0 Hour has arrived with Iran

[Navy1960]

Russian-Iranian Defense Cooperation vs. U.S. Sanctions
From 1995 to 2005, more than 70 percent of Iran’s arms imports came from Russia, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a well-respected observer of global military transfers. Although Iran imported far fewer arms from Russia than either China or India during this time, it was still Russia’s third largest buyer. Russia’s weapons sales to Iran, as well as its assistance in developing Iran’s nuclear energy and space programs, are often linked to Moscow’s opposition to harsh measures levied in response to Iran’s nuclear transgressions.
http://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/ponars/pm_0427.pdf

This is a well done paper on the relationship between Iran and Russia and adds some additional views to why Iran continues to develop weapons and also might cause one to pause when advocating pre-emptive strike. Iran , unlike Iraq and Afghanistan have many more ties to other nations with much more to lose should we do such a thing. On the flip side of that Iran has much to lose should they strike Israel as well and I'm sure many of their friends have told them this, including Russia who seems to be the reason they have gotten as far as they have.

 

[geauxtohell]

You're speaking as if the leadership in Iran is sane.

I refuse to double down on this silly notion that the regime in Iran is inherently insane and therefore we have to go to war to prevent them. That line of logic is, unto itself, insane.

A cop doesn't fire at will on an insane patient by virtue of them being insane. That is not seen justification for lethal force unto itself.

The leadership in Iran is indeed sane and wants to do what any government wants to do: ensure it's continued survival.

We are extremely efficient at removing civilian governments and infrastructure. We are not good at the long fight (which would come after "regime change").

The Mullahcracy and their puppet knows it. They can threaten and saber rattle all they want, at the end of the day the knowledge that they will be destroyed (and downward pressure from China and Russia) will keep them in line.

People have long argued that the leadership in North Korea is "insane" too. Yet, no nukes have been tossed by them either.

As I said, nuclear weapons unto themselves are a deterrence and Israel has 200 of them.

There is no evidence that's the case.

Funny how people will trust religious fanatics in other nations but insist American conservative Christians are terrorists bent on establishing a theocracy.

Funny how this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Actually -- it does. Did you believe Iran when they said their weapons program was just for electricity? A lot of people did. And the people that did are afraid of American conservative Christians.

To answer your question and not digress into a silly non sequitur:

I have always believed Iran's nuclear program was about building a weapon.

 

[daveman]

I refuse to double down on this silly notion that the regime in Iran is inherently insane and therefore we have to go to war to prevent them. That line of logic is, unto itself, insane.

A cop doesn't fire at will on an insane patient by virtue of them being insane. That is not seen justification for lethal force unto itself.

The leadership in Iran is indeed sane and wants to do what any government wants to do: ensure it's continued survival.

We are extremely efficient at removing civilian governments and infrastructure. We are not good at the long fight (which would come after "regime change").

The Mullahcracy and their puppet knows it. They can threaten and saber rattle all they want, at the end of the day the knowledge that they will be destroyed (and downward pressure from China and Russia) will keep them in line.

People have long argued that the leadership in North Korea is "insane" too. Yet, no nukes have been tossed by them either.

As I said, nuclear weapons unto themselves are a deterrence and Israel has 200 of them.



Funny how this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Actually -- it does. Did you believe Iran when they said their weapons program was just for electricity? A lot of people did. And the people that did are afraid of American conservative Christians.

To answer your question and not digress into a silly non sequitur:

I have always believed Iran's nuclear program was about building a weapon.

Good. It's a shame so many stupid people didn't.

 

[geauxtohell]

Good. It's a shame so many stupid people didn't.

I am not niave, I just don't think it justifies military action.

I don't think people who are being extraordinarily hawkish about this manner have thought this matter through completely.

The reality is this: Iran is just one more country trying to get the bomb. Unless we occupy them in perpetuity, eventually they are going to get the bomb. There is no way we can cover every single nook and cranny of that country to prevent them from getting the bomb.

After Iran gets the bomb, then it will be the next rogue nation. The genie was let out of the bottle in 1945. We can't put it back in.

So, unless our official policy is going to become declaring war on every nation to prevent them from getting the bomb, we'd better start to think of some more pragmatic approaches to a problem that isn't going to go away.

 

[daveman]

Good. It's a shame so many stupid people didn't.

I am not niave, I just don't think it justifies military action.

I don't think people who are being extraordinarily hawkish about this manner have thought this matter through completely.

The reality is this: Iran is just one more country trying to get the bomb. Unless we occupy them in perpetuity, eventually they are going to get the bomb. There is no way we can cover every single nook and cranny of that country to prevent them from getting the bomb.

After Iran gets the bomb, then it will be the next rogue nation. The genie was let out of the bottle in 1945. We can't put it back in.

So, unless our official policy is going to become declaring war on every nation to prevent them from getting the bomb, we'd better start to think of some more pragmatic approaches to a problem that isn't going to go away.

The time to attack Iran's weapons infrastructure was before enrichment started. Now, it'll be an environmental nightmare -- a dirty bomb writ large.

I don't think we should preemptively strike Iran. But if they attack anyone, anywhere, our response should be utterly devastating.

 

[geauxtohell]

Good. It's a shame so many stupid people didn't.

I am not niave, I just don't think it justifies military action.

I don't think people who are being extraordinarily hawkish about this manner have thought this matter through completely.

The reality is this: Iran is just one more country trying to get the bomb. Unless we occupy them in perpetuity, eventually they are going to get the bomb. There is no way we can cover every single nook and cranny of that country to prevent them from getting the bomb.

After Iran gets the bomb, then it will be the next rogue nation. The genie was let out of the bottle in 1945. We can't put it back in.

So, unless our official policy is going to become declaring war on every nation to prevent them from getting the bomb, we'd better start to think of some more pragmatic approaches to a problem that isn't going to go away.

The time to attack Iran's weapons infrastructure was before enrichment started. Now, it'll be an environmental nightmare -- a dirty bomb writ large.

I don't think we should preemptively strike Iran. But if they attack anyone, anywhere, our response should be utterly devastating.

That I agree with. I think most of the free World would agree with that.

 

[rhodescholar]

Well, I agree with that. But you have to bet on the right horses and give them the proper degree of support. You don't want to encourage the Green Movement to rise up only to have it brutally crushed (a la Iraq's Shi'as post Gulf War). You also don't want to publicly back the Green Movement too strong and have it stick of imperialism (the death nail in Iranian politics). You also don't want to back strange, terrorist cults like the MEK.

All the short-term trends favor the regime heavily, but the long-term trends are working against it. Iran may have gotten its population growth under control, but there are still tons of young people who are less religious and have less faith in the regime. You have more people who favor reaching out to the West. And, for the first time ever, you have public disagreements among conservatives. That's a recipe for change.

I cannot understand why generally rational people still cling to the absurdity that either the iranian, lebanese or syrian people have any chance whatsoever of overthrowing the cancerous, despotic regimes that are suffocating them.

As seen in iran in 2009, and syria EVERYDAY over the past 7 months - these regimes will shoot every man, woman and child they feel like to stay in power, everyone of them. And sleep like a baby the same night, partially because they have the worst regimes of all, Russia and China, backstopping them. WTFF Russia was just admitted today to the WTO while protecting syria and iran I also cannot fathom...

Anyway, there is NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER any of these diseased regimes can be internally overthrown, saddam wasn't, khadaffi wasn't, and neither will these regimes. The only reason Mubarak was was because he was an ailing old man who did not want to have 100,000 dead egyptians on his conscience/gravestone.

Without an outside military intervention, these regimes will be fomenting terrorism and wars for many decades to come - all backed up by iran's nuclear umbrella and Russia and China's UNSC veto, just a wonderful prospect. Even if they enjoy 2 percent of their population's support, it does not matter as they will retain power through extreme violence, which they will continue to apply externally as well as a means of misleading their populations. The idiot liberals must be very happy.

 

[geauxtohell]

Well, I agree with that. But you have to bet on the right horses and give them the proper degree of support. You don't want to encourage the Green Movement to rise up only to have it brutally crushed (a la Iraq's Shi'as post Gulf War). You also don't want to publicly back the Green Movement too strong and have it stick of imperialism (the death nail in Iranian politics). You also don't want to back strange, terrorist cults like the MEK.

All the short-term trends favor the regime heavily, but the long-term trends are working against it. Iran may have gotten its population growth under control, but there are still tons of young people who are less religious and have less faith in the regime. You have more people who favor reaching out to the West. And, for the first time ever, you have public disagreements among conservatives. That's a recipe for change.

I cannot understand why generally rational people still cling to the absurdity that either the iranian, lebanese or syrian people have any chance whatsoever of overthrowing the cancerous, despotic regimes that are suffocating them.

As seen in iran in 2009, and syria EVERYDAY over the past 7 months - these regimes will shoot every man, woman and child they feel like to stay in power, everyone of them. And sleep like a baby the same night, partially because they have the worst regimes of all, Russia and China, backstopping them. WTFF Russia was just admitted today to the WTO while protecting syria and iran I also cannot fathom...

Anyway, there is NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER any of these diseased regimes can be internally overthrown, saddam wasn't, khadaffi wasn't, and neither will these regimes. The only reason Mubarak was was because he was an ailing old man who did not want to have 100,000 dead egyptians on his conscience/gravestone.

Without an outside military intervention, these regimes will be fomenting terrorism and wars for many decades to come - all backed up by iran's nuclear umbrella and Russia and China's UNSC veto, just a wonderful prospect. Even if they enjoy 2 percent of their population's support, it does not matter as they will retain power through extreme violence, which they will continue to apply externally as well as a means of misleading their populations. The idiot liberals must be very happy.

I am not happy with the situation. I am just not high on the notion of nation building.

Funny, that used to be a conservative ideal.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Hey, fuck face.

All countries deserve alternative power sources.

Anybody who doesn't realize that Iran is close to jumping on Israel is stupid. Because of a bunch of brainwashed indivudals who believe an ancient fairy tale about Armageddon and judgement day this world is pushed back into the past. I hope that somebody with a little power can come up with a solution to this mess before it gets out of hand.

Who fucking cares about Isreal? Those fucking jews can deal with there own problems. Why do we need to defend them from hostility that they created themselves?

Unless you and all your Isreal loving buddies go enlist in the army and figure out a way to pay for it then I suggest you shut the fuck up cause the rest of us dont want your fucking war.

^^Typical Ron Paul supoporting lunatic^^

No wonder that crazy lil' asshat will NEVER b elected, and rightfully so.....He attracts the dumbest of the dumb, and the looniest of the loons!

 

[rhodescholar]

I am not happy with the situation. I am just not high on the notion of nation building. Funny, that used to be a conservative ideal.

I'm not looking to nation-build, I'm looking to government-destroy. Once the regime and its power assets like the basij and RG are liquidated, the people themselves will be able to easily step into power.

 

[geauxtohell]

I am not happy with the situation. I am just not high on the notion of nation building. Funny, that used to be a conservative ideal.

I'm not looking to nation-build, I'm looking to government-destroy. Once the regime and its power assets like the basij and RG are liquidated, the people themselves will be able to easily step into power.

And you don't get that one necessitates the other.

This is how we ended up in Iraq for 8 years.

You are clueless.

 

[rhodescholar]

And you don't get that one necessitates the other. This is how we ended up in Iraq for 8 years.You are clueless.

You are the one who is clueless, dipshit. Iraq was a manufactured, artificial country with 3 distinct major groups that were not alike. Iran is far more homogenous, and would not suffer the same type of civil war between sects iraq did. You're welcome for the free demographic lesson.

 

[Trajan]

An Upcoming Report for the IAEA is expected to state that it is clear now Iran is indeed Building Offensive Nuclear Weapons. Evidence in the Report includes Iran Developing a Detonator that can only be used for a Nuclear Weapon, as well as systems to couple War Heads to Medium Range Missiles.

Russia and China are putting the heat on saying a Military Strike by Israel is Unacceptable, but I don't believe Israel see's any other choice left. I suspect Israel will attempt to carry out strikes against Key Iranian Nuclear sites before the end of this year.

IMO, it should be the US doing it. Our capabilities are far above Israels. The Chances of Succeeding in severely Damaging Iran's Nuclear Program are Far Higher if we do it. Not to mention the chances of it escalating into a wider or even World war are lower if it's not Israel doing it.

Out of all the wars we have gotten into since WWII, None involved Such Dire Security threats to the US, our allies and the entire world, as Iran with Nukes. We can not afford to give Nuclear Weapons to a Country ran by a group of Crazy fanatics who are on record saying they want to see the Return of the 12th Imam, or basically the Apocalypse. A country ripe with Radical Islamist who believe the surest path to Paradise for them and all of the Muslim world would be to Die in an Epic War Between Islam and the West.

Anyone, and I do mean Anyone, who suggests we can live with a Nuclear Iran is out of their mind, or completely Ignorant. If Iran gets Nukes and the Ability to deliver them. I give it no less than a year before they use one, or slip one to proxies who use it. Most Likely in Israel, who is SURE to retaliate with far more Powerful and Deadly Nukes.

the NEI report in 2007 said Iran had pretty much stopped work on their bomb in, 2003?


sanctions were supposed to shut off their spigot to information and equipment?



American presence and hostility was what was driving Iran to create a bomb? So?



the discovery of an Iranian assassination plot, planned to take place here via Mexican cartel cooperation?Either they don't really give a crap about what we would do if there authorship of that hit got out, or there is a rogue faction in their gov. who initiated it. Either way, its certainly revealing.

These are the same folks, and in fact those in power may be worse, who capriciously walked children in mass, into minefields, as human mine sweepers in the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's.

None, of those thoughts or scenarios makes me feel any safer when they have a nuclear weapon, and even worse, there will be Sunni nations who no longer trust our ability to keep that kind of peace, and will pursue their own, a brave new world.

 

[Trajan]

Review & Outlook: If Iran Gets the Bomb - WSJ.com

NOVEMBER 11, 2011
If Iran Gets the Bomb
The world immediately becomes a far more dangerous place

"This is a regime that took 52 American diplomats hostage and dared the Carter Administration to do something about it. It used its surrogates in Beirut to kill 258 American diplomats and Marines in 1983. The FBI believes it was behind the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. airmen. It supplied IEDs to anti-American militias in Iraq, killing hundreds of U.S. soldiers. And only last month, the Obama Administration accused Iran of seeking to blow up the Saudi ambassador in a Washington, D.C., restaurant.

These acts were perpetrated by Tehran without a nuclear umbrella. What would Iran's behavior look like if it had one?"

=====================================

This sums it all up...

So now the argument has shifted from a mushroom cloud to an emboldened Iran?

I suppose the issue has lost a degree of urgency then. Here's a novel thought, continue to lean on Iran and support the people who are fighting for democracy over there. If recent history has taught us anything, it's that regime change only works when it comes from within.

we are doing neither.

 

[Trajan]

Good. It's a shame so many stupid people didn't.

I am not niave, I just don't think it justifies military action.

I don't think people who are being extraordinarily hawkish about this manner have thought this matter through completely.

The reality is this: Iran is just one more country trying to get the bomb. Unless we occupy them in perpetuity, eventually they are going to get the bomb. There is no way we can cover every single nook and cranny of that country to prevent them from getting the bomb.

After Iran gets the bomb, then it will be the next rogue nation. The genie was let out of the bottle in 1945. We can't put it back in.

So, unless our official policy is going to become declaring war on every nation to prevent them from getting the bomb, we'd better start to think of some more pragmatic approaches to a problem that isn't going to go away.

the genie was let out of the bottle sometime in the 1960's when the UN decided that there were no 'rogue' or evil nation/states and conducted itself accordingly.

 

[Ropey]

Good. It's a shame so many stupid people didn't.

I am not niave, I just don't think it justifies military action.

I don't think people who are being extraordinarily hawkish about this manner have thought this matter through completely.

The reality is this: Iran is just one more country trying to get the bomb. Unless we occupy them in perpetuity, eventually they are going to get the bomb. There is no way we can cover every single nook and cranny of that country to prevent them from getting the bomb.

After Iran gets the bomb, then it will be the next rogue nation. The genie was let out of the bottle in 1945. We can't put it back in.

So, unless our official policy is going to become declaring war on every nation to prevent them from getting the bomb, we'd better start to think of some more pragmatic approaches to a problem that isn't going to go away.

the genie was let out of the bottle sometime in the 1960's when the UN decided that there were no 'rogue' or evil nation/states and conducted itself accordingly.

 

[Jroc]

Review & Outlook: If Iran Gets the Bomb - WSJ.com

NOVEMBER 11, 2011
If Iran Gets the Bomb
The world immediately becomes a far more dangerous place

"This is a regime that took 52 American diplomats hostage and dared the Carter Administration to do something about it. It used its surrogates in Beirut to kill 258 American diplomats and Marines in 1983. The FBI believes it was behind the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. airmen. It supplied IEDs to anti-American militias in Iraq, killing hundreds of U.S. soldiers. And only last month, the Obama Administration accused Iran of seeking to blow up the Saudi ambassador in a Washington, D.C., restaurant.

These acts were perpetrated by Tehran without a nuclear umbrella. What would Iran's behavior look like if it had one?"

=====================================

This sums it all up...

So now the argument has shifted from a mushroom cloud to an emboldened Iran?

I suppose the issue has lost a degree of urgency then. Here's a novel thought, continue to lean on Iran and support the people who are fighting for democracy over there. If recent history has taught us anything, it's that regime change only works when it comes from within.

There was a time that might have worked, but Obama took a pass. It's too late now for any of that.

 

[JStone]

Leon Panetta warns against Iran strike

US defence secretary says military action against Iranian nuclear sites could have unintended consequences for the region
Leon Panetta warns against Iran strike | World news | guardian.co.uk

Top Israeli firm: World more likely to accept nuclear Iran than pay high cost of war
poorrichards blog: Top Israeli firm: World more likely to accept nuclear Iran than pay high cost of war

Why do you spics hate the muslimes so much, puta?

Spain: Islamophobia on the Rise

Muslims in Spain are witnessing a growing trend of Islamophobia in the country. As the hostility and restrictions against expressions of Islamic symbols and practises grows in Spanish society so does the alienation of Muslims in Spain. In this briefing, Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) aims to highlight some of the many issues of religious discrimination being faced by Muslims in Spain in order to create public awareness about the human rights abuses they face.

Spain: Islamophobia on the Rise - Spain - Muslims Around the World - Alukah.net

 

[Jos]

Leon Panetta warns against Iran strike

US defence secretary says military action against Iranian nuclear sites could have unintended consequences for the region
Leon Panetta warns against Iran strike | World news | guardian.co.uk

Top Israeli firm: World more likely to accept nuclear Iran than pay high cost of war
poorrichards blog: Top Israeli firm: World more likely to accept nuclear Iran than pay high cost of war
cool heads
Leon Panetta warns against Iran strike


'You've got to watch out for the Zionists. They're people of Low quality and inasmuch as they'll Lie and steal Without them you will succeed.' Winston Churchill to the Palestinian Arabs

 

[JStone]

Leon Panetta warns against Iran strike

US defence secretary says military action against Iranian nuclear sites could have unintended consequences for the region
Leon Panetta warns against Iran strike | World news | guardian.co.uk

Top Israeli firm: World more likely to accept nuclear Iran than pay high cost of war
poorrichards blog: Top Israeli firm: World more likely to accept nuclear Iran than pay high cost of war
cool heads
Leon Panetta warns against Iran strike


'You've got to watch out for the Zionists. They're people of Low quality and inasmuch as they'll Lie and steal Without them you will succeed.' Winston Churchill to the Palestinian Arabs

Puta, you lie like an ignorant ****. No wonder spain is a bankrupt piece of shit.

Historian Sir Martin Gilbert, Official Biographer of Winston Churchill...

In addition, I cannot stress enough the importance of the few days Churchill spent throughout Palestine in 1921. The contrast between the extraordinary negative points of view put forth by the Palestinian Arabs and the equally positive ones put forth by the Zionists struck him enormously. Churchill didn't like negativism and he couldn't comprehend why the Palestinian Arabs were being so negative. It's quite curious. If you have a look at what the Palestinian Arabs told him, you'll find that three or four are actually in the Hamas Charter today, such as the world Jewish conspiracy and so on and so forth. That said, the Palestinian Arabs just made a bad impression on him and subsequently, he became very negative toward them; in modern terms, almost racist. When Churchill spoke to the Palestinian Arabs, he actually said to them, 'You've got to help the Zionists. They're people of quality and inasmuch as they'll succeed, you'll succeed. Without them you won't succeed.'

Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews, A Lifelong Friendship