Target: Iran, How Close Are We?

Actually, right now I do agree. It's definitely not a good idea to start launching attacks, especially with the way the Arab world currently feels about Westerners right now...

But I'd like to hear some opinions from the liberal peace lobby side. If "nothing needs to be done" is truely an answer, maybe we should start packing up our bags to go live out in the mountains now.

according to recent NIE reports Iran is a decade away from achieving "The Bomb."

add to that the fact that the majority of the population are currently young (under 30) and Western leaning, I'd advocate regime change from within.

As we've learned in Iraq --you don't win hearts and minds at the barrel of a gun.

Certainly the present administration is ill-equipped to deal with the complexities of Iran.

They may be a decade away... of course, the UN gave Saddam about a decade to play games... and the UN still wasn't going to do anything about a dictator that seemingly did everything he could to mislead everyone into thinking Iraq's capabilities were much better than they were.

I applaud your suggestion of an actual decent alternative, although it may be a little too late for it to work in time, and given how much distrust there is for anything non-Muslim right now... it wouldn't be easy. The asshole they currently have in power is obviously pandering to fundamentalist extremists for their support, which tends to have a "fear" effect on progressives that desire change. In the kind of environment where the government puts fear into anyone who speaks out against it, it's pretty tough for things to change. It took a VERY long time in Russia, and that was with a guy in charge who was a reformist--this bastard in Iran is the complete opposite. It's a very different situation.

I'm not too confident that the government will be overthrown before it has a chance to do something very very bad. And that doesn't even have to involve anything nuclear--the sheer amount of resources a terrorist-supporting state like Iran has totally dwarfs the resources available to dweebs like Bin Laden and his band of clowns. But I betcha they could sell a dirty bomb pretty easily if they decided to.

I think we need to start putting some serious pressure on China and Russia to stop screwing around, so we can get the UN off their asses. At the very least. I'm really surprised that Russia, of all nations, is willing to play games here. Given their proximity and the little 'terrorist' problem they have of their own, you'd think they'd be smarter than that.

Is Wolf Blitzer really dating Liza Minelli? (Sorry, had to lighten this up a little )

I'm sorry, MysticSpirit. I forgot that some might want a bit less information than I provided.

Then Iran can simply walk away from the treaty.... After all, Puke George W. Bush did with the ABM treaty.

My sense from Bush's approval polls, news articles ranging from conservative to liberal to international, service members I've spoken with, and just general chatting is that there is not enough U.S. support for an Iran war. What will we do if our leaders force the issue? I have NFC.

I'm a pragmatist on this issue. A war in Iran has the potential to escalate throughout the region and we are already very overextended both in funds and manpower. A draft would be inevitable and our federal budget is already hosed.

I think Bush used up his credibility in launching the Iraq war. Like the boy who cried wolf, even a credible threat will be a hard sell I believe.

On a personal front, I would fully support my son's decision to not participate in a draft unless Bush is right up there on the front lines.

So........................ does that mean Iraq was just a practice run?

The sad thing, Kendra, is that Bush would read that cartoon and probably find it funny.

No..he would more likely immediately tap the creator's phone, have all his email's read, and leak smearing and incorrect information about him to the press. And then, eventually, arrest and detain him out of the country, with no charges, no legal representation and for an undetermined length of time.

...and why is this America's duty to do something about it? Last I checked, we only "thought" we were the world's police force.



I still haven't heard any reasoning by this. So far, according to Iranian statements, they managed to enrich uranium to a point of running nuclear plants but not useful at all for weapons-making. That's the same logic as "Well, even though you've been using p2p software to download legal things, you have the potential to do illegal things with it so we should go ahead and arrest you now."

More of that "Minority Report" behavior.....



And you don't think the US wouldn't be/hasn't been interested in the same thing? The goal of the military as of late has been the "Get in, get it done, get out fast" idea. It hasn't worked so well so far, but being able to put our own WMDs without notice and being able to eithe use them outright or use them as hidden bargaining chips would probably be pretty eye-catching to most administrations in my lifetime.



So maybe we should announce our intentions to give some nuclear weapons to some Christian fundamentalists and let them balance out the equation.



And what business is it of ours whether they attack their neighbors? If a fight breaks out on the other side of town from where you live, do you call the cops on it?



And this would be a bad thing.....why? (Minus the whole culture death thing) If cultures so at odds with each other are bound and determined to wipe each other out, who is the smarter man, the one that tries to step between them and die in the process, or the man that steps aside, stays alive and lets them kill each other, and then deal with the aftermath?



Yes, but there are many solutions that don't involve American or Allied bloodshed. However, most of us seemed bound and determined to die fighting in a sandbox with spiders the size of a boot.

In the end, I doubt there is little we will be able to do to stop much of this from happening. Eventually, a terrorist will gets his hands on a bomb and blow something up. Eventually, another terrorist will come over to the US and kill a bunch of people, probably more than 9/11. The point shouldn't be preventing the inevitable. The point should be to prepare the people for when it happens and prepare the services needed to clean up afterwards.

And frankly, I think the more we get out of the Middle East situation altogether, the less reason terrorists will have to come after us.

Cartoon? This was his PDB on Monday.

Because there are exactly 2 countries Iran wants to nuke, and the US is one of them.

Ummm. But they don't have any nukes.

And a person considering shooting his wife may not own a gun yet, either.

Iran (probably) doesn't have nukes, and we want to keep it that way.

The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before "early to mid-next decade," according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, <b>puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures.</b>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

Yes, but so far, I don't recall *any* countries save Russia or China having missile technology that would make it remotely possible to attack the US directly.

As for sneaking it in with terrorists, that will happen eventually, as I said earlier, unless we stop giving them reasons to bomb us in the first place.

1. "Dirty bombs" (that simply spread radioactive material over a wide area) require a smaller amount of refined uranium. From a wide range of sources I've read, this is considered a more viable and likely scenario for nuclear terrorism in the US than a mushroom cloud.

2. China has been doling out nuclear bomb secrets, there's no reason to think they won't help out Iran, seeing how they are going through an industrial boom and are dying for oil. Documents show China had given information that gave Pakistan the bomb.

and the way to keep them from getting nukes is to aggravatedly 'drop hints' (as this admin seems wont to do) that we'll freakin' kill them??

seems like we managed to get through a forty-year cold war with SU without such pointedly 'official' nastiness. i just don't see why this situation calls for the 'president' to stomp his feet at SOTU speeches about how evil they are and how 'they're next.'

and -we- (americans) -have- to get used to the fact that we are not prime givers/takers of 'blessed knowledge and artifacts'... there's smart people all over the world, and they will build whatever they please. after all, we got freakin' nukes too, and have had them the longest. we've even -used- them in war - against an empirialist aggressor (at the time).

this time - and no, it doesn't matter whether or not we are, in face, 'empirializing' iraq... it's the appearance, sir. that's diplomacy, and it takes long looks in the mirror.

no one in the world trusts this administration anymore. not turkey. not britain. not even most of america's own population. check the polls.

this 'nuke'em' mentality is just totally effing kindergarten. i can't believe this is any idea of a progressive worldview. it's retrograde. there's nothing constructive or positive in it.

North Korea

geeeez. whatta scaredy cat.

I think an important factor to remember is that if Iran were to use a nuclear weapon against anyone, the reprisal would pretty much wipe out their entire country and population, including the political leaders. And I sure don't see alot of the political and religious leaders strapping on bombs and volunteering to go join Allah on suicide missions.

Iran has, through much of it's recent history, made a habit of making bold, threatening and agressive statements. But the rich in that country are indeed rich, and they don't want to die, even if they truly do feel it is religiously or politically coerrect to do so.

So while they may state that they intend to build nuclear weapons, and they do indeed view others as deadly enimies, the leaders know that reprisal for such an action would end their way of life, and most likely end their lives once and for all.

Now, having said that, I am all for the U.N. taking whatever actions are needed to keep things calmed and keep loss of life to a minimum. But as far as the United States jumping the gun and bringing democracy to the world (and money to Halliburton and the Oil Companies), I'm not for it at all. And I certainly don't trust the present administration's judgement, reasons or intelligence.

Death penalty is considered a deterrance, no? Even that aside, life imprisonment is considered a deterrance, no?


Are you insane? Have you seen all the anti-"Red" propaganda that was sanctioned by the US? Have you not heard of McCarthyism? Do you not have any knowledge about the Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs Invasion, Vietnam Conflict, Korean War and the open slamming of communist leaders? Reagan calling the USSR the "Evil Empire"?

We've been very, very nasty, and while sometimes it's misplaced, Iran is very certainly the place to put it.


While there is truth in saying that America is arrogant about our nuclear weapon non-proliferation policy, two things are true:

1. It's still in our best interests that countries labeled as terrorist states for decades, like Iran, don't get them.

2. Iran (and many many other countries) belong to the nuclear-non-proliferation treaty, meaning that they have formally agreed not to possess them.


Diplomacy is leaving Iran alone for 20 years after we armed Iraq in the 80s to fight Iran.


Definitely true, and it sucks that Bush has blundered for so long, ruined our credibility for an issue that we really ought to take action about.

Of course, it's not just his fault, it's our fault for re-electing such an incompetant leader.


Ah, I think there's a big difference between "nuke'em" and applying strong international pressure. Perhaps we will learn our lessons from Iraq, and go at Iran unilaterally with our allies, and I don't just mean Britain this time.

You don't need a weapons development project to have nukes. Buy old soviet nukes off the black market. Pop into a cargo container. Send to Miami. *BOOM*

Or hell, pack a few cargo containers with fertilizer. Anyone remember the Texas City fertilizer ship that blew up and leveled the harbor and a good chunk of the town?

Edited to say that any terrorists reading this should ignore the above two suggestions cause I live in a port city now.

---

Back to the pragmatic view.
Let's get involved in a war with a tremendous potential to escalate, perhaps even globally when we have neither money, people, will, nor evidently planning capability to win it.