Why Iran Should Get the Bomb

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
To those that believe that Iran seeks the nuclear annihilation of Israel, do you also believe that al-Qaida seeks to destroy American society and values, that they indeed hate the West because of “our freedoms”?[/quote]

I agree with Push…yes…among other things (like “freeing” the Holy Land on which Mecca stands of the Sunnis)…

You believe otherwise?

Mufasa[/quote]

Ummm, al-Qaida’s members are ultra conservative Sunni Muslims.
[/quote]

Iran (who are mostly Shi’a) hate the Sunni; especially the “Royal Family” that occupies the land on which Mecca stands.

Where are you going with this, Bismark?

What is the question?

Mufasa[/quote]

Ach, just realized you were referring to Iran and not al-Qaida, which explains my confusion. Apologies.

Do I believe that Iran is intent on starting a suicidal nuclear war with Israel? No. Do I believe that they should be allowed to become a nuclear weapons state? No. Do I believe that al-Qaida “hates us for our freedoms?” No.[/quote]

Do you believe that the 1996 fatwa allegedly authored by bin Laden, and the more recent lecture given by the Pakistani al-Qaeda member, are an accurate representation of the organization’s agenda, or, as Push has implied, simply hyperbole and misdirection?[/quote]

Do you believe that if we left the Muslim Holy Sites then Al-Queda will leave us alone?
[/quote]

No one is advocating this. You do, however, fall into the “they hate us for our freedom” camp.
[/quote]

That is not the only reason. There are many more. The freedom part is way down the line.
[/quote]

And you base your assessment of al-Qaida’s ideology on what, exactly? [/quote]

The Koran.

362

So, the Real Irish Republican Army’s ideology can be summed up in the Christian Bible?

363

[quote]Bismark wrote:
So, the Real Irish Republican Army’s ideology can be summed up in the Christian Bible?[/quote]

That is a huge leap. Ireland and Northern Ireland/England are both Christian and completely different from Al-Qaeda (Muslim) with the entire Westernized World (Christian, Jewish, and Secular). Koran, Convert or pay tribute or die =/= IRA give us our land back. If the Crown would give back Northern Ireland then the bombings would stop. Al-Qaeda would just spread and keep going.

If the Muslim world wanted peace with Israel and they laid down their weapons today, Israel would lay down their weapons also. If Israel laid down their weapons today the Muslim world would descend upon Israel like locusts.

364

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I agree with Push…yes…among other things (like “freeing” the Holy Land on which Mecca stands of the Sunnis)…

You believe otherwise?

Mufasa[/quote]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way:

“Hating us because of our Freedoms” is one of those phrases that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me (although it seems to be everywhere).

They hate us because that are “commanded” to in their Holy Scripture…along with eliminating both us and Israel.

Mufasa[/quote]

I can’t tell if you’re talking about Iranians exclusively or Iranians and Al-Qaida. Saying that Iran wants to free Mecca of Sunnis is ridiculous. There are 1.5-2 billion muslims in the world, 90% of which are Sunnis. Freeing Mecca of Sunnis would be completely counterproductive for the Iranian regime’s goal of being considered a leader of the muslim world. It also would be impossible.

No one, Iran or al-qaida, hates the U.S. for our freedoms. They don’t like outsiders meddling in their territory. Outsiders meddling in middle eastern territory is a huge reason (NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THE ONLY REASON!!) why the middle east is the shit show that it is today. And history goes longer than 10 years or 20 years – I’m not even talking about the recent wars and it’s not just Israel. Whether the U.S. should or shouldn’t be meddling in the region is another topic entirely.

I know Iranians that do hate the U.S. are hating for other reasons than being commanded to do so in their holy scripture. History goes back much farther than 1979 and there’s a lot of news that doesn’t get much coverage in our media. The two things all Iranians have in common (both revolutionary zealots and the secular people) is love of their nation and a desire to be treated with dignity and respect.

The Iranian revolution had to do with wanting self-autonomy and an evil dictator who put the needs of foreign countries above his own, in addition to murdering his people and depriving them of dignity. Even the current regime, which I consider evil (BUT not crazy like many here do) plays nice when it is treated with respect. Most of the animosity an Iranian would have against the U.S. would be driven by a lack of respect, not the Koran.

This doesn’t really apply to what you wrote but something I’d like to point out. Most Iranians are secular and enjoy Western culture. Clothing, music, technology, everything. Most just want to pursue a prosperous life. They are a far more educated and current society than most on this forum could imagine. No, it is not Denmark but it’s not Afghanistan either. And Iranians would MUCH prefer to be Denmark than Afghanistan. I am aware that all I just discussed doesn’t have to do with Iran’s nuclear program, but the discussion has covered these topics and I wanted to provide a different perspective.

BTW I wish the Iranian regime was eliminated and a modern, western style democracy was implemented. The nation would absolutely flourish. But right now eliminating the Iranian regime could only be done through an all-out invasion, which would not be in America’s best interest.

365

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
And while I’m at it, do you honestly believe they actually mean half of this shit they spew out? They created an Islamic Republic in order to spew as much religious rhetoric as they can in order to force control.
Khomeini banned music, he banned chess and one by one they gave all these little things back to the populace like a drip feed over the past thirty years, every few years Iranian people have had more and more freedoms drip fed to them to keep them happy.
Like I said they are clever fuckers even if you don’t think so.[/quote]

Spot on. Looking at pictures of Iranians from 1981 and comparing it today and it is obvious.

To add to this, when the regime is pissed, they will take back liberties to show they’re still running the show. Then when things calm, slowly bring them back.

Iran is an islamic republic but has many secular elements to their society. Many people drink alcohol in Iran, and it is easy and cheap to get. The government is aware of this, but they allow it to happen because it serves their political motives. Keep the people happy, but still maintain the look of an islamic society. This helps with their goal to be a leader of the muslim world.

Other things like social media websites are banned but most Iranians have a FB and twitter account. There are also more blogs per capita in Iran than anywhere else in the world. The government is aware of this.

Iranians that have the means, not just the elite, have access to satellite TV and watch programs from all over the world. It’s pretty easy to spot one and if the government wanted to, could crack down on that. But they don’t.

366

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Iraq was supplied chemical weapons during the Iran- Iraq war not to massacre “innocent civilians,” but to degrade Iranian power in line with the tenets of Realpolitik.
[/quote]

Iraq was not only supplied the weapons but also provided intelligence to use the weapons effectively. 100s of thousands of Iranians, including civilians, suffered from Hussein’s use of chemical weapons while the rest of the world cheered him on. Not only cheered him on, but supported and financed him. No one seems to remember these things, but Iranians never forgot. Imagine the reaction from Iranians when Americans suddenly seemed to care so much about the small-scale use of chemical weapons this past summer.

It’s stuff like this, or Iran Air Flight 655, that causes Iranian animosity toward the U.S. It’s not about scripture, which others have posited.

367

My personal opinion is that the Iranian regime wants to make it clear that they have mastered the technology to make a bomb and could do so if they wanted to. I think the Iranian regime realizes actually producing a nuclear weapon now would not be in its best interest. The Iranian regime is way smarter than it’s getting credit for here. They want to preserve power and expand its regional influence. The global response to producing a bomb would result in a situation that the Iranian regime couldn’t handle at this moment.

I don’t think there’s a desire to nuke Israel. It wouldn’t make much sense at all. Israel is a small country and the nuclear fall-out would certainly cause wide-spread problems in the region and not just Israel. Iran is looking to expand its influence among Arabs not antagonize them further. There are also muslim holy sites in Israel that I doubt Iran would want to eliminate. In addition, nuking Israel would guarantee the annihilation of Iran and most of its people. This doesn’t serve the Iranian regime in any way.

This is where the real disagreement here is. Some here think the regime is crazy and would like to cause the end of the world as soon as possible. I consider the regime evil but not crazy. They want more power and expanded influence, not the end of the world.

If Iran got the bomb, it would be there for deterrence, just like any other nuclear state. I don’t think the regime should be allowed to get the bomb. But I think the current GLOBAL strategy is the correct way to go about this situation (global is in all caps because this is more than just Obama and the U.S.). T strategy can be modified as more information becomes available. Right now I think what’s happening is the best thing, and I am someone who has always wanted the elimination of the current Iranian regime.

Also, and I’m not bullshitting, part of Iran’s nuclear program does have to do with producing civilian electricity. Both for itself and other western Asian countries that need to import power. Crude oil is a terrible source of power generation, and I laugh at people who question why an oil rich nation would want more options. You will sound ignorant if you equate crude or oil products to a source of power generation. Refined oil products are also a terrible source of power generation. Anyway Iran is a net-importer of refined products because it has an underdeveloped refining industry. As far as gas-fired generation, the Iranian natural gas industry is underdeveloped and when it is developed, Iran will be interested in exporting as much of it as possible as nat gas prices are crazy high in Europe and Asia.

368

BPCorso:

As always; simply outstanding posts, with very informative insights.

There are just a few points that I have some (albeit small) disagreement with:

  1. The % of mix of peoples never has, and most likely never will, determine the degree of hate, animosity and war. The Shi’a and Sunni have been at war with each other for centuries; and while there are many that disagree with me; the problems in the Middle East are a result of Shi’a/Sunni conflict, with Israel being a convenient scape-goat. Which “sect” is or is not in the minority makes little or no difference.

  2. The Shi’a absolutely feel that the “Royal Sunni’s” on the Holy Land are an abomination.

  3. I agree with you on the feelings of the Iranian PEOPLE. (Their protest a couple of years ago support exactly what you said). If it was up to them, I think that we would not even be having this discussion. However; the degree to which they will be allowed to become “more secular” is limited by the Leadership. It’s the LEADERSHIP of Iran that we should fear, not its people…and while these Leaders may show some degree of pragmatism…they are ultimately driven and inspired by their interpretation of Holy Writ.

  4. IRAN HAS NO NEED FOR WEAPONS GRADE URIANIUM (which is NOT needed for Nuclear Power Plants).

Related to this, I am unclear as to whom exactly Iran would be “deterring” with Nuclear Weapons. It can’t be the U.S. or Israel (one U.S sub has enough thermonuclear tonnage to wipe out most of the Middle East); and Israel has consistently shown the desire to protect herself, not destabilize the Middle East.

BP; these are not huge disagreements; but I do think they deserve further discussion.

And again; thank you for your insights.

Mufasa

370

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
So, the Real Irish Republican Army’s ideology can be summed up in the Christian Bible?[/quote]

That is a huge leap. Ireland and Northern Ireland/England are both Christian and completely different from Al-Qaeda (Muslim) with the entire Westernized World (Christian, Jewish, and Secular). Koran, Convert or pay tribute or die =/= IRA give us our land back. If the Crown would give back Northern Ireland then the bombings would stop. Al-Qaeda would just spread and keep going.

If the Muslim world wanted peace with Israel and they laid down their weapons today, Israel would lay down their weapons also. If Israel laid down their weapons today the Muslim world would descend upon Israel like locusts.
[/quote]

Actually the Irish republican movement is entirely secular. It’s to do with discrimination of Catholics who are a lower class in Ireland. Particular in the North. You’ll find that just about none of the Ulsters or Catholics are religious.

371

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
BPCorso:

As always; simply outstanding posts, with very informative insights.

There are just a few points that I have some (albeit small) disagreement with:

  1. The % of mix of peoples never has, and most likely never will, determine the degree of hate, animosity and war. The Shi’a and Sunni have been at war with each other for centuries; and while there are many that disagree with me; the problems in the Middle East are a result of Shi’a/Sunni conflict, with Israel being a convenient scape-goat. Which “sect” is or is not in the minority makes little or no difference.

  2. The Shi’a absolutely feel that the “Royal Sunni’s” on the Holy Land are an abomination.

  3. I agree with you on the feelings of the Iranian PEOPLE. (Their protest a couple of years ago support exactly what you said). If it was up to them, I think that we would not even be having this discussion. However; the degree to which they will be allowed to become “more secular” is limited by the Leadership. It’s the LEADERSHIP of Iran that we should fear, not its people…and while these Leaders may show some degree of pragmatism…they are ultimately driven and inspired by their interpretation of Holy Writ.

  4. IRAN HAS NO NEED FOR WEAPONS GRADE URIANIUM (which is NOT needed for Nuclear Power Plants).

Related to this, I am unclear as to whom exactly Iran would be “deterring” with Nuclear Weapons. It can’t be the U.S. or Israel (one U.S sub has enough thermonuclear tonnage to wipe out most of the Middle East); and Israel has consistently shown the desire to protect herself, not destabilize the Middle East.

BP; these are not huge disagreements; but I do think they deserve further discussion.

And again; thank you for your insights.

Mufasa[/quote]

Mufasa - Thank you for your polite words and willingness to engage in civil discussion about a fiercely debated topic. I think it’s very possible for people to disagree on uncomfortable topics and remain civil.

  1. Completely agree here. People who say Israel is the root of all problems in the Middle East are either mental midgets, harbor hatred toward Jews, or simply don’t know what they’re talking about. The middle east is an ancient land and empires or nations have always been vying for hegemony. Shiite/Sunni relations is certainly a primary driver of conflict in the region. It’s more complicated but I don’t think I need to expound on that here. There is also some conflict between Sunnis that reject the Sunni monarchies.

  2. You are correct. Key word though is royalty. If I’m playing a hypothetical game and imagine Iran as the new gatekeeper of Mecca (will never happen), I’m confident they would allow Sunnis to enter Mecca. It’s really about rejecting the Sunni Monarchies for Iran. Iran has good relationships with Sunni dominated countries but not with the monarchies (except for Oman which it is friendly with).

  3. Yes, it really sucks Iranians are being held back by a disorganized, Islamic theocracy. The constant propaganda from the regime doesn’t help. I hate the ridiculous and inflammatory statements from the regime that reflect poorly on Iranian culture and people. If I had 3 wishes to be granted one of them would be the collapse of the Iranian Islamic regime to be replaced by a real democratic republic. The country would flourish.

  4. Correct, you only need enrichment up to 3-4 percent for a reactor. There would be no need for further enrichment for power generation.

As far as deterrence, I’d say it would be for the Sunni monarchies mostly. I’m not smart enough regarding military strategy to say how well it would work for the U.S. or Israel. I know that North Korea has their nuclear weapons program to deter aggression.

In the end, I don’t know what exactly is the best short-term and long-term plan for dealing with Iran although I posted some thoughts on that earlier. A lot of my words here were to defend the dignity of the Iranian people. I do not defend the regime and it’s tragic what has happened to Iran since the revolution.

And I agree with most here that Iran should not be allowed to get the bomb. How that is achieved is up for debate. I don’t hold the view “Well Israel and the U.S. have nukes so why shouldn’t Iran?”

372

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
BPCorso:

As always; simply outstanding posts, with very informative insights.

There are just a few points that I have some (albeit small) disagreement with:

  1. The % of mix of peoples never has, and most likely never will, determine the degree of hate, animosity and war. The Shi’a and Sunni have been at war with each other for centuries; and while there are many that disagree with me; the problems in the Middle East are a result of Shi’a/Sunni conflict, with Israel being a convenient scape-goat. Which “sect” is or is not in the minority makes little or no difference.

  2. The Shi’a absolutely feel that the “Royal Sunni’s” on the Holy Land are an abomination.

  3. I agree with you on the feelings of the Iranian PEOPLE. (Their protest a couple of years ago support exactly what you said). If it was up to them, I think that we would not even be having this discussion. However; the degree to which they will be allowed to become “more secular” is limited by the Leadership. It’s the LEADERSHIP of Iran that we should fear, not its people…and while these Leaders may show some degree of pragmatism…they are ultimately driven and inspired by their interpretation of Holy Writ.

  4. IRAN HAS NO NEED FOR WEAPONS GRADE URIANIUM (which is NOT needed for Nuclear Power Plants).

Related to this, I am unclear as to whom exactly Iran would be “deterring” with Nuclear Weapons. It can’t be the U.S. or Israel (one U.S sub has enough thermonuclear tonnage to wipe out most of the Middle East); and Israel has consistently shown the desire to protect herself, not destabilize the Middle East.

BP; these are not huge disagreements; but I do think they deserve further discussion.

And again; thank you for your insights.

Mufasa[/quote]

Mufasa - Thank you for your polite words and willingness to engage in civil discussion about a fiercely debated topic. I think it’s very possible for people to disagree on uncomfortable topics and remain civil.

  1. Completely agree here. People who say Israel is the root of all problems in the Middle East are either mental midgets, harbor hatred toward Jews, or simply don’t know what they’re talking about. The middle east is an ancient land and empires or nations have always been vying for hegemony. Shiite/Sunni relations is certainly a primary driver of conflict in the region. It’s more complicated but I don’t think I need to expound on that here. There is also some conflict between Sunnis that reject the Sunni monarchies.

  2. You are correct. Key word though is royalty. If I’m playing a hypothetical game and imagine Iran as the new gatekeeper of Mecca (will never happen), I’m confident they would allow Sunnis to enter Mecca. It’s really about rejecting the Sunni Monarchies for Iran. Iran has good relationships with Sunni dominated countries but not with the monarchies (except for Oman which it is friendly with).

  3. Yes, it really sucks Iranians are being held back by a disorganized, Islamic theocracy. The constant propaganda from the regime doesn’t help. I hate the ridiculous and inflammatory statements from the regime that reflect poorly on Iranian culture and people. If I had 3 wishes to be granted one of them would be the collapse of the Iranian Islamic regime to be replaced by a real democratic republic. The country would flourish.

  4. Correct, you only need enrichment up to 3-4 percent for a reactor. There would be no need for further enrichment for power generation.

As far as deterrence, I’d say it would be for the Sunni monarchies mostly. I’m not smart enough regarding military strategy to say how well it would work for the U.S. or Israel. I know that North Korea has their nuclear weapons program to deter aggression.

In the end, I don’t know what exactly is the best short-term and long-term plan for dealing with Iran although I posted some thoughts on that earlier. A lot of my words here were to defend the dignity of the Iranian people. I do not defend the regime and it’s tragic what has happened to Iran since the revolution.

And I agree with most here that Iran should not be allowed to get the bomb. How that is achieved is up for debate. I don’t hold the view “Well Israel and the U.S. have nukes so why shouldn’t Iran?” [/quote]

I would like to say thank you for your insight. Number 3 I agree with 100%.

I have been corrected before, and I continue to learn.

373

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
I hate the ridiculous and inflammatory statements from the regime that reflect poorly on Iranian culture and people. If I had 3 wishes to be granted one of them would be the collapse of the Iranian Islamic regime to be replaced by a real democratic republic. The country would flourish.

[/quote]

Yeah absolutely! It worked so well with Julius Caesar, Octavian and Napoleon Bonaparte. Isn’t there this thing called ‘human nature’ whereby the toughest survive? Anyway, never mind natural law. Onwards with the Democratic Regime of Iran! We’ll need some piano wire and a secret police of course.