Even the French..... Dont want a Nuclear Iran

Boy, you sure have your panties in a bunch today!

Did anyone here say they want Iran to have nuclear weapons?
No, I don't think anyone did.

Are the French prepared to invade Iran?
No I don't think they are. They agree with everyone that we need to stand strong against them, diplomatically.
"Sarkozy said that if the U.N. Security Council was unable to agree on further financial sanctions, the European Union should take its own measures to raise pressure on Iran."

Are you implying that posters here WANT Iran to have nukes?
I think you are. Are you wrong? I know you are.

How's that for a Rumsfeldian response!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 25 2007, 01:45 PM) [snapback]517565[/snapback]</div>

Not wanting something, but doing nothing to stop it is the same thing!

p.s. by my own rational "I want Global Warming", yes, and by your rational, everybody doesn't agree on GW, its only a "consensous".

 

What the hell are you talking about?

Dr. B's quote "What do you guys think. We should still let ahmadjihad get little nukes to play with or he is developing a program just for peaceful nuclear power???"
No we should not. No one wants that.

But it is logically dishonest to state that if you do not want to attack Iran, than you want them to have nukes.
More black and white framing without any concern for the consequences of the actions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 25 2007, 04:00 PM) [snapback]517573[/snapback]</div>

Iran will not become a member of the nuclear club in this generation anyway. Bush has nothing to lose and can gain a better legacy.

 

Good. Let them take care of this round.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]517571[/snapback]</div>

Not wanting Iran to have nukes either - but I doubt an airstrike is going to be very effective in preventing them from getting them as they are in highly fortified, hidden bunkers. Given our poor intelligence prior to Iraq I am highly doubtful we could prevent Iran from acquiring nukes through such an airstrike.

Amadinijad is not popular at home and the Iranians are growing tired of him and leery of another conflict with the West. Our best ticket at this point is to keep up the pressure on him externally while Iran's faltering economic situation works against him internally.

An ineffective airstrike will only play into his hands by allowing him to rally the people against the "great Satan" and in the view of Iranians, likely strengthen the argument for having nukes in the first place.

We contained the Soviets for 40+ years. Certainly we can contain this little tyrant until the Iranian people see fit to dispose of him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 25 2007, 10:21 PM) [snapback]517775[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you on this one. America should not take the lead in dealing with the Iranian problem, any more than we should have taken the lead on strife in Bosnia, or any of the other regional conflicts that are really within Europe's "sphere of influence". Not only should the French and Germans be given the lead in Iran, but we should also encourage France's reinvestment in Iraq. As a traditional ally of the Iraqi people, they have more moral authority to provide guidance in the post-occupation phase.

 

Who here has advocated that we do nothing to stop it? There's a huge difference between calling for peacefully intervention through diplomatic and economic pressures and calling for an armed military conflict.

How did we "win" the cold war? Was it through military might, or denying the Soviets nuclear technology? No. It was through the economic collapse of their entire country.

There's a lot you can do against a country without having to fire a single shot or put a single man in harms way. Especially when a majority of the world stands united in that goal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Sep 26 2007, 08:54 AM) [snapback]517840[/snapback]</div>

I think Berman wants to nuke'em or at least airstrike them whether there's a diplomatic answer or not. I'm assuming he's jewish and I can't entirely blame his shell shocked act in the name of his people. He doesn't want the "holocaust" to recur. No one does. But it's evident in his recurring thematic posts of "another rise of the Nazi's" and "Israeli's persecution by the rest of the world" vision, that he wholeheartedly believes that the holocaust will occur again to the point of paranoia. I feel bad for him. He won't feel good until we attack Iran, which i think would be a big mistake for the whole world. But he doesn't care so long as actions are taken ao assuage his fear of another holocaust. He sees that not attacking them is equivalent to the appeasing of Nazi's and the inevitable "holocaust" part 2. That is so wrong.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Sep 26 2007, 06:54 AM) [snapback]517840[/snapback]</div>

I agree with your post but I would like to accentuate your point on "win"ing the cold war. A lot of people do not realize the problems with arms sales that stem from that "win" and how we and other nations are still plagued by it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Sep 26 2007, 08:54 AM) [snapback]517840[/snapback]</div>

If we continue to negotiate with no consequences we will all wake up one day and Iran will have already tested, at that point what leverage will we have? Now is the time to act and any study of similar points in history will reinforce that now is the time.

 

"Now is the time to act and any study of similar points in history will reinforce that now is the time."

Let me get this straight...
Are you saying that the Republican position is that we SHOULD have acted militarily to have prevented Pakistan from getting the bomb? North Korea? India? What about Russia pre-cold war? Where should action have been taken as pointed out above? What war did we miss out on having? What would have been the consequences of say, attacking Russia to prevent them from having the bomb. Or Pakistan.

You're probably right, that IF we were to attack Iran, it would make sense to do so BEFORE they have nukes.
But that still doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. It is highly unlikely we can just fly over, destroy thier nuclear/military capabilities, and the threat would be over. It is more likely to result in far worse complications, possibly including Russia, China, or a situation where ALL Arab countries stop hating each other and unite in hatred of the US. Then we have NO chance of Iraq turning around and more rapid shutdown of our energy imports, and hence economy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 26 2007, 10:10 AM) [snapback]517878[/snapback]</div>

Oh, i definitely agree with you on that. Once the cold war was over, and the USSR fractured, no one stepped in to make sure their arms were properly controlled and (as needed) dismantled. Frankly, it's a problem that i don't think had ever been seen before, and as such one that no one knew how to handle. However, i still think that the diplomatic and economic pressures route was a far better one than all out war with them, even if we could have ensured that such a conflict would have been nuc-free.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 26 2007, 10:17 AM) [snapback]517879[/snapback]</div>

Lets see... how about every conflict or international incident that didn't escalate into a war? How about the UK soldiers that were detained by Iran? that was a pretty tense situation that could have escalated into war, but diplomacy and cooler heads prevailed. That was just this past spring. is that not recent enough for you?

How many dozens of countries out there - in the Middle East, or Africa, or wherever else - do you think wouldn't want a nuclear bomb? And yet how many of them are developing nuclear programs? Most countries understand the political and economic pressures that can be brought down on them if they take the steps that Iran has taken, and they don't even bother starting a nuclear program.

Any country that's in an armed conflict with another, or feels threatened by another is going to look for the biggest and baddest weapons it can find to "win". I would say that every country that hasn't pursued a nuclear program is a great example of a country that has been deterred by political and economic pressures (real or imaginary) not to.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 26 2007, 10:17 AM) [snapback]517879[/snapback]</div>

I feel bad for you because you have an obsession to annihilate a race of people whom you don't even know. Do I know the Iranian people? No. But I doubt you do too. I DO know they are human, not nazis. You can't tell the difference. Without compunction, you're happy to commit thousands or millions of innocent civilians to their deaths which is what would happen if you had your way. That's just evil and as someone whose people have endured the holocaust, survived it, and risen like the phoenix, you should know better. Yeah, they have a crazy president who says a lot of crazy stuff, doesn't mean we have to nuke'em. Why can't we just pull a Noko on them? No you have a special hatred for them cause they "threaten" Israel, or maybe they're just to brown for you. You think the Iranians are all like their Mr. Crazy President. Maybe he doesn't represent the view of all the Iranians. Just like our Mr. Crazy President he doesn't represent the view of all of the american citizens either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 26 2007, 10:59 AM) [snapback]517909[/snapback]</div>

Cerainly North Korea is an example where the world was far too busy negotiating to prevent No Ko from gaining nuclear weapons.
The most obvious example of "peace at all costs and keep negotiating"strategy not paying off is in the 1930's with Germany and Japan and we all know how that turned out. Being wrong only cost 50 or 60 million people their lives.
Going back to North Korea, if the US did not have troops and the capability to strike No Ko back with a fatal blow, do you think the border between North and South Korea would still be intact?