If you were Iran…

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
If you were Iran…

and were next up on the US’s Axis of Evil hit list, what would you do with your existing nuclear capability?

Would you

A: Ditch it completely so that the IAEA inspectorate can have a look round and say, ‘Nope, it's okay – we can't find anything naughty.’

Or,

B: Ramp up production as fast as humanly possible until you’re in possession of a working nuclear deterrent?

Given that Iraq got attacked doing A, and North Korea can’t be touched because of B…

~~

www.fabulousmother.com

Good question. Made me think...AGHH!! (B) looks like it's working ok. Just let me settle in France and they can do what the fuck they want..tbh! There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~

But North Korea has promised to desist from nuclear arms, Lou, and has agreed to moderation. They are now in line for massive aid from the west.

 

If I were Iran, I'd say... F*ck me, I've just turned into a country! ... and stop taking the drugs immediately. pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)
"But North Korea has promised to desist from nuclear arms, Lou" Ah, oops, have they… I must admit I’ve not been following those negotiations. I never had that feeling of doomed inevitability as far as North Korea was concerned though, simply because the US couldn’t just walk in. I still wonder what NK would have done if they hadn’t been bankrupt and in desperate need of the West's aid. Does anyone know what strategic interest the US has in North Korea apart from the fact that they have nuclear arms and their leader is a complete crackpot? Because if the US could get into bed with Kim Jong-Il by making NK financially dependent, my guess is they’d be more than happy to leave him in place. On balance, not knowing the answer to the above question, if I were Iran, I’d have to assume that the US’s endgame as far as my country was concerned, was the same as that for Iraq (i.e. nought to do with WMDs) – in which case, I’d be down the lab with the coffee and the Pro Plus. ~ www.fabulousmother.com
I don't believe North Korea IS what the west would term a 'nuclear power' at the moment. ie. I don't believe they have a 'usable' nuclear arsenal yet. * On balance, not knowing the answer to the above question, if I were Iran, I’d have to assume that the US’s endgame as far as my country was concerned, was the same as that for Iraq (i.e. nought to do with WMDs) – in which case, I’d be down the lab with the coffee and the Pro Plus. * The UN fear, (as opposed to the 'US' that you cite), IS about WMD's. The only sensible course of action for Iran is to comply with the UN's resolution before SOMEONE, (most likely Israel, as the nation most at risk), takes matters into their own hands, and bombs the Iranian facilities off the face of the earth, a phrase I might add, used by the fucking maniac in charge in Iran in reference to Israel. I have also never believed all that crap about the reason for the Iraq war being their oil. So far, the balance sheet shows that the US is out of pocket to the tune of billions of dollars over Iraq, and they will never show a cent profit from Iraqi oil, if in fact they actually get their hands on any of it. Iraq could, if it so wished, have peace anytime it feels able to stop inter-moslem murder. The sad truth is, that the so-called peaceful religion is murdering it's own adherents by the score, on a daily basis. Peace WILL eventually come to the region, though whether it will be because the Shias and Sunnis realise how silly their differences are and call it a day, or whether it will be because they've managed to completely annihilate each other, is at the moment, somewhat unclear. Which ever it is, it can't happen soon enough for me.

 

But the UN are threatening sanctions aren't they? The US are the ones threatening military action. I never did think it was all about oil, Missi, you're right, it wasn’t. But neither was it about whether or not Saddam had WMD. Dick Cheney himself has said that, had the CIA proven that Iraq didn’t have WMD they still should have invaded. I believe it was and is an old-fashioned quest for hegemony in the Middle East deemed necessary by the NeoCons currently holding sway in the US administration. This group is quite blatant about how it envisages America’s role as Global Leader. It calls on the US to build on its position of military strength having won the Cold War, and to pre-emptively challenge all regimes hostile to its values and interests. It was just fortunate, or unfortunate, whichever way you look at it, that the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (all members of The Project for the New American Century) had the ear of a weak President when Al Quaeda and the ‘War on Terror’ provided the pretext they’d been waiting for. They invaded Iraq because they could – it was a foot in the door. ~ www.fabulousmother.com
p.s. yes, thinking about it, I'm not sure how far along NK was with it's nuclear programme either. Oh well. ~ www.fabulousmother.com
and bombs the Iranian facilities off the face of the earth, a phrase I might add, used by the fucking maniac in charge in Iran in reference to Israel. A little disingenuous, that was not the phrase he used, the phrase he used was in Arabic and the translation (the precise meaning of which is disputed) does not contain the word bomb. Nobody without an axe to grind thinks he was actually making a threat, just expressing a decidedly unpleasant opinion.

 

Dan, my arabic, such as it was when I worked in the middle east 40 yrs ago is now almost non-existent. I believe what the guy said was something along the lines of '...wiped off the face of the earth..'. I suppose I could google the statement, but it's not really important, suffice it to say that he's a rabble-rousing, dangerous person and the sooner he's replaced by someone a little less mad the better. It's my personal belief that the problems being experienced in varying parts of the world are more to do with a shrinking world and cultural differences. These problems weren't of global importance in the days before mass media, international trade on unprecedented levels and cheap, fast travel to anywhere in the world. I don't think there's many places left that it isn't possible to visit within 24hrs.

 

Topic locked