Oh No

[MOBIUS]

BTW

Post HERE for the original Israel be attacking Iran's Nuclear Plants thread...

[Az]

interesting X-post

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Az

It will be a huge boon for Islamic Fundimentalism.

will Islamic fundamentalism get 1000 gold, or something?

YOUR_WINNER!

[Sava]

I'm just curious why some people think it's a good thing that Iran get nuclear weapons.

I was against the war in Iraq and you guys know my politics.

But this is not a war here. This is a calculated strike that could set back Iran's nuclear ambitions by years.

so to Israel

they have my full support in dealing with this threat

I don't understand some people's thought processes...

let's see... support an Islamic fundie state getting nukes... or support a democratic state and US ally protecting their national security (and quite possibly, their very existence)

seems like a simple choice to me

[Az]

Man, bush has you blinded. Republican hack

[Krill]

Didn't Nostradamus predict that the world was going to end in 2006?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Az
Man, bush has you blinded. Republican hack

he has pulled the wool over my eyes

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm just curious why some people think it's a good thing that Iran get nuclear weapons.

I was against the war in Iraq and you guys know my politics.

But this is not a war here. This is a calculated strike that could set back Iran's nuclear ambitions by years.

so to Israel

they have my full support in dealing with this threat

I don't understand some people's thought processes...

let's see... support an Islamic fundie state getting nukes... or support a democratic state and US ally protecting their national security (and quite possibly, their very existence)

seems like a simple choice to me

Who has ever said its a good thing for Iran to have nukes? Of course its not a good thing- no nation should have nukes. Any state having nukes is a bad thing.

Some of us thought don;t think ideology has **** to do with state behavior when it comes to the use of WMD's and the workings of deterrence theory. People used to say the same crap about the Soviets getting nukes. They had them for 40 years, and look, no end of the world!

And no, countries don;t commit martyrdom, and neither do heads of state- note that the heads of terror organizations NEVER kill themselves. They get lackeys to do so.

So, I view an attack that would fail to stop Iran, strengthen the regime internally, weaken the US in the zone politically, as, well BAD. In the end, if the Iranians want nukes, only nuking them or conquering them will stop them. Neither is a viable option. Hnece, the only thing to do is to get them not to want nukes-. fear of limited airstrikes isn't going to invalidate the reaosns why a state would want a nuclear deterrent.

[Sava]

the Gepap strategy of "do nothing" just doesn't seem like a good one to me

destroying their nuclear facilities does sound like a good idea to me

1. How does destroying the facilities strengthen them internally? It shows that they are weak and that they failed. The younger generation is already alienated. This is not an attack on civilians, I don't see how this will make the Iranian people hate Israel or the US any more than they already do.

2. How do you plan on making Iran not want nukes?

3. The Soviet's ideology wasn't one where killing themselves was a good thing. They actually were afraid of dying. And there were many close calls during the Cold War. Do you really want to roll the dice with Islamic fundamentalists?

4. asphinctersayswhat

[RGBVideo]

The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.

It's pretty hard to come by of any knowledge of any "secret facilities" in a theocratic, xenophobic hellhole like Iran is now. Smells like a political move. Makes Sharon look tough just in time for elections.

Isn't the younger generation in Iran more receptive to democracy and less enthusiastic of the current government there?

It was. Then their neighbours got "liberated". They don't seem to want your "freedom".

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Saddam was imminently going to strike the US with WMD, was he not...?

Nope. But he may have wished to drop a nuke on israel and the current Iran president seems to have taken up that dream, and it seems that the israelis yet another time has to do the dirty laundry.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava

1. How does destroying the facilities strengthen them internally? It shows that they are weak and that they failed. The younger generation is already alienated. This is not an attack on civilians, I don't see how this will make the Iranian people hate Israel or the US any more than they already do.

Any damage done physically can be rebuilt in months. Only if much of the information is lost would this be a real setback. That seems highly unlikely. The attack vs . Iraq is not comparable since Iraq then was starting- Iran is already far ahead. As for your failure to see how this strengthens the regime- you saying that Americans did not care for the attack on the Cole? After all, military target. Besides, many of Irans nuclear installations ARE CIVLIAN. Iran has a few hiiden ones, but has many civilian ones, including a joint reactor project with the russians. How the hell can Israel slow the iranians without attacking those?

And all of that is beyond the point that any attack that breaches the national borders and kills young men with families is seen as an attack. You think the privates in those faciltieis have no mothers to cry on Iranian television after an attack?

2. How do you plan on making Iran not want nukes?

That is almost impossible, unless the states with nukes decide to give them up, and those states won't. The only way that would work would be to convince Iran that it does not need a nuclear deterrent because it is safe. Given that it has one nuclear neighbor already, the 2 way animosity with Israel, and its basic history, that seems unlikely.

3. The Soviet's ideology wasn't one where killing themselves was a good thing. They actually were afraid of dying. And there were many close calls during the Cold War. Do you really want to roll the dice with Islamic fundamentalists?

PLease. I already answered this. 1. There is a difference between Salafist extremism and the clerical regime in Iran. And no, the Iranian ayatollahs are not going to sacrifice their lives anymore than Zarquawi is the one personally strapping himself with bombs. Its one thing for underlying and minions to be sent to die. Its quite another for the leaders of a country of 70 million to risk openly the lives of 70 million people. If the Iranians wrwe the crazy, they would have made HIzbullah use chemical wepoans on Isarel, something Iran could have done if it wanted to anyways.

NO, the Iranian clerical regime is not seeking death. There are more than one type of radical Islam, and it would do you good to examine the differences.

[C0ckney]

i would wholehearted support any such israeli action against iran

[RGBVideo]

Nope. But he may have wished to drop a nuke on israel and the current Iran president seems to have taken up that dream, and it seems that the israelis yet another time has to do the dirty laundry.

The President of Iraq was a ruthless dictator with an authority to do anything within his own country, practically in charge of all three branches of goverment. The President of Iran is a figurehead created to forge an illusion of democracy in Iran to foreign countries. He's in charge of nothing, and has no power to do anything other than ***** and whine in public.

Yes, that's a piss-poor analogue.

It's also pretty damn naïve to believe that either of those guys wished to drop a nuke on Israel, they're not as stupid as their citizens are.

[RGBVideo]

Iran has a few hiiden ones [nuclear reactors], but has many civilian ones

How do you know that?