Iran - Should We Act Now?

Why would Iran launch nukes at anyone? Pakistan is muslim and hasn't. It knows it would get them back. Iran probably has chemical weapons and hasn't used them against Israel. As above the US has spent far more time and effort on starting wars (or bringing about 'peace'). The US hasn't used nukes recently. It doesn't need to. It has massive conventional forces at its disposal.

Iran sees the US as the Great Satan, Israel as a lesser Satan and so on.
Basically it wants Nuclear weapons partly to give itself protection from the US and secondly as a tool to further project Iranian power in the Middle East. It's hard to say if Iran's theocracy will attack Israel on religious grounds or not. The US hasn't dropped a nuclear bomb in anger since the end of WWII. It developed Nuclear Weapons because it was in an arms race with the USSR. The world came close on several occassions to the US and USSR having a Nuclear exchange. But the term I am about to use prevented that along with cooler heads prevailing over the hot heads.

As for Pakistan ? The term you are looking for is Mutually Assured Destruction. If it were to fire Nuclear Weapons at India, India would fire back at them and thus destruction of both countries is assured. That is what kept the US and USSR from kicking off a nuclear war.
The fact is the Pakistani Army is quite rational and is unlikely to use them.

The danger with Pakistan is if it fails as a state and the militants that control large parts of the tribal regions of Pakistan fill the power vacum and then gain control of the nuclear weapons. Mutually Assured Destruction goes out the window when you involve fanatical people, as logic and reason is usually thrown by the wayside.

The nightmare with Iran getting Nuclear weapons is not so much Iran using a nuclear weapon (not making light of that possibility). It's the fact Arab states will develop their own nuclear weapons aka a Nuclear Arms Race (don't kid yourself that they won't). What people forget is the Arabs do not like the Iranians and vice versa, for religious and historical reasons (history is a living and breathing beast in that region). You should also note that the Arab States are willing to work with Israel to prevent Iran getting the bomb (not openly), that should tell you how high the stakes are. If Arabs and Israeli's unite to fight a common foe while still being hostile to each other.
So you will end up with a region that would be liable to go off at any given moment with a possibility of a nuclear exchange.

My view has always been that no nation should have Nuclear weapons, but it's almost impossible to put the genie back into the bottle.


One last thing - Mossad and the IDF are reluctant to attack Iran, due to the blowback (hizbollah and co attacking). It's Israeli Politicians who want the attack to happen. The Israeli public would only support an attack if Israel has US backing. And that is not likely to be forthcoming while Obama is attempting to win a second term. Basically nothing will happen military wise until after the election or if Iran tests a nuclear device as that throws everything up in the air.
 
Err yes, I posted earlier a note from The Times saying Saudi would get nukes if Iran did.

You also said it all.

Iran wants them to protect itself from the US.

US goes round the world invading or bombing. Countries see having nukes as the only answer to the US action.
 
Err yes, I posted earlier a note from The Times saying Saudi would get nukes if Iran did.

You also said it all.

Iran wants them to protect itself from the US.

US goes round the world invading or bombing. Countries see having nukes as the only answer to the US action.

...........are you actually empathising with the Iranians here..?
 
Mutually Assured Destruction goes out the window when you involve fanatical people, as logic and reason is usually thrown by the wayside.

So should we prevent fanatics acquiring WMD at all costs?
 
So should we prevent fanatics acquiring WMD at all costs?

Too late mate, Israel has them, South Korea has them and the most fundamentally right wing Christian nation on the planet has more of them than anybody else........!
 
Too late mate, Israel has them, South Korea has them and the most fundamentally right wing Christian nation on the planet has more of them than anybody else........!

I'm sorry but you're showing your extreme prejudice. The US can in no way be compared to Iran in terms of fanaticism. Are there religious police on US streets? Are women detainees raped as a matter of policy?

The US isn't perfect, and their foreign policy will only ever be self-serving, but given the choice, I know which regime I would live under. And given the number of people trying to get US Green Cards - ironically from Iran as well as every other corner of the globe - I'd say you are living on another planet. A planet which would allow Iran nukes out of 'fairness' and 'empathy'...:eek:

Get some perspective and balance. You are just coming across as blatantly anti-American.
 
I'm sorry but you're showing your extreme prejudice. The US can in no way be compared to Iran in terms of fanaticism. Are there religious police on US streets? Are women detainees raped as a matter of policy?

The US isn't perfect, and their foreign policy will only ever be self-serving, but given the choice, I know which regime I would live under. And given the number of people trying to get US Green Cards - ironically from Iran as well as every other corner of the globe - I'd say you are living on another planet. A planet which would allow Iran nukes out of 'fairness' and 'empathy'...:eek:

Get some perspective and balance. You are just coming across as blatantly anti-American.

I have never said Iran should have nukes - just that I cannot blame them for wanting them..!

There are many forms of fanaticism my friend - women may not be raped as a matter of policy in the USA, but many more people are executed by the state there than in Iran and a disproportionate number of them happen to be black...............this could be classed as fanatical racism perhaps..?

Iran has never attacked, invaded or attempted to impose control over another nation............the USA has been directly and indirectly responsible millions of deaths and billions of dollars worth of damage imposing its will across the globe...........could this be classed as fanatical militarism.....?

I have a perspective and I am trying to be balanced by pointing out that the USA is not the paragon of virtue its propaganda machine would have you believe that it is.

Blatantly anti American...? perhaps I am, all I know is that the more I find out about how they have behaved over recent years the more I find myself empathising with the victims of their foreign policies.
 
Iran has never attacked, invaded or attempted to impose control over another nation............
The latter statement is questionable. If you wish to bathe in 1938 appeasement-esque sentiment then yopu can just about cling to that analysis - but if you take a realistic geo-political view then you have to acknowledge that is simply not true. Iran has invested significant resources into controlling and influencing events in the surrounding areas. In particular they have invested large sums of money into Afghanistan - textbook 'soft power' - as well as seemingly working with the Taliban (no doubt focused on a future post-NATO intervention):

Iran's Relations With Afghanistan | Editorials | Editorial

I have to say I agree with a poster above - between Iran and the USA I know which regime I would live under. And it most certainly woul NOT be Iran.
 
Last edited:
The latter statement is questionable. If you wish to bathe in 1938 appeasement-esque sentiment then yopu can just about cling to that analysis - but if you take a realistic geo-political view then you have to acknowledge that is simply not true. Iran has invested significant resources into controlling and influencing events in the surrounding areas. In particular they have invested large sums of money into Afghanistan - textbook 'soft power' - as well as seemingly working with the Taliban (no doubt focused on a future post-NATO intervention):

Iran's Relations With Afghanistan | Editorials | Editorial

I have to say I agree with a poster above - between Iran and the USA I know which regime I would live under. And it most certainly woul NOT be Iran.

Fair enough, but these attempts pale into total insignificance when compared to those of the USA I think we can agree..?

I also concur with you and Stanga and would choose the USA over Iran any day of the week as a place to live. I would, however, choose a number of liberal, western states all of which I consider more 'civilised' than both of these countries to reside in before considering the USA -
 
How did a thread about Iran become some sort of Anti-American outburst ? :confused:

Don't get me wrong, I don't always agree with the Yanks or some of the things they do. But what I do like is that they don't give a Flying Fig what the rest of the world thinks :smashin:

If they perceive it to be in their interests, they'll do it. Great place to live.
 
Cloverleaf said:
How did a thread about Iran become some sort of Anti-American outburst ? :confused:
It's about double standards. The US does the regime change and the invasions etc. Some nations get WMDs as they get worried about it, we then say those nations are evil and a threat.

Yes America is a 'nicer' country to live in than Iran. The US also backed a few evil regimes as long as they were friendly to the US. Iran isn't friendly to the US so will pay the price. The shah was.
 
How did a thread about Iran become some sort of Anti-American outburst ? :confused:

Don't get me wrong, I don't always agree with the Yanks or some of the things they do. But what I do like is that they don't give a Flying Fig what the rest of the world thinks :smashin:

If they perceive it to be in their interests, they'll do it. Great place to live.

How did it suddenly become about the USA..?
Who is threatening military action against Iran.................the USA..!
Who backed Iran into the corner it perceives itself to be in....the USA..!
Do you think for one second that Iran would be rushing to acquire nuclear weaponry if uncle sams foreign policy hadn't been quite so aggressive in Irans part of the world..?


Iran wouldn't be an issue if the Americans hadn't gone out of their way to try to bend them to their will. This respect you have for the yanks not giving a 'flying fig' what the rest of the world thinks makes you respect them more...:suicide:
What about the Iranians not giving a flying fig what the USA thinks or what they 'expect' them to do..? does that not warrant your respect even more if we follow the same logic..?
 
How did it suddenly become about the USA..?
Who is threatening military action against Iran.................the USA..!
Who backed Iran into the corner it perceives itself to be in....the USA..!
Do you think for one second that Iran would be rushing to acquire nuclear weaponry if uncle sams foreign policy hadn't been quite so aggressive in Irans part of the world..?


Iran wouldn't be an issue if the Americans hadn't gone out of their way to try to bend them to their will. This respect you have for the yanks not giving a 'flying fig' what the rest of the world thinks makes you respect them more...:suicide:
What about the Iranians not giving a flying fig what the USA thinks or what they 'expect' them to do..? does that not warrant your respect even more if we follow the same logic..?

I'm not massively concerned about Iran personally because I don't think when push comes to shove it will kick off big time. The people who really want to die for the cause blow themselves up, these people at the top are thankfully all talk imo. I would be worried as an Iranian though personally, I couldn't see the Americans taking anything like another 9/11 on the chin. I really think we'd be looking at something like a Hiroshima in the middle east if anyone took a similar dump on American soil. Maybe that wouldn't be logistically possible in that part of the world without affecting friendly middle east countries, but I do feel convential warfare and to use an analogy Queensbury rules would go out the window at that stage.
 
I couldn't see the Americans taking anything like another 9/11 on the chin. I really think we'd be looking at something like a Hiroshima in the middle east if anyone took a similar dump on American soil.

The problem is, who and where do you target?

I’m fairly sure that at some point, those who were indirectly involved with 9/11 have resided in the UK!!
 
The problem is, who and where do you target?

I’m fairly sure that at some point, those who were indirectly involved with 9/11 have resided in the UK!!

As always 'it depends'.

A nuke on NATO soil could be traced with nuclear forensics.

A conventional attack could be traced if it was a Taliban/Bin Laden situation.

I don't think the US would use a nuke unless it was hit with WMD itself.
 
Iran has said they want to "wipe Israel off the map"

I think we should all be concerned about Iran...

If this wasn't cRaZy enough the Iranian president is a holocaust denier... Which pretty much sums up how bonkers the dude is...

I think the earlier posters post is a bit silly to not mention Iran's publicly stated goal of wiping Israel off the map and their public declarations of nuclear weapon lust...

Hmm...
 
There are many forms of fanaticism my friend - women may not be raped as a matter of policy in the USA, but many more people are executed by the state there than in Iran and a disproportionate number of them happen to be black...............this could be classed as fanatical racism perhaps..?

The US carries out State sanctioned ethno-genocide...? Come on now.

Iran has never attacked, invaded or attempted to impose control over another nation............the USA has been directly and indirectly responsible millions of deaths and billions of dollars worth of damage imposing its will across the globe...........could this be classed as fanatical militarism.....?

Utter rubbish. How do you explain mortar crews operating in Basra in 2006 speaking Farsi and equipped with Iranian military paraphernalia?

Again, this "millions killed indirectly" ********. I've read websites that purport that the Iranian religious leadership gave explicit legitimacy for religious representatives to rape little boys and girls as young as 4 years old (provided it was anally) in the 80s. Do I believe it? Of course not.

It's just propaganda.

Perhaps we should hang our heads in shame for creating the US in the first place. I know I personally chastise myself for what happened to Pocahontas, and as for wild buffalo of North America... oh the humanity!
 
The unhinged hate America hate is getting pretty absurd now...
 
I think the earlier posters post is a bit silly to not mention Iran's publicly stated goal of wiping Israel off the map and their public declarations of nuclear weapon lust...

Hmm...

I don't even follow middle east politics to a great extent but I clearly remember that event, easily found on youtube the bloke saying it. I agree, very selective memory some. Maybe a few fundamentalists, a couple of sleeper cells are alive and well and posting on this very forum :)
 
I don't even follow middle east politics to a great extent but I clearly remember that event, easily found on youtube the bloke saying it. I agree, very selective memory some. Maybe a few fundamentalists, a couple of sleeper cells are alive and well and posting on this very forum :)

There is some debate about the translation of this, and other, statements.

However some on this forum have taken 'debate' to mean 'completely fraudulent'.:smashin:
 
Too late mate, Israel has them, South Korea has them and the most fundamentally right wing Christian nation on the planet has more of them than anybody else........!

If we had those two nations as next door neighbours I'd bloody well want them as well. America doesn't worry me as a person one iota as long as this country stays friends with them, admittedly I wouldn't want the tea party to take over but then that's more for their citizens well being as opposed to myself. I think your getting a bit carried away.
 
There is some debate about the translation of this, and other, statements.

However some on this forum have taken 'debate' to mean 'completely fraudulent'.:smashin:

I'd be interested to know whether our friend "Bishi" has ever set foot in America, spoke to Americans (then again maybe he tried and couldn't get past immigration :D)
 
I don't even follow middle east politics to a great extent but I clearly remember that event, easily found on youtube the bloke saying it. I agree, very selective memory some. Maybe a few fundamentalists, a couple of sleeper cells are alive and well and posting on this very forum :)

That's pretty lame to stoop so low as to call someone on this forum a terrorist because you dont agree with their opinions ,with that thinly veiled insult. A little extreme in itself so maybe you are the extremist.
 
Iran has said they want to "wipe Israel off the map"

I think we should all be concerned about Iran...

If this wasn't cRaZy enough the Iranian president is a holocaust denier... Which pretty much sums up how bonkers the dude is...

I think the earlier posters post is a bit silly to not mention Iran's publicly stated goal of wiping Israel off the map and their public declarations of nuclear weapon lust...

Hmm...


Hmmmm....?

Translation controversy
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was "بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود" according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[10]
The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]
Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."[15][16][17]

from here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

Now who's propaganda spin are you more likely to believe..?
I would suggest that the USA and Israel are much better at it on the international stage than Iran.

Just a thought that maybe you should consider...!
 
BISHI said:
Hmmmm....?

Translation controversy
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was "بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود" according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[10]
The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]
Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."[15][16][17]

from here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

Now who's propaganda spin are you more likely to believe..?
I would suggest that the USA and Israel are much better at it on the international stage than Iran.

Just a thought that maybe you should consider...!

Absolutely ludicrous... His underlings have repeated and expanded on his views of wiping Israel off the map...

I suppose you'll be excusing his well documented holocaust denying next?

Why do you hate America and Israel?

I guess it's to be expected when you've got MPs advocating for suicide bombers...

Crazy stuff...
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom