Okay, let's start from the beginning. Why do we not want Iranians to have nukes? It's not because we fear direct attack from Iran - they don't have the capabilities, and if Iran actually did nuke us, I would endorse anything short of complete annihilation of the Iranian people in retaliation. It isn't because they'll attack Israel, for similar reasons, though we wouldn't have such an extreme response. The problem is that the Iranians are not friends with the rest of the Middle East, namely Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and this will not be changing any time soon due at minimum to racial and religious differences, and it definitely won't change for the better if Iran gets nukes. And if Iran has nukes, and those two don't, Iran could dominate the Middle East. The rest of the Middle Eastern states will seek nukes in retaliation to the Iranian regime possessing nukes. A nuclear arms race in a region as unstable and as important in the Middle East is very, very dangerous for reasons I don't need to explain. That's why we don't want the Iranians to have nuclear weapons. We aren't attempting to stop Iranian nukes because we hate them or something, but because it's dangerous for the entire region and by extension, us. And all of the above will remain true regardless of whether Iran is friends with the United States or not. Iran's interests is to dominate the Middle East, something which will be made easier with nukes, and we don't want them to do that. That's all there is to it. You treat this as if it's some ethical dilemma regarding Iran's rights to have nukes, and I don't. Ethics are not for international relations. There are only spheres of influence, and competing avenues for power. Nothing more.
Has anyone mentioned that Iran's President routinely says that they'll wipe Israel and the US of the Map....(god willing)? Most of this is posturing on both sides with one side belligerently threatening the other and their allies. The funny thing is watching some folks lovingly come to the defense of these mountain clowns.
Ditch Israel and let them die. Why the **** are we fighting for those aggressors? Force Israel to make concessions to Iran + everyone else or we let them burn.
That is a great example. Why do we panic about Pakistan so much and send our money there and stuff. It's because since they have nukes, we absolutely, positively, cannot afford the entire Pakistani region to fall into chaos, or truly terrible things are capable of happening. The Middle East is similar, especially given how fragile the House of Saud is. What would have happened last year if Mubarak had had nukes? I wouldn't want to think about it. 1. What concessions would Israel make to Iran, of all countries? 2. You're acting like Israel would collapse without US support.
I think I can finally put my finger on the problem I have with the Paul followers. There is no sense of nuance in anything. Every problem has one answer, (which is something along the lines of "walk away" or "do nothing"). The idea that you can whip out this one stock answer with moral surety without having to think or craft something specific to the situation is inherently abhorrent to me. It is an aspect that they share with the type of religious people I find most offensive. If you are looking to some book or authority or little troll former doctor to give you cliff notes about how you should act ahead of time, you are simply too lazy to reason for yourself. Its like those stupid books with tips from investors about how "you too can become rich by following these seven easy steps". If you want to become rich, its going to take a whole lot more than wrote memorization of seven guidelines that you apply to everything. It will require actual wisdom and judgement - more wisdom and judgement than most people are capable of.
Total crap. The Middle East is fine with Iran. They are only concerned about political meddling in sunni-shiite relations. Wasn't it just a few weeks ago the ruler of Dubai did an interview saying we have no problem with Iran? Isn't Dubai the most threatened country if we go by your interpretation? Israel has 200 nukes, that is the problem. You know what Middle Easterners want? A nuclear free Middle East. If that's not possible, it will spur an arms race. It is absolutely outrageous that the US is considering this. There is nothing wrong with seeking nuclear technology if a nearby country allied to your enemy, which totally ignores international law, holds 200 nukes. The problem lies in the fact that the Iranian leadership are aggressive. That's what should be targeted, and that does not require military warfare.
Number of nukes doesn't matter at all. Russia has way more than the USA and no one cares. Do you seriously think Israel would ever first strike? Also I love how you have counted their nukes. No one knows for sure how many they have, I guess you are just taking whatever the highest reported number is and running with it.
Well when you have enough nukes to kill off the majority of the planet then I agree nobody will give a *****. But the advancements in chemical and biological weapons is where the race is occurring and the US is far ahead. Well some of the quotes from the leaders of Israel makes it appear that striking first is on the table....both sides are wary of the other. Who cares really if they have 5 or 200, they have the ultimate weapon that's what matters, and also lets not forget how technologically advanced their weapons are.
Mathloom cares because he keeps on repeating it and uses it as a reason for us to not care about Iran having one. Because one is supposedly nothing compared to 200. Which weapons are you talking about being advanced? They have F16's which is similar to other countries and worse than the MIG29 which many countries have.
Lets make one thing clear. Each new nuclear state increases the risk of accidents, period. (especially ones that are unstable and struggling economically) The US literally gave away security technology to the USSR because the US felt that the Soviets could accidentally fire off a weapon because of their lack of security protocol. The US even helped pay for early warning satellites for the USSR to help prevent a disaster. We had to go out of our way to prevent the USSR from creating a global nuclear war on accident. Now keep in mind the USSR was much better funded than the Iranians. And considering how paranoid they are, who knows what they might do on accident. No new states should get nuclear weapons, period. We hopefully have learned our mistake from India and Pakistan. Pakistan's government is literally on the verge of disintegrating on its current path and no one wants to think about what might happen if they fall. (And to be clear, both states shouldn't have weapons) I dont think people realize who dangerous a nuclear weapon is. The international protocol for responding to a nuclear attack is to attack with nuclear weapons. And nowadays, the types of diplomatic cooperation that worked with the Soviets cant happen. This is not about the right of Iranians to have weapons. Logically speaking Ehud Barak (the Israeli defense minister) was right. He said that if he were Iranian he would want nukes. A destitute state like North Korea with nothing is able to control negotiations simply because they can threaten to annihilate South Korea. But for global safety it is insane to allow anyone to have nuclear weapons. Lastly, lets not forget AQ Khan of Pakistan and the North Koreans. Both sold technology to other countries and there's no reason why Iran wouldn't do the same. This is stuff that can't be taken lightly.
No one knows for sure how many they have, yet you are concerned about Iran's 1 apparently known future nuclear weapon? You are actually glossing over the fact that Israel has a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons, while no one else in the Middle East has a nuclear weapon. At least 50 nukes. Happy? Also, undeclared chemical warfare capabilities and a biological warfare program. Yes yes, us Middle Easterners we're horrible and dangerous, we say Israel has 200 weapons when in reality it can have any number of weapons and doesn't declare them. Gimme a break. Israel is by far the most militarily capable country in the region, and it has the unprecedented support of the world's only superpower. No country in the world, let alone Iran, would be able to withstand a US-Israel (surely, the UK and EU will join in too) attack or response to an attack. Do you think any corrupt individual would jeopardize their ability to keep shoveling money into their pockets? Do you think Ahmedinejjad has the authority to start a war? Do you think Khamenei has the will to start a war? Do you really think the Iranian people are in support of the systematic destruction of tons and tons and tons of non-nuclear infrastructure, lives, money, homes, cars, etc or do you think they are brainwashed morons and they only watch state television? The people in charge of the mess on Iran's side are a handful. There is nothing you can say to evade the fact that the US and Israel are going to pro-actively destroy the lives of innocent Iranians and leave the country in ruins to ensure that hysteric Israelis and Americans don't worry their pretty little heads about Iran too much.
US also deploys entire armored cavalry regiment to Mojave Desert, presumably in preparation for invasion of Los Angeles (seeing as training exercises must have some covert and nefarious purposes).
Not really. Real liberals/leftists are not imperialists. Ron Paul does not want more money for state colleges, that is unpermitted welfare for those not financially strong enough to afford full pay private universities-- not premitted in a libertarians universe. similarly with mental health not provided out of the charity of mental health professionals donating their time. Ron is smart and typically poltician felxible enough not to talk about these wishes outside of the cult.
That was part of the propaganda to make Iraq look like a Hitler level threat and to make our glorious slaughter look more heroic. Sadam had a decent third world army. They had nothing and within a few weeks of bombing they had no airforce and it was a duck shoot of defenseless tanks. and troops in the open once we started the war. The real fighting did not start till we had our troops on the ground and they fought back with car bombs and ied's. If you remember (or can google) Iraq War I, when Sadam's forces were strongest, but we did not occupy, we had something like 13 killed in action during the whole war except for one luckty scud that hit a base in Saudi iirc that killed roughly a hundred of our soldiers. After removing their air defense and making it impossible to fly their planes without immediately being shot down we literally rolled over and buried in the sands tens of thousands of Iraqi troops dug in in shallow fox holes with our tanks.
"Mountain clowns" do you use the n word, too. No not mentioned because it isn't true. You sincerely believe this no doubt. Certainly wrt to the US, but nice try if sincere, or do some research --and there is great dispute as to whether Israeli talking point was twisted, too.. Many think the quote with respect to Israel (i. Euro Jew colonizing and Jewish Apartheid. ) was that it would be better if it never existed, which I think is a majority worldwide would support. Similar talking points can be employed against Israel and the US. Certainly frequent threats to nuke Iran is roughly similar to "driving into the sea".
Uhh, no. I was talking about Desert Storm. How is it propaganda that our pilots were dogfighting superior jets in the MIG29 and dodging SAM sites? We lost 39 fixed wing aircraft. I know you know nothing about the military but we had some SERIOUS battles. Why do you think the air war took so long? They had an integrated air defense system. Without stealth bombers we would have been in serious trouble.
not to the point of going to war over it. furthermore, we have allowed their neighbors and enemies to acquire nukes - pakistan is a much, much bigger threat than iran, but they have nukes and get billions in military aid from us and harbored bin laden. bush made a treaty w/ india to trade nuke technology for freaking mangoes. we allow israel to violate scores of UN resolutions regarding their own nuclear arsenal while giving them billions in military aid...but you want to bomb a sovereign nation for trying to play catch-up w/ their neighbors (who again, we armed)...again, i find that totally insane. you come in, dump a s***-load of weapons in the region and get mad when the country that you have effectively surrounded says "me too!". your comparisons are irrelevant. iran is a totally different situation than all the other examples you and i cited. maybe iran would cower down after an airstrike, but i highly doubt it. imo, its naive to think that a bombing raid would be the end of it. yes. or if someone declares war on us first. preemptive war is immoral. bush and iraq have nothing to do w/ that statement. i realize someone who says the united states has a right police the world and use our military to impose ourselves on other counties might feel different, but thats my opinion. ill tell you the same thing i told all the bush supporters who cheerleaded for the war in iraq - GO DOWN TO YOUR LOCAL RECRUITER RIGHT NOW AND SIGN UP BRAH! the military who have already done 4,5 and 6 tours of iraq and afghanistan dont want this...i know b/c i have two cousins who have done 5 and 3 tours each. ok...that explains alot actually - i think kissinger was a piece of s*** who should be arrested for war crimes. not to the point of bombing a sovereign nation which has not declared war or initiated hostilities in any way. ok machiavelli i find this line of thinking to be incredibly immoral and arrogant.
