[Skybird]

You'll hate this posting, and others will hate it, too, and think I lost my mind. But I mean it bloody damn serious.

Originally Posted by P_Funk

You make a good point, except that Iran is in the same situation, with political and religious opponents flanking them with nuclear arms. So what do you suggest as the course of action against Iran? Invasion is ridiculous. The current political attitudes towards Iran are ones that barre other forms of copromise and inevitably state that war will happen. The West is intentionally cornering Iran and trying to bully it like it does smaller nations. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, and they don't give up as easily. A war with Iran is the most irresponsible thing that could happen.

If you look back one year or so you will see that I have posted repeatedly the same things: no invasion possible, airstrikes alone extremely unlikely to bring their program down. My conclusion back then was that any war with Iran is very likely to include small nukes on the program-relevant hardened sites (whose entrances - weak spots - we do not even have GPS coordinates of: we only know that they are somehwere in a given area, often deep inside the ground, or a mountain, where even the greatest conventional bombs will probably not do more than just minor damage - if even that). Back then i said it is unacceptable to attack iran with nukes, but probably would be done in that manner. The events of the time since then have forced me to chnage my mind. I don't like that, but that is the logic of war. Preventing the Iranian bomb is a must. not using nukes if that is the only way to acchieve that, is not necessarily a must. As little violence as possible - but as much as is needed, withiout fould compromises: the stakes are too high this time.

I cant see the West bullying Iran, they do bully the West in fact. After Iraq, the US cannot afford to launch a war again in the way like they did with Iraq, based on lies and manipulation. It would cost them any remaining sympathy in europe - even more so if nukes will be used. Nobody will ever deal with them anymore.

You seem to conclude that war against Iran to destroy it's military program on nukes will be such a grim thing that it prohibits itself. I agree that it will become an extrfmely nasty affair. Due to the inevitable pollution even when subterranean nukes explode, people in the region will suffer health problems and will die for decades to come, so the death toll all in all will probabaly not only reach into the hundreds of thousands, but go beyond that over the years and decades. But I do not conclude from that that this fact rules out to use the needed ammount of force necessary to stop the nuclear bomb for Iran. If we allow that, the next nuclear detonations will not be in Iran, but a european city, or an American one - just a question of time. If you think your own position to the logical end, then you have already willed to allow Iran the nuclear bomb - you state that you shy away from the ammount of brutality needed to prevent it, so according to you - they already have won. They will not back down in last minute.

Don't think I take this thing easy. It costed me a long time to come this far.

The US started the ball rolling on nukes in the mid east 40 years ago with Israel and they associate and do not put presure on Pakistan. Iran's position is a poor one.

that is not true, as long as the West shies away from using small nuclear weapns on accoridng sites, they are in a winning position. they eiother get what they want, the bomb, or they get massive support and sympathy from the Islamic world for becoming attacked and their poor big-eyed babies suffering. as long as the West does not accept top use every ammount of violence needed to stop the bomb, they are in a win-win situation.

and anyone familiar with history would recognize that Iran cannot and should not trust the US to protect their interests in the region. So where is this going? If war is declared then its a catastrophy that will make Vietnam look reasonable.

Again, this maybe upcoming war in my view is about preventing the Iranian nuclear bomb. I do not compare this to Iraq which was launched for corporate interests, geostrategic missionising and such. I will oppose the Iran war when I see that it is handled as half-heartly like the last Lebanon war, or as dilletantic like the Iraq war - if you're about to kill so many people over the long time, you better make sure that you have a damn good reason for that and don't make mistakes. Better an end with horror, than horror without end, and in vain. If there will be an Iran war, it must be conducted as hard and brutal as possible to get those sites beeing taken out, and that most likely cannot be accieved without nukes being used on these sites. If one is chasing illusions and wants to do it with the wrong means, I will never agree to such a war taking place, becasue then it is a monumental waste of life for no purpose. we then better simply surrender and accept Iran having the bomb. The blood toll then will be hours, and our societies' one. So, this is no option for me any longer. Iran alone having the bomb maybe, eventually, would be acceptable, but they have too close links to terrorism, and Iran being nuclear would be the deciding argument for toher nations in the region also to get nukes. This scenario is even greater horror for me than using nukes on Iranian bomb-related hardened installations. One thing is sure, that after the attack on Iran the world will no more be the same, and life in the West becoming more dangerous anyway: if we attack Iran, it will be more dangerous due to hostile sentiments, and if we allow them the bomb, it will be more dangerous due to nuclear terrorism.

Note that I nowhere set up the scenario of iran itself striking at europe. I would sleep bad with Iran having the bomb, but the far greater danger is from terrorists getting access to the bomb. Iran is training and educating Hezbullah to set up ammo dumbs and firing positions inside hospitals, on roofs of kindergardens, and to hide in the cellar below civilian structures, so that every strike at them must necessarily provoke the killing of civilians which then can be used in the picture war on TV. This is not the kind of people I consider to be reasonable, ethical, and want them to see possessing nukes. they must be prevented that access, no matter what it costs.

that all is very grim and brutal, yes. And it cannot be decided on ethical terms, yes. The threat we are confronted with simply is beyond ethics. Do we allow nuclear terrorism in the future, yes or no? It comes down to this simple question. Terrorists have used chemical weapons on civilians and killed and injured hundreds (Japan), they already have used airplanes as bombs (NY), killing thousands, and islamic terorists have slaughtered hostages like a butcher is slaughtering cattle, and they are even proud of their bloodthirsty barbarism and know that they must do it this way to acchieve the greatest shock in the West, and so they call for others to follow their example.

To think they would shy away from using nukes if only they have access to them, is naive.