northstar
New Member
Truth hurts ??
|
|
|
Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran
- Thread starter Prometheus The Supremo
- Start date
Truth hurts ??
allabootmatt
Senior Member
An addendum: treating an attack on an allied state as you would an attack on your own is pretty much the rock-solid basis of the international alliance system, going back to about the Congress of Vienna. As I alluded to above, that is exactly how the US would treat an attack on Canada, and how NATO treated 9/11 (this is so-called Article 5 of the NATO charter). Israel is not a formal alliance partner of the US like we are, but their informal alliance is such that a similar security guarantee is hardly very radical. Right or wrong, that kind of thing is pretty standard in international relations.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
It would be clear for any Iranian government that possessing nuclear weapons automatically means that Iran is a prospective target for similar weapons.
That being said, the disturbing element in Clinton's statement is the lack of constraint. Her remarks suggest the potential for the total annihilation of the Iranian population.
That being said, the disturbing element in Clinton's statement is the lack of constraint. Her remarks suggest the potential for the total annihilation of the Iranian population.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
No, but since Israel is the only (start quote here...) democratic state in a sea of Jihadist Despots, the US will take measures to defend it.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
As long as they get their 100 virgins, I don't think the Iranian leadership cares about Israel's nuclear counterattack. This is where the west loses the war against global Islamic Jihad...they don't care about death, as long as they kill infidels. You can't scare them into sensible action, or fear of retribution. Israel understands this like no other, which is why they bombed the (claimed) nuclear facilities in Iraq and in Syria. If Iran had the bomb and they were sensible, then Israel likely wouldn't care, since they also have the bomb, and thus security in the region would be balance through the Cold War concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). But this doesn't work for the Jihadist.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
Palestine?
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- a strange reality, bizarro toronto
now it's a 100 virgins? i guess inflation really is a big issue these days. one must also ask the question, why are they virgins in the first place?
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- a strange reality, bizarro toronto
i think it's a disputed state, a disputed state which democratically elected a terrorist organization to lead. the democracy thing doesn't always work as intended.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Lebanon?
junctionist
Senior Member
Iran won't use their weapons, because they'll get destroyed as well. What evidence is there that Iran's government has the ambition of fighting a suicidal jihad? I'm skeptical on this point. Israel shouldn't have a ambiguous nuclear program either. Their lack of accountability to the world and their refusal to participate in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is concerning.
Blovertis
Active Member
Right... America's only interest in the Middle East is to defend democracy.
There are many democracies in the world for which the U.S. is not willing to risk nuclear war. India comes to mind, South Africa, Argentina... Why this unconditional and unlimited support for a small nation of 7 million?
And to say that Israel is surrounded by a "sea of Jihadist Despots" grossly misrepresents reality and speaks volumes about your misunderstanding of the Middle East and the Islamic world. Egypt? Syria? Lebanon? Jordan? None of them beacons of democracies to be sure, but they are certainly not in the business of exporting Islamic fundamentalism. And the same could be said of Iraq before the U.S. overthrew Saddam Hussein.
There is plenty of hostility toward Israel and its policies in the Muslim world, but merely opposing Israel does not make one a crazy "jihadist" who longs to convert your children.
From some perspectives, Iran is only acting rationally. Think of it. Your hostile near neighbour has been armed by the most powerful and advanced nation on earth. It has given your enemy money, nuclear technology and the latest ballistic missile systems. There is a constant drumbeat of war in both countries and a presidential nominee was heard joking last year about "bomb-bomb-bombing Iran" to much laughter all around.
Under these circumstances, wouldn't you want a nuclear weapon as a deterrent?
allabootmatt
Senior Member
No, of course not. America (and Canada) have many interests in the Middle East, of which democracy is one. It so happens that Israel is a very good ally to have around for a number of them. It is very much at the forefront of things like intelligence on Islamic extremist groups, and an important regional military ally for the US (as, say, Japan or Australia is in Asia). Its economy has received heavy American investment, and vice-versa. A large number of American citizens are resident in Israel (again, and vice-versa). And, yes, the fact that it is the only liberal democracy in the region does have something to do with it (this is an important distinction--see Fareed Zakaria's famous article on "illiberal democracy," of which Iran would be an example).
So the bottom line is that Israel's being a US ally has lots of good reasons behind it--certainly as many as for any other US ally, many of which enjoy nuclear guarantees. This is what gets me about a lot of criticism of Israel: that the bar is set higher for it than for any other state. Lots of non-Japanese Asian people hate Japan. But is anyone suggesting that, on balance, this makes Japan undeserving of its alliance with the US, or some kind of liability? Of course not. Even though Israel has done and appears to still be doing some boneheaded and/or immoral things, the major strategic facts are unchanged.
It goes to a much broader issue of standards waaayyy higher than those demanded of other states being applied to Israel. For example, many otherwise perfectly reasonable progressives find the notion of a "Jewish state" to be somehow anti-democratic and something that should single Israel out as a pariah--and yet seem to forget that there are totally A-OK places like Denmark that are officially defined as Christian states! No one finds it strange or offensive that in Canada shops close on Sundays, and Easter and Christmas are statutory holidays, or that our monarch is literally the head of a Christian church.
Similarly, does anyone think France, or Denmark, or Canada, or Britain should have to allow themselves to swap from being Christian-majority states to Muslim? Yet this is exactly the idea of the "one-state solution" often proposed for the Middle East. Why should Israelis be asked to do things that would, at best, massively compromise their physical security (like giving up their nuclear deterrent) or, at worst, result in the dissolving of their nation-state (like the one-state solution) when we or our other allies would never consider them?
But back on topic: I am actually of the opinion that a nuclear-armed Iran is not necessarily a huge problem. We know from the Cold War (hello, Chairman Mao!) that even leaders with no regard for the safety of their people can be deterred from using nuclear weapons, and I think that in Iran's case the same is probably true--especially since I don't buy that the Iranian leadership is anywhere near as whacko as some on the right suggest. I suspect that through a combination of deterrence, diplomacy, and good intelligence a nuclear Iran could be contained. But we can surely all agree that it would be better to have to not deal with one in the first place--and better still to begin constructive engagement efforts now with Iran (ie, not military threats!) to try to better integrate it into the international community and make the idea of nukes as a way of gaining respect and power a less attractive one.
Sorry, end of rant. Incidentally, this month's Atlantic has a fantastic article on the political dilemmas faced by Israel on its sixtieth anniversary, which is coming up: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/israel
ganjavih
Senior Member
You honestly don't have that kind of simplistic view of the world, do you? That the United States always defends democracies and fights against tyrants?
In any case, Israel's status as a "democracy" as we understand it is questionable.
Why Israel can't survive
Sixty years on, the country is facing a choice of two futures: it can be Jewish or democratic -but not both
MICHAEL PETROU | April 23, 2008 |
http://www.macleans.ca/world/global/article.jsp?content=20080423_11237_11237
shumoon
New Member
I think Iran having nuclear weapons would actually take Iran off the target for conventional attack. Nobody has started a conventional war against the USA, UK, France, China, Russia, India or Pakistan since these countries declared their nuclear-armed status. I can see why Iran would want this nuclear defence trump card, given that it is sandwiched between U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
63 years into the atomic age, the only country that has used an atomic weapon offensively is the USA, against a non-nuclear Japan. Since then, America's nuclear-armed enemies (Russia, China) have been spared attack, while non-nuclear states (N. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq) have been carpet-bombed. Can you really blame Iran for wanting the atom bomb too?
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Yup, it is an invasion insurance policy. For the time being it is local in nature, though.