|
Strike before Iran's nukes get hot
|
View this Thread in Original format
| imokruok |
I thought that this was a fun column, particularly since no one seems to disagree with the claim that Iran is months, not years, away from operational nuclear weapons. I think the time is ripe for a strike, but I don't think it will be the US will be the one to do it. Israel has a history of this sort of thing, and what's going to happen? The Arab nations will hate them more?
I'm all for democratic revolution in Iran solving this problem. But, I have been in Los Angeles for the past month or so hanging out with a ton of expat Persians, (there's a reason it's called Tehrangeles), and they all seem to think revolution is coming, but it won't happen soon enough. And keep in mind that these folks keep very good tabs on what's going on in the home country, and many would like to return someday when the mullahs are dead.
So, I bring you another column from the author with the kick-ass last name.
| quote: |
Strike before Iran's nukes get hot
by Charles Krauthammer
New York Daily News
23 July 2004
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ide...8p-184881c.html
Did we invade the wrong country? One of the lessons now being drawn from the 9/11 report is that Iran was the real threat. The Iraq War critics have a new line of attack: We should have done Iran instead.
Well, of course Iran is a threat. But how exactly would the critics have "done" Iran? Iran is a serious country with a serious army. Can you imagine the Iraq War critics actually supporting war with Iran?
If not war, what then? The Bush administration, having decided that invading one axis-of-evil country was about as much as the country can bear, has gone multilateral on Iran. Washington delegated the issue to a committee of three - the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany - that has been meeting with the Iranians to get them to shut down their nuclear program.
The result? They have been led by the nose. Time is of the essence, and the runaround that the Tehran Three have gotten from the mullahs has meant that we have lost at least nine months in doing anything to stop the Iranian nuclear program.
Iran instead of Iraq? The Iraq critics would have done nothing about either country. There would today be two major Islamic countries sitting on an ocean of oil, supporting terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction - instead of one.
Two years ago, there were five countries supporting terror and pursuing WMDs - two junior-leaguers, Libya and Syria, and the axis-of-evil varsity: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The Bush administration has just eliminated two: Iraq, by direct military means, and Libya, by example and intimidation.
Syria is weak and deterred by Israel. North Korea, having gone nuclear, is untouchable. That leaves Iran. There are only two things that will stop the Iranian nuclear program: revolution from below or an attack on its nuclear facilities.
The country should be ripe for revolution. But the mullahs are very good at police-state tactics. The long-awaited revolution is not happening. Which makes the question of preemptive attack all the more urgent. Iran will go nuclear during the next presidential term. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the "Great Satan" will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike.
Both of which, by the way, are far more likely to succeed with 146,000 American troops and highly sophisticated aircraft standing by just a few miles away - in Iraq.
|
p.s. Everyone know the term October Surprise? October is when the Israelis estimate Iran will have completed their nuclear warhead. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
I thought that this was a fun column, particularly since no one seems to disagree with the claim that Iran is months, not years, away from operational nuclear weapons. I think the time is ripe for a strike, but I don't think it will be the US will be the one to do it. Israel has a history of this sort of thing, and what's going to happen? The Arab nations will hate them more?
I'm all for democratic revolution in Iran solving this problem. But, I have been in Los Angeles for the past month or so hanging out with a ton of expat Persians, (there's a reason it's called Tehrangeles), and they all seem to think revolution is coming, but it won't happen soon enough. And keep in mind that these folks keep very good tabs on what's going on in the home country, and many would like to return someday when the mullahs are dead.
So, I bring you another column from the author with the kick-ass last name. |
Boy the neo-cons never cease to amaze me. True, the Iranians pose a threat, actually a much greater threat than Saddam ever was. If only we worked on the Iran problem sooner...
Oh yeah, that's right, Saddam had nukes being pointed at our heads, and we had to deal with him immediately. It just sucks having to fight so many damn wars now. Boy I sure feel so much safer now that Bush is in office.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Boy the neo-cons never cease to amaze me. True, the Iranians pose a threat, actually a much greater threat than Saddam ever was. If only we worked on the Iran problem sooner...
Oh yeah, that's right, Saddam had nukes being pointed at our heads, and we had to deal with him immediately. It just sucks having to fight so many damn wars now. Boy I sure feel so much safer now that Bush is in office.:rolleyes: |
A lot of us over here share the same sentiment. I'm almost envious of people that fought in WWII - the enemy was so definably evil that you felt good about what you were doing.
There's so much grey area in this war that the black and white are rarely seen. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
I thought that this was a fun column, particularly since no one seems to disagree with the claim that Iran is months, not years, away from operational nuclear weapons. I think the time is ripe for a strike, but I don't think it will be the US will be the one to do it. Israel has a history of this sort of thing, and what's going to happen? The Arab nations will hate them more?
I'm all for democratic revolution in Iran solving this problem. But, I have been in Los Angeles for the past month or so hanging out with a ton of expat Persians, (there's a reason it's called Tehrangeles), and they all seem to think revolution is coming, but it won't happen soon enough. And keep in mind that these folks keep very good tabs on what's going on in the home country, and many would like to return someday when the mullahs are dead.
So, I bring you another column from the author with the kick-ass last name.
p.s. Everyone know the term October Surprise? October is when the Israelis estimate Iran will have completed their nuclear warhead. |
Israel is ting their pants... if the Mullahs get a nuke.. thats when things will get really intense. But why can ISrael have Nukes and Iran cant? The US is afriad of its other miltiary base being destabilized in that oil rich region.. so they want to protect them from these anti-semites.
As much as i want to see those mullahs rot in hell.. i think a whole other hell would be unleashed (geo-politically) in that region if Israel/US MILITARY BASE NATION bombed Iran.
This is a huge dilemma. |
|
|
| Superstar |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
I thought that this was a fun column, particularly since no one seems to disagree with the claim that Iran is months, not years, away from operational nuclear weapons. I think the time is ripe for a strike, but I don't think it will be the US will be the one to do it. Israel has a history of this sort of thing, and what's going to happen? The Arab nations will hate them more?
I'm all for democratic revolution in Iran solving this problem. But, I have been in Los Angeles for the past month or so hanging out with a ton of expat Persians, (there's a reason it's called Tehrangeles), and they all seem to think revolution is coming, but it won't happen soon enough. And keep in mind that these folks keep very good tabs on what's going on in the home country, and many would like to return someday when the mullahs are dead.
So, I bring you another column from the author with the kick-ass last name.
p.s. Everyone know the term October Surprise? October is when the Israelis estimate Iran will have completed their nuclear warhead. |
First off, let me start by saying that I don't agree with this being a "fun" column... the last thing I want to see is all my relatives being bombed because "the time is ripe for a strike".
Do you think Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon on the US if they were never attacked? What would they have to gain from this? The people do not want this and would not support the government. They may even immediately overthrow the government. I've mentioned this before, but the media here never showed the people in Tehran on the days after 9/11. People were upset and crying in the streets, lighting candles for those who lost their lives:
http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil
And let's not forget the retalliation from the Americans that would destroy the country. So I think it's safe to say that Iran will not attack the US with a nuclear (or any other WMD) weapon.
So if you agree with this, then they do not pose any greater of a threat than they have been for the past 25 years. How is it exactly that Iran poses a threat to the United States?
By the way, from the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iran/index.html
The latest figures (2000) from the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book, say that 31.6 per cent of the population – about 21 million out of the population of 66 million – are 14 or younger. Other estimates say that 70 per cent of the population is under the age of 30.
You may not notice here in the Western world, but things are slowly changing as the majority of the population is becoming younger and less tolerant of the Islamic regime. I don't think there will be a revolution like there was in 1979, but hopefully more and more reformers will be elected and the Council of Guradians will lose its powers over time.
I'm sorry, but it pisses me off when people pass judgment on a country that they know nothing about. Who are you to decide that it's a good idea to attack Iran? How would you feel if there was a greater superpower that decided it was time to attack the US right now because they thought you posed a threat? |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| Bush does not want to go to war with IRAN, even if they pose such a threat..for the obvious reasons, wheres the credebility that Bush administration helped the US loose??? there is none to convict such a war now.. |
|
|
| ZinG |
| not to mention all the spending he's done on the war in Iraq. All the taxpayer's money went to war I don't think there's even enough taxmoney to spend on another war |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstar
First off, let me start by saying that I don't agree with this being a "fun" column... the last thing I want to see is all my relatives being bombed because "the time is ripe for a strike".
|
Sorry - fun in the sense that Krauthammer columns usually bring out the best (worst) in debate, particularly on the Israel/Palestinian issue.
| quote: | | I've mentioned this before, but the media here never showed the people in Tehran on the days after 9/11. People were upset and crying in the streets, lighting candles for those who lost their lives |
I fully understand this...coming from a family that actually has a few Persians in it who got out in the early 1970's. And I don't think that your families have anything to worry about in terms of being bombed by the US/Israel. There is little to no chance of an all-out American aggression against Iran. But what I think is likely is some sort of conventional strike on the nuclear facilities by either Israel or the US. I honestly hope that nothing happens to the people of Tehran - I believe that most have the desire to return to the westward-looking nation that they had 30-40 years ago.
| quote: |
So if you agree with this, then they do not pose any greater of a threat than they have been for the past 25 years. How is it exactly that Iran poses a threat to the United States?
|
I don't agree, because another nation with nukes - particularly one run by the mullahs - is not a benign event/occurrence. As was shown with the Pakistanis, once a nation figures out how to build the bomb, the people who built it like to show others how as well. And no one knows what an Iranian nation strapped for cash would do with a completed bomb, particularly since they show no interest in being involved with international arms control regimes.
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
But why can ISrael have Nukes and Iran cant? |
If you see all nation-states as equal, you have a point. But that is not the case here, nor anywhere on the globe, because we're not operating in some theoretical game of Risk. Did Israel publicly state that they would nuke Tehran the day they made their first nuclear weapon? That's what the mullahs say about Tel-Aviv when they talk about their bomb. If you want to see a -storm in the Middle East, fine, let Iran have their bomb. Israel won't be the first one to fire. But she'll be perfectly happy to retaliate. And keep in mind, any nuclear strike on Israel would now have a "return address," regardless of the perpetrator. |
|
|
| JM |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Boy the neo-cons never cease to amaze me. True, the Iranians pose a threat, actually a much greater threat than Saddam ever was. If only we worked on the Iran problem sooner...
Oh yeah, that's right, Saddam had nukes being pointed at our heads, and we had to deal with him immediately. It just sucks having to fight so many damn wars now. Boy I sure feel so much safer now that Bush is in office.:rolleyes: |
youre in KC you have nothing to worry about, i'm sure the last place the terrorists would target is that inbred town of yours in the middle of BFE.
>JM< |
|
|
| Yoepus |
I have no clue what the hell you guys are talking about!
Iran isn't developing any nuclear weapons program. They've clearly told the world they are just developing nuclear energy program, peaceful nuclear programs.
Afterall, why in the world would the Russians and Frenchies help the Iranians???
You guys are completley clueless and out of touch of this world. Iran stated numerous times to the IAEA it has a peaceful program.
Iran building nuclear weapons hah! Good one.
:rolleyes: :p
:(
fuel: http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=860 |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| Every other damn country has nuclear bombs,so I dont see why Iran shouldnt.If Isreal ever attacks Iran,it would bring alot of problems in the region. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Every other damn country has nuclear bombs,so I dont see why Iran shouldnt. |
But they AREN'T building any nuclear bombs. Gee. Keep up! |
|
|
|
|
