scottyz said:How could we stop Iran? The word is that our forces are being stretched pretty thin by Iraq already.
scottyz said:They could start a draft but I don't know how well that would work out.
Kandahar said:If we can encourage the Iranian democrats to overthrow the theocracy, that would be ideal. But that's basically been the policy of the United States for the past twenty-five years, and it doesn't seem to be working.
We need to at least prepare for war. Perhaps the thought of war with the United States would at least inspire a coup, if not a revolution. And if not, we're ready to go to war.
Time is running out, and the United States is running out of options.
roya said:Iran's chief negotiator, Cyrus Nasseri, defended the move by saying "all we want to do is to produce nuclear fuel and we are prepared to provide credible assurances that we will not divert this to other purposes".
Kandahar said:If we can encourage the Iranian democrats to overthrow the theocracy, that would be ideal. But that's basically been the policy of the United States for the past twenty-five years, and it doesn't seem to be working. We need to at least prepare for war. Perhaps the thought of war with the United States would at least inspire a coup, if not a revolution. And if not, we're ready to go to war.
Time is running out, and the United States is running out of options.
roya said:Today Iran broke all the remaining UN seals at its nuclear plant at Natanz making it fully operational.
Iran's chief negotiator, Cyrus Nasseri, defended the move by saying "all we want to do is to produce nuclear fuel and we are prepared to provide credible assurances that we will not divert this to other purposes".
However, The EU and US suspect Iran's scheme is a cover for a nuclear weapons program. The EU wants Iran to resume its suspension of conversion work in return for economic and political concessions. Western leaders have enough reason to suspect the sincerity of the Islamic Republic based on the grounds that Iran hid its uranium enrichment program for 18 years, without telling the IAEA until the main opposition group, the National council of Resistance of Iran – NCRI ( http://ncr-iran.org) revealed that in a press conference in Washington in 2002.
Negotiations with this regime will not help the security and stability in the region. While we are waiting for the next IAEA meeting or EU council of ministers to decide what proposal to pass to limit Iran Ahmadinejad is laughing having his men working round the clock to build the bomb to demand more. Iran is a nuclear time bomb ticking to the moment of detonation.
The only option to rid the region and the world of the dangers this regime poses is change in Iran. The regime change in Iran should not mean Iraq II replayed. Nobody wants another foreign war in the middle-east. The Iranian people have not elected this government. 1028 candidates were eliminated to let only a few approved by the supreme leader run for the presidency.
The real solution is only possible through the Iranian people and their resistance. The policy of appeasing the mullahs has been the biggest obstacles to change in Iran making the isolated Iranian people believe the world leaders are as corrupt as their own.
epr64 said:I could agree with you IF the US didn't systematically support ONLY the "democrats" that will give them a competitive and financial advantage.
epr64 said:Not that I don't understand the realpolitik that underlines this. But a lot of people, basically for that reason, will never trust anything that is supported by the US.
epr64 said:If the US supported REAL democrats (and BTW, why the fu** only the US?), the mullah regime would be toppled quite fast.
epr64 said:People would then vote for those who propose to help them, not the economy first.
Starngely, I didn't see a lot of countries doing that in the last 25 years, at the exception of some in South America.
epr64 said:The US can't go to war. At the max, the US can lauch bombs and missiles on the suspected plants.
epr64 said:Which will only lead to more resentment against the US..
epr64 said:and more terrorist attacks.
TimmyBoy said:The use of force by the US against Iran is impossible. The American people won't support a draft and the US does not have a large enough professional army to go into Iran. Air strikes will probably only make the situation worse. The Israeli air strikes on Iraq actually did not set back Iraq's nuclear program but helped to spur it on as some angry Iraqi scientists came to the aid of Saddam's regime to assist in accelerating the development of the bomb. I can't remember the circumstances as to how Iraq did get rid of it's WMD program, but it did exist at one time in the past. One could come away with the assumption that air strikes could have the same effect on Iran. Given these circumstances and factors, their is nothing really that the US or Israel can do to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, especially since we are in Iraq. Not only that, part of the reason why Iran is developing these weapons is because they see the nuclear armed US in Iraq and Afghanistan. They likely feel that for the long term security of their regime and nation, they have little choice but to develop the bomb. Israel might attempt some airstrikes with some US weapons sold to them, but I seriously doubt these airstrikes will be able to stop an Iranian nuclear weapons program. If you can't put boots on the ground and take out the regime, then you have no military cards. And frankly, if I was a general, I would want a million man invasion force before going into Iran. The US and Europe could punish Iran with sanctions, but I seriously doubt the sanctions will do much good either.
Kandahar said:So what is your solution? Sit back and do nothing while Iran destroys the Middle East?
TimmyBoy said:The best thing that both Israel and the US can do right now, is to come up with a nuclear policy specifically directed at Iran that the US nor Israel will not attack or strike Iran first.
TimmyBoy said:However, in the event that Iran uses nuclear weapons, both the US and Israel will retailiate in kind towards Iran and Iranian allies who come to their aid.
TImmyBoy said:Developing anti-missle defense systems for Israel and the US would also be wise, unless, Iran genuinely recognizes Israel's right to exist (I doubt that day will ever arrive and thus an anti-missle defense system would be in order).
TimmyBoy said:I think promoting pro democracy forces in Iran would also be wise, even though it may seem that it isn't working for the US. Continueing dialouge and negotiations with Iran would also be my approach while maintaining a tough nuclear stance in the event of an Iranian first strike.
Kandahar said:Why? What will that accomplish, other than limiting our options?
The basis for our Cold War nuclear policy was mutually assured destruction. This, however, presumes that all of the nuclear powers are rational. Iran is led by irrational extremists that would willingly sacrifice their own lives and the existence of their country if it meant they could kill some Jews.
Of course we would retaliate if Iran (or anyone else) used nuclear weapons. That's nothing new, that's the same as doing nothing. What can we do to make sure that Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons in the first place? You don't really believe that Iran is capable of being deterred do you?
Anti-missile defense systems are prohibitively expensive and not effective.
Dialogue and negotiations aren't doing a damn thing. Iran has made it clear that they have no intention of giving up their nuclear weapons program.
TimmyBoy said:It would be a big mistake to attack Iran first. This would make us and not Iran the aggressor. We would lose any moral high ground as well.
TimmyBoy said:Not only that, we simply don't have the conventional forces necessary to forcefully stop the Iranian regime unless you are willing to institute a draft and last time I checked you and the rest of the American people don't have the stomach for a draft and a real war, not that I blame you or the rest of the American people for not being eager to get drafted into combat, because I am not a war monger either;
TimmyBoy said:but the only realistic option is to develop anti-missle defenses
TimmyBoy said:and write a nuclear policy that addresses what the US/Israeli nuclear response would be in the event of an Iranian first strike.
TimmyBoy said:Negotiations will be necessary to ease tension in the region and to make war or nuclear war less likely.
TimmyBoy said:I do believe that Iran can be deturred and that negotiations backed by the means to defend ourselves against any Iranian attack will keep war less likely.
TimmyBoy said:But the minute we attack first and become the agressor, we will only be creating a more unstable region.
Kandahar said:Maybe so, but we'd be preventing a nuclear attack.
We HAVE the forces to overthrow the Iranian regime. The US military is excellent at defeating conventional armies like Iran's. We'd have a problem with the Iraq insurgency spreading to Iran, but at least we'd no longer have to worry about the nuclear threat.
That's not "realistic." Anti-missile defense systems are ridiculously expensive for the supposed benefit.
Israel wouldn't have to worry about writing a nuclear response, because it wouldn't exist after an Iranian first strike.
Negotiations will do no such thing, because we don't even agree on what we're negotiating about. The EU is negotiating to get Iran to dismantle its nuclear program; Iran is negotiating to be allowed to keep its nuclear program.
Iran has stated its desire to start a new Holocaust, has denied the existence of the WWII Holocaust, and has said Israel should be wiped off the map. They've also stated that they'd be willing to destroy Israel even if it means Iran would be destroyed, because a large percentage of the world's Jews would be dead and only a small percentage of the world's Muslims would be dead.
It certainly doesn't sound to me like a rational regime capable of being deterred.
You know what else will make the region more unstable? Nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic extremists.
TimmyBoy said:If you think, that attacking Iran first with the current level of forces that we have, then be my guest and I'll sit back and watch US forces get kicked out of Iran and defeated, because that is exactly what will happen. The US would be defeated.
TimmyBoy said:Heck, we have enough problems as it is just dealing with the Iraqi insurgency, much less Iran.
TimmyBoy said:Not to mention, attacking Iran first will create an environment where nuclear war is more distinct possibility rather than reducing that possibility. Other nations will also seek to arm themselves with WMD after watching the US launch a first strike on Iraq and then turn and do the same to Iran.
TimmyBoy said:Other nations are already seeking WMD after watching the US launch an unprovoked first strike on Iraq.
TimmyBoy said:Without a military draft, the US has no military cards and therefore must take a more defensive posture and rely on a nuclear deturrence.
TimmyBoy said:The only reason why Iran wants nuclear weapons is because they have just as much right to possess nuclear weapons as Israel and the US and we have no right nor business telling them they do not have that right, especially since we have these weapons ourselves. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?