Re: Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

Rita wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:04:24 -0800, El Castor
<anyonethere@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Rita <nitany_98@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:45:26 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Why should I get excited about Iran's nuclear ambitions?

It's OK by me if you don't. I can't say I'm spending much time
worrying about them myself. You really need to ask George and
Condi that question.

Iran undoubtedly believes that it has a messianic mission to destroy
Israel -- and very likely the United States, as well. In view of the
fact that no rational country would risk going up against Israel which
is armed with hydrogen bombs, that seems not much of a risk -- until
you consider that Iran is ruled by fanatical Ayatollahs who don't
think in the same way that you and I do, and combine that with the
fact that one or two nuclear explosions would be the end of Israel.
Iran is also far and away the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the
world. If a nuclear bomb went off in a container in the Port of New
York, how would we know where it originated? Sold by a corrupt Russian
colonel, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan?? Could we kill millions of
Iranians on the assumption that it "might" have been manufactured in
Iran? In the meantime, what would happen to our economy? Would France,
Sweden, and the Netherlands suddenly feel compelled to take Muslim
demands more seriously? Surely, Iran is aware of all these issues --
and there is no one more unpredictable than a religious fanatic --
wouldn't you agree?

Seems I've heard this kind of argument before in the case of
Saddam, and what he might do.

Would I agree that no one is more unpredictable than a religious
fanatic? Well, no, because religious fanatics usually have a line
they stick to and repeat endlessly.

The world is unstable, ultimately, so long as nuclear weapons
exist. Who is to say Pakistan's could not fall into the wrong hands?
I would not want the U.S. to use nuclear power to "deter" the use
of nuclear power -- remember how close we came with the Cuba
crisis.

We are going to have Middle Eastern instability with us for a long,
long time. Iraq was supposed to help that problem but in my view
it has exacerbated it. Who is to say Iranians won't boot this leader
out of office in time? From what I've read they aren't all happy with
him.

It is hard for me to think of anything the U.S. has done in respect
to the Middle East that has worked. Can you think of anything?

The Barbary pirates? Dropping some high explosives into Khaddafi's tent?
In the first case, they no longer seem to exist to bedevil us and in the
latter case, it ultimately seemed to persuade Moammar that being the
Mediterranean bad boy and trying to develop a nuke were both bad ideas. At
any rate, he did change Libya's behavior and Libya eventually resumed its
place in the community of nations.

George Z


.

Relevant Pages