Iran Already Has Nukes?

[AZLibertarian]

...This is serious business and it cannot turn into a Rumsfeld-esque fustercluck or it will escalate into a devestating world war, one which we will lose.

I think the point missed here is that, like it or not, we already are in World War IV. The real difficulty is that this war is not a traditional "military" war, but one where economics, terror, nuclear ambitions, and religion all collide into a giant asymmetric fight. We have the military might to win this thing. What we do not have (yet), is the will to do so. We've begun the long-term, and least-destructive solution by taking down Saddam and planting the seeds of democracy, but we may not have the enough time to make that our only solution.

As to this being a war "which we will lose", I have to fall back on the question: What do you really believe in? For me, I believe that democracy and freedom are worth fighting for. A nuclear Iran will destabilze the Gulf terribly--to the point that our freedoms will be hurt. The fight to eliminate their nukes will destabilize the region too, but I would rather look towards a future where we (and those in the Gulf) had the freedom to choose our paths instead of the Islamofacism which would become predominant with a nuclear Iran.

 

[Borachon]

In 1940s, without computers and poor equipment the US made an atomic bomb in 4 years.

Iran has unlimited oil money, modern computers, and has been working on this for more than 10 years.

Pakistan built an atomic bomb within 10 years and it isn't an oil rich nation.

So do I believe Iran has nukes? Oh yeah.

 

[Borachon]

Oh...and by the way...why don't we just go to solar power and say to hell with all of them? If they wanna toss nukes at each other, then I think that's a problem that very quickly solves itself.

 

[Helmetcase]

To build a solar array big enough would require using up an entire state in the midwest. I nominate Kansas.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I think the point missed here is that, like it or not, we already are in World War IV. The real difficulty is that this war is not a traditional "military" war, but one where economics, terror, nuclear ambitions, and religion all collide into a giant asymmetric fight. We have the military might to win this thing. What we do not have (yet), is the will to do so. We've begun the long-term, and least-destructive solution by taking down Saddam and planting the seeds of democracy, but we may not have the enough time to make that our only solution.

As to this being a war "which we will lose", I have to fall back on the question: What do you really believe in? For me, I believe that democracy and freedom are worth fighting for. A nuclear Iran will destabilze the Gulf terribly--to the point that our freedoms will be hurt. The fight to eliminate their nukes will destabilize the region too, but I would rather look towards a future where we (and those in the Gulf) had the freedom to choose our paths instead of the Islamofacism which would become predominant with a nuclear Iran.

AZLib gets it.

We're already in a worldwide war, and have been for decades. Our current world war is as tangible as the Cold War was. That means it's real enough to be a very serious threat, yet still abstract enough that many can deny that this is so.

They have been attacking us and our allies since at least the late '60s. It's long past time to start defending ourselves. I'm thankful that we've finally done so in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope we don't flinch if it ever comes time to make a move against Iran.

Think of it as if Iran was a bank robber with the classic "gun in his jacket pocket". You don't know if the gun is real or not, but he's screaming like a lunitic, promising to kill you and everyone else in the room if he doesn't get his way. Do you treat him like he's a lethal threat? Or do you assume he's bluffing and take the chance that you're wrong?

Personally, I'd rather not take the chance. If the criminal doesn't want to take the risk of getting shot, then he shouldn't have pretended he had a gun and was anxious to use it.

The same goes for Iran. If they don't want to receive hostile attentions from Israel and the US (at minimum) and the whole world (at most), then they need to act like they're not a threat to the rest of us. Spouting apocalyptically holstile rhetoric while trying to develope nuclear weapons is NOT the way to convice the world that you have honorable intentions.

If Iran wants to be treated like a friendly, peaceful nation, then it needs to start acting like one.

 

[Borachon]

I nominate Kansas.

Too much grain is grown there. Don't want to shade it out of existance.

Let's do California instead! I don't mind shading it out of existance.

 

[itgoesboom]

It'll be a first. Suicide bombers have been overwhelmingly Sunni. The Iranians are Shia. If it comes to pass, great. The Iranians have certainly supported terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, but it would be remarkable if they themselves began aggressively pursuing a Sunni-style political terrorism approach to the West. This is why I asked you if you knew the difference between Shia and Sunni. I see the answer is "no." Don't feel bad, apparently GWB didn't either when he took office.

I didn't feel the need to answer that question since it had no relevance to the conversation. But since I also pointed out earlier that Shia believe in the hidden Imam, and that being one of the big concerns I have over Iran getting the bomb, you would think that maybe I understand a little bit about them. Read all of my posts before you consider me to not know what I am talking about.

If it comes to pass, great.

So you think it will be great that Iranians are planning on being suicide bombers?

Intresting.

I'd rather read some examples of you understanding the MidEast beyond what you read on Newsmax.

Talk about not reading my posts. Where did I say that anything I read came from newsmax? I believe that my sources were AP through the Sydney Morning Herald, Wikipedia, and Washington Post.

facts. For example, it was YOU who said "only Muslims were on the 9/11 planes." That's true, but it ignores the fact that NONE were Shia and NONE were Iranian

I was affirming what someone else had said. He tried to point out that there were no Iranians on the planes, I affirmed that and added, nobody had claimed there were Iranians, but that there were Muslims. Try not to take my posts out of context.

The full quote was "1. Nobody has claimed that Iranians were on the planes on 9-11. Only that Muslim Terrorists were on the planes on 9-11."

What I'm getting at is that your approach talks about the Iranians as though they're the same kind of threat as other terrorist threats we're facing or have faced, and that's inaccurate.

No, my post is that Iran is even more dangerous at this point. I pointed that out because of their belief in the 12th "hidden" imam, as well as the fact that their president believes he can bring that Imam out by creating chaos and causing a war.

My suggestion to you is if you would like to debate this intelligently, don't try to take my words out of context, and don't try to put words in my mouth.

I.G.B.

 

[roo_ster]

...My credibility is above reproach, and you damn well know it...

I am reminded of some small folk wisdom about "high horses" and "hold on to your hat size."

I thought "progressives" were all about "question authority?"

Oh, I get it, "Question authority...except mine, which is above reproach."

-----------

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide."
----James Burnham

 

[Camp David]

In 1940s, without computers and poor equipment the US made an atomic bomb in 4 years.

Iran has unlimited oil money, modern computers, and has been working on this for more than 10 years.

Pakistan built an atomic bomb within 10 years and it isn't an oil rich nation.

So do I believe Iran has nukes? Oh yeah.

The important part of the analysis is this; if Iran does have the capability (possible), equipment (possible), and materials (doubtful) to make a nuclear bomb, is it weaponized? Creating a bomb is not that difficult once you have the materials, but weaponizing it is the greatest difficulty. Enrichment of
materials is the 3rd part of creating a bomb; once it is weaponized it is ready to employ. I personally doubt Iran has enriched weapons-grade uranium quite yet. Note what Iran said today:

Iran Threatens Enrichment if It's Referred; Iran Threatens to Restart Full-Scale Enrichment of Uranium if Referred to U.N. Security Council
By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1533613
VIENNA, Austria Jan 23, 2006 — Iran will immediately retaliate if referred to the U.N. Security Council next week by forging ahead with developing a full-scale uranium enrichment program, a senior envoy said Monday.

 

[Helmetcase]

I am reminded of some small folk wisdom about "high horses" and "hold on to your hat size."

I thought "progressives" were all about "question authority?"

Oh, I get it, "Question authority...except mine, which is above reproach."

Now that's a fine example of an ad hominem personal attack. I'm not an authority. I don't pretend to be. I'm just another person. However, he did question my credibility, and essentially that's calling me a liar. I don't apologize to taking offense at that. Nor do I apologize for pointing out that you not knowing the difference between "credibility" and "authority" is rather embarrassing for you.

 

[Helmetcase]

I didn't feel the need to answer that question since it had no relevance to the conversation. But since I also pointed out earlier that Shia believe in the hidden Imam, and that being one of the big concerns I have over Iran getting the bomb, you would think that maybe I understand a little bit about them. Read all of my posts before you consider me to not know what I am talking about.

The fact that you didn't find it relevant was reason enough to question your understanding. The question that really matters is "are they going to attack their neighbors?" If you're conflating support for Hezbollah with military action, it indicates a lack of understanding.

So you think it will be great that Iranians are planning on being suicide bombers?

Intresting.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Next.

I was affirming what someone else had said. He tried to point out that there were no Iranians on the planes, I affirmed that and added, nobody had claimed there were Iranians, but that there were Muslims. Try not to take my posts out of context.

If that was your intent, I stand corrected.

No, my post is that Iran is even more dangerous at this point. I pointed that out because of their belief in the 12th "hidden" imam, as well as the fact that their president believes he can bring that Imam out by creating chaos and causing a war.

If that's really what's he's up to, his own people need to take him out. Because pursuing that course of action means the Israelis won't hesitate to nuke his ass, and they won't ask our permission.

 

[PCGS65]

I don't get it? I thought everbody wants to criminalize Bush for Iraq? I remember many, many people calling him a murderer for not finding WMD? I think we better wait till Iran nukes something that way we know for sure they have WMD. It seems like many are "war mongors" like Bush was labeled a short time ago? What happened to N. Korea? Are they no longer a threat or have they taken the back seat for now? Why go after Iran? Pakastan supports terrorism and has nukes and probably is hiding OBL!!

 

[itgoesboom]

The fact that you didn't find it relevant was reason enough to question your understanding. The question that really matters is "are they going to attack their neighbors?" If you're conflating support for Hezbollah with military action, it indicates a lack of understanding.

I only find it irrelevent considering you brought it up to say that Iranians haven't participated in suicide bombings, and suggested that it was because they are Shia and not Sunni. I corrected that, showing that 15,000 Shia in Iran have volunteered to be suicide bombers.

That makes the point irrelevant. Anything you say about the Shia being different than the Sunni in this conversation no longer matters, since they are proving to have the same goals, despite their differences in who they followed after Muhammad's death, and what books they consider to be trustworthy or reliable.

In this discussion, they are one and the same.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Next.

Actually it is. Here is your quote.

It'll be a first. Suicide bombers have been overwhelmingly Sunni. The Iranians are Shia. If it comes to pass, great.

My point in this is that:

1. Sounds about right coming from someone who initially denied that the Iranian Hostage crisis was an act of terrorism.

2. See how easy it is to take something out of context and make a person's argument look weak?

Ofcourse, the above is in context to what you said.

If that was your intent, I stand corrected.

Good, you can admit being wrong or incorrect. Thats a good start.

If that's really what's he's up to, his own people need to take him out. Because pursuing that course of action means the Israelis won't hesitate to nuke his ass, and they won't ask our permission.

His own people won't take him out. Once again, he was elected not by the hardliners, but by the population under 30 (the same demographic we have hoped would reject the hardliners) because he said he would redistribute the oil wealth within his country. Something he simply can't do with the way the power is distributed within his country. Infact, he couldn't even get his choice for Oil Minister affirmed by the Parliment. He had to settle after multiple attempts and have the former Deputy Minister fill the role.

Because he was elected by the younger generation, a group that the older hardliners are afraid of, they won't touch him, for fear of setting them off. Same reason why we can't take him out. If we did that, all of those young pro-western Iranians would all of a sudden decide that yes, America is the Great Satan.

As for the Israelis, I doubt they will use nuclear weapons. That is a hard line to cross, for any country. That is why it hasn't been done since 1945.

Instead, they will do conventional airstrikes, but they have limited range for their fighter/bombers, and so will need to be based in Northern Iraq if they want to successfully strike Iran's nuke facilities.

That means that we will have to give them aid in order for them to do that, and that will pull us farther into conflict with Muslim Nations.

I.G.B.

 

[itgoesboom]

Two more Gems of yours.

I've already stipulated several times that Iran is a terrorist state. Some dude in Penna. took a hostage the other day. Are Pennsylvanians terrorists?

You already noted the difference prior to your question. One is a terrorist state, and another is a state that had a terrorist.

Pennsylvania does not condone or support terrorism.

Iran is a different matter.

I'd consider it sabre rattling. But you're missing the point. Iran does NOT have a history in modern times of attacking Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Armenia, etc., and the other countries in it's sphere of influence. There's a difference between that and being linked to terror groups. It's a different kind of threat.

Yeah, they don't attack other Muslim nations*. Good for them.

They have stated that they will wipe Israel off the map. So I guess the real difference between Sunni and Shia, according to you is that Sunni's will attack any country, including other Muslim nations, but Shia will only attack Jews. Nice to know.

Although, they have also called for the destruction of the USA.

I.G.B.

*I didn't see that you included Armenia in that list at first, but no matter.

 

[ghost squire]

Everyone here should watch Syriana and 3 Days of the Condor... More truthful then 99.99999 percent of the "news" and errornet speak.

 

[AZLibertarian]

Everyone here should watch Syriana and 3 Days of the Condor... More truthful then 99.99999 percent of the "news" and errornet speak.

Sorry, but a George Clooney film and a Robert Redford film include waaaay too much of their own political bias to count as "truthful" around my house.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"Syriana." Now there's an accurate and objective view of current international affairs.

"Bowling for Columbine" was a fair and impartial portrayal of gun ownership in America. "The Day After Tomorrow" was a scientific, fact-based story about global warming.

If you believe any of that, then perhaps you'd be interested in this bridge I own in New York. I've fallen on hard times, and I hafta sell it. I'll let you have it for a firesale price.

 

[Art Eatman]

This thread would have to improve greatly in order to work up to fire sale...

Art

 

[Helmetcase]

I only find it irrelevent considering you brought it up to say that Iranians haven't participated in suicide bombings, and suggested that it was because they are Shia and not Sunni. I corrected that, showing that 15,000 Shia in Iran have volunteered to be suicide bombers.

I wonder what they're waiting for. If they want to martyr themselves against the West and Israeli, they don't have to drive very far for all the opportunity the Armoured Cav and infantry have to offer them.

That makes the point irrelevant. Anything you say about the Shia being different than the Sunni in this conversation no longer matters, since they are proving to have the same goals,

See, you're doing it again. They don't have the same goals. The Sunnis in Iraq are very nationalistic, and their goal is an independent Iraq that suits their political and financial interests. The Iranians obviously have very different goals. Every time you type something that amounts to "all them damn Muslims are on the same page", you jam that boot further in your craw.

Actually it is. Here is your quote.

Yes, meaning great, you'll be proven right. I'm not holding my breath. If they wanted to play that game, what's stopping them from already playing it? It's not like the Iraqi borders are solid--they're anything but. Clearly they've got a different political agenda.

My point in this is that:

1. Sounds about right coming from someone who initially denied that the Iranian Hostage crisis was an act of terrorism.

I guess you could redefine it as terrorism, but you're missing the point of the overthrow of the Shah and the rise to power of the Ayatollahs--it was a junta and a coup; in some sense you can define any hostage situation as terror, I guess. Big whup. The question at hand is whether we need to be militarily involved in disarming Iran, and some angry students taking some political prisoners in 1979 is NOT relevant to that discussion. So why you're harping on it is lost on me.

Good, you can admit being wrong or incorrect. Thats a good start.

I'll be happy to admit I might have misread some or all of certain passages. That doesn't mean I won't confront wholesale misunderstandings of a complex, fluid situation head on when I see obvious conflations and incorrect assumptions.

That said, I largely agree with your tactical appraisal of the situation and that it won't be as simple as Osirak in 1981 to deny them the ability to work on nukes; you can bet they've learned from the painful lesson SH learned from that fiasco.

You already noted the difference prior to your question. One is a terrorist state, and another is a state that had a terrorist.

Pennsylvania does not condone or support terrorism.

Just pointing out that a hostage situation and a political coup 27 years ago does not a terrorist state make. They're a terrorist state for an asspile of other reasons; but really arguing about it is moot anyway--what's of interest to me is their ability and desire to engage in tactical efforts against other nearby countries. Historically it's not been their balliwick, hence the erstwhile terror links.

Yeah, they don't attack other Muslim nations*. Good for them.

In the tactical military sense, when was the last time they attacked anyone? They're more likely to be a terrorist pest than a tactical threat IMHO. Unless they seriously switch gears; and switching gears in such a fashion isn't something they can do discretely without us knowing about it. Or the Israelis. The reason states engage in that sort of shenanigans is that Iraq has learned twice in a row that going toe to toe with our military isn't such a hot idea.

They have stated that they will wipe Israel off the map.

Yeah, but they've been saying that since Khomeini. The question becomes whether they have the tactical ability to do so and are gearing up to make it happen. Right now the answer is no, and no. If that changes, I can't see any way we can avoid smacking their heads around. But we're not there yet.

So I guess the real difference between Sunni and Shia, according to you is that Sunni's will attack any country, including other Muslim nations, but Shia will only attack Jews. Nice to know.

Well, the Sunni-led Iraqis did attack the Shia dominated Iranians, but that's just one example. Really any such distinction like the one you posit would be too general to be of any use, and I wouldn't make it. So put the ole "Words In the Other Guy's Mouth" machine away.

 

[Optical Serenity]

Why is it that people believe that Iran does not have the materials to make a nuke?

According to the CIA world factbook:

Iran GDP: $551.6 Billion
Pakistan GDP: $385.2 Billion

Budget:

Iran:
revenues: $48.82 billion
expenditures: $60.4 billion

Pakistan:
revenues: $15.45 billion
expenditures: $18.42 billion


Pakistan made and tested nukes, and well, you can see from above, Iran is certainly a bit more wealthy.

 

[Helmetcase]

Heck, take away the theocratic tendencies and Iran almost as modern as some Eastern European nations. They've got a lot of western educated young people; those are the young people we'd hoped would provide the impetus for moderating the place.

 

[ghost squire]

Yes, its true, Iranians are not terrorists, nor do I think they ever will be.

Amazing, since the Iranian Revolutionary Guard trained Hizbollah and several other groups, including as far as I know al qaeda.

Oh and please name one thing you folks thing unrealistic about Syriana. If you want to know who has a political bias its you. Watch it and tell me you don't think these exact things have happened or will happen, or are happening now.

Jesus I don't even know why I bother.

 

[RON in PA]

Saw Syriana this past Sunday. Do I believe that big oil companies engage in bribery and corrupt practices? Yes! Do I believe that The CIA would like to influence the internal politics of oil producing countries so that the oil flows freely to these shores? Yes, but that policy will be formulated by the
President and his cabinet. Do I believe that the CIA will launch a guided missile to kill an Emir wannabe that might not have the best interests of the USA? Only if the Emir and his named successor want it and even then, highly unlikely ( I believe this is against US law). The movie had several threads that did not fit such as the making of the terrorist and just how did Cloony's character fit in.

Thought the portrayal of the Muslim religious teacher well done.

 

[MinScout]

I don't think we'll attack Iran overtly. I think a CIA-sponsored overthrow of the current government is much more likely. That's my guess.

 

[NineseveN]

Wow, this has been a fun thread, hopefully we'll keep it clean enough that it can stay open (hint, hint).