Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

to attack in Iran or to not attack in Iran

Posted Aug 17, '12 at 10:42pm

kevin8ye

kevin8ye

514 posts

I think stopping nuclear weapons in the first place is good, but it's slightly unfair that U.S. currently host the only known nuclear weapon source that works

 

Posted Aug 18, '12 at 12:16am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,853 posts

Knight

No, there are five recognized nuclear powers by Treaty and a host of others who have them but are supposedly not allowed to.

 

Posted Aug 19, '12 at 1:45pm

kevin8ye

kevin8ye

514 posts

oh...... im not really a politic dude

 

Posted Aug 19, '12 at 2:37pm

chickenshot

chickenshot

7 posts

Israel or USA will rely on spying/assassination against Iran not direct/expose attack on it because they can still talk and the possibility of Iran making nukes are possible but not fast

 

Posted Aug 19, '12 at 4:20pm

danielo

danielo

1,370 posts

its only delay the bomb, not stopping it. even if there economy will be comepletly devastated, they will keep making it, because this is will be there only way to win. all the others ways are light surrender. if haminnai said that they will win, he cant "wait, nvm". he have to show his people that he won. and thats why its getting harder and harder to stop it by talking. and even if they will agree, who say they will just shut down all there Nuclear reactors? again, its only a shot {or long} delay, but there will be still a treat in it. the problme is the regiem, not the Nuclear reactors itself.
and israel cant take off that regiem. not by herself anyway.

 

Posted Aug 19, '12 at 4:38pm

zakyman

zakyman

1,588 posts

Nicho, MAD only applies when both groups are ruled by reason and rationality. When both countries want what's best for their citizens, than neither will use nuclear force against each other. However Iran doesn't fall under that category. They are a theocracy, and do not necessarily want what's best for Iranians as long as they get their way with destroying Israel.

 

Posted Aug 19, '12 at 4:48pm

BRAAINZz

BRAAINZz

600 posts

Nicho, MAD only applies when both groups are ruled by reason and rationality.

I'm pretty sure the Iranian government isn't that hell-bent that they they will throw their country into a nuclear winter to fire one warhead.

 

Posted Aug 19, '12 at 10:36pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,853 posts

Knight

Nicho, MAD only applies when both groups are ruled by reason and rationality. When both countries want what's best for their citizens, than neither will use nuclear force against each other. However Iran doesn't fall under that category. They are a theocracy, and do not necessarily want what's best for Iranians as long as they get their way with destroying Israel.

Yet another person who conflates and obfuscates rationality. I'll just quote the delightful Fareed Zakaria:

A number of you asked me whether I agree with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey who described Iran as a “rational actor” on my program a couple of weeks ago.

My answer is: I very much agree with General Dempsey.  It’s very important to understand, however, what it means to talk about a “rational actor.”  A rational actor is not a reasonable actor. It is not somebody who has the same goals or values as we have.

In international affairs or economics, the term rational actor is used to describe somebody who is concerned about their survival, prosperity or strength and is making calculations on the basis of these concerns.  It describes someone who calculates costs and benefits.

We all assume Iran is a rational actor " even the most hawkish people in this debate " when we assume that pressure on Iran will make a difference. We are assuming that Iran is watching the costs of its actions, calculating them and, presumably, will recognize that the costs outweigh the benefits. This is all that it means to say that Iran is a rational actor.
Indeed, Iran has been very calculating in its behavior, far more so than other so-called radical, revolutionary regimes. If you look at Mao’s China, he talked openly about destroying the world and about sacrificing half of China so that global communism could survive. The Iranians never talk like that and they certainly don’t do things like that. Their behavior for 30 years has been calculating. They respond to inducements and pressures in ways that are completely understandable.

Their goals are not ours, of course, but that’s a very different issue.

 

Posted Aug 20, '12 at 12:55am

SSTG

SSTG

10,763 posts

Knight

This problem wouldn't exist if warmonger Republicans like Bush/Cheney haven't invaded Iraq and killed Saddam because Iraq used to watch Iran and Iran used to watch Iraq so they were not a threat.

 

Posted Aug 20, '12 at 1:50am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,853 posts

Knight

Iran always been a threat since 1979....in fact it goes way back, when the Americans propped up the corrupted Shahs of Iran, which explains partially why the Iranians are loathed to trust the Americans.

 
Reply to to attack in Iran or to not attack in Iran

You must be logged in to post a reply!