[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AntEater

You seem to be obsessed with the idea of proliferation.

The only way to accurately handle it.

In a worst chase scenario, this could happen, but actually the Pakistanis have connections to a lot more terror groups and did not proliferate anything sofar. Al Quaida has nothing to do with Iran. Iran supports the Hezbollah in Lebanon and diverse Shia militants in souther Iraq. These are territorial groups.

Now that is complete and totally wrong. You nare not aware of the real diemnsion of the confloict between Shia Iran, and sunni arabs, and - of course, I must say - you are completely ignorrant to the inherent drive of Islam to chnage all world and make it a peaveful world - by dedicating it exclsuoiveoly to islam. I am used to westerners playing down the meaning of this, nevertheless that is the bitter trutzh I read from this ideology. It is anti-multi-cultural, and totalitarian, and it claims a right over all mankind and all countries, needing them to0 overcome and turning them islamic. We will not disagree on this, so lets leave out this part of the discussionl. but at leats you mujst5 learn to realise the true diomension of the clash between Iran, and Saudi-dominated Gulf states. Hezbollah in Lebanon is just a minor "stellvertreterkrieg" between Saudim Arabia, and Iran. Israel pratcically plays no role in it, and the Saudis tolerate it acting against Hezbollah, which makes them natural part-time allies in their struggle against Iran. Haven't you noticed how tame Sunni Arab nations reacted to the Lebanon war? does this tell you nothing? the Palestinian questions also gets massivelpy overestimated in imporance, especially in europe. you could solvbe the question completely - and would still face the same tensions and conflicts in the region., becasue the Palestinians are not the problem. Iran is the problem behind it all, and the centuries-old internal Islamic civil war that started over a thousand ysears ago.

While the Hezbollah might find a nuke useful, I suppose if they really had wanted, they could've allready dropped a dirty bomb on Israel. They have access to radioactive material via Iran and Syria.

I find it worrying and bewildering that this is no reason for concern to you - asusming for a monent that you are right.

In the end, Israel also is not my concern, it is a bastion build in a strategically most disadvantegous position, and it shouldn't have been done that waxy, but now it is there, we cannot helpt it, so make the best of it. My concern is europe and america, and being turned into tagets for nuclear terrorism, and blackmailing. and different to you I do not take any peace of mind from the fact that so far nobody has nuked us, concluding fromt hat it will also not happen in the future. your only argument is the principle of blin d hope. In other words: you have no argument at all regarding this.

The regular use of nuclear precision munition, even though not as "dirty" as the nukes of old, would slowly contaminate the planet. Not to mention the fact that even today some US planners toy with the idea of a disarming first strike on Russia.

In no way I currently sympathise with such plans. but lets leave that out of the discussion, it has no place here. The problem is nuclear terrorism in Islam's name, and wether or not simply hoping for the best can be considered a valid motion or not.

And in regards to the EU being powerless, I don't see it that way.
The EU has nukes; the french ones, the british are de facto under US control as they rely on US targeting data. And Sarkozy has allready made clear that a nuclear attack on Europe will trigger a nuclear response from France.

1. Sarko is a hysteric alker, I have stopped listening believing him anything anymore short after he was elcted. and 2.) and even more important, the EU is absoolutely weak in negotiations with Iran, becasue it has no the smallest influence, no valid threat, no unified front, it is in no position nwhatever to project inflkuence over Iran to step away from their program, it cannot do anything, it just can talk on and on and on and allowing the iranians the time to continue and get closer to the bomb that way. that'S how I meant it, and you knew that.

It is very popular to portray the EU as a toothless tiger, but I suppose in a real crisis the US would have to rely on the Europeans (maybe not the germans as our politicians are simply too mentally blocked) in order to get enough boots on the ground and planes in the air.

Don't make me laugh. Just look at Afghanistan. Even Britain would currently not follow the US blindly into another adventure so easily.

The US military and the brits are simply too stretched to fight another war all by themselves and in a real shooting war with Iran, all those Estonians and Ukrainians that went into Iraq might not be the coalition the US really need.

that is true. Action against Iran mst be prepared by getting rid of the archilles heel Irak is. either by masisvely boosting forces, or by öleaving it behind and guve the Iranians no tareget. the greatest mistake of the Us in the past 8 years has been to not finish Afghnaistan, and focus in Iran instead. very very bad strategic mistake, having led to0 two de facto lost and unwinnable wars. that is exactly the kind of suicidal, stupid war I do not wish to see.

The EU militaries represent an untapped reservoir of forces which another US administration might find useful if the need should arise.
I suppose in the constellation of a Pres. Barack Obama asking for german forces after an iranian attack on Israel, even our current politicians could not say no.

Iran will not directly attack Israel by nukes. simply that. They are not stupid. I said it repeatedly now, that is not my concern. they will reach out in the hidden, by supporting terror groups and claiming in public that they do not. RThi sis the problem with Iran, not an open nuclear strike against europe, america or israel. Obama will make germn polcies uncomfortable, yes, I repeatedly said in the other threads that Bush is a good escuse for europe just to stay back, that way the US should be happy to get rid of Bush - bush-bashing as an excuse to reist American wishes does nto work anymore, after the elections. Nevertheless, the Afghanistan operation, as reprted again by "Kontraste" yesterday on German TV (I know it from two BW guys personally, too), is incrtedibly underfunded, badly commanded, and ikl-equipped, whilew polticians still lie to themsleves and to the public about what the BW is facing in Afghanistan. The mission's current status is a total mess, and hopelessly underfunded. but the whole Bw is underfunded, and I do not see where you want to get the resosurces form the existing pool to launch even more intenrational commitments. Beyond that, I think you are hoeplessly over-optimistic wzhen saying that Europe stands ready to provide more boots on the ground when America is calling. Not with this Europe, and this EU. I do not think that eietehr McCain or Obama is stupid enough to seriously count on substantially higher contributions from the europeans. the most clever thing they can do is leave lost battles behind, disenage from wars where they do not have to win anything anymore (that includes afghanistan since I do not see anybody seriposuly considering to attack Pakistan (how to do that, btw.) and it's massive support for the Taleban), and to shorten their frontlines.