Bush says Iran will not get nuclear weapon

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, Sep 26, 2004.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #1
    Exactly why does *Bush* get to decide who gets nuclear weapons? I wouldn't trust the man to decide where to go for lunch, and here he is deciding which countries get to defend themselves using what weapons. What an ass. We're fighting for "freedom", and you're free to do anything you want as long as you okay it with us first.

    Besides that, I'm assuming that the non-proliferation treaty says very little about the US having the authority to unilaterally enforce its provisions. We may have the power (and maybe not, since all our troops are stuck in Iraq), but we most certainly do not have the authority.

    I like how he said that "all options are on the table". Guess we know where the next invasion's heading, eh? Everyone remember that story about congress appropriating money to re-open draft offices? What about how Rummy said we can start pulling troops out of Iraq while the **** is still flying aroung the room? Guess this is what that was in preperation for.

    If Bush wins come November, I predict a new war by summer 2006, maybe as early as fall 2005. The rhetoric will rachet up after the election. "We were wrong in Iraq, but *this* time we're rilly rilly sure the nation we're invading has or wants nuclear weapons related technology program ideas."

    Now as far fetched as this scenario may seem, who would have thought in October of 2001 that we'd have invaded and occupied Iraq? I always wondered why Osama disappeared from the news and Saddam was all we heard about. Here I was thinking, "What does Saddam have to do with anything?" Turns out nothing, but that didn't stop us from throwing Iraq into anarchy and killing countless civilians (literally, since we refuse to count them) in our Ahab-like quest to depose him.

    Iran is next, perpetual war is ahead. Welcome to 1984.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    me, for one. i was also pretty sure of that in november 2000.
     
  3. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #3
    This is all very interesting to speculate about. While I do not advocate the Nuclear proliferation, Iran is unlikely to use any Nuclear weapons, except as a deterrent. Iran is also a well-developed complex society, and if you wanted to worry about Nuclear risks, Pakistan, an unstable country that already has Nuclear weapons, is where you might look.

    From a geopolitical perspective, Iran aquiring NW would pretty much cement it's standing as the pre-eminent power in the region, which is good for overall stability of the ME. It is unlikely that any NW would make it into the hands of "terrorists", as Iran in nothing if not clever, and such a move would harm it's own self-interests. Also, of all the countries in the ME, Iran shows the biggest tendency to become moderate and even somewhat democratic in the coming years, in short it seems a country that the US should be at least tentatively supporting. Iran's ability to perhaps stabilize Iraq (even on it's terms) should privately be seen as a blessing to a beleagured US looking for an exit-strategy.

    If War is truly in the cards, however, we might find ourselves with Russia as our allie. Russian interests in the Caucasus (ie Chechnya), where Iran is a major supporter (financial/logistic) of the Muslim population, would dovetail with US interests, and likely have the effect of galvanizing Muslim cooperation even further.

    At any rate, Iran is likely too big a fish to fry...
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    ...unless you fry it w/ nukes.

    little, tactical ones. just to hit the buried WMD, you know. for freedom. and democracy. no big woop.

    or, as i've said before, it'll follow iran's nuclear "incident."
     
  5. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #5
    Perhaps my naivete is showing zim, but I seriously doubt that public opinion, even domestically, would support using Nuclear weapons as a tactic, short of a Nuclear strike on US soil.

    I do not see there being support in Congress for this authority, as it is qualitatively different than even an invasion with conventional forces/weaponry.

    Thankfully, there are still some checks-and-balances still in place...
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    public opinion isn't there now, but i think it could be there for something short of a nuke attack on US soil. cynically, way short. the public just has to be scared enough (iraqi drones spreading chemical weapons in the US, anyone?) to demand action.

    look for a nuclear incident in either iran or north korea for bush to approve use of tactical nukes. and then he'll go to bed, sleeping like a baby after he did when he approved the invasion of iraq.
     
  7. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #7
    Damn, I thought I was cynical...

    I still disagree zim, although my opinion is based on a minimum level of reason which may not actually exist anymore...

    After all, we did not attack Iraq with tactical nukes, although the country was framed as a "imminent threat" and residual public opinion following 9/11 was manipulated.

    Now in 2004, after the obvious and public mistakes the US made in Intelligence (pre-war) and Execution (post-war), I feel there is enough reservation both with the public and with the Congress to think carefully about giving the Administration carte-blanche for using the most destructive weapons ever made.

    I feel that a more definitive tie to Iran would have to be made, assuming a "plot" was uncovered on US soil. I am afraid the stakes are too high, to not verify the intelligence or explore alternate solutions.

    I beleive the "fallout" of such an unprecendented approach would make it an unpalatable course of action for the Administration.
     
  8. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #8
    it's a horse race now!

    which, in Normal World, makes a lot of sense. but (w/ props to Seinfeld here), we are living Bizzaro World. whatever bush says -- the opposite is true.

    from here.
    uh-oh.


    simply because it was his first term. i'd always said the nukes would come in a second term (or i suppose during his lame duck period, if kerry wins).

    i was vague -- this "incident" would occur on iranian soil. an accident, test gone wrong, etc., "proving" iran had an advanced nuclear program and strongly suggesting they are about to point nukes at israel (iran announced a successful longer-range missile test today) or deliver them across either the iraqi or afghan border.

    if this happens, what do you think US public reaction will be? would the bush administration, knowing it's not going to be able to get a second term, say the stakes are too high to not take out the iranian "weapons" sites by whatever means necessary?

    'cuz then maybe N Korea would take notice, eh?
     
  9. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #9
    I need a drink...

    speaking of, if this apocalyptic vision you speak of happens zim, I hereby invite whomever is interested to meet up along with a copious amount of Bush Mills...with perhaps a subsequent sojourn to Canada...
     
  10. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
  11. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    Only if it's Bushmill's Triple Wood. Mmm. What better way to welcome the four horsemen?
     
  12. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #12
    I predicted (probably not here, but to friends) that, should Bush be elected, we'd have a recession and a war within a year.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13

    Ditto. I told my wife that night that Iraq now had crosshairs on it. All we needed was the excuse.
     
  14. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #14
    Iran will not get a nuclear weapon because Israel will do anything to stop it (while the US pins Iran's arms behind it's back)

    Rightly or wrongly, this is likely (especially considering the attacks on Iraq's nuclear facilities by Israeli jets in 1980)

    Also, consider the recent car-bomb in Syria that killed some big-wig from Hamas, responsibility admitted by Israel.

    Israel will do what it feels is necessary.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro or anti this.

    Just looking back what has happened in the past...
     
  15. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #15
    You can keep the Bushmills.... I'm bringing a bottle of Talisker. Perhaps we can meet here: http://www.mackenzie-guest-ranch.com/ It's nicely isolated and away from any population centers that may be targets for screaming, bomb-wearing zealots...
     

Share This Page