|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 02/04/05 - 14:08 Post subject:
I don't think we should. If we were aiming to prove that we really are targeting the muslim world, I couldn't think of a better way to do so. Not to mention being a little overextended in Iraq for the forseeable future.
The question I just don't see an answer to is: How does Iran having nuclear capabalities post a "clear and present" danger to us? And as the only nation in the world to have used a nuclear weapon on another nation, how do we get to decide who does and does not get to develop these weapons?
Wouldn't North Korea be a better target if we are considering a nuclear threat to our country? Or are they out of the question because N.K. could potentially actually harm us?
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/04/05 - 15:05 Post subject:
There is in fact a danger, I just question how 'clear and present' it is.
What we now know is that most countries trying to build nukes don't seem to stop when we go willy-nilly ripping into their neighbor's nations, as Bush Doctrine theory proposed by the Neo-cons predicted would happen. Instead, they tend to rush development as they see that as the only thing stopping W and company from pouring over their borders too. The lesson Iran, N. Korea and others took away from the Iraq Invasion was 'get armed to the freekin' teeth' if you want to have any hope at all of avoiding Saddam's fate.
Indeed it is mostly deterrent, just like we built bombs during the Cold War even after we and the Soviets could blow up the earth hundreds of times over. . . apiece, mind you. We also now know that what WMD Iraq had or fantasized about was to keep Iran and regional enemies at bay. They didn't really ever think about blowing up Times Square. There is a whole lot of national pride and general pissing contest aspects to getting 'the bomb' as well, which should not be overlooked--witness India and Pakistan as recent proof.
However, despite Iran's slow but steady progress out of militant Islamic Revolution (and frankly, any internationalist will tell you that they rather than the Iraqis have a much better short-term chance at a successful democracy) there remains a small cadre of the most hardcore of hardcore in Iran who would like to use the deterrent power of nukes to be able to resurrect their now-dormant worldwide Shiite Islamic revolution gig back to the status and scope it had in the 1980s.
Those folks are truly ones to worry about. The question then becomes, how best to neutralize them? I would say military or covert action is perhaps the worst course of action. Bombing Iran would only throw sentiment of the Iranian people their way. Supporting democracy and those people who advocate it is likely best--albeit discreetly or through other intermediary nations. The term "American stooge" still carries alot of resonance in Teheran, as well as the threat of a nice prison stint. Iranians after 26 years are yearning for the carrot, but will react tenaciously to the stick.
|
