When I said that the threat of war keeps a lid on dissent and binds nations together I meant it as a universal truth. "My brother and I fight like cats and dogs until my neighbor tries to come between us." It's always been that way and politicians have always used the fact to control their subjects. Their particular ideolgy is irrelevant. But maybe I was wrong when I said a junkie never kills his dealer because we certainly did put a crimp in our Iraqi connection. Maybe a junkie only kills his dealer when he thinks he can take control the supply. The economic cost of the world losing the oil supply from Iran would be devastating; probably $100 oil and a worldwide depression. Especially during the next 10 or 20 years that it will take to refit the Iraqi oil industry. There is little upside in even a sicessfull invasion. Invading Iraq had much less risk for economic disruption, since the world had weened off Iraq due to the sanctions. The Shiites within the army and people of Iraq were not going to die to defend Saddam. His position was tenous at best. There was/is a tremendous upside oin the possibly tipping the dominos of democracy in the region with success in Iraq. The play is in motion so there is little more to be gain by getting invloved in Iran. Iraq was a reasonable bet. Iran is a bad bet. But saber rattling is a time honored component of diplomicy. The Iranians may not really believe us but they can't just discount that we aren't crazy.
The simple truth is that the UN that the left wants to play daddy to the whole planet created the state of Isreal at the conclusion of WW2 so that the former concentration camp prisoners would have a land to call home. Immediately thereafter, they were under attack...pretty much constantly until very recently. I can't imagine why they'd want weapons. I can't imagine why they'd attack Lebanon. Sheesh.
The flippant (tm) was really unnecessary and solely used to be inflammatory. Kinda destroys your point. Sure wish you wouldn't do that.
I'd say about 80% of what Iraq was on the ground, as a very rough estimate much of their equipment is out of date and likely in poor shape They possess the Shahab-3 missile (thanks to North Korea), which has an estimated range of about 800 miles and about 300 Scuds (guess?) with 12 to 15 launchers they have a newer model with improved range and accuracy over what you saw in desert storm, with a range of about 300 miles They have over 1000 main battle tanks thought to be in service, but only a few hundred with modern fire control systems (everything in tank warfare) They have 300 aircraft, of which about 140 are a threat including 70 fighters, 25 (probably 15 or so in flying condition) F-14's. F-4's and F-5's make up the bulk of the remaining forces. Iran also has the long range Phoenix though they are thought to be inoperable by now they actually have a navy to deal with 3 submarines, 3 frigates, 2 corvettes, 10 missile patrol craft, 7 mine warfare ships, 44 coastal and inshore patrol craft, and 9 amphibious ships The Subs are Kilo class (diesel), and they had better hide if the U.S. Navy is after them... they are no match for US attack subs but of greater concern is the land based Seersucker missile, which they purchased from China (150 of 400 believed delivered) Has a range of 50-80 miles and is a threat to our surface ships The reason that we have to turn up the heat is it's believed that Iran, with NK's help is well on it's way to ICBM's, that is, they are attempting to aquire the ability to strike the US under the guise of a space program
hayes... sorry man but can you please inform me of where this information is??? i was'nt sure about the testing.... but the nuclear technology i was sure on. (i mean they do have one of best armies out there... technology wise they are also up there...i know some of the most powerful people in the world happen to be jews) i would appreciate any info...no shady newspapers or web links please...thank you.
<a HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/23/wnuke23.xml"> Israel reveals secrets of how it gained bomb</a>
Read this statement, ponder where we are in Iraq and, anyone, tell me it's a good idea to invade Iran, or if they believe we would attempt it. A series of strikes against their military, and the facilities we/the developed world, are concerned about, from the Navy and AF, are a much more likely option, and all it would do, besides the obvious, would be to strengthen the theocracy, and weaken the democratic movement of the majority... causing many who oppose the theocrats to join them in defense of the country. And there is no surety that we would destroy their nuclear program, and other programs that could be a threat. Not only that, but we would have yet another country sending covert missions against us in retaliation... and who knows where they might strike. Keep D&D Civil!!
The Israeli strike against Iraq in '81 seemed to work fairly well. For awhile at least. In the end you just have to decide if its more dangerous for Iran to have the bomb, or to risk some low level covert conflict. I'm not saying that's what we should do. But then again I'm not really worried about Iran because the EU and UN are protecting us.
LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!! Seems like the time table is falling into place! I say the bombs start dropping before the end of July! Wonder what the odds are in Vegas. ------------------------------------ AP: U.S. Aims to Oust U.N. Nuke Official VIENNA, Austria - The United States is seeking backing from allies in a possible bid to oust the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency at a meeting later this month, diplomats and Western government officials said Wednesday. During the same Feb. 28 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Washington also will increase the pressure on Iran for allegedly trying to make nuclear weapons, the officials told The Associated Press. Washington considers IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei too soft on Iran and its alleged plans to make nuclear arms and the international community ineffective in dealing with the same perceived threat. No U.S. comment was available for Washington's strategies for the upcoming IAEA board of governors meeting. But several diplomats and government officials from IAEA member countries dismissed recent reports that the United States had given up attempts to unseat ElBaradei because of lack of support from other countries. "They've been lobbying, and close friends have given them a good reception," said one of those familiar with the issue, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Another said U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton and other senior State Department officials "were still lobbying the capitals." Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put Iran on notice that it cannot use a European diplomatic initiative to delay indefinitely accountability for a suspected nuclear weapons program. "The Iranians need to hear that if they are unwilling to take the deal, really, that the Europeans are giving ... then the Security Council referral looms," she said in an interview Wednesday with Fox News that was taped before she arrived in Belgium. "I don't know that anyone has said that as clearly as they should to the Iranians," she said in a strong reiteration U.S. policy that the issue of Iran's nuclear program should be taken before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions. "We have believed all along that Iran ought to be referred to the Security Council and then a variety of steps are available to the international community," she said in the interview. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20050209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran
Iran is a signee of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. You may argue that the treaty is unfair, but they did sign it, and are bound by it's terms. Furthermore, they have the right to pull out of the treaty at any time, as North Korea did. The IAEA maintains a site on their relationship with Iran. Conversely, Israel, India, and Pakistan are non-signatories and as such aren't bound by the terms. My understanding from a brief examination is that the fact that the treaty was born in 1968, after the six-day war and durring the "War of Attrition", when Israel was operating from a mindset not unlike that of the US after the start of the War in Iraq. Technically, therefore, there is no diplomatic reason why Israel shouldn't have nuclear weapons, while there are diplomatic reasons why Iran shouldn't. Furthermore, if Iran deems their position untenable, they have a legitimate remedy in withdrawing from the treaty.
BTW, I would suggest that the NPT's failure was inevitable and only limited by the proliferation of easily obtainable equipment. For a model, I would suggest a review of the Washington Naval Arms Limitation Treaty of 1922 which had the same problem of haves & have-nots, as well as the fact that the violation of the treaty began in earnest when it was technologically viable. In short, I would be willing to suggest that as nations develop, even countries considered "undeveloped" at this point will be able to obtain them. Unthinkably, the best thing for the world might be an extremely small nuclear war to display effects on a small scale. I think of the way in which gas warfare durring WWI resulted in a gas-free WWII in Europe, and the way in which Hiroshima, and later 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl effectively turned anything related to nuclear power (i.e. the virulant protest against radioisotope thermoelectric decay generators in space as well as the silly disiformation about depleted uranium), at least in the US, Europe, and Japan.
Why do we have to 'take on' Iran. Hayes. Hayes, I'll give you a reason you should recognize. " Because they will inevitably become a threat some day." It was good enough for your support for the Iraq invasion. Ah the beaurty of being an abstract assertion/ belief that cannot be verified. Why the change of heart? Iran is more populous than Iraq and their attempt to make nuclear wepaons is supposedly more clear. Hayes seems to be losing his taste for war. Is he becoming a realist?
These so-called treaties are worthless if anyone can pull out at any time. Also, there is no guarantee their abiding by the terms of the treaty they signed. NK sure as hell didn't.
