Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tchocky
No, war is not necessary. The talk of war and threat of nuclear weapons become a self-realising discourse. I'm sure any nation would engage in a show of force when there is constant talk of attack.
Ideally, no side should make provocative moves, but that's not this world. There is much discontent in Iran with the political leadership and overall economic situation, change may well be in the air.
War, or even air strikes, would bind the nation together. Not a good thing for those looking for progress. I do hope John McCain either modifies his position or fails miserably in November.
|
In case of war, we do not care for "progress" anyway. Removing the nuclear threat would be sufficient. In case of war, Iranian interests would not matter at all. At least not for "us". Their interests must not be our concern.
Do not be foolish to assume that it is Ahmadinejadh alone. He can leave office tomorrow - and they still would press on for nukes. It has not begun with him enetering office, you know. Their intention was restrengthened from the bad example the Americans have set with accusing an unarmed nation (Iraq) of having nukes and then attack it because it had no nukes to keep any attacker away), although it had none; but it also comes from the self-dynamic that has developed that many oriental Muhammeddans look at Iran both in fear and pride, for having the guts to confront the great satan and threatening to get it's hands on nukes. Plus nukes would be a valuable tool to further fuel Islam's inherent dogmatic claim for world power, and enforcing itself onto all that is not already islamic. Ahmadinejadh is not clashing with the clerics about wanting nukes - the clerics want them, too. they are angry at him because he did not play a calm hand and directed unwanted attention at Iran's ambitions, he did not remain a low profile - he did not protect their project, but damaged it that way.
seen that way we must be thankful for him being an idiot and making all the noise, else many more people in the West than it still is the case would still be sleeping. Pakistan was much more clever and managed to hide it's ambitions until it was too late and the world was confronted by solid, undeniable facts that could not be reversed without a nuclear exchange. this is the reason why Pakistan can afford to bring the hoole region into trouble and destabilization, since thirty years at least.
Progress and what global Islam thinks of the West is not my priority. Appeasing them will not change a bit the Islamic agenda of chnanging the world. My priority is not to see an Iran engaging in nuclear proliferation, by ruling out the option that it could choose to do that (trust is kind, but control is better). This priority ranks above everything else, without compromise. I know that ironically Iran needs civilian use of nuclear energy, to free more oil it consumes itself at ridiculous low prices for export and winning profits from that to boost it's industrial developement, currently they are wasting money in ridiculous ammounts by wasting too much of their own gas. However, as logical and understandable as that is, due to the factors mentioned above this second interest in civilian nuclear developement ranks below our interest of not allowing them nuclear arms - not today, and not in the forseeable future. They have successfully destroyed any basis for having trust they would handle nuclear capabilities responsibly. The risk that civilian use goes hand in hand with military use - or better: proliferation-wise use - is not acceptable for us. And if that hurts Iran's desires and interests, I'm sorry (well, not really) - and still remain adamant on the issue.