Iran Will Have Nuclear Warhead by 2009: Report

[talloulou]

How did we get onto this **** about the bloody stock market and where one should keep one's money??? Ridiculous tangent.

oops my bad sorry! We must protect Israel! :elephantf :cowboy: :rwbelepha

That better?:coffeepap

 

[oldreliable67]

So given that you and the others here readily acknowledge that they cannot act as honest brokers is instead the idea here to come out completely on Israel's side in the event of a first strike and confirm all the Arab suspicions once and for all?

You read a lot more into my comments than warranted. Nowhere did I "readily acknowledge that they cannot act as honest brokers," nor did I say "instead the idea here [is to] to come out completely on Israel's side in the event of a first strike and confirm all the Arab suspicions once and for all?"

Frankly, speaking just for myself, I'm in a bit of a quandry over this question. IMO, the Iranians have every right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, even if they are sitting on massive oil reserves. However, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that their intentions go considerably beyond peaceful uses. The thought of the mullahs with nuclear weapons is pretty frightening, not so much about what they would do with them themselves, but in whose hands they would permit them to fall. The rhetoric from the mullahs over the years notwithstanding, the Iranians have, except for the Iraq-Iran war, largely operated via proxies. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the Iranian proxies would not hesitate to use nukes.

So, what do you do? Do you chance waiting until a terrorist group utterly destroys Tel Aviv (or London or New York)? Or do you act preemptively? At what point does the impact of a highly improbable event become so catastrophic that you are forced to act as if the odds of its occurence are much higher than they actually are?

 

[Panache]

So you blame the gun manufacturer and the store, and not the person behind the trigger??

You blame the people who arm and fund the Al Qaeda terrorists, and not the shmuck who actually flies the plane?

My question to you: Who should be commanding the Situation Room when this goes down? Who has a history of being hard on security?

An excellent question. Alternatively, who has a history of trying to get our guys out before the mideast turns into a nuclear firework display?

I think before we decide who should be in the situation room, we need to know what we are looking for in terms of a response to this situation.

 

[politic_analyst]

Sounds like another propaganda for a justifiable deployment or even warfare. The money given to the defense for this year was probably not enough for the payouts to lots of government buddies. We heard of North Korea threats, where there is none. It's just funny that the japanese leadership wants to buy a missle defense program that is ineffective. Our war machine business must be in competition for profit with our refineries and gas companies.

 

[WI Crippler]

I cant imagine them screaming their rage at Lockheed Martin & Boeing can you?:lol:

So oldreliable says youll be blamed and you say your blamed already, and therefore can we say that you should now actually help commit the act that youre already marked down for?

I am saying, whether we do anything or not, the stigma of the alliance of the US & Israel will follow one or the other, no matter what happens. if we remain nuetral, people will say we have let Israel off its leash, and if we go in with them then here come the infidels..........So I am not commiting us to any action, I am saying it won't make a difference what we do. If there is one thing Sunni & Shia hate more than each other, its jews, and America will always be guilty( in their eyes, and probably yours) by association.

 

[politic_analyst]

Your wallet will be threatened when the gas prices go up and some group of politicians want to raise taxes for more military spending.

For those of you with 401ks, IRA, and other investments, how do you think such an exchange will affect the stock market?

What are you personally doing to prepare for this event?

Gas prices are totally up to the gas companies and refineries. We are being shafted by our own. The Oil prices from other countries are offset by the weapons that those coutries have been buying from the arms manufacturer brotherhood. They love the middle east. If so easy to create conflict in that region and profit from oil producing countries for security is big business.

Stock market is a gamble as always, with warfare or no warfare. 401Ks have guaranteed return and the rest again are a gamble, war or no war in the middle east.

 

[mikhail]

Despite what people may argue i see Iran having a nuclear warhead the same as Nazi Germany having a nuclear warhead.I see the appeasement of germany in the 1930s similar to the appeasement happening right now with the middle east.

If we had acted against Germany in say 1935 put Hitler out of power it would of saved millions of lives however people would be complaining about it to this day.It seems we are going to have to wait until they become extremely powerful and commited enough attrocites against mankind before we attack Iran.

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

Hmm, yeah, I believe there's no way something cannot happen between the U.S. and Iran, especially if they get their hands on a nuke.If Israel then gets involved I gaurentee that we will somehow be pulled in.Better to have a plan for it now then to let Israel deal with Iran itself.

 

[Rilloch]

The U.S acted against Iraq due to the "fact" (let's not discuss if it was true or not here) that they had weapons of mass destruction, nukes. It was of course not the only factor, but a leading cause. Then what stops the U.S from acting against Iran for the same reason? They would surely be backed up by Isreal if they would take action.

 

[mikhail]

Yes but we know for a fact that Iran is enriching uranium and their arguement is they are using it for Nuclear power not weapons their ability to develope from their own oil shows this is unlikely. But hey maybe they are just being sensible but a look at their other domestic policys shows in no way logical thought.

Conclusion they are trying to develope nuclear warheads and they are more likely to use them than any other country right now.

 

[EAGLE1]

oops my bad sorry! We must protect Israel! :elephantf :cowboy: :rwbelepha

That better?:coffeepap

:lol:

Thats the funniest post Ive seen in ages. Well done. Touche and Kudos.

 

[EAGLE1]

You read a lot more into my comments than warranted. Nowhere did I "readily acknowledge that they cannot act as honest brokers," nor did I say "instead the idea here [is to] to come out completely on Israel's side in the event of a first strike and confirm all the Arab suspicions once and for all?"

Frankly, speaking just for myself, I'm in a bit of a quandry over this question. IMO, the Iranians have every right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, even if they are sitting on massive oil reserves. However, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that their intentions go considerably beyond peaceful uses. The thought of the mullahs with nuclear weapons is pretty frightening, not so much about what they would do with them themselves, but in whose hands they would permit them to fall. The rhetoric from the mullahs over the years notwithstanding, the Iranians have, except for the Iraq-Iran war, largely operated via proxies. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the Iranian proxies would not hesitate to use nukes.

So, what do you do? Do you chance waiting until a terrorist group utterly destroys Tel Aviv (or London or New York)? Or do you act preemptively? At what point does the impact of a highly improbable event become so catastrophic that you are forced to act as if the odds of its occurence are much higher than they actually are?

Thats a remarkably intelligent post. Not the normal fare around here but Ive come to expect it from you oldreliable so well played again.

I quite agree that the mullahs are a nasty bunch. But then again Im not a big fan of Islam anyway. However, I think the idea that they'll be able to pass off a few nukes to some unsavoury groups on request so they can wipe out jerusalem is pretty far fetched.
People should remember that the production and maintenance of a nuclear arsenal is firstly difficult, very. Its unlikely therefore that theyd go to all that trouble in time and expense, not to mention international pressure and then give away one willy nilly to Hezbollah. Especially not when theyve got enemies on all sides.

Secondly it seems to be assumed all around that because the mullahs and the Iranians hate Israel with a grand passion that they're going to want to help blow it up. This is silly because while they may well be mad and bad they are not stupid.

Thridly I put it to you that Irans primary goal is not actually war with its neighbours but its development and continued existence of the first Islamic republic. Moreover they seek to raise their international standing and influence rather than smash it to smithereens.

 

[EAGLE1]

Yes but we know for a fact that Iran is enriching uranium and their arguement is they are using it for Nuclear power not weapons their ability to develope from their own oil shows this is unlikely. But hey maybe they are just being sensible but a look at their other domestic policys shows in no way logical thought.

Conclusion they are trying to develope nuclear warheads and they are more likely to use them than any other country right now.

Why is unlikely that theyd want nuclear power and to sell their oil on the international market rather than use it for power generation?

What so farcical about that?

 

[mikhail]

Why is unlikely that theyd want nuclear power and to sell their oil on the international market rather than use it for power generation?

What so farcical about that?

Like i said Their domestic policys dont seem to reflect this far ahead thinking.Besides anything it has a milita it isnt in full control of,a president sprouting antisemitist bullshit,a facist islamic attitude that makes the country unstable in itself.

 

[EAGLE1]

What do you mean about domestic policies? Is it like they built centrifuges but have no plans to build any plants or put in any power cables ?

On this nuclear/ oil thing. Most of the West that has had oil has also had nuclear power.

 

[mikhail]

What do you mean about domestic policies? Is it like they built centrifuges but have no plans to build any plants or put in any power cables ?

On this nuclear/ oil thing. Most of the West that has had oil has also had nuclear power.

Its the obsession of a country awash with oil embarking on a expensive nuclear power programme also the development of chemical weapons.

What i mean by domestic policy is why is a country desperatly needed investment in schools hospitals social service etc why is it investing in ballistic missiles and developing nuclear power.

 

[WI Crippler]

Secondly it seems to be assumed all around that because the mullahs and the Iranians hate Israel with a grand passion that they're going to want to help blow it up. This is silly because while they may well be mad and bad they are not stupid.

Its not assumed, when their president says the following. These are very clear, open threats. Whether they have the idiocy to actually carry through with what they want to do, remains to be seen. But the desire is there, and the "assumption is well founded.

Ahmadina-jihad Quotes

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

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

"Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."

"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 tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

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

 

[politic_analyst]

Hmm, yeah, I believe there's no way something cannot happen between the U.S. and Iran, especially if they get their hands on a nuke.If Israel then gets involved I gaurentee that we will somehow be pulled in.Better to have a plan for it now then to let Israel deal with Iran itself.

I already know the answer to this but what do you think the real reason why Israel exist in the middle east?

 

[politic_analyst]

Despite what people may argue i see Iran having a nuclear warhead the same as Nazi Germany having a nuclear warhead.I see the appeasement of germany in the 1930s similar to the appeasement happening right now with the middle east.

If we had acted against Germany in say 1935 put Hitler out of power it would of saved millions of lives however people would be complaining about it to this day.It seems we are going to have to wait until they become extremely powerful and commited enough attrocites against mankind before we attack Iran.

During the cold war when both forces were equally match, did you see a war between the 2 nations or did you see indirect wars that are started between parties that were supported by the equally powered nations? Most of the times it became a stale mate. When 2 forces have the same power, it might lead to peace. If you are still buying into a military buildup on the budget, follow the money on who makes out the most when a threat (propaganda) is defined. Look into the US budget on how much we spend on defense and homeland security.

If you are into WWII Hitler was an incompetent in terms of military tactics. Millions of lives??? Did you check the casualties that the Red Army inflicted to their conquered people. It was much worse than what Hitler had done in terms of body count. By getting rid of Hitler it allowed the Red Army to do what it pleased, America looked away, reason being for survival.

 

[mikhail]

During the cold war when both forces were equally match, did you see a war between the 2 nations or did you see indirect wars that are started between parties that were supported by the equally powered nations? Most of the times it became a stale mate. When 2 forces have the same power, it might lead to peace. If you are still buying into a military buildup on the budget, follow the money on who makes out the most when a threat (propaganda) is defined. Look into the US budget on how much we spend on defense and homeland security.

If you are into WWII Hitler was an incompetent in terms of military tactics. Millions of lives??? Did you check the casualties that the Red Army inflicted to their conquered people. It was much worse than what Hitler had done in terms of body count. By getting rid of Hitler it allowed the Red Army to do what it pleased, America looked away, reason being for survival.

I agree however i feel Islamic attitudes of jihad martyrism etc make them dangerous with nukes also it increases the chances of the development of dirty bombs.

 

[oldreliable67]

Thridly I put it to you that Irans primary goal is not actually war with its neighbours but its development and continued existence of the first Islamic republic. Moreover they seek to raise their international standing and influence rather than smash it to smithereens.

Quite agree that Iran's primary goal is become the regional hegemon and to pursue continued expansion of the Iranian clerical vision of Islam. To that end, the tactic of baiting and taunting of Israel and the US and holding up the results of that baiting to the rest of the Muslim world in general and the ME in particular have proven quite succesful for them for many years now. No reason they should cease using a proven tactic now. A key part of that baiting is the continued issuance of inflammatory statements of the sort for which Khomeini and now Ahmadinejad have become (in)famous, i.e., the "one nuke eliminates Israel, but several nukes later and we're still here" type of thing.

A major risk when applying this train of thought to Iran is first, the Iranian government is effectively controlled by clerics, and second, the religion of the controlling clerics is quite violent in many aspects. The Quran is quite explicit in its exhortations to either convert or kill non-Muslims. Just how fundamental are the clerics who make up Irans ruling council? Do they embrace all aspects of the Quran, including the exhortations to either convert or kill non-Muslims? Or are they of a more moderate persuasion?

Their public statements with respect to Israel and the US are certainly designed for Muslim consumption, but how much further should the rest of the world take them? Iranian actions (e.g., their support of terrorism via proxies, their demonstrated pursuit of nukes) suggest that we should not take their words lightly. Dare we stop short of ruling out their use of nukes, either directly or via a proxy?

Whether Christian or Muslim, there is no fanatic as convinced of the rightness of his cause and his actions in furtherance of that cause, as a religious fanatic.

 

[politic_analyst]

I agree however i feel Islamic attitudes of jihad martyrism etc make them dangerous with nukes also it increases the chances of the development of dirty bombs.

It might be unfortunate result on the dirty bombs but it might wake up more people on this country that the double standards on the policies of our country. Once there is another super power on the other side, there will be equilibrium and stability because it will be pointless to wage war that can never be won.

Most people only hear things from the media, which as we all know is government censored. The mentality in the world is still empire building, the leaders forget that they are truly the servants of the people and not the other way around. This goes for both sides of the conflict. People need to realize that its entirely propaganda from both sides, objective to terrorize their people and hence gain support for themselves. Its easier to extract money from a centralized budget because no one would ever question increasing security funding for protecting one's existence. People need to realized that they are tangled in informational lies from both side. Unfortunately people are not smart enough to unite against the true threat. Because it comes from their own.

 

[Voidwar]

come out completely on Israel's side in the event of a first strike and confirm all the Arab suspicions once and for all?

Arabs weren't suspicious of us were they ?

I thought most followed a religion of peace and weren't our enemies. :roll:

 

[EAGLE1]

Arabs weren't suspicious of us were they ?

I thought most followed a religion of peace and weren't our enemies. :roll:

Yes they are suspicious of you/ us.

And I'll bet they thought the West is most interested in their political/ social development and not just in keeping ready access to their resources.

More fool them eh? :lol:

 

[EAGLE1]

Quite agree that Iran's primary goal is become the regional hegemon and to pursue continued expansion of the Iranian clerical vision of Islam. To that end, the tactic of baiting and taunting of Israel and the US and holding up the results of that baiting to the rest of the Muslim world in general and the ME in particular have proven quite succesful for them for many years now. No reason they should cease using a proven tactic now. A key part of that baiting is the continued issuance of inflammatory statements of the sort for which Khomeini and now Ahmadinejad have become (in)famous, i.e., the "one nuke eliminates Israel, but several nukes later and we're still here" type of thing.

A major risk when applying this train of thought to Iran is first, the Iranian government is effectively controlled by clerics, and second, the religion of the controlling clerics is quite violent in many aspects. The Quran is quite explicit in its exhortations to either convert or kill non-Muslims. Just how fundamental are the clerics who make up Irans ruling council? Do they embrace all aspects of the Quran, including the exhortations to either convert or kill non-Muslims? Or are they of a more moderate persuasion?

Their public statements with respect to Israel and the US are certainly designed for Muslim consumption, but how much further should the rest of the world take them? Iranian actions (e.g., their support of terrorism via proxies, their demonstrated pursuit of nukes) suggest that we should not take their words lightly. Dare we stop short of ruling out their use of nukes, either directly or via a proxy?

Whether Christian or Muslim, there is no fanatic as convinced of the rightness of his cause and his actions in furtherance of that cause, as a religious fanatic.

Yes thanks for that.

As you say. Their statements are designed for muslim consumption. And the Quran is a big book not often followed to the letter. Not to mention that these particular muslims are Shias and therefore not always in agreement with the rest of the muslim world.

Dare we stop short of ruling out their use of nukes, either directly or via a proxy?
Yes we dare. After all they're not stupid and more to the point the creation of nukes requires high enrichment that wont even be achievable for some time yet.

Again you're right. There is no fanatic as convinced of the rightness of his cause and his actions in furtherance of that cause, as a religious fanatic. But are we speaking of the mullahs or Pat Robertson?