I believe that if these guys dont stop, the Allies must do Airstrikes against their Nuclear facilities and some military targets. The second is neccessary for make Iran unable to react - E.g with Missles against Israel. I also believe that the Allies must vote for Total economical embargo against these guys. What do you believe? Please if you dont want to answer, just vote.

I think there will be: "Economical embargo and airstrikes against their Nucl. Facilities and some Military targets" but no country really wants to do this at the moment, if ever, so (and IMO this is a bad thing) I doubt anything will happen soon.

Yea thats true, i dont thing that something will happen soon. This is bad according my opinion too. These guys are dangerous without Nucks, imagine them with these kind of weapons in their hands. Their programm is not for peacefull purposes as they say, but for the creation of weapons. They must be stopped at all cost.

I'd say America and Europe all come under the above mentioned category of not wanting to go to war.

 

Israel would take action if there was proof of nuclear missiles... but Israel going and bombing another Arab country in the Middle East doesn't really sound great for the whole "peace process" thing.

Israel would take action if there was proof of nuclear missiles... but Israel going and bombing another Arab country in the Middle East doesn't really sound great for the whole "peace process" thing.

 

Technically, Iran isn't in the middle East but it's in the Persia. But, ya, it wouldn't be an ideal solution. You can except suicide bombers to increase if this were to happen.

 

I say economic embargo, at least at first.

What peace process? The legitimately-elected government of "Palestine" is openly supporting suicide bombers, and Iran has pledged millions in foreign aid since (and clearly because) Hamas was put in power.

 

The questions now become more tactical in nature than diplomatic.

Oh yeah, duh, you all know what I meant though... (referring to ecoli)

 

I don't think anything other than military action will actually be effective. Have you seen some of the things their President has been saying recently... crazy guy.

 

Here's some quotes:

source1: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4616336.stm

source2: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4941438.stm

source3: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4957282.stm

 

1) "The Iranian nation is a learned nation. It is a civilised nation. It is a history-making nation... You know and we know: you need us far more than we need you"

 

1) "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map"

 

1) "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets"

 

2) "Military action against Iran will not lead to the closure of the programme. If you take harsh measures, we will hide this programme. Then you cannot solve the nuclear issue"

 

3) "The Islamic republic will not negotiate with anyone on its absolute right to use peaceful nuclear technology. This is our red line, and we will never give it up"

 

3) "Iran's decision to master nuclear technology and the production of nuclear fuel is irreversible"

 

Actually I think the above few quotes is a really good summary of that country.

 

Pangloss... agreed. But if Israel attacked Iran's I would certainly expect this to be used as an excuse for many more suicide bombings and attacks, to which Israel would retaliate and the situation would get worst then it currently is. I know it is not currently good, but at least there aren't still daily suicide bombings and retaliations like there was.

Oh yeah' date=' duh, you all know what I meant though... (referring to ecoli)

 

I don't think anything other than military action will actually be effective. Have you seen some of the things their President has been saying recently... crazy guy.

[/quote']

 

Did you know that in recent history England is top of the league for waging war. Iran hasn't been to war with any one since it was invaded by Sadam. OK we don't kill as many people as the U.S.

 

The tone of language from the middle East is sour because of the disrespectful way we address and treat them. As far as they can tell, we in the West are happy to do nothing about the ongoing misery caused by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the threat of Israel's bomb. Yet for what they have not yet done, they are to be singled out to do what we command under threat of sanctions and invasion.

 

How would you like it if George Bush commanded Tony Blair to Disarm our nuclear force?

 

It seem's to me that if you want a peaceful world, treat other people as you wish to be treated.

Or maybe you like war.

I hear there's a disease in Mongolia that's not my fault. I'm not sure how that happened, but as a White Male American I'll get right on it, and find a way to take the blame and apologize for it somehow.

How would you like it if George Bush commanded Tony Blair to Disarm our nuclear force?

 

How would you like it if Germany said that Britain should be wiped off the face of the earth' date=' and were showing a renewed interest in building nuclear weapons, for defense of course.

 

It seem's to me that if you want a peaceful world, treat other people as you wish to be treated. Or maybe you like war.

 

I think someone preached that a long time ago..., what ever happened to him?

I've approached this poll a few times and have finally decided I can't vote because I do not have critical information. The first question is what is the genuine intelligence estimate that the President receives as to the length of time before Iran gets the bomb. The second question is what degree of confidence can be invested in such estimates.

 

Assuming that we have virtually a 100% certainty that Iran can't pull a nuclear rabbit out of the hat, then I would still not be able to answer. I would certainly attempt to rally the international community very much as we did as a prelude to the Iraq war. I would try economic sanctions, diplomacy but all the while I would keep asking my intelligence ad visors to keep me informed as to the absolute minimum time before Iran could get the bomb.

 

Even though few accept what I consider a truism (that the onus was on Saddam to come clean and that we were right to act because he did not), I would still seek to position Iran into a similar position. I would understand that intelligence is inherently risky and I would continue to push my advisors to give me the minimum time it would take Iran to nuclearize. So long as I had time, I would use it.

 

I cannot answer the question re military options because that would depend on the assessment of feasibility fro the military. If they thought a conventional strike would do the job, then there is no reason to even plan a nuclear strike. A tactical nuclear strike would only occur as an absolute last resort and probably would never be used unless a bomb went off somewhere first. The damage to the United States to using nukes first would be too great.

 

OTOH, if Iran got a nuke and if they continued to modernize to where 15 years from now they might have a briefcase nuke (if something like that could be made; if not that, then a car trunk nuke), I'd have to reassess.

 

Another level of uncertainty to us on the outside is the question posed by Pangloss. Notwithstanding the rhetoric, what is the realpolitik of the country? I would rely heavily on advisors here but would not make the mistake readily believing that a dictator appealing to a combination national pride and past humiliations does not mean what he says.

If Iran's interests are only in "peaceful energy" then perhaps they should stop work on their 6,000km range ICBMs like the Shahab-6...

If Iran's interests are only in "peaceful energy" then perhaps they should stop work on their 6,000km range ICBMs like the Shahab-6...

 

I don't think Iran's intent is in question. For that matter, I don't blame any country for wanting nukes.

 

6000 KMs? Ergh. Reagan's "Star Wars" (yet another neutral MSM label) is starting to sound like a pretty good idea....

Thank you for your response John.

 

 

Before i give an answer to your question, i would like to point out that it was the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who made the caustic statement about wiping Israel off the map, not Iran as such. That is why i used George Bush in my like-for-like question, rather than the US.

 

By the way John, do not be too impressed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's title of president.

 

According to wikipedia...

In contrast with most republics, the effective head of Iran's political establishment is not the president, but rather the Supreme Leader, who is a religious figure selected by an Assembly of Experts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran...

'Iran' itself has persistently denied seeking nuclear weapons.

 

This is your question.

 

How would you like it if Germany said that Britain should be wiped off the face of the earth, and were showing a renewed interest in building nuclear weapons, for defense of course.

I would not like it. However i am long in tooth, and persuaded by experience, not to respond to my feelings in the same way as when i was a child at school.

 

Taking into account that we have the capability to render Germany uninhabitable and that Germany does not have nuclear weapons. In no particular order..

 

In the given situation, there is no immediate danger of nuclear attack. The possibility of a conventional or terrorist attack would remain of course, and a quiet review of our defence capability would be in order.

 

I wouldn't embark on a policy of exaggerating the danger of a nuclear attack from Germany. When i hear our leaders exaggerated rhetoric over the nonexistent Iranian bomb, i am reminded of the British school bully, looking for a reason to attack an almost always weaker victim. There is in my opinion, only one way for a victim to reason with a bully-boy and that is to fight back. Even if you loose and get hurt you'll get no more hassle. (i went to thirteen different schools in two countries.)

 

Privately, I would suspend my self-interested position, and consider how the situation had developed to the point that such declarations were being made. To do that properly i would start on the premise that each side is seeing things from their own point of view, and each view point can be equally true. I would only be able to think about how to resolve the situation peacefully after such consideration. There may, or may not be an acceptable peaceful solution, but if i have to kill someone i hope it is because i am defending myself, rather than because of some disrespectful provocation by myself.

 

To my statement..

It seem's to me that if you want a peaceful world, treat other people as you wish to be treated. Or maybe you like war.

You say..

I think someone preached that a long time ago..., what ever happened to him?

 

I wonder of whom you refer.

We Apes have been given the advice of wise apes throughout the ages as to how a better life may be achieved. I ape of man, ape of no religion, party; cult or occult; reiterates this wisdom as the basis for fearless universal self and mutual respect.

 

By date, Confucius of the Chinese, Jesus of the Christians, Hillel of the Jews, and Mohammed of Islam, each gave you this same advice. i call it 'The Simple Law' by which all beings can live.

 

Treat other apes, as you would wish to be treated by other apes.

 

Fearless respect for another Apes' perception of G-d is an implicit example of the application of this advice. Neither command nor deceive an Ape to do what you would not do yourself. (Apeofman the web-book)

 

 

Now that's a very hard thing to comply with, and very few really try to. After all we are all programmed to satisfying our own immediate self interest and considering the rights of other people, often get's in the way of that. Doesn't it:rolleyes: .

 

Experience tells me that my answer will not satisfy your sensibilities or modify your view. Sorry:-(

'Iran' itself has persistently denied seeking nuclear weapons.

 

Therefore, US policy should proceed from what premise?

If Iran's interests are only in "peaceful energy" then perhaps they should stop work on their 6,000km range ICBMs like the Shahab-6...

Of course that would suit us, because we could continue to treat them as we do.

 

However, Iraq got rid of their Sud missiles in front of UN inspectors just prior to America and it's cohorts invaded. I don't think Iran is going to make the same mistake. Or do you think they are stupid enough to comply with our demands that they remain defenseless in a world of Yahoo politics and bully war-mongers.

 

I am fairly certain that we will invade Iran just as soon as our political leaders can, because they can.

However' date=' Iraq got rid of their Sud missiles in front of UN inspectors just prior to America and it's cohorts invaded. [/quote']

 

Iran is in a completely different posture than was Iraq. Iraq invaded a strategically important US ally and lost. The US then stopped short of demanding outright surrender but did impose, among other things, the requirement that Saddam disclose the status of his WMDS. Saddam agreed to these requirements which were then incorporated into UN resolutions.

 

Saddam could have easily made his destruction and/or transportation of the WMDs transparent and avoided any risk of war. His failure to come clean over twelve years and even as US forces began to build up as an obvious prelude to invasion is just further evidence of a self-destructive irrationality. It's not quite as foolish as his having invaded Kuwait in the first place or then attempted to assassinate a former US president but it's damn close.

 

Iran is at the beginning of this process. To make this analogous, we'd have to have an agreement from Iran coupled with years of UN resolutions. We'd have to have direct action by Iran against a US ally, a war fought that Iran loses, agreements entered that are then violated and a willful failure to abide by the agreements even to the point of self-destructive irrationality.

 

As much as Iran scares me, it has not yet come close to Saddam's track record of self-destructive irrationality.

Iran is in a completely different posture than was Iraq. Iraq invaded a strategically important US ally and lost. The US then stopped short of demanding outright surrender but did impose' date=' among other things, the requirement that Saddam disclose the status of his WMDS. Saddam agreed to these requirements which were then incorporated into UN resolutions.

 

Saddam could have easily made his destruction and/or transportation of the WMDs transparent and avoided any risk of war. His failure to come clean over twelve years and even as US forces began to build up as an obvious prelude to invasion is just further evidence of a self-destructive irrationality. It's not quite as foolish as his having invaded Kuwait in the first place or then attempted to assassinate a former US president but it's damn close.

 

Iran is at the beginning of this process. To make this analogous, we'd have to have an agreement from Iran coupled with years of UN resolutions. We'd have to have direct action by Iran against a US ally, a war fought that Iran loses, agreements entered that are then violated and a willful failure to abide by the agreements even to the point of self-destructive irrationality.

 

As much as Iran scares me, it has not yet come close to Saddam's self-destructive irrationality.[/quote']

 

Mostly i agree with what you have said. However, if you were Sadam and knew that your military strength was weakened (albeit his own fault ). You might well see some sense in encouraging the idea that you have WMD, as a deterrent to those hostile to you. By the way, has anybody actually seen any Israeli Nuclear missiles. I understand they are launching a "spy satellite" into a geo-stationary position over Iran. (ref bbc world service news). I wonder why:confused:

Therefore, US policy should proceed from what premise?

 

Hi Jim, I guess my viewpoint begs such a question.

 

Generally. That the Middle East and Persia are not America, and it's inhabitants are not American Indians, ready to be confined to reservation camps. That most people in the Middle East would prefer to get on with living a normal life without hinderance. That there will be no peace in the Middle East whilst the Israeli/Palestinian tragedy continues. Any solution there must maintain the dignity of both Israeli and Palestinian citizens. That putting the squeeze on people weaker than yourself, is an act of bullying/extortion that has nothing to do with freedom or democracy.

 

I could go on, but it is really a waste of time, because the die is set and nobody is going to be reasonable under the prevailing circumstances.

 

The best i can suggest off the cuff...From a premise based on what the US actually knows about Iran's actual nuclear capacity and abilities, rather than the hype of the current US President's administration...

Glad you didn't ask how to resolve the US/Iran squabble. I tend to give more thought about how to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian tragedy. There is one way to make a start on that, but it requires good will.

 

I don't know if my answer about 'premise' is of much use to you Jim. Maybe something else will occur to me later.

 

Time to take my pain killers and get some sleep.

Hi Jim, I guess my viewpoint begs such a question.

 

I'm not sure if you believe Iran's statements that they have no intention to develop nuclear weapons. These statements to me have no weight.

 

Generally. That the Middle East and Persia are not America, and it's inhabitants are not American Indians, ready to be confined to reservation camps.

 

No one has made such a claim.

 

That most people in the Middle East would prefer to get on with living a normal life without hinderance. That there will be no peace in the Middle East whilst the Israeli/Palestinian tragedy continues. Any solution there must maintain the dignity of both Israeli and Palestinian citizens.

 

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and all that followed had nothing to do with Palestinian/Israeli tensions. Iraq was (and Iran now is) trying to assert power over the region's oil resources.

 

That putting the squeeze on people weaker than yourself, is an act of bullying/extortion that has nothing to do with freedom or democracy.

 

Exactly. Iraq's invasion of the weaker Kuwait was bullying/extortion. Democracies do sometimes defend allies and then insist on the enforcement of the resulting cease fire.

 

I could go on, but it is really a waste of time, because the die is set and nobody is going to be reasonable under the prevailing circumstances.

 

The prevailing circumstances being the development by Iran of a peaceful nuclear program?

 

Napoleon’s Russian campaign was a failure for the French that had impacts on the society we live in today.

 

Yes, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait will have long term impacts. We agree.

 

The best i can suggest off the cuff...From a premise based on what the US actually knows about Iran's actual nuclear capacity and abilities, rather than the hype of the current US President's administration...

 

How do you know that what the President is saying isn't exactly what he is being told by the intel community?

 

Glad you didn't ask how to resolve the US/Iran squabble. I tend to give more thought about how to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian tragedy. There is one way to make a start on that, but it requires good will.

 

I've already posted that I think most of us in the public lack essential information to assess what the US ought to do. I hope the president gets good advice and takes it one step at a time.

Experience tells me that my answer will not satisfy your sensibilities or modify your view. Sorry

 

Why so pessimistic? Do we have to goto War so quickly?

 

Actually, I may agree with you more than you think, however, I responded because you seemed to oversimplify the situation IMO. I could say 'Love your enemies', etc. which sounds good, if you are bent on going to heaven, not if you are trying to survive in a hostile world. I think this is a bigger issue for the countries around Iran and that Russia and China would be better at working with them, but they are not ready for Prime Time just yet.

 

 

Privately, I would suspend my self-interested position, and consider how the situation had developed to the point that such declarations were being made.

 

I agree and hope that they are assessing the situation from many angles. I personally think Iran is trying to acquire Nukes to avoid ending up like Iraq, but that doesn't mean they won't end up using them in a missle, or as a dirty bomb.

 

There may, or may not be an acceptable peaceful solution, but if i have to kill someone i hope it is because i am defending myself, rather than because of some disrespectful provocation by myself.

 

True, which is why I would avoid invading, but destroying facilities would be better for Iran than prolonged isolation or destruction(if they use nukes).

 

 

Mostly i agree with what you have said. However, if you were Sadam and knew that your military strength was weakened (albeit his own fault ). You might well see some sense in encouraging the idea that you have WMD, as a deterrent to those hostile to you.

 

Yes, I think he was always worried about Iran, his real enemy.

 

 

Glad you didn't ask how to resolve the US/Iran squabble. I tend to give more thought about how to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian tragedy. There is one way to make a start on that, but it requires good will.

 

Yes, Palestinians need to give up violence and get on with their lives.

By the way John' date=' do not be too impressed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's title of president.

 

According to wikipedia...

[indent']In contrast with most republics, the effective head of Iran's political establishment is not the president, but rather the Supreme Leader, who is a religious figure selected by an Assembly of Experts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran...

[/indent][/indent]

'Iran' itself has persistently denied seeking nuclear weapons.

 

But if the clerics are the ones who are really in charge then that's actually a *bad* sign, because they're the ones who are making the *most* outrageous statements, far in excess of what the president has said. It was a cleric who said they were really working on nuclear weapons, and it was a cleric who recently talked about giving nuclear technology to countries like Sudan.

 

Saying that the president is weak and a mere puppet of the clerics should send a shiver up the spine of every free mind in the western hemisphere.

That the Middle East and Persia are not America' date=' and it's inhabitants are not American Indians, ready to be confined to reservation camps. That most people in the Middle East would prefer to get on with living a normal life without hinderance. That there will be no peace in the Middle East whilst the Israeli/Palestinian tragedy continues. Any solution there must maintain the dignity of both Israeli and Palestinian citizens. That putting the squeeze on people weaker than yourself, is an act of bullying/extortion that has nothing to do with freedom or democracy.

 

I could go on, but it is really a waste of time, because the die is set and nobody is going to be reasonable under the prevailing circumstances.

[/quote']

 

The thing that I don't get about this position, which is very common, is that people who espouse it seem to miss the fact that they're performing exactly the very evil that they accuse others of performing.

 

By just blame everything on Americans, nobody else has to take any responsibility for their behavior. No matter how eggregious the sin, it MUST be the west's fault somehow. (Or more specifically, whenever possible, white male Americans, because they're the worst of the lot, right?)

 

It's just so easy, isn't it? Debate is no longer needed, we can just lump everything together into one big Cause/Final Solution.

 

Where do I sign up for my spot in the death camp, and can I bring my double iced cappucino with me?

The thing that I don't get about this position' date=' which is very common, is that people who espouse it seem to miss the fact that they're performing exactly the very evil that they accuse others of performing.

 

By just blame everything on Americans, nobody else has to take any responsibility for their behavior. No matter how eggregious the sin, it MUST be the west's fault somehow. (Or more specifically, whenever possible, [i']white male[/i] Americans, because they're the worst of the lot, right?)

 

It's just so easy, isn't it? Debate is no longer needed, we can just lump everything together into one big Cause/Final Solution.

 

Where do I sign up for my spot in the death camp, and can I bring my double iced cappucino with me?

 

Very well said, Pangloss.

Very well said, Pangloss.

 

indeed... and I have a feeling that this trend will continue. White, middle and upper class males will be soon blamed for every problem from global warming to genocides in the middle east... oh wait. They already are. But, if we say anything bad about it, we're labelled as racist, bigots or that we hate the earth. It's a loose/loose situation.