Nuclear strike against Iran due end of March
- Thread starter hmg
- Start date
Yes...Blair threatens Iran with...the UN Security Council!
Uh, that's a bit different to nuclear bombs.
Face it, Hotflush is right, the premise of this thread is only slightly less absurd than you responses.
Any contact with diplomatic and geopolitical reality would quickly disabuse you of the notion that the US can actively consider any preemptive strike, let alone nuclear.
Where would they strike? Do you know how many suspected nuclear sites there are in Iran? (Hint: lots.)
It's also absurd that you worry more about a non-existant US nuclear attack than the very real prospect of Iran's imminent nuclearisation.
It also reminds me of Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter's scoop about the US plans to attack Iran in June.
Last June!!
Oops, that didn't go very well, did it?
Uh, that's a bit different to nuclear bombs.
Face it, Hotflush is right, the premise of this thread is only slightly less absurd than you responses.
Any contact with diplomatic and geopolitical reality would quickly disabuse you of the notion that the US can actively consider any preemptive strike, let alone nuclear.
Where would they strike? Do you know how many suspected nuclear sites there are in Iran? (Hint: lots.)
It's also absurd that you worry more about a non-existant US nuclear attack than the very real prospect of Iran's imminent nuclearisation.
It also reminds me of Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter's scoop about the US plans to attack Iran in June.
Last June!!
Oops, that didn't go very well, did it?
D
droid
Guest
oliver craner said:
I actually agree with you that the chances of a nuclear attack against Iran are non-exsistent at the moment. A non-nuclear pre-emptive strike in the near future is a perfectly feasible possibility though.
Remember Osirak?
Yes. Truly absurd to worry about the most aggressive nation on Earth possibly attacking ANOTHER oil rich Muslim country who's development it has historically done everything in its power to control.
Its much more satisfying to obsess about the evils of our official enemies, eh Oliver? No difficult questions to answer there...
bassnation
the abyss
oliver craner said:
thats how blair reacted for sure. but what did the americans say, oliver?
oliver craner said:
its already happened, twice in the last six years. pre-emptive attacks, that is, rather than nuclear armageddon.
oliver craner said:
that didn't stop them with iraq and there weren't any weapons there!
after saying all that, i have to admit i'm not sure why they'd need nukes when normal ariel bombardment works just fine.
bassnation
the abyss
matt b said:wash the fuckers into submission! whiter than white!(sorry marc)
lol, you know it took me a minute to get that joke - bit slow this morning! must remember to spell check my utterances
How many times...there is no military option!
Do you know how vexed the Bush administration is about that? How happy they'd be if your fears were true? How convenient an Osiraq option would be?
But Osiraq is the point: it was a clear target. Blasting Saddam's one nuclear reactor (supplied by France) set back his nuclear programme decades (good work I think). But Iraq in 1980 is not Iran in 2006: Iran's nuckear programme is far more advanced. There's, what, about 18 known nuclear research/production sites in Persia. And US intelligence isn't even that good: there's no real actionable intelligence that could KO the production line.
So, I ask again, where will they strike, o wise ones? What will they strike?
Also, any kind of action can be met with strong measure by Iran: by racheting up their terror proxies from Iraq to the occupied territories to the Caspian States, or blockading the Strait of Hormuz.
This has more significane in, say, the State Dept. that you seem to realise.
Maybe, in fact, this is more your kind of idea: let iran go nuclear?
Do you know how vexed the Bush administration is about that? How happy they'd be if your fears were true? How convenient an Osiraq option would be?
But Osiraq is the point: it was a clear target. Blasting Saddam's one nuclear reactor (supplied by France) set back his nuclear programme decades (good work I think). But Iraq in 1980 is not Iran in 2006: Iran's nuckear programme is far more advanced. There's, what, about 18 known nuclear research/production sites in Persia. And US intelligence isn't even that good: there's no real actionable intelligence that could KO the production line.
So, I ask again, where will they strike, o wise ones? What will they strike?
Also, any kind of action can be met with strong measure by Iran: by racheting up their terror proxies from Iraq to the occupied territories to the Caspian States, or blockading the Strait of Hormuz.
This has more significane in, say, the State Dept. that you seem to realise.
Maybe, in fact, this is more your kind of idea: let iran go nuclear?
bassnation
the abyss
oliver craner said:
i'd like to see everyone disarm, including israel. that country has gone nuclear a long time ago. never see you shouting about them. they are easily as belligerent as iran alhough sharon is not quite as unhinged as irans leader. double stanards, oliver. maybe iran are just following the wests example.
bassnation
the abyss
oliver craner said:
its a fair point though oliver. i guess ultimately we all want the same thing - stopping nuclear proliferation and avoiding bloodshed. its just an issue of consistency - you can't condemn one country and then support your ally when it does exactly the same. what kind of message does that send out?
matt b
Indexing all opinion
oliver craner said:
well that article seems to be saying that there can be no threat in the middle east to american dominance- its simply unacceptable (goes against the concept of pax americana. what do the people who actually live in the middle east think about that mr craner- are they allowed any self determination (and just to be sure, i don't want Iran to get nuclear capabilities, but i can see why they might see such a move as important)?
I've never in my life supported Isreal's nuclear programme. If you knew me better you'd know that I'm a supporter, in fact, of Modechain Vanunu as well as the Isreali State. (Square that circle!)
Iran is currently uniquely awful. Iran with nukes will be a regional superpower run by fanatics. Iran is now strong enough to, to some extent, influence decisions made by China and Russia. Iran feels it's owed the Caucas States, at least. Iran has 6 submarines. Iran is now capable of building its own subs. When you look at it, they pretty much run global terrorism. All terror groups, except, like the Mek, at some point look to Tehran, or feel the febrile fondle of the Mullahs. But this is all cool, though.
The really important point is that Isreal has nukes and therefore I'm a hypocrite.
Iran is currently uniquely awful. Iran with nukes will be a regional superpower run by fanatics. Iran is now strong enough to, to some extent, influence decisions made by China and Russia. Iran feels it's owed the Caucas States, at least. Iran has 6 submarines. Iran is now capable of building its own subs. When you look at it, they pretty much run global terrorism. All terror groups, except, like the Mek, at some point look to Tehran, or feel the febrile fondle of the Mullahs. But this is all cool, though.
The really important point is that Isreal has nukes and therefore I'm a hypocrite.
bassnation
the abyss
oliver craner said:
ok, i stand corrected - good on you oliver (i don't mean this in a sarcastic way)
i guess its as wide of the mark as accussing us of wanting iran to acquire nuclear weapons.