Which is a worse outcome of our Iran situation?

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Nuking them will not stop them building nukes, so the option is null and void. Plus does the US want to responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people? Bye Bye what is left of your reputation. Iran needs to be dealt with, but nuking them? Come on.

No, usually obliterating a nation and sterilizing it's territory, thus killing everyone in it, stops them from building practically anything, let alone nukes of their own.

The US finally had to intervene in Kosovo because Europe couldn't clean it's own outhouse. When it comes to Iran, the same situation will recur, and the US will have to do what needs doing. They're not my millions of people, I don't care about them, and I don't care about world opinion. If that's what it takes to end the nuclear threat from Iran, so be it.

 

[Hoot]

I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't nuking Iran irradiate their oil supply?

I doubt the U.S. wants to go there, therefore...fund the insurgents and disrupt their government from within...a much more sane approach.

 

[aquapub]

A nuclear armed Iran would just give them a stronger voice in the world community.

A war with Iran would probably be more devistating than some blow-hard conservatives can imagine.

Obviously nuclear weapons have become barganing tools.

The insurgents aren't afraid of our nuclear weapons. The Taliban is not afraid of our nuclear weapons. The terrorists are not afraid of our nuclear weapons. China and North Korea may be afraid of our nuclear weapons. But we all know that we cannot use nuclear weapons.

Do people really think that Iran is that crazy?

North Korea can be relied on to do whatever is in their best interest. THEY are a soul-less, self-serving dictatorship, and they are usually all talk about using nukes.

Iran is a hard core theocracy bent on the destruction of infidels (Israel), with no regard to its own future in this world. This government rewards Palestinian suicide bombers, as did Sadam. Clearly, they see it as heroic to go out in a blaze of glory, and nothing deters their radical rhetoric and aims.

I think Iran's government is the one that needs to be wiped off the map.

 

[Kandahar]

There are thousands of Iranian fugitives in Iraq that have repeatedly attacked Iran with rocket attacks on political targets. Thousands of Iranian students booed and heckled the Iranian president when he gave a speech at Tehran University. Polls have shown that 4/5's of the Iranian students want regime change. Unfortunately, Bush's beligerant attitude has shifted much of the dissent into a kind of 'nationalist' pride. If we attack Iran, we will only galvanize this pride into stronger support for the Iranian leaders.

You're probably right about this, but what's your point? They're going to get nuclear weapons if we DON'T attack them.

Iran is being attacked by dissidents without U.S. support, so why not support this unrest? We can secretly fund this unrest without direct U.S. intervention. We can have these dissidents directly attack nuclear sites within the borders of Iran.

This is global politics, not kindergarden. We can't "secretly" fund the unrest; I'm pretty sure they'd figure that out.

Just last year, Rice condemned the human rights violations in Iran and yet had words of praise for Saudi Arabia?! (Possibly the worst human rights violaters in the Mid East. What kind of message is this sending to the Iranian people?)

Umm
That the United States condemns Iranian human rights violations?

We have Israel with multiple nuclear weapons, and also Pakistan. Yet Bush tells Iran they cannot have a nuclear weapon, while under the leadership of Bush, the U.S. has scuttled multiple nuclear arms treaties and updated its own nuclear arsenal. What kind of message would this send to you if you were an Iranian citizen?

I don't care. Let's solve the problem rather than point fingers and talk about what kind of message we're sending.

Let me remind all of you that we have no proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapon technology...none.

You've got to be kidding me. If you actually believe that, no evidence exists (or could POSSIBLY exist in theory) that would convince you otherwise.

If any of you can prove Iran has a nuclear weapon right now, then put up or shut up.

The entire idea of this is to stop them BEFORE they get nuclear weapons.

Iran is at least a good 3 years away from a nuclear weapon, which gives us time to pursue other avenues.

What "other avenues" do you think can succeed that haven't already been tried? There are varying estimates on the time-frame. 3 years is about the average estimate, but we should be preparing for a worst-case scenario.

Don't like my idea for creating terrorism within the borders of Iran? ( and don't tell me the U.S. does its own fighting out in the open, because we have funded multiple uprisings in other nations throughout the years without direct U.S intervention)

How about this? We guarantee the security of Iran and make all 5 established nuclear powers, under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, start dismantling their nukes. ( No...I didn't think you hypocritical war-hawks would like that idea)

Of course not, because it's a stupid idea. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy, it has to do with the realities of geopolitics. The US, UK, and France are not likely to misuse their nukes because they're democracies. Even Russia and China at least have rational, stable governments (although if they didn't already have nukes, you can bet we'd be doing everything in our power to stop them). Iran does not yet have nukes. Iran has an irrational, unstable government. And Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. Not a good combination for allowing them to get nuclear weapons.

Or let's say we go to war with Iran? You can bet oil will be over $100/a barrel...you want to pay that price and watch the U.S. economy tumble?

Yes
What will the price of oil be if the entire Middle East is a crater?

Do you want to further inflame the entire Middle East against the U.S.?

The decision to go to war does not exist in a vacuum. To simply examine the consequences of war, while not even acknowledging the consequences of NOT going to war, is ridiculous.

Do you want to see the struggling democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan go down the toilet? What have our service men and woman died for?

Again, if it means stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons and starting a nuclear war (or at best, a West-Islamic Cold War), then yes.

You think Israel can attack Iran effectively? Iran is too far away...an Israeli attack will only delay the inevitable. Only the U.S. has the current capability to attack multiple sites in Iran...with it's Navy and Air Force Tomahawk and cruise missiles. So, the U.S. will take all the blame for launching this attack. Even if we are succesful, Iran has multiple nuclear sites...many underground and many near to highly populated civilian areas.

But I thought you wanted to send terrorists to blow up all of Iran's nuclear sites. How would this relieve America of the blame, or ensure that we get all of these underground sites near civilian areas?

Gee...that's gonna do one hell of alot to increase U.S. prestige througout the world....when the U.S. kills thousands of innocent civilians.

You are a hypocrite. Your solution was a TERROR CAMPAIGN. :doh

Again...so let's say Iran gets a nuke? Big frigging deal! If they give the nuke to terrorists and this weapon is set off in a European community, does anyone actually believe this weapon will not be traced back to its source?!

OK, it's traced back to its source. That doesn't change the fact that some city is a crater.

The U.S. will know where that weapon came from, and Iran and it's leaders, while they may not fear matrydom, they will fear a loss of power.

No they won't, as anyone who knows anything about Iran will tell you. The Iran leadership is absolutely insane. The president believes it is his DUTY to help usher in the apocalypse. The ayatollahs would welcome the destruction of Israel by any means. They certainly would NOT fear losing their power. According to former president Rasfanjani (and possible future president), nukes will be used against Israel the moment they are obtained. Why? Because a nuclear attack on Israel would kill a large percentage of the world's Jews, but the retaliation would kill only a small percentage of the world's Muslims, so it would be a net gain for Islam.

To think that deterrence will work on Iran is naive, wishful thinking that will get millions of people killed.

Bush is playing his 'ace in the hole' again. FEAR. That's the only card he has left in his hand. ( It got him elected, didn't it?) If we don't stop Iran...look what will happen! Omigawd! We'll all be living in the trees again if we don't stop Iran...one of the 3 axis of evil!!!!

Actually, if you had paid the slightest attention to the news, you'd realize that Bush is being completely spineless about dealing with Iran. He's certainly not talking up a war, like he should be.

Gimmeabreak. The consequences of war with Iran far out weigh any consequences of allowing Iran self-determination.

I think a nuclear war (the most likely outcome) is about as bad a consequence as possible. I think a West-Islamic Cold War (the best-case scenario of this outcome) is still quite bad, certainly much worse than the US-Soviet Cold War ever was.

 

[cherokee]

I just don't believe their numbers are that great, we are talking about college age folks here, and how many can that actually be? How many are really going to go against these clerics, the men that have been their only advisor's for so many years? There is something to be said about brainwashing, and I would dare say the majority buy in to this hard line

All I’m saying is there are more ways to deal with the problem then a full-scale war. Maybe Sabotage the plants who knows.
I will admit I don’t know how many anti Iranian groups are inside Iran or their numbers.
Maybe it’s a small number, maybe larger, maybe military members would join after? It’s to hard to say. But it is an option that cant be overlooked.
Not that it really matters but I have seen programs showing young people wanting to oust the hard liners...???...

just look to the Pal's for that percentage, 77% there voted for violence.
That said, we should be sending them a message, and the president did just that, but they need to hear another message, get the hell out of there! Israel is not going to stand by and be "wiped off the map" so time is of the essence here, and this will come to blows very soon.

Since the 70's Iran has always talked alot of chit.Just like little Kim in North Korea. I really do see the Hardliners backing down and taking Russia’s deal cause they damn sure don’t want to lose power. Look at the 2004 elections, they had to cheat...Look at the turnout. 50%..
how many of those 50% lost hope?
How many are willing to do something if its started?

In February 2004 Parliament elections, the Council of Guardians banned thousands of candidates, including most of the reformist members of the parliament and all the candidates of the Islamic Iran Participation Front party from running. This led to a win by the conservatives of at least 70% of the seats. The turnout was about 50%, the least in parliament elections since the establishment of the Islamic Republic.


If they did get hold of a nuke they wouldn’t send it to Israel or even gave one to a group to use They know for a FACT that would cause Iran to be utterly destroyed.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well..Pakistan started its nuclear weapons program in 1972, and set off a nuclear explosion sometime around 1987. They've threatened nuclear strikes if India's superior military attacks their borders. It's been proven they helped N. Korea with its nuclear program in exchange for missile technology..feel it getting cold in here yet? Where's the nuclear winter? ( Of course, those countries don't have much oil, so the U.S. doesn't care if non-oil producing nations get nuclear weapons.)

I also resent the way you seem so sure of the mindset of the Iranian people and what they will surely do if they gain a nuclear weapon.

My main premise is we still have time to pursue other means, rather then launching a full scale war against Iran...a war that will be devasting to the U.S. in ways we can't begin to imagine... a war that will do nothing to stop Irans pursuit of nuclear weaponry and only further embolden the people of Iran to acquire and use nuclear weapons.

Well I don't see Pakistan threatening to wipe another country off of the map.

As for North Korea... well you can thank old Bill Clinton for that one, he gave them the bomb after all.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't nuking Iran irradiate their oil supply?

I doubt the U.S. wants to go there, therefore...fund the insurgents and disrupt their government from within...a much more sane approach.

:doh Ummm...the oil's underground?

 

[cherokee]

As for North Korea... well you can thank old Bill Clinton for that one, he gave them the bomb after all.

Do you really believe that? How and when please.

 

[Deegan]

Do you really believe that? How and when please.

His admin. was fooled by their energy goals, when it was indeed weapons they were seeking. We sent them the fuel, in turn, they were supposed to use this for peaceful purposes........well that didn't happen. Many people felt that this was a terrible decision then, and it still rings true today, that is my understanding of it, I hope that helps.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

His admin. was fooled by their energy goals, when it was indeed weapons they were seeking. We sent them the fuel, in turn, they were supposed to use this for peaceful purposes........well that didn't happen. Many people felt that this was a terrible decision then, and it still rings true today, that is my understanding of it, I hope that helps.

Ya giving uranium to that psycho Kim jon Il was one of the smartest things Clinton ever did. (sarcastic emphasis added)

 

[cherokee]

From the CDI

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm

It looks like to me they started alot sooner


North Korea's historical animus with the United States drives its nuclear weapons program. Across the 38th parallel, which has divided the Korean peninsula since the Korean War ended in 1953, 37,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea. The United States threatened nuclear attack against both North Korea and China during the Korean War and stored nuclear weapons in South Korean until 1991. 6 The ability to deter a U.S. led invasion and blunt U.S. coercive power is the primary objective of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. North Korea also likely sees its nuclear weapons program as a means to get leverage to extract economic concessions in negotiations with the United States and even its nuclear-armed neighbors, Russia and China. Additionally, North Korea may view nuclear weapons, and particularly the missile systems that complement them, as a valuable export technology.

North Korea began nuclear research in 1964, when Kim Il Sung, the father of the current leader, Kim Jong Il, ordered construction of an atomic energy research complex in Yongbyon, 60 miles north of Pyongyang. In the 1970s, North Korea modernized the facility and began work on a second reactor nearby. 7

In the 1980s, North Korea accelerated its efforts to produce plutonium fuel for nuclear weapons from these facilities. International concern began to focus on North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and in 1985 North Korea, under pressure, signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). North Korea completed the second reactor around 1987. It has a capacity of about five electrical megawatts, allowing annual production of seven kilograms of plutonium — enough for one or two nuclear weapons. 8 In the mid-1990s, North Korea began building two larger reactors with respective power of 50 and 200 electrical megawatts. When the Agreed Framework shut down these plants, they stood about two years from completion. Satellite photographs taken in 1990 indicate North Korea has constructed a structure at Yongbyon used to separate plutonium from nuclear fuel — a critical stage in weaponizing plutonium.

 

[cherokee]

In 1989, North Korea shut down its working reactor for two months — probably to remove the nuclear fuel rods, from which plutonium is reprocessed. 10 U.S. intelligence reports generally estimate that North Korea extracted 12-14 kilograms of plutonium from the rods, enough for one or two nuclear weapons. Japanese and South Korean intelligence estimates claim North Korea may have extracted more plutonium during reactor slowdowns in 1990 and 1991, giving the country up to 24 kilograms of plutonium. 11 North Korea may have acquired additional plutonium by smuggling it out of Russia. A 1993 report in the German magazine Stern cited a Russian counterintelligence report claiming that North Korea had bought 56 kilograms of Russian plutonium on the black market. 12

In the early 1990s, North Korea's progress in missile and plutonium development led to an international diplomatic push to control their weapons technology. In 1991, following the removal of U.S. nuclear weapons from the South, North and South Korea signed a Non-Aggression Pact and the Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The Declaration banned nuclear weapons in both nations and called for inspections to verify denuclearization. In January 1992, North Korea, fulfilling an obligation under the NPT, signed a nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, allowing inspections.

Diplomacy soon faltered. After a few inspections, North Korea refused to allow the inspectors access to certain facilities. In early 1993, North Korea threatened to withdraw from the NPT. 13 That year, the CIA first reported that the North might have enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons. 14

In 1994, the administration of President Bill Clinton had begun preparations for military action against North Korea when former President Jimmy Carter traveled to North Korea in June and extracted a promise from Kim Jong Il to freeze nuclear production. 1 The Agreed Framework was signed on Oct. 21, 1994.

Under the Agreed Framework, North Korea agreed to halt activities at its plutonium producing nuclear reactors in Pyongyang in exchange for a relaxation of economic sanctions, a gradual move toward normalization of diplomatic relations, fuel oil deliveries, and construction of a light-water reactor to replace the graphite-moderated reactor shut down at Pyongyang. Plutonium from light water reactors is harder to use for nuclear weapons than the plutonium procured by graphite-moderated reactors. 16 IAEA inspectors monitored North Korea's compliance. Upon completion of the light-water reactors, originally scheduled for 2003 but subsequently indefinitely delayed, North Korea was to dismantle its graphite reactors and ship its 8,000 remaining fuel rods out of the country. 17

Shortly after signing the agreement, North Korea began seeking nuclear weapons fuel through uranium enrichment. In the late 1990s, the United States began to receive scattered intelligence reports revealing a North Korean uranium enrichment program. Some evidence points to the existence of this program as early as 1987. 18 This program apparently received new life in 1997 when Pakistan, strapped for cash by U.S. sanctions, began paying for its North Korean missile imports with uranium enrichment technology.

 

[Goobieman]

Thoughts on this matter?

A nuclear-armed Iran virtually guarantees that a nuclear war will break out.

Limited or not, that's worse than most anything I can think of.

 

[Goobieman]

Do people really think that Iran is that crazy?

The Iranians have made themselves clear - they plan to destroy Israel.
That, alone, indicates that they are that crazy.

 

[Kandahar]

A nuclear-armed Iran virtually guarantees that a nuclear war will break out.

Limited or not, that's worse than most anything I can think of.

I completely agree. And I love that map in your signature.

 

[Hoot]

Let me just add this...in the 1950's the United States helped dispose of a democratically elected governemnt in Iran. ( So much for democracy, right?) Then to make matters worse, the U.S. supported a Shah that was generally hated by the Iranian people.

Why should Iran trust us? We've attacked their neighbors to the East and West and ignored the fact that Israel and Pakistan have multiple nuclear warheads.

The only reasonable scenario now, is as I described earlier...a war within the borders of Iran waged by their own disatisfied populace and fugitive dissidents. Financed secretly by the U.S. Yes, there will be bloodshed, yes there will be civilian casualties, but this is a far better protection for our own freedoms, and at a fraction of the cost of an all out war against Iran.

Perhaps we should ban all nuclear weapons in the Middle East? Think Israel will go along with that? LOL

 

[Deegan]

Let me just add this...in the 1950's the United States helped dispose of a democratically elected governemnt in Iran. ( So much for democracy, right?) Then to make matters worse, the U.S. supported a Shah that was generally hated by the Iranian people.

Why should Iran trust us? We've attacked their neighbors to the East and West and ignored the fact that Israel and Pakistan have multiple nuclear warheads.

The only reasonable scenario now, is as I described earlier...a war within the borders of Iran waged by their own disatisfied populace and fugitive dissidents. Financed secretly by the U.S. Yes, there will be bloodshed, yes there will be civilian casualties, but this is a far better protection for our own freedoms, and at a fraction of the cost of an all out war against Iran.

Perhaps we should ban all nuclear weapons in the Middle East? Think Israel will go along with that? LOL

I would like to believe that is not just a fantasy, but time is of the essence here, and Israel will not wait long, it's really in their hands. I expect we will help, but the heavy lifting will be done by Israel, and they have every right to strike right now.

 

[aquapub]

I would like to believe that is not just a fantasy, but time is of the essence here, and Israel will not wait long, it's really in their hands. I expect we will help, but the heavy lifting will be done by Israel, and they have every right to strike right now.

Absolutely. If we had a right to demand that Cuba get rid of Soviet nukes, then Israel certainly has that same right. Moreover, I think the Israeli government has not only the right but also a responsibility (to its people) to act and act swiftly.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Let me just add this...in the 1950's the United States helped dispose of a democratically elected governemnt in Iran. ( So much for democracy, right?) Then to make matters worse, the U.S. supported a Shah that was generally hated by the Iranian people.

Why should Iran trust us? We've attacked their neighbors to the East and West and ignored the fact that Israel and Pakistan have multiple nuclear warheads.

The only reasonable scenario now, is as I described earlier...a war within the borders of Iran waged by their own disatisfied populace and fugitive dissidents. Financed secretly by the U.S. Yes, there will be bloodshed, yes there will be civilian casualties, but this is a far better protection for our own freedoms, and at a fraction of the cost of an all out war against Iran.

Perhaps we should ban all nuclear weapons in the Middle East? Think Israel will go along with that? LOL

What you don't mention is that the person elected was a radical whose political ideology was akin to National Socialism, and once elected he disbanded the elections and started to align with the Soviets.

 

[JOHNYJ]

Iran is no Iraq she will defend herself and will make us pay for any attempted aggression.Also I don't think the American people will support another 'foreign adventure ".

 

[Hoot]

What you don't mention is that the person elected was a radical whose political ideology was akin to National Socialism, and once elected he disbanded the elections and started to align with the Soviets.

So, What's your point? Before CIA intervention, this 'radical' was a mild irritant to the U.S., but when we helped the Shah gain power, we cemented the hatred of the Iranian people toward the U.S...yeah, great move.

 

[JOHNYJ]

What is this either or business with Iran. We either do nothing or invade.Thats all the choices we have ? How about the CIA doing a bit of subversion. Find groups in Iran that dont like the govt. Dissident ethnic groups and supply them with money or arms to disrupt Iran

 

[Kandahar]

What is this either or business with Iran. We either do nothing or invade.Thats all the choices we have ? How about the CIA doing a bit of subversion. Find groups in Iran that dont like the govt. Dissident ethnic groups and supply them with money or arms to disrupt Iran

That's basically been the policy for the last 25 years. While it's not impossible, there's no guarantee that it will succeed before Iran gets nukes.