Posted on 11/04/2007 8:30:46 PM PST by humint
EXCERPT CONCLUSION: Since 1945, there has hardly been one year in which some voices, mainly American ones concerned with preserving the U.S monopoly as far as possible, did not decry the terrible consequences that would follow if additional countries went nuclear. So far, none of those warnings has come true. To the contrary: In every place where nuclear weapons were introduced, large-scale wars between their owners have disappeared.
Retired Gen. John P. Abizaid, the former commander of the U.S Central Command, is only the latest in a long list of experts who believe the world can live with a nuclear Iran. Lest Ahmadinejad’s fear-driven posturing cause anybody to do anything stupid, their views deserve to be carefully considered.
Martin van Creveld, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is considered one of the world's most eminent experts on military history and strategy. His books include "The Sword and the Olive: A Critical History of the Israeli Defense Force" (1998) and his widely influential ""The Transformation of War" (1991).
What should the acceptable margin of error be when it comes to nation's nuclear program? The IAEA is not able to verify that Iran IS building a nuclear bomb, but it is equally unable to verify that Iran ISN'T building a nuclear bomb. That makes the IAEA ineffectual at best and at worst, an enabler of nuclear proliferation. This weekend the Iranian government turned down a perfectly reasonable offer of nuclear cooperation by regional nations. That deal would've cleared the air by allowing Iran to back off its uranium enrichment program. Why did they turn it down? Martin van Creveld may be comfortable with an Iranian bomb, but that doesn't sound very responsable given Iran's history of violent foreign interventionism.
They also didn’t manage to identify that Pakistan and India had developed atom bombs. In fact..I think that Sheik Osama el Bararse was the chief inspector for those countries. I wish I could have that job..make mistakes and get promoted.
And now we know one of the reasons the General “was” retired.A nuclear iran would be suicide for the west or anybody else for that matter.
Not “No”, but “HELL NO!”
Ahmadinejad quotes that need to be part of the equation:
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”
“Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations.”
“The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”
“If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d’ tre, Israel will be annihilated.”
“Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed.”
“Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm.”
Relations with West
“[There is] no significant need for the United States.”
My view is that countries like North Korea, Syria, and Iran would be a lot more reasonable if one of them were to get nuked by the US.
I disagree. The U.S. is finally establishing a legitimate non-nuclear deterrence in the Middle-East. New tactics in Iraq are empowering Iraqi citizens and our (preliminary) tactical success has put fear into Iranian officials in ways that no bombing raid ever could. Their ambiguous nuclear program is a symptom of bad government. The Iranian Empire is rooted in bad government and what Iranian officials see happening in Iraq will force them to change or be changed. Sanctions are working and Iran is going to try to wriggle out of responsibility again. I'm seeing a flurry of articles arguing that the West should offer Iran incentives... My hope is that this group advocating carrots over sticks has a clue why the West is finally gaining positive momentum in the Middle East.
My view is that countries like North Korea, Syria, and Iran would be a lot more reasonable if one of them were to get nuked by the US.
I disagree. The U.S. is finally establishing a legitimate non-nuclear deterrence in the Middle-East. New tactics in Iraq are empowering Iraqi citizens and our (preliminary) tactical success has put fear into Iranian officials in ways that no bombing raid ever could. Their ambiguous nuclear program is a symptom of bad government. The Iranian Empire is rooted in bad government and what Iranian officials see happening in Iraq will force them to change or be changed. Sanctions are working and Iran is going to try to wriggle out of responsibility again. I'm seeing a flurry of articles arguing that the West should offer Iran incentives... My hope is that this group advocating carrots over sticks has a clue why the West is finally gaining positive momentum in the Middle East.
What are you saying "HELL NO" to? An attack on Iran, or an Iranian nuclear bomb?
“My view is that countries like North Korea, Syria, and Iran would be a lot more reasonable if one of them were to get nuked by the US. Sure, we’d get bad press — but we get that anyway. “
Agreed. These places and all the Islamo terrorist scum in the world need a real good lesson in reality.
The day after I’m sworn in as POTUS, Kim Il Dingy Dong, Assad, I’m A Nut Job, Chavez and Castro would all be taking dirt naps. And that’s just a start.
No, it really can't. A nuclear arms race will commence in the region if Iran were allowed to continue. No way the Saudis would accept being in such a vulnerable position. A nuclear Middle East filled with crazed Mohammedans is a recipe for a World War like no other.
Well, the Crown Prince of Bahrain and the Emir of Qatar have both said Iran is building nuclear weapons. They are fearful of the Iranian Shiites being powerful in the region with a nuclear weapon...this is not just a US or Israel problem.
I agree. Vladimir Putin recently remarked the U.S. was acting like a knife wielding maniac in terms of U.S. foreign policy. If you examine quotes from Iranian officials, as you have done with Ahmadinejad, it is obvious who is the antagonist escalating the conflict. I think Iranian officials have made a broad and dangerous assumption about American's likely response to the rhetoric. Iranian officials are listening to the Anti-War rhetoric and believe the Bush administration is going out on a limb. The fact is, Anti-War rhetoric is not representative of average American sentiments. I would argue that anyone familiar with the quotes you've provided would not be so willing to negotiate with Iran over incentives.
‘We have slain a large dragon’, remarked James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence, ‘but we live now in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes, and in many ways the dragon was easier to keep track of...’
____________________________________________________________________
Saw the International Spy Museum downtown and that was one of the inscriptions on the wall.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. A nuclear Iran is the idea I was speaking of. Ahmanutjob having the ability to actually DO that which he professes?
I don’t think so.
Or, to put it another way: "We've pulled the trigger 5 times and it's never fired yet, so it's not going to. So here, try pointing the gun at your kneecap and pulling the trigger."
‘Mutual Assured Distruction’ worked well in the old days and then ‘Ah-bin-ona-jihadh’ figured out which well the 12th Imam was hiding in and offered a premium number of virgins to everyone willing to die for his cause.
Let him die for his own cause... kinda paraphrasing General Patton...
Was this guy a Clinton scumbag?
Since 1945, there has hardly been one year in which some voices, mainly American ones concerned with preserving the U.S monopoly as far as possible, did not decry the terrible consequences that would follow if additional countries went nuclear. So far, none of those warnings has come true. To the contrary: In every place where nuclear weapons were introduced, large-scale wars between their owners have disappeared.
What is this guy thinking? If his evidence, which is a stretch to call evidence, were transformed into policy, the results would sound absurd in the extreme. It really sounds like he's suggesting the U.S. and Israel should pursue stability by handing out nuclear weapons to Iran, Syria - who else, Venezuela while we're at it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.