked up Iran is a great idea.

I agree that it's highly doubtful that Iran would, under present circumstances, use nukes, but circumstances change. Would they have used them during the Iran-Iraq war? Maybe. I can't help but believe that with another, better administration here at home, things would never have reached such an impasse. Iran feels threatened. That's clear, but another nuclear power in the mideast is not a good thing. Bad enough that Israel has them.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. I think that this is for the Iranians to decide, not us.

Iran has hostile forces on two borders, and those forces (that would be us) have a vast supply of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons and have stated a willingness to use at least their tactical weapons on a first strike basis. Iran is within easy strike range of nuclear power Israel, and the western media runs 'background' stories nearly every week describing military plans for airstrikes by Israel against Iran. In short, Iran is entirely justified in perceiving itself as militarily threatened by nuclear powers.

Every nation has the right to self defense, even nations that you and I don't like. In the current situation in the middle east, self defense for muslim nations means self defense against US and Israeli military forces, and realistically means having a credible nuclear deterrent. We recently demonstrated what happens to nations we decree hostile who do not have such a deterrent. Until we disarm, and by that I mean that Israel agrees to scrap its nuclear weapons, and that the United States withdraws its forces from the Middle East and Central Asia and disavows any first strike use of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons and agrees to eliminate its tactical weapons, our demands that Iran not acquire nuclear technology are hypocritical at best.

[cali]

18. I appreciate the points you make.

I'd still rather not see further nuclear proliferation. Particularly not in the Middle East. I do agree that the U.S. should disavow first strike use. So should Israel. As for getting Israel to scrap it's nukes, that simply won't happen. We live neither in the best of all possible worlds or one devoid of hypocricy. I do no support an attack on Iran by either U.S of Israeli forces. I do support diplomatic efforts by the world community.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Why should they not have parity with Israel?

I agree that proliferation is not good, but our actions in the world have been massively unbalanced in this area. We ignore Israel, India, and Pakistan. We ignored South Africa while it was conspiring with Israel to develop nukes. We are belligerently upset with North Korea and Iran, only our belligerent stance with respect to North Korea melts away when it became obvious that they had both nukes and a delivery system capable of placing those nukes across the pacific basin. What lesson do we expect the Iranians to learn from all this? As another poster put it, the lesson learned is 'nuke up'.

Our diplomatic efforts are for show only. We are going through the motions. The clowns in washington, far from viewing Iraq as a disastrous blunder, view it as a success. They are moving on to the next phase of their idiotic PNAC plan to rule the world. They are going to drag the world into a huge and utterly avoidable resource war, and we are busy bemoaning the bad Iranians for wanting to have the capability to defend themselves from our aggression. The problem is here at home, not with the vile mullahs in Tehran.

[applegrove]

2. God should never have nukes.

[Flabbergasted]

3. Iran by itself is not the big issue.

Its Iran's aliances that are the issue. China, Russia, Syria etc. Iran would not be so bold if they did not have access to, ownership of or allies with nuclear weapons.

[donsu]

7. but smirk says China is our friend

and Putin was smirk's pal for awhile until smirk and co. tried to steal their oil and gas.

Syria is everybody's tool.

[Flabbergasted]

11. Yes as long as we leave Iran alone

and we have an economy thats making china money its all hugs and kisses.

[CJCRANE]

4. All bets are off with the neocons in power.

It's just as likely that their backroom boys are selling technology to Iran in the hope of building them up before knocking them down. They have fingers in so many pies they always profit when there's a war on.

ed. amended subject line

[bananas]

5. Mutually Assured Destruction worked so well for US and Russia

maybe we should just give nukes to all countries.

[leftofthedial]

6. I think it would be a major step toward stabilizing the Middle East

without US imperialism being involved

[kcwayne]

8. Would you trust Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson to use good judgement

if they had the authority to launch a nuclear attack on their perceived enemies?

Iran is a country with theocratic leadership that is philosophically stuck in the 12th century, and whose guiding moral principles embrace the destruction of the infidel. Any culture that is so inherently and irreversably irrational cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

That leads me back to Falwell and Robertson and ultimately to any political party in the US that also embraces religiously inspired absurdity. They cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons either.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Iran has no history of aggression against its neighbors. nt.

[stray cat]

14. No, they do it through shadow terrorism organizations

and quite effectively.

[donsu]

17. you mean they have black ops just like the bushmilhousegang?

you mean Iran kills off the leaders of countries they don't like, like the US does?

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Nope again.

They do support palestinian organizations, some of which commit acts of terror such as suicide bombings in Israel and the occupied territories. But describing Iran as somehow engaged in a 'shadow terror war' is straight out of the Republican talking points. Every muslim nation supports, on some level or other, palestinian organizations that are currently or have been in the recent past described as 'terrorist'. That support is quite beside the point. Our good friends the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Pakistanis, the Egyptians etc. all provide some level of support to palestinian organizations. Are they also part of this 'shadow terror war'?

[kcwayne]

16. That is very incorrect

and a brief review of the history of the Persian empire would be relevant.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Oh what you mean like Xerxes?

Yes I am ignoring the recent (circa 300bc) aggressions of the persian empire. My mistake. You are quite right.

[kcwayne]

22. Ignorance is a choice one makes in life

Nadir Shah is a revered figure because of his successes in attacking the Ottoman empire, and is far more recent than Xerxes (circa 1700). Persian aggression declined in the 20th century because they were economically unable to keep pace with Western powers and became an essentially occupied/contained state.

The history of the successful expansion of the Persian empire is a significant cultural influence among Iranians. It is similar to Arab pining for Saladin.

Although Iran was initially attacked by Iraq, the attack was the result of provocations by both sides predominately over border disputes, and Khomeini's open support for exporting Shi'ism. This ultimately resulted in armed conflict, and both sides conducted themselves very aggressively at the cost of millions of lives.

Islam which practices Sharia with the resources of an oil rich economy, backed by modern technology is a very, very dangerous prospect. When the decisions of this juggernaut are made by religiously insane leaders, the results can be cataclysmic.

Ignoring the devastating potential of a nuclear tipped theocracy is idiotic. While you may not like the fact that an idiot in the Whitehouse is the messenger boy for raising the concern, it doesn't mean that there is no reason for concern.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Wow you got us up to like 1740.

And rather than an expansionist danger, what we have is a Persia struggling to maintain its traditional boundaries while surrounded by hostile and more advanced neighbors, a struggle that they lost.

Meanwhile, in the modern world, we have the good old USA camped out on two sides of Iran with its unchallengable military making threats that include first strike use of tactical nuclear weapons.

"Although Iran was initially attacked by Iraq, the attack was the result of provocations by both sides ..."

So despite the fact that Iraq attacked Iran, in your opinion Iran was equally at fault and must be considered a dangerous aggressor.

"Islam which practices Sharia with the resources of an oil rich economy, backed by modern technology is a very, very dangerous prospect."

"Islam which practices Sharia" might in the future be a very dangerous prospect, however "Christianity which practices capitalist imperialism" is, not might be, a very dangerous reality.

How many innocent civilians were killed by Iranian military actions this year? How many did we kill? I suggest that we killed more civilians with our aggressive 'christian' imperialism this week than the Iranians did last year. I suggest that the United States of America, over the lat 50 years has killed far more people, mostly civilians, in military adventures, than all the rest of the nations of this planet combined over the same period of time. After a brief hiatus in the 70's we are right back on track, traipsing around the planet killing people whose governments we find to be unacceptable and generally imposing our belief systems on others at gunpoint.

I am far more concerned with the danger we present to the world than with the dangers other nations might present in the future. I suggest that we clean our own house first, and then perhaps concern ourselves with how our neighbors are behaving.

[donsu]

15. that hints of racism

nt

[kcwayne]

23. When you have no facts or ideas, pull out the racism card

Being a religious moron has no bearing on race. I am expressing equal opportunity disdain for Falwell, Robertson, and Islamic Fundamentalist Ayatollah's. Last I checked, the former are white American morons and the latter are Middle Eastern ones.

[not systems]

9. Iran is more stable that Pakistan...

they have nukes.

A little bit of MAD could do the region good.

[enigma000]

28. MAD works if two conditions are met

First, both participants are rational and non-suicidal - a condition the Iranian leadership may not meet. And second, both sides are willing to push the button if attacked. 60 years after dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Americans are still debating it. If the Iranians nuke New York do you think the American political leadership exists to incinerate 50 million innocent Iranians? Doubtful.

Its a bluff on our part and I suspect they know it. That gives them a very power edge.

[Mike Nelson]

13. People abroad look at George W. Bush and decide to nuke up,

...understandably. He's a great motivator.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. 100% Absolutely Not. A Regime Like That Should Never Have Such Capability

Course, We shouldn't either, but that's not the issue.

[High Plains]

25. Should we go to war to stop them?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. As Always, War Should Only Be As A Last Resort.

I'm hoping it can still be solved diplomatically. Starting a war with Iran could have devastating consequences.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. And if they insist on their right to have advanced nuclear technology?

If diplomacy fails to dissuade them? What then?

[Pavulon]

32. They need to unsign the NPT first..

they need uranium enriched beyond 50% for reactors..right?

[Warren Stupidity]

37. They currently are not in violation.

Until they do violate the NPT they don't need to do anything. The NPT allows them to do exactly what they are doing.

[Pavulon]

38. Can't enrich beyond

x % and they have. 3000 cyclotrons aren't used for reactors. That quantity of highly enriched uranium has only on use.

They are in violation and they are about to be brought before the security commission and sanctioned.

We will see how Europe handles a nut case state who can lon nuke tipped missiles into their back yard.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. "We will see how Europe handles a nut case state

who can lob nuke tipped missiles into their back yard."

Well the Europeans have dealt with the Bush Cabal mostly through appeasement and acquiesence. I too find it very disappointing. Oh, you must mean the Iranians. My mistake. They don't have any nuclear weapons.

[Pavulon]

41. France

Doesn't seem to be screaming veto. The iranian ballistic missile can drop the end product of 90% enriched uranium the IAEA found in their back yard.

So Europe can deal with the problem. They will by sanctioning Iran.

This will be a problem no matter what party the sitting president is in 2009.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. France is going to let Russia or China take the hot seat on this one.

But I find your belief that the insane bush cabal will do anything other than use the security council as a stepping stone in their next big adventure to be less than reassuring.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. Oh and...

"The iranian ballistic missile can drop the end product of 90% enriched uranium the IAEA found in their back yard."

Well I suppose they could. Why on earth would they do this?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. We Gonna Go In Circles? LOL As A Last Resort, War.

But hopefully it can be solved first diplomatically, through sanctions, pressure, mutual assurance etc...

But no way in hell I want Iran to have nukes. Period. Sorry Mr. Stupidity.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. With All Due Respect, That is one of the most ignorant and narrow minded

statements I think I've come across on DU.

I'll refrain from further reply to such nonsense.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. So you support another act of aggression by the Bush regime.nt.

[Moochy]

49. Our nukes not the issue?

Maybe you are super patriotic, and maybe it's painful to your self-image as a patriotic American to think of this country as a bully, but there is an issue here. We have over half of the world targeted with nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. In under 30 minutes doomsday, Armageddon and worldwide nuclear holocaust.

I'm not willing to arm the world with nukes, we need to disarm, but the hypocrisy of US foreign policy is boundless in this regard.

I beg to differ, that "we shouldnt either" is the issue.

Do you realize that the bush administration is likely planning and wargaming the possiblity of using Nuclear weapons on a pre-nuclear state? "All options are on the table" Is a Bush / Condi quote that comes to mind.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Oh Please.

:eyes:

Superpatriotic and painful to my self-image as a patriotic american. What a load of horseshit garbage that is. I would caution you against being so quickly and erroneously judgmental, as it makes the rest of your point, even if there was some validity in it, not worthy of reading.

And yes, I am aware to all of the above, but none of it changes the fact that Iran would be dangerous with nuclear weapons and the world as a whole should assure that they never achieve that goal.

This has nothing to do with defense of US policy, which I consider to be abysmal.

[Moochy]

51. Consider me cautioned

I know many good democrats who hate hearing that the US is an imperialistic bully, many think it's being unpatriotic, etc.

Personally, I'm not "patriotic" at all. I reject the notion of patriotism, and nationalism as tools of the ruling elite to keep us distracted from the issues that affect us most. I fear you are falling into the nationalistic superpatriotic frame, to buy the fear from Iran. Especially so given the track record of this bush administration.

Please I did try to be as constructive as possible, in these postings. I just read your post as someone who too readily dismisses out nukes, and are just way too quick to dismiss it as being irrelvant to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

on edit added the bold part for clarification.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. Hi Moochy. Thanks For That.

Seriously. Thanks for continuing the debate in a civil manner. It is more refreshing than you realize to me.

As can be seen from this post in a thread before this one started, I agree with you on that aspect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=144748&mesg_id=144797

I totally agree that our administration is the worst of all and should disarm before anybody. I realize the threat we pose and the criminal gangs willingness to use whatever they deem fit regardless of regard for human life, such as nuclear weapons, those with depleted uranium and white phosphorous.

Where I am conflicted, however, is with defending Iran. I have been terrified of Iran since I was a child, and do not trust them or agree with their policies one bit. It makes me shudder to think of them potentially trying to achieve nuclear status with weaponry, and regardless how bad and evil our own administration is I still think Iran shouldn't be allowed to progress further with them (or N. Korea for that matter). I think the majority of countries in the world and the inhabitants in them agree that Iran would be a threat with nuclear weapons.

I do not, however, condone another war or the killing of innocents unilaterally, or until every possible other avenue has been explored and acted upon to its fullest. The only time I would support a war with Iran is if things went so far that the reality of them having a nuclear weapon was imminent and it was clear that no amount of comprimise would any longer work. That is just simply how I feel, and has nothing to do with patriotism. Believe me, you won't find anyone that is more against our government's policies, deceit, lies and corruption as I am (though lord knows there are many equal to my hatred, which is why I'm on DU :) )

[Moochy]

53. More civility is good

In the vein of more civility, I want for our US Foreign Policy to not create any more "Armless Ali's" just to assuage our irrational fears. These fears of Iran were drummed into us since the post-revolutionary Iran because of the hostage crisis. These falsely religious jerks in control in Iran feed on the saber rattling here to consolidate their power-base. We have driven the moderates out of power in Iran. We in the west have enabled the extremists' resurgent power grab, since the moderates were associated with the west.

Also consider that the defenses of Iran are substantial. Iraq having been subjected as it was to 13 years of extremely strict sanctions and an uninterrupted bombing campaign, made them the perfect first target for the PNAC posse.

Consider the Russian Sunburns, the The Katyusha (Little Katie) anti-ship missiles which have the potential to disrupt a major percentage of the worlds oil production for years, the oil fields are within range of these supersonic missiles. I've seen no war planning/analysis that addresses this effective check to our aggression. Take a look at a world map, and note the Gulf of Oman, Also note the hills and mountains in which Iran has placed all of their katyusha rockets, the very advanced sunburn missiles, which our exocet ship defenses have only 6 seconds to target and destroy. The most optimistic estimate is 2-3 weeks of large scale bombing of these hills to eradicate these installations, and it's a known fact that targeting mountainous areas with aerial strikes, is highly ineffective. Also there is no guarantee that any Saudi production facilities, given that most are declining in production, would be worth replacing.

"until every possible other avenue has been explored and acted upon to its fullest. " Well we are still a ways off, the next step is to recommend to the security council, and Mohamed El Baradei is working to try and get cooperation. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking that by asking for UN Support, and even having bolton acting president that we are going to get an authorization for strikes and regime change.
Bush will try and ram the plan for an attack with Bolton at the helm next month, I'm sure that's when things start falling into place.

Bolton: "No seriously Germany, Russia, and China, we'll be making sure that any new puppet government will be selling you all the oil you need!" Of course it will take 5 years to rebuild Iran's capacity to 1/3 of its current capacity, and what of the possibility of another insurgency, and the effect of using "nuclear bunker busters" in the region. In other words,Armageddon-flavored world-wide depression inducing warmongering bullshit. par for the course from the bushies, and right out of PNAC playbook.

on edit fixed horrible spellings.. :mad:

[tedzbear]

27. Better for THEM.

The Islamic nations have been living under the threat of Israel's nukes for a long time so it's only fair Israel lives under the threat of Iran's nukes.
To do otherwise is hypocrisy.

Who knows if Iran would use their nukes aggressively? I doubt it.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Indeed, there are exactly two ways to go forward.

Either everyone in the region disarms and nobody has nukes, or everybody in the region who can afford to build them will build them.

As we appear to have no intention of working on a nuclear free middle east, it appears that we are going to try to avoid the other alternative by killing a lot more muslims. That should work out quite well.

[Pavulon]

31. That way they can

hurry up and finish up what hitler didn't.

Wipe israel off the map, is a threat.

If you believe in the vast jewish conspiracy and the elders of zion them nuking israel so their 12th imam can come back would be great. The guy in power is a twelver, needs a bloody mess for his prophet to come back.

Hezbollah is Iran, Iran has been running a cold war in israel since 79.

GW isn't threatening to nuke Venezuela, china, or iran. He is an idiot buy Iran has surpassed us in insanity by leaps and bounds.


You think them having nukes would deter a real war, or just end up with a higher body count?

[Warren Stupidity]

35. So how do you propose to stop them from building nukes?

[Pavulon]

39. Let Europe

take the lead. Their cities fall under the range of the iranian ballistic missile technology acquired from N. korea. Renamed with a nationalistic name for Iran, of course. Cant have a big dong ill missile to used to kill jews. Doesn't sound right.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. OK. Sounds good.

I rather doubt that the Iranians will launch nukes at anyone. My guess is that they are very afraid that without any deterrent what happened to Iraq will happen to them. Perhaps we should find some way to assure them that this is not the case. Perhaps we might get our fleets and troops and airbases out of the region. Perhaps we ought to pursue a multilateral nuclear free middle east rather than a unilateral 'you muslims may not have them' approach.

[Pavulon]

54. Iran has responsibility too.

They signed the NPT and should either follow the rules or suffer th economic consequences.

Now Europe has a chance to resolve a major international issue.

[SPKrazy]

34. No, I don't think so

It does the world no good to have more countries with nukes than we already have.

The world should be moving towards disarmament, not more countries with nukes.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Then I suggest that we set an example for the world. nt.

[SPKrazy]

46. Yes we should, but not to our own peril

We should be working on treaties to eliminate all nuclear arms, including our own.

[Pavulon]

55. You know how they say

never say never. We will NEVER destroy our entire arsenal.