George W And Iran

[mollag]

Roq, be clear here, are you advocating the atomic destruction of Iran?

[Chinahand]

Rog, can you list the major Islamic nations that continued to support the Afghanistan government after they refused to hand over Bin Laden? A rather minor sin compared to the scenario you are outlining.

 

Why do you presume the major Islamic nations would continue to support Iran if it unilaterally started nuclear armageddon?

 

Please note Jordon, Saudi, Egypt etc have recently talked of the geopolitical threat of the Shia Cresent being carved out as a result of instability generated by the Iraq invasion. Islamic nations are not some monolith as you seem to regularly insist they are.

 

I 100% agree with you that the issue of nuclear proliferation is the most important geopolitical issue in the middle east and probably the world at the moment, but I was very surprised to find myself agreeing with Pat Buchannan of all people on the way forward with Iran.

 

Check out:

 

The Conservative Voice

[Rog]

Roq, be clear here, are you advocating the atomic destruction of Iran?

 

Read what I wrote.

 

There is nothing that I need to add or to enlarge upon.

[mollag]

i ask you for the final time, are you advocating the atomic destruction of Iran?, because thats how your post reads

 

 

"Let’s just hope that the US will once more take on the role that the rest of the world are so ready to benefit from and at the same time lambaste them for doing what they do that actually benefits all and do anything and everything even top the extent of turning Iran into trinitite to rid the world from the threat of an islamic bomb."

[allrightyessa]

Specious arguments justifying the manufacture of atomic weapons by Iran abound and often the nuclear status of Israel is used as an excuse to justify the actions of Iran. That is so much bull.

 

ALL Israeli governments past, present, and future know only too well that of all of the nations on the Earth their possession of a nuclear capability (if they do actually have such a capability) is pure and simply the ultimate example of having a nuclear deterrent.

 

If Israel EVER went first strike then there is no government in the world that would stand behind them.

 

This is most certainly NOT the case with Iran and any retaliation then made against Iran would immediately result in a closing of ranks with other islamic states world wide. Add to that the use of homicide bombers as an acceptable means to an end in the persecution of infidels, the deaths of innocent FOM as being martyrs and all that brings, and there really is a danger far greater than the world has EVER seen from communism or for that matter even Nazism. At least Nazism contained the seeds of its own destruction not to mention the desire to live outweighing the desire to die in all but the most rabid Nazi.

 

All attempts to bring Iran into line with the modern world – even to the extent of Russia offering them power station grade uranium for their (claimed) peaceful use of atomic power and which they rejected – and so it now really is a case of time that they were made to toe the line.

 

Let’s just hope that the US will once more take on the role that the rest of the world are so ready to benefit from and at the same time lambaste them for doing what they do that actually benefits all and do anything and everything even top the extent of turning Iran into trinitite to rid the world from the threat of an islamic bomb.

 

http://www.minresco.com/trinitite/trin.htm

 

looks like the mighty US OF A have got another bomb to test against the nearly defenceless

 

looks like another david and goliath to me

 

come on you david come on you david

[LoneWolf]

looks like the mighty US OF A have got another bomb to test against the nearly defenceless

 

looks like another david and goliath to me

 

come on you david come on you david

 

Iran is a different kettle of fish to Iraq.

China has closed a highly expensive deal with Iran for natural gas supplies and Iran also supplies about

15 % of China's oil. So there is every reason to believe China would move to protect its investment in the event of an American attack. You will not find many analysts in the energy industry who believe the USA would invade Iran. The risks are too great and lets face it, GW Bush is an oil man.

This doesnt rule out a targetted attack on Iran's nucleur facilities. Such an attack would be unlikely to provoke a military response from China as it wouldnt impact on their investment.

Nevertheless it would still be a high risk venture and to what purpose ?

Iranian foreign policy statements are notorious for their sabre rattling. There is rarely, if ever, any execution of the proclaimed policies. This is well accepted in the energy industry and I would assume it is also the case in political circles. Perhaps someone with expertise in the domain of politics could comment ?

From an energy industry perspective there would be no advantage and lots of negatives involved in an American attack on Iranian nucleur installations. There maybe other factors outside the energy ones but I do not believe they would have the same influence on US policy as energy does.

The US trade deficit with China is another factor which may guide US intentions towards Iran.

China holds enormous amounts of US bonds. It holds so many that the US economy is now vulnerable to collapse if China chose to sell or decline payment in dollar bonds. This is highly unlikely, by the way, as it would also damage China !

Nevertheless, the US would have to think twice before launching any sort of attack. I, personally, do not think it will happen (Nostradamus speaks !!) But would the US be prepared to use Israel as a proxy for its military ambitions ??

[Roger Smelly]

The Biggest threat to world peace is Mr Bush.

 

He seems to love scaring people into thinking the arabs are going to kill us all.

 

I think the world only became unsafe so to speak when bush became the leader of the USA.

 

Iran is the next target, the war machine has to keep moving $$$$$

[Rog]

i ask you for the final time, are you advocating the atomic destruction of Iran?, because thats how your post reads

 

 

"Let’s just hope that the US will once more take on the role that the rest of the world are so ready to benefit from and at the same time lambaste them for doing what they do that actually benefits all and do anything and everything even top the extent of turning Iran into trinitite to rid the world from the threat of an islamic bomb."

 

Other that the typo of 'top' where I had intended to write 'to' the sentence and the message stands.

 

Whatever needs to be done both should and more to the point MUST be done.

[mollag]

Roq

 

Your post is shamefull and evil, you have advocated genocide to solve diplomatic problems. You now stand shoulder to shoulder with the mass murders of this world, they would have loved you in Rwanda.

 

I will have no more to do with the likes of you.

[Rog]

Roq

 

Your post is shamefull and evil, you have advocated genocide to solve diplomatic problems. You now stand shoulder to shoulder with the mass murders of this world, they would have loved you in Rwanda.

 

If you had not only read but understood what you were reading you would have seen that all that I support is that in facing the ultimate evil of an islamic bomb the ultimate sanction must be an option that should be open to be used to prevent it happening.

 

The choice of words –“ anything and everything even to the extent” makes that clear.

 

If I had written ‘nuke Iran and glassify Tehran’ as the best way forward then you might have cause to whinge and whine on, but I didn’t. What I did do was to propose any and all options should e available to deal with this matter.

 

I will have no more to do with the likes of you.

 

 

Oh dear.

 

Tut tut.

 

How awful.

 

I shall worry about that for seconds on end.

 

Not.

[Chinahand]

Rog ... there is an islamic bomb ... it belongs to Pakistan.

[Rog]

Rog ... there is an islamic bomb ... it belongs to Pakistan.

 

I wondered when that would arise.

 

It's a Pakistani bomb and although Pakistan is a predominatly islamic country it has a secular government.

 

Iran on the other hand does NOT have a secular government nor is there a mechanism where it can have one.

[Lonan3]

i ask you for the final time, are you advocating the atomic destruction of Iran?, because thats how your post reads

 

 

"Let’s just hope that the US will once more take on the role that the rest of the world are so ready to benefit from and at the same time lambaste them for doing what they do that actually benefits all and do anything and everything even top the extent of turning Iran into trinitite to rid the world from the threat of an islamic bomb."

 

Other that the typo of 'top' where I had intended to write 'to' the sentence and the message stands.

 

Whatever needs to be done both should and more to the point MUST be done.

 

A 'solution' such as that (a 'final' solution, perhaps?) is no solution whatsoever. All it means is that the hatred and the desire for justifiable revenge go on and on.

Just as the Franco-Prussian War provided the 'revanche' motive for WWI which, in turn, provided the motive for WWII, so an attack on an independent country - unless it has done rather more than a vague bit of sabre-rattling, is ultimately self-defeating.

Bush is such an incompetent tosspot that he has managed to undo any goodwill the rest of the world had for America and, unless he can be persuaded ignore the voices in his head that he thinks are God's, he is going to leave the entire world in an incredible mess for many generations.

[Rog]

There are times when a final solution simply is not available and the best that can be obtained is a delay in the hope that a REAL solution comes with time. Like a cancer the solution is at times excising of the tumour. Hopefully it will at least buy time for the body to recover and rid itself of malignancy.

 

In the case of islam more than any other I suspect that only when all religions are seen as being no more than the roots on which the modern societies have as their history and not as a basis for the actions of societies will such a solution exist.

[Chinahand]

I've seriously thought about starting an entirely new thread about nuclear proliferation, but this thread is close enough and to be frank I don't believe there is enough interest to justify a new one!

 

There is no doubt that what is occurring in Iran is vastly important to the way nuclear non proliferation will develop in the next decade or so.

 

Realistically for all the usual anti-American biases on this site do people really think a nuclear Iran is a good idea? I challenge the most simplistic and rabid of you lot to say yep, it would be fine to Iran to be nuclear armed ... the boasts to be rooting for David in this David and Goliath contest is the behaviour of the trully juvenile and you should be careful for what you wish for.

 

I for one shudder at what will result if Iran is able to go nuclear ... and I'm glad both Europe and the US are actively involved in this issue. Its interesting that both China and Russia are also seriously concerned and even with their their immediate tactical engagement with Iran are willing to issue pretty hard line warnings to Iran to come back into alignment with its commitements under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Similar things are happening with North Korea with China actively agreeing with the US that North Korea's nuclear ambitions risk disaster.

 

The trouble is there is basically f-all the International Legalists can do if Iran tells the NPT to go jump ... hence the realists in the Pentagon and the IDF are making it quite clear what the consequences will be if IRAN CHOSES to behave as if the international environment is an anarchy ... their reply is that if Iran wishes to live by the sword it risks learning what the end part of that famous phrase means.

 

Rog is a realist through and through ... I'm a legalist who acknowledges the need for big sticks, but lets not pretend the games being played at the moment isn't incredibly serious, with very high stakes.

 

I love Rog's usual blind spots ... Pakistan, a nuclear armed Islamic country ... but its ok cos its secular ... hasn't Rog posted multiple times that its impossible for Islamic countries to embrace secular constitutionalism.

 

I'm much more nervous about the precidents set by the Nuclear Trio who have stuck their fingers up to the world order - Israel, India and Pakistan. They've directly encouraged North Korea and Iran to milk and disregard the system and the fact they've absolutely got away with it has encouraged them even more.

 

Now we've got a nuclear stand off in both Iran and North Korea, but the risks of Turkey, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea deciding that international agreements aren't sufficient security guarantees and attempting to go nuclear in a time frame as quick as 100 days shouldn't be doubted ... and Syria, Saudi and Egypt ... well for them its years, but if the NPT collapses there is a very real risk nuclear proliferation could explode.

 

What's going to happen ... I think in the short term bugger all other than newspaper pundits picking up placed briefings which attempt to show the worst consequences of what is going on.

 

In the longer term it tougher and much harder to see. Rog will say Iran is unreformable so prepare for war, its coming ... maybe but by doing that you may cause what you are trying to stop.

 

There is an example of a paranoid insular regime going nuclear armed and then stepping away, embracing reform and opening up ... South Africa.

 

There is a large, repressed demand for reform in Iran ... Rog I assume will write it off ... I hope not ... during the last Iranian election it wasn't a foregone conclusion that the Council Of Elders would be able to ban three quarters of the reform candidates ... in this case the hard liners won the game of chicken it played with the reformers ... in many ways its incredibly sad that the hard liners have been able to consolidate their position and use the threats Bush et al has issued against the regime to rally patriotic Iranians to their cause. Alot of these people 2 or 3 years ago were in favour of reform ... for the next couple of Parliments that option has gone ... the question Bush and the IDF have to really consider is will Iran be able to go nuclear before the economic and social collapse the medievalists are encouraging over throws them ... its touch and go ... if its 10 years maybe it'll be ok ... but its a high stakes game. Hence the current sound and fury.

 

Ignore this issue at your peril ... 100's of millions of people could die and the worlds environment be affected irrecoverably if it goes wrong.