Iran: Should we go?

According to the recent reports from Iran (satellite pictures) it's quite apparent that the heavy-water reactor construction continues, and Iran is in fact making steady progress toward finishing it. Iranian officials said recently that they are going to try to finish it by 2009. Well, if they manage to do that, then by 2010 Iran will be producing enough plutonium for one or two bombs a year.

Please, we need to stop this insane country. It's more than urgent especially when the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on April 25 that Iran would share the nuclear know-how and technology with other countries, like the Sudan! Even if Iran has got nothing, their voiced intentions are worth deep concerns.

I'll come up with recommendations later. But your ideas are welcome.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: According to the recent reports from Iran (satellite pictures) it's quite apparent that the heavy-water reactor construction continues, and Iran is in fact making steady progress toward finishing it. Iranian officials said recently that they are going to try to finish it by 2009. Well, if they manage to do that, then by 2010 Iran will be producing enough plutonium for one or two bombs a year.

Please, we need to stop this insane country. I'll come up with recommendations later. But your ideas are welcome.

firstly... in answer to the thread title..

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

Secondly.. At the moment, while the Iranian president is clearly a bit 'unhinged'; Iran's current development of nuclear weapons (or whatever they want to disguise them as) is a direct response to the US's aggressive policy in the countries around them. Namely Iraq, Israel, and Afghanistan. I cannot blame them for trying to acquire a deterrent, especially considering the military might piled up on its borders. Wouldnt you feel in danger if Iran had invaded Canada, Mexico etc..?.. and do the same?

I think we should remember the Cold War. US and Russia had missiles pointed at each other for 40 years, with no real intention of using them. China now has them too.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

I never even thought of such a crazy idea as a real war on the ground in Iran. I'm not an expert in military technology, but a series of precise air attacks seem to be able to destroy at least the known suspicious constructions.

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go with their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

Burt Reynolds wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: According to the recent reports from Iran (satellite pictures) it's quite apparent that the heavy-water reactor construction continues, and Iran is in fact making steady progress toward finishing it. Iranian officials said recently that they are going to try to finish it by 2009. Well, if they manage to do that, then by 2010 Iran will be producing enough plutonium for one or two bombs a year.

Please, we need to stop this insane country. I'll come up with recommendations later. But your ideas are welcome.

firstly... in answer to the thread title..

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

Secondly.. At the moment, while the Iranian president is clearly a bit 'unhinged'; Iran's current development of nuclear weapons (or whatever they want to disguise them as) is a direct response to the US's aggressive policy in the countries around them. Namely Iraq, Israel, and Afghanistan. I cannot blame them for trying to acquire a deterrent, especially considering the military might piled up on its borders. Wouldnt you feel in danger if Iran had invaded Canada, Mexico etc..?.. and do the same?

I think we should remember the Cold War. US and Russia had missiles pointed at each other for 40 years, with no real intention of using them. China now has them too.

Well, you're right Burt, but then Ahmadinejad's got this stupid little habit of threatening to wipe out Israel every other day. I seriously doubt the U.S. is going to let this gang, or any of their potential friends, get their hands on nukes.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

I never even thought of such a crazy idea as a real war on the ground in Iran. I'm not an expert in military technology, but a series of precise air attacks seem to be able to destroy at least the known suspicious constructions.

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go on their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

I just read an article yesterday which predicted war before September. Why September? Because Russia just signed a deal to supply Iran with a sophisticated air defense system, and if Israel intends to take these nukes out, they have to do it before the system comes on line in September.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

I never even thought of such a crazy idea as a real war on the ground in Iran. I'm not an expert in military technology, but a series of precise air attacks seem to be able to destroy at least the known suspicious constructions.

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go on their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

I just read an article yesterday which predicted war before September. Why September? Because Russia just signed a deal to supply Iran with a sophisticated air defense system, and if Israel intends to take these nukes out, they have to do it before the system comes on line in September.

So you imply that the White House secretly has been planning a well-organized military action against Iran before September. But it'll be brought up in public out of blue sometime in the summer? Well, of course, with a good solid reason given.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

I never even thought of such a crazy idea as a real war on the ground in Iran. I'm not an expert in military technology, but a series of precise air attacks seem to be able to destroy at least the known suspicious constructions.

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go on their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

I just read an article yesterday which predicted war before September. Why September? Because Russia just signed a deal to supply Iran with a sophisticated air defense system, and if Israel intends to take these nukes out, they have to do it before the system comes on line in September.

So you imply that the White House secretly has been planning a well-organized military action against Iran before September. But it'll be brought up in public out of blue sometime in the summer? Well, of course, with a good solid reason given.

No, that's not what I implied. In fact, I don't think I implied anything. I merely repeated the analysis of an article I read yesterday, in which the author predicts a war before September, because after September, it will be too late for Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike. Given that the air-defense deal was just recently concluded, I don't think you can read too much into the article about "secret plans" for military action. In fact, the author accused the Bush administration of being asleep at the wheel on the air defense deal.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go with their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

Not at all. Their place is as the biggest country in the Middle East. Why have we a right to intervene?.. Israel has nukes, so has India and Pakistan. They allow American troops on their soil from time to time.

While I deeply mistrust the 'nuclear power programme' statement, I can totally understand why they are going down this road. We have surrounded them. Corner a caged lion etc. Any country with ambition and identity would do the same.

Besides if believed there was a humanitarian reason for aggression, I would support it. Currently, we are 5000 miles away, and clearly want their oil.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

I never even thought of such a crazy idea as a real war on the ground in Iran. I'm not an expert in military technology, but a series of precise air attacks seem to be able to destroy at least the known suspicious constructions.

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go with their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

First, to blame the "nuclear movement" of Iran solely on the actions of Iraq, Afgan, and Isreal is not looking at the whole picture. This really isn't anything new with Iran. This type of threat to America from Iran has been present at least since the 80's with the Iatola Komani. Iran thinks it can finally get away with it because we are stretched across Iraq. It's not that they feel a need to defend themselves as much as them seeing an opportunity to finally be able to accomplish this and become part of the nuculear clique. . .a status symbol and use of leverage for economic reasons.

Missile strikes are possible, and wouldn't effect the occupation in Iraq as there is no use of cruise missiles there. I think the main concern, if there is a missile strike, how does that effect the region. All of our "Allies" in the area are shakey at best, and will it unify the region?

I'm not sure if there is a good solution to this. I think there's the messy way and the other messy way. I think the worst thing to do is in action, though.

Any other ideas out there?

JHC

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Currently, we are 5000 miles away, and clearly want their oil.

More we want stability in the region, for sure and the Iranian authorities' statements don't bring it any closer.

It's to Iran's benefits if they dropped all that crap about Israel and started playing the game like Pakistan and India do. Now the problem with Ahmadinejad is that he is a politician of "ideology" rather than Realpolitik and it's hard to tell what is a sheer propaganda and what is a fact.

What I'm saying is that either we want it or not, we have to do something about Iran, agree?

Generic wrote: erm...do they have WMDs like the Iraquis did???

Thats the problem. The first time we went to war against Iraq, I was against it, because it was obvious we had set Saddam Hussein up. The second time we went to war against Iraq, I was fed up with Hussein's decade of cat and mouse games with the U.N. inspectors, so while not being "for" a war, I wasn't "against" a war. At first. When it became obvious that Bush was throwing out whatever argument he could find to see what the American public would buy, I began to doubt the necessity of going to war, especially when Bush refused to let the Security Council handle its own resolutions.

Now we see some nutjob religious regime in Iran doing eveything they can to get their hands on nukes, while making daily noises about wiping Israel off the map. At the same time, Bush's ratings are lower than they've ever been, and he NEEDS to do something to change the subject. Something like a little war. So how much of this nuclear issue is attributable to a nutjob regime in Iran trying to get their hands on nukes, and how much is the Bush administration playing it's usual "manipulate and deceive" games to get us into a war and boost his popularity?

Don't know.

LOL.... I knew Pontiac would pipe up.

I assume by 'Iatola Komani', you mean the Ayatollah Khomeini?

just checking, old chap

Burt Reynolds wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go with their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

Not at all. Their place is as the biggest country in the Middle East. Why have we a right to intervene?.. Israel has nukes, so has India and Pakistan. They allow American troops on their soil from time to time.

While I deeply mistrust the 'nuclear power programme' statement, I can totally understand why they are going down this road. We have surrounded them. Corner a caged lion etc. Any country with ambition and identity would do the same.

They are surrounded, and I understand why they want an effective deterrent. But they're not Israel. They're a country that is threatening to use nukes o wipe Israel out. Why have we a right to intervene? Because Iran has the will to launch a holy war against Israel, and they're looking for the means.

Burt Reynolds wrote: LOL.... I knew Pontiac would pipe up.

I assume by 'Iatola Komani', you mean the Ayatollah Khomeini?

just checking, old chap

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go with their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

Not at all. Their place is as the biggest country in the Middle East. Why have we a right to intervene?.. Israel has nukes, so has India and Pakistan. They allow American troops on their soil from time to time.

While I deeply mistrust the 'nuclear power programme' statement, I can totally understand why they are going down this road. We have surrounded them. Corner a caged lion etc. Any country with ambition and identity would do the same.

They are surrounded, and I understand why they want an effective deterrent. But they're not Israel. They're a country that is threatening to use nukes o wipe Israel out. Why have we a right to intervene? Because Iran has the will to launch a holy war against Israel, and they're looking for the means.

True. Letting Iran have nuclear weapons sends a serious signal to other extremist regims about America's weakness. It should be stopped, even if America will have to carry out this dirty task alone.

Burt Reynolds wrote: LOL.... I knew Pontiac would pipe up.

I assume by 'Iatola Komani', you mean the Ayatollah Khomeini?

just checking, old chap

Congrats on being able to spell a name Burt. I think I went through this before, I don't see the need to waste time double checking my spelling. . .you did understand what I was talking about, and that's all that matters.

JHC

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Bush's ratings are lower than they've ever been, and he NEEDS to do something to change the subject. Something like a little war.

This would be no little war though, Comrade. Potentially conscription perhaps. And, I've always been under the impression that Iran has been the ultimate target anyway. A 'tiny steps' approach.

This is the time you have to watch the media and its accuracy in terms of the information it gives us. I.E. not one sided. I see recently that George Bush is hell bent on destroying the Al Jazheera channel, even though the English version of it is highly informative.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Bush's ratings are lower than they've ever been, and he NEEDS to do something to change the subject. Something like a little war.

This would be no little war though, Comrade. Potentially conscription perhaps. And, I've always been under the impression that Iran has been the ultimate target anyway. A 'tiny steps' approach.

This is the time you have to watch the media and its accuracy in terms of the information it gives us. I.E. not one sided. I see recently that George Bush is hell bent on destroying the Al Jazheera channel, even though the English version of it is highly informative.

Yep. I am very suspicious of Bush this time around, but Ahmadinejad's very public predilection for nuclear jihad is making it easy to suspect we may need to do something to stop him. Bush is now a known liar, but that doesn't mean Ahmadinejad doesn't intend to launch a nuclear strike against Israel.

Quite frankly we should just equip Isreal with the knowledge and equipment to handle their own affairs. That is good politics, getting somone else to do you dirty jobs.

Of course Isreal already has the knowledge and the equipment. They are much more resolute than we are. They are the ones in harms way as ICBM's are years beyone Iran's capability.

That being said any pre-emptive strikes put the region further in chaos, which is good for business. If you own Exxon stock or an SUV this may sway your opinion

Xoq wrote: Quite frankly we should just equip Isreal with the knowledge and equipment to handle their own affairs. That is good politics, getting somone else to do you dirty jobs.

Of course Isreal already has the knowledge and the equipment. They are much more resolute than we are. They are the ones in harms way as ICBM's are years beyone Iran's capability.

That being said any pre-emptive strikes put the region further in chaos, which is good for business. If you own Exxon stock or an SUV this may sway your opinion

True. When's Israel ever been capable of conducting its own politics in the Middle East without being backed up by the US?

I firmly believe that besides all those current and future possible military actions in the Middle East, America has to work on the ideological front.

Nothing has been done but talks about democracy, which remain inane for the Middle-Eastern ear. I reckon we have to influence the Muslim counties that are "loyal" to us and bring them to the simple idea that they also carry a significant share of responsibility in the region. It's them, not us, should, by this idea, be concerned about the Iranian intentions: because as a result we'll bring eventually more devastation to the region than before trying to clean up their politics. Moreover we have to have secret ties with the religious leaders of the those countries. Is there anything of this kind being done?

Let's take the Iraq case: how should America have done it? Instead of the poorly backed up insuniations about the nukes, America should have secretly incited the Kurds in the northern parts of Iraq to a mass insurrection. Of course, Saddam would supress it violently and right at this point the Security Council would hold a session on the Iraq issue (humanitarian catastrophy, etc.) and under the UN peacemaking umbrella, America would invade Iraq to "set the Kurds free". And the whole world would be happy, with the more or less same results.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Xoq wrote: Quite frankly we should just equip Isreal with the knowledge and equipment to handle their own affairs. That is good politics, getting somone else to do you dirty jobs.

Of course Isreal already has the knowledge and the equipment. They are much more resolute than we are. They are the ones in harms way as ICBM's are years beyone Iran's capability.

That being said any pre-emptive strikes put the region further in chaos, which is good for business. If you own Exxon stock or an SUV this may sway your opinion

True. When's Israel ever been capable of conducting its own politics in the Middle East without being backed up by the US?

1. the six-day war. israel even bombed a US naval ship, later saying it was a case of mistaken identity.

2. when israel bombed iraq's osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. the US condemned the bombing.

I don't see the USA taking on the Chinese

That's true, and when we did, they poured a million soldiers into Korea. Not a good experience.

But then the Chinese President isn't threatening to unleash nuclear jihad on Israel, either. And the Chinese don't have friends who'd like to set off a nuclear suitcase bomb in Manhattan.

Good point, well made Comrade !

no to the original question. we, the us and allies still have problems with the recently invaded countries.

also i have made this point before. what will the Shiites in iraq, who have largely been peaceful till now, do if israel or the usa bomb that nuclear reactor.

that place would become an even bigger mess than now, and very very dangerous for allied soldiers. that reason alone will prevent any bombing of any nuclear reactor.

iran certainly doesn't need nuclear power to generate electricity, so it is only natural to suspect ulterior motives.

should a potentially hostile country like iran have nuclear capability. no most certainly not. perhaps sanctions would be the way to do.

AgentWood wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Xoq wrote: Quite frankly we should just equip Isreal with the knowledge and equipment to handle their own affairs. That is good politics, getting somone else to do you dirty jobs.

Of course Isreal already has the knowledge and the equipment. They are much more resolute than we are. They are the ones in harms way as ICBM's are years beyone Iran's capability.

That being said any pre-emptive strikes put the region further in chaos, which is good for business. If you own Exxon stock or an SUV this may sway your opinion

True. When's Israel ever been capable of conducting its own politics in the Middle East without being backed up by the US?

1. the six-day war. israel even bombed a US naval ship, later saying it was a case of mistaken identity.

2. when israel bombed iraq's osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. the US condemned the bombing.

It doesn't define own policy. It's rather caused by contradictions in their inner political circles (Israel). Of course, we're talking only hypothetical, but can you imagine the State of Israel without the USA? It'd have been sweeped off long time ago without a solid support (not only military) from the USA. But it's not the question of the thread, sorry!

NOOLigan wrote: should a potentially hostile country like iran have nuclear capability. no most certainly not. perhaps sanctions would be the way to do.

Your concerns are very solid but it's this situation when even if we don't want to do anything against Iran, we have to. And UN sanctions hardly will help in this serious case :(

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: should a potentially hostile country like iran have nuclear capability. no most certainly not. perhaps sanctions would be the way to do.

Your concerns are very solid but it's this situation when even if we don't want to do anything against Iran, we have to. And UN sanctions hardly will help in this serious case :(

let us stop them selling their oil that should do it. no more funds for luxuries like nuclear power.