This business with Iran...
 

Okay...so how serious is this Iran possible Nuke thing? If there is some truth to it (that they are going to refine uranium for weapons) that is a bad business. And honestly with Bush in charge of the US... I'm not so sure we don't have the potential for a real powder keg here...

What do you think. Reason for concern or just posturing on both sides?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006...in1483022.shtml

:(

What in the hell is he thinking?!?!!!!!!!!!

That article strikes me as preposterous as the first reports that we might invade Iraq because of WMDs.

I think everyone needs to put down the sharp objects and slowly back away....

Or the dull objects...at least if you're talking about GWB's brain :D

We are not (the US)...unilaterally...nation builders or destroyers.

Of course....the operation in Iraq has gone so well that now GWB thinks he can do it again. :rolleyes:

Just consider that the report was written by Semour Hersh!He's not exactly
the most reliable person in the world! Irish :confused:

It looks like this is a way of putting pressure on Iran without anything formal coming from the establishment.

An interesting aside is that, to my knowledge, the US has never admitted to having deep penetration special weapons aka bunker busters.

Is this an attempt to convince Iran that they are "on stream" and a possible means of strike? jseal??

What is even more interesting, and rather more subtle, is that the sectarian violence in Iraq stems from Iranian stooges stirring up the shi'ite south. Iran believes that this part of Iraq is really Iranian through ethnic and religious association, wrongly split by the Brits at the end of World War 1. Watch this space.

While I am not in favor of war or any type of military action, Iran cannot be allowed to develop these weapons. I am of the opinion that we won't have to do anything though - Israel is not going to sit by idly and let these loons get the bomb. They did it once in Iraq a few years back and I have every reason to believe they will once again do the right thing.

Hm, yes, consider the source. Seymour Hersh, the same journalist who eventually blew the lid on the massacre of Vietanmese villagers in My Lai 4 in 1968.

Thing is, the US military probably does have plans to use deep-penetration bombs on Iran, both of the nuclear and non-nuclear variety. *NOT* because there's necessarily any actual intent to do so, but because it's part of the planning departments job to make plans to be ready for contingencies dictated by the political leaders of the US. In that sense, it can be realistically said that the US has plans to invade and take over Canada.

What matters is not wheter or not these plans exist-they, in fact, do. What matters is how willing Bush & Co are to implements what are always contingency plans.

The following facts are relevant:
1. The US is the one country which has used nuclear weapons in the context of a military conflict.
2. The US was the country which has continuously refused, through the history of the possession of nuclear weapons, to renounce the doctrine of "first use".
3. The US has, as most powerful nations throughout history have, a policy of playing the "little guys" off against each other. The use of this type of politicking by the Byzantine empire became so famous, that it is in fact known as Byzantine politics. This is shown today by the support of the US for such theocracies as those in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Pakistan, often directed against the theocracies in neighboring countries, like Iran or Syria.
4. The current Administration has shown that it is willing to ignore the military doctrines against overextension in order to launch pre-emptive strikes against threats that are so nascent (militarily) as to be worthy of ignorance.
5. Nuclear weapons are unfortunately, fairly cheap in terms of what they can accomplish militarily. Hence, the attraction for a lot of different nations.

In light of all of these taken together, I find the possession of nuclear weapons by the current administration of the US far more alarming than the potential possession of nuclear weapons by the theocracy in Iran.

WOW! That is one hell of a statement well stated.

6) the US has not used a nuclear weapon in the last 50 yrs.

7) The U.S. is doing a lot of things it hasn't done in a long time and a lot of things it NEVER did before.

Oldfart,

Yes sir, saber rattling is a diplomatic tool.

It is most unlikely that nuclear weapons will be used in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter. That being said, each time the Executive office states that it is not planning to use nuclear weapons, it carefully avoids stating that the use of conventional weapons is also not being planned. The European line expressed recently by Mr. Solana that "any military action is definitely out of the question for us" is another way of saying that military action is not out of the question for a country that is not of the EU.

While I thought that the Russians also had a hand in the making of the Iran-Iraq border, it must be acknowledged that HM’s Government bears much of the responsibility. One of the unintentional consequences of empire.

jseal,

After Russia made peace with Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, her abandonment of the allies reduced her ability to meaningfully impact on international affairs for a few years.

bare4you,

The Israeli raid on the reactor at Osirak is stirring stuff.

As an aside, one of the pilots who flew the mission, Ilan Ramon, died in the Columbia disaster.

Wikipedia has an excellent entry on Osirak.