Obama Speech to the UN

Great question, usmc:

My take is that, by definition, a Theocracy is “unstable”. And Israel understands that within the context of Muslim belief, they are evil incarnate.

As long as Israel is surrounded by people who hate them who are armed with rocks, bomb vest and inferior weapon systems, they can at least negotiate. Once that “balance” changes, and a country is armed with “the Hammer of Allah”, their very existence is threatened.

Israel simply cannot…will not…let it get to that point.

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Great question, usmc:

My take is that, by definition, a Theocracy is “unstable”. And Israel understands that within the context of Muslim belief, they are evil incarnate.

As long as Israel is surrounded by people who hate them who are armed with rocks, bomb vest and inferior weapon systems, they can at least negotiate. Once that “balance” changes, and a country is armed with “the Hammer of Allah”, their very existence is threatened.

Israel simply cannot…will not…let it get to that point.

Mufasa [/quote]

I agree Israeli has some cause for concern, but regardless of what Ahmadinejad says the Ayatollah has stated he believes nuclear weapons are “un Islamic”, I’ll see if I can find a link, and I believe the majority of Iran would back the Ayatollah if push came to shove so to speak. Also any attack by Israeli or her allies, namely us, would destabilize the middle east even further hurting any efforts in Iraq/Afghanistan.

If Iran gained nuclear weapons they would have less to fear from Israeli and any other nation in the region for that matter. The real question is will Iran use their nuclear capabilities to force their neighbors to do what they want?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Great question, usmc:

My take is that, by definition, a Theocracy is “unstable”. And Israel understands that within the context of Muslim belief, they are evil incarnate.

As long as Israel is surrounded by people who hate them who are armed with rocks, bomb vest and inferior weapon systems, they can at least negotiate. Once that “balance” changes, and a country is armed with “the Hammer of Allah”, their very existence is threatened.

Israel simply cannot…will not…let it get to that point.

Mufasa

I agree Israeli has some cause for concern, but regardless of what Ahmadinejad says the Ayatollah has stated he believes nuclear weapons are “un Islamic”, I’ll see if I can find a link, and I believe the majority of Iran would back the Ayatollah if push came to shove so to speak. Also any attack by Israeli or her allies, namely us, would destabilize the middle east even further hurting any efforts in Iraq/Afghanistan.

If Iran gained nuclear weapons they would have less to fear from Israeli and any other nation in the region for that matter. The real question is will Iran use their nuclear capabilities to force their neighbors to do what they want?[/quote]

Even if they don’t really want to use them, do you trust Iran to keep their nukes secure? I sure don’t. Whether by state action or by security breakdowns, extremists within the Revolutionary Guard, etc., those weapons are at great risk of leaving the country. I believe the same threat exists in Pakistan, which is why it is vital to have a stable, pro-US, non-theocratic government in Pakistan. Whether it is a dictatorship or not is less important to me than ensuring that those weapons aren’t proliferated into the hands of non-state entities. You can deter a state with threat of nuclear retaliation. An individual or terrorist group, no.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Great question, usmc:

My take is that, by definition, a Theocracy is “unstable”. And Israel understands that within the context of Muslim belief, they are evil incarnate.

As long as Israel is surrounded by people who hate them who are armed with rocks, bomb vest and inferior weapon systems, they can at least negotiate. Once that “balance” changes, and a country is armed with “the Hammer of Allah”, their very existence is threatened.

Israel simply cannot…will not…let it get to that point.

Mufasa [/quote]

I am no great raving raving fan of Israel, but they would be nuts to let Iran obtain an unconventional arsenal. I wouldn’t if I were them and it was within my resources to prevent it. Once you have the God of Islam involved all bets are off. One group or leader will see something as their divine mandate regardless of what any other less holy muslim may think.

In other words I MUST fulfill the will of Allah and not the will of men who obviously aren’t hearing his voice as clearly as I am.

If Iran goes nuclear SOMEBODY over there will use those weapons and probably sooner than many may think. They can’t help it. Death is welcomed by them. The threat of retaliation is no deterrent and may even enhance their motivation toward using them.

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Great question, usmc:

My take is that, by definition, a Theocracy is “unstable”. And Israel understands that within the context of Muslim belief, they are evil incarnate.

As long as Israel is surrounded by people who hate them who are armed with rocks, bomb vest and inferior weapon systems, they can at least negotiate. Once that “balance” changes, and a country is armed with “the Hammer of Allah”, their very existence is threatened.

Israel simply cannot…will not…let it get to that point.

Mufasa

I agree Israeli has some cause for concern, but regardless of what Ahmadinejad says the Ayatollah has stated he believes nuclear weapons are “un Islamic”, I’ll see if I can find a link, and I believe the majority of Iran would back the Ayatollah if push came to shove so to speak. Also any attack by Israeli or her allies, namely us, would destabilize the middle east even further hurting any efforts in Iraq/Afghanistan.

If Iran gained nuclear weapons they would have less to fear from Israeli and any other nation in the region for that matter. The real question is will Iran use their nuclear capabilities to force their neighbors to do what they want?

Even if they don’t really want to use them, do you trust Iran to keep their nukes secure? I sure don’t. Whether by state action or by security breakdowns, extremists within the Revolutionary Guard, etc., those weapons are at great risk of leaving the country. I believe the same threat exists in Pakistan, which is why it is vital to have a stable, pro-US, non-theocratic government in Pakistan. Whether it is a dictatorship or not is less important to me than ensuring that those weapons aren’t proliferated into the hands of non-state entities. You can deter a state with threat of nuclear retaliation. An individual or terrorist group, no. [/quote]

Do you trust Russia, India, or even the U.S. from losing control of their nukes? Anything is possible. I’m all for destroying nukes internationally, but it’s a dream. Nations will always try and make them no matter what, but if Iran has them it could stabilize the region and if we allow Iran to grow economically there is less of a chance they will risk helping terrorist and harming their economy. Honestly I think keeping Iran from gaining nuclear weapons is a dream at this point IMO.

Even if say Al Qaeda can get their hands on a nuke I doubt it would be one even as powerful as the nukes used on Japan during WW2. Plus they, at least for the time being, couldn’t hit us with a rocket if their life depended on it. They would have to smuggle a dirt bomb into the country which is possible, but all fingers would point to Iran giving terrorists the nuke, which would led to their annihilation. Not smart on their part.