Who Would Support A War In Iran?

No it doesn't. PEOPLE have the right to defend themselves, and if that is through an entity such as government, so be it. The Iranian government isn't interested in defending the people. They're interested in propgating their own existence.

They have no more right to "defend themselves" than a murderer has the right to "defend" himself from his pursuers.

With that said, I think an invasion of Iran would be a horrible idea anyway.

 

So what is the U.S. doing right now if anything to handle the situation in Pakistan? Proliferation within a country doesn't stop just because a country acquires it's first nuclear weapon. Pakistan has centrifuges and can produce it's own highly enriched materials for weapons. It hasn't been pressured by the U.S. to submit to inspections or to shut down its facilities entirely, to the extent that the U.S. is claiming Iran should do. It's also continuing to develop more sophiticated delivery systems. The U.S. has a selective non-proliferation stance.

Are we to think this sort of proliferation problem is beyond our control or no longer of interest simply because Pakistan or any other country has already become a nuclear player?

 

No, most definitely not. I agree with you 100% that the rest of the world should pressure Pakistan about its nuclear program. My point is just that it has less chance of succeeding than talks with Iran (although I'm not particularly optimistic about those either).

And I fully realize that nuclear proliferation occurs in a country even after it goes nuclear. A.Q. Khan is the textbook example of this.

Perhaps a deal could be worked out where Pakistan and India both agreed to dismantle their nuclear arsenals. I doubt India would agree to this, as they went nuclear before Pakistan anyway. But it's worth a shot. Also, I worry that if Pakistan takes it upon itself to dismantle its nuclear weapons without the strictest supervision, there may be a situation like the one in Russia, where you have nuclear material sold on the black market.

As for what the US is doing as far as Pakistan is concerned...not much. George Bush doesn't want to make Musharraf mad because Bush needs him (or thinks he needs him) as an ally. This is dangerous and foolish in my opinion. Heads needed to roll in Pakistan following the A.Q. Khan scandal, and instead Musharraf pardoned Khan while George Bush stood idly by. The United States and United Nations should tell Pakistan in no uncertain terms that Pakistan needs to stop spreading nuclear knowledge.

 

Well, I agree with all of that.

 

let's not think about what we should and shouldn't do and think what's is pragmatic....... 60% of Iran is relatively young, An American presence is sure ignite their anger and 60% population is combat capable

 

I agree. An invasion would be a bad, bad thing for American security. I'm not even sure if air strikes could be done without causing the Iranians to rally around the flag, although I haven't really made up my mind yet about air strikes.

Another possible option is to encourage Iranians to overthrow their government BEFORE it goes nuclear. The Iranian people openly detest their government. Perhaps American efforts to support the opposition and destabilize the government would be a better option.

I'm not sure there are any good options here, although some are obviously better than others.

 

We haven't really answered the question as to what legal basis Bush could use to try to force Iran to shut down its entire nuclear program. Iran hasn't really done anything wrong with respect to the IAEA. One has to question what sort of argument Bush would use to have the issue referred to the U.N. security council.

 

yeh...thats what I heard about Iraq too...seems to me that you could say that about any and many countries if you wanted too, even ours!!
Sure they may give their know how to terrorist groups, however it seems to me that the terrorism that is active in this world at the moment is what I might call "lo-fi" as opposed to "hi-fi"...that is most of the terrorism I see being committed is of a non nuclear/chemical nature but rather a simple fertiliser nature..something which does not require special knowledge, just a few corrupt individuals with determination...
Sure the rethoric out of Iran is anti Isreali, however it goes both ways and as someone not beholden to either country they sound much the same to me, like two little grumpy two year olds in the playground!! Something that needs a wise intervention in, not a smack on the bum!! It is at times like these that I find the comparism to very young children learning how to get along with one another to be most apt!!

 

The difference being that anyone with a brain knew that the claims about Iraq were false, whereas there are lots of legitimate reasons to think that Iran is indeed pursuing nuclear weapons.

To respond to every threat by saying "George Bush said that about Iraq" is to bury your head in the sand.

When these young fighting children can press a button and kill 100,000 people, the stakes are a little bit higher...

 

The claims about Iraq were that they were supporting terrorism and had weapons of mass destruction and would therefore dissemiate these to the terrorists, these weapons of mass destruction were not neccesarily nuclear. Shame that your "anyone with a brain" did not include the public in America who supported Bush in his attack!! Plus those in my own country who supported such wanton death and destruction and the involvement of their own government. The argument against Iran is not a nuclear one...it is an older one where the people of Iran rejected the American influence due to the corruption which they saw going on with their shah, and then after fighting a war with their neighbors Iraq for far too long found that due to the positive influence of several European and Asian nations, maybe they really didn't hate the western "lifestyle" quite so much, however they had given the power over to those extremists in their society in a moment of rebellion (forced by the actions of the Americans) and since have realised that this group of people were as silly as the group that came before them...however by going in and pushing them around you are not going to convince them of this, they already know this, they are slowly finding the way amongst this however they need the support to do so and every threatening action that our countries take drives the people to the hardliners...sure that may not seem totally rational to you or me but we are not being faced with having our homes bombed or our power sources outed or a variety of other scary scenarios that make people turn to what seems strong right there and then I figure it is a bit hard to judge exactly where we would all fall...

The analogy with naughty little children is meant to explain what happens when you punish a child with violence...they learn violence. Not as a literal interpretation of a bunch of two year olds holding a nuclear trigger. The entire concept of dealing with violence and countries defences with aggression rather than diplomacy, negotiation and the passages of time and the impact of economy, really seems to me to be the problem to start with.
:X

 

Simply put this country is too far in debt and cant afford anymore war period.

 

Bush keeps on lying while soldiers keep on dying.

 

Yeah, Bush and the rest of the little kids in DC have done a lot of damage.

 

Shaggie, Stephanie, etc...please don't waste your time arguing with Kandahar. He's a definitive "lost cause". Let him wallow in his stupidity. No matter what convincing evidence you provide, he will continue to keep his head "in the sand" (as he accused others of). Don't bother, he's not worth it.

 

Here's the latest from Bush's meeting with Putin.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/bush/index.html

"During Thursday's meetings in Bratislava, Putin and Bush agreed that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. The Russians also "made it clear" that they will not provide nuclear fuel to operate the plant until the Iranians agree that all of the fuel will come from Russia and that it will be returned to Russia for final disposal, a safeguard against converting the fuel to weapons use, a senior Bush administration official said."

 

It's good to hear that the Iranians at least agreed to turn their nuclear waste over to Russia; I'm somewhat surprised by that.

While I don't trust Iran, maybe this kind of compromise can become more widely accepted (perhaps the EU could take part in it also) if it can be proven that Iran will uphold its end of the bargain.

 

Maybe. Somehow I just get the feeling that this isn't going to satisfy the Bush administration.

 

I doubt the Bush administration will ever be "satisfied" with Iran as long as the ayatollahs are in power...his stated goal is regime change in Iran, and I don't think that's likely to change regardless of what Iran does regarding nuclear weapons and support of terrorism.

However, deals like this one that Iran made with Russia may placate Bush enough to decide against attacking Iran.

 

From BBC News:

"Washington is also concerned that the nuclear project [between Russia and Iran] could allow for the covert transfer of weapons technology to Iran."

They don't sound all that satisfied to me.

 

The reason why Iran is dealing with Russia and China is because they tried to get equipment from Europe and other countries but were thwarted everytime by the U.S. Russia and China are two countries that the U.S. can't control as easily compared with places such as Europe and Japan.

Even regime change wouldn't satisfy Bush unless it was someone like the Shah running Iran. A U.S. installed leader in Iran is mainly what caused the religious backlash in the late 70s over there. So, installed leaders don't solve the problem either. Khomeini was kicked out of Iran back in the 70s by the U.S. Governments run by the people wouldn't satisfy Bush either, as they might elect someone not aligned with the U.S.