Ahmedinejad Threatens U.S. With War 'Without Boundaries"

[Osprey 199]

With regards to the question, If Iran gets a nuke is an attack justified? I say no. To me there is no proof that Iran would use it to make an attack. I see no issue with them having nuclear missiles if they are to be used as a deterrent for another country making a possible attack. The country has a right to defend itself, just like any other country does. It's also interesting that we're debating on a country having one or two nukes when there are other countries out there (mine included) that have hundreds, some even have thousands. Having nuclear weaponry is like being a member of an 'exclusive' club but it can't be exclusive if everyone has one. It just seems to me that a nation with nuclear weaponry doesn't want to lose it's supposed advantage in the global world. In a perfect world NO nation would have nuclear weaponry, unfortunately, that world doesn't exist.

 

As for the treaties that allow a nation to have nuclear weapons, a number have been signed over the years, but have always been bilateral and never included all the countries that had nuclear weapons.

 

What country with nuclear capabilities is threatening Iran? The only reason Israel and the US are putting pressure on them is for their insistence on getting a nuke. It's not like Israel is threatening Iran unprovoked. Are China or Russia threatening them that I don't know about?

[AcuWill 45]

One issue that is not discussed, is tat many of the eastern powers, Iran, Russian, China, etc. have formed their version of NATO, the SCO. What that means is that if any nation attacks any of them, they would all retaliate.

 

One of the greatest war philosophers, Clausewitz, stated: (I am paraphrasing) "For every escalation, there will be an equal or greater escalation, until one of the two sides simply can no longer escalate." Here we have that exact situation. Already there is another "NATO", they need their own nukes, etc. We must be very conscientious of any escalations we make, because we should fully expect the same or worse back, and quite frankly, we will be the causative factor for the result and responsible.

What a great post. Glad nobody read it because it was at the bottom of a page.

[crisby pancakes 126]

What country with nuclear capabilities is threatening Iran? The only reason Israel and the US are putting pressure on them is for their insistence on getting a nuke. It's not like Israel is threatening Iran unprovoked. Are China or Russia threatening them that I don't know about?

 

I'm not saying that a country has threatened them. I'm saying that if a country WERE to threaten them like Israel for instance they would have nuclear weapons to act as deterrent. Ultimately that's what they are - a deterrent. Lets not forget that Israel are hardly in the UN's good books at the minute.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

I'm not saying that a country has threatened them. I'm saying that if a country WERE to threaten them like Israel for instance they would have nuclear weapons to act as deterrent. Ultimately that's what they are - a deterrent. Lets not forget that Israel are hardly in the UN's good books at the minute.

 

Iran getting a nuke isn't an option. It's illegal. If they wanted to be a nuclear power they wouldn't have signed the NPT.

[Blu 1]

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11221

 

Pretty interesting interview with Jimmy Carter. Said only reason N. Korea re-processed their Nuclear fuel rods was because Bush abandoned previous agreements under Clinton administration. During his administration he had option to completely wipe out Iran if he wanted to... Said Iran & N. Korea are no longer immune to nuclear attack from US... Said we should probly try to demand de-nuclearization w/o constantly threatening them, though.

[Osprey 199]

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11221

 

Pretty interesting interview with Jimmy Carter. Said only reason N. Korea re-processed their Nuclear fuel rods was because Bush abandoned previous agreements under Clinton administration. During his administration he had option to completely wipe out Iran if he wanted to... Said Iran & N. Korea are no longer immune to nuclear attack from US... Said we should probly try to demand de-nuclearization w/o constantly threatening them, though.

 

Convenient Carter whitewashing of history. Clinton and Carter made overwhelming concessions to N. Korea with stipulations that Il broke the second their planes left Pyongyang

[i HATE Rich DeVos 1]

Speaking as someone who is only partially educated and who is admittedly ignorant of pretty much everything a person should know to properly comment on this, my problem is this: Given our current experiences in the region, why would we want to start another war over something that we think might happen? Didn't we just have a really bad experience doing that sort of thing?

ding ding ding! you would think that this is something that is fresh in peoples minds but Let's say the average person uses ten percent of their brain. How much does the average OMMB poster use? One and a half percent. The rest is clogged with malted hops and bong resin.

I hope nobody on here votes or hold political office

[Emory889 353]

ding ding ding! you would think that this is something that is fresh in peoples minds but Let's say the average person uses ten percent of their brain. How much does the average OMMB poster use? One and a half percent. The rest is clogged with malted hops and bong resin.

I hope nobody on here votes or hold political office

 

You are a real inspiration. I won't eat any Doritos today.

[Blu 1]

Now that I got that out of the way, I can continue my off topic rant.

 

Too many people lack perspective into how complex every single political decision is, and whether or not that decision was the right one, the wrong one, or how successful the decision actually was. Was going into Iraq the "right" decision? Well you have a different answer based on different perspective. Was it right from a humanitarian standpoint? Probably. Sadam was a ruthless dictator who tortured people, committed many different crimes against humanity, etc. Was it right from a foreign policy standpoint? A domestic-effect standpoint? Absolutely not. We didn't have enough support from the international community and we didn't develop the correct "excuse", if you will, to justify an invasion. You really have to "pick your spots" when ****ing with sovereignty of a nation. We can "police" the world very effectively through "back-room" tactics rather than straight up aggression. We can effect the policies of other nations if we develop hard lined sanctions (where we not only negatively influence countries that deal with the country we're sanctioning, but we positively reward countries that abandon dealing with the sanctioned country. ). The problem is the Intel on Iraq in the first place. Based on the intelligence justifying the invasion (whether this was fabricated by our government or just a poor job by the CIA) the Iraq war was 100% justified. If everything in there was true, we were invading to prevent another Rwanda type of atrocity from happening. The problem is international inspectors came up empty when they investigated. If our intelligence is questionable than our reasoning behind the invasion is questionable. In that case we have to become reactive to the atrocity rather then proactive. Invade after the genocide has happened. Is this correct from a humanitarian standpoint? NO. But strong nations need to always try to do what's best for themselves (note: sometimes what's best for ourselves long term might not appear to be in our best interest short term. For an example see Reconstruction in Germany and Japan post WWII).

 

Intelligence on Iraq was questionable, but whether it was an intentional lie or not, it was certainly a failure of a system that should concerned any American citizen regardless... I know you said Sadaam was repressive, but that poses an interesting question. How repressive was he? Was it enough to justify the deaths, not only of American soldiers but also of the 98,000+ killed Iraqi citizens in the war? I mean maybe Sadaam was that ruthless, but was he worth all the bloodshed? How many innocent Iraqi's can you kill to supposedly 'free' those same very Iraqi people? Did they really ask for it, or did we decide that for them(idk)? I know Sadaam had his faults, but we were trigger happy. It makes you have to ask yourself, why did the Administration want the war? Because with what we know now, it's looking like it was an unnecessary war.

 

Iran, on the other hand, might be a situation where intervention is a viable choice if the necessary steps are taken. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty so they are legally obligated to abide by certain rules. First, we let the IAEA (international atomic energy agency) send inspectors to the various Nuclear sites to determine if Iran is, in fact, developing Nuclear weapons. If they come back with no proof then we sit back and observe for a while and allow the IAEA to make periodic checks to determine if Iran's program is in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Iran signed). If the inspectors come back and say "yeah, they're pursuing weapons" then we allow the UN to question Iran in the assembly while we organize a meeting between us, Iran, Israel, probably Russia or China (or both), and some random country with specific ties to Iran (probably India or Japan as they are both trade partners of Iran. Japan would be the best choice as they head the IAEA right now too). While this is going on, we are strategizing with Israel and other NATO allies on what to do in a worst case scenario. If these talks fail we sanction the **** out of Iran and step up efforts to develop a working "aggressive Nuclear Iran" strategy. We probably move some Aegis Destroyers into the persian gulf to support Israel's missile defense network and work with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey to monitor border security. We set up another meeting to see if Iran wants to end things peacefully and explain that military action will result in Iran pursuing Nuclear Weapons. We also explain that we consider any "rogue" group that happens to make a "dirty bomb" attack on anybody a extension of Iran and that an Iran nuclear attack (via proxy by terrorists) would give the international community the legal right to retaliate with our own Nuclear Weapons (not that we would necessarily go that route, but its nice to have that card on the table).

 

If after all of this (which should never EVER get this far if a rational person is in charge of the country) Iran still decides to pursue Nuclear Weapons, we're absolutely justified morally, legally, and politically to attack Iran. Not only that, but it's likely that it would be the entire world vs Iran.

 

EDIT: my point is: If we treat Iran like Iraq and run in there "guns a blazin'" without getting proper international support and actually making sure that they are doing something wrong then we are complete idiots who shouldn't make any international decisions anymore. If we use the proper channels and establish validity that Iran is a threat to any country of the world, then we absolutely have the right to intervene.

 

That's some good points, but i wonder why we want to believe Iran would want to nuke Israel? That doesn't make great sense when you think about what the issues are. We believe they may help out Hezbolla & Hamas w/ weapons, sure, but they wouldn't want to nuke Israel... They dont like the regime that occupies the territory, sure, but nuking the territory doesn't really serve the overall interest, so why do we think they would even consider it? Logically, they wouldn't imo(Assuming that they're actually pursuing nukes to begin with). Only reason I see Iran wanting nuclear weapons (or to be nuclear weapons-ready), would be because they're tired of the constant U.S./Israeli threats. If they actually got a nuke they'd gain more credibility against the threats from Israel(who actually posses nukes), and the ideology would probably be that Israel/US would have to be more responsible in their threats/sanctions and treat them more seriously, or more as an equal. That would be the primary rational for them wanting to pursue a nuke imo, everything else sounds like propaganda.

 

As for a 'rogue group', what does that mean? If that means a group that can't be controlled or trusted, why would any nuclear nation GIVE away nuclear weapons technology to "rogue elements"? There's no reason to believe that they would, and I dont think it has ever been done before... Not even in a nuclear Pakistan, where supposedly elements in their govt support the Taliban/Al-Queda, etc., so why do we think that any more stable nation would do this? It would be easier to just give chemical or biological weapons, and not even that has been done so this scenario doesnt sound very realistic..

 

As for the poll question, no I dont think possessing a nuke justifies an attack in and of itself, so I voted no. It's hard to know who's in the right and who's in the wrong on the issue, when American doesn't have the most responsible track record concerning accusing other nations of possessing nukes... It's hard to really know what to believe right now and what is propaganda. What we do know is that whoever has nuclear weapons will always be in a position to bully those w/o.. We in America are guilty of it, so what kind of example is that? When you're always intervening in others affairs and imposing sanctions, people are going to want to rise up if you dont treat them as an equal. Ultimately, if you're a nation like Iran how do you change your position in the world? When I look @ it like that I cant really fault Iran for pursuing the technology.