Comments on: We would hit those

By: raymond

raymond — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:20:44 +0000

Well put, Laura. I concur.

By: Laura

Laura — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:23:43 +0000

1. To concerned: Semour Hersh is a very reliable source. He predicted much of what happened in Iraq, and broke the story of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.
2. There is no less reason for Iran to have nuclear weapons than it is for the United States to have them. Everyone wants them as insurance against the others who have them. Iran is no different. The U.S. has no right to dictate which countries have nuclear weapons.
3. The government of Iran is one of the better governments in the world. Yes, they have tortured political prisoners, which is the most heinous act a government can commit. So has the United States. For the average citizen, Iran is not at all a bad place to live. There is more freedom of speech there than in most countries in the world.
4. Yes, surely Ahmadinejad realizes the consequences of using nuclear weapons, as he realizes that the sky is blue. He is a democratically elected president. He is not insane. Yes, he believes that he knows God’s will better than others do–so does George Bush. (Of course he is incorrect about the Holocaust, but an imperfect knowledge of history is categorically different than an imperfect understanding of ordinary cause and effect. The latter makes a person insane; the former just makes him wrong.)
5. No one on earth ‘hates what is good.’ Don’t we all wish life were that simple, that there were evil people out there with no morality at all who we could kill with impunity. We are all just human beings. None of us is fit to sit in judgement of the others. Bush killing Iranians or Iraqis for his own agenda is morally identical to Muslim extremists killing Americans to promote their agenda.

By: Thomas, a Dane

Thomas, a Dane — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:59:42 +0000

Philip: “So, Tamim, if we are breeding more hatred from terrorists and other extremists, there is no better proof that what we are doing is right.”

Excuse me, Philip, but shouldn’t the goal be to reduce the number of terrorists instead of creating more of them?!?

On the other hand, if you create more extremists and terrorists then, statistically, you increase the chances of catching one or two of them. I am sure your Emperator would be happy to use them as tropheas to show his simple-minded followers that he is winning the ‘War on Terror’.

What is going to be next? Will you suggest to demolish all buildings on Manhattan as an effective way of preventing a terrorist attack from destroying buildings on Manhattan?

By: raymond

raymond — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:01:19 +0000

But we are sure that Israel and the US want to bomb Iran.

By: Philip

Philip — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:43:09 +0000

Concerned is 100% dead on correct. We have to plan for such an attack, and the Pentagon does so. Why? Because if the need arises, there has to be intense preparation. That should not be done on short notice. Iran is known for sabre-rattling. Unlike other sabre-rattlers, though, they have a habit of thrusting it from time to time. Ahmadinejad is not predictable and (despite hyperbolic statements to the contrary), the US is a stable, reliable nation (like most others, including most Muslim nations). In fact, it is likely that Ahmadinejad is a terrorist himself, based on the accounts of the US hostages from 1980-81. This is more than just a little unsettling.
Does the US’s hardline response to terrorism breed resistance? Of course. Good. That means we’re doing the right thing. If we made terrorists happy, that means we are traitors to all that is good and noble. Terrorists and extremists hate what is good. So, Tamim, if we are breeding more hatred from terrorists and other extremists, there is no better proof that what we are doing is right.

By: Tailrank - THE IRAN PLANS - Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 07:05:04 +0000

[...] Sabbah’s Blog / [...]

By: Concerned

Concerned — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:08:12 +0000

Surely Ahmadinejad realises the consequenses of using nuclear weapons would result in the complete obliteration of Iran and most of the world.

Surely? Isn’t that the problem. No one is sure at all about Ahmadinejad.

By: raymond

raymond — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:23:11 +0000

My apologies for the rant yesterday. I try not to do that, as it squashes the dialogue.

I think the US has too much of a hangover from the Cold War with Russia, with many believing the leaders of foreign “enemy” countries have their fingers poised over a big red button, waiting for provocation. Surely Ahmadinejad realises the consequenses of using nuclear weapons would result in the complete obliteration of Iran and most of the world. I urge everyone to read the IAEA Board of Governor’s report regarding their ongoing investigation of Iran’s nuclear program before drawing conclusions.

Realise, while reading this, that the US is probably not fully transparent in its own nuclear program. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-15.pdf

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (http://www.thebulletin.org/nuclear_weapons_data/), the US still has nearly 10000 nuclear warheads in its stockpile. Russia is next with about 5800. Britain has fewer than 200. China, 120. India, an estimated 40-50. Pakistan, 24-48.

Let the US be the first to disarm their massive nuclear arsenal, then maybe they will stand some credibility in telling others to do the same. Nearly 10000 warheads is a little excessive (and hypocritical), is it not?

By: Jared

Jared — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 05:27:24 +0000

The most disgusting news I’ve read about Mubarak:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060410/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_arab_worries

The Iranians are Shiites.The Palestinians are mostly Sunnis.Yet the Iranians are standing by the Palestinians becoz they are Muslims.Not becoz they are Arabs or Sunnis or Shiites.

Maybe Mubarak should ignore the countribution of the Iranian/Persian Scientists to the Muslim world simply becoz they believed that the Muhammad’s blood should be the Caliphs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_scientists

Maybe next time Mubarak will start to question the loyalty of the Arab Christians in Egypt towards their own country.

Can somebody please kick him out office?Thanks.

By: Concerned

Concerned — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 04:46:36 +0000

During the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was used to repel both the Soviet Union and the United States from the precipice of nuclear war. The theory is predicated on the believe that both sides want to continue to exist and that both sides are rational and predictable. A key tenet of that theory is the idea that both sides present a credible threat to the other. Each side has to believe that the other side will destroy them if they launch a first strike.

Now switch to thinking about the US and Iran. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, either by constructing them or by purchasing them from some third party, I think it is reasonable to believe that the US (and everyone else) would want Iran to be deterred from using those weapons. If we consider that those in power in Iran are rational and therefore deterrable then MAD theory requires that we present a credible threat to Iran, that we *plan* to use nuclear weapons against Iran and that we publicize that plan in order to deter them from using the weapons. France did just this a few weeks back when they reiterated their policy on nuclear deterrence. On the other hand if we do not consider those in power in Iran as rational and therefore not predictable and not deterrable, then we probably should be planning to attack Iran to prevent the acquisition of the weapons.

In either case the US would be planning to attack Iran, perhaps with tactical nuclear weapons. I find this type of theorizing just a bit disquieting. It would be much better for everyone if Ahmadinejad would tone down the rhetoric and crazy talk about taking over the world and if he would stop playing games with the IAEA.