I don't want Iran to possess nuclear weapons

[NNN0LHI]

But for crying out loud we the USA currently have them surrounded with the most deadly military force ever assembled anywhere. Including hundreds of thousands of mercenaries who would just love to die for Jesus doing the same thing to the Iranians as they have been doing to the Iraqis and the Afghan people.

Lets look at this realistically. The Iranians are not stupid. They know that they are just one more stolen US presidential election away from having the same neocons back in charge doing the same thing to them as we are doing to the Iraqis and Afghan people.

You think the Iranians want their country turned into a scene from a Mad Max movie? Would you? Come on now. Are we nuts?

Put yourself into the Iranian peoples position for a moment? Wouldn't you covet a nuclear deterrent to prevent that from happening to you?

Don

[Autumn]

1. I don't want anyone to posses nuclear weapons.

But you are absolutely right. If I were Iranian I would want them as a deterrent.

[Windy]

2. If russia joins in the sanctions as they are now hinting they might,

expect a revolution. The people of Iran are already angered at the illegitimate government head and the mullahs. More economic sanctions may spell the end of the regime.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[atreides1]

7. That's Big If

Russia has whistled this tune in the past, all the while providing the Iranians with military equipment. As for sanctions, remember how well that worked with Iraq. I remember the Iraqi people rising up against Saddam and his government....never mind!!!

[John Schroeder]

10. "The people of Iran are already angered at the illegitimate government head"

Did the Iranian people officially appoint you as their spokesperson? If so, you're not doing your job well, because you're clearly misrepresenting their actual opinions.



http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/639.php?nid=&id=&pnt=639&lb

[BOG PERSON]

14. That poll is a great find!

Thanks for posting it.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

3. I don't want the only couintry in history to have

used them to posses them either.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. Completely true. Completely ignored in the MSM coverage.

Along with any mention in the MSM of the 1954 US-engineered coup installing a RW pro-west dictatorship where there had been a responsible, pro-Iran *democracy*.

[endless october]

5. i don't want it to be our job...

to police who does and doesn't have weapons. or who's doing what in the Middle East. i'd like us to pull our troops out of everywhere.

if the UN is worried Iran has weapons that they aren't supposed to have, the UN should do something. or not.

our country is deeply in debt, and we need health care. we can't afford to be cops anymore. time for someone else to step up to the plate.

[BOG PERSON]

8. I don't want Israel to possess nuclear weapons

and I think there's a far greater possibility Israel would engage in a first strike than any other nuclear-capable country right now. Israel, and not Iran, is the biggest destabilizing influence in the Middle East.

[Autumn]

9. I think I agree with you

Welcome to DU :hi:

[madokie]

13. I know I agree with that

[Poll_Blind]

15. I agree, if only based on the balance of action versus talk.

Israel has a very long track record of actually attacking other countries for various reasons. The successive conservative governments of Israel (mostly dominating since the 70's) have explained away attack after attack as a necessity to preserve the Jewish majority in the country from another Nazi-style holocaust.

Iran's Ahmadinejad is a big talker, just like Chavez, but he isn't the real power in that country. Just an irritant which serves the purposes of China and Russia. Their proxy of Iran to irritate our proxy of Israel. We have to borrow money from the Chinese and Russians (among others) to keep propping up our proxy, which is a sweet deal for the Russians and the Chinese, when you think about it.

Israel is the biggest destabilizing presence in the Middle East but it destabilizes the region in the (perceived) favor of the American government. Iran, in a similar sense, for the Russians and Chinese.

But it's difficult to compare the two and so I agree.

PB

[anonymous171]

22. Agreed. nt

[KG]

23. +infinity

[Dreamer Tatum]

27. Then why hasn't Israel nuked anyone?

Just curious.

I don't understand the allure of nukes, anyway, since any country that uses one or more will be turned into a smoking, radioactive wasteland almost immediately. I fear a nuclear Iran because I think their leaders are crazy, and part of the point of using nukes to them probably is world destruction.

[Pavulon]

28. Man they are slow, considering they have had the option

in major wars and have yet to unbottle some sunshine i disagree.

[roamer65]

30. Israel having nukes is a large part of the problem.

Islamic countries then think they need them as a deterrent to Israel. We need worldwide nuclear disarmament, with no exceptions.

[EFerrari]

11. Exactly. n/t

[madokie]

12. I don't want anyone to possess any nuke anything

I say we leave the Iranian's alone and get on with the business of our own citizens and country. Do you really think that Iran is going to start bombing anyone as soon as they get the bomb? If you do then that sounds like paranoia to me on your part. If I was Iranian I would want my country to get the bomb as quickly as they could.

[pa28]

16. Agree with most of what you say but the Iranians are not being circumspect.

Instead of looking at gulf war II as a precedent I believe the Iranians are looking at North Korea.

They seem to assume there will be some assertion of position, some hard rhetoric, some pushing back and forth and finally a reasonable balance where everybody gets something they want. Normal diplomatic posturing in other words.

Maybe they are underestimating some of the pressures built into the system to start a war. Forget the military industrial complex or the oil companies for a minute, think of the 30% out there who would be overjoyed if the US or Israel launched a nuclear strike on Iran. If I were them I'd want nukes as well but I'd carefully avoid making it a point of defiance as the Iranians have done.

[NNN0LHI]

17. No don't get me wrong,. I fully understand the Iranians position on this matter

I am just saying that if we stand back a bit and look at the entire picture the Iranians are never going to give up on their quest for a credible nuclear deterrent. They will go to the mat over this if necessary. And for good reason. So no sense in getting all worked up over it and have our government making idle threats to them. Might as well get used to a nuclear armed Iran some day and learn to deal with it. That is all I am saying.

Don

[lunatica]

18. How does having nuclear weapons have anything to do with the Iranian people?

Are you responsible for our nuclear arsenal?

[MellowDem]

19. Your argument is lacking in facts...

While we do have lots of "contracters" over there, I really doubt the vast majority are even that religious. Just because the CEO of blackwater is doesn't mean you can claim they all are. That's pretty horrible logic. And it's not the "Iranians", it's the Iranian leadership who is making decisions, and this nuke policy of theirs has nothing to do with fears of a US takeover and everything to do with fear of their own people and wanting to create an international conflict to distract their people and perhaps use it as a way to unify them under false pretenses. Your other claims look incredibly naive. Learn up on the area before spouting ignornace.

[BOG PERSON]

20. Your "argument" is full of baseless speculation

[MellowDem]

21. Yes...

It's "baseless" to speculate that Iran's nuke program is more about its domestic instability than anything else, when this has been the case for years now. And the recent elections just reinforce the point.

[BOG PERSON]

24. You're repeating yourself and you have no point to make

[MellowDem]

25. The point is simple...

the OP oversimplified and fundamentally misunderstands why Iran is pursuing nuclear technology. The only point you have, as far as I can tell, is being argumentative with nothing to back it up.

[BOG PERSON]

31. No, the IRI doesn't have to worry about domestic stability

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/639.php?nid=&id=&pnt=639&lb (this was posted earlier in the thread)

So it is reasonable to say that those MAD MULLAHS, etc. are pursuing nuclear-whatever for reasons other than scaring their people into submission.

[MellowDem]

33. You base your opinions on a poll...

that is itself of public opinion in Iran, something that is quite easily maniputable (and something the Iranian leadership does with ease). Iran is unfortunately full of ignorance, much of it due to the government, and their views of the world have been intentionally manipulated by the government to make them as scared of the US as possible so that it takes their attention off their own leaders. Hmm, where have we seen that before? And I never said the leadership was doing it to use the nuclear bombs to scare their own people, it's used as a "patriotic rallying point", something to unite the Iranians against those "evil foreigners".

It is ALL about domesitc policy and to think otherwise is naive. It's a political show played primarily for the Iranian people. Indeed, half the insane shit their president says is just red meat for the people. Same with their actions.

[BOG PERSON]

34. Oh, well, if all you can do is move goal posts then there's no use in talking to you.

Again, all you've got is baseless speculation. And maybe some gruesome Youtubes. You're hardly in a position to call others' arguments "naive" or "oversimplified".

[Pavulon]

26. They cant pay for the holy trinity, not with all the oil

in the world. Air dropped weapons from a no notice stealth jet, slbm, and icbm is not in their budget. They cant afford the the model so anything they develop is just good for killing jews and shakedown purposes. anything short of what we field is not a deterrent, just a bargaining chip.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

29. Summary of U.S. Nuclear Arsenal

Summary of U.S. Nuclear Arsenal:

The U.S. is continuing with some modernization of the nuclear arsenal. Under the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review, approved in September 1994, the U.S. will retain 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines -- the four oldest ones will be retired, while the next four oldest, which were designed to fire the Trident I C-4 SLBM, will be backfitted to fire the larger Trident II D-5. Half the operational strategic deterrent force will be based on these Ohio SSBNs, which remain at sea 2/3 of the time. The Minuteman IIIs received an upgrade and overhaul to extend their lifespan, though the force was reduced from 530 to 500 at the end of FY 1998. Short-range attack missiles have been retired.

The START II Treaty, slated for entry into force in 2003, will limit the strategic arsenal to 3,500 deployed warheads. This will consist of 14 Ohio-class submarines, each carrying 24 Trident II missiles, 500 Minuteman III missiles with a single warhead, 66 B-52Hs carrying nor more than 1,000 air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs), and advanced cruise missiles (ACM), and 20 B-2's carrying up to 16 gravity bombs each. But there will be also be 950 tactical weapons (largely gravity bombs and sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs)), and 2,500 reserve weapons and 2,500 warheads in inactive reserve. These could easily be uploaded onto the START II delivery systems to provide rapid "breakout" capability. The U.S. has resisted Russian overtures for a START III treaty, maintaining that START II should be implemented before negotiations begin.

Strategic Nuclear Weapons: 7,300

Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons: 4,700-11,700

Total Nuclear Weapons: 12,000-19,000

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html#ussum

[keep_it_real]

32. It is about banlance of power between Iran and Isarel

If they both have the bomb there is a balance; one can not run rough shoud over the region more than the over; one can not invade other nations more than the other.