1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Pentagon's Fear: That Iran Has Learned From Invasion of Iraq

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by MacBeth, Sep 28, 2003.

Tags:
  1. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    On both CNN and BBC reports today on the situation surrounding Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear power, reporters each claimed that Pentagon sources have said that, and I will try to be as accurate as possible, ' they fear that Iran has taken a lesson from Pakistan and Iraq; That Pakistan was able to hold off aggression from more powerful nations once it gained nuclear power, whereas a nuclaer-free Iraq was invaded by the United States.'

    Another claim of tha anti-war bunch pre-war appears to be coming true; even if it's not the case in Iran, the fact that the Pentagon is aware that that lesson is out there to be learned supports the fear that this would happen. I would imagine that the invasion of iraq will lead to an escalation of unfiredly lesser nations to acquire nuclear power rather than the reverse.
     
    #1 MacBeth, Sep 28, 2003
  2. TheFreak

    TheFreak Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 1999
    Messages:
    18,305
    Likes Received:
    3,312
    So your solution was to let Iraq learn from Pakistan too?
     
    #2 TheFreak, Sep 28, 2003
  3. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2

    Oh, sorry, do you have info that they were succesfully building a nuclear program?


    Point being...any nation which can will try to acquire nuclear power over time so long as those with more power have them, and use their possession of them as a means of their power. That's a natural instinct for self-preservation.

    If you are a proponent of selective anti-proliferation, then the argument is what is the best means to prevent it. All evidence points to the fact that the UN inspections were doing so in Iraq, and I have yet to hear of reports that the UN inspections were prompting other nations to escalate their effort to acquire nukes, have you? Yet the solution we chose...against the world and seemingly common sense...was to prevent what was not happening in such a way that our own defense department acknowledges and anti-war folks predicted would give the message that no nukes = vulnerable, nukes= not vulnerable. What would you do, even were you not on the US's publicly declared hit list?
     
    #3 MacBeth, Sep 28, 2003
  4. SWTsig

    SWTsig Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,055
    Likes Received:
    3,755
    logic is a beautiful thing.

    unfortunately, that was one concept this administraion could not grasp.
     
    #4 SWTsig, Sep 28, 2003
  5. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,082
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    Sadly the war for peace strategy and the nukes for friends and family policy advocated by the old-cons and neocons results in this type of reaction from other countries.

    I figure the real in crowd of the old-cons and neo-cons aren't so stupid that they don't know that this will probably happen. However they figure that they can at least make a buck off the arms race they fuel. It also plays well with the credible when they claim to be peace makers. It is sort of like Bush compassionate conservative claim.
     
    #5 glynch, Sep 28, 2003
  6. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    Look at my sig.

    You have never addressed that. I have repeatedly asked you to explain to me what finding that centrifuge means, if not that it was proof that Saddam at the very, very least had intentions to pick up his nuke program where he left off.

    Explain it.

    As usual, you merely ignore all evidence that presents itself which contradicts your arguments, hoping that by ignoring it you can make the perception fostered by your denial come "true". As usual, actual truth is of no interest to you.

    As the centrifuge find indicates, all the inspections did was at best force Saddam to postpone his plans, and more likely to just take them temporarily underground. All the inspections did was delay them long enough for us to invade in a nuclear free environment - a good outcome, I will not argue.

    Uh, this thread is about one such example - Iran. Do you think that what was going on next door made them more or less likely to want nukes? "Hmmm, the Americans are hot on Saddam's heels - we'd better hurry our asses up and get a nuke so they'll leave us alone"

    Actually, Bill Whimpton's dealings with North Korea probably had a bigger impact on Iran's behavior. They were taught by those dealings that as long as you got the bomb in secret and then presented it to US negotiators, you could get away with it - and then extort or threaten whoever you felt like with impunity. Therefore, they'd better hurry up and get one...
     
    #6 treeman, Sep 29, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page