OT: If Iran Gets a Nuke? So What!
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?
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
32 comments
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.