ISS: Teheran could have nukes in '09

[ready4ONE 5,400]

why just economic relations?

besides that point.... in stayin with this topic's theme... A nuclear Iran is bad for Iran... because who would be terribly surprised if a even harder-line government too over, or a coup took place? It is bad for the Muslim world... it creates a Muslim superpower whom wages proxy wars against the west and will have even more influence to push around the Syrias and Pakistans etc... It is bad for the world...

All those reasons are more than justifiable than a war in Iraq...

I think we can all rest assured Israel is nuclear armed, and what worked for the US/USSR cold war, mutually assured destruction to deter use of atomic weapons would not work in the case of Iran. Apologizing to all of Iranian decent who are not moronic psychopaths worshiping a death cult, the leadership in Iran could only be described as such. Using their weapon against Israel, even in the face of Israel and or the rest of the world combined turning Iran into a glass parking lot with an all out nuclear response would not deter Iranian leadership. They would simply view it as the fast track to Allah.

This is not an Israeli only issue, or even a MENA only issue. Iran would also likely be the first to supply nuclear weapons to terrorists groups, again stupidly believing they could shield themselves from culpability.

A nuclear Iran is a problem for everyone, even themselves. It is a world and not regional issue.

[mRx 16]

My point was simple... that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel will illicit a US military response to Iran. PERIOD... there is no arguement even from you Paul that this won't happen

I think an isolated incident would likely necessitate a military response from the UN. A full scale nuclear war is an entirely unknown quantity.

I would agree with that second sentence.

Grandoner, of course that would provoke a US response, and I've never disputed that it wouldn't. If Iran so much as flew a military trainer plane over the border into Israel, then we would be in there in a heartbeat.

My question and objection is, why?

Of course it's easy to see that we have and have had many Jewish, pro-Israel cabinet members in the United States defense department, so it's apparant that they're getting their goals and objectives met under the guise of "American security and interests". It's sickening that this country must put everything on the line so some powerful politicians and advisors can satisfy their individual interests in foreign countries.

I do think its warranted in relation to a nuclear attack.

If it's an isolated incident, and we're not directly involved whatsoever, then I don't see how intervention would help us in anyway. Unless, of course, we have credible evidence that we are going to be attacked. But we've already been through that hypothetical situation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point was simple... that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel will illicit a US military response to Iran. PERIOD... there is no arguement even from you Paul that this won't happen

I think an isolated incident would likely necessitate a military response from the UN. A full scale nuclear war is an entirely unknown quantity.

I would agree with that second sentence.

Grandoner, of course that would provoke a US response, and I've never disputed that it wouldn't. If Iran so much as flew a military trainer plane over the border into Israel, then we would be in there in a heartbeat.

My question and objection is, why?

Of course it's easy to see that we have and have had many Jewish, pro-Israel cabinet members in the United States defense department, so it's apparant that they're getting their goals and objectives met under the guise of "American security and interests". It's sickening that this country must put everything on the line so some powerful politicians and advisors can satisfy their individual interests in foreign countries.

I do think its warranted in relation to a nuclear attack.

If it's an isolated incident, and we're not directly involved whatsoever, then I don't see how intervention would help us in anyway. Unless, of course, we have credible evidence that we are going to be attacked. But we've already been through that hypothetical situation.

Again - as its unprecedented we really have no conception as to whether such an event would be a single isolated event, or a prelude to a larger conflict. Its in everyone's interests to prevent a nuclear-based conflict.

[mRx 16]

My point was simple... that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel will illicit a US military response to Iran. PERIOD... there is no arguement even from you Paul that this won't happen

I think an isolated incident would likely necessitate a military response from the UN. A full scale nuclear war is an entirely unknown quantity.

I would agree with that second sentence.

Grandoner, of course that would provoke a US response, and I've never disputed that it wouldn't. If Iran so much as flew a military trainer plane over the border into Israel, then we would be in there in a heartbeat.

My question and objection is, why?

Of course it's easy to see that we have and have had many Jewish, pro-Israel cabinet members in the United States defense department, so it's apparant that they're getting their goals and objectives met under the guise of "American security and interests". It's sickening that this country must put everything on the line so some powerful politicians and advisors can satisfy their individual interests in foreign countries.

I do think its warranted in relation to a nuclear attack.

If it's an isolated incident, and we're not directly involved whatsoever, then I don't see how intervention would help us in anyway. Unless, of course, we have credible evidence that we are going to be attacked. But we've already been through that hypothetical situation.

Again - as its unprecedented we really have no conception as to whether such an event would be a single isolated event, or a prelude to a larger conflict. Its in everyone's interests to prevent a nuclear-based conflict.

Granted I think nobody wants a nuclear conflict, but acting based on what's right and wrong instead of what's allowed in the US Constitution heads us down a dangerous path.

If we are in a crowded room, and a big thug starts punching a guy near him, and I am in the opposite corner of the room from the conflict, separated by a group of people, why would it be in my interest to intervene, push my way towards the thug, and try to stop him? People that could possibly be hit unintentionally by the thug would have a higher precedence to stop him, in an act of self-preservation, than I would; Being as I am on the other side of the room.

I suck at analogies, but you get what I'm saying. Even though the US had a heavy hand in many of the problems in the Middle East, it's not too late to back out, and cut our losses, until it is too late.

[luckytxn 2,264]

It is up to the powers in the region if they want to intervene. Iran having nukes is not a threat to the U.S. We are not the worlds police force. Of course they will want us to be so they don't have to look like the bad guys and use their hard earned money to fund a force. If we go in and stop them many will condemn us and make us out to be the bad guys. Let the powers that Iran would threaten handle this.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point was simple... that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel will illicit a US military response to Iran. PERIOD... there is no arguement even from you Paul that this won't happen

I think an isolated incident would likely necessitate a military response from the UN. A full scale nuclear war is an entirely unknown quantity.

I would agree with that second sentence.

Grandoner, of course that would provoke a US response, and I've never disputed that it wouldn't. If Iran so much as flew a military trainer plane over the border into Israel, then we would be in there in a heartbeat.

My question and objection is, why?

Of course it's easy to see that we have and have had many Jewish, pro-Israel cabinet members in the United States defense department, so it's apparant that they're getting their goals and objectives met under the guise of "American security and interests". It's sickening that this country must put everything on the line so some powerful politicians and advisors can satisfy their individual interests in foreign countries.

I do think its warranted in relation to a nuclear attack.

If it's an isolated incident, and we're not directly involved whatsoever, then I don't see how intervention would help us in anyway. Unless, of course, we have credible evidence that we are going to be attacked. But we've already been through that hypothetical situation.

Again - as its unprecedented we really have no conception as to whether such an event would be a single isolated event, or a prelude to a larger conflict. Its in everyone's interests to prevent a nuclear-based conflict.

Granted I think nobody wants a nuclear conflict, but acting based on what's right and wrong instead of what's allowed in the US Constitution heads us down a dangerous path.

If we are in a crowded room, and a big thug starts punching a guy near him, and I am in the opposite corner of the room from the conflict, separated by a group of people, why would it be in my interest to intervene, push my way towards the thug, and try to stop him? People that could possibly be hit unintentionally by the thug would have a higher precedence to stop him, in an act of self-preservation, than I would; Being as I am on the other side of the room.

I suck at analogies, but you get what I'm saying. Even though the US had a heavy hand in many of the problems in the Middle East, it's not too late to back out, and cut our losses, until it is too late.

It isn't. But nuclear weapons change the nature of the game.

You can sit back and watch a fist fight in a crowded room, but I suspect you probably wouldn't if someone started throwing around live hand grenades.

The US pursued non-intervention in WW2, up until the Pearl Harbour attack.

Of course had this not happened and the US stayed neutral throughout (and Germany not attacked the USSR), its entirely conceivable that after watching the Nazis "local conflict" it across Europe that the US would find the Nazis and/or the Soviets knocking at their door eventually.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about the US' record on military intervention - I don't think there is any war since WW2 that could be considered "just" or that couldn't be resolved by other means - a lot of the times (e.g. Iran) its been wholly counter-productive.

[Peikko 1,575]

Agreed. It is nice that now people want to be less confrontational though but this justification that the US should take this approach because it's time others should 'stand on their own two feet' after nannying them for so many years at great expense. Hysterical

[mRx 16]

My point was simple... that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel will illicit a US military response to Iran. PERIOD... there is no arguement even from you Paul that this won't happen

I think an isolated incident would likely necessitate a military response from the UN. A full scale nuclear war is an entirely unknown quantity.

I would agree with that second sentence.

Grandoner, of course that would provoke a US response, and I've never disputed that it wouldn't. If Iran so much as flew a military trainer plane over the border into Israel, then we would be in there in a heartbeat.

My question and objection is, why?

Of course it's easy to see that we have and have had many Jewish, pro-Israel cabinet members in the United States defense department, so it's apparant that they're getting their goals and objectives met under the guise of "American security and interests". It's sickening that this country must put everything on the line so some powerful politicians and advisors can satisfy their individual interests in foreign countries.

I do think its warranted in relation to a nuclear attack.

If it's an isolated incident, and we're not directly involved whatsoever, then I don't see how intervention would help us in anyway. Unless, of course, we have credible evidence that we are going to be attacked. But we've already been through that hypothetical situation.

Again - as its unprecedented we really have no conception as to whether such an event would be a single isolated event, or a prelude to a larger conflict. Its in everyone's interests to prevent a nuclear-based conflict.

Granted I think nobody wants a nuclear conflict, but acting based on what's right and wrong instead of what's allowed in the US Constitution heads us down a dangerous path.

If we are in a crowded room, and a big thug starts punching a guy near him, and I am in the opposite corner of the room from the conflict, separated by a group of people, why would it be in my interest to intervene, push my way towards the thug, and try to stop him? People that could possibly be hit unintentionally by the thug would have a higher precedence to stop him, in an act of self-preservation, than I would; Being as I am on the other side of the room.

I suck at analogies, but you get what I'm saying. Even though the US had a heavy hand in many of the problems in the Middle East, it's not too late to back out, and cut our losses, until it is too late.

The US pursued non-intervention in WW2, up until the Pearl Harbour attack.

Of course had this not happened and the US stayed neutral throughout (and Germany not attacked the USSR), its entirely conceivable that after watching the Nazis "local conflict" it across Europe that the US would find the Nazis and/or the Soviets knocking at their door eventually.

FDR's Export Control Act cut off all vehicle and aviation exports to Japan, while later cutting off all oil exports to them, which the Japanese were highly dependent on.

I would hardly call these pre-Pearl Harbor acts "non-intervention". We had taken our stance.

Had we not have intervened at all, who knows where we would be today; But, if we were victorious on their land, why wouldn't we be victorious on our own, when the Soviets and Fascists would've come a' knocking?

[childress_london 3]

Of course the U.S. would get involved. If Iran and Israel got into a confrontation, the U.S. would feel obligated to help Israel - regardless of whether or not that has anything to do with protecting our own security. Plus, Iran is a foe to the U.S. right now and Israel a good friend. We would go in to defend Israel. Iran, as it was said in a previous post, would also heavily arm Hamas and Hezbollah, further inciting irritation among our government. Believe me, this would turn into a world war, as I doubt the rest of the Middle East would sit back and just watch. Everyone would get involved with their own opinions and take sides. Europe would take sides. Russia and China would take sides. This kind of conflict will doubtless affect the whole world. And yes, as was also mentioned, Ahmadinejad is looking forward to the return of the 12th Imam and hoping to pave the way for him (kinda reminds you of a kid waiting for Santa Claus on Christmas). Perhaps an all out war with Israel, which he knows is sure to eventually involve the whole world, is part of his plan for the return of the 12th Imam.

Remember 2012.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We might well have been. But I think the point is to not wait until they're at your door.

For better or worse someone realises that conflict is inevitable and should be conducted on the most favorable terms possible. Of course this reasoning is what has gotten us into Iraq.

Again - I don't disagree with non-intervention. My objection to the idea is in relation to possible a nuclear based conflict.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[childress_london 3]

And yet another "timeline", just to add to the hysteria.

http://www.iranwatch.org/ourpubs/articles/...rtimetable.html