U.S. aircraft carrier sails through strategic Strait of Hormuz

[MSTeacher]

I'll bite (although it's already been touched on early in this thread). Nuclear armed countries are not attacked. If Iran had nukes, there would be no war - how exactly would that make the world less safe in your opinion?

As of now now nuclear armed countries haven't been attacked outright in full acts of war, but the CIA/MI6/Mossad crowd has been running black ops and drone strikes on Pakistan since Obama got into office after saying in no uncertain terms prior to his election that he would unilaterally attack them. Might be just semantics but I think there's a notable difference between attacks and an full scale war.

Not saying a nuclear Iran would not prevent war but the US is really pushing its limits more than ever now that the empire is in a prolonged downward slide and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization crowd continues to gain strength. Not to mention we're pretty much in a new Cold War despite most Americans thinking Russia somehow stopped their military R&D at some point and they're no longer a military superpower.

(Iran does have some modern stuff to contend with, including mirved anti-radar missiles, mach 3 sunburn missiles, the Kowsar, and they're also not dummies when it comes to big rockets. With the correct attack strategy they could definitely do some damage.)

 

[Jack7Gordon]

The Iranian army has no chance

 

[Yuckystuff]

As of now now nuclear armed countries haven't been attacked outright in full acts of war, but the CIA/MI6/Mossad crowd has been running black ops and drone strikes on Pakistan since Obama got into office after saying in no uncertain terms prior to his election that he would unilaterally attack them. Might be just semantics but I think there's a notable difference between attacks and an full scale war.

Not saying a nuclear Iran would not prevent war but the US is really pushing its limits more than ever now that the empire is in a prolonged downward slide and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization crowd continues to gain strength. Not to mention we're pretty much in a new Cold War despite most Americans thinking Russia somehow stopped their military R&D at some point and they're no longer a military superpower.

(Iran does have some modern stuff to contend with, including mirved anti-radar missiles, mach 3 sunburn missiles, the Kowsar, and they're also not dummies when it comes to big rockets. With the correct attack strategy they could definitely do some damage.)

If Iran does not get nuclear weapons - there will be war.
If Iran does get nuclear weapons - there will not be war.

Remember North Korea was on the same shit list until they developed nukes and now we don't hear a peep out of that part of the world.

 

[peacestone]

1. Israel allegedly had nukes in the late 60's. And was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan in 1973 (Yom Kippur War).
2. Pakistan attacked India in 1999 (The Kargil War) a year after both countries tested nukes.
3. Also we got em' and Bin Laden didn't give a flying a fuck. How easy you forget 9/11...

So this whole "having nukes makes a country immune to attack" argument is bullshit.

 

[Yuckystuff]

1. Israel allegedly had nukes in the late 60's. And was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan in 1973 (Yom Kippur War).
2. Pakistan attacked India in 1999 (The Kargil War) a year after both countries tested nukes.
3. Also we got em' and Bin Laden didn't give a flying a fuck. How easy you forget 9/11...

So this whole "having nukes makes a country immune to attack" argument is bullshit.

1 - Israel first tested nuclear weapons in 1979, so this point is incorrect and invalid.

2 - The Kargil War was not a war, it was a conflict in a disputed area of Kashmir originally believed to be caused by independent insurgents from Pakistan (and not state sponsored). India responded locally to regain the disputed areas of Kashmir - there was no outright war between the two countries. It came out later that Pakistan was more involved than they pretended to be, (rather than just being initiated by local terrorists), but the Mutually Assured Destruction resulting from both countries having nukes is what kept that skirmish to a minimum and prevented all out war. Had it happened a few years earlier before Pakistan developed nukes, India could have easily used it as an excuse to wage all out war against Pakistan. The presence of nukes on both sides kept the actual damage to a minimum.

3 - Bin Laden was not a country, so this point is completely invalid. The attack on 9/11 was a suicide mission, what the fuck would they care about nukes?

The fact remains, we would have attacked North Korea if they hadn't developed nukes, and now all is calm over there. Do you honestly think Iran wants to develop nukes for any reason other than to protect themselves from invasion? Do you really think they are suicidal and plan on lobbing a few nukes at Israel just to be wiped off the face of the earth 45 minutes later?

 

[Fatbat]

How do you figure the US would have attacked North Korea?

 

[dtea206]

I doubt they would do it, but I do think another war is coming.

"The official said some Pentagon war planners believe conventional bombs won't be effective against Fordow and that a tactical nuclear weapon may be the only military option if the goal is to destroy the facility. "Once things go into the mountain, then really you have to have something that takes the mountain off," the official said."

Full Article HERE

 

[mimoza3]

Iran with a nuclear weapon will be much more dangerous to its soni good neighbors than it would be to Israel, that is also why the US is responding so quickly, do not fool yourselves to think those navy movements are because of Israel, rather Saudi interests or maybe orders...

 

[Yuckystuff]

How do you figure the US would have attacked North Korea?

"Axis of Evil"?

 

[Fatbat]

"Axis of Evil"?

Just because they gave it a fancy name doesn't mean they would attack it. The North has something like 14,000 artillery pieces pointed at Seoul and the US couldn't destroy them all before that city would be flattened. That, and the probability of getting into it with China would be pretty high I think. Nah, without nukes the North still wouldn't have been attacked because the ramifications of doing so are so severe.

I don't agree that a country having a nuke guarantees that it won't be attacked and you can be damn sure that Israel will do everything in their power to destroy any nuclear weapon capability Iran might manage to assemble.

 

[Yuckystuff]

Just because they gave it a fancy name doesn't mean they would attack it. The North has something like 14,000 artillery pieces pointed at Seoul and the US couldn't destroy them all before that city would be flattened. That, and the probability of getting into it with China would be pretty high I think. Nah, without nukes the North still wouldn't have been attacked because the ramifications of doing so are so severe.

I don't agree that a country having a nuke guarantees that it won't be attacked and you can be damn sure that Israel will do everything in their power to destroy any nuclear weapon capability Iran might manage to assemble.

We'll never know for sure, but we do know that the country in the "Axis of Evil" that got nukes went untouched whereas the two that didn't already got taken out, or is about to.

If Iran had a couple of nukes, it's unlikely Israel would attack, because Iran would respond. Without nukes, Israel will attack. It's just a matter of time.

 

[MSTeacher]

We'll never know for sure, but we do know that the country in the "Axis of Evil" that got nukes went untouched whereas the two that didn't already got taken out, or is about to.

If Iran had a couple of nukes, it's unlikely Israel would attack, because Iran would respond. Without nukes, Israel will attack. It's just a matter of time.

I don't think Israel will definitely attack on their own in the near future. They're not strong enough to do it themselves. They got their asses handed to them a few years ago going up against some pretty rudimentary asymmetric warfare. One of their signature tanks was basically rendered irrelevant.

They have a strong air force. But even that's not strong enough and they know it because they're begging for better bunker busters to drill into Iran's mountain and underground facilities. Even the warmongers over there are saying war's not coming soon.

I don't even think Israel will start a war with Iran with the hope or even the guarantee that the US will follow them. If the powers that be want it done they'll set up a false flag to get the US to break the ice. They're no strangers to that strategy..

 

[peacestone]

1 - Israel first tested nuclear weapons in 1979, so this point is incorrect and invalid.

You need to have them before you test. Dig deeper than the first paragraph on Wikipedia and you will see that not only do many allege they had them before 1973, they also allege Israel had them during the 1967 war.

Also in 1991 Israel was again attacked, this time 40+ SCUD missiles shot by Iraq into Israel. So if Israel had nukes, it didn't deter an attack by Saddam Hussein.

2 - The Kargil War was not a war, it was a conflict in a disputed area of Kashmir originally believed to be caused by independent insurgents from Pakistan (and not state sponsored). India responded locally to regain the disputed areas of Kashmir - there was no outright war between the two countries. It came out later that Pakistan was more involved than they pretended to be, (rather than just being initiated by local terrorists), but the Mutually Assured Destruction resulting from both countries having nukes is what kept that skirmish to a minimum and prevented all out war. Had it happened a few years earlier before Pakistan developed nukes, India could have easily used it as an excuse to wage all out war against Pakistan. The presence of nukes on both sides kept the actual damage to a minimum.

It sounds like you agree that Pakistan attacked India while knowing India had nukes.

3 - Bin Laden was not a country, so this point is completely invalid. The attack on 9/11 was a suicide mission, what the fuck would they care about nukes?

That was the point. They don't give a fuck.

The fact remains, we would have attacked North Korea if they hadn't developed nukes, and now all is calm over there. Do you honestly think Iran wants to develop nukes for any reason other than to protect themselves from invasion? Do you really think they are suicidal and plan on lobbing a few nukes at Israel just to be wiped off the face of the earth 45 minutes later?

During the Bush administration Korea shut down their nuclear facilities, During the Obama administration Korea opened them back up.

Iran has been funding its proxy Hizzbullah with arms for decades. Iran also openly supports Hamas. If Iran acquires nukes they can supply these terrorist organizations with nukes. I would rather not see terrorists with nukes, would you?

 

[MSTeacher]

these terrorist organizations

Remind me again why they're terrorists?

Or phrased another way, if they're terrorists what are the US and Israel?

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

You guys can't really compare North Korea to Iran. Just look at a world map to see why. Taking NK wouldn't be of any massive benefit. On other hand, look at Iran... dead center in the Middle East, Gulf of Oman, Caspian Sea, loads or resources... to a geo-political leader, Iran is one of the sexiest beasts on the planet right now.

I don't know, I guess time will tell. Who knows, maybe the deterrent from China and Russia is enough to stop an invasion of Iran. I can't see either China or Russia just sitting idly by while the US takes control of the entire Middle East almost. What happens if the US goes into Iran, and China just sends in 1.5 million soldiers, and decides to take Iran for itself? Time will tell...

 

[Yuckystuff]

I don't think Israel will definitely attack on their own in the near future. They're not strong enough to do it themselves.

Isn't that what they use the US for?

You need to have them before you test. Dig deeper than the first paragraph on Wikipedia and you will see that not only do many allege they had them before 1973, they also allege Israel had them during the 1967 war.

I can allege that Israel sells Palestinian children into the global sex trade, but that doesn't make it true. There is no evidence that Israel had nukes anywhere near 1967, so I'll side with the evidence rather than allegations.

Also in 1991 Israel was again attacked, this time 40+ SCUD missiles shot by Iraq into Israel. So if Israel had nukes, it didn't deter an attack by Saddam Hussein.

That was while the US was attacking Iraq - did you forget? Do you really think Israel would nuke a country as it is being taken over by its biggest ally? And even then, Bush Sr. had to do a lot of talking and make a lot of promises to keep Israel on the sideline as the US finished off Iraq.

It sounds like you agree that Pakistan attacked India while knowing India had nukes.

If that's what you got out of what I wrote, you should reread it.

That was the point. They don't give a fuck.

Nobody is suggesting we should let Al-Qaeda develop nuclear weapons. The point is that Iran should have weapons to provide a deterrent to being attacked. Al-Qaeda had no country to protect. It's the difference between giving a gun to a homeowner vs. giving one to a criminal. One provides a defense of their life and property (Iran) and one uses it to commit crimes and murder people (criminal ie Bin Laden). Not sure how much more I can draw the distinction.

During the Bush administration Korea shut down their nuclear facilities, During the Obama administration Korea opened them back up.

Bullshit, North Korea developed their nuclear weapons during the Bush Administration, and tested them as well in 2006.

Iran has been funding its proxy Hizzbullah with arms for decades. Iran also openly supports Hamas. If Iran acquires nukes they can supply these terrorist organizations with nukes. I would rather not see terrorists with nukes, would you?

If Iran openly support Hezbollah, wouldn't giving them nukes guarantee the annihilation of Iran? Do you really think Iran wants to be wiped off the face of the earth?

 

[peacestone]

The Israeli air-force could turn back the Iranians nuclear program 10+ years, lets not kid ourselves. It won't be as easy as they did to Syria and Iraq's nuclear ambitions though.

The assumption was made multiple times ITT, that nations with nuclear weapons are immune to attack, therefore by Iran developing a nuke, Iran will be safer, the ME will be safer, and the world will be safer I pointed out multiple occasions where countries who had nukes have been attacked. So this premise, is historically inaccurate.

You say that Israel didn’t have nuclear weapons until the moment they were “tested” in 1979 and said that any assertion made that they had them prior to this is an allegation and has no credence. The vela incident also has no factual proof that it was Israeli's, and while many sources may say it was an Israel test, there are just as many reputable sources that maintain Israel had nukes while they were attacked in 1967 & 1973.

The details surrounding why Iraq launched 40 scuds at Israel, and what Israel did or didn’t do after they were attacked are simply irrelevant. Again the claim was that nations with nukes, do not get attacked, and I have pointed out that they in fact do.

Moving on to India. You admitted that “Pakistan was more involved than they pretended to be” - your words - that to me translates to you excepting the fact that Pakistan was behind the attack. So either you except the historical fact that Pakistani soldiers along side militants infiltrated India, or you don't? You do know that the Prime Minister of Pakistan admitted that they attacked India? Don't you? And weather you want to classify a conflict where thousands of combatants lost their lives as a “skirmish” and not a war is irrelevant - the claim was made that nations with nukes do not get attacked and I have pointed out that they do.

Now to Bin Ladin. You said “Nobody is suggesting we should let Al-Qaeda develop nuclear weapons” . But you would suggest that Iran develop nukes - a state sponsor of a terrorist organization (Hezbollah) who has targeted and killed more US civilians and military personnel next to Al Quida? You don’t see any danger there do you...

If Iran gets the bomb, not only could they supply their proxy terrorist organization with nukes, but the entire ME will race for nukes: Egypt/Syria/Saudi/UAE -----> Oil hits $200 a barrel.

So I don’t know about you, but I would much rather live in a world where terrorists who are aiming at me don’t have easy access to nuclear weapons, and gas doesn’t cost $10/gal. So you can continue to support Iran getting nukes as making the world a “safer place”, I will continue to hope they stop developing them, or US and/or our allies bring them back to days of the first Caliph.

 

[Moxie]

Iran has been funding its proxy Hizzbullah with arms for decades. Iran also openly supports Hamas. If Iran acquires nukes they can supply these terrorist organizations with nukes.

The US supported Bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians and they've supported shady groups in Latin America, etc. You can bet the farm that they never considered giving nukes to any of these organizations.

 

[clyde]

All opposition to the state as a state is always evil. The state never tolerates anarchists or effective reformers.

Fascism is a specific system of political economy. It gets used to mean "bad government" but it is actually something well defined which does not necessarily have anything to do with theocracy in particular. Note, Hitler and Mussolini came to power as fascists via democracy. America has a very fascistic economy and it is a constitutional republic.

I think a theocracy, depending on the religion, and how strictly the religion is enforced, could be much better than secular democracy, which is essentially amoral.

In a secular democracy, there are no morals, except that the state is always right. In a theocracy, there is rule by moral right, which might be at times barbaric and backwards, but the laws are consistent with that moral ethic. Politicians are confined to acting within the moral rules, not the whims of the voters or the money of special interests. Right and wrong are defined absolutely.

As an aside, just as the Muslims have no right to impose Sharia law on you, you have no right to impose western secular ethics on them. If you insist your morals are superior, they can also make the same claim. These are value judgments, subjective and individual.

You gotta remember, when the Danes were burning women at the stake as witches, Muslims already had 900 years of women having a right to inheritance, initiate divorce and to conduct business as private property owners.

I am not defending Islam or attacking any other religious ideal. My ethics are such that all aggression is wrong, whether it is attacking Iran to prevent them from building a bomb (or really, to protect oil interests) or attacking them to overthrow their government and way of life (apparently nothing was learned from the Islamic Revolution against the Shah and western values).

Live and let live. The Persians by and large are quite charming people.

That would work if there were no Muslims in Western Countries, AND there were no Kafir's (non-muslims) in Islamic countries AND all Muslims are free to leave Islam without having to face the death penalty.

Societies through secular democracy is the only way to live if we want to embrace multi-culturalism. Why should a SINGLE religion dictates what EVERYBODY should live by when religion is just a BELIEF of a few. i.e there's no proof/evidence that sending a couple to jail for kissing in public will do any good to society. Not even going to get into stoning. Have you ever witnessed stoning or caning? The law mandates that it's done in public.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV1eODwuU4Y"]The Stoning Of Soraya M .... [ The stoning scene ] - YouTube[/ame]

The USA has it right, separation of church and state, and do what's best for the people based on laws that are discussed and thought out, not randomly picked from the history book from 600 years ago.

Coming from an Islamic background all I can say is I'm just glad it's the way it is today. You're right, Islam was the progressive religion 600 years ago.

Obviously, it's always easier to play the "we don't give a fuck about the ME" card.