War and those who wage it

[Undertoad]

I'm not sure what language that first sentence is in. Certainly not English.

Well it all depends, I suppose, on what you think of nuclear weapons. Those who were sentient and thoughtful before 1989 have lived under the threat of it, which turns it from something really really really bad into something that is unthinkable under ANY situation except for having been launched upon. That's the only diplomacy I would support.

We do not have to wait for the Iranians to have nukes, to have seen them use nuclear diplomacy unwisely. Ahmadinejad has talked about hopefully seeing the end of Israel "if we are just patient for a little while longer". This is unacceptable language from a country even dabbling in nukes. They don't get it.

If they wanted nukes as defense against Iraq, well we have sort of neutered that reasoning for the time being. Which makes it hopeful that a recent intelligence report suggested that the Iranian nuke program actually took a breather in 2003, stopping all work on it.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We do not have to wait for the Iranians to have nukes, to have seen them use nuclear diplomacy unwisely. Ahmadinejad has talked about hopefully seeing the end of Israel "if we are just patient for a little while longer". This is unacceptable language from a country even dabbling in nukes. They don't get it.

I don't see how Ahmadinejad's statement translates into actually performing a nuclear attack on Israel. He wants to see the end of a Jewish state in what was Islamic land, it is a very popular belief in the Islamic world but that doesn't mean he will do anything more than give support to groups that directly oppose Israel. As I've said before, Iran does not have the suicidal goal of "nuking Israel off the map", but becoming a regional power, which would be cemented if Iran became a nuclear power.

There is also the subjectivity of what he means by the "end of Israel". Technically my view of the solution in that area, the bi-national to one-state solution, would be the end of the Jewish state of Israel. I don't want to kill any Israelites, just that a Jewish state in that region will keep causing problems in the future so a secular state will be the best solution. If Ahmadinejad means bombing the region into the ground, then we have a different situation but I have not heard any concrete evidenced pointing to either of those two meanings.

On top of that, many other nuclear powers have talked about taking down other countries but never actually resorted to using nuclear weapons. The United States is the sole exception but, while still unjustifiable, the conditions were different than today. The United States publicly announced its intentions to eliminate Communism but we never nuked the USSR. The Soviets can say the same.

I do have some uneasiness when it comes to Iran and nuclear weapons but I still don't believe they would use them for offensive purposes. Going against US and UN regulations to get nuclear weapons makes sense when looking at Iran's goals, but performing a nuclear attack or selling nuclear weapons to terrorists to attack Israel will directly go against their goals because there would be no Iran afterwards. I don't trust Iran either but they are not that stupid.

If they wanted nukes as defense against Iraq, well we have sort of neutered that reasoning for the time being. Which makes it hopeful that a recent intelligence report suggested that the Iranian nuke program actually took a breather in 2003, stopping all work on it.

Yes, but I still wouldn't be that surprised if they continued in hopes of preventing an attack by the United States, which isn't unreasonable.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If Ahmadinejad means bombing the region into the ground, then we have a different situation but I have not heard any concrete evidenced pointing to either of those two meanings.

Then you haven't been listening.

Some Ahmadinejad quotes:

“Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the
Islamic countries due to their need.”

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

...But I'm sure he means a "storm" of secular diplomacy will "annihilate" them, right?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If Ahmadinejad means bombing the region into the ground, then we have a different situation but I have not heard any concrete evidenced pointing to either of those two meanings.

Then you have not been listening - there is more than just a physical resemblance of this guy to Hitler.

[piercehawkeye45]

Okay, but that still isn't enough evidence to show that he will actually go through with it. He is a politician. There is much reason to guess that he has said many of those statements to boost his support with the anti-Israeli population.

Besides, Ahmandejad does not control the military in Iran, Ali Khamenei does. His quotes:

In 2001 Khamenei famously remarked that "this cancerous tumor of a state [Israel] should be removed from the region." On the same occasion he proposed that "Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews."

In 2005 Khamenei responded to President Ahmadinejad's alleged remark that Israel should be "wiped off the map" by saying that "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country."[40] Moreover Khamenei's main advisor in foreign policy, Ali Akbar Velayati, refused to take part in Holocaust conference. In contrast to Ahmadinejad's remarks, Velayati said that Holocaust was a genocide and a historical reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Kha...rael-Palestine

[lookout123]

Okay, but that still isn't enough evidence to show that he will actually go through with it.

I'm not advocating war with Iran, but that is an absolutely asinine statement.

I just had this image of you being played by Joe Pesci from Lethal Weapon:

"okokok, guys, he hasn't...it's not he's actually done it, right? I mean suuuure his finger is on the button, right? okokok... but it's not like he's actually pushing hard on it, right? okokohshit- he pushed it. okokok guys, you were right, he was serious."

[Undertoad]

Yes, but I still wouldn't be that surprised if they continued in hopes of preventing an attack by the United States, which isn't unreasonable.

Oh quite the opposite. It kind of guarantees an attack, but it doesn't have to be by us.

In 1984 Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear program out of existence.

It's that subjectivity which guarantees the attack, too. Yes, if you are a nuclear player, you cannot make statements that can possibly be interpreted as nuclear threats.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I'm not advocating war with Iran, but that is an absolutely asinine statement.

Theres obviously more cards on the table but I don't see how his statements are any different than what the Democrats were preaching in 2006. Both are blowing smoke, just that Ahmandejad's is much more dangerous to the world if they do go through with it.

I recognize the risks, but I don't see needed physical intervention. I could really care less about non-physical intervention as long as it hurts the people of Iran as little as possible.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Oh quite the opposite. It kind of guarantees an attack, but it doesn't have to be by us.

I was talking about once they already have nuclear weapons, not when they are in the process of making them. I should have made that more clear.

[xoxoxoBruce]

piercehawkeye45, I'm going to annihilate you!

Of course I'm speaking metaphoricly... or am I?
Would you bet your life on it?
How about if I lived in your neighborhood instead of states away, would that make you consider it more carefully?
How about if I was standing at your front door with a machine gun? Wouldn't that raise your level of concern about how metaphorically I'm speaking?

[piercehawkeye45]

I would put my life on it if you were a kid who routinely blew hot air and threatened people with your father's gun but has no way of getting to it and while I don't have a great relationship with your father, he has no intentions of hurting me.

In fact, that has happened to me before and I never got shot.


But realistically, what are we suppose to do? Bomb every country we don't trust that is thinking about building atomic weapons? Ahmandejad is an idiot and a fool who is putting his country in danger but bombing other countries on unproved assumptions is not the best idea right, especially now after Iraq. If Ali Khamenei starts making comments like Ahmandejad's or if Ahmandejad has a chance of becoming Iran's supreme ruler than I would be worried, but there is nothing to back the assumption that the supreme ruler is willing to commit suicide to wipe Israel off the map. The only evidence is that someone who does not control the launching of nuclear weapons is making threats and that Iran supports anti-Israeli groups. It doesn't count out the possibility that a nuclear attack on Iran can happen, just that I seriously doubt it will.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Okay, but that still isn't enough evidence to show that he will actually go through with it.

You have two options here. 1 - be proactive. or 2 - wait until after the fact. Remember, we are talking about a nuclear war.

Choose now.... _____

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I would put my life on it if you were a kid who routinely blew hot air and threatened people with your father's gun but has no way of getting to it and while I don't have a great relationship with your father, he has no intentions of hurting me.

Ah, but what if that kid shaping a piece of metal, he said was going to be a duplicate key to the Dad's gun cabinet? Doesn't that change your level of concern? Wouldn't you try to prevent it?

[piercehawkeye45]

What relevance does the duplicate key have to the Iranian situation?

[Ibby]

well if gun case = nuclear weapons, then the duplicate key = nuke program?

[piercehawkeye45]

In my example.

Me = Israel
Little kid threatening me = Ahmandejad (president of Iran)
Little kid's dad = Ali Khamenei (supreme ruler of Iran)
Gun = Nuke program

Ahmandejad does not have the say on whether a nuclear weapon should be launched or not, Ali Khamenei does. A duplicate key would imply that Ahmandejad would take control of the military without Ali Khamenei knowing, which I don't see how that fits into the example.