1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThough I think it is far more important to them to act like they could develop them should they not be given what they want.
I think you'd have to be pretty naive to believe the Iranians don't want nuclear weapons.
Having watched a couple of speeches by the president, I get the impression that posturing is a large part of the culture - or at least the ruling parties mindset.
He sounded remarkably similar to Robert Mugabe.
Originally posted by twhiteheadLenin/Stalin/Mao's playbook!
Though I think it is far more important to them to act like they could develop them should they not be given what they want.
Having watched a couple of speeches by the president, I get the impression that posturing is a large part of the culture - or at least the ruling parties mindset.
Originally posted by utherpendragonMy view has always been that Iran probably is building nuclear weapons, that it is perfectly understandable from their point of view if they do, and that - although I do not favour proliferation - it will probably protect Iran effectively and create a certain degree of stability in the region. I think it could save millions of Iranian lives. I think it is far far more likely that the U.S. will use nuclear weapons in a first strike scenario than Iran doing so. I fully understand U.S. geopolitical trepidation at Iran joining the nuclear club. But as Iran evolves in the direction of social democracy, which it inevitably will some day, their possession of nuclear weapons will no longer be big news. I was far more worried about Pakistan obtaining the bomb. If nuclear weapons were to be used in the next decade or two, I imagine thet'd most likely get used in a confrontation bewteen India and Pakistan, although the possibility is small.
no1 for sure. I remember that clearly. More than likely FMF. There were a bunch of appeasers too saying " Iran has a right to build nukes...etc"
Originally posted by FMF"I think it is far far more likely that the U.S. will use nuclear weapons in a first strike scenario than Iran doing so. "-fmf
My view has always been that Iran probably is building nuclear weapons, that it is perfectly understandable from their point of view if they do, and that - although I do not favour proliferation - it will probably protect Iran effectively and create a certain degree of stability in the region. I think it could save millions of Iranian lives. I think it is far fa ...[text shortened]... kely get used in a confrontation bewteen India and Pakistan, although the possibility is small.
In this scenario who do you see the U.S. first striking? Iran?
Originally posted by utherpendragonThat would be for the U.S. to say. They've made the implicit threat numerous times recently. If I were to a hazard a guess, I'd say "regime change" at the end of a long period of beating of the drums of war, a din that invariably obscures the lies being told - cf: Iraq. I imagine the U.S. would claim that Iran is going to strike Israel. But the real objective on the part of the U.S. would actually be "regime change".
what could bring the U.S to do that?
Originally posted by FMFwell thats your opinion and you are entitled to it but I don't see it happening.The U.S is not going to do a first strike on Iran w/Nukes in any scenario I can see. Nukes are a worst case scenario that nobody wants to resort too. a regime changed could easily be
That would be for the U.S. to say. They've made the implicit threat numerous times recently. If I were to a hazard a guess, I'd say "regime change" at the end of a long period of beating of the drums of war, a din that invariably obscures the lies being told - cf: Iraq. I imagine the U.S. would claim that Iran is going to strike Israel. But the real objective on the part of the U.S. would actually be "regime change".
achieved through a conventional war if thats what the U.S. wanted.
Originally posted by utherpendragonWell maybe that's one of the reasons why Iran wants to have a nuclear deterrent. the U.S. doesn't prosecute conventional wars against countries with nuclear weapons.
a regime changed could easily be achieved through a conventional war if thats what the U.S. wanted.
Originally posted by FMFIt seems to me a nuclear deterrent is unfounded because if the U.S. had plans for a military action resulting in a regime change that they could of done it by now.
Well maybe that's one of the reasons why Iran wants to have a nuclear deterrent. the U.S. doesn't prosecute conventional wars against countries with nuclear weapons.
It seems to me Irans nuke obsession is for offensive measures not defensive.