Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by ex-idaho
First off Iran does not desire nukes to threaten the US but to keep us from threatening them not to mention the situation with its neighbors Pakistan and India as well as the former Soviet states to the north.

Nukes would let them engage in terrorism against us with impunity.

ex-idaho

To what end? Bush is already on record as stating that if attacked we will use whatever means deemed appropriate. Besides has there been any confirmation that Iran is or was involved in any terrorist plots involving the US? Isreal does not count.

simian

Don't you know that they were behind September 11?

I jest, but then again, it worked for Iraq.

And releasing information before it is confirmed has convinced the US public that WMDs were found in Iraq.

Simian

HaysooChreesto!

Maybe you can tell me, what do religous fundamentalists have to lose by dying? From their point of view the US is the Great Satan and they would be looked upon favorably by their god for doing the world but more importantly their religion such a huge service.

As others have said, it could be passed off to terrorists groups and used that way. That's not fear mongering it's a legitmate possibility. Consider as well that Iran would become the ME's pre-eminent power with a nuke. There is nothing and I mean nothing good about religous fundies with a nuke. Only bad things can come of it.

A conventional ground war with Iran waged by the U.S.? It'd be a roll over. Certainly one carrier battle group couldn't do the job, but the only reason it would take longer than Iraq would be due to the distance the US Army would have to travel to Teheran.

Finally, 70% of Iran's population is under 30. They despise their government. While I wouldn't say they're pro-American they have the general idea that they'd like to build their society on a model similar to America's. Some would like help from the U.S. and some wouldn't. But if they were to take action to overthrow the theocracy they live under they will receive some kind of assistance once it's done.

ex-idaho

If you mean the average poor to lower middle class commoner in the ME then nothing. What does the leadership of these nations have to loose? Everything. I believe that no matter how plausible the scenario of a nuclear strike on the US by either terrorist groups or by a hostile nation is, the odds are overwhelmingly against. Everyone in the world knows that no matter who is president of the US, Democrat or Republican the response would be overwhelming and immediate. Regardless of what the pawns of these groups believe the leadership does not wish to die and they do not wish for the ME to be wiped off the map like they know it would be.

The initial fighting might be over in matter of weeks but the guerilla attacks would go in imperpetude.

They might not like their government and want a change but they don't want the US telling them how to do it or interferring with them. If you think the Iraqi response to our troops was surprising just wait for the Iranian response.

Loren Pechtel

Well, does counterfeiting to the tune of billions of dollars a year count?

Genghis Pwn

The odds were "overwhelmingly against" 19 hijackers crashing airliners in the World Trade Towers and bringing them down, but it happened. Don't you understand? We simply cannot risk having New York or Washington DC hit in a nuclear terrorist attack. Do you understand what would happen to this planet? To humanity if that happened? The world would be thrown into chaos. Millions would die. This "life" we have going here on planet earth -- all that would change.

The Ayatollah and his Islamic clerics in Iran are one of the most isolated, backward, and evil regimes on the planet. They don't give a damn about "relatiation." Did the guys who flew the planes into the Trade Center and Pentagon care about "retalitation"? They're dead.

If the Ayatollah of Iran or one of his deluded cronies could nuke NY or DC (The Great Satan) by passing a device to Islamic terrorists, are YOU going to guarantee that one of those clerics won't do it?

We're simply not going to take that chance. And you can bitch and whine and bellyache all you want -- we will defend ourselves, and the world.

ex-idaho

The odds were not against it we had long standing intel that warned of just such an attack. As far as I know we do not have any intel warning us of a nuclear strike. Thats not to say that it dosen't exist.



I agree. But is toppling Iran really going to lessen that risk? We said the same in Iraq then left the nuclear facilities unguarded to be looted with who knows how much nuclear material spirited away by possible terrorist. Attacking Iran and every other country in the world because we fear they may be able to injure us is not gonig to make the world any safer. It will only breed more animosity and create potent recruiting material for new terrorist.

Backward yes but isolated, only by us and a few of our allies. Tehran is a very cosmopolitan city from all accounts I have read. The leaders of Iran are nowhere near as backward as the Taliban and not nearly so religiously motivated. Evil? I personally do not like to throw this word around. I don't feel that they can be labelled as evil because they act in self interest just as we do. They see our actions as evil and we see theirs as evil but who is to say whos right.

Look I am no fan of Iran or its leadership. But to suggest that we should or even could successfully topple Iran and then rework it into some model of ME democracy is shear lunacy. Iraq has been a absolute disaster and Afganastan is no better. If we want Iran to not have nukes then we need to open an honest direct dialogue instead of issuing threats. This tactic only encouraged N Korea to step up its nuclear program because they recognized that was the only way to keep us from launching an attack.

If the US wants to really make itself safer from terrorsim then we need to totally reverse our position on Isreal. Turn the peace plan over to the UN and stop supporting Isreal militarily. We cannot pretend to be friend of the Muslim world we are buds with thier sworn enemy. We must make an attempt to appear neutral on the Isreal/Palestine issue. This would be a good faith first step in restoring peace between the West and ME.

RLV

I'm afraid you suffer from an extreme case of paranoia that is clouding your ability to tell reality from your fears. The reason you give for these fears have several major logic flaws.

First, obviously there is the chance that a terrorist group detonates a Iran-made nuclear bomb in a major US city. There is also the chance that a big asteroid impacts in a major US city. I can't tell the exact chances of each of these events, but both of them are very unlikely.

You seem to assume that the world is full of fanatic muslims wanting to die while causing major damage to the US. This is true up to a point: these people certainly exist.

You also seem convinced that that kind of people holds the position of power in several countries. This is much more dubious. That profile is not the best to get you to a position of power, not even in a fanatic teocracy. As history (and Bush) should have shown you, people in power most often has one foremost priority: staying in power. Religion, politics and ethics most of the times are secondary to that objective.
So, I think we can safely assume that the Iranian rulers want to stay in power rather than be nuked to Paradise, however believing they may be. Their moves so far tend to support this conclusion: none of them have immolated themselves fighting the Great Satan. Their followers might have done so; that's what followers are for.

So, their motivation for this kind of ultra-suicide attack seems weak, at the very least. But, besides motivation, do they have the means?

We've got an accusation from US officials that Iran, an oil-rich country of strategic importance, is trying to build a nuclear weapon. These US officials claiming that Iran should be stopped before they cause a terrible damage to the US.

Does it sound familiar to anybody? Some guy called Powell claiming in the UN that Iraq had bought some pipes from Nigeria to build a nuclear weapon? That guy presenting evidence that turned out to be a fake? The same guy claiming that there was absolute proof that Iraq possessed WMD? The same guy talking about proven links between Iraq's leadership and Al'Qaida?

While it was hard to understand that so much of the US public believed the US official line, this could be partly explained because of the very biased information they were being fed. But for (some of) the US public being fooled again by the same people using the same kind of half-lies, complete lies and even more lies... well, it begs the question of why you aren't in a church. ;-)

So, we've got some religious fanatics who probably don't have and will never have a nuke, and that if they had one they wouldn't use it against the US because it would mean instant death for them and most of their country.
And you are afraid of them. Fine.

I'm afraid the one religious fanatic with nukes that you (and me) should be really very, very, very afraid of is one George Bush and his allies. The one that you and your kind helped to get his hands into these nukes.

This is a reason to be afraid.


R.L.V.
~~#~~

Genghis Pwn

A. There are plenty fanatical muslims willing to die nuking us. They die every day in Isreal just bomb bagel shops.

B. What part of the Taliban war did you miss? If staying in power was their #1 goal, all Mullah Omar had to do was turn bin Laden over to to a thrid-party country. He didn't do it, and was routed, driven from power, and government humiliated. He was a religious zealot, and religion comes first for Islmamic whackos.

Wake up and smell the coffee. You are making wagers with millions of lives and the future of humanity. You can't cover that bet, my friend.