Attack on Iran inevitable?

Remove all ads!

Excuse me but IIRC the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagashaki happened when Japan was de facto beaten and the majority of its Navy was underwater providing shelter to fish.
Furthermore the islands that Japan hold in Pacific were conquered by US troops (in very blooded battles) and Japan was offered the chance to surrender and they were considering it but they were reluctant.
The nuking of these two cities happened for a very different reason and you know it. It was a show of power to the next big threat that US administration foresaw (call me comrade Stahlin).
As for who is supposed to have nukes or not, i want to ask a question.
Why is right for Israel to have nukes?

Is there a specific reason? And don't anyone tell me for defence, because the fact that Israel has nukes has driven the Iranian goverment in seeking their own toys.

If Israel did not had any nukes then there would not be that constant fear of the Muslims around there that one day they might wake up by a huge smoke mushroom.

And if you wonder why i say that, and i don't involve US in this game just follow this.

Israel is the only country in the region that has bad relationship with every other nation of the territory. Is the only nation that has a continuing history of attacking within Palestine and Syria and Iran. So it is a valid threat for these nations and a bigger one than US.

That is why Irans president is mainly throwing arrows against Israel. He knows that US and the rest of the western world, especially after what happened and still happens in Iraq they will try to play by the book as much as they can.

But Israel for his point of view is not an honest player. and maybe he is right maybe not, but at this point he is the one who is playing the game.

Is Iran dangerous in the possibility of having nukes?
Yes as much as it is Israel, Pakistan, China, USA, Great Britain, and any other country that allready posseses nukes.

 

Actually, no, Japan and its military would not have surrendered until the US had conquered all of Japan. Look at how well small contingents dug in at Iwa Jima, 8000 US casualties vs 500 Japanese troops. Now expand this all the way to Tokyo. While the nukes were a tragedy, they did end the war earlier and saved many lives, military and civilian, on both sides. Yes, we were showing the world that a superpower had arrived, but it was a necessity, no matter how left wing history looks back on it now.

It amazes me how short memories are in Europe. If you hadn't kissed Hitler a$$ with diplomacy for so lond, we might have avoided WWII. Look, there are some really CRAZY people in this world and every once in a while they become a leader of some country. Then the put their crazy schemes for world domination(see N Korea) or distruction of the Jews (Hitler and Iran) or Narcissism (Chavez in Venezuela). Sometimes someone has to stand up to the new bully on the block and lately it been Europes big brother, the US. Hey, you have the right to fear reprisals, you are closer to them than we are, but each time you back down to their demands ( thats you Spain and Italy) you give them new power over you. Why do you just surrender to them and become a Muslim theocracy? (Just kidding France, don't get any ideas)

 

Erm, I wouldn't start flaming the Europeans on this thread.

 

Which "left wing history" would that be? I seem to recall Truman as being a Democrat. Your comment about some European nations, while a bit off topic, is valid, considering what happened at Munich. Yet, America did little regarding Hilter as well.

Yeah, the country I live in comes to mind, atm. Oh, sorry, "just kidding."

The topic is America and Iran, for those who are still interested (hint).

 

There were roughly 22,000 Japanese defenders on Iwo Jima. Nearly all of them perished. There were 25,851 US casualties, of which 6,825 were KIAs.

The firebombing raids on Tokyo and environs generated more short-term deaths than did the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Or to put it another way, as more nations acquire nukes it becomes more likely that nukes will be used in anger (again).

 

Remember, the Dems were concervative until Hubert Humphrey.

Erm, I wouldn't start flaming the Europeans on this thread. Sorry, not flaming anyone on this board, just debating the countries political lack of will.

Hey, much of the politically correct world may disagree with the US's actions, but imagine the world if the US had returned to its isolationist stance of the early 20th century after WWII. The Soviets would have big the big dog on the block and that "bloc" would have been straining towards France to the west and Greece to the south.

Back on topic, doesn't anyone wonder why Iran makes weekly announcements on the "scientific" achievements? Its as if they are lookinh for a conflict. If I were a third world country on the West's watchlist, and I were developing nuclear technology, I would just wait until I finished, then announce it to the world to back off, I got the nukes too.

 

No, sorry. I don't remember that. But I do remember Social Security, the New Deal, labor reform and civil rights. Conservative? Hardly.

 

Funny, you pretty much round up one of main arguements of the reasons brought up in public to appease Germany. Of course you are not aware of it, but hey, no one's perfect. Just replace US with Germany and now, what dog would keep the Russian bear away?

 

I agree with you but i also extend it because simply it takes a crazy enough person to instrumentate a plot to gain access to a nuclear warhead or even worse to fire it up. So any country which has nukes is a potential danger due to its people (the crazy ones) mainly.

It is an assumption because Israel instead of Iran has the "right" to impend the inspections of IAEA.
And the whole story can be found here
I don't claim that this story proves anything else other than the fact that Israel most propably does have nukes. But we all know that if they do and they want to keep it a secret, they have proven that they can. And frankly Israel has never denied or accepted these rumours leaving them linger on above the territory for their own reasons. So even if they don't have (which i sincerely doubt) they do look like they do have.

And i guess that USA goverment that kissed Japans a$$ for so long before their attack on Perl Harbour does not put them in the same category you have put the European goverments of that era.
Or you again selectively forget that Europes most nations were allready torn apart by WW I and had enough problems (domestically speaking), to hinder them from looking outside their own front yard.

And then you again forget that here in Europe the war was fought right outside and inside our homes. And many villages and cities were wipped out of the map. Can you understand the difference?

Then again North Koreans world domination plans is something i hear for the very first time, it seems that i live in a different world. All i knew is that N. Korea sought to produce energy from nuclear facilities (ok granted weapons would have been the next logical step) and that was a big fear of the US administration, not the world.

As for Chaves i guess that we see it from a different point of view. I see a guy who wants the best for his country and the people that live in it. Too bad he is not licking US hand .
I guess that classifies him as a narcissist, since he does not care about the US interests and cares for Venezuelian interests.

As for the rest suggestions you make i find them at least biased and pointless. You should start looking in USA were the President has direct conversations with God. If that is not a sign of a theocracy then i don't know what is.

And as for Iran to get back in topic the whole thing is a little exaggerated. Even if they plan to acquire nuclear weapon capabilities (which they do) they are not near yet.
It is wise that the IAEA is worried from now, but to say that we will get to extreme measures from so early is not a good sign.
After all, not all the diplomatic and more peacefull pressure options have been used. It is rudiculous to say that a war is inevitable from now.

At this point neither side is willing to get into war. And i believe that in the next few years the situation will not alter that much. Unless something really big happens.

 

Am I the only one who remembers that, after Iraq did exactly what we told them to do, we went to war anyway?

I seem to remember a "disarm or we will invade" ultimatum being issued 3 days before we invaded. Saddam disarmed the weapons in question. We invaded anyway.

 

In old Europe we feel it's absurd and inconsistent to deride the UN as inconsequential (or whatever the Bush called it), but then wage illegal wars in its name...

Must be the hairsplitting that old, forgetful Europe seems prone of.

 

from a posting way back

Iran wants nukes for prestige and power on the international stage (so they can throw their weight around more easily). Basically so it can tell the rest of the world (USA) 'go screw yourself', and not be worried about consequences (i.e., the marines).

It is probably a bad ideea (since it increase the risk of proliferation, destabilizes the mideast, any number of reasons), but I would think it is not enough reason for going to war.

Oh, and Europe (and Russia) should be much more worried that US about Iran.

 

Iran would survive a nuclear attack on an European nation as much as nuking the US. I am sure they are aware of that.

There is reason for all to worry, though. Pakistan, however, is an ally of the US, so hush.

 

nuke do they really had any of it ?? and do we need any of it ?? why dont we all life in a peacefull world ?? argh.. this all this is so much... urgh... dunno what to say again...

damn war...

who start it all anyway ?? any idea ??

 

D171087: Countries don't have their armies so that they might attack. But a country with no army will sooner or later have a suddenly hostile neighbour crossing its borders.

As for Iran, well. If they obtain nuclear weapons, the whole middle east will be announcing "we have 'em, too!"

 

Personally, I think it all started back in around 1915 or so, and I blame the French and British.

 

I take it this is a sarcastic comment - always hard to tell online .

 

Probably not. The English and French were the two countries that were primarily responsible for carving the map of the Middle East that we know today, and actually set the boundaries of modern day Iraq around the time of WWI. Of course, Iran was not created by European imperialism - they've pretty much had the same national borders for around 1000 years now - so if that's your point, then it is valid.