Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb - Page 3

Bluesman · 08-18-2005, 17:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairthought

The benefits of a war on Iran are all imaginary. But to those possessed by paranoia and propaganda the imaginary is all too real.

That must mean me and you, Leader, ya big ole paranoid propaganda dupe, you.

Leader · 08-18-2005, 22:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairthought

IT is hard for the US to argue Iran needs to be punished for violating the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty when US allies -Israel, Pakistan, and India- have all violated the same treaty and got little or no punishment at all.

India and Pakistan were both punished, and you're not arguing with the "US" in this thread.

Quote:

It is even harder for the US to argue Iran needs to be punished for violating a treaty when the US unilaterally dumped the ABM treaty,

You're comparing apples and oranges, and again I'm arguing that the US can't be secure with nuclear weapons in the hands of the Mullahs. You’re not arguing with the fictional "US" construct you created.

Quote:

calling it a relic of the cold war.

You've given no argument to show otherwise.

Quote:

The Russians are still quite mad about that.

And we're quite mad about some of the things Russia has done. What's you point?

Quote:

And the Russians may get revenge in the matter of Iran.

Whatever they want.

Quote:

Is not the NNPT a relic of the cold war? A treaty that calls on all non-nuclear nations to grant the cold war nuclear powers exclusive right to nukes? It is a treaty that no longer reflects the reality of the word today. Not only is the cold war over, but there are already numerous violations.

I'm not arguing about treaties. The US should not allow it's enemies the means to destroy it.

Quote:

The US will certainly initiate the need for war against Iran, arguing its case before the Europeans.

We will try to convince them, but in the end, we will do what we think is best.

Quote:

The Europeans, particularly France and Germany, will not be so obstinate the second time around. France in particular suffered a lot from US diplomatic attacks, and they have learned to change their tune. They will be eager to be hard on Iran to show how valuable French support can be.

What evidence do you have to support any of that?

Quote:

The Russians are eager for entry into the WTO and European investment. In exchange for economic breakthroughs the Russians could very well turn their backs on Iran.

I'm sure there was a bribe waiting for them had they chosen to support us on Iraq and they didn't take it. I'm not expecting them to take it next time.

Quote:

They have already delayed the start of the Bushehr reactor several times and now are suspending the sales of military arms -tying them to European anti-nuclear initiatives.

Maybe they don't want a war?

Quote:

I think if a UN veto

Why would we go to the UN? It just proved a waste of time in the past.

Quote:

is to come from anywhere it would be China. China has a $100 billion petroleum investment deal in Iran, worth potentially $200 billion in total trade. These aren't the types of investments that China is willing to lose. Iran also has a gas pipeline in the works with India, in addition to a $20 billion Indian investment in Iranian gas. But a UN veto will be irrelevant to the US anyway.

Yep.

Quote:

The US has actually identified over 900 potential nuclear targets in Iran.

Which proves what? We probably have 20000 nuclear targets in Russia.

Quote:

Iran already has enough nuclear material to make several 'dirty bombs'.

"Dirty bombs" are a lot of myth. They aren't significantly more devastating then a conventional attack. They are a panic weapon not a serious threat.

Quote:

An air strike needs to destroy all possibility of Iran retaining nuclear material inorder to prevent the threat of Iran passing them to terrorists. If Iran already has some nuclear warheads the danger of a surgical strike is much worse.

Iran doesn't even have a nuclear device much less a warhead.

Quote:

If you only hit 99% of the facilities -using nuclear bunkerbusting bombs- and that last one percent held a nuclear bomb, the retaliation will ceratinly be nuclear and it will almost certainly be directed at either the US or Israel (whoever conducted the air strike).

You're over estimating their current ability.

Quote:

1. The islamic world will see this a proof that America is on a crusade to kill muslims

And that is a change how?

Quote:

and reduce any rising muslim country into rubble.

And this is true IYO?

Quote:

This will yield many thousands of terrorist cells to form spntaneously and without any recruitment effort by al-qaida. The number of terrorist incidents will skyrocket. The US will be losing the war on terror.

Well, there's always the “sniper option.”

Quote:

The panic of oil investors, recognizing 35% of the worlds oil is now in and around a war zone will cause the price of oil to skyrocket. $100 per barrel will be a conservative estimate. The price could reach as high as $150 per barrel. Any sudden rise in energy will be a shock to oil importing economic systems. The most vulnerable ecnomoy wil be the US. Attacks on oil pipelines and other facilities will in increase in Iraq and spread to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Algeria, Libya, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc. -wherever there is a muslim country with oil. Bombs and energy don't mix. Even the hint of war in the persian gulf would cause a speculation panic. Global economic recession.

You have to connect a lot of dots to get there including the one that proves that the US will use such weapons.

Quote:

The use of nukes for tactical purposes will encourage other nuclear powers to lower their inhibitions. China will be more likely to incorporate nukes into any invasion plan for Taiwan.

And they will get the same as they would today. Are under the impression that China won't use nukes because there is no precedent?

Quote:

Russia, France, Israel, Pakistan, India will be more inclined to use nukes in their various conflicts around the world.

Such as?

Quote:

The use of tactical nukes along the Indo-pakistan border will inevitably lead to the application of stronger nukes. Nuclear war be far more likely, and every single country in the world will develop a nuclear program for their own safety.

A prophesier of doom are we? This will happen? Do you have any doubt?

Quote:

Iran has already infiltrated Iraq with numerous scouts and snipers

Prove that.

Quote:

and organized shiite militias and established an underground network complete with weapon caches.

""

Quote:

The only reason the US hasn't suffered 500 dead per month in Iraq is because Iran has kept this powderkeg in check.

I'm beginning to question your sanity.

Quote:

It is being used as a deterrent against US aggression on Iran.

Yeah except there's no evidence so far that it's true.

Quote:

The sunni triangle insurgency will be nothing in comparison to what Iran will unleash.

A conclusion based on your imagination.

Quote:

World opinion of the US will plummet.

A) What's new
B) We don't care that much

Quote:

The US will no longer be seen as a stabilizing force in the world,

Since when has that been true?

Quote:

but a loose canon out of control and throwing havoc across the world.

You don't believe that's true now? I beat you do.

Quote:

The great powers -Europeans, Russia, India, China, Brazil, OPEC- will cement cooperation to check the world's lone superpower,

"Great powers?" I don't see any "great powers" on that list. Besides all those countries have a lot to lose by doing whatever you think they are going to do. Hasn’t stopped them in the past thou I suppose.

Quote:

So if the reason for going to war with Iran was punish them for violating the NNPT, the action will be a miserable failure due to consequence number three above (everyone will develop nukes).

You're assuming we will use a nuke. You're wrong.

Quote:

If the reason for going to war with Iran is Iran's involvement with insurgents in Iraq against US troops, then the action will be a failure due to consequence number four above.

Ahh yes the imaginary Iranian army in Iraq.

Quote:

If the reason for going to war with Iran is because Iran is a purported sponsor of terrorism, then the action will be a tremedous failure due to consequence number one above.

You're assuming numerous things that aren't true as pointed out above.

Quote:

If the reason for going to war with Iran is to insure US and Israeli exclusive nuclear dominance in the middle east,

Who's making that argument?

Quote:

The Israeli peace process has already begun,

If by "process" you mean the Israelis doing what they feel will offer them the most security, then I agree.

Quote:

It is simply in Israel's own interests to pursue the peace process.

It's in the Israelis interest to take what ever action is necessary to protect themselves from a deranged and death obsessed Palestinian society.

Quote:

Destroying Iran's nulcear facilities will not give you security because you already have security. Iran doesn't want a nuclear war, she would be decimated.

If you and several thousand followers decided to attack the US. You would be destroyed. Yet AQ did that exact thing. Why should I think Iran won't make the same choice? Why would America allow them that choice?

Quote:

America and Israel already have strong deterrents in place.

Which is irrelevant when you're not talking about a logical actor.

Quote:

Iran doesn't want to give nukes to terrorist because that puts themselves at risk.

So does trying to develop nuclear weapons, but it hasn't stopped them.

Quote:

No country in the world would fail to safe guard their own nukes from falling into the hands of others.

We've seen that's false in Russia.

Quote:

The benefits of a war on Iran are all imaginary.

Kind of like you're consequences to such a war.

Quote:

But to those possessed by paranoia and propaganda the imaginary is all too real.

So every one that doesn't agree with you is paranoid? You can shove that kind of "logic" up your ass.

Leader · 08-18-2005, 22:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

That must mean me and you, Leader, ya big ole paranoid propaganda dupe, you.

I don't know why he even bothers. We're clearly to stupid and brainwashed to understand his "enlightened" argument.

Garry · 08-19-2005, 06:14 AM

Very interesting analysis. You definetelly gave me some new points to think about...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairthought

IT is hard for the US to argue Iran needs to be punished for violating the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty when US allies -Israel, Pakistan, and India- have all violated the same treaty and got little or no punishment at all. It is even harder for the US to argue Iran needs to be punished for violating a treaty when the US unilaterally dumped the ABM treaty, calling it a relic of the cold war. The Russians are still quite mad about that. And the Russians may get revenge in the matter of Iran. Is not the NNPT a relic of the cold war? A treaty that calls on all non-nuclear nations to grant the cold war nuclear powers exclusive right to nukes? It is a treaty that no longer reflects the reality of the word today. Not only is the cold war over, but there are already numerous violations.

After campaign preparing US public to Iraqi intervention I see no problem for US administration going for a war even though Pakistan and India were not punished.... The one and a half year partial embargo for weapons was just a mock of a punishment..... India which was not buying much weapons from US went complitelly unpunished. Nothing was brought to Security Council by US.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairthought

The US will certainly initiate the need for war against Iran, arguing its case before the Europeans. The Europeans, particularly France and Germany, will not be so obstinate the second time around. France in particular suffered a lot from US diplomatic attacks, and they have learned to change their tune. They will be eager to be hard on Iran to show how valuable French support can be. The Russians are eager for entry into the WTO and European investment. In exchange for economic breakthroughs the Russians could very well turn their backs on Iran. They have already delayed the start of the Bushehr reactor several times and now are suspending the sales of military arms -tying them to European anti-nuclear initiatives.

I think if a UN veto is to come from anywhere it would be China. China has a $100 billion petroleum investment deal in Iran, worth potentially $200 billion in total trade. These aren't the types of investments that China is willing to lose. Iran also has a gas pipeline in the works with India, in addition to a $20 billion Indian investment in Iranian gas. But a UN veto will be irrelevant to the US anyway.

I think that Russians have not yet decided wheather to block it on not.... discussions are going on right now. However WTO candy does not work any more. Government has told few times - we did not oppose to Iraq compaign as we could have because WTO was promissed.... and no success.... US is now calling to review its protocol signed before.

Yes. China will not want to lose its investments. Russia as well. But both Russia and China want the number of nuclear states be limited... and if possible they would love to see Iran give up. However US made both Russia and China feel very eager to make problems to US agressive foreign policy.....

Europeans will not go for war with Iran. Their population is not that brainwashed against Iran and people clearly understand who will pay first for the war bill..... Londong strikes are nothing compared to what Iranians may deliver..... The truth is that Iran avoided terrorists attacks other than against Israel from its territory last decade.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairthought

Once nukes get dropped on the middle east five effects will occur:

1. The islamic world will see this a proof that America is on a crusade to kill muslims and reduce any rising muslim country into rubble. This will yield many thousands of terrorist cells to form spntaneously and without any recruitment effort by al-qaida. The number of terrorist incidents will skyrocket. The US will be losing the war on terror.

2. The panic of oil investors, recognizing 35% of the worlds oil is now in and around a war zone will cause the price of oil to skyrocket. $100 per barrel will be a conservative estimate. The price could reach as high as $150 per barrel. Any sudden rise in energy will be a shock to oil importing economic systems. The most vulnerable ecnomoy wil be the US. Attacks on oil pipelines and other facilities will in increase in Iraq and spread to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Algeria, Libya, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc. -wherever there is a muslim country with oil. Bombs and energy don't mix. Even the hint of war in the persian gulf would cause a speculation panic. Global economic recession.

3. The use of nukes for tactical purposes will encourage other nuclear powers to lower their inhibitions. China will be more likely to incorporate nukes into any invasion plan for Taiwan. Russia, France, Israel, Pakistan, India will be more inclined to use nukes in their various conflicts around the world. The use of tactical nukes along the Indo-pakistan border will inevitably lead to the application of stronger nukes. Nuclear war be far more likely, and every single country in the world will develop a nuclear program for their own safety.

4. Iran has already infiltrated Iraq with numerous scouts and snipers and organized shiite militias and established an underground network complete with weapon caches. The only reason the US hasn't suffered 500 dead per month in Iraq is because Iran has kept this powderkeg in check. It is being used as a deterrent against US aggression on Iran. The sunni triangle insurgency will be nothing in comparison to what Iran will unleash.

5. World opinion of the US will plummet. The US will no longer be seen as a stabilizing force in the world, but a loose canon out of control and throwing havoc across the world. The great powers -Europeans, Russia, India, China, Brazil, OPEC- will cement cooperation to check the world's lone superpower, at least long enough to groom China and India to eventually replace the US as more rational superpowers.

So if the reason for going to war with Iran was punish them for violating the NNPT, the action will be a miserable failure due to consequence number three above (everyone will develop nukes).

If the reason for going to war with Iran is Iran's involvement with insurgents in Iraq against US troops, then the action will be a failure due to consequence number four above.

If the reason for going to war with Iran is because Iran is a purported sponsor of terrorism, then the action will be a tremedous failure due to consequence number one above.

If the reason for going to war with Iran is to insure US and Israeli exclusive nuclear dominance in the middle east, one has to argue what additional benefit will this have? The US and Israel already have clear military superiority and that is not likely to change even with Iranian nukes. The Israeli peace process has already begun, even before any other middle-eastern nation has announced their nuclear abilities. It is simply in Israel's own interests to pursue the peace process.

Destroying Iran's nulcear facilities will not give you security because you already have security. Iran doesn't want a nuclear war, she would be decimated. America and Israel already have strong deterrents in place. Iran doesn't want to give nukes to terrorist because that puts themselves at risk. No country in the world would fail to safe guard their own nukes from falling into the hands of others.

The benefits of a war on Iran are all imaginary. But to those possessed by paranoia and propaganda the imaginary is all too real.

Quite interesting points..... However bombing will not resolve situatiojn.... Unlike N.Korea and Iraq, Iran has deposits of uranium ores on its territory. It means that even if you bomb out enrichment facilities you have to do it constantly.... and you have to sniff for them constantly. So only a full scale invasion may insure that enrichment process do not start. However invasion is impossible at current conditions.

Iranians understand that and that is why they went on. They want to speed up and have bomb before US has free hands from Iraq....

Hei Fairthought, what do think would be likelly:

1) Iran gives up its nuclear ambitions
2) Iran manages to make a bomb before US is ready to attack
3) Bush aministration starts attack long before Iraq issue is settled.....
a) only bombing
b) full scale land invasion

Do you think Russia will supply SAMs and anti-tank weapons to Iran?

Bluesman · 12-05-2005, 10:37 AM

Well, then. Just a few months ago, US intel said Iran was ten years away from a nuclear weapon. The Israelis tried to correct us by saying 'THREE years.' Now, the guy that should've stopped it from happeneing EVER says 'MONTHS away.

Great. I predicted almost a year ago that the Euro negotiations weren't going anywhere, and it seems I was and remain correct. THIS is what 'soft power' gets you: an armed and radicalized enemy. A nuke in the hands of a lunatic with a history of barbarity and savagery.

Once again, it's time for the US to save the cowardly and feckless Europeans from their own folly. (Is this little play EVER going to close? Must we re-run this production every ten years?) The US (and any of our mostly-worthless 'allies' that can summon the guts up to join us and get on the RIGHT side of history) should issue ultimata to Iran to dismantle its nuke program AND PROVE IT TO OUR SATISFACTION within 60 days, or face sustained attack in the manner of our choosing (let 'em chew on THAT for awhile, and figure out for themselves what we might mean by it). Russia, in the meantime, should be put on notice that ANY ships or aircraft inbound to Iran is subject to intercept (or destruction, should it not yeild), search and seizure of any nuclear-related cargo, and if such seizure occurs it shall be deemed prima facie evidence of Russian assistance to a belligerant of the US...and dealt with as such.

This is intolerable. Meaning, it's not to be tolerated. If we don't act, we'll be sorry, and probably not in ten years, nor in three, but MUCH sooner.

Quote:

El Baradei: Iran only months away from a bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 5, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb.

If Teheran indeed resumed its uranium enrichment in other plants, as threatened, it will take it only "a few months" to produce a nuclear bomb, El-Baradei told The Independent.

On the other hand, he warned, any attempt to resolve the crisis by non-diplomatic means would "open a Pandora's box. There would be efforts to isolate Iran; Iran would retaliate; and at the end of the day you have to go back to the negotiating table to find the solution."

Garry · 12-05-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Russia, in the meantime, should be put on notice that ANY ships or aircraft inbound to Iran is subject to intercept (or destruction, should it not yeild), search and seizure of any nuclear-related cargo, and if such seizure occurs it shall be deemed prima facie evidence of Russian assistance to a belligerant of the US...and dealt with as such.

This is intolerable. Meaning, it's not to be tolerated. If we don't act, we'll be sorry, and probably not in ten years, nor in three, but MUCH sooner.

very funny,

Attacking Russian ships in neurtal waters would be most stupid thing. This may lead to a war, which is much more dangerous than theoretical bombs of Iran. In current situation I see that many populist Russian politics will no way tollerate you touching its ships in neutral waters.... Building a pieceful power station in Busher. And nobody has reasons to doubt that it is peaceful.... even in US administration. And US depends so much on Russia in almost everything..... even Iraq will turn to a bloody hell if Russian government allows selling simple tandem warheads for RPGs not mentioning, that they can simply close down their aerospace for supplying of troops in Afghanistan... or ship few regiments of S-300 to Iran.... or Syria..... or put kick out US oil companies from Sakhalin shelf reserves.... it is a long list of reverse stupidity.

Anyway even it there were doubts with your administration, its unproved assumptions are not a legimate reason to state anything or demand anything from Russia, or accuse that Russia builds there anything more than peaceful station. Last time you assumed something to be in Iraq you did not find a dime of that.....

If you want to reach any progress here your adminstration must put down that arrogance.... be humble. To get something you must propose something. Tell that you order one nuclear station from Russian in Texas and Iranians will lose their contractor :-)

No need for arrogant statements. Russian companies will not even sneeze at them..... losing their cash flows.... for what?

ps. All nuclear staff is being shipped though Caspian sea..... and it is land locked. There are so many things totally out of your control, so you beter kindly ask for help and offer good ofsets... who knows. May be loading up capacities of Atomstroiexport with your orders would be much cheaper way to solve your problem.....

Bluesman · 12-05-2005, 14:56 PM

Bullsh!t. Humility and asking nice got the Europeans exactly NOTHING, except the back of the Iranian President's hand.

There's no more time to try to get this 'solved'. Ruin their program with a kinetic solution. Any assistance to the Iranians from any quarter should be named exactly what it is: an act of war.

The Russians have just inked a deal to supply the Iranians with 29 batteries of S-300s. Ripping up the contract should be our top priority. If any of them are delivered, they should be struck forthwith, before they become operational.

And if the Russians insist upon seling them no matter what we say, then a FAR better solution is to take care of it on the 'wholesale' level (while in transit) than at the 'retail' level, when they're deployed or dispersed.

But either way, the Iranians MUST NOT be allowed to go any further with this program, or with their ability to defend it from attack.

If they ARE allowed to go further, you'll see that I was right, AGAIN, but it'll be too late to do anything about it then.

**astralis** · 12-05-2005, 18:03 PM

bluesman,

to inquire about your point of view, what is the worst that could happen if the iranians were to acquire the bomb?

Bluesman · 12-05-2005, 22:51 PM

The worst case is that they'd use it.

**astralis** · 12-06-2005, 01:38 AM

Quote:

The worst case is that they'd use it.

of course. but under what circumstances do you think they would do so?

Garry · 12-06-2005, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Bullsh!t. Humility and asking nice got the Europeans exactly NOTHING, except the back of the Iranian President's hand.

There's no more time to try to get this 'solved'. Ruin their program with a kinetic solution. Any assistance to the Iranians from any quarter should be named exactly what it is: an act of war.

The Russians have just inked a deal to supply the Iranians with 29 batteries of S-300s. Ripping up the contract should be our top priority. If any of them are delivered, they should be struck forthwith, before they become operational.

And if the Russians insist upon seling them no matter what we say, then a FAR better solution is to take care of it on the 'wholesale' level (while in transit) than at the 'retail' level, when they're deployed or dispersed.

But either way, the Iranians MUST NOT be allowed to go any further with this program, or with their ability to defend it from attack.

If they ARE allowed to go further, you'll see that I was right, AGAIN, but it'll be too late to do anything about it then.

hei Bluesman, come down. I mean you need humbly ask Russians not Iranians..... there is nothing you can ask and get from Iranians... but Russians can get what they want.... if they do! Niether you nor Europeans have any leverage on Iran, only two countries really do - Russia and China. If you need their help go and ask like a man does dont't play an arrogant game cause you will get nothing then.....

You have wrong information. Russia is doing exactly as I was told.... giving Iran week weapons to enhance it marginally but nothing to make it too secure and independent from future help. The 29 mobile units of Tor-m1 will not protect them but somehow increase cost of bombing them. This system is short range - capable of 15km...... just like Syrian Pantsir-1C. S-300 would have made Iran too arogant at this stage..... Russians don't want US to bomb Iran nor Iran to have bomb..... they want Iran to agree to move uranium enrichment to Russian territory. In exchange they will give Iran all the defense weapons they want: S-300, modernize their air force, and sell them antiship missiles Yahont/Bramos.

Unlike your statements nobody in Bush administration will even dare to dream of calling a war with Russia..... :-)
Russia will help Iranians as much as they believe is good for their interests.... US can do nothing to Russia, except for WTO problems (which Russia cares less - oil exports are not taxed anyway). Simply because they have no business in common except for ISS. On other issues, US has broken all promises given to Gorbachev and later to Eltsin (NATO does not expand beyond Germany..... Anti-missile defense started..... US involvement in Central Asia..... etc.). So this time leverage of future concessions is very small. Now it will be pay as you go......

However Russia has a lot of leverage on US. They can easily make so much troubles.... or help with some issues. It is up to Bush administration to decide what they want to sacrifice if they want Putin to help them.

Regarding wholesale level.... you can not solve it. Tor-M1 is delivered by air and Busher power station machinery is being shipped through Caspian sea.... to which you have no access. Bombing Tor-m1 is hard cause it is a mobile system..... antiradar missiles can not handle it (radar shitches off and moves) an A-10 can.... but only with coverage of fighters with HARM. You don't even have a base to send A-10 deep into Iranian territory.....

lwarmonger · 12-06-2005, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

hei Bluesman, come down. I mean you need humbly ask Russians not Iranians..... there is nothing you can ask and get from Iranians... but Russians can get what they want.... if they do! Niether you nor Europeans have any leverage on Iran, only two countries really do - Russia and China. If you need their help go and ask like a man does dont't play an arrogant game cause you will get nothing then.....

Russia will sell to anyone with money. We have no need of their products, and so there is no reason to buy stuff from them. Hence, there is very little we can offer the Russians to stop them from selling weapons to Iran.

Quote:

Unlike your statements nobody in Bush administration will even dare to dream of calling a war with Russia..... :-)

Perhaps, but I doubt that too many in the Bush administration also want to repeat the mistakes of the past... such as allowing Russian ships to dock in Haiphong harbor unmolested, or not touching the Chinese railheads supplying the NVA with arms. If we declare Iranian territory to be a war zone, then anything in it, Russian or not, would become a potential target. Russia would not fight us over such a thing, especially as it is a fight they would lose.

Quote:

Russia will help Iranians as much as they believe is good for their interests.... US can do nothing to Russia, except for WTO problems (which Russia cares less - oil exports are not taxed anyway).

Untrue. Up until now, we have merely been accepting (albiet gladly) these pro-Western democratic movements that have been taking place in the Russian sphere of influence. We could begin actively supporting them in nations that still possess "pro-Moscow" regimes. That is definately a bargaining chip. So is shipping weapons and specialists to all of those Muslim republics that still want to become free of Moscow. Not just Chechnya, but a lot of the territories in the south could easily spill over into Russia proper if given the proper equipment. You equip our enemies, we'll equip yours.

Quote:

However Russia has a lot of leverage on US. They can easily make so much troubles.... or help with some issues. It is up to Bush administration to decide what they want to sacrifice if they want Putin to help them.

Putin has proven to be a most unreliable "friend" of the Bush administration. I doubt that we have much more to say to him regarding concessions. Don't get me wrong... I think the man is highly intelligent and definately a good thing for Russia (which needs strong leadership). However, that being said, I doubt that President Bush and President Putin have much to talk about at this point.

Quote:

You don't even have a base to send A-10 deep into Iranian territory.....

We have all of Iraq. I guarantee you that the Kurds will assist us if it would ensure a permanent US military presence in their territory.

Dreadnought · 12-06-2005, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

of course. but under what circumstances do you think they would do so?

Personally I dont think they will even get the chance. Israel has stated they will not let Iran aquire a nuclear weapon after threatening them. And being on the top of the list of countries Iran hates beside the West tells me they are more then ready to act upon this iregardless of the Iranian circumstances. Me, I just hope that the people in Iran know what kind of distruction this man their president will bring to their very doorstep.

Garry · 12-06-2005, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Russia will sell to anyone with money. We have no need of their products, and so there is no reason to buy stuff from them. Hence, there is very little we can offer the Russians to stop them from selling weapons to Iran.

You may always pay more. There must be something - stick or carrot.... you don't really have stick. So look in your pocket for a good carrot. If you don't offer something nobody will listen to you....

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Untrue. Up until now, we have merely been accepting (albiet gladly) these pro-Western democratic movements that have been taking place in the Russian sphere of influence. We could begin actively supporting them in nations that still possess "pro-Moscow" regimes. That is definately a bargaining chip. So is shipping weapons and specialists to all of those Muslim republics that still want to become free of Moscow. Not just Chechnya, but a lot of the territories in the south could easily spill over into Russia proper if given the proper equipment. You equip our enemies, we'll equip yours.

12-05-2005, 14:56 PM	#37 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,387 Country:	Bullsh!t. Humility and asking nice got the Europeans exactly NOTHING, except the back of the Iranian President's hand. There's no more time to try to get this 'solved'. Ruin their program with a kinetic solution. Any assistance to the Iranians from any quarter should be named exactly what it is: an act of war. The Russians have just inked a deal to supply the Iranians with 29 batteries of S-300s. Ripping up the contract should be our top priority. If any of them are delivered, they should be struck forthwith, before they become operational. And if the Russians insist upon seling them no matter what we say, then a FAR better solution is to take care of it on the 'wholesale' level (while in transit) than at the 'retail' level, when they're deployed or dispersed. But either way, the Iranians MUST NOT be allowed to go any further with this program, or with their ability to defend it from attack. If they ARE allowed to go further, you'll see that I was right, AGAIN, but it'll be too late to do anything about it then.

12-05-2005, 18:03 PM	#38 (permalink)
astralis *Foreign Service* Moderator Lei Feng Protege Join Date: 08-23-05 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 2,946 Country:	bluesman, to inquire about your point of view, what is the worst that could happen if the iranians were to acquire the bomb?

12-05-2005, 22:51 PM	#39 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,387 Country:	The worst case is that they'd use it.