Would you support such a strike? before you answer, read a little more about Mr. Ahmadinejad, and his mission from god... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml -- 'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader By Anton La Guardia (Filed: 14/01/2006) As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?" Political analysts point to the fact that Iran feels strong because of high oil prices, while America has been weakened by the insurgency in Iraq. But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad - recently described by President George W Bush as an "odd man" - and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission. In November, the country was startled by a video showing Mr Ahmadinejad telling a cleric that he had felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders as he delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly last September. When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow." The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return. One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad's government was to donate about £10 million to the Jamkaran mosque, a popular pilgrimage site where the pious come to drop messages to the Hidden Imam into a holy well. All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days. A common rumour - denied by the government but widely believed - is that Mr Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have signed a "contract" pledging themselves to work for the return of the Mahdi and sent it to Jamkaran. Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad. He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace. This is similar to the Christian vision of the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus. Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable. The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance? The 49-year-old Mr Ahmadinejad, a former top engineering student, member of the Revolutionary Guards and mayor of Teheran, overturned Iranian politics after unexpectedly winning last June's presidential elections. The main rift is no longer between "reformists" and "hardliners", but between the clerical establishment and Mr Ahmadinejad's brand of revolutionary populism and superstition. Its most remarkable manifestation came with Mr Ahmadinejad's international debut, his speech to the United Nations. World leaders had expected a conciliatory proposal to defuse the nuclear crisis after Teheran had restarted another part of its nuclear programme in August. Instead, they heard the president speak in apocalyptic terms of Iran struggling against an evil West that sought to promote "state terrorism", impose "the logic of the dark ages" and divide the world into "light and dark countries". The speech ended with the messianic appeal to God to "hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace". In a video distributed by an Iranian web site in November, Mr Ahmadinejad described how one of his Iranian colleagues had claimed to have seen a glow of light around the president as he began his speech to the UN. "I felt it myself too," Mr Ahmadinejad recounts. "I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there. And for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink…It's not an exaggeration, because I was looking. "They were astonished, as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic." Western officials said the real reason for any open-eyed stares from delegates was that "they couldn't believe what they were hearing from Ahmadinejad". Their sneaking suspicion is that Iran's president actually relishes a clash with the West in the conviction that it would rekindle the spirit of the Islamic revolution and - who knows - speed up the arrival of the Hidden Imam.
I think we should start a massive program for alternative fuels and energy independence. Then leave those crazy bastards to sort it out for themselves.
Ditto, even the crazier elements on the right such as Mr. O'Reilly are finally seeing the light and singing the same tune. IMO, I can't for the life of me understand why energy independence is not demanding more attention than it currently is, I will be largely rating my elected officials on their stance on energy independence, not by rhetoric, but what active steps they can take to help get us off this drug that's costing lives around the world. O'Reilly was addressing this topic last night, and the sticking point was the price of using alternative sources of energy, and he said that he believes most Americans would be willing to make the sacrifice to reduce our dependence on oil even if it means they must alter their consumption behavior if they have to pay a premium over what it costs to live in an oil-dependent society. Perhaps that should be a poll question?
Wow...that wasn't freaky at ALL! He sounds like a balanced, level headed and pragmatic leader--why, he is almost on par with "W"! Just a jab, call of the attack dogs in advance please... Yes, preemptive strike with SOLID intelligence is the way to go--however, best we let a client state handle *cough*ISRAEL*cough* the dirty work since we don't have the wherewithal to invade The Woodlands.
ahmadinejad has no power. the iran's president is impotent. theres a reason why we dont really consider them a democracy remember?
And what do you plan to pre-emptively strike? Their nuclear program is spread throughout the country and is hidden underground in some places. This isn't like Iraq's program where it was hidden in one complex that Israel could target. I think its logistically impossible to launch an effective strike that would take out the entire nuclear program unless you straight up invade and try some Iraq-esque nation building program.
There won't be any ground invasion of Iran, you can take that to the bank. I strongly doubt air strikes will take place either, but that's certainly more feasible. I think covert action (which is already taking place but still in the early stages) and economic sanctions are the only options on the table.
Tomahawk missiles with tactical nuclear warheads could devestate the nuclear ambitions of Iran. America has restrained herself in dealing with Iraq, and it has given some people a mistaken impression of her military capabilities. Trust me, we have the ability to mount many more major military operations, it is only occupations that could really cause us any trouble.
That's some sweet logic right there... Lets use nuclear weapons to destroy their nuclear weapons. In all seriousness, tactical nuclear weapons are far from the solution to the nuclear crisis when a) We don't know the full extent of the program or all the locations of nuclear facilities (including underground facilities) b) Tactical nukes are powerful enough to where the radiation (even if the immediate impact doesnt) will wipe out a lot of people. c) Eradicate the nuclear taboo and essentially justify the use of nuclear weapons at a time when we are trying to do the opposite Not to mention, battlefield nuclear weapons (i.e. tactical nuclear weapons) are more than what the name indicates. They are quite capable of obliterating large areas and release the large amounts of radiation associated with nuclear weapons. Considering how spread out Iran's facilities are, you would functionally create a wasteland in Iran with all that radiation.
You should read the articles in here... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=1862082#post1862082 It maintains the oil model, but reduces our dependence on imports. We'd spend 180 billion+ on the plan, but we spend that much for 5-6 weeks (last year's barrel price) worth of imports....
That's smart. If they hid their facilities in 5, 6 places, let's nuke those places as well. In other words, let's "wipe them out from the map".
I think that would lead to more terrorist attacks over here afterwards. It would also give China or Pakistan or Russia a legit reason to hit us with a nuke or to sell a nuke to another country to use on us. Detente works because no one would dare send a nuke to another country unless they are prepared to recieve one in return. When you break this rule, you send the message that it is okay to take someone out if they may be a future threat, and frankly, that sounds like something a bully will do. The bullied, however, will always be able to work together and take out their oppressor. In the end, an eye for an eye will turn the world blind. If God truly blesses America and allows us to do this, then it is quite probable that Jesus was never really His son.
Anyone who says "yes" should ask themselves if they'd be willing to go themselves to fight for the cause. These are the same chumps that are gung ho about war, as long as they don't have to go themselves.
That's not true. For example, Nevada is not a wasteland and there have been hundreds of nuclear explosions there.
Except that almost all of them were underground tests (which limits exposure) that were in a desert which was a wasteland anyway. Go to Alamogordo sometime (the nearest city to the test range) and you'll see that they still have radiation alerts from all the fallout despite the fact that we havent tested in years. Also they did some atmospheric tests but once again that also limits fallout since it usually gets spread around due to higher winds in the atmosphere. Using tactical nuclear weapons on multiple facilities (which Iran intentionally built near civilian areas) would at least temporarily wipe out parts of Iran due to fallout and radiation poisoning as well as physical damage to the cities.
