Attack on Iran would backfire

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by gabosaurus, Mar 5, 2007.

  1. gabosaurus
    Offline

    gabosaurus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Ratings:
    +5
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2026524,00.html

    Any military action against Iran's atomic programme is likely to backfire and accelerate Tehran's development of a nuclear bomb, a report today by a British former nuclear weapons scientist warns.

    In his report, Frank Barnaby argues that air strikes, reportedly being contemplated as an option by the White House, would strengthen the hand of Iranian hardliners, unite the Iranian population behind a bomb, and would almost certainly trigger an underground crash programme to build a small number of warheads as quickly as possible.

    "As soon as you start bombing you unite the population behind the government," Dr Barnaby told The Guardian. "Right now in Iran, there are different opinions about all this, but after an attack you would have a united people and a united scientific community."

    In a foreword Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector at the time of the Iraq war, argues that an assault in Iran could turn out to be every bit as disastrous.

    "In the case of Iraq, the armed action launched aimed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction - that did not exist. It led to tragedy and regional turmoil. In the case of Iran armed action would be aimed at intentions - that may or may not exist. However, the same result - tragedy and regional turmoil - would inevitably follow," Dr Blix wrote.
     
  2. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    I don't know. I think we've learned from Iraq. Instead of sending in a bunch of ground troops, we would probably just bomb the place back into the stone age. Pretty hard to develop nuclear weapons in a glass parking lot.

    I'll save us both some time: no, I don't give a damn about collateral damage or the "poor Iranian people". I also don't give a flying poop about world opinion and international law. I don't even really care what YOU think!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    General Patton would be proud!:lol:
    This whole deal is bigger than any of us really know and it doesn't matter what we think someone will make the determination on the outcome and if bombing them into the stone age is the answer stand by to stand by.
     
  4. Gurdari
    Offline

    Gurdari Egaliterra

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the West
    Ratings:
    +40
    Don't you want LESS terrorism in the world? Or at least less terrorism against YOUR people? I understand hitting is easier than thinking and talking (look at a two year old) but you're an adult, aren't you? Don't you have to use 'your words' on a daily basis to interact with others? Or do you just start swinging when you don't get your way?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    Well I'd be troubled by the fact that a country the size of Iran just got nuked into a glowing glass sheet. But really the Iranians should consider the facts of having nuke weapons. To have those you have to act with responsibility of the outcome of a disaster if a weapon was used against another nation. Looking back to Japan I believe we had no other options and it was the only way they would stop fighting, and they the Japanese had invaded China, Korea, Philippines and other Asian nations so it was like they weren't completely innocent with regards to the world at war.
    I personally don’t think the Iranians could or would hold much regard to human life and I feel almost certain they would use such technology as pay back to other nations and us the fear to control regional areas.
    I haven’t heard my country threaten to nuke any nation and I’m the only one that will out right say make’em glow.
     
  6. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    So what's your plan? Wait until they nuke Israel?
     
  7. gabosaurus
    Offline

    gabosaurus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Ratings:
    +5
    Whether or not Iran attacks Israel should be none of our concern. The United States should not interfere in a fued between two terrorist nations.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Gurdari
    Offline

    Gurdari Egaliterra

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the West
    Ratings:
    +40
    The facts? The fact is they have a right to nuclear power. The fact is there is no evidence they have nuke weapons, or are going to attack anyone.
    And exactly whom is supposed to act responsibly? Should Iran act like Israel and just keep everything totally secret? SHould they act like Pakistan and India and ignore the NPT? Should they act like the US and completely disregard the NPT, and threaten the possibility of NUCLEAR STRIKES against another nation (illegal)?

    Why do you feel Iranians (all of them I guess) have little regard for human life? They care about their own lives enough to overthrow a corrupt government (imposed by Britain and US) and they care enough that there are many human rights activists, protestors, etc in that nation (in danger of being assaulted by the gov for sure). So like most nations, you have people with totally differing views in one bordered region. Some of whom have way too much power, and many - most - who have very little. Hopefully, they can institute the change they want without any outside 'help'.
     
  9. Gurdari
    Offline

    Gurdari Egaliterra

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the West
    Ratings:
    +40
    My plan is not to attack another nation. No first strike, no pre-emptive assault. That way, Iran won't have to 'wait until we nuke Iran'. Iran won't feel they have to pre-emptively destroy anyone, or use what weapons they DO have before destruction reigns down... really, why back someone against a wall - there can be only one response...
    that was my rant.

    My REAL plan, once the 'decider' nations who own the UN obey the NPT, and their friends obey the NPT. THEN, and only then will it be time to enforce the NPT.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Ah...so you advocate that no two nations should sign treaties...I like that! While we are at it we should disband NATO and the UN...after all why should they interfere in a feud between two nations either!

    I am beginning to really like the way Gabosaurus thinks!
     

Share This Page