Bush Planning A New Attack

Remove all ads!

Well, Chandos, I don't think it's so simple. True, Iran will not attack US directly, that would be suicidal. How about Israel, though? And it does not have to be a direct attack either, but let's say simply that an atomic bomb explodes in an Israeli city. Would US retaliate in that case? Without clear indications where that bomb came from?

And the current leaders of Iran surely do not help allay these fears with their rethoric.

Regardless, if Iran is hell-bent on achieving nuclear weapons, there is little US can do (apart from a full scale invasion, and a 20 ys long occupation of the country. And we saw how well that worked out for Iraq).

 

Some people here threaten to destroy England every day (more so in the 70's and 80's), but nothing becomes of it. Why is a big deal made of Iran threatening Israel, when other countries makes threats (such as the recent US comments over China's military spending). And also take into consideration that attacking Israel would kill many Palestinians.

Its also been stated that Iran would be happy with inspectors installed at their plants to keep an eye on things, so whats the problem? Iran is not breaking any rules with uranium enrichment, unless they actually create weapons. I just think that the US has not got over the Iran hostage crisis (which Reagan used to his advantage)

@ Khazadman - you mention that Iran sponsors terrorism, but what are your views on US sponsored terrorism, or is it okay, because the terrorism they support very rarely affects Americans on a large scale? Maybe you do not realize that by supporting IRA you indirectly support FARC and Hammas amongst others.

[ February 03, 2006, 10:12: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

 

You speak about 'some people'. They do not include the president (and the people with the real power, i.e. the ayatollahs) of a country which has nuclear weapons.

I am not saying that it's a given that an Iran with nukes would attack Israel (either covertly or overtly). However, I think a very real possibility exists. It's not the same situation it was with the Soviet Russia, either. I would trust much more the old red government to act rationally in a tight spot, rather than the current leadership of Iran. The people in charge are pretty much religious fanatics, remember.

Europe went through such periods (when christian fundamentalists were leadind the state), and some pretty bad things happened. Fortunatelly they did not have nuclear weapons at the time. And if you think religious fundamentalism is not relevant to the issue at hand (i.e., they can still act rationally), just look at what happened because some Danish newspaper published some cartoons.

Unfortunatelly, US (and the world) is in a very bad position to deal with this. And the blame can be laid very much on Bush's shoulders.

 

Khaavern - If you know Irish politics you will see that some of the people that I mentioned are in our power-sharing government have support of the US(Ted Kennedy being an example) and oddly enough Tony Blair (check out his 'On the run bill' which was thankfully turned down).

Due to our 'Good Friday Agreement' we must allow people convicted of terrorism to stand for our power-sharing government (on both sides of the community).

Anyway, since this is about US and Iran I will say no more...

 

Well, the US is stuck in Iraq. And I don't think they are eager (or even capable) to take on Iran, too.

And note that when I say take on, I don't mean bomb them. That they are quite capable of; they can even destroy most of the Iranian nuclear facilities. For now, at least. But how often are they willing to do this? every five years or so? Because you can bet that if the Iran gets bombed now, they'll turn toward the pursuit of nukes full steam, and they won't stop till they get some. The only solution would be full invasion by the US, with overthrowing the mullah government and installing a new one. Ah, and better be prepared to stay there for 10, 15 years or so.

For this reason I don't think that the Israeli can take on Iran either. They can try to bomb them, but I dont't think they even have the capabilities to seriously destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities (unlike US). And don't forget that Israel has a population of 5 millions or so, while Iran has, what, 40 millions?

So the only solution is a diplomatic one. Working with the EU and Russia, through the UN, and so forth. Of course, Bush screwed up the diplomatic situation considerably. Starting with his first months in his presidency (before 9/11), when one of his main priorities was to get out of the ABM treaty and restart nuclear weapon developement (bunker busters and such). Kind of hard to try to convince others that they should give up nukes, when the US wants to develop new ones.

So now the problem is that US, who should be the leader in trying to stop Iran, has very little credibility on the international stage (of course going to war in Iraq on made up reasons did not help either). So we are stuck with hoping that Russia or the EU can cobble somenthing up. I, for one, I am not holding my breath.

 

I had considered Israel as one of those countries in the region that Iran might be preparing for. A lot of people felt that with the fall of Iraq, that Iran would exert itself in the region, which it appears to be doing. It certainly sees an opportunity.

 

One may argue that our reputation of being led by a crazed phsycopath might get them to listen to us......but on a more serious note, I think you are absolutely correct. The only nation that's ever been irresponsible enough to drop the bomb in the first place should not be the nation trying to convince everyone else not to produce nukes. Especially when our fearless leader decided he wanted to break the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and after we used depleted uranium weapons on Iraq (again).

 

No disagreement there. What I'm getting at is that a country that has broken a major weapons treaty, breaks the Geneva convention by employing depleted uranium weapons, and is in hot water for allegedly breaking the Geneva convention with its prisoners in Guantanamo is going to sound more than a little threatening when it is telling a smaller, weaker nation to stop seeking technology that it has employed itself......twice. Have you ever seen what a badger does when it's cornered?

Breaking those treaties can cause people to think we will start producing nukes again (and many nations think we already are). That coupled with the fact that Bush already said he wants to start producing nukes again.....

 

Geneva convention violations as pertaining to the use of DU weapons is a matter of interpretation, and no charges have ever formally been made. There has been no definitive proof that DU weapons pose lingering health risks for combatants and non-combatants. The materials are only slightly radioactive and pose a real risk as a toxic metal...the same claim that could be made for lead.

The ABM treaty was made with the USSR and with it's disolution, the status of the treaty was in question...one of the signers no longer existed. Even when Clinton "ratified" the treaty with some former Soviet republics, Congress would've had to ratify the treaty and it never did.

When Bush withdrew from the treaty in 2001 it was done within the legal framework embodied within the treaty itself. Furthermore, Russia and China have seen the need to withdraw from the ABM treaty also. And, don't forget that it was the withdrawal from this treaty that led directly to the US and Russia signing the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, which resulted in the largest cut-back of nukes EVER. Period.

Most historians agree that as tragic as it seemed, the use of nuclear weapons against Japan actually saved lives and ended the war.

Now, can we keep the thread directed toward the threats that Iran represents in it's theater of influence? US "crimes against humanity" really should have it's own thread.

Besides, it looks like the UN will be carrying the ball on this one.

Help us.

 

My point is about perception. Many in the world have a very negative perception about the United States due to the items I mentioned. If the US appears to be a loose cannon in the world community then acting alone is going to appear threatening.

Also, I do feel compelled to point out that Depleted Uranium is considered by the medical community to be the main cause of Gulf War Syndrome. The army denies this. This is kind of Ironic, since the army released a report in '89 about how dangerous depleted uranium was. When it came out that we were still using DU the army denied the danger, but they never pulled the report or disproved it.