Iran harboring Al Qaeda!

[Dahak]

Ah yes, the ubiqitous justify-all-means argument these days... After a while it really gets annoying.

You are of the opinion that any interested party ? especially Iran ? should be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons?

There is a very limited range of consequences that could result of our flattening the research reactors conventionally. Not to mention numerous justifications. Take every argument about Iraq on which Bush failed to convince you and look next door. Now tell me that any of those are wrong. Iran does have weapons of mass destruction. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran is harboring al-Qaeda. Iran is a dictatorship predisposed to be at odds with the United States of America.

Will we expose ourselves to additional terrorism by lobbing a few missiles at Iran? Potentially. And certainly it won?t be anything more serious than we?re seeing as a result of Iraq. When you weight that against the potential for Iran to have passed on fissile material or threaten its neighbors (i.e. Afghanistan and Iraq) with a fully-functional nuclear arsenal however, the gamble is clearly in our favor. An Osirak, Part II if you will.

I find it quite ironic of one country, who has maybe the world's largest stocks in WMDs to educate other countries to not obtain them.

Your recent adventure of the year (TM) in Iraq, coupled with basically ignoring North Korea at the same time, has clearly shown to any petty dictator in the world that you're better of having WMDs than not to.

And right now, WMDs and/or Al Qaida are just pleasant excuses to push a Pax Americana forward and to appease Bush's delusions of grandeur.

[Howedar]

Saudi Arabia hasn't "gone nuclear." Iran is the greater threat. Saudi government is somewhat more malleable at this stage.

Oh, the government is malleable. The people aren't.


Frankly, I'm not worried about any governments using nukes against the western world. They have too much to lose.


Except maybe Kim Jong Il, he's kinda looney.

[Shinova]

Aren't the Iranian populace protesting or something against the ayatollahs right now?

[Axis Kast]

I find it quite ironic of one country, who has maybe the world's largest stocks in WMDs to educate other countries to not obtain them.

If the United States of America relinquished its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, are you telling me it would be any more safe? Do you believe the policy-makers in Russia or China will take to heart our apparent moral conviction, or praise they day their lucky stars brought the Americans to shackle themselves to the wall?

Whether or not we possess nuclear weapons has nothing to do with Iran directly. They can’t afford to challenge our hypocrisy. They must simply choose between acquiescence and punishment.

Your recent adventure of the year (TM) in Iraq, coupled with basically ignoring North Korea at the same time, has clearly shown to any petty dictator in the world that you're better of having WMDs than not to.

Bush handled North Korea with a masterstroke. The same options used to deal with Iraq were closed to us in North Korea’s case. Considering that the South Koreans themselves weren’t up for war, I have a hard time seeing how instigating something with Kim Jong-Il – who’s spouted rhetoric for almost a decade now – would have been a very intelligent course of action. Better was our “active engagement” – i.e. the naval presence and a constant barrage of electronic surveillance. The key to that issue at present is bringing everyone to the peace table together – North Korea, Japan, Russia, China, and South Korea as well as the United States. But again, good luck considering Beijing and Moscow have nothing to lose by stonewalling again and again.

And since when wasn’t it appealing to dictators to go out and secure WMD? Iraq did it in 1982. South Africa did it in 1979. Kim did it in 1994. This is nothing new. It’s simply an attempt to tarnish Bush by any means available.

And right now, WMDs and/or Al Qaida are just pleasant excuses to push a Pax Americana forward and to appease Bush's delusions of grandeur.

Dreams of “Pax Americana?” Perhaps. But then again, that’s not a problem in my eyes. I’m American. An American Empire wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing for me. Not that I think Bush really is out to make one, mind you. And let’s not even get into dreams of grandeur. Chirac, Putin, and Schroeder are all as guilty as Bush.

[Dahak]

I find it quite ironic of one country, who has maybe the world's largest stocks in WMDs to educate other countries to not obtain them.

If the United States of America relinquished its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, are you telling me it would be any more safe? Do you believe the policy-makers in Russia or China will take to heart our apparent moral conviction, or praise they day their lucky stars brought the Americans to shackle themselves to the wall?

Whether or not we possess nuclear weapons has nothing to do with Iran directly. They can?t afford to challenge our hypocrisy. They must simply choose between acquiescence and punishment.

It has something to do with the whole situation that there *are* WMDs. That whole mutual deterrent thing is a sticky one.

Your recent adventure of the year (TM) in Iraq, coupled with basically ignoring North Korea at the same time, has clearly shown to any petty dictator in the world that you're better of having WMDs than not to.

Bush handled North Korea with a masterstroke. The same options used to deal with Iraq were closed to us in North Korea?s case. Considering that the South Koreans themselves weren?t up for war, I have a hard time seeing how instigating something with Kim Jong-Il ? who?s spouted rhetoric for almost a decade now ? would have been a very intelligent course of action. Better was our ?active engagement? ? i.e. the naval presence and a constant barrage of electronic surveillance. The key to that issue at present is bringing everyone to the peace table together ? North Korea, Japan, Russia, China, and South Korea as well as the United States. But again, good luck considering Beijing and Moscow have nothing to lose by stonewalling again and again.

Excuse me while I stop laughing.
That whole matter still reeks of hipocrisy, and did quite the damage to US reputation abroad.

And since when wasn?t it appealing to dictators to go out and secure WMD? Iraq did it in 1982. South Africa did it in 1979. Kim did it in 1994. This is nothing new. It?s simply an attempt to tarnish Bush by any means available.

But Bush's handling of the whole affair gave them even more reason to believe that they absolutely have to have WMDs.

And right now, WMDs and/or Al Qaida are just pleasant excuses to push a Pax Americana forward and to appease Bush's delusions of grandeur.

Dreams of ?Pax Americana?? Perhaps. But then again, that?s not a problem in my eyes. I?m American. An American Empire wouldn?t necessarily be a bad thing for me.

Well it would for me.
My personal political, ethical, and sociologial views on society don't work well with the latest American policy.

Not that I think Bush really is out to make one, mind you. And let?s not even get into dreams of grandeur. Chirac, Putin, and Schroeder are all as guilty as Bush.

Chirac is true, for Putin maybe.
For Schröder is was just a desperate measure to cling to his Chancellorship ans apease our populace. So it was purely selfish.

[Howedar]

Aren't the Iranian populace protesting or something against the ayatollahs right now?

Not real loudly, but the Ayatollahs are not real popular. That, and the Iranian military and police are making noises about how they are there to protect the people.

In all liklihood, the Ayatollahs will be either powerless or out in a decade or two. Thats assuming we don't bumble in and make everyone fear us, strengthening the Ayatollahs.

[Darth Yoshi]

Saudi Arabia hasn't "gone nuclear." Iran is the greater threat. Saudi government is somewhat more malleable at this stage.

Malleable means nothing if the gov't can't control the populace. Anti-American sentiment in Saudi Arabia is quite high, and the gov't can't and/or won't do anything about it.

Iran on the other hand is no threat to us, especially since the Ayatollahs lack the support of the people. We go after them now, and we'll simply antagonize the Iranian people.

[weemadando]

"Iran Harbouring Al-Qaeda!"

*dreamy look on face, slightly glazed eyes as I flashback 6 months*

"Iraq Harbouring Al-Qaeda!"

*Ah, yes... thats right.*

[Axis Kast]

It has something to do with the whole situation that there *are* WMDs. That whole mutual deterrent thing is a sticky one.

We cannot realistically expect to undo history, but merely prohibit new threats from cropping up for as long as possible.

Excuse me while I stop laughing.
That whole matter still reeks of hipocrisy, and did quite the damage to US reputation abroad.

From people who know nothing of strategy, the United States was being hypocritical. I cannot change their ignorance.

But Bush's handling of the whole affair gave them even more reason to believe that they absolutely have to have WMDs

What Bush did was make them say, in retrospect, “I’m sure glad we got that program going when we did.” He didn’t encourage them to pursue WMD in the first place however. All relevant programs by those we now seek to keep from developing such weapons began well before 1990.

My personal political, ethical, and sociologial views on society don't work well with the latest American policy.

A bit like the EU in my case, no?

Chirac is true, for Putin maybe.
For Schröder is was just a desperate measure to cling to his Chancellorship ans apease our populace. So it was purely selfish.

Indeed for Putin. While I understand that he wanted to see Iraq pay back its debts, he also wished to kill NATO and put egg on George Bush’s face.

Schroeder shares Chirac’s vision of a Western European-led EU.

In all liklihood, the Ayatollahs will be either powerless or out in a decade or two. Thats assuming we don't bumble in and make everyone fear us, strengthening the Ayatollahs.

The question is, do we have more to fear from a calm but nuclear Iran than we do from an angry but conventional Iran? I say the later is better than the former.

Saudi Arabia? It’s people are a distinct threat, but I see no easy means of soothing their anger anytime soon.