- This topic has 63 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
…well they certainly know how to stifle protest…
I have mixed feelings about Iran, on one hand I admire them so much, those that support the opposition movement, and I fear them [the Government regime] on the other, I mean what kind of people could shoot dead a young lady like Neda Agha-Soltan last year…. I cannot believe the conspiracy theories behind it put out by their Government…but I do find it strange that a camera was on hand to record it at the vital moments.
I think they will get their nuclear weapons…I’m not sure the West has the will or the funding to prevent it do you?…
there is a theory that once Iran goes nuclear, a lot of its neighbours will rush to shelter under the US nuclear umbrella, giving the US even greater leverage in the region.
balance that against the fact Iran has been testing its missiles from platforms in the Caspian, replicating launching from a ship.
the electro-magnetic pulse from the airburst of a suitably dirty warhead over any highly computerised / electronic-dependent nation could be devastating.
on the other hand, nuclear is the only area the current Iranian regime has going for it.
poverty and corruption are worse than at the time of the revolution 31 years ago, and the way things are going the present rulersr could crumble soon, to be replaced by who-knows-what.
its a fine judgment to be made by the US and its proxies.
…thank you for replying wit and it’s an interesting response. I certainly hadn’t been aware of most of that. Tense times ahead for all of us in this volatile situation.
I was wondering…this theory….are you suggesting, or is it implied that, by allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons this would in fact advantage the U.S. and therefore this is their desired result?
I’ve not read that anywhere else and it seems quite astonishing to me that it could be the case, always admitting that I don’t follow these issues greatly
Yep, it’s intiguing and frightening. Glad I’m not the politician that has to decide whether to nuke Iran or hang fire.
I have great admiration for the bravery of those protesting against the current regime in Iran; don’t think they’ll get too much outside help though.
AN intersesting point Wit re. how the US may gain from Iran going nuclear. Can’t see what Israel would gain by it though – and if they asked/warned the US that they’d strike Iran, would a US president say "no"?the "benefit the US" theory was most recently aired by this chap in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/opini … her&st=cse
and attracted some debate:
..thanks for the links.
certainly some food for thought but I felt more in agreement with one of the letters in reply, from a Mr Ben Linden.
I have no worries about the Iran nuclear situation – Israel, thankfully, will do what is necessary to stop it.
Israel may lack the military means for successful preemptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz told Channel 2 news on Saturday.
While endorsing international efforts to pressure Tehran into curbing sensitive nuclear technologies, Israel has hinted it could resort to force. But some analysts say Israeli jets would be stymied by the distance to Iran and by its defenses.
"We are taking upon ourselves a task that is bigger than us" Halutz, who stepped down in 2007, said when asked about Israeli leaders’ vows to "take care" of the perceived threat……
==================================
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1149454.html
from an international angle:
Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, never submitted to international inspections.
Iran signed the Treaty in 1970, has submitted to international inspections, but apparently "not enough".
from a domestic angle:
Four things Netanyahu needs for an Israeli strike on Iran, and the reader comments underneath it
Haaretz isn’t exactly an objective source – it is the Israeli version of The Guarniad, need I say any more
…..so the ex-Chief of Staff of the IDF did not say any of those things on TV in Israel ?
or he did, but he doesn’t know what he’s talking about ?
Isn’t the Israeli Prime Minister elected because he said he would stop Iran.
He can’t show weakness now….and will continue to keep talking. Whether he has the balls to strike Iran is very different.
America and the Brits are bad enough in Middle East…throw Israel into the Mix and we may aswell start draw the lines for World War 3( a Racial based war by Religion extremists that may never end).
The World is almighty mess!!!!!!
…..so the ex-Chief of Staff of the IDF did not say any of those things on TV in Israel ?
or he did, but he doesn’t know what he’s talking about ?
Halutz is a bitter and twisted old man with his own agenda and, let’s face it Arutz 2 is a tabloid TV channel not to be taken seriously in its news and current affairs coverage.
It also needs to be borne in mind, and this is probably the biggest reason why Israel
may not
launch a pre-emptive strike at the moment, is there is currently a fair amount of in fighting and politicking in the upper echelons of the IDF.
Iran gets its nuclear know-how from Russia, their not developing this independently, the Mullahs would be gone tomorrow without the support of Moscow and the Chinese, so they’ll do what their told, and I’m certain they’ve been told the Straits Of Hormuz stay open, period.
The Mullahs are getting desparate, longterm they cant win. Internationally their biggest supporters wont allow them to block 40% of the worlds oil supply and domestically there is mass civil disobedience with resultant current economic meltdown.
All this nuclear talk is just the usual load of bollox from Ahmadinejad.
Hopefully their end is nigh.
America and the Brits are bad enough in Middle East…throw Israel into the Mix and we may aswell start draw the lines for World War 3( a Racial based war by Religion extremists that may never end).
Hate to point this out to you but Israel is already in the middle east
So wallace, have you considered what the worlds security would have been like without the "brits and amercians" involvement?
Saddam without any controls? Someone who created war after war in the region as well as genocide against his own people? More stable with him around?
Afganistan? An al quaeda training base and client state? You would have been comfortable with that? a few more 9/11s, dirty nuclear weapons used in major european cities, poisoning of water supplies? These were their stated aims Still are. You think we should (and thank god some countries dont sit on their hands and act like switzerland)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.