# The Next President and IRAN?



## Christian Marcussen (Aug 30, 2008)

I am genuinely concerned about Iran and nukes. To me this is one of the larger security issues facing us today. 

As many of you know I'm hoping for Obama. However there is one issue that I have... Iran. How will he handle that?

So the question. Who do you think will be choice to make sure Iran does not get nuclear weapons?


----------



## midphase (Aug 30, 2008)

I think that if you're going to threaten to bomb Iran, then they will have all the reasons in the world to expedite their nuclear progress. McCain is going to push Iran into a corner, until they get angry, desperate, or both...and do something crazy (even by their standards). To make matters worse, Iran is well aware that the US military is pushed to their limits, a conflict with Iran would probably necessitate that the US reinstate the draft service, which will get people in this country to go crazy.

Obama seems like a more effective leader to initiate discussion with Iran, offer subsidies and aid in exchange for them to abandon or slow down their nuclear program. I think we've seen where a hard-ass "it's my way or the highway" type of diplomacy has gotten us...if we haven't learned our lessons...we deserve what we get!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Aug 30, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Sat Aug 30 said:


> I am genuinely concerned about Iran and nukes. To me this is one of the larger security issues facing us today.



What the hell are you talking about? Iran is not a threat! WTF? You believe this propaganda you hear on TV? Iran has not attack an other country in the last 1000 years. Iran as been involve in 1 war in the past 60 years and that was a war of aggression by proxy by the US using Iraq back in the day when Saddam was friend of the US. Now, the US as been involve in 70+ armed conflict since WW2. The US as even overthrow the president of Iran as one point... Who is threatening who i wonder? :roll:


----------



## Fernando Warez (Aug 30, 2008)

Oh and Iran spend about 1 % of what the US spend on the military. Actually, it may be worse. So they are not in a position to threaten anyone. This is about Israel wanting to keep the upper hand in the region so they don't want anyone who oppose them to have nukes and they are pressuring the US to do something about it. Israel has nukes and it's not legal either...


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Aug 30, 2008)

Fernando. Are you saying that Iran is not trying to aquire nukes, that they are but are no threat to anyone, or both?

A religious fundementalist terror-sponsoring state with nukes does not sound appealing to me.



> Oh and Iran spend about 1 % of what the US spend on the military.



That's a non-sequiteur. They are not a threat NOW - but we are talking about nuclear weapons. How much they spend on their military is irrelevant. 

Speaking of irrelevant... what does it matter how many wars they have been in or started? What does that say about the current political climate or leadership?



> This is about Israel wanting to keep the upper hand in the region so they don't want anyone who oppose them to have nukes and they are pressuring the US to do something about it. Israel has nukes and it's not illegal either...



Well. I think it is a good thing that it is Israel who has the nukes and not a religious fundementalist state. There is actually a difference who has the weapons - just like firearms. The owner/user matters.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Aug 30, 2008)

> Christian Marcussen @ Sat Aug 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Fernando. Are you saying that Iran is not trying to aquire nukes, that they are but are no threat to anyone, or both?
> ...



Oh there are fanatics in both camp believe me. Right wings Israeli believe they have 2000 year old claim on the land, and that's beyond fanaticism from my point of vue, that's nuts! 

I'm MUCH more worried about Israel doing something than Iran. There's this guy, a mossad defector, who left the mossad(the Israeli secret service) when he realized these guys were willing to risk WW3 for a very small piece of land. I forgot the guy's name but i remember the tittle of his book: By way of deception thy shall do ware(the mossad modus operandi). 

P.S. terror etc... are just labels. I've seen Israel use terror on the Palestinians but it is not label as such because of politics.


edited: Oh well! i didn't quiet get the quota right. I'm of to bed.


----------



## hbuus (Aug 30, 2008)

Some Israelis may very well be fanatic about acquiring what they believe to be their land, but at least they don't want to force upon the world their life style and beliefs. The fundamentalists in Iran wants that, don't they? They hate the Western way of life and wants hardcore Islam to rule the world.

I take it you don't agree in that analysis, Fernando?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 30, 2008)

Someone is forgetting about a big, bad Russian bear with many, many, many more nukes than little Iran or North Korea. And that bear is feeling very grumpy. Oh, and that bear has put away many, many berries (3rd largest cash of foreign reserves in the world).


----------



## Dave Connor (Aug 30, 2008)

Israel has been attacked by virtually everyone in the region and is regularly attacked by Iran backed militia's. They aren't going to assume that Iran won't make good on the threat to wipe them off the face of the Earth. That wouldn't be prudent of them since they have faced annihilation before. As soon as their intelligence people tell them Iran is close to a real nuclear capability they will do all they can to destroy and set back the program. Many people think Israel will do this prior to the inauguration of the next U.S. president. The U.S. is working with elements in Iran that are against the current regime and hoping for a change from within. The U.S. does not want a military confrontation with Iran since the people have had enough war with Iraq.


----------



## Robobino (Aug 30, 2008)

Where's the Messiah when you need Him?...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Aug 30, 2008)

Aquiring nuclear weapons is something a lot of countries apire to do.
It is what gave much weight to the super power and it is a great tool for weight as to how you are perceived on the world's diplomatic stage.
It is also a very scary thought when imagining it in the end of less than rationnal people...

...but it is only a matter of time until any nation that wants to can develop the technology to aquire them.
What are you gonna do then?
Go to war with every single country that has them?

There's got to be a better way to deal with this and certainly, acting like the world sherif has turned pretty badly for the US as of late.
Especially when the sherif turns out to be completely corrupt. 
We should take care of our huge internal problem before we are ready to face the rest of the world and restore our credibility.
The Russian crisis is another case in point...

G.W/Cheney: what a great legacy! Thanks...


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Aug 30, 2008)

I'm not saying war is the best option at all. I'm just saying that the president needs to be focused on the issue. I KNOW McCain is... But what about Obama? I hope he is... 



> ...but it is only a matter of time until any nation that wants to can develop the technology to aquire them.
> What are you gonna do then?
> Go to war with every single country that has them?



Well again... nations are different. It matters WHO gets them.


----------



## Robobino (Aug 30, 2008)

In less than six months, the Taliban will be in control of the pakistanese nuke arsenal...

Should look good in IMAX...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 30, 2008)

> You believe this propaganda you hear on TV? Iran has not attack an other country in the last 1000 years. Iran as been involve in 1 war in the past 60 years and that was a war of aggression by proxy by the US using Iraq back in the day when Saddam was friend of the US.



I don't want them to have nuclear weapons, though (not that I want anyone to have them). They have a mentally unstable regime at the moment, and with Iraq out of the picture they have no counterweight.

And I'm not sure where you get that piece of history. Certainly not from reality - we wanted both sides to lose.

By the way, anyone who's pro-Israel should be against the US being pro-Israel. We're in no position to do anything right now, but it's in Israel's and everyone else's interest for us to be in the middle so we can help settle the Israeli-Palestinian problem.



> acting like the world sherif has turned pretty badly for the US as of late



"Acting" is the right word, because enforcing the law has never had anything to do with it.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Aug 30, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Sat Aug 30 said:


> I'm not saying war is the best option at all. I'm just saying that the president needs to be focused on the issue. I KNOW McCain is... But what about Obama? I hope he is...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Iran is a nation. So is Syria, North Korea, Lybia, Sudan, Serbia, Croatia, Venezuela, Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia...etc
See, there is a long list of nations that sooner or later will be able to aquire nuclear weapons.

When you bring a gun to school, expect other kids to bring guns too.
When you arbitrarily punch someone in the face, expect to be punched in return.

Agressive behavior generates agressive response. J.C, Gandhi, Martin Luther King...etc understood that simple fact.
We have the wrong guys running the country, that's what you should be worrying about. Not what the appropriate response to Iran should be.

How many new fronts of war do you think the US can sustain before they loose for real?
Remember the Roman empire and streching your lines too thin, due to unsustainably large territory?
And coincidently, every other empire before and after?
We pride ourselves as being number one (only a matter of months until we turn into Federer)
We are/were the greatest empire of the late 20th/begining of the 21st century, and despite the numerous exemples in history, we have learnt nothing.

Iran?
Worry about what has been going on HERE for too long and what needs to be done NOW.

If we are waiting until we are down to a much weaker version of what the US are today (we're on our way) to play nice and show true fairness and good will in international politics, I do not think that will have much of an effect or an appearance of sincerity...


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Aug 30, 2008)

I see your point. And I agree... But I think you underestimate the dangers of religious fanatasism. How do you think Ghandi would have fared in Iran? Or Martin Luther King? How do you think Israel would look today if the roles of the Palestinians and Israel were reversed and and occationally an Israeli suicide bombed a bus?

I still hold that it matters who gets the nukes, and I prefere it not being dictators, governments that support terror or who think dying in war and killing infidels is glorious.

Personally I'm glad that the US is the superpower of the world. They haven't always used this power responsibly, but on a whole I think we should all be glad of what the US can be (and hopefully soon will be with Obama). To some extent I wan't you guys to poilce the world - I just want it to be just and I think it can be.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 30, 2008)

"See, there is a long list of nations that sooner or later will be able to aquire nuclear weapons."

Let's hope not!


----------



## artsoundz (Aug 30, 2008)

unfortunately, nuclear weapons, possibly in our lifetime, will be made obsolete by newer weapons and newer technologies. Very possibly nanotechnology not to mention bioweapons. 


Wealth based on fossil fuels will disappear. Imagine how that will impact the middle east and uh...Canada..


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 1, 2008)

Oh, you mean boxcutters. Penny dropped. It took me a while.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Sep 1, 2008)

Don't worry. The missile shield in Poland will save us all. (And if you believe that, I have a bridge-to-nowhere for sale...)


----------



## hbuus (Sep 1, 2008)

Well, experimenting with a missile shield is better than doing nothing IMO.


----------



## midphase (Sep 1, 2008)

Hbuus,

The expression in your pic looks like you're ready to nuke this forum at any moment!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 1, 2008)

Does it really matter who the next president is?

This is a audio clip from Ron Paul.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o

A bit more information can be found here.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun ... tack-iran/

Looks to me like Israel dictate US foreign policies in the region anyway.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Sep 1, 2008)

You notice how nobody ever talks about how much this "missile shield" will cost? They also don't list the companies who will profit.

As usual, the Republicans are expert at pissing away money. 

If you had a budget of tens of billions of dollars, would you spend it on an "experiment" in Poland? Is that really our top priority?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Sep 1, 2008)

And from what I gather, it's relatively easy to fool any defense system using dummy warheads and the like. And even when there is only one device coming in, they miss most of the time.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Sep 1, 2008)

Oh, and yeah, spending 10 billion on alternative energy sources so that Poland and the rest of Europe is not held hostage by Russia would be a better way to 'protect' that region.


----------



## hbuus (Sep 1, 2008)

midphase @ Mon Sep 01 said:


> Hbuus,
> 
> The expression in your pic looks like you're ready to nuke this forum at any moment!



Don't worry, I have no nuclear weapons...yet!


----------



## JonFairhurst (Sep 1, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Sep 01 said:


> And from what I gather, it's relatively easy to fool any defense system using dummy warheads and the like. And even when there is only one device coming in, they miss most of the time.


Exactly right.

I was an engineer on welfare (Reagan's Star Wars program) back in the early '80s. It's pretty clear that in the war between the defense systems and countermeasures that the countermeasures will always win.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Nov 20, 2009)

Right... so now we know who the president is, and we have gotten to know him a bit better. 

Will Obama do _whaever_ it takes to avoid a nuclear Iran? Or can we expect it to happen just like it did North Korea?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 20, 2009)

The latter. There's very little he or anyone else can do.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 20, 2009)

What do YOU suggest we do?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Nov 20, 2009)

I'm not entirely up to date to be honest. I believe a month ago Iran had some kind of deadline on some kind of agreement? How did that go?

I think the first step is to assume that any dodging around means that not all is as it should be. 

Unfortunately there are many players in this game, and I guess it's limited what the US can do alone if they can't get Russia and China to see the dangers (or act on them rather). And that is a worrying prospect as it leaves very few palpable options. That means the Obama needs to find out just how big a threat a nuclear Iran is, and then how far he is willing to go alone - and that was my question to you guys


----------



## José Herring (Nov 20, 2009)

Iran having nukes is very little threat to America. If you saw the missiles they're trying to put the nukes on there's really no chance they can reach the US. And if by some luck shot they happen to lob one over in our direction it will be detected long before it reaches America. Personally I think it's a European and Israeli problem more than a US problem.

It's such a typical response coming from a European. Openly critical of everything America does but when threatened they look to America for help.

So I reverse the question, is France, Germany, Italy prepared to do "whatever it takes" to rid Iran of Nuclear weapons?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 20, 2009)

Jose, any nuke going off anywhere is a global problem because of nuclear winter - never mind anything else.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Nov 20, 2009)

> It's such a typical response coming from a European. Openly critical of everything America does but when threatened they look to America for help.



:D Boy og boy are you barking up the wrong tree. I love America. I always defend America whenever I my get the chance. I frequently remind people that if it was not for the US we Danes would be speaking German og Russian right about now. This is also why I care a great deal about US elections and affairs and have done so since I was about 10 years old. So that critique is so way, way off in relations to me. 

Sure I may be critical of specific aspects of US policies. But never in a million years would you be able to pigeon hole me as anti-american. 



> So I reverse the question, is France, Germany, Italy prepared to do "whatever it takes" to rid Iran of Nuclear weapons?



lol - You ask the question as if I never thought of that. In what you thought was a clever, smart ass reply you have actually unwillingly hit the nail on the head. I'm asking this question because I know much to me regeret that Europe does not have the power, the balls or the will to do "whatever it takes". 

It seems you misjudged my intent with this thread. I'm looking to the US for hope because, not for a fight. I am glad to live in a world dominated by US supremacy.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 20, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Fri Nov 20 said:


> > It's such a typical response coming from a European. Openly critical of everything America does but when threatened they look to America for help.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My bad. I actually wasn't trying to be clever or smart ass. I like a lot of Americans are sick of having to pay for all the problems around the world.

But in any case I really do hope we do bomb the hell out of Iran nuclear facilities. It's obvious that they have no intention of not having nukes. They talk a good talk but at the end of the day their actions speak louder than their diplomatic rhetoric.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Nov 20, 2009)

No prob 

I too am sick of hearing how all the bad in the world is the Americas fault. Recentlu some dumbass on a Danish forum said he dreamed of a world without the US. I told him to be very careful what he wished for. 

As for bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. I would hope this could be avoided, but I'm doubtful. However I'm also doubtful that Obama would go through with it as a last resort. I guess that is what I'm trying to get a opinion about.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 20, 2009)

> Remember we've had some of the worst nuclear catastrophes in 3 mile island and in Chernobyl and we've tested nukes for years and no real nuclear winter has occurred



But we're not talking about nuclear power plants, we're talking about nuclear bombs! That's where the nuclear winter comes from.

Just trust me on this: you and I *really* don't want Iran to detonate a warhead *anywhere.* It really doesn't matter whether or not their missiles can reach us.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 20, 2009)

This president for as good hearted as he is, is very bad imo at making decisions about war actions. His plans for Afghanistan were doomed to failure from the start. His hopes that he can reach any kind of diplomatic solution with leaders like Kahmanni (sp) and Akmamedijan (sp) is a fools dream. I agree with Obama on many fronts on these issues he's defiantly way in the wrong.

The Iranian leaders are cold blooded killers. They have no regard for things like freedom and peace or the rights of other human beings. They can't be bargained with. They may not even be able to be bought. They're smart though. They placed their nukes right near a major city with a large student population making any bombing of the facility almost impossible without pouring a ton of nuclear material directly into a major population center.

It's just one more fear we may have to live with. Sadly one that could have easily been dealt with had it not reached this point.


----------



## Lex (Nov 20, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Sat Aug 30 said:


> Personally I'm glad that the US is the superpower of the world. They haven't always used this power responsibly, but on a whole I think we should all be glad of what the US can be (and hopefully soon will be with Obama). To some extent I wan't you guys to poilce the world - I just want it to be just and I think it can be.



This scares me 100 more then terrorists with nukes. The fact that this is coming from an intelligent artists makes it even more scary.

aLex


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 20, 2009)

Israel is the one to watch as far as acting. They have a thing about fanatics wanting to annihilate every last one of them. They will have good intelligence on Iran's capabilities and won't care what the rest of the world thinks if they are convinced of the danger.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 20, 2009)

However the days of being able to do what they did in 1980 (blowing up the Iraqi nuclear reactor) are long gone.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 20, 2009)

That's what everyone says but we just sold them some very serious bunker busters so they are doing everything they can to be ready. If push comes to shove do you really think they will stand pat?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Nov 21, 2009)

The problems facing Israel are extremelt tricky. They need to weigh up which is worse:

1) Iran with nukes - and a possibility that they would use them
2) Bombing Iran which in turn would garantee retailiation. 

Option 1 is worse potentially, but option two will for certain have severe consequences. 

Tough.


----------

