As usual, I don't understand the latest story that the media is fixated on. If Iran gets a nuke, so what? Lots of players in the Southern part of Asia already have them: India, Pakistan, China. Seems like Iran has every reason to deserve one too with all those crazy Sunnis gaining power. Might even be a good thing, if Iran can threaten to send a few nukes ISIS's way if they get out of line. Does the US media always have to think word-for-word as Israel wants it to?
Of all the currently Muslim countries in that region too, Iran, due to its history and demographics also seems the most likely to turn pro-Western in the future. I agree with thawing relations with them to help this along.
Iran is run by fanatical Muslims whose faith teaches them to kill all non Muslims. These same idiots also regularly announce their public intention to annihilate Israel, a country that also has nuclear weapons. The risk of nuclear war at some scale goes up exponentially if and when they get nukes.
The fact that some other less radical countries have nukes is not a ground to ignore further proliferation. If two idiots had a nuclear weapon, why does that mean we shouldn't worry if a third one gets the same weapon? especially a third one with leaders that have such a radical ideology.
The world would be safer if we gave a kindergarten class control of a nuclear arsenal.
The Iranian leadership talks a big game but the history of the country has been predominantly defensive. And that's how they would use nukes. Meanwhile the demographics works against them more than in any other country.
Nukes are political bargaining chips, not tactical weapons. My only fear is that some of the religious terrorist organizations don't understand that and will do 'god's work' by actually using one given the opportunity.
As long as Iran has a stable government it doesn't matter if they have nukes, but I question if we can trust Iran to remain politically stable. If we can negotiate for ending Iran's nuclear program I'm in favor of it, but I question if this is possible.
When it comes to acts of violence and murder, Muslims have a long history of putting the game that they talk into action. If we don't learn from that history, we are bound to repeat it.
JohnSmith69, to be honest I'm more worried that Saudi Arabia will try to develop the bomb too! After all, how many people on the planes on 9/11 were Iranian vs Saudi?
OK, to be fair Al-Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group so it isn't surprising that Iranians weren't involved! But still, I think Dougster has a point!
I think the Iranians will probably rattle sabers until they get things they want, but I think their government is less crazy than most American's think! The Saudis and Pakistanis are probably crazier than we think they are. And one of those countries already has the bomb! Not a brilliant time for South Asia :(
The "fatwa" that is was ok for muslims to suicide as long as they killed others that we not muslim originated in Iran from Khomeini even though suicide is a mortal sin in Islam and a ticket straight to hell. He has said the opposite, you will go straight to heaven for murdering the infidel. Since Carter help put the wacko's in power they have been constantly indoctrinating their young against the west. They have been smarter than Hitler in the fact that they have been patient and raised an entire generation on a steady diet of hatred for the west. Hitler did not wait long enough to allow the old generation to fade. He only waited 15 years or so. They have waited 35 years and have picked their battles. The powers in Iran place no value on human life as long as they can increase their own power and rule even if it means a sterilized world. This may be the west's last chance to prevent global thermo-nuclear war. They do not see that they have anything to lose. The only reason the USSR did not start a war was because they had something to lose. We have stripped ourselves of that deterent to the point that Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 allowed decades of research on how to build, design and maintain nuclear weapons to be destroyed tot he point that in the last 3.5 years of Bush 2 they had to find the people that did the research to try to reconstruct it to be able to maintenance the warheads we still have so they would actually work if required.(nuclear warheads deteriorate rapidly over time unlike conventional warheads requiring frequent maintenance) . The current P.O.S. pretender stopped all repairs when he came to office head stopped all the repairs but fortunately the majority of major repairs had been completed.
If we allow Iran to get weapons there will be a nuclear war within 15 years or Israel will take matters into their own hands and act unilaterally to save themselves.
" Iran is run by fanatical Muslims"
-------------------
@John: Hope you got a chance to sign Tom Cotton's letter to Iran!!! Peace process is for pussies; let's go in and bomb 'em!
Seems to me the younger Iranian president Rouhani is far less fanatical than his much older (and perhaps gravely ill) boss, the Supreme Leader. So maybe there's at least some chance that Iran will turn more pro-Western in the future, as the old guard dies out. Still this framework to limit Iran's nuclear program seems like a great deal, with huge concessions, and would slow down their nuclear program for at least a decade.
The fools that are joining with what ever faction is fighting over there do not realize that after the west falls they will be slaughtered. The attitude is "if you do not belong to my particular tribe/sect you are an infidel and therefore do not deserve to live!". They will use them as cannon fodder then shoot them in the back when they are no longer of use.
Again they are smarted than Hitler who killed or ran off his best and brightest before he won the war and got the bomb.
Iranians hate Saudis more than they hate us. This is our shot over the bow for the Saudis to start acting like allies and get with the program. We can only have one client state in the Mid-East but there is room for a junior partner. We get cheap oil and a good look at their technology. Seems like a plan to me. I don't have a dog in the Obama/ vs Reason might but this make sense.
@Josh: there's definitely a lot of pro-western sentiment among young ppl in Iran. Saw that in the protests a couple of years ago. Many would rather go out and party at night than sign up for all that Islam shit. Agree that history is working against the fantics in Iran particularly so.
^^^ Thats true. I have a young Iranian friend who snuck out. He was arrested and whipped for playing the drums. He said the hell with religion and the Mullahs..Most of the young people want out , but I don't think they are going to over throw the ass-holes.
Iran perceives Obama as weak, just as they did Carter. Took Carter a year to make a deal to release the hostages, and when Iran did, they waited until Carter left office to further insult him. I don't trust Iran not to mess with Obama, cuz let's face it. he's weak.
Carter got SALT through congress, which was the nuclear deal with Russia. Reagan and his fellow Republicans vilified Carter for it and vowed to repeal it if elected. Reagan won the election and guess what? Not only didn't he repeal it, he ended up demanding the Soviets abide by it. Why? because these kinds of treaties are good for the US.
The GOP has a short memory. Now they're trying to paint Obama as weak for using diplomacy to advance US interests. Guess what? They were wrong under Reagan and they're wrong now. It's just POLITICS! Confusing politics with actual policy is the biggest problem facing America today.
Iran sees Obama not as weak, and steadfast and strong! Iran is at the table negotiating because they're afraid of the US and Obama pushing the economic sanctions even further which does more damage to them than any good from having a nuclear bomb. If they thought Obama was weak they would just build their program! From Iran's perspective, they see the GOP will support Obama with more sanctions if they don't make a deal the White House can get behind. Then it will be up to the GOP to decide to either do what's right for our country and sign off on the deal, or play politics and destroy our countries ability to be players on the world stage by sabotaging the deal. Frankly, with the GOP's recent failures to govern due to disarray in their own party, I'm worried they will choose the latter and sell out our country for petty politics. Well...we voted for these clowns in congress so we get what we deserve.
And what is Obama's policy against terrorist states and organizations? He doesnt have one. Says he has succeded when all the evidence points other wise. Dude's not looking for war, but doesn't realize war is looking for him.
Further to rockstar666's comment about that fool, Reagan. No doubt that he was a likeable guy but he was just plain stupid. He ran his Oval Office according to the dictates of his moronic wife and her shyster astrologer, for cripes' sake.
His presidency was a disaster of economic mismanagement. USA national debt was almost doubled during his term (Obama will not approach that dismal record when his presidential term is completed). Stock market returns for investors were abysmal during Reagan's presidency. Reagan played footsie with the Iranians and should have been impeached over that sordid Iran-Contra business (something infinitely more serious than Slick Willie's blow jobs).
It is now widely conceded that Reagan was suffering from dementia for the last two years of his presidency. Looking back at the entire Reagan presidency it is easy to imagine that the old dolt was demented for the entire eight years.
farmerart is right, although since I give Clinton credit for the best economy in my lifetime, I must also give grudging credit to Reagan for the fall of the USSR. Both presidents were fortunate to be in the right place in the right time. Clinton is light years ahead of Reagan in end result though: we had the best 8 years in my lifetime economically under Clinton while Regan sowed the seeds for Bush Sr.'s defeat because he messed up the economy so bad. Unless we're in a World War, the number one measure of the success of any president is the state of the economy.
All the haters are going to really be upset 20 years from now when history gets some perspective on Obama, and in 50 he'll be equal to FDR in stature for saving the economy and getting the US on the path to socialized medicine.
Sure, thats why they are running roughshod over Yemen, Obamas "model of anti-terrorism", cuz they know he won't do anything. Thats why they have their footprints in Iraq, cuz again he won't do anything. And they fund Hamas and Hezbollah up the ass, cuz Obama won't do anything. Peaceful American citizens protesting over some land? He sends the riot squad. Go figure
Its a funny song, i like the words......and who said death to the USA and Israel? Actually I think their ships and military facilities should start mysteriously blowing up. The USA could deny everything.....
Likely scenarios, none of them good:
Saudi Arabia will spend some pocket change and AQ Khan will send them some nuke love. Sooner or later, some Wahhabist goat rapist will find a way to gain access.
Israel will use their German built AIP driven subs to deliver one of their 300 or so working nukes as a pre-emptive strike.
Aside from Arabs, you know who else hates Persians? Turks, and anyone else who has a border with them. A bomb in the hands of a demagogue like Erdo?an is all you'd need to get some delusional idiot thinking of restoring Osman's empire.
If you like eating food, summer temperatures above 40F, driving an automobile, or avoiding cataracts and leukemia, none of these are desirable.
International sanctions have brought Iran to the point of agreeing to verifiable limits on their nuclear program. Obama has gotten European Union, Russia and China to impose sanctions. If the Republicans ruin the deal, then Russia and China will resume trade with Iran, and the Iranians can pursue their nuclear program without any restrictions.
Many years ago, Israel launched a pre-emptive air strike against military installations in Baghdad, Iraq. Some of the hawks in Israel are now talking about a pre-emptive strike against Iran to destroy its' nuclear capability. If Israel were to strike, what would be the response of Arab neighbors? Will the U.S. use nukes to defend Israel? Does that let the genie out of the bottle?
'.........I must give grudging credit to Reagan for the fall of the USSR.'
Not 100% accurate. The Saudis also deserve much credit for the collapse of USSR. In the early 1980s the Saudis turned on the oil taps of the Guar field. Crude prices collapsed. Then, (as now in Russia), USSR was painfully dependent on oil exports to support its crumbling economy. By 1989 the USSR economy was in its death throes. The collapse of USSR in 1989 was inevitable with or without Reagan's obscenely useless military spending. Reagan merely hastened a result already written in stone before the end of his first term.
Never forget also that the Afghans had a bit of a say in the collapse of the USSR.
"Reagan's obscenely useless military spending."
--------------------------
I absolutely can't get to sleep tonight!
Useless? Reagan's military spending might not have had much to do with the fall of the USSR, but the rise in military spending probably provided a much needed stimulus to the U.S. economy during the late 1980s. On a per capita basis, government spending under Reagan was much higher than gov spending under Obama.
This always sparks a fiery debate since the Republicans are anti-Keynesian (I.e., government spending is the root of all evil).
Oh yes, all military spending is, by its very nature, absolutely useless. It is the transfer of tax money from the productive sector of the economy to a non-productive sector of the economy.
That is the very nature of socialism.........USA version, nothing more unproductive than spending trillions of dollars on a military most noted for debacles in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq.
Josh probably thinks paying people to dig holes in the ground half the time and then fill them would be economically stimulative. Or is it only if you taxed the Koch Brothers to do it?
32 comments
Latest
The fact that some other less radical countries have nukes is not a ground to ignore further proliferation. If two idiots had a nuclear weapon, why does that mean we shouldn't worry if a third one gets the same weapon? especially a third one with leaders that have such a radical ideology.
The world would be safer if we gave a kindergarten class control of a nuclear arsenal.
As long as Iran has a stable government it doesn't matter if they have nukes, but I question if we can trust Iran to remain politically stable. If we can negotiate for ending Iran's nuclear program I'm in favor of it, but I question if this is possible.
OK, to be fair Al-Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group so it isn't surprising that Iranians weren't involved! But still, I think Dougster has a point!
I think the Iranians will probably rattle sabers until they get things they want, but I think their government is less crazy than most American's think! The Saudis and Pakistanis are probably crazier than we think they are. And one of those countries already has the bomb! Not a brilliant time for South Asia :(
If we allow Iran to get weapons there will be a nuclear war within 15 years or Israel will take matters into their own hands and act unilaterally to save themselves.
-------------------
@John: Hope you got a chance to sign Tom Cotton's letter to Iran!!! Peace process is for pussies; let's go in and bomb 'em!
Seems to me the younger Iranian president Rouhani is far less fanatical than his much older (and perhaps gravely ill) boss, the Supreme Leader. So maybe there's at least some chance that Iran will turn more pro-Western in the future, as the old guard dies out. Still this framework to limit Iran's nuclear program seems like a great deal, with huge concessions, and would slow down their nuclear program for at least a decade.
Again they are smarted than Hitler who killed or ran off his best and brightest before he won the war and got the bomb.
The GOP has a short memory. Now they're trying to paint Obama as weak for using diplomacy to advance US interests. Guess what? They were wrong under Reagan and they're wrong now. It's just POLITICS! Confusing politics with actual policy is the biggest problem facing America today.
His presidency was a disaster of economic mismanagement. USA national debt was almost doubled during his term (Obama will not approach that dismal record when his presidential term is completed). Stock market returns for investors were abysmal during Reagan's presidency. Reagan played footsie with the Iranians and should have been impeached over that sordid Iran-Contra business (something infinitely more serious than Slick Willie's blow jobs).
It is now widely conceded that Reagan was suffering from dementia for the last two years of his presidency. Looking back at the entire Reagan presidency it is easy to imagine that the old dolt was demented for the entire eight years.
All the haters are going to really be upset 20 years from now when history gets some perspective on Obama, and in 50 he'll be equal to FDR in stature for saving the economy and getting the US on the path to socialized medicine.
Sure, thats why they are running roughshod over Yemen, Obamas "model of anti-terrorism", cuz they know he won't do anything. Thats why they have their footprints in Iraq, cuz again he won't do anything. And they fund Hamas and Hezbollah up the ass, cuz Obama won't do anything. Peaceful American citizens protesting over some land? He sends the riot squad. Go figure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBGPw_LB…
Saudi Arabia will spend some pocket change and AQ Khan will send them some nuke love. Sooner or later, some Wahhabist goat rapist will find a way to gain access.
Israel will use their German built AIP driven subs to deliver one of their 300 or so working nukes as a pre-emptive strike.
Aside from Arabs, you know who else hates Persians? Turks, and anyone else who has a border with them. A bomb in the hands of a demagogue like Erdo?an is all you'd need to get some delusional idiot thinking of restoring Osman's empire.
If you like eating food, summer temperatures above 40F, driving an automobile, or avoiding cataracts and leukemia, none of these are desirable.
'.........I must give grudging credit to Reagan for the fall of the USSR.'
Not 100% accurate. The Saudis also deserve much credit for the collapse of USSR. In the early 1980s the Saudis turned on the oil taps of the Guar field. Crude prices collapsed. Then, (as now in Russia), USSR was painfully dependent on oil exports to support its crumbling economy. By 1989 the USSR economy was in its death throes. The collapse of USSR in 1989 was inevitable with or without Reagan's obscenely useless military spending. Reagan merely hastened a result already written in stone before the end of his first term.
Never forget also that the Afghans had a bit of a say in the collapse of the USSR.
--------------------------
I absolutely can't get to sleep tonight!
Useless? Reagan's military spending might not have had much to do with the fall of the USSR, but the rise in military spending probably provided a much needed stimulus to the U.S. economy during the late 1980s. On a per capita basis, government spending under Reagan was much higher than gov spending under Obama.
This always sparks a fiery debate since the Republicans are anti-Keynesian (I.e., government spending is the root of all evil).
Oh yes, all military spending is, by its very nature, absolutely useless. It is the transfer of tax money from the productive sector of the economy to a non-productive sector of the economy.
That is the very nature of socialism.........USA version, nothing more unproductive than spending trillions of dollars on a military most noted for debacles in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq.