Nuclear Iran Obama's Legacy

[Gerald]

Gerald writes:
I say let the whole lot of those barbarians tear each other to shreds while the rest of the world munches popcorn and watches.

I beg your pardon. Religious fanaticism is not something barbarians care to get involved with.

And you don't have to!

Just pull up a comfy chair and laugh as those folks who've been fighting over that worthless little chunk of Middle Eastern real estate beat each other into the ground.

It'll be fun!

 

[Gerald]

I'm sure the billion+ Muslims would have a thing or two to say about it.
And the nuclear fallout will certainly give us some very angry mutant Muslims.

Bring 'em on!

It just means more heads available for bashing.

Look, I'm sick of all this "diplomacy" that has never worked and never will. What we need is a nice, big, messy, no-holds-barred, everything-including-the-kitchen-sink fight.

Last one standing gets to rule the radioactive wasteland! :banana:

 

[kmoney]

Considering that they couldn't even get their act together on sanctions, I highly doubt this.

An attack on you by Iran would drastically change things. I don't think you would see the same hesitation and indecision there is now.

Besides which, there might not be an awful lot to come to the defense of. Israel is a very small country, and "a few" nuclear weapons would be the end of us.

That is true.

 

[BabyChristian]

Can't we all just get along?

When almost all countries surrounding Israel state they want to blow them off the map, then I guess that answer would be no.

 

[BabyChristian]

What does Obama's strategy have to do with Israel attacking Iran? I surely hope Israel doesn't do anything hasty because I'm sure it will get us involved. :doh:

Preemptively because Iran has made it clear what their intentions are. I don't blame Israel for doing what it plans on doing, otherwise to not strike first means the end of Israel.

 

[kmoney]

Nuclear weapons make conventional weapon balances moot. Israel and Iran have too much space between them to fight a conventional war anyway.

You ignored my question. What would you have Obama do? Did you like what Bush was doing? Do you think Bush was being more effective?

If a terrorist organization gets a bomb from Iran, things will get very messy for everyone. It is our job to make sure that never happens.

So your concern is a terrorist organization getting a bomb from Iran? Not that Iran will use it?

If you act now, I'll throw in an all they can eat alligator buffet. Operators are standing by!

I wasn't talking about buying your swampland.

Considering that it is the Iranians themselves who translated it, I would take it to mean what they say.
Israel would not be wise to wait and see if maybe Ahmedinejad was only being poetic when he tries to get nukes and threatens to wipe Israel off the map.

Assuming the translation is correct, you still have the question of what he meant by it.

And let's think about Iran nuking Israel - what would their reason for it be? It would be on behalf of the Palestinians living in the area, right? How reasonable would it be to nuke Israel? How many Palestinians would be killed in the process? Would they consider that an acceptable collateral damage? Also, how much damage would be done to the infrastructure and land? Why would they want to render so much unusable? Or is the plan to nuke Israel and then the Palestinians have to go back into the area and rebuild it all? This isn't just a conventional conflict between 2 nations fighting each other.

I'm just trying to think pragmatically. :idunno:

It doesn't necessarily mean it, but it is a reasonable enough conclusion that will justify Israel taking preventative measures.

What is your conclusion based on, besides the "wipe Israel off the map" issue?

 

[BabyChristian]

The "wipe Israel off the map hoax

I gotta say it, you're wrong.


http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=ahma...&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=a2bb30ecf4f91972

 

[kmoney]

I gotta say it, you're wrong.


http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=ahma...&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=a2bb30ecf4f91972

That link went to Google's homepage.

 

[mighty_duck]

You ignored my question. What would you have Obama do? Did you like what Bush was doing? Do you think Bush was being more effective?

I'm not sure.
At the very least immediate suffocating sanctions at least a year ago.
Supporting anti-government factions inside Iran, even organizing a coup.
Threatening to stop holding Israel back.

Anything but sitting around twiddling his thumbs.

So your concern is a terrorist organization getting a bomb from Iran? Not that Iran will use it?

I believe that is the most likely immediate threat. In the future, after we pull out of Iraq and Iran starts interfering in that regime, we will be powerless to respond with the threat of nuclear attack at the hands of itchy trigger fingered Iranians.

Not good any way you look at it.

I wasn't talking about buying your swampland.

So you actually believe the Iranians aren't trying to develop nuclear weapons in all their facilities that they won't let inspectors near? Really?

Assuming the translation is correct, you still have the question of what he meant by it.

I think he meant what he said. Destroy Israel.
Even if you could interpret it in another way, I don't think anyone in Israel could afford to be as generous as you. The penalty for being wrong is unthinkable.

And let's think about Iran nuking Israel - what would their reason for it be? It would be on behalf of the Palestinians living in the area, right? How reasonable would it be to nuke Israel? How many Palestinians would be killed in the process? Would they consider that an acceptable collateral damage? Also, how much damage would be done to the infrastructure and land? Why would they want to render so much unusable? Or is the plan to nuke Israel and then the Palestinians have to go back into the area and rebuild it all? This isn't just a conventional conflict between 2 nations fighting each other.

This is assuming they actually gave a rat's behind about the Palestinians, or the tiny tract of land in Israel. I've got news for you, they don't.
The Arabs held on to the west bank and Gaza for 20 years, but never though of giving them independence. For 60 years, there are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living like dogs in refugee camps in Arab countries.
The Iranians, not being Arabs, care even less.

If Ahmedinijad would bomb Israel he would be a hero to the Muslim world.

I'm just trying to think pragmatically. :idunno:

In the heat of the last Israel-Lebanon war, Israeli Arabs wildly cheered Hezbollah for bombing Israel, while the bombs were falling on their heads.
The amount of Arab Israeli casualties in this war was much higher than their percentage in the population.
Suicide bombers are heros.

Western pragmatism is very different from Muslim pragmatism.

 

[serpentdove]

I say let the whole lot of those barbarians tear each other to shreds while the rest of the world munches popcorn and watches...

What happens on that little piece of real estate affects the entire world. No popcorn for you. :chew: Ps 122:6.

 

[serpentdove]

"..."a few" nuclear weapons would be the end of us."

Yep. :jump: It's a great day to be saved (Mt 24:22).

Yeshua loves you (Jn 3:16). Jesus is willing to save you (2 Pe 3:9). Repent (Eze 18:30-32; Ac 17:30). Believe (Mk 9:23).

See:

:noway: Isa 53

 

[WandererInFog]

If a terrorist organization gets a bomb from Iran, things will get very messy for everyone. It is our job to make sure that never happens.

If a terrorist organization were to get a bomb from Iran and use it, Iran (or at least it's present government) would cease to exist in very short order. Nuclear materials are extremely easy to trace and it would be known within a day precisely where the bomb had been manufactured and retaliation would follow swiftly. Somehow I don't really think that's something Iran's government wants.

 

[mighty_duck]

If a terrorist organization were to get a bomb from Iran and use it, Iran (or at least it's present government) would cease to exist in very short order. Nuclear materials are extremely easy to trace and it would be known within a day precisely where the bomb had been manufactured and retaliation would follow swiftly. Somehow I don't really think that's something Iran's government wants.

It's enough if the Iranians think they have plausible deniability.

And a day or two later, it isn't certain if there would be anyone alive to press that retaliatory red button.

 

[WandererInFog]

It's enough if the Iranians think they have plausible deniability.

Well, given that they have to have actual, real scientists working for them in order to build a nuclear weapon, the chance of them thinking that is practically nil.

And a day or two later, it isn't certain if there would be anyone alive to press that retaliatory red button.

You know, nukes aren't magic weapons where just one destroys an entire nation. Unless you're imagining some sort of fantasy scenario where terrorists are able to smuggle hundreds (in the case of the US) or at least a dozen (in the case of Israel) of high yield nukes into a country, as well as somehow destroying all that country's second strike capability, there's simply no possible way for that to happen.

 

[The Barbarian]

And I'm figuring the Israelis have a plan for that. A nuclear strike on Israel that was even suspected to be from Iran would pretty much remove Tehran, Qom, and a few other major cities from this world.

 

[mighty_duck]

Well, given that they have to have actual, real scientists working for them in order to build a nuclear weapon, the chance of them thinking that is practically nil.

I doubt many of the nuclear scientists made their way very high on the Iranian decision making ladder, unless one of them happens to also be a religious nutcase, which is unlikely.

The problem with the Iranians and other religious nutjobs is that they are difficult to predict. Would you entrust the survival of your nation in the hands of people that think that blowing themselves up is a good idea as long as they kill a bunch of you? With that mindset, what could possibly be a deterrent?

You know, nukes aren't magic weapons where just one destroys an entire nation. Unless you're imagining some sort of fantasy scenario where terrorists are able to smuggle hundreds (in the case of the US) or at least a dozen (in the case of Israel) of high yield nukes into a country, as well as somehow destroying all that country's second strike capability, there's simply no possible way for that to happen.

Considering how small Israel is and how it is most of the people are located in one metropolitan area, one well placed bomb could take out about half the population.

 

[WandererInFog]

I doubt many of the nuclear scientists made their way very high on the Iranian decision making ladder, unless one of them happens to also be a religious nutcase, which is unlikely.

A scientist in Iran who actually possesses the know how to make a nuclear weapon would be one their nation's most prized assets and would absolutely have the ear of the people in charge.

The problem with the Iranians and other religious nutjobs is that they are difficult to predict. Would you entrust the survival of your nation in the hands of people that think that blowing themselves up is a good idea as long as they kill a bunch of you? With that mindset, what could possibly be a deterrent?

Hate to break the bad news to you, but people who are that crazy aren't actually capable of managing nations of 75 million people. While they love to spout their crazy rhetoric, most of the leaders of Iran are very intelligent and highly educated.

Considering how small Israel is and how it is most of the people are located in one metropolitan area, one well placed bomb could take out about half the population.

And what city would that be? Israel is a nation of 7.5 million people. The largest city, Jerusalem, has a population of about 1/10th of that.

 

[mighty_duck]

A scientist in Iran who actually possesses the know how to make a nuclear weapon would be one their nation's most prized assets and would absolutely have the ear of the people in charge.

This is simply not true in theocracies, certainly not in a radicalized one like Iran.

Hate to break the bad news to you, but people who are that crazy aren't actually capable of managing nations of 75 million people. While they love to spout their crazy rhetoric, most of the leaders of Iran are very intelligent and highly educated.

I don't doubt there are many very well educated and intelligent people in Iran. I've met many, and they are far from crazy. The general populous in Iran is among the highest caliber in the Muslim world.

But the top of the pyramid is ruled by a strict religious code, and would not hesitate to make decisions that are counter to our good sense, if only they can be justified in the context of religious dogma.

Again, I'm not saying it will happen. I'm saying it can happen, which is enough of a justification for Israel to strike and make sure it won't.

And what city would that be? Israel is a nation of 7.5 million people. The largest city, Jerusalem, has a population of about 1/10th of that.

Jerusalem in technically its largest city, but only because the Tel Aviv metro area is subdivided in to a lot of smaller municipalities. The whole metro area has over 3 million people.

 

[WandererInFog]

This is simply not true in theocracies, certainly not in a radicalized one like Iran.

The nature of Iran's government is vastly more complex than that. The deep enmity that developed between Iran and the West following the Shah being deposed had far less to with the theocratic elements of it's governance than with the extent that it's explicitly Socialist nature allied it with Soviet Russia. And in reality Iran is less theocratic than many of nations in the region that US considers allies. (Not that that's saying a whole lot mind you, but if one were forced to make the choice, it would be far better to be a Christian or Jew in Iran than one in a country like Saudi Arabia.)

I don't doubt there are many very well educated and intelligent people in Iran. I've met many, and they are far from crazy. The general populous in Iran is among the highest caliber in the Muslim world.

But the top of the pyramid is ruled by a strict religious code, and would not hesitate to make decisions that are counter to our good sense, if only they can be justified in the context of religious dogma.

Again, it's vastly more complicated than that. The actually philosophy of governing party in Iran is an admixture of Islamic and Socialist thought. I also find it odd the degree to which people are willing to believe that the Iranians are all of sudden going to provoke a region wide war, when in reality the nation has never actually started a single war of aggression.

Again, I'm not saying it will happen. I'm saying it can happen, which is enough of a justification for Israel to strike and make sure it won't.

Jerusalem in technically its largest city, but only because the Tel Aviv metro area is subdivided in to a lot of smaller municipalities. The whole metro area has over 3 million people.

Which means that it's far too big a geographical area for the fantastical "all wiped out with one smuggled nuke" scenario you proposed. As horrific as nuclear weapons are their blast radius, especially when detonated on the ground, simply isn't as big as you seem to be imagining. The only two nations which posses those really huge, wipe out an entire city size nukes are the US and Russia, and they are physically huge. Not the sort of thing that can just be smuggled into a city. And it order to do that, they have to be detonated aerially, not on the ground.

 

[kmoney]

I'm not sure.
At the very least immediate suffocating sanctions at least a year ago.
Supporting anti-government factions inside Iran, even organizing a coup.
Threatening to stop holding Israel back.

Anything but sitting around twiddling his thumbs.

A coup?? :doh: We've done enough with overthrowing governments. That's the last thing I would support.

I believe that is the most likely immediate threat. In the future, after we pull out of Iraq and Iran starts interfering in that regime, we will be powerless to respond with the threat of nuclear attack at the hands of itchy trigger fingered Iranians.

Not good any way you look at it.

We will be powerless? How so? Are you now talking about attacks on us? And you don't know there are any itchy trigger fingers in Iran.

So you actually believe the Iranians aren't trying to develop nuclear weapons in all their facilities that they won't let inspectors near? Really?

Not completely. I'm sure Iran would like to develop some nuclear weapons. A lot of countries want that power to be able to complete with the countries that do have them. What I'm not convinced is that they would use them.

I think he meant what he said. Destroy Israel.
Even if you could interpret it in another way, I don't think anyone in Israel could afford to be as generous as you. The penalty for being wrong is unthinkable.

And what's the penalty for Israel being wrong?

This is assuming they actually gave a rat's behind about the Palestinians, or the tiny tract of land in Israel. I've got news for you, they don't.
The Arabs held on to the west bank and Gaza for 20 years, but never though of giving them independence. For 60 years, there are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living like dogs in refugee camps in Arab countries.
The Iranians, not being Arabs, care even less.

I can't speak to the history that you are bringing up. All I can say is that most of the discussion that I've seen regarding Iran and Israel is in the context of the Palestinians.

In the heat of the last Israel-Lebanon war, Israeli Arabs wildly cheered Hezbollah for bombing Israel, while the bombs were falling on their heads.
The amount of Arab Israeli casualties in this war was much higher than their percentage in the population.
Suicide bombers are heros.

Western pragmatism is very different from Muslim pragmatism.

That's probably true. :think: