no, I don't think I'm being clear.

Many of these people we're taking about beleive that killing themselves in suicide bombings will give them eternal life. WHat I'm saying is that if these people have that sort of value in their religion, a value that consists of them forgoing there existance in order to kill others, then what makes the thought of them using a nuclear weapon so unheard of? They've already shown their disregard for their own lives, that's all I'm worried about. Obviously, not all Iranians are willing to commit suicide missions for Allah, but they have already had 40,000 people commit to become martyrs for Islam. I'm not saying they will do it, it's just I don't think they are trustworthy with such a technology, it's just too sketchy. Even if the chance of them doing something drastic with nuclear weapons is very small, that's still too much, if there is any doubt about what a country could possibly do with something as devastating as nuclear weapons, then they shouldn't be allowed to have them, it's just way too serious for "probably's" or "probably nots"

The fact that Iran is saying they will share nuclear technology is unacceptable, they should not be allowed to develop nukes if they say they are going to give the technology away, it is way too risky and potentially dangerous. Not to mention how many agreements and international policies it would violate. I think a lot of countries around the world will agree to confront Iran if they take the proliferation threat seriously, it's a big deal.

But launching a attack on Iran would not help much..Israel would get crushed by Hezbelloh..Iraq can surely become a worse situation then it already is..terrorist cells within the U.S under Iran orders may take create dismay..a your image in the muslim world will become worse then it is, making a new generation of muslims hate you, willing to become martyrs..maybe sammy's theory is coming into play here, again.

plus generals think that bombing the structre will take 1000-2000 sorties. How do you propose we end this?

I'm not really sure how to solve it, but I definately don't want to just let it go...

What about the nuclear bomb solution?

what nuclear bomb solution?

Launching nukes at the iran sites, since they are underground..read the hersh article.

oh, tactical nukes. I don't think that's a very likely option, sure they planned it, but they plan that sort of stuff all the time, it doesn't mean they'll do it. If the pressure from outside nations (in the form of forceful negotiations or perhaps threatened military intervention) doesn't work, then maybe it's something to think about, but I don't think it will come to that. Besides, I'm pretty sure we have ways of destroying bunkers that don't require using tactile nukes.

Israel give up the nukes because they arn't apart of the treaty, then iran will bail...solution solved.

that'd be great in your utopia.

Okay pakistan and india as well..I find it ironic, as to do many others that they are all harping on Iran even though they signed the non proliferation treaty and haven't broken the rules - it's just their president's words, who doesn't have much power. Then out of no where America signs a deal with India, which did not sign the NPT but the U.S gives them access to nuclear fuel, further helping them build bombs. When bush greets the pakistani president he doesnt offer the same deal. What the hell is bush doing? Anyone care the explain?...Why isn't anyone going nuts on Israel, is it just because they have the help of western countries helping build their bomb?..Why would it be wrong for Israel to disarm..Iran may follow, hell maybe even Pakistan. I find it strange everyone harps on one country but not others..

Iran is not comparable with India and Israel on this issue, they are different countries with different leaders and different histories, not to mention different levels of stability.

So what about the NPT...Iran did sign it..Israel and India did not. I mean it is obvious, to me, why Israel gets the special treatment it gets..but India, not really.

We trust India and Israel more because they don't threaten to destroy other countries, that's why we treat them differently...

And since Iran signed the NPT, then what action do you think should be taken as a result of their threat of breaking the treaty?

And I would argue your point about the president's words not meaning very much, 40,000 iranians have already agreed to become suicide bombers if they are needed to defend their nuclear program, he's not the only crazy one in that country....


The bottom line is this: Iran is threatening to share the knowledge of nuclear weapons with other countries and the UNSC needs to do something about it if they have any desire to show they have any value as an international peacekeeping organization. They can't allow a country lead by such extremists to go against nuclear proliferation treaties.

This issue is frankly over exhausted. Their is no possibly way on earth a military strike against Iran could work. That part of the world would disrupt into chaos..More islamist will hate the west then they already do, tarnishing our image even more. I do not know a way of dissolving the issue, I would like to see nukes altogether gone from every military power but it is unrealistic..And even if they do build a bomb I don't see why on earth they would want the world to end..yes some people are suicide bombers in Iran but I don't think that the supreme leader is one of them..he hasn't issued fatwas saying 'go bomb all the infidels'. It is rather Ahmadinejad who is the president who is spouting rhetoric but he doesn't have all the power in his country it is rather served to the supreme leader - the Ayatollah..I know Israel is going to be pushing for a military intervention because they can't do it themselves, if they did all the Arab countries would descend into a unified force against Israel.

Also read the article I posted in the thread "The rise of u.s nuclear primacy"
very interesting what is said within it.

Israel kicked the Arabs' asses before... happy:

honestly, I think it's more important to make sure that Iran can't have nukes and the ability to give them to other people who shouldn't have them than it is to have muslims like us...they already hate us and I don't think that will change any time soon.

The Ayotollah is the one who said they will share the nuclear technology, the president isn't the only one who we need to worry about. Both of them have said things that are extremely alarming.

FROM THE RAND CORPORATION
Time To Talk With Iran

By Robert E. Hunter
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, April 26, 2006; 12:00 AM

American and Iranian leaders are talking a great deal about each other -- when they should be devoting far more attention to talking to each other. Both sides are throwing sharp verbal punches with increasing frequency, amid news reports of a possible U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and continued efforts by Iran's leaders to advance their nation's nuclear capability.

While preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power is a bipartisan goal shared by just about everyone, the risks and perils of a war with Iran are little discussed in public by government leaders and are barely mentioned by the media. Americans continue to uselessly dissect the motives for invading Iraq -- when it is too late to do anything about it -- while failing to debate the far more fateful consequences of conflict with Iran when it might still be prevented.

There's no question that if Iran developed nuclear weapons the move would further unsettle the Middle East, put U.S. friends and allies at higher risk, raise fears of diversion of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups, frighten Israel, and undercut American authority in the Persian Gulf.

At the same time, a U.S. attack on Iran would likely cause a spike in the price of oil, alienate Muslims, create a split within the NATO alliance, and lead to an increase in terrorism. It might even draw Iranian forces over the Iraqi border to attack U.S. troops.

Faced with these two highly damaging alternatives, the United Sates should instead try talking with the Iranian regime on issues critical to both sides. These talks should extend far beyond the exchanges Washington offered Tehran that would have been limited to U.S. security problems in Iraq (Iran has declined these limited talks).

Summits with the opposition are a great American tradition. President Richard Nixon went to Beijing even though China was aiding North Vietnam in its fight against U.S. forces. President Ronald Reagan proclaimed the Soviet Union "an evil empire" but still negotiated agreements with it on arms control and other issues. And the Bush administration talks directly to North Korea, perhaps the most dangerous and delusional regime in the world. America has never limited itself to talking only with its friends abroad.

U.S.-Iran talks should focus on the salient issues. For America these include a moratorium on the production of materials that could be used for nuclear weapons and the opening of Iran to "at will" inspections of power-generating nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In addition regional security necessitates that Iranians stop supporting terrorists, in particular Hezbollah.

Like every other country that has moved down the path to nuclear weapons, Iran must surely be motivated first and foremost by concerns for its own security, making that a key topic for talks with America. In addition to the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, the U.S. Fifth Fleet offshore, and the American ambition for "regime change" in Iran, the Iranians are worried about unfriendly neighbors surrounding them, including nuclear-armed Pakistan.

As loathsome as Americans find Iran's hatred of the West, calls for the destruction of Israel, and absurd denials of the Holocaust by its president, Iran's legitimate security concerns have to be on any serious agenda for talks.

The United States has given security guarantees to North Korea -- a declared nuclear power -- but has refused to put that possibility in play with the Iranians. Much is made of the two years of negotiations that Britain, France, Germany, and the European Union have conducted with Tehran. Yet America specifically barred those nations from introducing the idea of potential U.S. security guarantees. That amounts to trying to build bricks without straw, and it doomed European efforts.

A U.S. attack on Iran might temporarily stop the country from going nuclear, but would be the beginning rather than the end of conflict with Iran. The Iranians are a people who pull together when under threat or attack -- very much like Americans. Iran's clerical leadership, however much despised by so many of its people, is not set to topple at the first whiff of grapeshot. Instead, it could count on consolidating its rule -- just as the Ayatollah Khomenei a quarter century ago used Saddam Hussein's invasion to solidify his power.

A U.S. offer of serious talks with Iran that deal with the most critical issues of security, as seen from each side's perspective, may not be enough to deflect the Iranians from their current dangerous course. But it is far better than relying on the Iranians to blink in their current standoff with the United States. If America will not at least test a "grand bargain" to resolve differences with Iran, the two nations will continue drifting toward war.

Robert E. Hunter is a senior adviser at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization. He was U.S. ambassador to NATO from 1993 to 1998.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... tml?sub=AR

See, that guy recognizes the threat Iran poses. I hope that his suggestion will work, talking this out would be great, i'm just skeptical of the chance it has of succeeding, that's all. I'm not saying we should just ignore talking, I just don't think it will work.

What I want for the Iran situation is this. I would like other Western and UN countries to see that what Iran is doing is a threat to international security and step up to confront Iran. I would hope that major countries around the world could work together to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons without the use of force, but I just don't know what they could do to deter Iran from continuing its current actions. The Iranian president said, "The enemies could not impose their wrong decision against us under cover of the Security Council and the IAEA" so I'm not really sure what ways Iran could be deterred because they view UN and IAEA action as threats. So if we try to use peaceful methods, they will see it as a threat and may carry through on selling their nuclear technologies to other countries. Knowing that, I just don't know what peaceful means can be used to stop Iran...that's why I'm hesitant to rely on negotiations and why I beleive it will most likely have to come to a military effort to stop Iran.

[quote:dbc91]"The enemies of the Iranian people and certain big powers are angered over this independence and dignity. (But) they cannot inflict damage on the great Iranian people because they know that if they do a damn thing they can expect Iran's strong response," he said.[/quote:dbc91]

rock: