So it turns out that a month or 2 before Bush said we don't want Iran to be World War 3, he was informed that Iran has ceased its nuclear program. That was the headline on yesterday's New York Times, and there's actually a great deal of documentation showing this is true, and has been known for some years. When it was initially brought up, the upper eschelons decided to wait and see if it was for real - it turned out to be for real as far as anyone can tell, so Bush and Company decided to just pretend like they never heard about that.

Sound familiar? Ignoring evidence, cherry picking bad intelligence, and basically lieing to drag us into another war of choice. My questions are as follows

1. Will it be the United States, or Israel to strike Iran? This is a tricky one, since Israel's nuclear weapons are "undeclared".
2. Will this happen before Bush leaves office, or will Hillary be the one?
3. How long after we strike Iran will it take for them to build a nuke anyway?

Why would Hilary bomb Iran when the evidence says their nuclear weapons program has ceased?

It's Cheney who wants to bomb Iran. Rice and Co. don't I think Bush has resigned himself to the fact that he is a lame duck and is waiting to stay in Crawford permanently.

I think that unless something else is "uncovered" Iran will not be bombed. With the release of the intelligence estimate Bush may even claim it was his handling of the situation that caused them to stop. You know like the claim that " that there star wars fooled them dumb commies and brought down all the communist regimes in Europe". Seriously, I've heard people say that.

To answer the questions:

1. Will it be the United States, or Israel to strike Iran? This is a tricky one, since Israel's nuclear weapons are "undeclared".

Neither, unless "intelligence" indicates they are continuing with the pursuit of nuclear weapon construction. Israel, btw, has indicated that they still believe they are pursuing it, and if history is any kind of teacher, Israel does what it needs to to protect itself

2. Will this happen before Bush leaves office, or will Hillary be the one?

Won't happen while Bush is in office, but I'd say Hilary has less than 50% chance of being our next president. If things continue to wind down, or at least stay stable in Iraq over the next year, the economy will be the single biggest issue. Hilary vs. Guiliani on economy, the decision is obvious. Other than that and the genitilia, they are practically the same candidate.

3. How long after we strike Iran will it take for them to build a nuke anyway?

What is the sound of one hand clapping? How long is a piece of string? Many feel it would be easier to spot bomb making activity in a glass parking lot.

Star wars brought down the Communists? Capitalism brought down the communists. But would their empire have failed if they hadn't spent all their money on arms instead of their infrastructure? Would they have spent all their money on arms if Ronny hadn't spent so much of our money on arms, including starwars?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Star wars brought down the Communists? Capitalism brought down the communists. But would their empire have failed if they hadn't spent all their money on arms instead of their infrastructure? Would they have spent all their money on arms if Ronny hadn't spent so much of our money on arms, including starwars?

I was just making fun of the ignorance of Ronnie worshipers who thought of all Russians as idiots. Russian scientists knew that Star Wars would never work just as Americans knew. And it DIDN'T.

They didn't spend all their money on arms. There were a lot of factors that brought down the Soviet Union. Spending money on arms is just one of many. Conservatives also take a very simplistic view of the world.

I think the USA will destroy Iraq. It's the usual thing for them. They have done it with the other countries already. Anyway noting good is expected for Iraq.

Originally Posted by joder

Why would Hilary bomb Iran when the evidence says their nuclear weapons program has ceased?

I really don't know? But she's campaigning as more hawkish than Bush, and in AIPAC's pocket. Hillary doesn't have any real plans to pull America out of Iraq during her fist term in office. She's an extension of the Bush Doctrine in many ways. And she's backed herself into the corner of the tough candidate.

Originally Posted by cbwm

How long is a piece of string?

Double the length of half of it

I doubt there will be a war with Iran - certainly not in the NEAR future.

We're in a fairly crucial time right now which may well decide the future of this century. If extremism in the Middle East can be effectively combated during the following 5 or 10 years, then it will go into decline and the threat of radical Islam will be minimal. If we make a mess of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Palestinian issue continues and gets worse, then we'll be facing a huge enemy in the future.

Originally Posted by whym

Double the length of half of it

I doubt there will be a war with Iran - certainly not in the NEAR future.

We're in a fairly crucial time right now which may well decide the future of this century. If extremism in the Middle East can be effectively combated during the following 5 or 10 years, then it will go into decline and the threat of radical Islam will be minimal. If we make a mess of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Palestinian issue continues and gets worse, then we'll be facing a huge enemy in the future.

If? Iraq has been a mess since the 1950's. Afghanistan since the Soviet Invasion. The West has done nothing since except make things worse. Today they are in the worst shape in modern times.

The Taliban control much of Afghanistan and there is a civil war in Iraq. The U.S. has slowed violence down in Iraq by giving arms and money to groups that have killed coalition forces in exchange for their promise not to attack.

I don't know what you think will combat Middle Eastern extremism. Saudi Arabia is by far more extreme than either Iraq or Iran. But they have the oil and the blessing of the West.

The truth of the matter is, a lot of people are going to have to die to bring any kind of cohesion to the west. I'm not saying the west is doomed, but long gone are the days of Hitlers Germany and Japan, when an enemy would openly attack you, as that would cause your enemy to unite and fight you. No, we will sit idly by as Iran builds a bomb, or perhaps Pakistan or Russia accidentally "loose" one of their nukes. We wont stop it from happening because we lack unity and the will to do so.

Then that bomb will go off, more than likely, in a major European city, or less likely in Israel, or perhaps even the U.S.. Everyone will morn the grevious loss, and cry, and wail and look for someone to blame. Not having a country to directly credit the attack to, the U.S. will lead efforts to form a coalition to weed out some sect from country X. Within a year, many westerners will become introspective and blame themsevles, or the U.S. for the attack. Pressure will be applied to leave country X alone, and eventually enough support will fade. Money will have been spent, blood will have been shed. Nothing will have been solved. Rinse and repeat. Then, maybe, there will be enough cohesion for Europe to risk its own blood and treasure to solve the problem, and then, maybe, the problem will get solved. If the west has truly lost the will to preserve itself, it deserves its fate.

They dont have nucklear weapons the same thing was said about Iraq its just what America has been saying to justify war again they wont attack not with Russia and China backing Iran 100% their allies too.

Originally Posted by cbwm

The truth of the matter is, a lot of people are going to have to die to bring any kind of cohesion to the west. I'm not saying the west is doomed, but long gone are the days of Hitlers Germany and Japan, when an enemy would openly attack you, as that would cause your enemy to unite and fight you. No, we will sit idly by as Iran builds a bomb, or perhaps Pakistan or Russia accidentally "loose" one of their nukes. We wont stop it from happening because we lack unity and the will to do so.

I thought we lacked a 10 million man army and the support of the world. The U.S. doesn't have the military of the political muscle to do it.

It's not just Iran. (did you read the Republican administrations assessment that Iran is NOT currently building a bomb?). Nuclear weapons in Pakistan could come into the hands of fundamentalists either by force or collusion.

Where did the vast majority of 9/11 terrorists come from? Iraq 0, Iran 0. What is the most fundamentalist country in the Middle East? Not Iraq or Iran. You want to stop terrorism you have to start with the politicians business buddies in oil.

Originally Posted by cbwm

The truth of the matter is, a lot of people are going to have to die to bring any kind of cohesion to the west. No, we will sit idly by as Iran builds a bomb

Please, give us a list of countries that have tried to build a nuclear weapon and been unable. Not given up, like Libya did by diplomatic persuasion and not by war, but were actually unable to build one. That last distinction is important because, unlike Libya, we can be pretty sure Iran isn't going to back down.

While we await this list, why don't we look at the 2 possible outcomes of the Iran nuclear question

1. Iran builds a nuclear weapon as The West sits idly by
2. The West bombs Iran, and they build a nuclear weapon anyway

Natanz, where the centrifuges are, is buried some 3,000 feet under the surface of the Earth, with a roof made from several meters of reinforced concrete. AQ Khan, who invented and provided the centrifuge technology, says the facility can withstand a nuclear blast. Britain agrees with him.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Then that bomb will go off, more than likely, in a major European city, or less likely in Israel, or perhaps even the U.S..

It would be unconscionable to suggest using a tactile nuclear warhead, but more importantly, it wouldn't work. All that would accomplish is giving Iran yet another reason to want revenge when they finish their bomb.

This may come as a surprise, but while Osama bin Laden runs a death cult, most terrorists are, well, terrorists. Which by definition is a person who uses violence or the threat of violence to achieve political ends. These people have strategic interests that are not served by mutually assured destruction.

In the 1980s, the Irish Republican Army nearly killed Margret Thatcher. A conventional bomb missed her by a matter of minutes, and surprisingly this happened at the 3 am hour. The next day, the IRA issued a press release saying “You were lucky. But remember, you have to be lucky always, we only need to be lucky once.”


George W Bush has repeated this terrorist motto ad nauseam, except for the benefit of al Quaeda’s campaign of fear. The truth is, reality stands this concept on its head. Assume we could begin tomorrow to inspect 25 % of the cargo passing through our ports. From our perspective this is still an abysmal failure. From the perspective of a drug lord with the Medellin Cartel, this is slightly worrying, but the market will correct any “excess” risk as more seizures are met with price hikes. To an apocalyptic terror cult with a single nuclear weapon, this would be a good reason to pause. What we see as a 3/4 failure rate becomes a 1/4 chance that the terrorist’s hard laid plans will be foiled at this one step. (In baseball, if you need your shortstop to be more effective, you can get a better shortstop, or you can get a better pitcher so the shortstop has easier work.)


A nuclear weapon isn’t exactly fragile, but it has a great many moving pieces. The detonation sequence is a bit complicated, not only for obvious reasons, but also because a nuclear weapon actually has a fairly complex job. It needs to be moved with the utmost care, which seems false given what we’ve all seen in the news (Pakistan driving one of theirs around in a parade, America accidentally flying six across the country).

I like your post except for the two errors.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Terrorists are, well, terrorists. Which by definition is a person who uses violence or the threat of violence to achieve political ends.

Completely incorrect. By that definition, practically every sovereign power has been and is a terrorist organization. The ability to project military pwer has always been a part of foreign policy, and sometimes trade policy.

Without having the "official" definition of a terrorist handy, my guess would be
1) Someone who attacks without wearing a military uniform
2) Someone willing to attack soft targets filled with non combants

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Libya did by diplomatic persuasion and not by war

Not by a long shot. Old Kadafi had a pretty good idea he was going to be the next target after Afghanistan. Understand the months following 911 the US and the world had a unity unkown for many many years previous. No one quipped when we rolled through Afghanistan, and no one would have shed a tear over rolling through Lybia. To quote President Musharif, "I got a call from the white house on sept 12 2001 that said you need to play ball or we will bomb you into the stone age". Im sure Kadafi got a similar call. I guess you could call that diplomacy.

Other than that, it seems we agree. We will sit idly by and do nothing. One day in the future, a nuke will roll into a major city center on the back of a flat bed, as you mention there is no way to stop it. The world will change yet again.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

It would be unconscionable to suggest using a tactile nuclear warhead, but more importantly, it wouldn't work. All that would accomplish is giving Iran yet another reason to want revenge when they finish their bomb.

A tactile warhead? Like, one you can touch? Perhaps you meant tactical? I'm not trying to poke fun, this just made me think of FedEx showing up with "centrifuge parts".
"Oh, thanks, we've been waiting for these." BOOM!

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

This may come as a surprise, but while Osama bin Laden runs a death cult, most terrorists are, well, terrorists. Which by definition is a person who uses violence or the threat of violence to achieve political ends. These people have strategic interests that are not served by mutually assured destruction.

MAD was only a viable theory when the other side had a similar stockpile of nukes. We knew exactly where bin Laden was. Had we dropped tactical nukes into those caves this would have been over. It would have sent a message: Mess with us and we will annihilate you. We can, we will. Go ahead and build a bomb, Iran, there will be no one left alive to push the button.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Completely incorrect. By that definition, practically every sovereign power has been and is a terrorist organization. The ability to project military pwer has always been a part of foreign policy, and sometimes trade policy.

This is anything but free trade. It's also historically true, from the dawn of time up through the present.

Nothing will happen as Bush is on his way into history book.

Originally Posted by odysseus

Nothing will happen as Bush is on his way into history book.

WOW, this guy is good





fastreplies

No fast, I think he meant Bush is on his way out the door. But speaking of the history books, check out what one great American had to say:

"I believe history will provide a more clear-eyed verdict on this president’s leadership than the anger of current critics would suggest.

President Bush will be viewed as a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century.

He will be judged as a man of moral clarity who put America on wartime footing in the dangerous struggle against radical Islamic terrorism."

"President Bush will be seen as a compassionate leader who used America’s power for good."

God bless America

Originally Posted by cbwm

God bless America

Yes brother, God bless America and the door that will slam
President Bush face on his way out



fastreplies

Originally Posted by cbwm

President Bush will be viewed as a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century.

I have to admit: that's sheer brilliance. If you're a complete failure in the present - and let's face it, the one thing W Bush has accomplished as president is to unite America in disapproval of his presidency - just point to future revisionist historians to justify a miserable failure. There are people who gush over Nixon now that he's no longer with us; surely, in 20 or 30 years time, people will find a way to make Bush look like a good ex-president...