Will The U.S. Disarm Iran?

Spiegel reports:
"In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year."

So, here is the million dollar question: If the U.S. and Israel bomb Tehran whose side are you folks on and how would you feel about it? And what would be the international reaction, fall/out?

Someone ought to do something, before they wished they had done something, that's all I am gonna say. These folk are extremely unstable and mental.

I think I agree. I was very against war in Iraq but I think war with Iran my be the only option.
One thing's for sure Europe is under-estimating Israel's capacity and determination to handle this threat alone if diplomacy fails. The U.S. is well aware what Israel will do if it feels it's being seriously threatened.
And the U.S. knows it too is under threat as the Great Satan.

ptlwp said:

Someone ought to do something, before they wished they had done something, that's all I am gonna say. These folk are extremely unstable and mental.

Carrera said:

I'll start this off by quoting the BBC, commenting on the current crisis over Iran attempting to acquire nuclear weapons.

That is an unproven allegation, there is no certainty of that at all. Every NPT signatory to date has performed Uranium Hexaflouride enrichment research without this fuss. This is the first time (to my limited knowledge) that such a fuss has been made over Uranium Enrichment.

As usual you are jumping to conclusions with insufficient evidence to support them. Your manifest hatred of Muslims fuels is driving you to lie yet again.

For the sake of argument let's say that Iran did have Nuclear weapons at some point in the future (it is estimated that it would take at least a decade for them to harvest enough Uranium for a single warhead using the facilities they have). They would still need a delivery system. If they developed, bought or tested a delivery system they would get caught at it for sure. If they got over the delivery hurdle they are looking at in excess of at least 200 high yield nuclear weapons heading their way by default.

No, what we're seeing here is denying the means of self-defence to a sovereign state. Israel and the US want to keep their options open with respect to slaying Persians at will in the future.

Carrera said:

I think I agree. I was very against war in Iraq but I think war with Iran my be the only option.

The only way that war could be your 'only option' is if your objective is to massacre Persians by the tens of thousands.

Carrera said:

One thing's for sure Europe is under-estimating Israel's capacity and determination to handle this threat alone if diplomacy fails.

How naive... Why do you think Europe has been working so hard and why do you think the US has been going along with it ?

Carrera said:

The U.S. is well aware what Israel will do if it feels it's being seriously threatened.

Sure, everyone knows Israel is itching for war with Iran, Iraq and Syria, they've made it state policy for the last 60 years. They feel that they need more land for their swimming pools and more sea to push Gentiles into.

None of that is news.

The reason why it has come to a head now is that they Syria and Iran are very soft targets for strategic weapons. Neither Iran or Syria can respond in kind either. Neither of them have sufficient air-defence or sea-defence. The only thing they do have is a lot of cannon fodder, but realistically that ain't going to count for much because it won't be a land war.

Israel and the US can just destroy those countries by systematically eliminating all the electricity, water, sewage treatment, hospitals, transport, communications and other essentials. After that they can just pick off the bits they like in easy bite-sized chunks.

i agree that something needs to be done..

if nuclear weapons are developed, they will not hesitate to fire upon US, EU and UK targets if they have the opportunity.

as to the question, will the US disarm Iran? i believe if the situation proves to be dangerous enough then the US will have to step in. whether or not they will be able to actually disarm Iran is anybodys guess.

ptlwp said:

Someone ought to do something, before they wished they had done something, that's all I am gonna say. These folk are extremely unstable and mental.

MountainPro said:

i agree that something needs to be done..

if nuclear weapons are developed, they will not hesitate to fire upon US, EU and UK targets if they have the opportunity.

What would Iran gain from doing that, precisely ?

Also it doesn't answer the question about delivery systems. Iran has none, and no way of developing them unseen. The first time they launch an ICBM it will be spotted and they will get nuked, and they know that.

I suspect that you were indulging in a little dry humour, please accept my apologies for taking you seriously if that was the case. 😉

MountainPro said:

i agree that something needs to be done..

if nuclear weapons are developed, they will not hesitate to fire upon US, EU and UK targets if they have the opportunity.

as to the question, will the US disarm Iran? i believe if the situation proves to be dangerous enough then the US will have to step in. whether or not they will be able to actually disarm Iran is anybodys guess.

I thought that we had the WMD scenario in Iraq. Just an excuse, there was no intelligence to support this spurious claim, and none have ever been found.

darkboong said:

What would Iran gain from doing that, precisely ?

Also it doesn't answer the question about delivery systems. Iran has none, and no way of developing them unseen. The first time they launch an ICBM it will be spotted and they will get nuked, and they know that...

Exactly correct. This convoluted thinking is the same kind that was used as an excuse to invade Iraq. However, it was well established at the time that Iraq was effectively bottled up within the N. & S. No Fly Zones and had a pathetic military, let alone WMD's, and so was no threat to its neighbors or elsewhere.

ptlwp said:

These folk are extremely unstable and mental.

Some of you ought to stop buying into the Neo Con lies and scare tactics. The REALITY is that it is they who are mentally unstable.

Carrera said:

I'll start this off by quoting the BBC, commenting on the current crisis over Iran attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. The Beeb summarises as follows:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm

"There are fears of a broader, possibly military, crisis. The US has said publicly that it will not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. President Bush has said that he wants diplomacy to solve this, but that nothing is ruled out. There have been press reports that Israel, which bombed an Iraqi reactor in 1981, has begun the planning for a possible raid. But like the US, Israel says that diplomacy is the priority."

You've misquoted the BBC article.
No real surprise there, given your inability to understand content.

If you read the BBC article, the article speculates as to why Iran may be intent on resuming nuclear research : the very first sentence of the article states "The future of Iran's nuclear programme continues to be a matter of controversy. Iran has said it is resuming nuclear fuel research."
No mention of nuclear weapons.
Only a mention of nuclear research which is entirely different.
I am surprsied that a graduate linguist like you missed this important difference.

Nuclear research can be one of two things : it can be research to develop energy supply, or it could be research to develop a nuclear weapon.

Note the article does state that Iran has no nuclear weapons at present.

So Iran has no nuclear weapons.
Therefore no threat now exists.

Carrera said:

"After reading these comments I realize one important thing. Most of you would have given nuclear bombs to [censored] if it was possible to do. Your rationale would be: It is only fair because they are a sovereign nation.... I just can believe how passive people are and nothing has changed since WWII. God help you in Europe if a true dictator ever rises again. I think you would enable such a thing gladly because you must stop the great satan USA and Bush. Sure the USA has problems, but we are not trying to ethnically cleanse the world."

God help him, I say.
He's living in a dictatorship and he's got the gall to try to lecture us!

And if the USA ain't involved in ethnic cleansing, try telling the people of Fallujah that.

darkboong said:

Also it doesn't answer the question about delivery systems. Iran has none, and no way of developing them unseen.

english.aljazeera.net03104941 3E3A 4528 8C5D FA6B25F5B212.htmOpen ↗

Iran does have missile capability of 1200 miles. They do have the vehicle to deliver a warhead. But like you said, why would they? They would be staring at certain and complete destruction.

Colorado Ryder said:

english.aljazeera.net03104941 3E3A 4528 8C5D FA6B25F5B212.htmOpen ↗

Iran does have missile capability of 1200 miles. They do have the vehicle to deliver a warhead. But like you said, why would they? They would be staring at certain and complete destruction.

I stand corrected.

That one flew in under my radar so to speak ! Thanks for the heads-up.

limerickman said:

And if the USA ain't involved in ethnic cleansing, try telling the people of Fallujah that.

"As it happened, Fallujah was one of the clusters thrown up by this process. Strictly speaking, the team should have included the data from that embattled city in their final result - random is random after all -- which would have given an overall post-invasion excess death figure of no less than 268,000."

http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew01092006.html

That article is worth a read... The stuff that is said there chimes with a statistian I have talked to from Cambridge. The Hopkins study should be repeated this year really, if nothing else to determine what the population and it's health care needs actually are *now*. Clearly a lot has changed and the security situation is deteriorating rapidly as the weeks roll by. People need to be held accountable.

At this stage, diplomacy should be given every opportunity. But here lies the problem: Iran is a theocracy and many of the ruling elite in Iran shares this idea of death being more blessed than life e.t.c. Therefore, many of these people have no fear of war or destruction as the consequence of their action.
I think 9/11 proved what real hatred of the U.S. and the west can drive people towards. Do you really trust the Iranian mullahs with nuclear technology?
O.K., Darkboong makes a valid point here. Iran probably won't have any delivery system for quite some time but how long are people prepared to wait?
The way I see it is Iran has stated it wishes to wipe Israel off the map and it hates Americans too. Not even the USSR under Stalin or North Korea has ever made such a statement, which has shocked Blair and even Kofi Annan.
I also think Iran is playing a very dangerous game and seriously under-estimating Israel and Israel's readiness to nip any future, potential [censored] in the bud.
Israel has never before threatened to wipe any Arab State off the map, of course.
What Iran fails to understand is only Jews as a race were systematically liquidated in Nazi death camps, not Brits or Australians or Americans. But Israel is now a state with a well-trained army, an air-force and undeclared nuclear weapons. Iran shouldn't kid itself that Israel won't take action whether the U.S. condones it or not.
As has been said on the BBC, if anything, Iran has played into the hands of hardliners in the Bush Administration but it only has itself to blame.

limerickman said:

You've misquoted the BBC article.
No real surprise there, given your inability to understand content.

If you read the BBC article, the article speculates as to why Iran may be intent on resuming nuclear research : the very first sentence of the article states "The future of Iran's nuclear programme continues to be a matter of controversy. Iran has said it is resuming nuclear fuel research."
No mention of nuclear weapons.
Only a mention of nuclear research which is entirely different.
I am surprsied that a graduate linguist like you missed this important difference.

Nuclear research can be one of two things : it can be research to develop energy supply, or it could be research to develop a nuclear weapon.

Note the article does state that Iran has no nuclear weapons at present.

So Iran has no nuclear weapons.
Therefore no threat now exists.

God help him, I say.
He's living in a dictatorship and he's got the gall to try to lecture us!

And if the USA ain't involved in ethnic cleansing, try telling the people of Fallujah that.

There are educated Iranians who want to live a more open society. These Iranians don't want war at any cost. However, there are also the crazy mullahs who seriously believe death would bring them a bed-full of 72 virgins in paradise.
I think you're making the slight mistake of applying reason where there ain't any logic. Many of these people are simply not rational but this is mainly the ultra-religious mullahs. Problem is, many of these crackpots are in power at present.

Colorado Ryder said:

english.aljazeera.net03104941 3E3A 4528 8C5D FA6B25F5B212.htmOpen ↗

Iran does have missile capability of 1200 miles. They do have the vehicle to deliver a warhead. But like you said, why would they? They would be staring at certain and complete destruction.

Carrera said:

At this stage, diplomacy should be given every opportunity.

ThE STATEMENT YOU POSTED ABOVE IS FACILE : THERE ARE NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN IRAN.

Carrera said:

I think 9/11 proved what real hatred of the U.S. and the west can drive people towards. Do you really trust the Iranian mullahs with nuclear technology?

Until we have absolute 100% proof that Iran has nuclear weapons - there is no issue.

I distrust the lies being spread by America : they lied about Iraq, chances are they're lying about Iran.

Carrera said:

The way I see it is Iran has stated it wishes to wipe Israel off the map and it hates Americans too. .

Hmm.
Iran has opened diplomatic relations with the USA int he last number of years.
Relations have thawed soemwaht between both countries.

Israel?
Most of the international community wants to have little do with Israel.
So Irans position on Israel while extreme, echoes the reluctance of the international to have cordial relations with Israel.

Carrera said:

I think 9/11 proved what real hatred of the U.S. and the west can drive people towards.

Who perpetrated 9/11?
You're falling in to the Rumsfeld/Neocon/Melanie Philips mistake again.

Carrera said:

What Iran fails to understand is only Jews as a race were systematically liquidated in Nazi death camps, not Brits or Australians or Americans. But Israel is now a state with a well-trained army, an air-force and undeclared nuclear weapons. Iran shouldn't kid itself that Israel won't take action whether the U.S. condones it or not.
As has been said on the BBC, if anything, Iran has played into the hands of hardliners in the Bush Administration but it only has itself to blame.

Yanks won't do anything : they're too busy sinking in the quicksand of Iraq.
Another conflict that they perpetrated on a tissue of lies.

Carrera said:

At this stage, diplomacy should be given every opportunity. But here lies the problem: Iran is a theocracy and many of the ruling elite in Iran shares this idea of death being more blessed than life e.t.c. Therefore, many of these people have no fear of war or destruction as the consequence of their action.
I think 9/11 proved what real hatred of the U.S. and the west can drive people towards. Do you really trust the Iranian mullahs with nuclear technology?
O.K., Darkboong makes a valid point here. Iran probably won't have any delivery system for quite some time but how long are people prepared to wait?
The way I see it is Iran has stated it wishes to wipe Israel off the map and it hates Americans too. Not even the USSR under Stalin or North Korea has ever made such a statement, which has shocked Blair and even Kofi Annan.
I also think Iran is playing a very dangerous game and seriously under-estimating Israel and Israel's readiness to nip any future, potential [censored] in the bud.
Israel has never before threatened to wipe any Arab State off the map, of course.
What Iran fails to understand is only Jews as a race were systematically liquidated in Nazi death camps, not Brits or Australians or Americans. But Israel is now a state with a well-trained army, an air-force and undeclared nuclear weapons. Iran shouldn't kid itself that Israel won't take action whether the U.S. condones it or not.
As has been said on the BBC, if anything, Iran has played into the hands of hardliners in the Bush Administration but it only has itself to blame.

Isn't the Zionist government of SOI a theocracy then?
And as for you going to Israel, that's a laugh a minute, you'll be accepted as the prodigal son. I've got more more chance than you, at least I speak Hebrew and Arabic, a bit rusty mind, but within two weeks I'd be back up to frying speed.
Ma ata rutsay schmuck godol. Erevtov sheli hazir naknik katan.
Nothing on the Falklands site yet, so it just proves that you write a load of 'shil shul'.
Most of that is in Hebrew. Surely as an erudite ancient language graduate this should not be beyond you capability to transpose.

Ireland and Italy are theocracies, too.

I hope we never have to look back and with Monday morning quarterbacking, say, its a shame we didn't do something about this while we could........guess who took out guess whose nuclear facilities back in 1981, and was soundly thrashed by the psychotic inmates at the U.N.?

ptlwp said:

Ireland and Italy are theocracies, too.

I hope we never have to look back and with Monday morning quarterbacking, say, its a shame we didn't do something about this while we could........guess who took out guess whose nuclear facilities back in 1981, and was soundly thrashed by the psychotic inmates at the U.N.?

I think you've done just what the BushCo propaganda machine has hoped for: you've been made bonkers by their Loop of Delusion that's constantly drummed on by their corp. media, first with their lies about Iraq and now with Iran.

BushCo wants more permanent bases in the Mid East/SW Asia so as to control the oil supplies there for the coming of Peak Oil. They already have A'stan & Iraq, because they staged 9/11 as an excuse to get them.

Wake up.