A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

[Spartacus]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

No, you don't support them. You just hate the US, that's all.

glad you can read my mind

Does Chalmers Johnson hate the US too? Mark Twain?

Or just everyone who doesn't agree with 100% of what the US government does?

[ricket]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

I would reply that the Shah was much too nice, too tolerant, and too humanitarian to the whole bunch of Islamo-fascists trying to cause trouble for him in the 1970s. Instead of just cropping their ears ( the Shah's usual punishment for trouble-makers ) I would have hung the whole bunch of the trouble-makers.

Some of these devils, these Islamo-fascists now running Iran, were educated at Berkeley. ( This is quite a story! ) And instead of returning to Iran to help establish democracy and promote Western values (of free speech, limited government, separation of government from religion, tolerance, etc.) they toppled the Shah and went on to establish an Islamic Republic. Iran was set-back 1000 years or more. They then took the entire staff of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran hostage in 1978. This violated every principle of International Law, and this was an act of war against the U.S.

Youre pathetic.

And the CIA helped topple the Iranian regime. Youre terrible at factual based reasoning.

Was it moral to supply weapons to Stalin to kill millions of Germans (also Russians, Ukrainians, Tartars, Lithuanians etc.)?

No. It is never moral to supply weapons to anyone to kill millions of people. Please explain to me a situation when this is moral.

Defend itself against whom? Let's say, US. How many millions did US kill in Iraq? I would guess, much less, than Saddam.

Let's get real and not throw slogans left and right. Mr. Starving has a good point based on his personal experience.

You would be wrong. Reports show that Saddam killed roughly 1 million people in his ~24 year rule. There have also been reports that over 1 million people have been killed in the 6 year Iraq war. I'd say the US is winning.

Oh, and Steve's points are based on a ridiculous world view. If he were running this country, our world would be a desolate wasteland of nuclear winters because he would have nuked any Muslim who didnt look like him who might have been a terrorist. It's sad really. After all, youre so intellectually lazy you can't even spell his name right. It's "Ahmadinejad".

The realpolitik in the gulf is Carter doctrine with all of its political/military consequences. US is far from perfect, but please don’t compare it to Iran.

I wouldnt compare the US to Iran either. We have killed WAY more people in WAY more illegal wars and have paid for the oppression of millions of MORE people than Iran.

No, you don't support them. You just hate the US, that's all.

Your idealogies (and those of others such as Starving Steve) have led to the demise of the US much faster than his. Id say you hate the US more.

The US has been "demonizing" them, as you put it, because they deserve demonizing. They actively supply weapons and money to terrorists, they invaded our embassy in Tehran, took our diplomatic personnel hostage and held them for over a year, and their nutjob leader regularly threatens to wipe Israel off the map.

If you think Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran, you dont know sh*t and can't be trusted with facts. That's like saying Obama has control of Wall Street and Congress isnt bought out by the financial sector.

We have a term in English for the kind of threats and kind of double-meaning speech that Arminishod makes: we would say that he is "weasel" meaning that he is sly like a fox.

We have a word for people like you too. It's called "warmonger".

Listening to an interview between Arminishod and Charlie Rose on television, Arminishod did not even take responsibility for the shooting of the young woman we all saw die on the streets of Tehran. She bled to death on worldwide television.

Bush never claimed responsibility for killing all the American soldiers and the Iraqi civilians either. After all it was his direct decision that led to their deaths. Oh, but that's ok, cause he's "Amurican, jus like me! weehoo! He's not one of dem dere Mooslem eye-rakiestans like Hoosein Obumma"

According to Mr. Arminishod, this girl was killed by one of her fellow protestors, shot by a small calibre weapon at close range. So according to Mr. Arminishod, this girl was sacraficed to stage a propaganda event on worldwide television.

And do you know of evidence that proves Ahmadinejad shot her as you claim?

This is how Arminishod talks. This is how he operates. He takes responsibility for nothing. So, in common English, we would call him, "sly", "foxy", "a weasel", even "a Hitler".

No, this is just how people like you interpret what they say.

****BEGIN RANT - you can ignore from here on out****
Starving Steve, youre probably a great guy in real life, but your world views, as expressed on this board, are quite pathetic. You should get over yourself. Im so glad people like you arent running our country because we would have unimaginable suffering all around the world. Hell, perhaps people like you *are* running the country, since there seems to be so much suffering already.

If you lack compassion for your fellow human beings, irrespective of their wicked ways, you are no better than them. You deserve to die, be bombed, nuked, and burn in hell just the same as them. Dont believe me? Read the bible, youll find out youre just a big a sinner as they are. Still don't believe me? Then of course youre one of them and youre a terrorist and deserve to suffer the same fate as them. Duh.
****END RANT****

[LargoWinch]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

No, you don't support them. You just hate the US, that's all.

Mn_Mark, every time I see a member making such a desparate and personal argument, I know they are wrong, while not honorable enough to admit it.

[cjppjc]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

didn't you get the memo?

It's morally right to supply weapons to Saddam to kill millions of Iranians, and egg him on to do it, while working behind the scenes to prevent Iran getting the weapons to defend themselves

It's morally right to demonize Iran at every opportunity - you may need to blow them up someday to distract the population

It's morally right, after orchestrating the deaths of millions and millions of Iranians, to criticize Iran for seeking the weapons to defend itself

And of course, it's morally repugnant for Iran to want to defend itself, to prevent millions from being ground into cannon dust and pink mist again

Get with the program
(NOTE for those who like to read much more into the text than is written, and then argue against that straw man, this does NOT mean I support the existing Iranian politicos)

There is no such thing as objective morality. Only subjective morality. Or rather we are incapable of anything other than subjective morality. Objective morality is only a wish for us.

[Diarmuid]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

There is no such thing as objective morality. Only subjective morality. Or rather we are incapable of anything other than subjective morality. Objective morality is only a wish for us.

True, but empathy requires one to move beyond personal subjectivity to subjective relativity.

[audrey_girl]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

Glenn Greenwald makes some very good points:



people in glass houses .....

[kartius919]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

Why this new propaganda blitz? What do they have planned? Is this simply a negotiating tactic? Is there something more? Generating support for something to come? Arianna Huffington is clueless. War monger.

[Shakespear]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

In their nuclear drive, the Iranians have been helped by China, Pakistan, India, France, Germany, Argentina, Brazil and Russia.

This is a nice line up. I am sure that with so many involved there was no chance of there not being a leak of what Iran was up to. So the question, why for all these years all was quiet and allowed to go on? Oil? Gas? Good money being made?

NKorea is the real danger, but it is under the wings of China. Israel is under the wings of US. Pakistan and India are armed and dangerous so are left alone. In summary, all is normal. Let the show go on.:cool:

[medved]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

No. It is never moral to supply weapons to anyone to kill millions of people. Please explain to me a situation when this is moral.

It is very difficult to explain anything to people suffering from excessive liberal rage and limited understanding of history, but I will try.

Without US arms and food supply Russia would not survive the years 1941/42, and Hitler would control all of Eurasian continent. I leave the rest to your imagination, you seem to have too much of it, because it suppresses your logic.

P.S. My parents definitely would not survive, because most of their food during the time of war (whenever they had any) was American egg powder, bread from American flour, American dry milk and American canned beef stew. My mom still thinks, that American beef stew was the most delicious food in the world. So, without US help to Stalin yours truly would not even be born.

[rj1]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

Why this new propaganda blitz? What do they have planned? Is this simply a negotiating tactic? Is there something more? Generating support for something to come? Arianna Huffington is clueless. War monger.

No.

People, the U.S. does not want an Iranian war. The military does not. The Department of Defense does not. The Obama administration does not. There are some people like representatives in the House that have no real power that are probably banging in their fists into tables asking for war, but it's pure rhetoric, nothing of actual worth. We have two wars going on right now. Carrying out a third is pure blasphemy, and Iran would be a far tougher nut to crack than Iraq or Afghanistan.

http://www.informationdissemination....g-problem.html

Misunderstanding the Problem




I think Glenn Greenwald has this mostly right on Iran. I think Scott Ritter has it mostly right too. I think the UN has it mostly right. If you are looking for a smoking gun on the Iranian nuclear program, you will be disappointed in your search. There is no such thing as a smoking gun as seen by the IAEA in regards to the Iranian nuclear issue.

I also think all of those who are claiming that the media frenzy over Iran looks like the same kind of media frenzy that happened shortly before the war in Iraq have it right too. It has a very similar look and feel, and it is primarily because there are some very, very smart people of all political sides who are worried war is looming.

The problem is, none of what these folks are saying is actually relevant to events unfolding in regards to Iran, because they misunderstand the problem. They believe this is about UN weapon inspection results or it represents some American political problem that can be debated reasonably on information available to the public, and that this will somehow produce a right and wrong answer on the nuclear issue that suggests a course of action that can resolve the problem. They are wrong, the Presidents choices are very limited, and at this point it appears that political damage control has already begun. The only good news is that the President appears to have a clear sense of the real problem, and is on the same page with Germany, France, Great Britain, and Russia who all appear to have a good sense of the problem too. China is, as usual, difficult to take a read from based on public statements.

Nobody in the DoD, and I mean absolutely nobody... wants to fight a war with Iran. The DoD already has nearly a quarter of a million soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the Middle East fighting two wars. The DoD does not want a third war, no matter how limited. The DoD absolutely does not want more problems in either war they are already engaged in. If you ever read anyone who suggests that the US wants war with Iran, the writer is either ignorant, or stupid.

The President of the United States, the Congress, and the vast majority of the American people do not want to fight a war with Iran. Any statement suggesting that the US government is about to start a war with Iran is false. You cannot find evidence of warmongering in the US government with the exception of a very small minority of neoconservatives. It should also be noted that everyone mentioned who doesn't want to fight a war with Iran, also does not want to see Iran get a nuclear weapon.

It does not matter that British and French intelligence have both concluded that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon. It does not matter that the Russians and Chinese don't see evidence of Iranian nuclear weapon development. It does not even matter what a US National Intelligence Estimate on the Iranian nuclear program says, either in 2007 or today. The intelligence of those countries does not matter, it really doesn't.

The only thing that matters is what Israeli political leaders think, and what the assessment of Israeli intelligence is. Nothing else matters because no one is going to start a war with Iran, well... no one except Israel.

There is a real sense in the Pentagon that Israel is preparing to attack Iran, and people who spends serious time in and around the folks in the building; from reporters to contractors to bloggers like me, etc... can sense it too. There is a very real tension in the building that time is trending towards military action from Israel against Iran. The feeling is that Israel is making strategic assessments of risk, and the risks from their point of view are trending towards a calculation that military action is worth it to them. Can Israel risk attacking Iran without US approval? Can Israel mitigate the risks to Israel from an Iranian counter-attack? Slowly the answer to both questions is trending, yes, from their point of view.

The general feeling is, Israel believes they can dish out a hell of a lot more than Iran can throw at them, and they are probably right. Hezbollah and Hamas have excellent asymmetrical defensive capabilities, but other than a finite number of rockets they really don't have good offensive options.

In a war between Israel and Iran, there will be no flights to Syria from Tehran bringing supplies to Hezbollah, and there will be no ships delivering supplies to Hamas through Egypt from sea either, as planes will be shot down and Iranian ships that try to get into the Red Sea will find a watery grave. The strategic calculus in Israel is that they have to be able to defend against about 50 conventional ballistic missiles, and that is not much different than the Saddam Hussein scenario in 1991.

Israel has superior cyber warfare capabilities over Iran, who had trouble with the cyber attacks of non-military political activists after the recent Iranain election. Israel has superior naval capabilities than Iran outside the Persian Gulf, not to mention superior air force capabilities and superior space technology. Pay attention folks, we have already started seeing the disinformation campaign from anonymous sources inside Israel.

A lot of people describe really scary scenarios, and they tell you to be afraid should Israel attack Iran. We should be concerned, a lot, but Israeli concerns on that issue are not the same as our concerns. Israeli concerns are specific to Israel. I also see a fundamental flaw in the analysis that the Persian Gulf will burn if Israel strikes Iran by the same people suggesting Iran would be a responsible actor with nuclear weapons. If Iran lashes out in retaliation of an Israeli strike against other countries, including the US and their allies in the region with any conventional military weapon, then Israel is proven correct and Iran really is led by insane madmen who shouldn't be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. I do not understand the logical argument that Iran would be responsible as a nuclear power, and that Iran would irresponsibly respond to attack by Israel by directly attacking numerous other nations by closing down the Persian Gulf.

That is a serious strategic problem for Israel though. Restraint by Iran, either constrained by Israeli military success or restraint as an Iranian political calculation, could legitimately be the defense by Iran that Israel would have the most strategic and political problems with. That type of defense by Iran would result in enormous political pressure on Israel and directly attack Israeli credibility which in turn would limit the number of shots Israel takes to destroying the Iranian nuclear program. If Iran restrains following an attack, each shot taken in the attack must be 100% effective, because tolerance by anyone in the region for more attacks will not be there.

Why is the President saying things that suggest war is impending? Why is he working so hard on sanctions if the UN really has a weak hand with intelligence assessments? Why is he building a sense of concern in the US, intentionally setting the groundwork politically for the mood of the American people against the Iranian nuclear program? This political rhetoric from the Western powers is preemptive damage control, we have even seen Russia do a bit of this recently, which is why Russia is likely to play a key role in the negotiations. I think Obama is on the same page as everyone else, and all parties are trying to hold Israel back from attacking Iran. I don't think anyone is sure if Israel can be held back.

Anyone who believes Israel would never attack Iran without permission from the US is historically ignorant, Israel did it in 1967 in what the Arabs call "The Setback," or what we call the Six Day War. How does the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) get attacked by Israel? Easy, in that war the Israelis weren't telling us what they were doing, and we were sending our spy ships in to find out what they were doing. Fog of War sucks, and we should expect thick fog if Israel attacks Iran because Israel may not trust our President much right now.

The general sense in the Pentagon is that Israel will attack unless the international community comes through with this last diplomatic effort. The President absolutely knows this, and my read of the Russian political approach to Iran is that they are aware too, which is why folks like Glenn Greenwald, Scott Ridder, and Mohamed ElBaradei can be right on the technical issues of Iranian nuclear weapon inspections all day long and it does not matter a lick. Absent a smoking gun, the only thing that matters is what the Israeli's think, because they are the one preparing to pull the trigger.

Obama's political opponents are having a field day over the decision of the IOC. The President earned all the political flack he takes on that, but losing an Olympic bid means absolutely nothing compared to the Iranian nuclear problem which is bigger than everything else happening right now. Nobody, including the Presidents political opponents domestically, will be better off if Obama doesn't get the Iranian nuclear issue resolved correctly, and these people who are casually suggesting talking to Iran is a waste of time are insane. We try everything possible to avoid another war right now, whether people believe it will work or not. The President should leave nothing untried.

When I see the story saying "President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections," I read it as not only protecting Israel's right to have nuclear weapons, but Israel seeking assurances in writing that they have the right to use nuclear weapons if necessary... perhaps on a well protected nuclear facility.

After all, if Israel is willing to accept the risk of attacking Iran knowing full well a few conventional bombs could very easily cost the United States its strategic objectives in both Afghanistan and Iraq, efforts paid for with 8 years of American blood; Israel will make damn sure they destroy what they intend to in an attack on Iran. This whole issue is about whether Israel assesses that Iran will use nuclear weapons against Israel. If the defensive purpose of nuclear weapons is to defend a country from being attacked with nuclear weapons, and defending Israel from potential Iranian nuclear weapon use against Israel is the issue here, then I think Israel use of nuclear weapons must be considered as part of the calculus.

Disbelieve Israel would go nuclear all you want, but Israels short, modern history is one of Israel consistently taking enormous risks, both politically and militarily. It is the rule rather than the exception, something we should not forget; particularly considering that the new buried and concealed nuclear site everyone is discussing is in Qom - a Shi'a Islam holy city.

The stakes for the President regarding Iran are very high, much higher than the political rhetoric of his domestic political opponents suggest. The consequences are too high for political games, something the Presidents opponents would do well to keep in mind, indeed, something his political supporters should keep in mind too. Iran may not have a nuclear weapon, but we may be closer to nuclear war today than many imagine possible, and the seriousness which most political analysts outside government are taking the issue is somewhat troubling to me. There are good reasons the President is holding his cards close regarding Iran, the stakes are too high for mistakes.

People are jumping up and down excited and happy that the U.S. is losing its global power. Well, more wars across the world is a side-effect of that happening. What happened when the Soviet Union fell and their power they used outside of their sphere no longer existed? We got wars with massive genocide and bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia and Chechnya and we got all their weapons getting distributed to not-so-nice people due to their military no longer having any money.

Obama's stance to Israel since his administration started has essentially told the Israelis they cannot count on the Americans to help them out in this spot of trouble. If Iran uses said weapon on Israel, Israel would effectively cease to exist as a functioning country, and Iran's leader has previously stated his desire against Israel's existance. Back then it was just rhetoric, but now if they have a nuclear weapon, he would have the means to do it. There's nothing that would be worse for American power in the Middle East region than Israel attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities I believe, but part of being elected leader of a democratic country is you have to look out for the welfare of the citizens under you, regardless of consequences to others. The so-called "responsibility of command" that all leaders have.

[Starving Steve]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

General Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, President FDR, Sir Winston Churchill, General Harris (Bomber Harris of Bomber Command in Britain), Charles DeGaule, Mao Tse Tung, Chaing Kai Chek, and yes, Joseph Stalin (America's "Uncle Joe") were the real heros of World War II.

[rj1]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...lear_situation

Adding on to the prior post, an excerpt from Stratfor from 3 weeks ago:

After the last round of meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, the Israelis announced that the United States had agreed that in the event of a failure in negotiations, the United States would demand — and get — crippling sanctions against Iran, code for a gasoline cutoff. In return, the Israelis indicated that any plans for a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be put off. The Israelis specifically said that the Americans had agreed on the September U.N. talks as the hard deadline for a decision on — and implementation of — sanctions.

Our view always has been that the Iranians are far from acquiring nuclear weapons. This is, we believe, the Israeli point of view. But the Israeli point of view also is that, however distant, the Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons represents a mortal danger to Israel — and that, therefore, Israel would have to use military force if diplomacy and sanctions don’t work.

For Israel, the Obama guarantee on sanctions represented the best chance at a nonmilitary settlement. If it fails, it is not clear what could possibly work. Given that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has gotten his regime back in line, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad apparently has emerged from the recent Iranian election crisis with expanded clout over Iran’s foreign policy, and that the Iranian nuclear program appears to be popular among Iranian nationalists (of whom there are many), there seems no internal impediment to the program. And given the current state of U.S.-Russian relations and that Washington is unlikely to yield Moscow hegemony in the former Soviet Union in return for help on Iran, a crippling sanctions regime is unlikely.

Obama’s assurances notwithstanding, there accordingly is no evidence of any force or process that would cause the Iranians to change their minds about their nuclear program. With that, the advantage to Israel of delaying a military strike evaporates.

And the question of the quality of intelligence must always be taken into account: The Iranians may be closer to a weapon than is believed. The value of risking delays disappears if nothing is likely to happen in the intervening period that would make a strike unnecessary.

Moreover, the Israelis have Obama in a box. Obama promised them that if Israel did not take a military route, he would deliver them crippling sanctions against Iran. Why Obama made this promise — and he has never denied the Israeli claim that he did — is not fully clear. It did buy him some time, and perhaps he felt he could manage the Russians better than he has. Whatever Obama’s motivations, having failed to deliver, the Israelis can say that they have cooperated with the United States fully, so now they are free by the terms of their understanding with Washington to carry out strikes — something that would necessarily involve the United States.

The calm assumptions in major capitals that this is merely another round in interminable talks with Iran on its weapons revolves around the belief that the Israelis are locked into place by the Americans. From where we sit, the Israelis have more room to maneuver now than they had in the past, or than they might have in the future. If that’s true, then the current crisis is more dangerous than it appears.

Netanyahu appears to have made a secret trip to Moscow (though it didn’t stay secret very long) to meet with the Russian leadership. Based on our own intelligence and this analysis, it is reasonable to assume that Netanyahu was trying to drive home to the Russians the seriousness of the situation and Israel’s intent. Russian-Israeli relations have deteriorated on a number of issues, particularly over Israeli military and intelligence aid to Ukraine and Georgia. Undoubtedly, the Russians demanded that Israel abandon this aid.

As mentioned, the chances of the Russians imposing effective sanctions on Iran are nil. This would get them nothing. And if not cooperating on sanctions triggers an Israeli airstrike, so much the better. This would degrade and potentially even effectively eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability, which in the final analysis is not in Russia’s interest. It would further enrage the Islamic world at Israel. It would put the United States in the even more difficult position of having to support Israel in the face of this hostility. And from the Russian point of view, it would all come for free. (That said, in such a scenario the Russians would lose much of the leverage the Iran card offers Moscow in negotiations with the United States.)

...

When we speak to people in Tehran, Washington and Moscow, we get the sense that they are unaware that the current situation might spin out of control. In Moscow, the scenario is dismissed because the general view is that Obama is weak and inexperienced and is frightened of military confrontation; the assumption is that he will find a way to bring the Israelis under control.

It isn’t clear that Obama can do that, however. The Israelis don’t trust him, and Iran is a core issue for them. The more Obama presses them on settlements the more they are convinced that Washington no longer cares about Israeli interests. And that means they are on their own, but free to act.

It should also be remembered that Obama reads intelligence reports from Moscow, Tehran and Berlin. He knows the consensus about him among foreign leaders, who don’t hold him in high regard. That consensus causes foreign leaders to take risks; it also causes Obama to have an interest in demonstrating that they have misread him.

We are reminded of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis only in this sense: We get the sense that everyone is misreading everyone else. In the run-up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Americans didn’t believe the Soviets would take the risks they did and the Soviets didn’t believe the Americans would react as they did. In this case, the Iranians believe the United States will play its old game and control the Israelis. Washington doesn’t really understand that Netanyahu may see this as the decisive moment. And the Russians believe Netanyahu will be controlled by an Obama afraid of an even broader conflict than he already has on his hands.

The current situation is not as dangerous as the Cuban Missile Crisis was, but it has this in common: Everyone thinks we are on a known roadmap, when in reality, one of the players — Israel — has the ability and interest to redraw the roadmap. Netanyahu has been signaling in many ways that he intends to do just this. Everyone seems to believe he won’t. We aren’t so sure.

Video analysis from Friday: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/200...eorge_friedman

[ricket]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

It is very difficult to explain anything to people suffering from excessive liberal rage and limited understanding of history, but I will try.

Without US arms and food supply Russia would not survive the years 1941/42, and Hitler would control all of Eurasian continent. I leave the rest to your imagination, you seem to have too much of it, because it suppresses your logic.

P.S. My parents definitely would not survive, because most of their food during the time of war (whenever they had any) was American egg powder, bread from American flour, American dry milk and American canned beef stew. My mom still thinks, that American beef stew was the most delicious food in the world. So, without US help to Stalin yours truly would not even be born.

Liberal rage? Youre pathetic excuse at trying to pin such a cliched perjorative label on me is a sign of intellectual weakness. I wish we could have "Rant & Rave" subsections within a thread so as to not dilute the contents of the rest of the posters.

Your parents were obviously welfare queens because they were too stupid and lazy to acquire the means to work hard enough to provide for their own safety. Isnt that how the story goes in conservative circles? People who are down on their luck and facing hard times are the only ones responsible for fixing their woes?

How come people are so hypocritical? Oh yeah, because it's all about them. As long as a problem doesnt affect you, then let everyone else suffer, but as soon as it does "woe is me, everyone save me!". I live in Georgia (US) and saw vehement opposition by Republican senators and Congressmen to healthcare reform. But as soon as 22" of rainfall comes along and affects everyone, theres calls of federal relief and "Where's the US government" from those same people. It's sad really.

And if Israel bombs Iran, oil will go to $300 (in USD) and the US dollar will collapse. The US will cease to exist in it's current form. I hope you enjoy that outcome.

[Master Shake]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

I live in Georgia (US) and saw vehement opposition by Republican senators and Congressmen to healthcare reform. But as soon as 22" of rainfall comes along and affects everyone, theres calls of federal relief and "Where's the US government" from those same people. It's sad really.

Why do you try to link two such dissimilar things such as response to a natural disaster and healthcare "reform?" They are not even remotely alike in kind, so to base an argument calling for logical consistancy on the necessity of government action for each is absurd. One who makes such an argument is either very stupid (not likely based on what I've read from you), very angry, or very partisan.

[Master Shake]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

No.

People, the U.S. does not want an Iranian war. The military does not. The Department of Defense does not. The Obama administration does not. There are some people like representatives in the House that have no real power that are probably banging in their fists into tables asking for war, but it's pure rhetoric, nothing of actual worth. We have two wars going on right now. Carrying out a third is pure blasphemy, and Iran would be a far tougher nut to crack than Iraq or Afghanistan.

http://www.informationdissemination....g-problem.html




People are jumping up and down excited and happy that the U.S. is losing its global power. Well, more wars across the world is a side-effect of that happening. What happened when the Soviet Union fell and their power they used outside of their sphere no longer existed? We got wars with massive genocide and bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia and Chechnya and we got all their weapons getting distributed to not-so-nice people due to their military no longer having any money.

Obama's stance to Israel since his administration started has essentially told the Israelis they cannot count on the Americans to help them out in this spot of trouble. If Iran uses said weapon on Israel, Israel would effectively cease to exist as a functioning country, and Iran's leader has previously stated his desire against Israel's existance. Back then it was just rhetoric, but now if they have a nuclear weapon, he would have the means to do it. There's nothing that would be worse for American power in the Middle East region than Israel attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities I believe, but part of being elected leader of a democratic country is you have to look out for the welfare of the citizens under you, regardless of consequences to others. The so-called "responsibility of command" that all leaders have.

We don't need to start a war (and didn't need to in Iraq either). Targeted cruise missiles and smart bombs would work just fine.