Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran

In article <znu-665D70.09064717012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <clund-53DBAC.10554917012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> C Lund <clund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Did Iraq retaliate by firing missiles back at Israel and various US
> > > > military bases in the Middle East back then? Iran can do that.
> > > If Iran doesn't change course, bombing nuclear facilities, while not a
> > > particularly good course of action, would seem to be superior to the
> > > alternatives.
> > I wouldn't be so sure. Iraq was a pushover because it was a weakened
> > country run by a hated dictator. Iran has 70(?) million people who
> > aren't that unhappy with their lives - even though they are probably a
> > bit fed up with the clergy.

> > Any attacks from Israel (or the US) is likely to spark a surge of
> > Iranian patriotism. The US will be facing 70 million angry Iranians
> > instead of a few thousand Al Qaeda activists.
> Mind you, I'm not saying this wouldn't get really messy. I'm just saying
> it's probably better than letting the Iranians get nuclear weapons.

I don't agree with that. There is no guarantee that Iran would share
it's nukes with various terrorists. But there is no question that a
violent intervention with Iran is very likely to start a conflagration
in the ME that could very well spill out all over the place. The world
might be able to prevent Iran from getting nukes for a while, but they
/ we can't prevent them from getting nukes forever. If the Iranians
really want this, then it's only a matter of time before they do.
High-tech will always become low-tech with time. How far should one go
to prevent Iran from getting nukes? How much will they hate the world
when they do?

> > How do you think Israel will react if Tel Aviv gets hit by Chinese
> > missiles from Iran (in retaliation for the Israeli bombing)? While
> > they won't be carrying nukes, they'll still do a lot more damage than
> > those stupid scuds Iraq sent over their borders.
> Yes, but my impression is, Israel would be willing to risk it, rather
> than let the Iranians get nukes.

There's doubt of that. IIRC US diplomats had their hands full
preventing Israel from responding to Saddam's scuds. It don't think
they'll be able to stop the Israelis from responding to Iranian
missiles.

I'm glad I don't live in the ME.. ;p

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: August 22 -- Does Iran have something in store?
    ... Iran has beaten the Taliban and Saddam ... Middle East, and to those who claim Iran is not a real democracy ... You know any Iranians? ... I want only Israel to win because there is no other just society in the ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Better than fiction!
    ... Iran does not. ... I wonder if he was actually talking about Israel as a single ... rights ordinary Iranians had under the Shah. ... I understand that Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah of Iran, is ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Better than fiction!
    ... Iran does not. ... I wonder if he was actually talking about Israel as a single ... He held a conference of Holocaust deniers. ... rights ordinary Iranians had under the Shah. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
    ... >>> it's probably better than letting the Iranians get nuclear weapons. ... There is no guarantee that Iran would share ... >> it's nukes with various terrorists. ... and Israel doesn't do anything ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: "We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime" (for Israel, of course!)
    ... while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. ... She started in the Marines and after 8 years her term was up. ... Arabic and have no idea what Iranians live like, ... New book challenges US support for Israel ...
    (alt.politics.bush)