What would you do if the USA actually nuked Iran?

[PrinceOfLeigh]

@ usarmy18 Whilst I can see a whole load of rhetoric in your post I can't see an answer to one fundamental question: What exactly would Iran gain from attacking the US?

 

[Smellincoffee]

@ usarmy18 Whilst I can see a whole load of rhetoric in your post I can't see an answer to one fundamental question: What exactly would Iran gain from attacking the US?

Seventy virgins.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Seventy virgins.

Simplistic view of international politics you have there. Not sure all terrorists martyr themselves solely for this promise.

 

[Winner]

First of all, I have a better question for the topic. What if an Iranian nuclear weapon explodes over a Western city? A few years ago, I read a book by Casper Weinberger, in which he explores a what-if of Iran getting a Nuclear weapon and detonating it over Italy. So really, what if something like this happens? Personally, I think an Iranian nuke going off somewhere in the west is more likely then us nuking them, because honestly, I don't believe any nation on the Earth has the balls to deal with Iran right now. Its sad how the world has fallen back into a pre-WW2 state.

You can repeat it 1000 times, but it won't be true, ever. All evidence indicates, that unlike Nazi Germany, Iran has no intention to attack its neighbours or expand territorially.

Hmmm...What would I do if we nuked Iran?

Frankly, I'd be glad. Not glad in a sense that alot of Iranians just died, but glad in the sense that maybe that just saved the lives of thousands or tens of thousands of American soldiers like myself.

I firmly believe we are headed towards a war with Iran. Iran is pushing the limits with its rhetoric and threats towards one of the US's biggest allies, Israel, basically threatening they are going to wipe them off the face of the Earth in one swift move, if I remember the quote correctly. Some of you completely disagree that Iran would do that, but I say to you, look at the evidence. Iran funds Hezbollah and other terrorist groups that carry out attacks on innocent Israeli civilians. They give them weapons, ammunition, and materials to make bombs. So why would they not give them a nuclear weapon?

Becaus they're not stupid. USSR also supported all kinds of terrorist activities, but never gave them the nuclear bomb. Why? Because it would have lost control over them. Think twice before repeating phrases made by stupid commentators. They're just playing on our fears.

Iran should be contained, pretty much like the communism was.

The president of Iran has already mentioned this. I believe his quote was that "Like it or not, the Zionist Regime is heading towards annihilation." Now, some of you might just say "Oh, well he's just saying that because Israel threatens Muslims blah blah blah." To which I reply, Iran is a threat, and one way or another it will be taken out, either in the future or now. More then likely, in the future though. Its quite possible that we don't do anything about Iran, and let them get away with this nightmare like they already think they are going to.

As I said, Iran has to be contained. We should build-up defences, not wage bloody wars we can't win in the long term. Iraq is nothing compared to what the war with Iran would be.

What about Iran and the oil situation anyways? Look at how high oil and gas prices are, then read the Iranian presidents comments earlier this morning, about how oil hasn't yet reached its real price. How can you honestly say Iran is not a threat when its threatening to cut off Industrialized nations lifeblood? We need to do something about these lunatics and do it now. There comes a time when we need to cut the nice, humane, feel good crap and protect our country. I would rather see us go to war with Iran then the American economy crash and millions of people lose their jobs, their familys, and ultimately, their lives.

Truly? Because exactly that will happen if you start some idiotic war in the Middle East.

Another point I have to make, is that this is ultimately going to be the death-nail of the UN. They're not going to take any action against Iran, because two of the permanent members of the Security council are Russia and China. Russia and China are acting in the interests of their nations in not wanting any sanctions put on Iran. Russia is in the midst of a billion dollar Arms deal with Iran and China just signed an agreement for a hundred billion dollars worth of crude oil if I'm not mistaken. So if I hear any arguments that the US is just pursueing its own goals when it comes to Iran, then I'm going to have to ****ing scream. I guess its ok for other countries to do it, but when the US does it (under the pretense of saving ourselves or our ungrateful little allies in Europe from a nuclear attack), its inherently evil?

No, it's natural. You follow your interests and pretend that you're saving the world, which is as stupid as Russian or Chinese claims. So don't be offended when they remind you that.

So I guess the US paying 25% of the UN's salary isn't a good thing, or the fact that we (our government and our private citizens) contribute more money to charities around the world then any other nation? Its because we're all slavering madmen bent on world domination right?

No, it just means that your citizens aren't as stupid as your government.

Finally, all I've got left to say, is that if we let Iran continue on with what their doing right now, then a few years down the road, somewhere (either in the Mideast, Europe, or god forbid, the US) one quiet night a nuclear weapon is going to go off above a heavily populated city, then, there will be people *****ing, "why didn't the US do something about Iran back then?"

Or after ten years of bloody war, economic crises, massive terrorist campaigns and sharp decrease of the Western influence, someone will ask "why the hell did we attack them in the first place? Was that worth of all this?"

Iran knows very well, what would happen, if its bomb exploded in Europe or Israel. Game over. And don't think for one moment, that Britain, France or Israel don't have the guts to do that. You're not the only one who don't like to be attacked.

 

[De Lorimier]

All I can say to usarmy18 is bravo! Bravo soldier, your military indoctrination is now complete. Godspeed soldier, Godspeed.

Iran - North Korea - Pakistan - India

Nuke them all.

Well, not Pakistan, their dictator is on our side. Well, not India, realpolitik dictates a strong opponenet to China in the region. Well, not NK, for whatever reason now. Let's attack Iran. Have fun!

 

[friskymike]

So I guess the US paying 25% of the UN's salary isn't a good thing, or the fact that we (our government and our private citizens) contribute more money to charities around the world then any other nation? Its because we're all slavering madmen bent on world domination right?

Ummm, No. Regarding the UN:

The U.N. has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force U.N. compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the U.N. negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%.

Regarding Aid:

USA’s aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower than any other industrialized nation in the world

Regarding the rest of your post, what winner said.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

How can you honestly say Iran is not a threat when its threatening to cut off Industrialized nations lifeblood?

WHAT?

My translator must be malfunctioning. I thought you just said "We have a right to Iran's oil".

 

[Bigfoot]

I find it interesting that Iran's president (I cannot remember his name offhand) seems just as interested in raising tensions as Bush does. I guess both sides appreciate the 'value' of having a good enemy when dealing with dissatisfied citizens at home. Regarding the first use of nukes by the USA, it would be both a crime and a blunder. At the minimum it would 1) ratchet up the price of oil still more, 2) further diminish US credibility and prestige globally (if this is possible), and 3) increase rather than decrease the odds that some group will retaliate in kind against a US target. Worst case it could lead to a greater regional conflict, possibly even another world war.

The fact that there are people on this board who are seriously in favor of such an action does not give me much hope for my country, nor for the rest of the world.

 

[usarmy18]

You can repeat it 1000 times, but it won't be true, ever. All evidence indicates, that unlike Nazi Germany, Iran has no intention to attack its neighbours or expand territorially.

Your joking right? What evidence is this exactly? Here's some evidence for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

The new theocratic political system instituted strictly conservative Islamic laws and introduced an unprecedented level of direct clerical rule. Thousands of people affiliated with the former regime were executed. The Islamic regime also engaged in anti-Western criticism due to Western support of the Shah. In particular, Iranian-American relations were severely strained after the Iranian seizure of U.S. embassy personnel in 1979, Iran's subsequent attempts to export its revolution, and its support of anti-Western militant groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah.

After his election he proclaimed, "Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world." He said, "The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."

During his campaign for the second round, he said, "We didn't participate in the revolution for turn-by-turn government [...] This revolution tries to reach a world-wide government."

In October 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech opposing Zionism that contained antagonistic statements about the State of Israel. He agreed with a statement he attributed to Khomeini that the "occupying regime" must be wiped off the map or eliminated. He also referred to Israel as a "disgraceful stain [in] the Islamic world."

In December 2005 Ahmadinejad also made several controversial statements regarding the Holocaust and the State of Israel, at one point referring to the Holocaust as a "myth" and criticizing European laws against Holocaust denial. He said that although he does not know whether or not nor to what extent the Holocaust occurred, if it had in fact occurred, European countries should make amends to the Jewish people by giving them land to establish a state in Europe (Germany, Austria or other countries), the United States, Canada or Alaska instead of making "the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime." These statements were also condemned by many world leaders.

In April 2006, Ahmadinejad gave the opening address to the "Third International Qods Conference supporting the rights of the Palestinian people." In the speech he reiterated his argument that Palestinians should not suffer to compensate Jews for the Holocaust, though he pointed out that Western countries had admitted that they committed the killing of many Jews. He described Israel as the epicenter of a threat to the entire Muslim world. Ahmadinejad also compared the Jewish regime of Israel to a dying tree, contrasting it to the young blooming tree that he considers the Palestinian resistance.

As of 2006 relations between the two states became very tense primarily due to the surprise election of an unknown in Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. After his election, he Ahmadinejad frequently began to call for an end to the state of Israel. "occupying regime of Al-Quds" to be "wiped off the map".

Also, before any of you try to argue, "Oh, well thats just the president saying that." I hate to tell you, in Iran, he's the second in command. With a government run by Islamic Clerics who hate the west, and most are selected by the President when he's elected, he can do whatever he wants when it comes to starting conflicts. He doesn't have control of the military, but just the other day on Fox News, they were showing a video from the Iranian

Finally, an article by the New York Times from yesterday.

Of all the claims that Iran made last week about its nuclear program, a one-sentence assertion by its president has provoked such surprise and concern among international nuclear inspectors they are planning to confront Tehran about it this week.
The assertion involves Iran's claim that even while it begins to enrich small amounts of uranium, it is pursuing a far more sophisticated way of making atomic fuel that American officials and inspectors say could speed Iran's path to developing a nuclear weapon.
Iran has consistently maintained that it abandoned work on this advanced technology, called the P-2 centrifuge, three years ago. Western analysts long suspected that Iran had a second, secret program - based on the black market offerings of the renegade Pakistani nuclear engineer Abdul Qadeer Khan - separate from the activity at its main nuclear facility at Natanz. But they had no proof.
Then on Thursday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Tehran was "presently conducting research" on the P-2 centrifuge, boasting that it would quadruple Iran's enrichment powers. Centrifuges are tall, thin machines that spin very fast to enrich, or concentrate, uranium's rare component, uranium 235, which can fuel nuclear reactors or atom bombs.
"This is a much better machine," a European diplomat said of the advanced centrifuge, which was a centerpiece of Pakistan's efforts to build its nuclear weapons and was found in 2004 in Libya, when that country gave up its nuclear program. The diplomat added that the Iranians, among other questions, will now have to explain whether Ahmadinejad was right, and if so, whether they recently restarted the abandoned program or have been pursuing it in secret for years.
If Iran moved beyond research and actually began running the machines, it could force American intelligence agencies to revise their estimates of how long it would take for Iran to build an atom bomb - an event they now put somewhere between 2010 and 2015.
Robert Joseph, the Bush administration's under secretary of state for arms control and international security, who is known as one of the administration's hawks, said in an interview on Saturday that President Ahmadinejad's claim constituted "the first time I've ever heard the Iranians admit" to have a significant effort on the advanced technology. Iran, Joseph added, "has never come clean on this program, and now its president is talking about it."
The new claim focuses renewed attention on Iran's rocky relationship with Khan, who provided it with much of the enrichment technology it is exploiting today. If Ahmadinejad's claim is correct, it probably indicates that relationship went on longer and far deeper than previously acknowledged. Khan and his nuclear black market supplied Iran with blueprints for both the more elementary machine, known as P-1, and the more advanced P-2.
There are other indications that Khan may have been dealing with Iran as recently as six years ago. President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan disclosed recently that he fired Khan, a national hero credited with developing Pakistan's bomb, in 2001 after discovering that he was trying to arrange a secret flight to the Iranian city of Zahedan, known as a center of smuggling.
Khan refused to discuss the flight, saying it was important and very secret. "I said, 'What the hell do you mean? You want to keep a secret from me?'" Musharraf recalled in an interview with The New York Times for a Discovery Times television documentary, "Nuclear Jihad."
"So these are the things which led me to very concrete suspicions," Musharraf said, "and we removed him."
Last year, Pakistan said its investigation into the Khan network was closed. But the Iranian crisis has led to renewed questioning of Khan, American intelligence officials and European diplomats say.
So far his answers have been vague, investigators say. Iran, for its part, has said virtually nothing about its P-2 program. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, an arms analysis group in London, said in a report last year that Iran's failure to provide more information about its P-2 program led many analysts to suspect that the advanced centrifuges formed "the nucleus of a secret enrichment program."
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private research group in Washington that monitors the Iranian program, said Ahmadinejad's declaration, whether political rhetoric or technical reality, now gave the world "something to further investigate and worry about."
Tehran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and meant for producing nuclear power.
But the Bush administration argues otherwise. "A. Q. Khan was not in the business of civil nuclear power development," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview for the documentary. "Why, if you only intended a civil nuclear program, would you have lied about activities at Natanz?" Later she added, "Why are they still unwilling to answer some of the questions that the I.A.E.A. has?"
The P-2 mystery began years ago when Iran told international inspectors that it had received plans for the advanced centrifuges around 1994 but had done nothing with them until 2002, when it hired an Iranian contractor to try to make the complex machines.
The P-2, a second-generation Pakistani model, was the most advanced centrifuge sold by Khan's network. With superstrong rotors, it could spin faster and enrich uranium faster.
Iran repeatedly denied receiving any P-2 centrifuges from Khan, which would greatly ease the making of duplicates. Moreover, it said it did no research on the production of the advanced centrifuges between 1995 and 2002 because of management changes in its nuclear program and a lack of skilled personnel.
In report after report, the I.A.E.A. has questioned that explanation. For instance, last September it said the Iranian contractor, who allegedly first saw the P-2 plans in 2002, made considerable research progress "within a short period," which seemed to undermine Iran's claim of doing no past research.
Iran said that the research failed to produce operating machines and that it ended the experimental P-2 work in 2003 and instead focused on the easier P-1 design.
But scraps of evidence gathered by the international agency and the accounts of some members of the Khan network have cast doubt on those denials. As recently as last Thursday, when the director general of the agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, visited Tehran, he insisted on detailed answers during a private meeting, diplomats briefed on the meeting said.
Suspicions arose because inspectors knew that Khan had supplied Libya and North Korea with actual P-2 centrifuges in the late 1990's, and they repeatedly heard that he had done likewise with Iran.
B.S.A. Tahir, the chief operating officer of the Khan network, now in prison in Malaysia, has reportedly said that Iran received far more P-2 technology than it has admitted and that some shipments took place after Khan and the Iranians supposedly ceased doing business around 1995.
Speaking to reporters in Washington on Thursday, just hours after Ahmadinejad's claim, senior intelligence officials said they had seen nothing yet that would lead them to revise their estimate that Iran is still five to 10 years away from making a weapon.
Kenneth C. Brill, the director of the National Counterproliferation Center, created to track programs like Iran's and North Korea's, cautioned against accepting at face value Tehran's recent claims about producing enriched uranium and plans to produce 54,000 centrifuges.
"It will take many years," he said, "to build that many."
At the same time, intelligence reports circulating inside the American government, according to several officials who were granted anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, have raised questions of whether the Iranian government's decision to boast about its progress is part of an effort to hide more significant activity.
They suspect that a clandestine program, if it exists, would concentrate on the P-2 because it can produce enriched uranium so fast.
I.A.E.A. officials say solving the mystery of the P-2 shipments has become one of the most critical issues on which they need answers in the next two weeks, before ElBaradei issues a report to the United Nations Security Council on April 28.
Other pressing questions include Iran's reluctance to discuss a document found by inspectors - one that the Iranians were not willing to let the inspectors take out of the country - that sketches out how to shape uranium into perfect spheres, the tell-tale shape for a primitive weapon. Investigators say that document, too, appears to have come from the Khan network.
It is also unclear whether Khan sold the Iranians a complete Chinese-made bomb design similar to the one Libya turned over to the United States when it gave up its weapons program. Questions about other copies of the bomb design have been met with silence, in Iran and in Pakistan.
"Frankly, I don't know whether he has passed these bomb designs to others," Musharraf said. Even under a loose form of house arrest for the past two years, he said, Khan "sometimes has been hiding the facts."
Of all the claims that Iran made last week about its nuclear program, a one-sentence assertion by its president has provoked such surprise and concern among international nuclear inspectors they are planning to confront Tehran about it this week.
The assertion involves Iran's claim that even while it begins to enrich small amounts of uranium, it is pursuing a far more sophisticated way of making atomic fuel that American officials and inspectors say could speed Iran's path to developing a nuclear weapon.
Iran has consistently maintained that it abandoned work on this advanced technology, called the P-2 centrifuge, three years ago. Western analysts long suspected that Iran had a second, secret program - based on the black market offerings of the renegade Pakistani nuclear engineer Abdul Qadeer Khan - separate from the activity at its main nuclear facility at Natanz. But they had no proof.
Then on Thursday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Tehran was "presently conducting research" on the P-2 centrifuge, boasting that it would quadruple Iran's enrichment powers. Centrifuges are tall, thin machines that spin very fast to enrich, or concentrate, uranium's rare component, uranium 235, which can fuel nuclear reactors or atom bombs

After reading through all that, if P-2 centrifuges double or quadruple uranium enrichment, then you can see that Iran will have a bomb in roughly 2-4 years. If you honestly believe that Iran, who is sitting on more oil then it will ever need, is really developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, then your disconnected from the real world, naive, and an idiot.

Becaus they're not stupid. USSR also supported all kinds of terrorist activities, but never gave them the nuclear bomb. Why? Because it would have lost control over them. Think twice before repeating phrases made by stupid commentators. They're just playing on our fears.

Iran should be contained, pretty much like the communism was.

Again, you must be joking right? Iran isn't stupid? Then why the hell is their president saying that Israel is heading towards annihilation? Why is he doubting that the holocaust was real? He's a nut and that's the simple truth. Also, how can you contain Iran when there is no possible way that sanctions are going to go through the UN with Russia and China absolutely saying no?

Here's another nifty little quote about their "not stupid" President.

"Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps," Ahmadinejad said. "Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned. Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, if the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe—like in Germany, Austria or other countries—to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."

But they're not stupid right?

As I said, Iran has to be contained. We should build-up defences, not wage bloody wars we can't win in the long term. Iraq is nothing compared to what the war with Iran would be.

How is a policy of inaction going to work? It worked against the Russians with Reagan, but I seriously don't see how the hell it would work right now. We're not going to put sanctions on them, thus they will have little to no economic losses, right now the US can't do an Arms Race or whatever like we did with Russia, since we have a small, all volunteer military force. I doubt we even have enough men to fight a large-scale war with Iran right now.

Still, I'd like to know where you are getting that the Iranian Military is inherently stronger then the Iraqi military. I remember opponents of the Iraq war predicting we would have twenty thousand casualties before we reached Baghdad. Three years later and we have the lowest casualty rate of any war. Oh, and if any of you guys want to say "well tell that to the slain soldiers family members" I do. Every ****ing day that I wake up I tell myself my brother died for a good cause. Want to find out about my brother? Do an off-topic forum search for Ron Allen Jr. I made a post about him a few days after he was killed.

Truly? Because exactly that will happen if you start some idiotic war in the Middle East.

Maybe, maybe not. I doubt it though. I remember this same argument right before we went into Iraq and its still not happened. Our economy has grown since we went into Iraq.

No, it's natural. You follow your interests and pretend that you're saving the world, which is as stupid as Russian or Chinese claims. So don't be offended when they remind you that.

Yea, we pretend we're saving the world every day. Thank you very much. I guess we did save Europe from falling under the influence of Russia for fifty years, but I guess the Europeans are just a little bit short of gratitude right now. I'm not offended at all. In fact, it amuses me. Fortunately, America isn't isolationist anymore (though some people would wish it be that way) so we don't sit around and wait for the next Hitler to rise up. Europe did a good job of containing him right?

Or after ten years of bloody war, economic crises, massive terrorist campaigns and sharp decrease of the Western influence, someone will ask "why the hell did we attack them in the first place? Was that worth of all this?"

Or after we don't do anything at all, Iran's military continues to grow, they develop a nuclear weapon, see that they got away with it all and that the west refuses to act on it, and decides to carry out "spreading the Islamic Revolution in Iran around the world" aka. World War Three = More people dead, more countries ruined, even more of a sharp decrease of western influence, and someone asking "Why the hell did we just sit on our hands all those years ago?."

Iran knows very well, what would happen, if its bomb exploded in Europe or Israel. Game over. And don't think for one moment, that Britain, France or Israel don't have the guts to do that. You're not the only one who don't like to be attacked.

Iran might or might not know, but are you naive enough to think Iran will care? I don't doubt that Israel will react if they get nuked. I don't know if they will turn Iran into a glowing parking lot or just take out a few cities. I don't know and I don't want to find out, which is why we should do something now, before anywhere between 500,000 to 4 million people are wiped out in one nuclear blast. Sorry, but I'd think preventing that would be the more humane thing to do. Call it rhetoric, I call it being rational and not naive to think everythings flowers and hugs and kisses.

All I can say to usarmy18 is bravo! Bravo soldier, your military indoctrination is now complete. Godspeed soldier, Godspeed.

Iran - North Korea - Pakistan - India

Nuke them all.

Well, not Pakistan, their dictator is on our side. Well, not India, realpolitik dictates a strong opponenet to China in the region. Well, not NK, for whatever reason now. Let's attack Iran. Have fun!

All I can say is idiot.

WHAT?

My translator must be malfunctioning. I thought you just said "We have a right to Iran's oil".

Yea, your translator is malfunctioning. I said that Iran is a threat to the west because they are driving up oil prices on purpose, to make more money, and to hurt quote "rich and industrial countries", i.e. Europe and the US. Here's the news article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12417998/

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran’s president said on Friday the rise in oil price was “very good,” Iran’s Mehr News Agency reported, emphasizing the hawkish position of the world’s fourth largest oil exporter as crude prices have hit record levels.

“The increase of the oil price and growth of oil income is very good and we hope that the oil prices reach their real levels,” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said as he toured an oil exhibition in Tehran, the agency reported.

He did not say what those real levels should be. But these and other earlier remarks suggest he believes crude prices should rise above this week’s record high of over $74 a barrel. On Friday, European Brent crude fell below $73.

Iranian Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh said on Thursday Iran was happy with surging prices. The minister blamed the price rise on a shortage of gasoline in the United States and not a shortage of crude in world markets.

Most members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries worry that the high prices will hurt world economic growth and Iran had previously shared that view.

OPEC member Venezuela has also taken a hawkish position.

In earlier comments to reporters at the exhibition, Ahmadinejad said Iran was looking at ways to help protect poor states from the impact of rising prices but said rich countries should pay what he called the “real price.”

Iranian lawmakers have previously said that a price of $100 or more for a barrel of oil was an appropriate level.

“There is a fund in OPEC, and the Oil Ministry and Foreign Ministry are in talks to see whether this OPEC fund has the capacity [to support poor countries],” Ahmadinejad said when asked about his plans to set up an assistance fund.

“But those rich and industrial countries that have billions of dollars in income should pay the real price for their crude oil,” he said.

He did not give details about the financing mechanism, but the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has a fund to promote development.

In March, OPEC production excluding Iraq was 27.81 million barrels per day, of which Iran’s production was 3.85 million bpd.

The fact that there are people on this board who are seriously in favor of such an action does not give me much hope for my country, nor for the rest of the world.

I'm not in favor of the coming war. I don't think we should've went into Iraq either. I just think it wiser to act now instead of just sitting here on our hands, waiting for something to happen. I don't trust the Iranians to develop it for peaceful means. I don't care if some immature little teen-age/college ******* posters on this board think Bush is just the devil and is planning on taking over the world. They can say the exact opposite to American foreign policy all they like, thats still not going to change the fact that a dangerously unstable country will have nuclear weapons before 2010. A country that has publicly stated its going to wipe one of our biggest allies off the face of the map. A country that threatened to send 40,000 suicide bombers against the US, Britain, and France if we take action against them in the Security Council. Are you all just blind, naive, or purposely ignoring **** like this so you can live on in your little dreamworlds?

 

[Neomega]

Boy usarmy18, you must really think you are something special don't you.

You have already invoked Godwins Law which proves frankly, your arguments are emotional, and not well thought out.


from http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/04/16/fightingAllTheHitlers.html

To pro-Bush war supporters, the world is forever stuck in the 1930s. Every leader we don't like is Adolph Hitler, a crazed and irrational lunatic who wants to dominate the world and who can't be reasoned with. Every country opposed to our interests is Nazi Germany. From this it follows that every warmonger is the glorious reincarnation of the brave and resolute Winston Churchill.

And one who opposes or even questions any proposed war becomes the lowly and cowardly appeaser, Neville Chamberlain. For any and every conflict that arises, the U.S. is in the identical position of France and England in 1937- faced with an aggressive and militaristic Nazi Germany, will we shrink in appeasement and fear from the grand calling of history duties, or will we stand tall and firm and wage glorious war?

 

[Ramius75]

Focus on that "their way of fight" part. If you are sympathetic to their cause, OK, I will still think you're mislead, but there is nothing wrong with that.

What I hate is when someone justify their terrorist campaign as a legitimate way of "fighting a war against Israel" or make excuses for them (e.g. "they're poor and desperate..." [therefore it is OK to murder Israeli children - they usually miss that part] ).

I believe Pasi is one of these people therefore I call him a terrorist supporter. But unfortunately he is not the only one on this forum.

Of coz, killing anyone is definitely wrong. Its never the right thing to do. But that how human behave, self defence. The survival instinct takes over and revert back to animal behavior.

Technically, israel and palestinian are still in a state of war, there is hardly peace between them as both refuse to acknowledge one another. Both sides also contain hardliners that wished that the other is eliminated, but what price will they be willing to pay ?

Terrorist purposely attack civilian unit to create war-weariness. Its a attriction war tactic, trying to wear the enemy out by killing the supporters and make them tired of war. Is it right ? Never. But does it work ? Probably. As see my reference on many other wars. Is there a better way ? Defintely, and this is what everyone should work on. And that involve compromising and negotiation.

I can see that in recent time, the Israelis are indeed giving way, but the hatered of Palestinian and Israelis hates goes a very long way, and even been capitalist on by oher nations to push their little agendas and proxy wars.

Back to terrorism. Is killing 3000 in 9/11 compare to 30000 civilian killed in Iraq the same ?or is one more noble than the other ? How about killing 10 tourists compared to killing a family with missiles ?

Im no supporter of terrosim, and im seeing some terrorist acts like 9/11, bali bombing to be the extremely cruel just to propogade their messages across. Should nation gives in due to the effectiveness of such attacks ? Never also.
But one should not advocate preemptive retaliation as it will only bring more enemies out and make them joining the ranks of suicide bombers. Violent only breed more violents. Thats why after 50 yrs, Israel still cannot solve their problem. Should they nuke Palestinian too ? perhaps then some other nuclear countries should nuke back, as preemptive to some "trigger itchy" nation.

God bless everyone.

 

[usarmy18]

Boy usarmy18, you must really think you are something special don't you.

You have already invoked Godwins Law which proves frankly, your arguments are emotional, and not well thought out.


from http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/04/16/fightingAllTheHitlers.html

HA! You're trying to say my argument is emotional and flawed? Look at that website. It's a freakin election '04 era website run by lefties for crying out loud. Also, what the **** is this Godwins Law crap? I've never heard of it before, and I wasn't the first one to mention Hitler. I just said its sad that the world has fallen into a pre-WW2 state, i.e. they refuse to take any action against radical states. Then Winner said that Iran and Hitler Germany are nothing alike, in the fact that there is evidence that Iran doesn't want to conquer other nations, which is false, and I gave evidence supporting my claims. If you're to lazy or just don't have anything constructive to say (meaning you have no counter argument) and instead claim I invoked some goofy law, then stay the hell out of the debate.

 

[Uiler]

One thing - if the US uses nukes on Iran, nuclear non-proliferation will be dead and buried. It's already ailing, but at least most countries try to *pretend* to follow it. The US using a nuke will be a signal to every country that now it is a nuclear free-for-all. And if you want to protect your country from a US nuclear strike you need to get nuclear weapons and aim them at the US or a major US ally. I mean the US didn't nuke or attack N. Korea did it? And it didn't dare hit the USSR directly or China? And there will be much less hesitancy in using nukes in the future. The Pandora's Box will be opened and nukes will be seen as legitimate conventional weapons.

America's popularity will go down the ********. Nukes have an enormous stigma throughout the world. Basically attacking with conventional weapons is like raping a 30 year old woman and attacking with nukes is like raping a 3 year old kid. Both involve the same physical act but the enormous stigma involved with child abuse means that in the eyes of society the later is seen as a much more heinous crime. Even in prisons with the worse scum of society child rapists are targeted and attacked. You may argue as to whether the stigma of launching nukes is deserved or not but it is undeniable that it is there. No-one will attack the US directly immediately due to its military strength but expect to see world-wide protests that will dwarf the Iraq ones by several magnitudes. I also expect that most governments will break off all diplomatic ties with the US. This includes Europe and Australia. The governments will have no choice. Public pressure and outrage as well as outrage from their own backbenchers will force them to do this. Also forget any chance of making peace with the Islamic world. There will be no hope of that anymore. It will be a fight to the death. No negotiation will be possible. Other Western countries like Europe and Australia won't help the Islamic side but due to the massive unpopularity of the US in their populace they will not help America either.

People keep on saying, everyone is so scared of the US they won't do anything. That might be true of the governments. However, a lot of people seem to forget something known as the power of the angry mob.

On the American side, massive amounts of their populace, in fact I will say the *majority* of Americans will be shocked and horrified. There will be a massive decline in morale and spirit.

 

[Xshayathiya]

That is still a very disturbing comment to make. Why would you possibly take it out on the innocents. Especially if they didn't even vote the man into office?

Taken out of context, this quote could refer the US or Iran.

 

[Xshayathiya]

After reading through all that, if P-2 centrifuges double or quadruple uranium enrichment, then you can see that Iran will have a bomb in roughly 2-4 years. If you honestly believe that Iran, who is sitting on more oil then it will ever need, is really developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, then your disconnected from the real world, naive, and an idiot.

While you're in that Wikipedia article, look up Tehran, look at the pollution and repeat that last sentace. (I have to bring up this point every time an Iran nuclear thread comes up)

 

[azzaman333]

If you people dont stop using wikipedia like it is entirely factual, i'll nuke you all.

 

[Winner]

Your joking right? What evidence is this exactly? Here's some evidence for you.

And what kind of evidence is that? Try to be objective and rational for a while.

Mao or Stalin had mouths full of such statements. Mao promised nuclear war against capitalism, many other communist leaders in USSR were talking about global socialist revolution. But did they start a war? No. Why? Because it would be a suicide.

Islamic republic and its leaders are in much worse position, than USSR or China. USSR at least had a chance of "winning" a nuclear war (if it succeeded in invading the Western Europe). Iran has no such chance. Iranian leaders are well aware that the day when they detonate a nuclear warhead in Israel or Europe would be their last, because in next few hours after the explosion, Iran would be bombed back to the stone age.

And please, don't say they're different from the communist leaders, because they're fanatics. Maybe they are, but they wouldn't sacrifice their whole country and, which is more important, their position of power.

Also, before any of you try to argue, "Oh, well thats just the president saying that." I hate to tell you, in Iran, he's the second in command. With a government run by Islamic Clerics who hate the west, and most are selected by the President when he's elected, he can do whatever he wants when it comes to starting conflicts. He doesn't have control of the military, but just the other day on Fox News, they were showing a video from the Iranian

Same what I said above. Focus on their actions, not on their statements.

Finally, an article by the New York Times from yesterday.

After reading through all that, if P-2 centrifuges double or quadruple uranium enrichment, then you can see that Iran will have a bomb in roughly 2-4 years. If you honestly believe that Iran, who is sitting on more oil then it will ever need, is really developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, then your disconnected from the real world, naive, and an idiot.

Calm down. I never said that Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons. In fact, I am writing a paper about its nuclear intentions right now (I study the IR).

What I am saying is that Iran with nuclear weapons is the least bad option we have.

One friendly advice for you: the moderators don't like people who offend other members on this forum.

Again, you must be joking right? Iran isn't stupid? Then why the hell is their president saying that Israel is heading towards annihilation? Why is he doubting that the holocaust was real? He's a nut and that's the simple truth. Also, how can you contain Iran when there is no possible way that sanctions are going to go through the UN with Russia and China absolutely saying no?

Here's another nifty little quote about their "not stupid" President.

He is not stupid, if he was, he wouldn't be a president. Is he orthodox Shia muslim? Yes. Is he a radical islamist? Yes. But he is not stupid. He is playing a geopolitical game and he plays it good. In fact, he is probably going to win it. He knows, that nuclear weapon is the only thing that can quarantee the long term survival of his regime.

But they're not stupid right?

Right. You're confusing the official ideology with the intelectual abilities of the leader, which is plain wrong.

How is a policy of inaction going to work? It worked against the Russians with Reagan, but I seriously don't see how the hell it would work right now. We're not going to put sanctions on them, thus they will have little to no economic losses, right now the US can't do an Arms Race or whatever like we did with Russia, since we have a small, all volunteer military force. I doubt we even have enough men to fight a large-scale war with Iran right now.

It is not inaction, it is containment. Find some info about it. It is dated back to the 50's, decades before Reagan.

Of course you must be joking about the arms race with Iran. Iran spends just a tiny fraction of what the US spends for its military. Their technology is decades behind the US. Their economy is small in comparison with any large developed country. In every aspect, they're no adversary for the US or Europe.

It will be much easier to contain Iran's ambitions, than it was to contain Russian ambitions.

Still, I'd like to know where you are getting that the Iranian Military is inherently stronger then the Iraqi military. I remember opponents of the Iraq war predicting we would have twenty thousand casualties before we reached Baghdad. Three years later and we have the lowest casualty rate of any war. Oh, and if any of you guys want to say "well tell that to the slain soldiers family members" I do. Every ****ing day that I wake up I tell myself my brother died for a good cause. Want to find out about my brother? Do an off-topic forum search for Ron Allen Jr. I made a post about him a few days after he was killed.

Look at the facts. Iranian military force is relatively modern, motivated and well-equipped. Saying that it isn't stronger than Saddam's army, which cut and run the moment is saw the US troops, is pure ignorance. Iran is large, mountainous country, with three times bigger population. Iranian troops are trained to fight defensive war. US can of course defeat them, but if you really think it would take three weeks and 100 KIA's, you're fooling yourself.

Maybe, maybe not. I doubt it though. I remember this same argument right before we went into Iraq and its still not happened. Our economy has grown since we went into Iraq.

Iraq wasn't one of the top oil producers and Iraq didn't blockade Strait of Hormuz.

Yea, we pretend we're saving the world every day. Thank you very much. I guess we did save Europe from falling under the influence of Russia for fifty years, but I guess the Europeans are just a little bit short of gratitude right now. I'm not offended at all. In fact, it amuses me. Fortunately, America isn't isolationist anymore (though some people would wish it be that way) so we don't sit around and wait for the next Hitler to rise up. Europe did a good job of containing him right?

And it is here agian: "You ungrateful Europeans blah blah blah...". Focus on the reality, I won't argue with you about your emotions. BTW, I am from that part of Europe, which owes nothing to you, so please, don't try that on me, ok?

Concerning Hitler and his rise to power, that was a nice example of bad containmenet. In fact, it wasn't containment, it was a foolishness and my country paid the price for it.

Or after we don't do anything at all, Iran's military continues to grow, they develop a nuclear weapon, see that they got away with it all and that the west refuses to act on it, and decides to carry out "spreading the Islamic Revolution in Iran around the world" aka. World War Three = More people dead, more countries ruined, even more of a sharp decrease of western influence, and someone asking "Why the hell did we just sit on our hands all those years ago?."

Nice fiction, about as "realistic" as the novels by Tom Clancy.

Iran might or might not know, but are you naive enough to think Iran will care? I don't doubt that Israel will react if they get nuked. I don't know if they will turn Iran into a glowing parking lot or just take out a few cities. I don't know and I don't want to find out, which is why we should do something now, before anywhere between 500,000 to 4 million people are wiped out in one nuclear blast. Sorry, but I'd think preventing that would be the more humane thing to do. Call it rhetoric, I call it being rational and not naive to think everythings flowers and hugs and kisses.

According to your logic, the US should have started a world war three in 1948, a year before the USSR developed its own a-bomb. Would that be rational? No.

You're not rational, you're afraid. Afraid of things you don't understand, afraid of what-if situations.

 

[Lotus49]

Man, all this heated discussion. Big deal. A few bunker-busting tactical nukes never hurt anyone. It probably wouldn't even top Natalee Holloway (chick missing in Aruba) as the top headline.

I say smoke 'em if ya got 'em.

 

[storealex]

So I guess the US paying 25% of the UN's salary isn't a good thing, or the fact that we (our government and our private citizens) contribute more money to charities around the world then any other nation? Its because we're all slavering madmen bent on world domination right?

Aha ha haha ha

US spends 0.1% of it's gdp on foreign aid. That's actually one of the lowest numbers for a Western nation. Denmark spends between 0.7% and 1.1% (It goes up and down) for an example. The only reason why the 0.1% US pays is a lot of money, is because the US gdp is so incredibly high, but if you judge charities by how much the giver owns, US dosn't give much.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Aha ha haha ha

US spends 0.1% of it's BNP on foreign aid. That's actually one of the lowest numbers for a Western nation. Denmark spends between 0.7% and 1.1% (It goes up and down) for an example. The only reason why the 0.1% US pays is a lot of money, is because the US BNP is so incredibly high, but if you judge charities by how much the giver owns, US dosn't give much.

I had no idea you could donate the British Nationalist Party as foreign aid.

Considering how much national debt we have, we shouldn't even be giving out foreign aid in the first place.